Are you still staying in Bangalore

The purpose of this talk page is to make improvements to the items To discuss “Bengaluru”.

Personal considerations on the subject do not belong here. For general questions of knowledge there is the information.

Add new discussion topics below at:

Click to start a new topic for discussion, and sign please include your contribution or.

Discussion: Bengaluru / Archives

Induction suggestions

The first sentence says that Bengaluru was still called Bangalore until 2006. However, the source (1) contradicts this (as I think), there is in the last sentence that Bengaluru is called in the Anglo-Saxon Bangalore. Do you know more? Shall we change it?

Bangalore was an Anglicization of the original name, which became the official name through 2006 Bengaluru was replaced. I cannot judge to what extent the old name is still used in the English-speaking world. It will certainly take time for the new name to establish itself.
In any case it is Bengaluru Today's official English-Latin spelling, which is officially valid locally (all Indian cities also have official English spellings).
Greetings Juhan 10:59, Feb. 21, 2007 (CET)

---

I would also be happy to receive a critical opinion here. Since Bangladore can serve as a good example in terms of social polarization in India.

---

Can't add anything critical, the article sounds very good. A friend who is there at the moment has confirmed that the traffic blackout has occurred. However, there are apparently some western fast-food chains (KFC, subways ...), but of course without beef!

---

I can definitely say there is a Mc Donald and a Pizza Hut ... but seriously: What might still be missing is a reference to the Indian Institute of Science, which is really known worldwide, but taxi drivers only as the "Tata Institute". ... bad trap! I think there is an English Wikipedia page on the IISc.


---

I added Cisco Systems to the IT company. Exemplary source: http://de.theinquirer.net/2006/12/07/cisco_marschiert_in_lösungen_ein.html

Third largest city in India?

That Bangalore should be the third largest city in India next to Mumbai and Delhi is definitely wrong. Among other things, Chennai and Kolkata are much larger. I took the entry out ... (unsigned post by203.199.213.130 (discussion) 10:16 am, October 18, 2006 (CEST))

... the question arises, why this junk is still here ?? (unsigned post by93.133.45.139 (discussion) 09:53, Feb. 9, 2011 (CET))

open tricycles based on scooter technology for two passengers.

a big grin * ggggggggggg * only 2 ????? the record is ten! :-) (unsigned post by91.64.230.92 (discussion) 3:14 p.m., October 28, 2007 (CET))

Shopping away, why?

Why was the addition of the shopping section removed? What's so bad about it? I am always happy when I get such information about cities! (unsigned post by122.166.102.229 (Discussion | Posts) 07:10, 20 Sep. 2009 (CEST))

This article is neither a travel guide nor is "I was there" with Wikipedia: Evidence compatible .-- Xquenda 10:40, 20 Sep. 2009 (CEST)

Residents

Why is the article given two population figures that differ by a whopping 700,000 (at the beginning of the article and in the box on the right). Current research would be useful here. Akeuk 1:43 PM, Jan. 4, 2010 (CET)

Bengaluru Vs Bengalore

Please read about this if necessary:

Bengaluru is currently redirecting to Bengalore, in other languages ​​it will certainly also be Bengalore (not checked). But you already realize that it should actually be the other way around and that Bengeluru has actually been officially called Bengaluru again since 2005? ("again" because it was originally called that when it was founded in the 9th century) I'm just wondering when will Wikipedia begin to implement the new name? It's been 5 years! (unsigned post by95.33.118.137 (discussion) 06:32, May 13, 2010 (CEST))

Hello, there is a (somewhat hidden) discussion under Wikipedia Discussion: Naming conventions / Archive / India # Place names in Karnataka. In a nutshell: Wikipedia basically uses the official names, that's why Bombay is under Mumbai, Benares under Varanasi, Trivandrum under Thiruvananthapuram, Pondicherry under Puducherry etc. Kolkata was recently moved back to Calcutta, I personally don't agree with that, but in this case I can it is argued that there is a German exonym.
In 2006 the government of the state of Karnataka decided on a major renaming campaign. In addition to Bangalore (Bengaluru), this applies to also Mysore (Mysuru) and eleven other cities. However, the central government seems to have stood up against it, and so the official renaming has apparently not been completed. Otherwise it will be observed to what extent the new name asserts itself in linguistic usage. It is not entirely uncommon: The new airport is called, for example, Bengaluru International Airport, and when I was there last summer I noticed that there was at least one local English-language broadcaster on television that used the name "Bengaluru". Most of the English-language Indian press continues to refer to it as "Bangalore" while otherwise using the new name. I've looked through five major newspapers: four of them (Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, and Deccan Herald) write "Bangalore", only the Deccan Chronicle uses "Bengaluru". Outside of India, the new name is even more unknown. So it is too early to postpone the article. --BishkekRocks 12:28, May 14, 2010 (CEST)
2016 - well Wikipedia, where are you? The move has been official since 2014. The Refer. are already in the article. See the city's homepage Bengaluru (engl.). The German exonym would be, by the way, if it was, then "Bangalor", without the anglicizing E - compare, for example. "The Riddle of Bangalor", German silent film from 1917. That the previous English. Names continue to be used locally and internationally is nothing special, this also applies to Bombay, Madras etc. over 30 years after the name change. People simply do not follow the sensible WP regulation. Or to put it more nicely: the human brain is an animal of habit. Nevertheless, the postponement is overdue - the permanent forwarding from Bengalore to Bengeluru will help with every search for the old name in the WP, even in 50 years' time. --LH2016 (discussion) 15:34, Jan. 8, 2016 (+ addendum 9.1.)
Hello Abderitestatos, what has your revert of my corrections today with your question in the Editkomar (-761. Which criterion from WP: Move # Why move? is satisfied?) to do? They restore a former, no longer official city name throughout the article. You will also delete my newly inserted paragraph on the history of the name without replacement. Both are already sufficient in the article and further substantiated in the discussion above. Please keep two things apart. The name corrections and the announced postponement of the article to the valid lemma. It was clear to me that the postponement might trigger a contradiction. And that's why I announced it up here. The new name itself was and is not controversial in the discussion here. Because of your question, I don't know if you know this D.? In any case, your revert of the name corrections was not justified by you and will therefore be removed by me (WP: VM). You are of course also welcome to comment here if you are aware of other facts or publications about facts. MfG --LH2016 (discussion) 21:20, Jan. 8, 2016 (CET)
PS: still a possible link to help out the debate Competing product:… Handling of Bangalore-India in the Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is not relevant for the de: WP. Bangalore is outdated there. For information only. --LH2016 (discussion) 21:45, Jan. 8, 2016 (CET)
The name should be spelled the same as possible (see WP: Spelling) and this spelling should of course match the article heading. Your change would therefore only make sense as an adjustment to move the item, and for this at least one of the points already mentioned under Help: Move page # Why move? be fulfilled. Greetings - Abderitestatos (discussion) 03:34, Jan. 9, 2016 (CET)
Hello Abderitestatos, the reason for the postponement is "The lemma violates a generally accepted naming convention," namely at 4.1.2. the Na.konv. Bengaluru is the new official name. The meaning of the previous name in German cannot be compared, for example, to Strasbourg or Warsaw. The ind. The government was probably aware that the renaming would mean additional work in many areas, but it made the decision in 2014. If there are no further arguments: I will then make the request to move in a while, since the desired lemma is blocked by forwarding. Note on the India portal page. MfG --LH2016 (discussion) 10:53, Jan. 9, 2016 (CET)
The relevant rule would be WP: Naming conventions # Areas in other languages ​​according to which Bangalore with frequency class 15 in the Leipzig vocabulary is still considered frequent enough to be preferred as a lemma despite the different local name. Greetings - Abderitestatos (discussion) 1:40 p.m., Jan. 9, 2016 (CET)
Hello everyone. That sounds like a double-pack of misleading to me: the L-Project, which died in 2011, cannot take into account a name that became effective in 2014. The situation of a new vs. an established name is in principle not taken into account when referring to such a project. Even if the project were to be continued today according to the same principles (unrealis). So it contradicts Abderitestato's argument.
In essence, however, it is about whether innovations from a "distant" country are respected in Germany (hence the reference to 4.1.2. The Na.konv!). I already see a deficit in the way the arguments are conducted. Unfortunately; at least it can have the same effect on others than me. In a very friendly way. --LH 2016 (discussion), 3:42 pm, Jan. 14, 2016 (CET)
If one does not want to use the specific naming convention because of the outdated Leipzig database, then the general rule applies that “the term that is most commonly used in the German-speaking area for the subject matter dealt with in the article” applies, and if it is a Moving articles is even required that "in German a different designation than the lemma used is significantly more common". Neither of the two criteria is automatically fulfilled by an official renaming, but must first be objectively proven by suitable means. --Abderitestatos (discussion) 16:21, Jan. 14, 2016 (CET)
No, this rule interpretation of yours is an abbreviation. WP. respects, and that is also seen as a rule at WP: NaKonv, the valid name in the respective foreign language. Then there are exceptions that have to do with the familiarity and use of a name in German. Not the other way around. So they don't override the primacy of the local name. MfG --LH2016 (discussion) 23:00, Jan. 18, 2016 (CET)

Note on articles about the region

As a result of the changes made in the article (actually only understood late), the articles like "Bangalore Urban Districts" and "Bangalore Rural" and links in numerous India articles to be moved to correct lemmas. Since I'm not an admin, I don't know whether there are relatively simple mechanisms for this. Perhaps it also makes sense to wait a few days to see whether there are controversial discussions about this, according to the rules, actually simple story. That bravery is not always highly praised. --LH2016 (discussion) 16:32, Jan. 8, 2016 (CET, qued)

The changes should not be made until the naming convention is clear. Unfortunately, it is not in this case because two points of the naming convention contradict each other. We've had the whole Kolkata / Calcutta discussion before, and they're both the same case. Renamed and the newly chosen name is too very similar to a term used in German that is above a certain threshold and is therefore considered common language. Accordingly, the whole thing should not be discussed here, but in terms of the naming convention, which then prevails. Editing the previous one does not help and is quickly reverted anyway. I agree that it should be Kolkata and Bangaluru, but the style chosen here to implement this is not the right one. --Maphry (discussion) 15:00, Jan. 9, 2016 (CET)

ah yes, also in 2017 ...

To the text history, this extension of the introduction has been deleted: ... subcontinent. Although the older name Bangalore, introduced by the English, was officially changed in 2014, it is still widely used, but not in the new maps, in newspapers or in public announcements. After this discussion, one can look at the rationale for the deletion "Introduction: unassigned, irrelevant" like to let it melt on your tongue. MfG --LH2016 (discussion) 13:27, Jan. 13, 2017 (CET)

Now you're making a claim "but not in the new maps, in newspapers, or in public announcements." If you have a source for this that complies with WP: QA, there will be no objection to the addition. Until then, expect someone to reset it .-- Maphry (discussion) 1:31 pm, Jan 13, 2017 (CET)
Hello, I do not think that evidence is the problem, after the Bengaluru homepage is linked in the article and reference was also made to the presentation of the Britannica on the subject. Or how many articles in the Times of India and the London Times should convince such rule interpreters: 10 each or 100 each or ...? He's probably waiting for a new version of his school atlas. The sentence is simply about the fact that readers of the WP do not believe something wrong just because it has been presented this way up to now.
No, this is a relatively deliberate counterfactual revision. Far too much energy and life has already been expended to change that. I mean, --LH2016 (discussion) 14:09, Jan. 13, 2017 (CET)
You are mixing two things here. The first: the article title. This is clear according to the previous naming conventions, since the Germans currently avoid using Bengaluru, but continue to use Bangalore. You may not like it, but this is currently used as a basic rule for naming articles (because the German language is decisive, not the defacto state). The second was your change. And yes, here the evidence is the problem. What you have mentioned is not really helpful. The Bengaluru homepage cannot decide for itself what to use. Although the title has been changed, the articles also take the current state of Bangalore into non-historical contexts. The Britannica entry is a start, but it would be easier if there really was a newspaper article that covers what you are saying. Be that as it may, your addition was not really helpful at this point, because the official name is already there. For example, you could consider adding a subsection to history that covers the name change and implications, but like I said, without proper evidence, that won't stand a chance. This has nothing to do with counterfactual, because facts have to be verifiable and so far they are not at this point .-- Maphry (discussion) 07:49, Jan. 14, 2017 (CET)
Hello, let's start to prove the language usage in India. In the Times of India of March 2, 2017, the new name is consistently used in the headlines, regardless of whether it is the main or side story:
That can be continued without any problems. Even if German editors may not care. Even with something as simple as city or district names, the colonial era is gradually over. May WP also take note of it. In the meantime, one of the local districts has also managed to adapt. Rural will definitely follow. --LH2016 (discussion) 23:23, Mar 2. 2017 (CET)
Like it or not, the language used in England, India or other countries is completely irrelevant for the article title. Only the language used in the German-speaking area is relevant, at least as long as the name is known there (it is Bengalore, Bengaluru is not). Therefore, you will still be able to list as many English sources here for an article name change, as long as the German avoidants do not use Bengaluru sustainably, nothing. If cricket had a little more support here, things would certainly go faster. And whether your renaming of the suburbs is so correct is another matter, I just don't have the nerve to fight it through at the moment, someone else may show up at some point and reset it. - Maphry (discussion) 06:37, 5th Mar . 2017 (CET)

Fifth largest city

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chennai is also designated as the fifth largest city in India. - 83.65.139.194 09:57, Jun 8, 2010 (CEST)

According to the results of the last census in 2001, Bangalore was the fifth largest city in India after Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata and Chennai. According to projections, the rapidly growing Bangalore is now likely to have overtaken Chennai and Kolkata and is the third largest city in India. I'll clarify that in the article. --BishkekRocks 10:32, Jun 8, 2010 (CEST)

Price level hotels

"If you are looking for a hotel with western standards, you have to dig deep into your pocket: the hotel prices are, as in Mumbai and Delhi, among the highest in Asia. A single night can easily cost the monthly wage of an average Indian employee (100-200 EUR ). "

Hello? I live here in the Melange Astris, 5 stars, swimming pool, sauna, fitness studio, free cleaning, an overnight stay in a luxury studio (40 m2 room) costs 80 or 90 EUR - for that in Germany in a big city you only get a low class 15 m2 room on the periphery. I would delete the information. You can get the "western standard" room with shower and TV and WiFi for 50 EUR and less.

- Croco97 20:05, Jul 1, 2011 (CEST)

Apart from that, the sentence sounds like from a very cheap travel guide (or Bild Zeitung) and not from an encyclopedia. --212.204.105.130 09:53, Oct. 30, 2013 (CET) € +1 The statement is unfounded and does not correspond to my experience. A good middle class hotel with europ. Standard costs around € 80. I'll take the paragraph out. If there is evidence of it, he can come back in. (from Bengaluru) --220.227.156.129 15:35, 17 Sep. 2014 (CEST)

2011 census vs. 2001 census

When comparing the census data, one must take into account that the figures from the 2001 census for Bangalore as a city (4.2 million) only refer to the BMP area at that time. However, Bangalore was restructured in 2007, at that time, by administrative act, significant additional areas from the surrounding area came under the new BBMP administration. Of course, this simply increased the headcount "as an administrative act". A direct comparison of the current 8.4 million inhabitants with the 4.2 million at the time cannot therefore be carried out and would be completely misleading for the reader, especially since nothing is mentioned in the article about the incorporations and administrative restructuring of 2007. The data of the agglomeration offer a better basis for comparison - Bangalore "UA" was given for 2001 as 5,701,446 (cf. http://www.censusindia.gov.in/towns/krn_towns.pdf), or possibly the data of the Urban Districts (which includes what is now Bangalore BBMP plus Anekal). Based on these (two) comparative figures, the 10-year comparison does not result in a doubling of the population, but a population increase of around 50% compared to 2001. I will adjust that accordingly in the article. But maybe you could leave out the hint ... ;-) Greetings, Bangalorius 16:30, 23 Oct. 2011 (CEST)

I made it more precise in the text - not that one thinks that an economic upswing has suddenly provided the people here with overflowing fertility ... ;-) Greetings Bangalorius 16:40, 23 Oct. 2011 (CEST)
The church reform was new to me, but I almost thought of that sort of thing. The 196 percent were a bit phenomenal. Especially since other Indian metropolises are growing rather little within their narrow city limits (Chennai only eight percent, the population of Kolkata has even shrunk), while the suburbs are expanding. Whereby 50 percent growth for the agglomeration within ten years is still enormous. Anyway, thanks for the repairs! --BishkekRocks 00:32, Oct 24, 2011 (CEST)
You're welcome, the BBMP or the history of incorporation (and the associated impact on the headcount) is not so well known outside of the affected areas. In the census itself, if anything is mentioned at all, only BMP or M (for Municipality) stands for the old numbers, and BBMP for the new ones. The city administration is not yet described here either, and if I remember correctly, I only recently added the BBMP link - haven't been with the WP that long ... ;-) Bangalore still has it pretty much the strongest growth within India (and is probably pretty much ahead in the world as well), that's for sure, no matter how you calculate it. After a brief interruption due to the financial crisis, etc., during which there were temporary stops in some call centers and factories and especially during construction, the people are moving in full flow again, and the city is expanding at breakneck speed. So far I have not found any concrete numbers for migration, but the census numbers for people up to 6 can at least be cited as evidence of both migration and the special gender relation that has arisen in Bangalore - the increase is in the children between the genders more in the normal range, i.e. a little more girls than boys (somehow 10.1% to 10.3% boys to girls or something, don't know by heart anymore), but also as such is relatively low - this around 10 The percentage figure is, in my opinion, clear evidence that the population increase of 50% was mainly due to migration and not due to the birth rate, which is actually rather low by Indian standards. I think so ... ;-) Greetings, Bangalorius 11:07, 24. Oct. 2011 (CEST)

Mercedes-Benz Research Center

One suggestion: The research center founded in 1996 Mercedes-Benz Research and Development India (MBRDI) has grown into the largest research and development center of a foreign car manufacturer in India and the largest of Mercedes outside of Germany. Perhaps that shouldn't go unmentioned. Those who want to find out more can do so, for example, in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung on April 28, 2013 on page V14. --Scout1312 (discussion) 17:44, Apr 28, 2013 (CEST)

The "dry summers" do not really correspond to the high rainy days in the climate table. After all, the city is on the edge of the monsoon zone. (unsigned post by54.240.197.225 (discussion) 17:15, Aug 3, 2015 (CEST))

Colors of the climate diagram

The climate diagram is the same in the whole wiki - but what do the colors in the table tell me? --Peter2 (discussion) 14:29, 23 Nov. 2015 (CET)

Lemma change required, the renaming of the city to Bengaluru has been official since 2014

To the revision module

The renaming is an official federal government decision of a country that unfortunately does not have to comply with the de: WP rules. And then India is also the third largest population in the world. If I understand the principles of good neighborliness at WP correctly, such resolutions (and their reasons) should actually be respected when writing WP articles. That doesn't happen here. One, two or three people try stubbornly to disregard the law of this country and its state of Karnataka with some crooked rule. Should the Bildzeitung principle, what shall we determine, be enforced in an encyclopedia?

At the corresponding rule it says quite clearly: Otherwise, the current national language should be preferred in the title and in the article text (ie: "Kwidzyn" and not "Marienwerder"). This rule is particularly important for areas that have changed hands several times in the course of history and that have names in several languages. That was probably formulated there in contrast to somewhat windy language relevance criteria. Or am I not seeing it correctly? And what caused the Karnataka government (and then the Indian Federal Government) to change? This is simply disregarded with this insistence on an outdated post-colonial name. In any case, this consequence is accepted relatively short-sightedly as an external effect.

The Mediawiki card for the state gives the correct name and adds the old one in brackets. For information: in India itself only the new name is used in official printed matter. This is true even though many institutions have not yet adapted their proper name, which is combined with the city name (e.g. the B-High Court). The new name is not at all controversial.

Due to the updated lemma and the simple rotation of the forwarding, no search of a WP user for "Bangalor" (German) or "Bangalore" (for a long time the name version) will be lost.

The reference to "Leipzig" and similar subjectivist reasons for frequency is misleading, because a) a newly introduced name inevitably produces lower numerical values ​​in the network than the previous one. b) the Leipzig project was discontinued in 2011. Before the event (2014), so to speak, extinct / deceased. Even in 5, 10 or 50 years, we won't be able to ask them about their current opinion (reference: query at wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de about Bengaluru only gives an answer to the airport (as a partial word of ...; with date 2011) for one of the great cities of India.).

As a scientist. I also refer to usable reference (against Leipzig and the likeArguments) on the Bengaluru article in Britannica. One of the few living WP competing products no longer uses Bengalore. This otherwise well-researched and reputable encyclopedia is certainly significantly more important than a small number of WP users (number range up to ten).

My suggestion for the beginning of the article is according to the correct lemma - instead of old "Bangalore ... etc. "(see version history, including the other changes in the article text) now new:

"Bengaluru (in Kannada ... etc.) is the capital of the Indian state of Karnataka. The older name Bangalore [ˈbæŋɡəlɔːr] has been officially changed since 2014, but is still used in a variety of ways. ...... "

Fri. Greetings --LH2016, 2:30 p.m., Feb. 14, 2016 (CET)

I think the discussion on the naming convention discussion page was clear about Bangalore / Bangaluru that there is NO indication that Bangalore is more common in German than Bangalore and that Bangalore is well known in the German-speaking area. From this it follows that Bangalore is the lemma title, Bangalore is mainly used in the article as addressing the city and Bangalore is mentioned first in the introduction. Therefore, both the maintenance module is misleading and your suggestion for introduction is inappropriate. You are welcome to argue about which source should be used for the language usage, but so far there is no accepted alternative to Leipzig (and at Britannica I can only find an English page on the fast, but that is (unfortunately) again for the WP Naming conventions irrelevant). In addition, there is no point in opening a new discussion here, the discussion of your choice should continue to be the naming convention page, as it is about fundamental issues .-- Maphry (discussion) 07:30, 15 Feb. 2016 (CET)
Hi Maphry, you are obviously wrong. Because the only two people who spoke there were able to use the WP rule that the foreign language. Name Usually takes precedence, not invalidate. You were one of them. You can't tell anyone that you don't understand Britannica's English. Because the only thing that matters is that a reputable source confirms to you which place name is to be used today. Not whether other names used to be the official ones. Because we know that from the information already quoted in the article. In order to understand the absurdity of your argument, a neutral mind game. We'd have to write an article about a car that the manufacturer has been calling May this year. Even if the previous model was called Juno. Then we would probably overwrite the article with May. Or? Even if everyone knows that this is no different from the Juno. Simply because we do not doubt the right of the car manufacturer to assign names. This is different here with a Mio-City in India that was not very well known in Germany (as evidenced by the low Leipzig values ​​earlier).
That and why the residents and their state and federal government cannot convince you of their naming rights remains your tender secret. But you are standing at right angles to the naming convention that you only seem to uphold. Both of the aforementioned discussants consider their personal views to be more important than the right of millions of Indians to rename a city there. A small people in Europe can call the city as far as they like. At least that's what two or three people mean here. Could there be a better way to illustrate POV? For me, this has reached the end of the flagpole when it comes to discussing an article name (lemma). An insane tragedy. An insane investment of time and good words. Rigidity (or what should you call it if you want to believe in the good in people) wins. In any case, I won't go to the trouble of getting a Wikipedia-wide opinion on the point or anything complain to initiate the WP-internal "legal process". Anyone looking for consolation about us Germans should read through the discussion page of the en: WP on the subject. So there are similar things elsewhere. Consequence for me: Let others try it, from the former Bangalore in Schland today's Bengaluru close. MfG - LH2016 (discussion) 18:31, 15 Feb. 2016 (CET)
I can understand your displeasure with the rules, but unfortunately they are clear in this case. Because you argue with subordinate rules that are clearly subordinate to a clear rule. Take a look at the naming convention at the top of the non-language areas. There it is clear and simple: "The main guideline is general linguistic usage." And that is exactly the argument that is basically assumed in WP. And it is generally assumed that this means the German language usage. In other words: a German-language lexicon would be an argument, an English-language one will hardly get through. You are welcome to make the accusation that others misinterpret the rules your own, but so far you have not tried to refute the argumentation that is considered common in WP in a discussion. As I said, you might not like the rules, but they are there and an MB would be pretty futile anyway (because there are too many historically sensitive place names in these formulations that hardly anyone wants to reverse). And the English WIkipedia has so far not been able to follow your arguments, which are also given there. - Maphry (discussion) 20:35, Feb. 15, 2016 (CET)
No, I doubt I'll misunderstand the rules. I have no displeasure with the rules. They are unambiguous through official names in the mother tongue. And the Angliscism "Bangalore" (instead of a little older German Bangalor) is only artificially kept alive by a few people here in the article by referring to older uses on the Internet. (I mean: illegal) Ms.Gr. --LH2016 (discussion) 11:50, 17 Mar. 2016 (CET)

I believe there is some misunderstanding here. The discussion should not focus on the frequency of use of Bangalore vs. Bengaluru. Because then Bangalore will surely win. Instead, it should be taken into account that the city has been officially renamed. The city is officially no longer called Bangalore, but now Bengaluru. Wikipedia should express this knowledge of the renaming through a shift. Because whoever looks up here is interested in this knowledge and not in misleading frequency distributions. With Chemnitz vs. Karl-Marx-Stadt, we wouldn't go by frequency either, but rightly go by today's official name. 80.71.142.166 10:58, December 29, 2018 (CET)

The lemma needs to be adjusted. There has been a state change of name for the ind. Proper name before. When trying to move the message appears - The page could not be moved for the following reason: An article already exists under this name. Please choose another name.
Is that the only option- z. B. in Bengaluru (India)?

Translation Help Requested

I need the help of translators to translate some of Wikipedia articles related to Bangalore, from English Wikipedia. Your help is appreciated

  • en: Murphy Town, Bangalore
  • en: Fraser Town, Bangalore
  • en: Cox Town, Bangalore
  • en: Austin Town
  • en: Cooke Town
  • en: Tannery Road
  • en: St. Mark's Cathedral, Bangalore
  • en: St. Andrew's Church, Bangalore
  • en: St. John's Church, Bangalore
  • en: St. Paul's Church, Bangalore
  • en: Hudson Memorial Church, Bangalore
  • en: Rice Memorial Church, Bangalore
  • en: East Parade Church, Bangalore
  • en: Fort Church, Bangalore
  • en: United Mission School
  • en: Goodwill's Girls School, Bangalore
  • en: Bangalore East Railway Station
  • en: Tamil Inscriptions of Bangalore
  • en: Fred Goodwill
  • en: Thomas Hodson
  • en: James Hunter (Military Artist)
  • en: Statue of Queen Victoria, Bangalore
  • en: Statue of King Edward VII, Bangalore

(WestCoastMusketeer (discussion) 05:15, Jun 30, 2016 (CEST))