Talk:Prayagraj

Time to revisit name change from Allahabad to Prayagraj?

I believe a consensus was reached on the name of this settlement last October following the renaming. I am opening a discussion in relation to whether this still remains the consensus now.

To me it appears that there is inconsistency in application of WP:COMMONNAME in relation to different articles. In India the settlement of "Mohali" was renamed "Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar" and the opening sentence reads "Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, also known as Mohali" with the legal name first. Outside of India, in the case of Astana in Kazakhstan, the opening sentence reads "Nursultan, formerly known as Astana" and references to Astana within the article have been changed to Nursultan just two days following the renaming of that settlement.

I suggest that the opening sentence change to "Prayagraj, previously known as Allahabad," to inprove consistency across Wikipedia. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

based on your suggestion, to maintain consistency I have copy edited Mohali to state "Mohali or Ajitgarh officially known as Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar is a city in the... ". Because when there is a problem you fix the problem, You dont extend the same problem everywhere on the pretext of maintaining consistency. Now as far as the "revisit the name" is concerned, unless strong evidence is presented that the WP:COMMONNAME is changed, the article will not be renamed to anything else. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, that is one way to fix the current problem. What will you do to the corresponding district which is here Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar district? You can't have different names for two eponymous entities can you? Also will the same be applied to Astana as well? Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Cordyceps-Zombie, DBigXray, The district was named as Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar district at the time of article creation where it mentions Mohali in the first sentence. I think what Cordyceps has done is OK. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Cordyceps-Zombie and Fylindfotberserk, I have renamed the district to Mohali district. and explained the reason on its own talk page as this page is not the right place for that discussion. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray:, as you pointed out earlier, the official website has now moved to https://prayagraj.nic.in/. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• cool Rsrikanth05 but still doesn't meet the criteria --DBigXrayᗙ 16:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the Bangalore Mysore rationale should apply here. Those were minor spelling changes, bare phonetics. In the case of Prayagraj vs Allahabad, it's a total name change, much like Chennai-Madras or even the ongoing discussion at Astana to rename it to Nur Sultan. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@ ">DBigXrayᗙ I believe Cordyceps-Zombie is correct that it is now time to revist the name of page. The guidelines state for WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." As alot of time has passed since the name legally changed, there is now strong evidence to indicate that Prayagraj now has a majority prevalence in independent, reliable sources. All western media sources like CNN Yahoo , Associated Press and Time magazine and even "the Weather Channel" mention Prayagraj as the primary name for the city with some going on to mention Allahabad as the previous name. Academics have also started using the name Prayagraj as the primary name of city previously known as Allahabad. Some links below materials published by academics usuing Prayagraj as the primary name , , . Further examples of this change in prevalence is exemplified by the people opposed to the name change who have nevertheless adopted the Prayagraj as the primary name in their articles and other published work. The official opposition party's mouth piece National Herald has in numerous published works mentioned Praygraj as the only name for the city previously known as Allahabad , . Even the left-wing leaning newspaper "The Wire" has adopted the change.

The name has officialy, legally changed. The name has also been adopted by people all around the world regardless of their political affiliation showing a majority prevalence and cultural change. This meets the requirements of wikipedia for the Name change. A failure to change the name will create confusion for readers of wikipedia and would not help educate the readers further the goals of wikipedia.

Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

References

• Kushagr.sharma1 thanks for the ping. It seems you did not understand how the common name is decided. When the media houses start using a new name it does not change that time. The usage of the new name has to exceed the usage of the old name. I appreciate your efforts in finding the refs to back up your claim but what you have done is a WP:CHERRYPICK of links that support your claim. A quick google search for news results using the name Allahabad punctures your claim that all the media houses are using the new name. I would request you to be patient. The change may come in a few months or years. Only time will tell. No one is confused here in India or the international readers who read this page. It is clarified quite clearly. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

">DBigXrayᗙ . Hi, Thanks for your prompt reply. From my understanding there is no requirement or mention of uniformity in the wiki sources on the usage of name and only a "majority prevelance". Your point can also be punctured through the same search. Out of the top 10 links you have provided on the google search only 1 talks about Allahabad the city while the rest talk about the university, high court and railway junction all who's legal name has Allahabad in it. On the contrary a google search for Prayagraj [1] shows all searches mention the city of Praygraj all by different newspapers. Now for the links I previously provided it may seem like I am cherry picking and that is because I picked all the sources outside of India and sources that oppose the government. If you want I could probably find indian sources from the media aswell to help show the normalisation of Prayragraj even more. However if the opposition of the government, academics and international news sources are using Praygraj it means the change has already happened and Praygraj is the De-Facto name all across the world. Please try to objectively look at this and tell me what is the threhold for "majority" and how it can be proven because right now I feel you are being very subjective. Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Kushagr.sharma1 Google search results 1.46 crore hits on "Prayagraj" but a whooping 5.05 crores on "Allahabad" as of 21:18 IST 13 June 2019. Although there are other ways to do it, this is just a glimpse that times hasn't come yet to change Allahabad to Prayagraj. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

DBigXrayᗙ. Really appreciate your efforts to engage with me on this but I disagree once again. I dont think your Google search results argument can be relied upon for several reason. 1. Those searches dont reveal reliable wikipedia sources 2. Allahabad includes the name of the university, railway junction, airport, bank which have all not been changed and are not disputed. 3.The results also include sources from the last decade, which would mean no change would be practical anywhere on wikipedia and wikipedia would fall behind with the changes being made in the world. I dont believe you have countered my points, I would request you to please explain to me why the international media, opposition to the government adopting the new name is not enough to indicate a change in prevalence. Thanks. Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Kushagr.sharma1, Check this Pageviews Analysis [2]. Allahabad is still the common name. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Like seriously? Wikipedia as a source? Here where Allahabad is current page name will any case have higher view count. If Prayagraj was current name on Wikipedia then it would have by default have higher view count as all wikilinks are currently written as per current name. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. JayB91 (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• I see most of us agreeing that the page should move to Prayagraj. The city has changed its name legally and physically (no signboard or any marker exits with the old name anywhere in the country anymore), All the newspapers and international media cite the new name as stated above. Locally it is being called Prayagraj since last year by the residents. WP:Commonname argument seem redundant as the new common name seems to be Prayagraj. Astana to Nur-sultan moved faster while we are still dragging our heels for the inevitable page move. High time we moved the page. JayB91 (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That's one of the tools besides the name need to get internationally recognized especially in English media. Doesn't matter what locals call it. I personally refer to the placer as Prayagraj, so what? Even Bangalore hasn't been moved to Bengaluru. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. It seems to me the person insisting on not changing the text despite being presented with so many data points by other users, is clearly acting with bias for reasons best known to him/her. Without providing any datapoint to support his/her argument of keep on relying on "still not changed - Common Name" which in no manner is a measurable quantity.

I would request wikipedia to assign an unbiased reviewer for this case to make an early decision. If wikipedia wants to be representative of facts this sentence should have been changed much earlier. I also hope in future indefinite arguments like this will be discouraged - "it might take months to years for an official name change to be reflected on wiki". Nuiaq.labs (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request, Nuiaq.labs. For the relevant article titling conventions, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Either immediately below or (probably better) in a fresh message thread at the foot of this page, appeal for a change of title. When doing so, show how your suggested title is superior to the current one in terms of these titling conventions. See what kind of responses you get here. If there's agreement, good. If you're out-argued, well, those wanting the current name to stay ought to be able to say what new evidence would get them to change their minds. If you get no response, or anyway no intelligent response, then you might craft a rather more formal "request for comment": please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment for instructions and suggestions for how to do this successfully. -- Hoary (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Nuiaq.labs Should not be calling users biased. It is a common procedure in Wikipedia whenever there's a name change as per WP:COMMONNAME. Go through archives of this talk to know more. You can open a Move Request and RfC. Just to tell you that this is an English Wikipedia and thus the name "Prayagraj" needs to get more international recognition than the older "Allahabad". Even "Bengaluru" is still "Bangalore" after multiple move requests in the past. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk Bengalore is a variation of the name of Bengaluru. So this case doesn't apply here involving a complete name change from Allahabad to Prayagraj. What does apply here is the name change of Astana to Nur-Sultan as well as Swaziland to Eswatini. These were swiftly changed on Wikipedia in accordance with the official name change.

Also lack of response to valid points raised by Kushagr.sharma1 indeed points towards some bias in this case, which may be intentional or unintentional.RandiGashti (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

He already understood why it is not changed. If you read the full thread, you will also understand. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

When Indian Government has change the name from Allahbad to Prayagraj, why don't you guys change it? This is how you are humiliating the sovereign power of taking decision of a country. This very unfortunate. Ek dharmayodha arya (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Go through WP:COMMONNAME again and all those discussions and RfCs in the archive of this talkpage. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ek dharmayodha arya: Do you think the sovereign power of decision making of India has control over the names of entities on English Wikipedia? If so, what is your opinion of the sovereign power of Germany over the names of articles on German topics here? Should we change the article "Germany" to Deutschland, and the name of "Munich" to München? If not, why not? What about the sovereign power of Italy, over the name of their capital city, Roma? Should we change the "Rome" article, too? Pretty soon, we won't be English Wikipedia anymore; we can just write a letter to 206 countries, and ask them what to call all our city articles, and wait for them to instruct us. Does that seem like a good idea to you? Do you see the point? The bottom line is this: we don't really care what it's called officially in India; we care what reliable sources in the English language call it.

However, your approach may have a lot more sway at Hindi Wikipedia, where, surprise! it's still called इलाहाबाद. Maybe try to convince them to change it, first. But even if you are successful there, that has no bearing on what it is called here, on en-wiki. Mathglot (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, Thanks for the explanation. I don't know how many times we have to explain that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I just randomly checked news articles and as we can see, major newspapers like times of India are still using Allahabad [3] [4] [5]DBigXrayᗙ 14:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup. I rarely see Prayagraj in news articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Dude, you just quoted three reports from the same' newspaper. Here are some from the last few weeks including two published within the last 24 hours. And I'm taking the same ToI that you listed, along with The Hindu, and HT. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. HT and ToI list city as Prayagraj as where the report came from. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted) Nuiaq.labs (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Nuiaq.labs, on 6 July 2019 you asked for a change of title. I responded. Both messages are in this message thread.

• Again, you have two options: (i) say how the current title fails to accord with en:Wikipedia policy; (ii) concede that the current title does accord with en:Wikipedia policy and work to have this policy changed.
• If there has been a story from a reliable news source that any editor has behaved in a problematic way, you're free to bring up the matter, perhaps at "WP:ANI". But "social media discussion" is worthless, no matter how much of it there may be.
• The rationale behind making this article available in nations where English isn't normally a first language is that there's no reason not to: there's no reason to discriminate, and the architecture of the internet makes non-discrimination easy. (Authoritarian nations can and do provide their own censorship, ostensibly to "protect" their citizens from dangerous thoughts.)
• By "wikipedia employees", do you mean "employees of the Wikimedia Foundation"? If so, note that Wikipedia:Contact us says "Edits are not the responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organisation that hosts the site) nor of its staff and edits will not generally be made in response to an email request"; I think that you can take "edits" to mean "editorial changes".

-- Hoary (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted) Nuiaq.labs (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Nuiaq.labs, it seems that you want to right great wrongs. For that purpose, this is not the right website. -- Hoary (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own set of rules and guidelines. People should know that. The article has gone through one RfC and multiple discussions and the decision was status qvo. Note that Bangalore is still Bangalore after 5-6 RfCs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Advertisement and Lengthy

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)

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. [13]. 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)

Category renaming discussion

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)

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)

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 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)

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.[14][15][16][17][18][19]-- 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)

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 [20] 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)

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 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)

• Suggestion for Tecumseh*1301, who has written on this talk page:

• "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)

• Strongly Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME

• 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.[21] -- 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)

• • Comment Rightly said. I recommend strict one year moratorium on move request. Moreover this bombardment of request is nothing but seems political to me. In India, lots of political drama happens everyday and people venting their anger and frustration here on Wikipedia considering platform to be anti-Hindu. Similar exploitation happened with Sonia Gandhi article. Several users attacked Sonia Gandhi talk page creating move request holding no significance whatsoever.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣✅ 13:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and impose a moratorium on move requests for a year. Tecumseh*1301 has not been able to show that the city's commonly used name has changed or that WP:COMMONNAME should not apply to Allahabad, whilst their flooding of this Talk page with whinging about the city's name is simply disruptive. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, and support moratorium. Mathglot (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The petition claims that "newspapers and media around the world in every language have already accepted the new and original name" but Wikipedia's standards are not the same as newspaper standards. Wikipedia also considers books, films, and larger community use. NotBartEhrman (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 12 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)

• Strongly Support Allahabad is now Prayagraj: Yogi Adityanath govt officially renames historic Uttar Pradesh cityBranstarx3 (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Can you point out, Branstarx3, where within Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) we are told that government renaming is what's most important? -- Hoary (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Prayagraj is still not the WP:COMMONNAME. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME --SM7^--talk-- 06:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. Khestwol (talk) 07:22, 16 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

• Support renewal – for a year. If there is consensus in the Move request above for a moratorium on future move requests, then the edit notice renewal should match the moratorium period. Mathglot (talk)
• Support renewal for at least a year. Agree entirely. The edit notice is most helpful.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support renewal (after any necessary/desirable rewriting), as Mathglot suggests. -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support renewal for complete one year. Without edit notice users will bombard name talk page with change discussions.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣✅ 13:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support renewal per above. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support renewal per above for the duration of the probable moratorium. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

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