Jump to content

Talk:Prayagraj/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Muslims are preventing name changes.

This is caused by Muslims preventing name change out of spite. Russian cities are accepted as St Petersburgh etc. Myanmar is not still called Burma. Most English speakers have no idea about Indian cities, use the name given in the state. Or maybe Indian board of Censors will be requested to reconsider Wiki access to India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.215.153.9 (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It is about WP:COMMONNAME policy in Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with Islam or any other religion. "Allahabad" is more well known than "Prayagraj" as per RfCs and discussion here. See talk page archives. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2019

please change Allahabad to Prayagraj in this article immediately for correct information. Akashaktri (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. you can read the threads above to understand the reason why it is still Allahabad. se WP:COMMONNAME for more. DBigXrayᗙ 11:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2019

Shujath19 (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Allahbad or Illahbad should not be renamed as Prayagraj. If another Govt comes they will again rename it to Allahbad. Let them make a new city and name it as Prayagraj. Everyone keeps on changing the names now.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 13:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2019

The statement on the page:- "Allahabad (About this soundpronunciation (help·info)), officially known as Prayagraj" is weird.

Either official name should be made the page name, or it should be removed altogether. Not using official name as main name would be, in a way, illegal. Hence, page name should be changed to - "Prayagraj". And first sentence should also be changed to - "Prayagraj (About this soundpronunciation (help·info)), formerly known as Allahabad" 103.95.120.115 (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020

Area of Prayagraj is shown as 82 sq km(32 sq mile). Change it to 354.73 sq km (136.96). Hope it is clear now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:5001:C670:1C76:FF87:CD4:CFAA (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

After the Uttar Pradesh cabinet decision on 31/12/2019 to expand the city of Prayagraj, the total area of Prayagraj Nagar Nigam will be the original 62.64 square kilometer plus new 292.09 sq km, that is, now total size of the city is 354.73 sq km (136.96 sq miles).

Source (see page 19 of the cabinet decision from 31/12/19 below) :

http://information.up.nic.in/attachments/CabinetDecisionfile/e849a3e48b52fa2f28ae9c247cb3ff3e.pdf 2601:1C2:5001:C670:1C76:FF87:CD4:CFAA (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 06:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2020

Area of Prayagraj is shown as 82 square kilometer(32 sq mile) in the city information box on the top right side. Change it to 354.73 sq km (136.96 sq miles). Hope it is clear now!

Source (see page 19 of the cabinet decision from 31/12/19 in the link shown below regarding expansion of city limits which is already notified) :

http://information.up.nic.in/attachments/CabinetDecisionfile/e849a3e48b52fa2f28ae9c247cb3ff3e.pdf 2601:1C2:5001:C670:1C76:FF87:CD4:CFAA (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The source says the area of the Municipality has decided to be increased from 62 sq km to 292 sq km. 2 Issues here. The figures dont match. Also the area of the city is not the same as municipality. DBigXrayᗙ 06:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Name must be changed to Prayagraj

The name must be changed to Prayagraj. It should have be done right at the time of government notification. If there is really a need to mention the common name Allahabad then it can be mentioned as the secondary name. It doesn’t mean the page and the title of the page should not be changed. Going by the current logic of the overworked wiki contributors who revert every change my other users of the page’s name to Prayagraj, Mumbai page would never be able to get the correct title and would always be known as Bombay as people still use Bombay as a common name of the city. Tarunuee (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

No. see above discussion. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, as per WP:COMMONNAME
This is the English Wikipedia, and our articles are based on the common name in English not the official name, and this name should be used throughout the article, other than a brief mention of the official name in the opening line and the infobox.
We may, eventually, change the name, as we did at Mumbai, after about 10 years, but other articles, such as Bangalore are still under their "English" names, although the official name changed in 2006, as this is what English readers recognize.
This is standard across Wikipedia - we will not be changing Spain to Espana, Finland to Suomi, Vienna to Wien, Munich to Munchen or any of numerous other articles, where the English name differs from the "official" name.
- Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Another, we are not changing Germany to Deutschland. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Your logic on Mumbai is not correct. The name of the city changed long before Wikipedia came into existence.

The logic of common name is also incorrect because it is based on what certain group of individuals believe. It is impossible to gauge the correct publicly used name at the right time. Tarunuee (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is not a logic, it is a guideline. You can "gauge" by using Google hits. "Allahabad" returns you 7 crore hits while "Prayagraj" 2 crores. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2020

Do change the page's name to Prayagraj which is the official name of the city as mentioned by this page only. Will you write Sri Lanka as Ceylon? 2402:3A80:6F7:10AD:3886:B4C3:6FD8:BB83 (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please use the scroll key on your keyboard and read the section directly above this one. --regentspark (comment) 16:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello editors. I would like to highlight some of the points which are nothing but just advertisement and future things proposed by governments but yet to implement. For example section Projects, Allahabad Metro is proposed so can be added but not as separate section. In order to decrease length of the article several section can be merged in paragraph. Please refer FA like Bengaluru or Kolkata. Suggestion welcome. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 06:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Change this Page Name

Allahabad is not a official name. Prayagraj is official name Segabrand (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Stuck sock comments Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

We obviously know that - that is why the article opens "Allahabad, officially known as Prayagraj" - but as repeatedly explained, this is the English Wikipedia and we use the WP:COMMONNAME in English, which is Allahabad. - Arjayay (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Then allow the page to create a page from the official name and can be redistributed Segabrand (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has defined certain guidelines/policies. Here article are written keeping policies in mind. There have been several discussion with regards to name. And as explained by Arjayay, Allahabad is perfect under WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 15:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Change: I actually beg to differ on that. Changing the name to Prayagraj, for all pages related, would not only make more sense but follow with its emerging usage, instead of Allahabad. I know many international people who refer to Prayagraj instead of Allahabad--Hari147 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Per this policy, we look at the predominant use, not an emerging use. For now, the vast majority of sources refer to the city as Allahabad. Please read the discussion above and in the Archives before bringing this topic. — kashmīrī TALK 17:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Category renaming discussion

Information icon An editor has proposed renaming Category:Allahabad division to Category:Prayagraj division. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 20#Category:Allahabad division-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is clear pro to rename the article to Prayagraj. It is oficial, widely used already (Google, Britannica) and the inhabitants (mostly Hindus) want the rename ad well. --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Your comment, above, is in the wrong place. If you want to contribute to the renaming discussion, you need to follow the link above to the discussion page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Prayagraj has to be the name of the article and the reason is..

Hello,

The article needs to be moved. All relevant websites (Google, Britannica ...) are already using the new (historical, original) name. The population of Prayagraj is also mostly Hindu. --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Care to read the discussion above? — kashmīrī TALK 21:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Care to read my message? Well, I got new information, Google and Britannica have changed to Name already, so it needs to be changed on Wikipedia finally. Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not Britannica. Wikipedia's naming policy is at WP:COMMONNAME. — kashmīrī TALK 18:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, so the criteria say, a name change has to be done in this case. Then do it, why do you wait? Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So, they are using the official name, which they are entitled to do - their websites, their rules - whereas our rule is WP:COMMONNAME in English.
What is your evidence that Prayagraj is now the common name in English? as a crude example there are 67.2 million Google matches for Allahabad and only 9.9 million for Prayagraj.
You might also want to see Talk:Bangalore which shows the 10 formal "Requested Move" discussions, all of which have kept it at Bangalore - Arjayay (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So, nothing can ever change? Because when you are putting the Google results as an Argument, i say 9 Millions for Prayagraj is quite impressive for only 2 years around. Of Course the old name has more hits, it always has, so nothing will ever change, because old names always got mlre Hits. but what's the Point?

And why was Swaziland changed to Eswatini then? Prayagraj is the original name, the name change 2018 is more like coming home or correcting a Mistake (which occupatuons always are) the name is original and so it has to be changed back. Plus the inhabitants are with a vast majority Hindus, so what do you think they think about their Traditional name or the name praising another Religion in it's name? Well it's obvious, but maybe you just dont care. Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not that we don't care what the Hindus in Allahabad/Prayagraj think, but what they think is irrelevant to Wikipedia's article naming policies, which have to accommodate people from all over the world, not just one country. As to why Swaziland changed to Eswatini, you can check its talk page to find out why, if you're really interested. - BilCat (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
For the record, nobody in or near the city calls it Prayagraj. It's consistently known as Allahabad - the locals don't really care about Delhi-ites renaming their town. Much like the neighbouring Varanasi is still called Banaras. — kashmīrī TALK 09:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
If that is the case then why Benaras page is listed as Varanasi? If I go by that stupid logic then India will not have a name in wiki as there are several connotations to it i.e. Bharat and unofficially Hindustan. How many people you have interviewed to reach that conclusion? I fully support the page name change to Prayagraj and not Allahabad. Its best to have a vote rather than bullying your views on others.-- Shashpant (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I read differently, that the inhabitants accepted the name change, so you might shed some Light, where do you know your Information from.

Eswatini was renamed, so Prayagraj will be, and you cant change that, guidelines will be kept. And no, what people actually call a city is not irrelevant, but it is the most important source of how articles on Wikipedia are named. How cheeky you try to claim things, which ain't like that at all. --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Trying to shame editors in to supporting your case, and other forms of browbeating, don't work on Wikipedia, and are more likely to end with you being blocked. Allahabad will be moved to Prayagraj when the proof that Prayagraj is more common in usage is provided, and not until then. This is the same for other articles on entities that have changed names or have other names, including Bangalore (Bengaluru), Czech Republic (Czechia), and Kiev (Kyiv), but haven't yet met the requirements. - BilCat (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tecumseh*1301: the inhabitants accepted the name change The inhabitants were not asked about a name change, there has been no referendum of any sort. The change was imposed on the city by Delhi. Yet, the name Allahabad is the only one commonly used throughout the city, district and beyond. — kashmīrī TALK 13:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: The decision was of UP government and not of Central government. Renaming a city is at the discretion of state assembly and not Parliament unlike renaming or redrawing a State. The change was done to a city and not a state. State name/border change is done under Article 3 of Indian constitution while renaming a city depends on the discretion of state. [1]. However, a name change maybe scrutinized for implementation on various Central agencies working within the state. E.g. - Indian Railway, India Post -- Shashpant (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2020

I am writing to request the name change for this webpage from Allahabad to Prayagraj and at all other points where the word Allahabad exists. Lokesh2809 (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - BilCat (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Where are the links ro the requests or consensus discussions? --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

At the top of this page there is yellow area. In it there are two white boxes. One is a button that says "search archives", the other is blank - you type your search term there (it's a search box), and press the button.
Alternatively, you could press the blue "1" and "2" that are written next to the word "Archives" above the white search box.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no yellow area with no white boxes. And if course people are not interested in archive requests, but only in current ones. --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Tecumseh*1301, different color schemes, but look at the top for the Archives, and do look at the previous requests. Any points made in those prior requests you need to address in your request. This has been discussed before and a consensus established. That can be changed, but ignoring prior discussions is not helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency

It seems logically inconsistent to use the old name here but not for Ho Chi Minh City - particularly when one considers that this name change was supported by the state government, while the change from Saigon to HCMC was imposed by the national Vietnamese government against the will of the city. 2602:306:CFEA:170:3478:C3D5:AA05:19AF (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's naming conventions aren't based on enforcing a certain "logical consistency" on all articles of a certain type. In fact, the Ho Chi Minh City article's title is still a matter of debate, per Talk:Ho Chi Minh City/HCMC vs. Saigon debate. - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
You did not answer the question. Why is the article called Ho Chi Minh City instead of Saigon? You are effectively saying there is no policy. In that case, let's call this Prayagraj. --Hunnjazal (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I did. - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency with name

The naming of this article is bizarre given that the city was always called Prayagraj in vernacular press and the name has near-universal adoption in India since the official change. Courts and Universities are the only exceptions (they have completely separate mechanisms, eg Bombay University and Calcutta High Court). What is clearly happening here is a POV-based title. It is also utterly inconsistent with virtually all other subcontinental place-article titles. Why is Muslim Bagh not titled Hindu Bagh if Prayagraj is titled Allahabad? How shall we fix this? --Hunnjazal (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Your claim that it was "always called Prayagraj in vernacular press" is not only unsourced but false I'm afraid. The vernacular name for Allahabad has for centuries been - Allāhabād. Much like no Banarsi person will call his/her city "Varanasi"; it will consistently be Banāras, irrespective of however the official name may currently sound.
Until the majority of sources use Prayagraj, I guess we will stick with the centuries-old name Allahabad that the city has ben known under both locally, across India, and in the world. — kashmīrī TALK 20:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Who is "we"? --Hunnjazal (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
In this context, I presume that "we" means something like "Wikipedia editors". -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Yup. Note that the OP asked "How shall we fix this?", yet no one asked "Who is 'we'?" for that question. - BilCat (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Population

I am going to change either the population or the citation for the population of the city and maybe the metropolitan area in the infobox.

It currently says the city has a population of 1,112,544 according to the 2011 census. It cites this document: "Census 2011" (pdf). censusindia. The Registrar General & Census Commissioner. Retrieved 25 June 2014.

But the document being cited says that Allahabad (Municipal Corporation) had a population of 1,117,094 in the 2011 census.

The figure of 1,112,544 actually comes from a different source: A-4 Towns And Urban Agglomerations Classified By Population Size Class In 2011 With Variation Since 1901 (Report). Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. Retrieved 7 August 2020. That source gives quite a lot of figures, these include for the 2011 census:

  1. Allahabad Urban Agglomeration - 1,212,395 pop, area: 115.46 km2 (44.58 sq mi)
  2. Allahabad - 1,168,385 pop, area: 88.17 km2 (34.04 sq mi)
  3. Allahabad Municipal Corporation - 1,112,544 pop, area: 70.05 km2 (27.05 sq mi)

The infobox quotes a figure of 1,216,719 for the population of the metropolitan area ("metro") and cites "Urban Agglomerations/Cities having population 1 lakh and above" (pdf). censusindia. The Registrar General & Census Commissioner,. Retrieved 25 June 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link). The document cited says that the population of Allahabad Urban Agglomeration was 1,216,719 in the 2011 census.

@Kashmiri: Do you agree that the correct population to use in the infobox for the city is for the Allahabad (Municipal Corporation)? Is the correct population to use for the metropolitan area is for Allahabad Urban Agglomeration?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The infobox quotes an area for the "metropolitan area" of 82 sq km, and cites: "Allahabad". allahabadmc.gov.in. Government of Uttar Pradesh. Archived from the original on 4 April 2018. Retrieved 26 March 2018. The source does not contain the word "metropolitan". We need to look at the archived version to find out what was meant by "82" because the numbers have changed. The citation quotes a "city profile" and a "district profile", which I will summarise below:

  • City Profile
    • Area of Urban Local Body (ULB): 82 sq Km
    • Population: 5,954,391
    • Urban Population (as per 2011 Census): 1,143,000 (11.43 Lakh)
    • Body: Allahabad Municipal Corporation
  • District Profile
  • Geographical area (Data Year:2001): 5,482 sq. km
    • Population (Data Year:2011)
      • (Total): 5,954,390
      • (Rural): 4,481,520
      • (Urban): 1,472,870

Notice that the population figure of 5,954,391 is the same as the district population figure, which is clearly an error.

If we look at the 25 June 2020 archived version it has the government's new name for the city, and says:

  • City Profile
    • Area of Urban Local Body (ULB): "365 Sq.Km. approx after expansion of municipal city limit in the month of January 2020"

Other numbers seem to be the same.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2020

Change Allahabad to Prayagraj 122.172.169.185 (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. We will immediately it becomes the commonly used name in English. See WP:COMMONNAME.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
But that will probably take some time - we still use Bangalore not Bengaluru - Arjayay (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Toddy1, you can't mention WP:COMMONNAME without mentioning WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:PRECISE (which is part of the same policy).

Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names".

I repeat my comments at the Spanish Wikipedia: WP:COMMONNAME cannot be applied to administrative entities that changed its name under no controversies. This is different than the Falkland/Malvinas, where the name is known differently between languages/communities; Allahabad is known with the same name in every language, so, I don't see controversies to rename it to Prayagraj. Nazareth Illit was moved to Nof HaGalil without controversies. Why so much controversy in renaming this article? --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
"Under no controversies" is key here. — kashmīrī TALK 05:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Amitie 10g is talking about es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual#Prayagraj Allahabad, which is another of the discussions involving lobbyist Tecumseh*1301.
If you do searches on Google, you will get different numbers on different days (or even at different times on the same day). I did some searches just now:
  • Google news: Prayagraj excluding Allahabad
    • 225,000 (overall)
    • 14 (last 24 hours, only counting English language - there were also 26 search results not in English)
  • Google news: Allahabad excluding Prayagraj
    • 3,770,000 (overall)
    • 21 (last 24 hours, only counting English language - there were also 13 search results not in English)
Both names are in routine use in English-language news media, but one name is more common than the other in English. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Prayagraj is the name used commonly, so change it. When the media use the name Prayagraj, which they do, i proved that with the links, the name is within hours the name commonly used, so you provided the argument, i provided the example -> Prayagraj is the name. Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Tecumseh*1301, you are commenting on a request that has already been closed. Is this intentional? -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hoary, what do you mean, can you please not talk in riddles? The request of correcting the mistake of calling Prayagraj Allahabad was closed,is that true? When and by whom, can you send me the link? Why would something be closed, when the majority of arguments as well as the majority of Wikipedia users opt for the new name Prayagraj? Almost daily there was a request by different users to rename the article, the Arguments speak for themselves. Prayagraj is the name! --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Tecumseh*1301, please read WP:COMMONNAME, linked above, which is why the name wasn't changed. Wikipedia articles reflect the name as it's commonly used by sources. To change, you need to show good evidence that the name as commonly used in sources has changed. Ravensfire (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Tecumseh*1301, the request to, as you see it, correct "the mistake of calling Prayagraj Allahabad" was closed in this edit by Toddy1. ¶ Why would it be closed? Because the request said nothing new. (Indeed, the request omitted even to repeat an earlier argument.) ¶ "[T]he Arguments speak for themselves": There was no argument. ¶ "Prayagraj is the name!" An assertion is not made more persuasive when followed by an exclamation mark. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is not funny, it is quite ridiculous, what you write doesn't make any sense and you sure know it. xD Weird, very weird. You send me a link when Toddy wrote it will be changed when Prayagraj is commonly used, but how can he say it is not commonly used, is he able to simply assert it is not commonly used without proof, is that how Wikipedia works nowadays? And you all accept that. And why do you come with WP:COMMONNAME, I read it, it is no help at all in this issue, because I provided references, that in fact the name Prayagraj is commonly used by English, Russian, French media you name it, they all in the majority use the new name Prayagraj more thab the old name since it was established, by inhabitants of course the new name is used as well, because who would want another Religion's name established under occupation? Well, except for some Wikipedia Administrators of course. What a bubble Wikipedia sometimes becomes.. I do not only assert with an exclamation mark, I sure wrote arguments over arguments, when I havent heard any enough argument why to keep the name. It's actually pretty crazy, in what World does your writing make sense? Well, maybe it doesnt need to make sense in your view, because you want the article to be wrongfully named Allahabad for whatever hidden reason, one can only speculate why that is, in other Wikipedia even German Wikipedia they said, they dont like the reigning BJP Party, well I could understand this as I wrote , but the Germans just have enough Morals and feeling for justice and Stick to their rules and admitted they have to rename the article to Prayagraj (because the Plan to rename rhe city to it's original name Prayagraj was long before BJP Officielt thought of. where here in English Wikipedia rules are bend or completely ignored/forgotten, then totally irrelevant things are written, which dont have any point just to distract the Argumentation.

So, can you please for a change.. name a single argument , only one to start with, against (!) a name change to Prayagraj? Everyone would be thrilled to hear that.. Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Tecumseh*1301, I started reading -- not quite knowing why, because "This edit request has been answered" -- but had trouble following what you are arguing. If you want to say how terrible English-language Wikipedia is, then you're wasting your time doing so within English-language Wikipedia. (There are websites describing how terrible English-language Wikipedia is; your additions there might be enjoyed by their readers.) If on the other hand you want to (A) effect a page move from "Allahabad" to "Prayagraj", or (B) have various administrators and/or others admonished/blocked for bending/ignoring/forgetting the rules, then get down to it. On the matter of "moving" (retitling) the article, please go to "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" and follow the recommendations. For problematic user conduct, try dispute resolution, or, if that seems inadequate, post to the administrators' noticeboard. -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I did a search on Google News
  • Prayagraj excluding Allahabad - 294,000.
  • Allahabad excluding Prayagraj - 4,220,000.
Both searches produced stories from the last few weeks. Clearly both names are in current use in English, but one is more common than the other.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that will prove anything to Tecumseh*1301, except perhaps that Google News is biased against India or Hindus. He's here to Right a Great Wrong, nothing else. Perhaps it's time to seek T-ban or something, as the horse is beginning to stink here. - BilCat (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
If he/she is going to be given a topic ban, please can the ban include lobbying other users on their talk pages to participate in renaming discussions on other language Wikipedias.[2][3][4][5][6][7]-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Yikes! That's clearly canvassing, and shouldn't be happening. An ANI is probably warranted on that alone. - BilCat (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I didn't realize that was almost a month ago, but, along with their activities on this talk page, it may be enough evidence of a not-here attitude. We'll see. - BilCat (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Well first of all thank you Hoary for showing what one can do, I really appreciate it, although I have to think about it as always for a fair amount of time.

Well, I too made a Google News Search, and I got

341k for Prayagraj excluding Allahabad which is an increase of about 50.000

and I did a Google News search for Allahabad excluding Prayagraj which is numbered 3.340k which would mean a decrease of a million, so you know where that's heading..

For me it is quite obvious, that stopping the article being renamed to Prayagraj has to have different roots. I am so much from the bottom of my heart anti-racism and this is concerning me a lot. I am only discussing like others do here on Wikipedia pro renaming the article to Prayagraj, if the discussion is over, I will stop of course, at least there is now the first Argument against the renaming, which is the Google News results, thank you Toddy, i accept this argument. But still the direction is seen, Allahabad being less and less used, of course it takes time for a city's new name to be accepted and used. And of course there are still all the other arguments, amongst many that it is the original name, which was changed under occupation and that in one of the holiest towns of Hindus a Hindu name is quite apporpriate and that media use the name frequently, more than is was the case of other cities, that were in fact renamed on English Wikipedia, so yea stopping the article being renamed has ti have anti-Hindu or at least anti-BJP roots, which i could understand as i wrote earlier, but renaming the town from Allahabad to it's original name Prayagraj was so long in preparation, it is the will of many more than just the BJP.

I will stop my Part of the discussion right here, everything is said, only when I am supposed to answer something or defend something, because i got high values and only because of that i am doing this, I am no Hindu, it is just the right thing to do, i will do that. Maybe I will Start a request or something else, but not right now. I am really disappointed, not by English Wikipedia (i love English Wikipedia of course, who doesn't, it's awesome) but i got a Problem with the doing what i want attitude of many Administrators, it is not really democracy, more like oligarchy. That surely is meant to you, BilCat. Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Google News is not anti-Hindu, some Administrators on English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias are. Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020

157.39.6.81 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC) It's not Allahabad now now it's just PRAYGRAJ

 Not done. Needs consensus in the form of a title change proposal. Otherwise, WP:COMMONNAME applies. El_C 17:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


Allahabad → Prayagraj – .The discussion is going on for so long and it doesn't seem to stop.. Why? Because the majority of Arguments and Wikipedia Users (when you consider the discussion so far) is pro the move of the article's name finally to it's official name since 2018, a long planned (the first recommendation of the new/old name was shortly after the Establishment of the Indian State in the 1940s, almost instantly thereafter. It is the old and original name, only renamed under Moghul occupation of the land (amongst a wide range of other war crimes). The cities name Prayagraj worships and desribes its Status as one of the holiest places within Hinduism while also being the place of the holiest holiday within all of India, the Kumbh Mela, which only further shows it's significant importance for having a Hinduism related name in opposition to the openly Muslim and from the foreign and not used language Arabic derived city name Allahabad, which is why not only the majority Hindu population but also local newspapers, but newspapers and media around the world in every language have already accepted the new and original name Prayagraj - just type in Kumbh Mela and news of the Last 2 years in Google, the examples are way too many and evidence if Media around the globe accepting the new name like they have with others cities names, only some Wikipedia are a few steps behind, while even here the majority of Wikipedias have moved the Page to the new name Prayagraj already while the aegumentation of the ones which didn't move it is first because English Wikipedia hasnt moved it so far, while not endorsing the other arguments (for some Wikipedias only a few people, sometimes only 2 or 3,being Administrators are responsible for deciding the article's name after all). While also the Category discussion of the same name was being ignored because the article's name still was Allahabad. So now this is the move to finally get the article being renamed, solve this neverending issue and giving credit to them many Wikipedia writers, who invest their rare spare time writing and editing and wrote that many arguments pro the move of Allahabad to Prayagraj. Many arguments I have probably forgotten, like that Google and Britannica 2 powerful and well used and recognized sources use the new name Prayagraj already. Those Arguments you are free to write. Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC) ==

Well, for the references where the new name is already used (Google, Britannica, so much in media, the majority of Wikipedias, some English Wikipedia actually as well:articles like the „Prayagraj Kumbh Mela 2019“ you can look it up in the discussions here on this talk page or on Google yourself, it would take hours at least to put in all the references again.

English Wikipedia - Anti-Hinduism is not welcome here any longer.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME Both names should be shown in articles relating to Allahabad, because both are in routine use by reliable sources. But one name is more commonly used than the other. WP:NAMECHANGES says "we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change... If... reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well." This is the case here. The following search results were done just now. (You will get different results on from day to day, as new articles are published, and others disappear, and also due to the vagaries of Google's software.)
    • Allahabad excluding Prayagraj - Google news:
      • 4,010,000 results (overall)
      • 183 in the last month (most relevant results only)
    • Prayagraj excluding Allahabad - Google news:
      • 261,000 results (overall)
      • 155 in the last month (most relevant results only)
-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Question for Tecumseh*1301: The main page about the choice of title is, I believe, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). This naming convention (the page tells us) "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Are you (A) saying that this article should be titled in accordance with this naming convention, or (B) saying that the title of this article should be an exception to this naming convention? (NB if you are instead saying (C) that this naming convention is unsatisfactory, then you're saying it in the wrong place.) So, (A) or (B)? I'd appreciate a concise and clear answer to this simple question. -- Hoary (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
In this edit, attached somewhere below, Tecumseh*1301 answered "I would opt for B". -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "stopping the article being renamed has ti have anti-Hindu or at least anti-BJP roots"
  • "Google News is not anti-Hindu, some Administrators on English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias are."
  • "English Wikipedia - Anti-Hinduism is not welcome here any longer."
You may bring this up where doing so might have some effect. I think a good place to start would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for answering, well the results of Prayagraj excluding Allahabad and other way around are almost the same when only the Last month is considered, this is exceptionally good for a new name in a language which is not the sole official language in the land, where the new name was proposed and by far not the most common (Englisch in India) Just imagine Laos would change a city's name. Many new names are way less used in English language but the English Wikipedia article's name changed quite quickly. So, to me Media and Google, Britannica other Wikipedias of course quite positively responded to the name change and accepted the new and original name Prayagraj so it shows what direction this is going, so i would opt for B, making an exception to the naming conventions, while still some use the old name, but this number will drop very soon as well as it seems. Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • To Tecumseh*1301 Did you refer archived discussion about name change? Several discussion had happened in the past with respect to name change. What you need to tell / convince yourself that here on wikipedia we follow guideline made by Wikipedia. I advocate Toddy1 view strongly. Must stop creating move discussion without referring archived discussions. Requesting speedy closure of this section. Thank you--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 16:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, sorry, what archived discussion do you mean? The one about Prayagraj (district), which was opposed because first this article, the „main article“ should be changed before the other one can be changed? Well, what an outcome..
On this talk page I cannot see any other „requested move on..“
I advocate lengthy debate for a change, instead of speedy closure, what an undemocratic proposal.
I just opted for the requested move because new and new requests this article name being changed are coming in, so I got the feeling Changing this article's name to it's original and actual name right right now Prayagraj is very important to Hindus and not-Hindus alike. Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Tecumseh*1301: Maybe this will remind you.[8] -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tecumseh*1301 isn't appealing to an en:WP guideline but instead wants an exception to it. The reason for the exception wobbles even within a single day (11 August 2020):
  • "to me Media and Google, Britannica other Wikipedias of course quite positively responded to the name change and accepted the new and original name Prayagraj so it shows what direction this is going"
  • "new and new requests this article name being changed are coming in, so I got the feeling Changing this article's name to it's original and actual name right right now Prayagraj is very important to Hindus and not-Hindus alike"
Neither is persuasive.
I often have difficulty understanding Tecumseh*1301's prose, but if they're saying that requests for a change of article title keep coming in, I agree. The great majority of these requests make no coherent attempt to persuade; they're little more than moaning or blustering. As such, they merely waste other editors' time. I recommend a six-month moratorium on move requests; that is, for six months after the conclusion (one way or another) of this move request, any new move request should be ignored. -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

To everyone (and these are many ones) who wrote: Oppose, because of WP:COMMONNAME - So, do you really want to say, WP:COMMONNAME has always been the source of how articles are being named on Wikipedia? And 2nd of all, Prayagraj is the common name, when taken only the last month into account they are about the same, not taken into account are the Millions Hindu believers, who would use the name Prayagraj over Allahabad, and who come to English Wikipedia and see their holy city being still called by that unwanted, forced under occupation name.

@NotBartEhrman - so, which films and books in the last 2 years (since the new and original Name was reerected again) use the name Allahabad then? You cant Oppose when your Argument has no the slightest basis but is all smoke up in the air

  • the move request is political, but more than that it is cultural, Spiritual and justicial - because names shall not be accepted, which were forced under occupation!! None of you seems to care about that.. yet occupation is a horrible thing and a name inherited from that time - it is disgusting. You will see that eventually, some of you are just not ready yet.

@Hoary = the reason for the exception to the guideline doesn't wobble within a Single day, there are just dozens more reasons which I could bring up and i brought up for the exception to the guideline:

religious importance of the town for Hindus

name changed under occupation

and many more, which i all already wrote. Still not persuasive enough for you? 

Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Tecumseh*1301, as I understand it, your reasons for the change are all of:
  • "to me Media and Google, Britannica other Wikipedias of course quite positively responded to the name change and accepted the new and original name Prayagraj so it shows what direction this is going"
  • "new and new requests this article name being changed are coming in, so I got the feeling Changing this article's name to it's original and actual name right right now Prayagraj is very important to Hindus and not-Hindus alike"
  • "religious importance of the town for Hindus"
  • "name changed under occupation"
as well as others. On the fourth in the list, you also say:
  • "occupation is a horrible thing and a name inherited from that time - it is disgusting"
I agree with you that what we call "occupation" is (usually) a horrible thing. (There are arguable exceptions. The postwar US occupation of Japan had horrible aspects but arguably had beneficial aspects too.) However, the history and prehistory of most areas of the world are of a succession of conquests and occupations. (Much of the "Japan" that the US occupied was only Japan thanks to the rather recent conquest and occupation of Ainu lands, and subjugation of Ainu people and culture, by Japanese people.) Now, this name "Allahabad": which occupation does it date from? Does it disgust because it was imposed by the occupying force/population, or for some other reason? -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit notice expires August 24. Should it be renewed?

The edit notice, i.e., what you see at the top of the edit window after clicking the Edit tab, is scheduled to expire August 24. Should we renew this? This isn't a formal Rfc, but we can borrow its style, and take a poll just to see if there's some consensus here. Mathglot (talk) 11:11, August 12, 2020 (UTC)

Poll

Discuss

Please suggest new/changed wording to the edit notice here. Mathglot (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

RegentsPark, can you please extend semi-protection through 7 September 2021? That would be two weeks beyond the expiration of the edit notice, which will give us time to request additional semi-protection, if necessary, after the notice expires a year from now before we get bombarded again. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done --RegentsPark (comment) 20:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

How to spell Illahabad - one "L" or two

At 10:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC) an editor changed the spelling of Illahabad in the infobox from having two "L"s to one. The first line of the lead still have two "L"s. I wondered whether this really was fixing a typographical error as he/she said, so I used the Google NGram tool.

  • From 1700 to 2019 Both are valid, two "L"s is historically more common (except in 1832).
  • From 1989 to 2019 Both are valid, one "L" is more common – though in three years they are equally common.

It might be best to have the same spelling in the lead and the infobox. Does anyone have a reason for a preference?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

On one hand, double l is more correct etymologically, and this is also how it's spelled in the Arabic script. On the other, both the actual pronunciation and the Devanagari spelling have a single l. I am slightly more in favour of a single l as this is how the city name is pronounced, although we need to go by the sources and consensus. — kashmīrī TALK 12:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I changed the spelling in the infobox from Illahabad to Ilahabad. Adding single 'l' in Ilahabad should be more appropriate not only because it is pronounced as such in Hindi but also because 'Ilaha' in the name is not derived from Arabic word Allah but from Persian word Din-i Ilahi, the name of a syncretic religion founded by Mughal emperor Akbar after which he named the city he founded in Prayag as 'Ilahabad'. The city was renamed as "Allahabad" by Akbar's successors and the same name was anglicized by Britishers (check the Wiki article on History of Allahabad#Mughal rule). However, the name Ilahabad remained more popularly used in vernacular languages of the region. When Ilahi of Din-i Ilahi is not written or pronounced 'Illahi', what's the point of writing Ilahabad as Illahabad ? And I didn't notice the name in lead section, otherwise I would have changed it too. Vibhss (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2020

Requesting change of the city from Allahabad to Prayagraj, as per the government ruling on renaming. Seawolf83 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Note that this was most recently discussed in August (see this move discussion), and typically these discussions aren't revisited for at least 12 months. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Change the page title

Requesting the editors of Wikipedia to change the page title of this article from 'Allahabad' to 'Prayagranj'. Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE read the section above this one, titled "Requested move 10 August 2020". It is far too soon to start that entire long wearisome argument all over again. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed - we usually have a 12 month moratorium on such requests, as per the agreement about the edit notice, also above - Try again next August - Arjayay (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Any case , unless the title is changed ,I'll point out this page is currently outdated and surveys only to appease a community. It is factually Wrong , there is no place called allhabad in India anymore, it should be represented by its current name as showcased in all official documents. The bias is inexcusable when you see how wiki pages like Mumbai is not called Bombay GhostIn$hell (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Disappointed

No attempt to improve the article.

I was expecting the Talk page to be absolutely nasty ChandlerMinh (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Metropolitan area

copied from User talk:Toddy1

Hi Toddy, Here is the Government Urban and Environmental Studies website on the city. Under Chapter 2, City profile, section 2.3.1 it clearly says ” Allahabad city comes under Allahabad metropolitan area along with Cantonment board and urban outgrowths. Population of metropolitan area is 12,16,719. Male constitutes 655,734 and female constitutes 560,985 of the total population.” http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/19UP_Allahabad_sfcp-min.pdf Harshv7777 (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Precisely, on page number 14, section 2.3.1. Thank you. Harshv7777 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is useful - but there is a problem.
The infobox has a label "Metro", which is a common name for an underground railway system. But for some mad reason, if you click on the link it is for Metropolitan area, and the infobox quotes the number you mentioned. So, it is already in the infobox, though badly labelled. The numbers also make it clear that the metropolitan area has a larger population than the city.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with that Toddy. I presume that the Government must have referred to that in short, because here they also synonymously term it as metro cities. also, I am hereby providing a news article from 2006, that states that then Government had back in time already provided metropolitan status to Allahabad along with five other cities in the state. Here it is: https://m.timesofindia.com/city/lucknow/Six-cities-to-get-metropolitan-status/articleshow/2210886.cms Harshv7777 (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Harshv7777: Do you have a reliable source that explicitly says what is in the "metropolitan area"?
Do you know whether Allahabad Urban Agglomeration is the same as Allahabad Metropolitan Area? Or is the metropolitan area the level below the urban agglomeration and above the municipal corporation? By the way there is a subdistrict that is above the urban agglomeration but below the district.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Hi! Maybe here this may help further, regarding metropolitan and population: http://allahabadmc.gov.in/documentslist/City_Development_Plan_Allahabad-2041.pdf Harshv7777 (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Allahabad Urban Agglomeration includes both the Metropolitan area and parts of the Allahabad District that are currently being developed to accommodate outer regions within the Allahabad Metropolitan Area. The Metropolitan Area term is synonymous with the city. Harshv7777 (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, the first reference from the Government website I mentioned stated “Allahabad city comes under Allahabad metropolitan area along with Cantonment board and urban outgrowths.” and the user Kashmiri reverted the metropolitan status and also the reference saying ‘A metropolitan area doesn't make the core city a metropolis’ I would request you to please ask the user not to keep reverting as this is subject to talk page, until a consensus has been reached. Harshv7777 (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

As you can see from the next section, the issue of what exactly the "metropolitan area" is, is unclear because the sources people have cited for its population and area did not use the term "metropolitan".-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I am not convinced that "Allahabad Metropolitan Area" is a proper name; it seems that "Allahabad metropolitan area" is a descriptive term. Documents such as the census use the term "Allahabad Urban Agglomeration" - see for example the maps at Administrative Atlas-Uttar Pradesh Vol2, Part III, District and Tahsil (PDF) (Report). pp. 639–688. (this is a 100.7 MB document, advise downloading it).-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The maps show that Allahabad Urban Agglomeration crosses Tahsil (subdistrict) boundaries.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Toddy1: Hi toddy1, kindly see this:
https://m.rbi.org.in//scripts/bs_viewcontent.aspx?Id=2035 In this Government reference, in the table, section no. 25 clearly Allahabad as Metropolitan. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshv7777 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I do not know whether the article with the title Allahabad is about the city or about "Allahabad Urban Agglomeration". Citing [9] justifies the classification of "Allahabad Urban Agglomeration" as a "metropolitan area".
From 2014 to 26 May 2017 there was an article called "Allahabad Metropolitan Area" Version of 29 March 2016. Then an editor decided that "urban regions should go into city page" and turned it into a redirect. He/she did not bother to transfer content across, so the useful text in the Allahabad Metropolitan Area article was lost. As I understand it, the different editor's points of view are as follows:
  • Kashmiri thinks that the article called Allahabad should be about the city, not the urban agglomeration/metropolitan area.
  • Harshv7777 thinks it should cover both.
  • Toddy1 does not mind either way, but if it is going to cover both, it should have a section on the urban agglomeration. I am working on a draft section for that. But when it is finished, I do not mind if people recreate the metropolitan area article (preferably with the title "Allahabad Urban Agglomeration").
-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Thank you very much Toddy1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshv7777 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

October/November 2020 discussion

This is the correct location for this
...After months, on the page of Allahabad, user Kashmiri has again changed the term “metropolis” to city, without any discussion on talk page, or giving any reasons, or attaching suitable references to support his/her claim, just saying ‘it is a city’, which is ridiculous, a long long discussion has been made already and much references have already been added... Thank you. Harshv7777 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the lead should say "Allahabad... is a city in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh." But I think the article should cover both the city and the metropolitan area. Governance is not the same for the entire metropolitan area, and I think the infobox should primarily reflect governance in the city. The fifth paragraph of the lead mentions the metropolitan area.
I think that a case could me made for an article Draft:Allahabad metropolitan area. Though I am not sure that the time is right for this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Unless expanded, the article as it stands is about the city, not about the metropolitan area. Period. Compare New York City vs New York metropolitan area, Los Angeles vs Los Angeles metropolitan area, Paris vs Grand Paris, etc. Your defining of Allahabad here as "metropolis" is misleading; if you want to discuss the Allahabad metropolis, create a separate article for it as Toddy1 has suggested.
Besides, Allahabad is neither a state capital nor even among the 30 largest cities in India, so to call it metropolis is a bit of an overstatement. — kashmīrī TALK 20:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The article has been expanded, covering the metropolitan area as well. Also, does the definition of Metropolitan say it has to be amongst the 30 largest cities in India? It is the Government that decides the status, not us. Thanks! Harshv7777 (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

Change "Allahabad" to "Prayagraj"

As the name of the city has been officially changed by the Government of India.

Reference website address:

1. https://prayagraj.nic.in/

2. https://wikitravel.org/en/Prayagraj

3. https://www.incredibleindia.org/content/incredibleindia/en/destinations/allahabad.html Nikhilesh Bhandari (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. See [10]. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

“Allahabad” is still relevant

Majority of people I know in India, still identify the city as Allahabad. Even some hardcore supporters of Hindutva. ChandlerMinh (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This habit will get changed once Prayagraj starts getting used everywhere instead of Allahabad same way original name was faded by Mughals Allahabad will also get lesser known Raghavram880103 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There are still the majority of Germans calling Kaliningrad Königsberg after some 70 years, so to await that All people after 2 years use the New Name is quite outrageous. Prayagraj is used a lot in comparison to other cities which names have been changed.. Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Germans may call it Königsberg, but Russians, who control the city, call it Kaliningrad. This is equivalent to how Pakistanis will still call it Allahabad even though India controls the city and has the right to choose its name. JayPlaysStuff (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

{{edit semi-protected|Prayagaraj\Mirzapur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:418B:C22:3F3A:45A3:B358:860F (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Change title from Allahabad to Prayagraj

As per latest state government orders, Allahabad is renamed to Prayagraj, so page title should be updated to Prayagraj and Allahabad searches should get redirected to Prayagraj page. Raghavram880103 (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No - as explained above, and in the archives, this has repeatedly been discussed at length, always sticking with Allahabad, the last one was in August 2020. As we usually have a moratorium of 12 months before the subject can be raised again, please do not come back until August 2021 - Arjayay (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
As an example of what you are up against, Bangalore was renamed in 2006, and has since been through 11 major renaming discussions, but we still call it Bangalore. - Arjayay (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

A phonetic change in the case Bangalore to Bengaluru is not the same as change to Prayagraj from Allahabad. People still call it Bangalore because it flows from the tongue more easily than Bengaluru. Prayagraj is the most common name used to represent the city after the name was changed formally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu487 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Slow down, there is a moratorium in place on page move until October 2021. Besides, hardly anybody in and around the city call it anything else than Ilahabad/Allahabad. — kashmīrī TALK 02:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I Wonder what the number of Pakistani trolls is on English Wikipedia. sometimes you can even tell it by the Nick name they have given themselves, aint I Right, kashmiri ;)

Prayagraj is the Name of the City and nobody calls it Allahabad, where did you get your Information from?

I am pro Lifting the Moratorium and having a New discussion about it Right now.

And I am pro a New policy. Accept the original names, which people give their cities and dont try to change or anglicize them.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If you either (A) want to lift the moratorium or (B) want to propose a new general policy for placenames across en:Wikipedia, Tecumseh*1301, then feel free to propose this. Propose it as clearly and persuasively (but concisely) as you can. If you don't want to do this, then do please stop your muttering; consider editing unrelated articles. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is there a moratorium on this topic? How many people who make decisions on Indian city name changes are even from India to understand this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu487 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes to Prayagraj, why is this being delayed by wiki ?

Absolutely. Why would not use the official, legal name that most Indians agree to use while talking about us. This is not a fantasy dreamed up by socia media users. Kindly change all official references of "Allahabad" city to "Prayagraj". Bullishkid (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a one year moratorium on this, which will expire in August. Please bring your request for the name change (article move) then. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Update the name of the Officers posted in the city

Update name of Commissioner Prayagraj from Ashish Kumar Goel to Sanjay Goyal

Update name of IG Prayagraj from Mohit Agarwal to Kavindra Pratap Singh

Update the name of Senior Superintendent of Police from Nitin Tiwari to Sarvashreshth Tripathi Tripathi.shashan (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Please update the names of the officers posted here 

Tripathi.shashan (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done, Tripathi.shashan Thanks! - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely right.I also request to edit the things added above.I support you completely.Thanks! Afzal Shaikh Jethalal Champaklal Gada (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021

The metropolis area of Prayagraj is correct but total area is not given, I request to please provide the total area too in this page which is 5,482 Sq.Km. [1] 2409:4063:428C:649F:A48F:9719:B00E:264B (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No we cannot do this. allahabadmc.gov.in/city profile says that Allahabad district had an area 5,482 km2 (2,117 sq mi) in 2001. But the present article is about the city of Allahabad. The municipal city limit was increased in the month of January 2020, so that it is now about 365 km2 (141 sq mi).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://prayagraj.nic.in/
By the way, the source the IP editor cited is for the district, which is why it gives the area of the district.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021

The official name of this city is "PRAYAGRAJ" -change it. This was a legally passed measure to change the city's name. 108.54.86.91 (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Mathglot (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

People around it call the city “Prayagraj” or “Prayag”

Trust me. Prayagraj is a holy site in Hinduism. People were eager to see the city renamed. Only people who still call it Allahabad are the Indian Muslims, who make up only 14% population, and Pakistanis, who do not control the city and cannot decide its name. Every Hindu I know refers to the city as Prayagraj or Prayag, even those who live in or near the city. In addition, as mentioned in previous sections, the official name is Prayagraj. Therefore I am requesting a lift on the moratorium so as to open discussion for renaming the article. JayPlaysStuff (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

JayPlaysStuff I would suggest not to waste your time here. It doesn't matter much if English Wikipedia writes it Allahabad or Prayagraj. Entire world knows that the city is renamed to Prayagraj but here nobody will accept since it is related to India. Most of the people in the English speaking world still knows Eswatini as Swaziland but wikipedia editors/admins took no time in updating the country name and the funniest part is that the article's opening lines still reads that it is still commonly known as Swaziland in English ;-), this is the same logic been given not to rename article Allahabad as Prayagraj. Wikipedia was never a reliable source of information it is mere a quick online reference site. Here the admins/editors talk about NPOV policies but they are always prejudiced and have a POV before writing. There is a simple logic which is more than enough to rename this article and that is if somebody still knows Prayagraj as Allahabad and he will search Allahabad on Wikipedia search or Google or any other search engine and will always be redirected to the page what he is looking for. If I understand the original intent of creation of Wikipedia then its aim was to provide as accurate information as possible through community editing and if someone who is not aware that Allahabad is renamed as Prayagraj will get to know this through redirection. Opening line of the article will always have the former name. Rohit klar (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
But if they search up Allahabad they would be redirected to the prayagraj page is what I am saying. JayPlaysStuff (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
As explained above, there is a moratorium in place on a page move until October 2021 so please don't waste pixels until then, as it won't bring the date forward, or constitute part of the new discussion. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@JayPlaysStuff: Prayagraj is a holy site in Hinduism You seem to be confusing Allahabad and Triveni Sangam. Only the latter is a holy site in Hinduism; the former denotes just a large city. The rest of your extreme POV comment doesn't merit a response. — kashmīrī TALK 19:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The people Who decided for a 1-year-long Moratorium.. censorship will never be the Right way!

Maybe Prayagraj is not a holy City, of course Not, but it contains holy saites, which makes it pretty holy, Mr. Neunmalklug ;) Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Prayag is a place in Allahabad. It is not an alternative name for the city. That is why there is a Prayag Junction railway station as well as an Allahabad Junction railway station. Prayag is the place where they hold the Kumbh Mela in Allahabad.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
No, Prayag is the name of the site which was renamed as Illahabad by the Mughals. And the city is renamed as "Pryagraj". "Prayag" is not a site but a city. Building a city around existing settlement will not make that a different city. Prayag existed much before invading Mughals changed its name to reflect their religion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu487 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Raghu487: First of all, sign your posts. Then, as you clearly have not lived in the city, Prayag is a locality in modern-day Allahabad. Check the map. Moreover, your religious nationalist rant is a poor argument in an encyclopaedia. On a side note, you might like to know that the city of Temasek was renamed as Singapore by invading Hindu rulers – will you support renaming it back to Temasek in order to WP:RIGHT GREAT WRONGS? — kashmīrī TALK 10:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Isn't Singapore officially called Singapore even today? It's not a nationalist rant. It's a fact. "Allahabad/ Illahabad" city was build around a pre existing settlement of Prayaga. Which is even relevant today. Building a city around already well known city doesn't make it a new one. The city has been formally been renamed as Prayagraj and is been called that. Sorry, a fact rubbed you so hard you started calling me a nationalist. That's what the invading forces did across the world. They named the cities after their culture. Romans did it, Alexander did it, Europeans did it and as you said Sri Vijaya kingdom did it too. That's a fact. You expected me get triggered by particularly choosing Singapore like I would give a damn what they chose to call it. If they feel the older name is still relevant they can change it. You and I would not get a say in it.
Back to Prayaga being a locality inside the Allahabad as you refer it. Prayaga is far more older than the renamed city of Allahabad itself and far more important religious place from a long back. Even the Wikipedia page refers to the older city Prayaga being the capital of King Harsha as mentioned by The 7th-century Buddhist Chinese traveller Xuanzang (Hiuen Tsang) under history. Wikipedia search for "Prayaga" redirects to Allahabad page, not a different page dedicated to the locality. Most sub divisions of a city with enough history would have a dedicated wikipedia page. "Prayaga" doesn't. Because Wikipedia considers the Prayaga and Prayagraj/ Allahabad as same.Abul Fazal adds, "Ilahabad anciently called Prayag was distinguished by His Imperial Majesty [Akbar] by the former name" [1]. That's taken directly from the Wikipedia page for "Allahabad"/ "Prayagraj".
Accusing other of bias and a nationalist while hiding your own biases is fun right? (Raghu487 (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC))
Funny how mods here accuse people who wants the page to reflect the official name as trying to WP:RIGHT GREAT WRONGS, when they are the ones that blocked further discussion on the topic here. Don't you think you guys are doing what you accuse others of by continuing to use the old name two years after the official change? Again its fun to accuse other while hiding their own biases (Raghu487 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC))

References

  1. ^ Andreeva, T.V. (2019). "The Second Section of His Own Imperial Majesty Own Chancellery: lawmaking technology. 1826-1832". Петербургский исторический журнал (2): 43–64. doi:10.51255/2311-603x-2019-00025. ISSN 2311-603X.
Smile Your citation is to a page in Russian about changes in Russia during the reign of Tsar Nicholas I (1825-55). It does not seem relevant.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't bother. It is very obvious that the name is Prayagraj, but there are editor gangs here who will never accept that simply because the name change was done by BJP. All the Congress name changes have been duly reflected on Wikipedia. As somebody said above, Swaziland name change to Eswatini was immediately reflected even though most ppl still use Swaziland; this one will never be. No need to get worked up over it; it is they who will become a laughing stock if they continue using the old name. 183.83.146.194 (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Even though the name of Nelspruit has changed to Mbombela and many years have passed, people still mostly refer to it as Nelspruit but the Wikipedia article name has changed. At this point, it just seems like they only have a political problem with name changes in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.2.151.120 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

In infobox only city specific information should be mentioned

In the infobox only city specific information should be mentioned, but in the government section of infobox District magistrate, divisional commissioner and Superintendent of district police names are added which is incorrect. These are not part of city administration so shouldn't be mentioned in city article. These should be removed. Starting this discussion to avoid an edit war. Rohit klar (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

You have a good point. I have copied the information to the infobox for Allahabad district.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, if that’s what should be implemented, I thought the same would’ve gone for other cities of Uttar Pradesh, for eg. Lucknow, Kanpur, Varanasi, Meerut etc. Can’t understand why every city article other than this has that admin info still on, and only in this article the info is being removed. Harshv7777 (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, quoting the fellow editor’s saying ‘These are not part of city administration so shouldn't be mentioned in city article. These should be removed.’ I think as far as I know the city administration and district administration are not two different entities, they are the same. The city is the district headquarters, and the administration resides here, and it administers both the city as well as the district. My view is that either we give that info in both city and district articles, or we remove admin info from all other city articles too. Harshv7777 (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Municipal corporations in India are entirely separate from district authorities, regardless of where their offices are located. Additionally, police is not part of civilian administration (and also police districts are normally different from administrative districts). It applies to other articles, too – please feel free to go ahead with necessary changes. — kashmīrī TALK 11:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks for informing Harshv7777 (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Population information and rank need correction

Population and rank information needs correction for this article. After the merger of nearby area to the municipal limits the population has increased and is correctly mentioned under Metropolis section of Infobox, but in the same section Metro population is showing some random number without correct/reliable citation. post increase in population with expansion of area the rank of the city also changes which is not been corrected. If someone is having/can write a script to do so? Apart from the Prayagraj Municipal Corporation there is another governing body, Allahabad Cantonment Board [1] which controls part of the metro area so the population of this area is added to the Urban Agglomeration of Prayagraj (Metro), but this number is much larger than the numbers mentioned in the info box. The rank of the city also changes post expansion in the area. Since this is a good article, it must have correct and verifiable information. There is another urban planning body known as Prayagraj Development Authority which has jurisdiction beyond city municipal limits and it would be appropriate to include those areas under metro but I couldn't find and link on it's website for population and area (though the list of newly added villages is shown in the website)[2]. Rohit klar (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Allahabad Cantonment Board History". Allahabad Cantonment Board.
  2. ^ "Prayagraj Development Authority". Prayagraj Development Authority.
Article at 10 August 2020 Article at 3 July 2021 Corrected version 4 July 2021
Allahabad
Area
[1]
 • City82 km2 (32 sq mi)
Elevation
98 m (322 ft)
Population
 (2011)[2]
 • City1,112,544
 • Density14,000/km2 (35,000/sq mi)
 • Metro
[3]
1,216,719
Allahabad
Area
[4][5]
 • City365 km2 (141 sq mi)
Elevation
98 m (322 ft)
Population
 (2011)[4][2][3]
 • City1,536,218
 • Density4,200/km2 (11,000/sq mi)
 • Metro
[6]
2,280,929
Allahabad
Area
[4]
 • Total365 km2 (141 sq mi)
Elevation
98 m (322 ft)
Population
 (2020-2011 hybrid)[4]
 • Total1,536,218
 • Density4,200/km2 (11,000/sq mi)

References

  1. ^ "Allahabad". allahabadmc.gov.in. Government of Uttar Pradesh. Archived from the original on 4 April 2018. Retrieved 26 March 2018.
  2. ^ a b "Census 2011" (PDF). Census India. The Registrar General & Census Commissioner. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 July 2013. Retrieved 25 June 2014. Cite error: The named reference "population" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b "Urban Agglomerations/Cities having population 1 lakh and above" (PDF). Census India. The Registrar General & Census Commissioner. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 October 2013. Retrieved 25 June 2014. Cite error: The named reference "UA population" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c d "Prayagraj City". allahabadmc.gov.in. Retrieved 21 November 2020.
  5. ^ "Allahabad". allahabadmc.gov.in. Government of Uttar Pradesh. Archived from the original on 4 April 2018. Retrieved 26 March 2018.
  6. ^ "2011 census of India".

Citation 1 & 5 (archived version), was dated 2018. It gave the "City Profile" as:

  • Area of ULB = 82 sq km
  • Population = 59,54,391
  • Urban Population (as per 2011 Census) = 1,143,000
  • Projected Population (as per Master Plan-2021)= 2,050,000
  • Body = Allahabad Municipal Corporation

Citation 1 & 5 (2021 version) gives the "City Profile" as:

  • Area of ULB = 365 sq km (expansion of municipal city limit in the month of January 2020)
  • Population = 59,54,391
  • Urban Population (as per 2011 Census) = 1,536,000
  • Projected Population (as per Master Plan-2021)= 2,050,000
  • Body = Prayagraj Municipal Corporation

Citation 2, is a table of provisional figures from the 2011 census. Page 4 says:

  • Allahabad (M Corp.) population = 1,117,094

Citation 3, is a table of provisional figures from the 2011 census. Page 3 says:

  • Allahabad UA population = 1,216,719

Citation 4 is the present city council site.

  • From January 2020, the municipal limits (city limit area) = 365 sq km
  • Population (using 2011 census data) for the area within the city limits as changed in Jan 2011 = 1,536,218
    • This is not the population of the city in 2011. It is a hybrid of 2020 and and 2011 data.

Citation 6 is the census of India website, but not any particular page. It is a useless non-citation. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have implemented a correction to the infobox, and I have also amended the text in the demographics section to explain what is going on. Please note that though www.census2011.co.in is a useful source, it is not as reliable as direct citations to the census or the city government website. There are differences between tables produced by the census; hence some tables have words like "provisional results" in the title.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Toddy1 what do you mean by hybrid of 2011-2020? Population 1,536,218 is not hybrid of 2011-2020. This data is sum of population as of 2011 of all the areas merged into city limits. The official web link of the municipal corporation which is added as citation also clearly mentions that. These numbers are still from 2011 census. Is there a wiki guidelines to write it this way (2020-2011 hybrid)?
That is exactly what it is.
  • It is not the population of the city of Allahabad in the 2011 census.
  • It is not the population of the city of Allahabad in 2020.
  • It is the 2011 population of the area within the 2020 boundaries of the city of Allahabad. The 2020 area is much larger than the area at the time of the 2011 census.
It is wrong to claim that this hybrid number was the population of Allahabad in 2011. And, bearing in mind population growth, the hybrid figure is doubtless smaller than the 2020 population on the new city area.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
My question was, is there a wiki guideline / rule to write it this way? I don't think the word hybrid is relevant here, as it doesn't convey the right meaning or explanation. Rather is should read something like Population as per census 2011 and in braces 'post expansion of city in 2020'.--Rohit klar (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Prayagraj is the name! - When does the (censorship) Moratorium end?

.. and people will finally have a word again that the article finally is being correctly renamed to - - > Prayagraj?

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Change Hate to comment this, but this is getting so ridiculous. I avoid getting into controversial areas of Wikipedia, but couldn't resist commenting here. It's been years since the name change took place, do you expect people still refer to it as "Allahabad"? Not for me, and people around me. It's historical name is "Prayag" and again it is reverted to its original name some years ago. I urge editors here to stop pushing this further and respect the name change and common people's opinion. It sometimes makes me think if this decision or consensus is somewhat motivated. 🌌Zoglophie🌌 16:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

English Media already uses Prayagraj, there are uncountable sources which use „Prayagraj“ over Allahabad, so if added together people + Media usage - it is quite clear, that the name should be changed to Prayagraj. But how will this Happen, how many more people should speak out for a name change toward Prayagraj before finally it is taken into Action on Wikipedia?

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

.. Completely agree. I don´t know why the article is not named Prayagraj which is the name of the city. Beyond ridiculous and from my point of view, racist and hinduphobic. Even Encyplopaedia Britannica calls it Prayagraj [here https://www.britannica.com/place/Prayagraj]--Lambrusquiño (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit notice expiration coming up soon

The edit notice that people see in Preview mode when editing the article is going to expire on 24 August. Please add your thoughts about whether this notice should be allowed to expire, or should be renewed; and if the latter, for how long. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Extend as we still have the moratorium until October 2021 -- DaxServer (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Extend indefinitely until Prayagraj is established to be the WP:COMMONNAME. This is one of the articles that people bombard to change the name, yet fail to establish it according to the wp:commonname. -- DaxServer (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Arjayay I noticed your comment in the section above which said the moratorium is until October 2021, and thus I reiterated it here. After the comment from @Tecumseh*1301 pointing out it is supposed to expire in August, I looked at the last RM. It was closed in August 2020 and moratorium was supported in it. Would you be able to confirm when it would expire, August or October? -- DaxServer (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    I have updated my comment removing moratorium based extension of the notice. -- DaxServer (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Media already adopted the New Name Prayagraj, they actually prefer Prayagraj over Allahabad, at least English language Media, which means that by now the common name would be Prayagraj, only a few Wikipedians opted Against that Development and installed a Moratorium, which is quite a shame. For one long year people had to wait and their pro Prayagraj posts on this very discussion site were deleted. --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
    @DaxServer:, it expires 00:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC). Mathglot (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the answer! -- DaxServer (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Extend it makes it easier for people if there is a notice telling people that they should not make the change, when it is inappapropriate for them to make the change.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Expire - this Moratorium has been active for 1 long year, it should have been expired long time ago. If it is renewed this would be a shame for "free" Wikipedia. You might also take into account all the countless Suggestions opting for a name change, they would opt for expire if they would be active in this moment. Feels like censorship. --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Tecumseh*1301 - we are not talking about renewing the moratorium that expires in October 2021. We are talking about whether we should continue to have a warning notice.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Why does the Moratorium expire only in Oktober? it was supposed to expire in August. --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Extend indefinitely Users are going to loose their mind stating the city has Hindu significance, it is the official name etcetra etcetra. Moreover I agree to @DaxServer:'s point, "until Prayagraj is established to be the WP:COMMONNAME".--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment  – I just thought I'd mention that while it is related to the topic of what the title of this article should be, this discussion is not about the article title, and should not be considered a proxy for that discussion; please comment on why you think the article title should, or should not, be changed in some other section but not here. This discussion is strictly about whether the edit notice should be extended. Just to reassure those that wish to see the article title changed, as soon as a successful Rfc decides on a name change, the edit notice will be removed immediately even if it has not expired yet. So, this discussion thread is about a different question, namely, "as long as we have consensus for the current title, should we keep the edit notice, and extend it upon expiry?" This is something that even those who are in favor of a name change might find desirable; for example: if you believe that the title should be Prayagraj, if we remove the edit notice tomorrow, then there will very likely be more edit warring on the title, and a lot more fruitless argumentation here on the Talk page, and you might be subject to edit warring cautions on your Talk page, sooner than you otherwise might, if the article title remains stable while discussions continue about whether to change the title or not. So, please think of it in that light. Arguments about why Prayagraj is the right title (or the wrong one) are off-topic here; this discussion should be limited to whether to extend the edit notice or not. In my opinion, a vote for "let it expire" is probably a vote for more edit-warring at the article, and more strife on the Talk page, but we won't know that for sure unless that's the result of this discussion. Carry on! Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Extend indefinitely "indefinite" != forever, but given recent activity, this is likely to continue being an issue for the foreseeable future. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Extend indefinitely as a measure to reduce disruptions and preserve the current consensus. Edit notice may be removed following an RfC/RM in favour of Prayagraj. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Extend indefinitely. That said, an RfC is needed soon in order to recap where we are standing as regards WP:COMMONNAME, and to gauge which way the consensus is going now. — kashmīrī TALK 21:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I've extended the edit notice indefinitely per consensus above. This may be modified at any time by consensus of participating editors. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The banner links above are broken and the page (supposed to be a redirect) seems to be deleted. Could someone fix the links and see if the merge discussion was in the archives, and update it? — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer:, according to the history at Allahabad Smart City Project, that article was merged 3 Jan 2018, just like the banner says. I'm guessing that someone came along later to this Talk page, blindly changing occurrences of Allahabad to Prayagraj, without considering whether they were breaking links or not. I've changed one link in the merge banner back to the proper name. Do you see anything else that needs changing? Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Ahh that! Why didn't I think of that!! Everything else seems fine. Thanks for the fix! — DaxServer (talk to me) 06:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prayagraj/Archive_2&oldid=1151534336"