We have had some discussions before about Native placenames vs English placenames and placenames with accents, umlauts, diacritics.
But this question is about a different case.
In English many foreign places have traditional names or spellings. Some have gone out of fashion but many remain common.
Some countries have official English names or spellings for some places, even though the country has an unrleated language or is written in a script other than Latin / Roman.
We are inconsistent about which name or spelling we use in tags.
Bombay is the traditional and still very common name of a city on the west coast of India. Some time after independence from the UK India de-anglicized the official English names of many places. Bombay became Mumbai. We use mumbai as our tag even though Bombay is still very common.
Kiev is the traditional and still very common name of the capital city of Ukraine. After independence from the USSR Ukraine decided to promote an English spelling for their capital which reflects Ukrainian pronunciation more than Russian pronunciation. Kiev became Kyiv. We use kiev as our tag even though Kyiv is preferred by Ukraine.
So shouldn't we choose one standard? And if we went for traditional or most popular in English would we go so far as changing Netherlands to Holland?
(The only one I'm aware of arguing about before is Burma vs Myanmar. That case was complicated by the fact that some people feel Myanmar was promoted by a repugnant government. Yet other evidence suggests that Burma is too specific to one ethnicity of the country and that Myanmar is more inclusive. It could've gone either way.)