Talk:Kolkata/Archive 5

Transliteration of Bangla articles

Ok there are two issues that have haunted me since I started actively working with Wikipedia. I know this is not the best place to discuss it, but I believe Wikipedians working with Kolkata article will be interested in helping. These are:

• Transliteration scheme. Should 'অ' be transliterated as 'a' or as 'o'. To me, a native Bengali-speaker, it seems that 'o' is closer to the actual sound. 'a' more closely represents 'আ'! Could we create a naming convention?

• The use of the word Bengali seemed very logical to me as long as I was in Bangladesh. However, after coming outside Bengal, I realise that most people know neither the word "Bengali" nor the word "Bangla". Those that know Bangladesh use, almost incorrectly, Bangladeshi or, absolutely incorrectly, "Bengalese" as adjectives. Given those conditions, is it logical to actively use Bangla to refer to the language?

Please provide necessary feedback at some appropriate place. To sort issues as these and more I also would like to create WikiProject Bangla. Any volunteers? Urnonav 08:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would be willing to help out with such a WikiProject, but as Bengali is not my native language I would be of limited help. The transliteration of অ is always a problem, one that will most likely require further discussion. With regards to the name of the language, certainly, it is logical to refer to the language as "Bangla"; however, if one is speaking in English, it is also correct to refer to it as "Bengali". Most languages have names for other languages different from the native name. For instance, in English we refer to the languages Spanish, German, Bengali, and so on. But Spanish speakers call their own language español, call English inglés, call German alemán, and so on. German speakers call their language Deutsch. Bengali speakers call their language bangla, call English ingreji, and so on. Therefore, I believe it is logical when speaking in English to use the name "Bengali". — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 09:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting that you say that few outside Bangladesh know the word "Bengali". That's definitely the word that would be used and understood in Britain, which has a large Bengali community. "Bangladeshi" would only be used to refer to the nationality, not the race or language, and "Bengalese" I've never even heard. -- Necrothesp 17:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are completely right. I was talking from the North American perspective only; sorry about the vagueness. Bengalese I haven't seen being used in writing, but I've been asked numerous times if that is the right adjective. I think they try to link it with 'Chinese' and 'Asamese'. Also, keep in mind that unfortunately the difference between Bengali and Bangladeshi is not so obvious to all foreigners. Sadly enough, I am yet to meet a North American who knows about existence of Bengalis in India. My proposal regarding the language issue:

• Use Bengali as an adjective to refer to people; and
• Preferentially use Bangla as the name of the language (although Bengali is a justified valid alternative in English articles).

Does this sound sort of acceptable?

On the trasliteration issue, I need help from somebody on creating a convention. We also need conventions for other letters such as:

• য/য় = use of j versus use of y e.g. Surya versus Shurjo
• ভ = use of bh versus use of v (v has no equivalent in Bangla)
• ঠ/থ = Th/th
• ট/ত = T/h
• দ্ম = 'dda' versus 'dma' (pronunciation-based transliteration versus spelling-wise transliteration) e.g Podda versus Padma
• ঢ়/ড় = Rh?
• স্ব = 'sw' versus 'sh' (transliteration of omitted sound) e.g. Swadhin versus Shadhin
• স/শ/ষ = 's' versus 'sh' (pronunciation-based transliteration versus spelling-based transliteration) e.g. Surjo versus Shurjo

I would go with Bengali to refer to the language as well. Again, speaking from a British perspective it's the word that would be understood and used by most people, including Bengalis themselves when talking to non-Bengalis. -- Necrothesp 11:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Necrothesp, for further information and, hopefully, constructive discussion on this issue, please refer to the WikiProject Bengal. The project is not very active yet. And as for your suggestion, I reluctantly accept it, because out of the three dictionaries that all persons would generally accept as the authority of English vocabulary, only Webster uses the word Bengali and others don't define any word at all. I would not however go to the extent of creating it as the 'standard' word to be used, because England is a very specific case and only a minority of English speakers live there and even then it's the British dictionaries that do not seem to consistently have the word "Bengali". Most other English speaking population, particularly in the Americas, do not use any adjective and I can attest that much for you. I am still waiting to meet a person who would know an adjective for Bengal. Nevertheless, opinions aside, we need concrete information before we proceed with a standard naming convention for the adjective. Thanks again! Urnonav 00:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually Urnonav, I think "Bengali" is the closest to a standard word. As you mention, Merriam-Webster, an American dictionary, does list Bengali and not Bangla. I live in Chicago and there are plenty of people who are familiar with the term "Bengali" here, but my university is very diverse and so people learn a lot about different cultures and backgrounds. Nor is it a strecth for them because they are also familiar with terms like "Gujarati" (there are many Gujaratis here) and "Hindi" (as the language). Also, I think that we need to be clear when we're referring to different terms. You mention that people don't know an adjective for "Bengal" and discuss a standard naming convention for the adjective. As far as I know, the only adjective for Bengal is Bengali; I do not believe you could refer to a "Bangla" person or a "Bangla" dish. However, the noun and adjective for the language could be Bangla, although like Necrothesp I would use "Bengali" (the noun and adjective are the same for most languages: a Spanish word in Spanish, an English word in English, a Bengali word in Bengali, and so on). — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely right. I did make a mistake up there. The adjective associated with Bengal is in fact Bengali and I have absolutely zero objection to that. The issue is, unlike in Europen languages, where the usual trend is the language is called the same as the ethnic adjective e.g. français, deutsch, English, etc., in Bangla/Bengali, there are two distinct words to refer to the two. While the society would be called Bengali society (Bangali shomaj), a book would be called Bangla book (bangla boï). Before this issue starts looking like the Kolkata/Calcutta war above, I think I will just close my case with reiterating my reluctant acceptance of the word "Bengali" to also refer to the language. Interestingly, in French, they do differenciate between the two words: bangalais(e) refers to Bengali and Bangla refers to Bangla, although they sometimes would talk about la langue bangalaise; ah well, English is the most screwed up popular language out there anyway!

That's why we love it. ;) -- Necrothesp 12:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An attempt is being made to create a standard English transliteration scheme for words in the Bengali language. Anyone with knowledge of the language (and English of course) and of phonetics is requested to check out the project page for discussion on this issue. For a start, I found some reasonably good schemes already in use by other authorities, but each one lacks one thing or another. -- Urnonav 09:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

On reading this debate, I've decided to change my vote, for the following reason - English is an official language of India. This is English Wikipedia but it is not Amercian English Wikipedia or British English Wikipedia or Indian English Wikipedia. Therefore the name used for an article should reflect local usage if English is an official language in that locality. Therefore if they have decided that it shall be Kolkata, who are we to say it shouldn't be. Kolkata it is. Jooler 16:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion for the first paragraph

I think the article should begin in the introductory paragraph with something that is less focused on the variations of the name. The first section of the article is devoted to this, afterall, and what information is in the introductory paragraph could be moved into that section. In coming to this article, I think that a user of the encyclopedia would be more interested to first encounter a summary of what we have on the topic of Calcutta overall than details of the naming. I'm not trying to de-emphasize the importance of the naming controversy/debate, but just considering how the article would look from the standpoint of a typical user.

Thanks for considering this.

Courtland 18:04, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

A corollary to Godwin's Law?

I thought I posted this earlier, but...can people please stop using the supposed prevalence of the word "nigger" in olden days as an example of why we shouldn't use the most commonly used name rule? The idea that this word was the most commonly used name is highly dubious - it was an informal, derogatory term. Any reference work at the time would have put an article on black people at "Negro", which was the formal term used. Furthermore, we already have a rule saying that terms that are considered offensive shouldn't be used. This would certainly cover that word, and it certainly would not cover the name "Calcutta," which is simply the original name of the city. The only reason for bringing this up is an appeal to emotion - it adds nothing to the discussion, and is generally not apposite. It is introduced only to inhibit debate. The way it is used in these discussions (and the mention of it above is far from the first time this "point" has been brought up in discussions about naming conventions - see Talk:Mecca, for instance) is exactly akin to a random introduction of Hitler into a discussion. It ought to stop

Ruminations from an Undecided Voter

Necrothesp left me a note on my Talk page, asking if I wanted to vote in this poll. And having read as much of the arguments for & against the move Calcutta ==> Kolkata, I have to say that I am as undecided now about the issue s before I started reading all of this. Part of the problem is that both parties are talking past each other, rather than helping a disinterested party (such as myself) make an informed & comfortable decision.

As I understand the arguments, they are as follows:

• For Kolkata:
  • The name of the city has been officially changed to Kolkata. (This, to me is a very good reason for the change. However, I would want to be sure this change is permanent, & not part of some political fad.)
  • The city is part of the English-speaking world. (This supports the above point.)

• For Calcutta:
  • It is the most common & familiar form to English-speakers. (There are various arguments whether this is true or not, but for the record -- & to head off any responses on this point -- I'm leaning towards the arguments that it is true.)

Normally, I'd accept that the official decision to change the city's name to Kolkata trumps all others, but there are a number of issues that supporters for this name have not addressed, & I would like to see discussed before I (& perhaps others) cast our votes:

1. Is this considered a permanent change? In the last 50 years, I have seen a number of placenames changed for reasons that can be best described as a political fad, only to have their original names restored. (A good example is Cape Canaveral ==> Cape Kennedy ==> Cape Canaveral in Florida. I could cite others across the world, but I choose this one to show I am not arguing this point based on conscious US-centricism.) I would like to see some evidence that this is not one more example of this.
2. How do we deal with the cultural connotations that Calcutta has for many English speakers? This, I feel, is the real reason many people are resisting this change. I think it is fair to say that the name "Calcutta" has a number of connotations to English-speakers, not all of which are favorable to that city. (And a quick glance shows that the article does not address them or acknowledge their existence.) How do we deal with those associations if we change the name of this article? For example, will we need to rename Black Hole of Calcutta to Black Hole of Kolkata? (This may not appear to be a serious issue to many who advocate Kolkata, but it was a matter hotly debated in the Danzig vs. Gdansk dispute.)

And in responding to my questions (which I pose in good faith & not intending to offend anyone), could people respond below this post, rather than to specific sections? This would make this section easier to follow. -- llywrch 23:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cape Kennedy was called that for a couple of decades, and all news media and common usage used that name, so perhaps that's not a good example. With Kolkata it's a more recent change, so the question can be more readily asked.

At the time of the historical "Black Hole of Calcutta" incident, the city was named "Calcutta", so it's reasonable to keep this name even though I believe the city article should be Kolkata. By the way, Peking University is still officially called that in English by the university itself), and hence its Wikipedia article has that title. And we still refer to the Siege of Leningrad and the Battle of Stalingrad by those titles too. Basically, each associated article is a separate case. -- Curps 23:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can say with reasonable certainty that this name change is permanent, because (from what I know about Indian politics) the person who tries to change the city name back to Calcutta from Kolkata will lose the next election. Of course, "Black Hole of Calcutta" should not be renamed in my opinion. It refers to a particular incident in its history and it should be referred to by that name. The same thing with institutions that use the old name in their title (Calcutta Telegraph etc). Analogies with Mumbai and Chennai would be places like IIT Madras or IIT Bombay. While I support the name change for the city article, I would stop far short of doing a s/Calcutta/Kolkata operation on all articles. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 23:43, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

Kolkata

This is madness. The town formerly known as "Calcutta" is now called "Kolkata". That is its name in English. To call it anything else is simply a mark of ignorance. It is a change entirely analogous with that of Burma to Myanmar. The appeal to mass ignorance is very amusing. Most people don't know most of the things in this encyclopaedia. That's the point of it! The ignorant are still catered for. If they enter Calcutta, they will be redirected.Dr Zen 03:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. If Peking is now called Beijing, if Burma is called Myanmar, there is no point in refusing to rename Calcutta to Kolkata. I can give a very good example ... before the early eighties, Dhaka, capital of Bangladesh was spelt as Dacca. "Dhaka" is more phonetically correct, and so Bangladesh Govt changed it to that spelling. For some time, some people outside Bangladesh spelt it as Dacca. However, check with google or whatever you want, you'd see if the previously-more-common spelling Dacca is quite unknown now. Only in older textbooks, 20 year old encyclopedias you'd find that spelling. I argue that the same logic applies here, if the Govt. of West Bengal has renamed Calcutta to "Kolkata" to make it phonetically correct, THAT should be used here. The renaming was done in 2001, and it's official and accepted by Governments of India and other countries, so for the sake of correctness, we should do the same here in wikipedia. If this is not done, then Mumbai-Chennai should be renamed to Bombay-Madras etc.

As an aside, I don't think voting is going work either way. Why not follow previous instances (Bombay->Mumbai) and do likewise? What's wrong with that? --Ragib 05:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dr Zen, your abusive tone is uncalled for. You are coming very close to violating the no personal attacks policy. Can't you make your point without insulting people who disagree with you? -- llywrch 23:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bengali letters

I apologize for removing these from the intro, but they show up on my screen as a series of question marks, and so it looked as though someone had inserted them because they were disputing something. I'm using a Mac with OS 10.3.8 and the latest version of Netscape, 7.2. I did think it was a bit strange that someone would do that. Sorry. SlimVirgin 07:53, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

It's totally understandable. What about doing something like this, which I saw at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Standardizing presentation of article title translations?

Calcutta is the capital of the Indian state of West Bengal. Its original name was Kolikata (Bengali: কলিকাতা) and is, in higher literature, it is still referred to as such. Speakers of the region's native language, Bengali, have always known it as Kolkata (Bengali: কলকাতা) and there is consequently no standardized phonetic spelling of 'Calcutta' in written Bengali. The city's name was officially changed to Kolkata in January 2001, though the British appellation is still used elsewhere. It has two well-known nicknames: City of Joy and City of Palaces. Sometimes, it is also referred to as the "Michhil Nagari" (মিছিল নগরী) , or the City of Processions, and "City of Bandhs" or City of Strikes.

That way others who don't have the Bengali section of Unicode will at least realize what should be there. I'm not sure how good the bold looks on my system at least, so maybe unbold the Bengali? And having all those "Bengali"'s may be a bit excessive. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bangla fonts inherently have the trouble of looking "crammed up" because they are so super-artistified! So, making them bold makes it worse and writing Bengali so many times is, yes, weird! Plus it doesn't help people to actually see the writing if they want. Can we put a link to explain how to see non-Latin characters? -- Urnonav 08:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: make the change in January, 2011

Proposal.

Since the "official" change occurred in January, 2001, I propose that ten years be estimated as the time it will take for the new name to become "the common name" throughout the English-speaking world.

Therefore, I propose that we schedule January, 2011 as a time when we should update the name of this article, and systematically update the name used to refer to this city throughout Wikipedia.

I'm thinking it will take five years for the new name to be reflected in atlasses, schoolroom maps, textbooks, and news organization usage guides—as of 2005, this is clearly has not happened yet, as organizations such as CNN, the BBC, the New York Times predominantly use the old name. Once people start hearing "Kolkata" on the nightly news, I'm thinking it will take about five years for it to sink in and become the way they talk about it.

I have no doubt that Kolkata will, in fact, be the common name in a few years. I take great exception to any assertion that it is already the common name.

Dpbsmith (talk) 17:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

CNN has changed the name to Kolkata Nichalp 19:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. Like other news organizations, it seems to be using an inconsistent mix. Just because you see "Kolkata" in a CNN article does not mean they "have changed it." Would people please stop making random assertions like this? It doesn't help. Examples below: Dpbsmith (talk) 17:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• February, 2005: "MAS flies 26 weekly flights to India, servicing routes to New Delhi, Bombay, Madras, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad and Calcutta."
• February, 2005 "The test matches will be played in the northern town of Mohali (March 8-12), the eastern metropolis of Calcutta (March 16-20) and the southern city of Bangalore (March 24-28)."
• February, 2004 "Coach Clive Woodward has delayed naming his team for the Calcutta Cup match until Tuesday and will be hoping that his captain is fit to be included.
• December, 2003 "Music box thrills Calcutta's kids."

There's no precedent for on Wikipedia for scheduling a name change in the future, especially five years from now. Wikipedia hasn't even been around five years. And certainly this proposal would not freeze the issue for the next five years, any number of votes or consensuses in that time could revisit the issue, so there doesn't seem to be any point.

What's interesting though is that you seem to accept the inevitability of the change and we're merely haggling about the timing. Or am I misinterpreting? -- Curps 17:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok they are inconsistant. The weather report I see daily always prints "Kolkata" though. Once again I'd like to point out that the Calcutta Cu has nothing to do with the name change. The city name is changed, but institutions need not change. I'm at a loss as to what the Calcutta Cup about cause AFAIK it definately not played in Calcutta after reading the article. Nichalp 20:30, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, unless local politics changes the name again. Eventually normal English usage around the world will change and the revised name will be the most widely recognised form. It'll take a while but it's sure to happen. Today, Calcutta seems best but a couple of years from now? We'll see. Might well be best to change then. Or not. We're just about putting things where most people are likely to be directly linking and expecting things, nothing more. The change in knowledge from Danzig to Gdansk is a fairly well known example, with the older English-speaking population probably still recognising Danzig more but Gdansk now in wide usage for a couple of decades and pretty well known, well enough known for it to be fairly clearly the best place for that article. Jamesday 08:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Although I'm relying here on the statements of other participants, which I interpret to mean that Kolkata is currently the common name throughout English-speaking India.

If all material currently printed in English in India uses the name Kolkata, eventually the diplomats will adopt it, the tourist agencies, the airlines, the outside-India news media will follow suit. After everyone has heard newscasters saying it for a while, and people start coming back from business trips to "Kolkata," we'll all start calling it that. I don't think too many people in the United States say "Peking" for "Beijing," or "Nationalist China" for "Taiwan," and I'm sure there were stronger political feelings involved than there are for Calcutta. I live in the New England area and everyone these days is using the pronunciation "keebek" for what used to be pronounced "kwuh-bek," etc.

That's odd, because I'm fairly sure English speakers in Canada continue to pronounce it "kwuh-bek". See for instance the newscasts at Radio Canada International. But that's a bit off topic. -- Curps 05:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reason to question that Kolkata is already the common name throughout English-speaking India? Is there more going on here than meets the eye? Is this some regional issue that is not universally accepted throughout India? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't "keebeck" the French pronounciation and "kwuh-beck" the English? Nichalp 19:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I first heard the new English spelling "Kolkata" on a non-Bengali Indian channel and I wasn't sure if it was just regionalisation or a standard, but all non-Bengali Indian TV channels have been bombarding viewers with the new spelling. So your case of regionalisation is not true! Airlines already DO use Kolkata as spelling. They were actually among the first series of "outsiders" to use the name change. As pointed out numerous times before, "outside-India news media" do use Kolkata. CNN and BBC use both Calcutta and Kolkata depending on which region a news is being presented to. (Yet again the case of local spelling as opposed to name change!) As for keebek and kwuh-bek, although technically "kwuh-bek" is the English pronunciation and "kee-bek" is the French pronunciation, the distinction is vague and English speakers (possibly because of their usual bilingualism) commonly say "keebek" too; I have come across the pronunciation "kwuh-bek" in rare cases only. I fail to see what connection it has with Kolkata/Calcutta. -- Urnonav 05:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a Canadian English speaker, I usually say "Kebeck" in English, which sounds the same as my French pronunciation (I speak very little French). Many Canadians say "Kwebeck", but I haven't paid enough attention to know which is most common. I think the correct French pronunciation is more like "Kaybeck" (Québec), but the first vowel is glossed over when pronounced normally. —Michael Z. 2005-03-9 18:02 Z

Here's an odd one. This Google site search site:timesofindia.indiatimes.com kolkata yields 17,600 hits while site:timesofindia.indiatimes.com calcutta yields 6680 hits. So in the Times of India, "Kolkata" is three times as common as "Calcutta..." but why is "Calcutta" being used at all? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier calcutta also has usage other than the city in books, movies and other stuff and so calcutta will always be used. Also the name change happened in 2001 and the internet has been around for much longer. As already shown search engines can be used to provide all kinds of data. I am sure if you search for bombay and madras you will come across hits in TOI. kaal 19:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do the search on Calcutta yourself. The Times of India is using "Calcutta" frequently being used in recent articles. Here are some of the first few:

• As of March 4th 2005, it appears that the Times of India is still calling its City Supplement "Calcutta Times."
• An article about a play entitled "Calcutta Kosher" dated February 24th 2004 begoms "Calcutta Kosher is a still small voice speaking of India’s traditional religious tolerance at a time when Europe is searching its soul over the alleged rise of a new anti-semitism. If you want to be politically correct, Calcutta Kosher, a play by Kolkata-born, British-bred Shelley Silas about the way India enfolded its Jewry and kept it safe, should really be Kolkata Kosher." What's going on here? Is the use of the term Kolkata a simple question of fact, or is it an issue of "political correctness?" If so there are POV waters here.
• An article "Is your kid's teacher cruel" dated Febuary, 2005 opens: "At least five to 10 incidents of teachers caning or beating students are being reported every month from schools across the state, according to sources in the education department. This is in spite of a February 2004 Calcutta High Court rule." Well, as of 2005 is it the Calcutta High Court or the Kolkata High Court? Which is it? And If the former, why?

Within India in 2005 is Kolkata universally accepted as the commonly used name of the city, as a simple matter of fact, or is this a contentious issue on which WIkipedia is being asked to take sides? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Once again you are confusing between the city of kolkata and the buildings etc that are named calcutta. The timesofindia city suppliment is calcutta times as this was started when the city was still called calcutta when it was started. If you look up their website the mumbai city suppliment is also still bombay times and not mumbai times. Also the high court names have not been changed. They are seperate from city names. Bombay and madras high courts are still called that on their offcial webpages. So please dont start mixing up the name of the city with all these. they are seperate things. Kolkata is accepted in india like both mumbai and chennai as the city name. I hope this convinces you. kaal 22:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Bombay Times, Calcutta Times New Delhi Times are all city suppliments to the Times of India. The papers were present before the name changes were effected and since they are brand names, they did not change. The Courts to remain the same. The city name may change, but not necessarily institutions having the name Calcutta. Is this misunderstanding now disabused? Nichalp 19:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a controversy per se, or some opposition group vowing to change the name back if they come to power, but it does seem to be true that some English speakers in India and the city itself have chosen to ignore the name change, whether out of habit or personal preference. There may be an analogy here to Saigon, which is what many or probably most Vietnamese continue to call the city 36 years after the official name change.

There are some official names which are truly rare or too long and unwieldy, which are essentially never used except in formal contexts. On the other hand, there are some official names which satisfy a minimum threshold of common usage (as in the case of Ho Chi Minh City) which should be enough to tip the balance in their favor, giving the official name the benefit of the doubt as it were. In this case, we use "Ho Chi Minh City" as the title on Wikipedia, even though it might lose out statistically in actual common usage. In the case of Kolkata, the best estimate from Google is that it has between 30%–50% of actual common usage, and I would argue that would be enough to tip the balance in its favor. -- Curps 22:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the Saigon/Ho Chi Min City case. Looks like a location we need to review, since it seems most unlikely that Saigon is the least recognised or used of that pair Jamesday 08:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm one of them who still uses the old name. If this weren't an encyclopedia I would argue for Calcutta. But since this is an encyclopedia this should reflect the name change which is recognised globally. Nichalp 19:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

The Economist's style guide uses Kolkata. Anyone know of any others? —Michael Z. 2005-03-9 17:51 Z