Difference between revisions of "User talk:Rcgallup"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(India City Names....) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Perhaps for western sensibilities, we should keep the old names in (---) alongside the newer names, like was done for China for several years? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 21:20, 22 June 2010 (EDT) | Perhaps for western sensibilities, we should keep the old names in (---) alongside the newer names, like was done for China for several years? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 21:20, 22 June 2010 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I do remember years ago hearing about Peking, China, but was not old enough to recall the switch occuring. | ||
| + | As far as Mumbai goes, we no longer hear about the terror attacks in Bombay, but Mumbai. Kolkata is sufficiently similar to my ears and the third I hadn't really heard of. Moreover, I think we ought to respect India's decisions as they move forward and become more economically important as the years go by, rather than reminding our readers that the English had them under their dominion for years. | ||
Revision as of 01:25, June 23, 2010
India City Names....
Perhaps for western sensibilities, we should keep the old names in (---) alongside the newer names, like was done for China for several years? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:20, 22 June 2010 (EDT)
I do remember years ago hearing about Peking, China, but was not old enough to recall the switch occuring. As far as Mumbai goes, we no longer hear about the terror attacks in Bombay, but Mumbai. Kolkata is sufficiently similar to my ears and the third I hadn't really heard of. Moreover, I think we ought to respect India's decisions as they move forward and become more economically important as the years go by, rather than reminding our readers that the English had them under their dominion for years.