Tell me about it!! My first time to Europe, I was in a train station in southern Germany–Cologne, I think (Koeln?) and trying to get to Geneva. I took me a while because no trains go from there to Geneva (or Geneve in French)…
…plenty of trains go to Genf, however.
Usually, both the colonial and modern versions are just variants of one or more earlier names. For instance, I’ve seen lots of steam-press-printed books produced in the 19th or even 18th century in Mumbai/Bombay where the city name is spelled out in nagari script as “Mumbai” (anusvara for the second “m”).
AFAIK, all the major colonial cities of India had a pre-existing population (although it might be a pretty small one) and one or more locally used names before the European colonialists came along. The colonial name was usually just a transliteration or adaptation of one of the existing names of the one-horse town that the colonial city was built on, or one near it (as in the case of Madras/Chennai, whose colonial name came from the town Madraspatnam but whose modern name is taken from the neighboring town Chennapatnam; both historical Madraspatnam and historical Chennapatnam have long been engulfed by the modern Madras/Chennai metroplex).
So there’s really no reason to consider “Bombay” as somehow more intrinsically authentic than “Mumbai”, or vice versa for that matter. They’re both versions of the old name or names of a pre-colonial locality that was very different from either the colonial city or the modern city.
Depends who you’re talking to. I lived in Varanasi/Benares in 1994/95, and I knew plenty of residents who called it Varanasi, as well as ones who called it Benares.
Some modern Indians when talking to Westerners use the colonial name because it’s probably more easily recognized, and some use the colonial name to distance themselves from the saffron attitudes of the nationalists.
But the latter spelling is the Polish name. You would not expect the Polish Government to continue using the German name.
But there still inconsistencies. On a recent visit to Krakow I noticed that the ground-handling company at the airport incorporated “Cracow” in its name!
The latter phenomenon turns up in Germany as well, mainly because English apparently is the modern language to use.
Some company from Köln tried to use Cologne in its name, but somebody evidently thought that spelling was too complicated and “Colon” was even better-sounding…
That’s not what I was talking about - an English speaker needs to know more than just the names used in English if they’re going to find places. As with Napoli in the OP.
I think that the broad brush answer to the OP is that not so long ago the English considered themselves and their culture to be superior and dominant (and arguably they and their culture truly were at the very least dominant). English colonialism imposed itself on the world. More recently, views concerning self-determinism of peoples, equality of races and cultures etc have come to the fore.
Consequently, rightly or wrongly, it is now viewed as far less politically correct to use a name for something imposed by colonialists, or not of the language of locals
I think we have a winner here.
Fortunately, I’ve never been one for political correctness, so I tend to still use the English colonial names for places, and will argue with anyone who tries to correct me, but ultimately I think Princhester has nailed the OP’s question on the head.
That’s a bit of an exaggeration. Nobody says Amsturdammur, Apardjón, Boslaraborg, Brúnsvík, Frakkafurða, Kolni, Meilansborg, Nýja-Jórvík, Skarðaborg, Stóðgarður, or Trekt any more. It’s always Amsterdam, Aberdeen, Basel, Braunschweig, Frankfurt, Köln, Milan, New York, Scarborough, Stuttgart, and Utrecht. I’m sure there are dozens more examples. Even Lundúnir has pretty much lost out in favour of London, hasn’t it?
I’m not sure I agree with that, as I know that other languages also translate place names. And some of those languages (Icelandic, Swedish) haven’t been major powers for a very long time (if at all).
Maybe it’s just that internationalization and more contacts with other nations leads to people using the local names?
Have you read the title of your OP? 
Yeah, but I figured the same reasoning might fit english as well as other languages 
Slight hijack- when was it decided that followers of Islam should be called “Muslims” and that “Moslems” Was incorrect?
Or that “Qu’ran” was a better spelling than Koran?
Why Do People Say Muslim Now Instead of Moslem? | History News Network gives a partial answer for ‘Muslim’.
I’ve wondered that. Also, if you read a lot of Old British Adventure Stories, you’ll see “Hindu” is often spelt “Hindoo”.
The Koran/Qu’ran thing bugs me too. It’s like people suddenly decided that The Bible should be called The Biblos, because that’s what the Greeks called it Way Back In The Day.
It’s not a change in what it’s called, only in the way we spell it, and much closer to the Arabic.
Well, in most local languages (and Arabic as well AFAIK) its not actually “moslem” or “muslim” its “Mussalman”.
Quran is a bit closer, and in any case just call it “Recitations”, thats what it means more or less.
And finally, when was it decided that when you talk of God with respect to muslims, you say “Allah”, whatever the language, technically “Allah” is just the Arabic word for God, and most people use whatever the word for God in their own language, for the most part, except in prayer.
‘Recitation’ is closer - but then most of us tend to say ‘Revelations’, too. Plus, shall we start calling the bible ‘books’ (or is it ‘book’)?
At the moment. I mean, Wade-Giles was the accepted way of translating Chinese into English until fairly recently, and suddenly the Chinese said “Actually, we’ve got a new way we want you to use, even though it makes even less sense and is even harder for you to pronounce.”
I accept languages change over time, but I don’t see what’s wrong with saying “OK, in the English language, that large city on the western coast of India is called Bombay, the Islamic Holy Text is The Koran, and the Chairman of the Communist Party of China from 1943-1974 was Mao Tse-Tung” and being done with it. It’s worked fine for the past however many centuries…
Right. “Qur’an” and “Koran” are just transliterations into roman letters of the same Arabic word which has one standard spelling in Arabic. But “Koran” is an older, more ad-hoc transliteration, while “Qur’an” uses a standard transliteration system based on what professional linguists use.
Same thing for “Moslem -> Muslim”, “Mohammed -> Muhammad”, “Hussein -> Husayn”, and so on. The new spelling is just using a more standardized and consistent transliteration system for representing the Arabic letters: it’s still the same word in Arabic.
? Not in Modern Standard Arabic, at least according to my dictionary. The word we transliterate as “Muslim” is meem-with-damma, seen, laam-with-kasra, meem, and the closest representation of that in roman letters in the standard transcription system is indeed “muslim”.
Right. Arabic-speaking Christians use “Allah” to mean God, just as Arabic-speaking Muslims do. Some non-Arabic-speaking Christians in the West deliberately use “Allah” for the Muslim God to signify their belief that it isn’t the same as the Christian God, but Muslims don’t agree with them.
But, as has already been pointed out, it’s simply incorrect to say it ‘is’ called Bombay, it has been officially changed, and continuing to refer to the present-day city as such is not all that different to insisting that the big city on the Bosphorus ‘is called Constantinople’.