Jump to content

Talk:Prayagraj

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePrayagraj has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 5, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
January 16, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
February 17, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
August 20, 2014Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 12, 2024, and January 12, 2025.
Current status: Good article

Allahabad not Prayagraj now

[edit]

It should be changed to Allahabad as per WP: COMMONNAME according to Google Ngram Allahabad is the most used term not Prayagraj. So it should be change like Turkey Which isn't change to its official name Turkiye because of WP: COMMONNAME also like Chittagong it's official name is Chattogram But it was not change because of the same reason. Therealbey (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also some editors strongly oppose Stepanakert's move to Khankendi although several sources i.e. from Google maps to BBC call the city Khankendi. What's with the double standards here?Yakamoz51 (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealbey Nobody calls it Allahabad anymore so... 103.99.18.91 (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There have been multiple discussions over several years. Starting a discussion again to go back to old name is not relevant anymore. RohitSaxena (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many people do call it Prayagraj now, and the purpose of the name change was to get rid of the old name. So I believe it's best if we leave this page as it is. Shubhsamant09 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology updates

[edit]

This page is for Prayagraj. The etymology references to Allahabad is irrelevant here. It's quite childish to talk about some other word in etymology than the topic of the page. 2607:FEA8:4B60:C700:3607:7E78:A05A:5895 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But Prayagraj is merely the new name for Allahabad. Why is was called Allahabad is entirely relevant.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prayagraj is still known as Allahabad. As pointed out by @Toddy1, it is merely the new name for Allahabad. A few important institutions are still called Allahabad, including Allahabad High Court, IIIT-Allahabad and NIT Allahabad. Hope it helps! 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 14:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page name should be changed as per WP:COMMONNAME Therealbey (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to "Allahabad" per WP:COMMONNAME Abo Yemen✉ 14:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to Allahabad per WP:COMMONNAME Tagooty (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These institutions are established through constitution of India, so the name they bear has nothing to do with the city name. Example is IIT_Hyderabad, it's not even in Hyderabad city, neither even in Hyderabad_district,_India. So citing that High Court or University etc. are still bearing name of Allahabad is not relevant to the article of city in Wikipedia to decide the name of article. RohitSaxena (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. It's still popularly known as Allahabad and that is what matters Abo Yemen✉ 12:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. Allahabad was an old name. Since it was historically called so, Google Ngram would obviously list it as more common in the time period before 'Prayagraj' came into limelight. The city falls within the territory of the sovereign Republic of India, whose government has renamed it to 'Prayagraj'. All official documents of the city's residents and of Indian government list it as 'Prayagraj' and not 'Allahabad'. The latter is, hence, an outdated name which shouldn't be listed on Wikipedia as well, considering that we already have latest information in that regard. I don't think renaming it back to an old name makes much sense other than increasing confusion. ParvatPrakash (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it doesn't matter. The fascist modi govt renamed the city. The new name needs to be the common name for it to be the article's name Abo Yemen✉ 14:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about the government there. However, I don't think you're thinking of it neutrally. WP:NAMECHANGES also matters when naming/renaming an article. From what I know, the current government of India does not voluntarily identify itself as 'fascist'. If you're using the word in a more common sense that it denotes dictatorship in popular culture, I don't think you're taking this discussion up neutrally. I request you to think of it neutrally. ParvatPrakash (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COMMONNAME like Turkiye it changed it's name from Turkey but Wikipedia didn't changed it. Therealbey (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the citation of institutions like High Court and University, which is irrelevant to the city name and I cited the reason, why it is irrelevant. IIT Bombay, IIT Madras are other examples as the city names have changed to Mumbai and Chennai long ago so the wiki pages but these institutions still have Bombay and Madras in their names.
Now I come to renaming this page back to Allahabad, this is also irrelevant, as long and detailed discussions have already happened to come to an agreement to change the name of this article to current name.
Here a specific person's agenda or opinion doesn't matter, the name change of this article was done on the basis of data and facts, you better go through those discussions. Here your opinion or my opinion, it doesn't matter, what matters here is the facts and that has already been discussed in details. RohitSaxena (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The previous RM was moved unduly. Data presented by @Toddy1 showed that Allahabad was the common name. The usage of wikipedia's viewcounter to compare the views from a redirect and an article was a dumb thing to use as data and I'm surprised that the closer let that slide Abo Yemen✉ 18:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Allahabad is use only in High court and University mention. Prayagraj is best known in media and the world. Itsjustme555 (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Madras Highcourt, Culcutta Highcourt and university is already there like Allahabad. Prayagraj is best known widely and it was changed after 5 years discussion. Completely irrelevant discussion. In media and talk nobody use Allahabad. Itsjustme555 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page shouldn't be moved back to Allahabad. The name change was done years ago and excluding the institutions, almost everyone uses the name Prayag or Prayagraj now. 𝐀𝐃𝐈𝐈𝐈𝐓𝐘𝐀 ♘♞ 10:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1 see the RM below. 2 Unsourced claims wont prove anything (P.s. we follow what RSs call the city and not "almost everyone") Abo Yemen✉ 10:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose any name change to this article - You mentioning an elected government fascist (citing few news portal links, which are not sufficient to prove, in fact those are opinionated articles and carries no value) and citing RSS etc. clearly shows your biased opinion. We already had discussions for several years before changing the name with relevant data and facts, the name change wasn't done overnight. I personally use both the names Allahabad and Prayagraj, but that doesn't mean I should be considering it as the most commonly used name. My personal opinion carries no weightage, the name change is based on the data and facts. This discussion itself is irrelevant. RohitSaxena (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rohit the RM is below Abo Yemen✉ 15:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prayagraj is seventh population district in uttar pradesh

[edit]

No it was most populous district in uttar Pradesh as census of 2011 Anshsrivastava2009 (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this article is on the city of Allahabad. It is not about Allahabad district.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 January 2025

[edit]
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. Noting that there was a previous requested move last year, which I reviewed, and that consensus can change, I see a consensus here that little has changed with this article topic that would be grounds to essentially overturn the previous page move.

Those supporting the move have made similar arguments to last year, with similar data presented (e.g. Google Ngrams), and those opposed are unified that the references presented are predominantly from historical contexts. The comment by User:Austronesier sums this discussion up well in their oppose: "The current proposal does not address any of the criteria beyond Google Ngram that were considered in the last move discussion, especially multiple international high-quality media having swung to using Prayagraj in 2023."

Thanks. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 23:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prayagraj → Allahabad – WP:COMMONNAME per Google Ngram Abo Yemen✉ 12:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Blocked editor)No rename is my opinion. Whoever wants to contribute to and support a biased opinion can, but I won't. ParvatPrakash (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Blocked editor)I think WP:NAMECHANGES should also be considered before renaming it, considering that India's government has officially renamed it to 'Prayagraj' and that it is fairly common now. New literature after the name change should be taken into consideration. Some examples of scholarly works that use 'Prayagraj' over the old name: -
1. Transformation of Fast Food Culture in Rural Adolescents: Evidence from a study in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Predicting Prayagraj's Urbanization Trajectory using CA-ANN Modelling: Population Pressures and Land Use Dynamics.
3. Evaluation of Triple Drug Administration for Lymphatic Filariasis in Prayagraj District, Uttar Pradesh, India: A Cross-sectional Study.
4. Comparative Study of Pattern of Unnatural Death Cases During Pre-COVID and COVID-19 Pandemic Period at Prayagraj (U.P.), India.
5. Groundwater potential mapping in Trans Yamuna Region, Prayagraj, using combination of geospatial technologies and AHP method.
There's many more I found.
A personal note: On my visit to India, I've heard locals use the new name more though. ParvatPrakash (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Blocked editor) Post-scriptume user who requested the move might not be entirely neutral with the subject in discussion, given that they called India's current government's move to rename the city to 'Prayagraj' as "fascist". ParvatPrakash (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources calling the government facist: [1] [2] [3] [4] and many others Abo Yemen✉ 15:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Blocked editor) None of the given sources say that renaming the city to 'Prayagraj' was a 'fascist' move. Neither are such mass-media sources reliable enough to be stated here. It seems like you have a conflict of interest with this topic. I urge you to declare the same, if you do have any. ParvatPrakash (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether its politically motivated or not, don't mix up nomenclature with politics. Ku423winz1 (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
#c-Abo_Yemen-20250109164400-ParvatPrakash-20250109163000 Abo Yemen✉ 11:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources you provided even mentions the word Allahabad and Prayagraj, what do the sources has to do with determination of which name is more popular? Ku423winz1 (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not see the initial nom??? #c-Abo_Yemen-20250109124300-Requested_move_9_January_2025 Abo Yemen✉ 11:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAMECHANGES:
When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change.
As seen in the Ngrams above, Allahabad was still being used more than "Prayagraj" even tho some sources started adopting the new name Abo Yemen✉ 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Blocked editor) Still not the same. Several sources in English mention 'Prayagraj'. It is not a black/white decision and there's grey here. Pushing a POV by calling their government 'fascist' kinda proves that you are not neutral and have a conflict of interest with the subject. It's the name of a place and when it has been changed by the nation's government, I don't think it is contentious enough to discuss if or not the new name should be used.ParvatPrakash (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources in English mention 'Prayagraj'.
Not as much as the ones using Allahabad.
Pushing a POV by calling their government 'fascist' kinda proves that you are not neutral and have a conflict of interest with the subject.
Just because I have a bias against a government doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest with the subject. The rm is based on a Wikipedia policy (WP:COMMONNAME) with proof (the Google Ngram). Trying to bring up my political opinions to this rm is irrelevant and is not constructive
It's the name of a place and when it has been changed by the nation's government, I don't think it is contentious enough to discuss if or not the new name should be used.
On Wikipedia, we don't care about what is official and what is not; We follow what is de facto. "Allahabad" is the common name of the article and it is what we are supposed to use Abo Yemen✉ 16:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then the same goes with Turkiye or Chattogram. Therealbey (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OCON. Best, Garuda Talk! 12:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before we start a discussion again, I would suggest everyone to go through the earlier archived discussions where plenty of data was provided in support of Prayagraj being more commonly used. In the google search one need to exclude Allahabad High Court, Allahabad University, University of Allahabad, IIIT-Allahabad, Allahabad Safeda etc. to name a few, as these do bear the name Allahabad, but these names do not correspond to the city. There are many such other exclusions to be considered and all such analysis was already done and basis the result a consensus was reached to rename this article to Prayagraj. Having another discussion to rename it back to Allahabad is irrelevant, when the more common usage for city name has become Prayagraj and it is impossible to reverse the trend unless the city's name itself gets changed back to Allahabad. In my opinion the discussion is already closed and no point in discussing it again.RohitSaxena (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you can link to previous discussions? Schwinnspeed (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 10 August 2020 - not moved
  2. 20 September 2021 - not moved
  3. 17 April 2023 - moved
The evidence for the change in 2023 was underwhelming.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have a precedent , Banglore was not renamed to Benguluru for 16 years until it was demonstrated that name had actually shifted. The name has not changed in favour of Prayagraj in this case, the common name is still Allahabad in all reliable sources (refer to Vice regent's table). - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Disagree Prayagraj is the official and has already became the de facto popular name, both people and medias call it by its official name. That's completely different for name changes of other cities. Its like Bombay to Mumbai, Madras to Chennai, Calcutta to Kolkata, where the name got changed and the changed name got popular. Ku423winz1 (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
except you didn't prove that it is the common name Abo Yemen✉ 11:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream Indian media
1, 2,3,4
Foreign media
5
All these published just few hours ago. See which is used by public and media. Ku423winz1 (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the recent comments. Secondly official name has no bearing on Wikipedia title. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • DefaultWeak oppose The current proposal does not address any of the criteria beyond Google Ngram that were considered in the last move discussion, especially multiple international high-quality media having swung to using Prayagraj in 2023. If the OP can build a case that these were not representative or even have swung back to Allahabad, I might reconsider my !vote. The NOW corpus search results for 2024 show that Allahabad slightly trails behind Prayagraj (NB without pruning of mentions of institutions that still bear 'Allahabad' in their name and thus create false positives for 'Allahabad'). And FWIW, the comparison to Turkiye and Chattogram is spurious. Unlike Prayagraj, these officially-endorse names have not gained any significant currency in English-language media yet. –Austronesier (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's mainpage on 12 January 2025: "1659 – The fort at Allahabad was surrendered to the forces of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb." Abo Yemen✉ 18:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the name of the fort, name of a fort or any architectural building or locality doesn't mean the city's name is also that. IIT Madras, Madras High court etc does not mean the city is Madras also. We have to count which name of the city is de facto in population currently. Ku423winz1 (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If Madras High Court were in Delhi or in Allahabad, you would have a good point. But it is not; it is in Madras (a.k.a. Chennai). That does not necessarily mean that the article on Madras should be renamed; but it does mean that Madras remains a WP:COMMONNAME for Madras (as incidentally is Chennai). Both Allahabad and Prayagraj are commonly-used English-language names for Allahabad; it is a fallacy to think that there can be only one common name for a place.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What Wikipedia's main page showed is not at all a valid argument in favour of move, especially when it deals with an historical event. The main page has listed Calcutta in 50 different months, Madras 47, Bombay 37. That, however, is not an argument to rename Kolkata, Chennai or Mumbai. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    wasn't an argument; Included it just for the record Abo Yemen✉ 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose previous consensus identified that common name has indeed shifted to Prayagraj. Recent festival also is covered in the news with the same name in all major media outlets and not the old one. Speedy close this nonsensical motion and put this at the rest. 2402:8100:2704:5CBC:7241:DC1F:DF8:EB88 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't how Wikipedia works! Therealbey (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know that official name is not the criteria on Wikipedia but the thing is name "Prayagraj" is now equally popular as "Allahabad" if not more and it will continue to grow more popular in future because it's the official name and people are bound to use the same in their official interaction. Foreign media, domestic media, various news outlets and websites use the word Prayagraj which is not the case with "Turkey", and "Turkiye". Unfortunately Allahabad is bound to lose its remaining popularity in future. So renaming it makes no sense. Hbanm (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Name has not changed, see recent comments by vice regent and me. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Name has not shifted and previous RM was poor with barely any evidence provided for the name shift. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Rename:
Rename not required cause Prayagraj name is both current name & historical name as well. Ogambo obmagom (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE RENAMING Ogambo obmagom (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No policy based rationale provided. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAVOTE 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
would've been nice if you've read the message under yours 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Most of the articles mention Prayagraj, formerly known as Allahabad
2. Allahabad University
3. Allahabad High Court
4. Allahabad Safeda fruit variety
5. MNNIT Allahabad institute
6. Agriculture Institute Allahabad
7. IIIT Allahabad institute
8. Harishchandra Research Institute Prayagraj(Allahabad)
9. Indian Bank (Merged entity of Allahabad Bank)
Point number 2 to 9 are institutions (except 4) which are created by state or parliamentary legislation and they need a separate legislation to change their names. Government hasn't done that and these has nothing to do with the current city name or most common city name. IIT Bombay is still IIT Bombay and it in no way play any significant role in deciding if the city's common name is Mumbai or Bombay. If anyone has to present any search results about Allahabad the those articles/pages must exclude Prayagraj word from them, else for any of the above nine reasons (Likely even more) it will always give false positive about Allahabad name.
Now Allahabad name appears in most of the articles/pages for the above mentioned 9 reasons, it rarely appears independently without the mention of word Prayagraj. Scholarly articles will have mention about Allahabad as it is a historical place and a lot of such articles are historical which refer to old documents/gazzetters etc. and are bound to have reference to the word Allahabad.
As I mentioned in one of my other comments, I personally use both the words, Allahabad and Prayagraj but that's my personal choice and reason that I stayed there for 5 years, but the general trend is in favour of word Prayagraj.
The users, who are in support of name changing back to Allahabad for this article, must come up with data which removes any reference of the above mentioned 9 reasons to include Allahabad and show that Allahabad is still being used for referring the city. I will counter their data if those doesn't satisfy the above exclusion including the scholarly mention of old documents.RohitSaxena (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Prayagraj is widely used term now from domestic to internationally, Look at BBC, NYTimes,Dwnews etc. Allahabad only exists in history. Due to the event of Maha Kumbh, name has become more popular and it will grow onwards more and more. So it's useless discussion and why this discussion even started, seems complete bias. Themasterone125 (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC) — Themasterone125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and per WP:NAMECHANGES. The name officially changed in 2018, yet even after that "Allahabad" has remained more common in reliable sources. The ngrams (which track until 2022) show that Allahbad has remained more common even after the official name change in 2018. Likewise, I did a search in various scholarship search engines for post 2018 results and in every case "Allahabad" is several times more common than "Prayagraj".
Engine "allahabad" "prayagraj"
Google scholar 29,500 16,200
JSTOR 1,343 113
Taylor & Francis 1,128 432

VR (Please ping on reply) 04:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: The swing towards "Prayagraj" in news media occurred in 2023, so an aggregated search starting from 2018 can be expected to be in favor of "Allahabad" everywhere. That said, in 2024 Google Scholar results, "Prayagraj" (5.510) still trails behind "Allahabad" (6.980), so your point is valid. But, while I strongly prefer Google Scholar as a powerful tool to illustrate when a scholarly topic is misnamed in Wikipedia, in the case of recent official name changes for places (that are generally known to the public and which are not only talked about as the subject of academic study), Google Scholar represents just a specific sector of public discourse about the topic. Also, mechanisms of publishing will always make scholarly sources lag behind for ~2 years, so I'm not really surprised to see a ratio in Google Scholar for 2024 that pretty well matches the NOW results from 2022. But of course, sources published in 2024 have entered public discourse in 2024 and should be weighted as such.
All in all, it's a mixed bag. In the 2023 discussion, my comment was "too soon?", and it arguably still applies now. I will change my !vote to "weak oppose". Unlike many participants in this discussion, I don't feel strongly about either title (I have strong personal views about the politics behind the renaming of the city, but that doesn't matter here). Eventually, I think that both titles serve our readers well, but I consider news media to have more weight for this specific topic than academic sources—NB only for the task of establishing the recognizable common name of the topic. –Austronesier (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with you on most points, except the last part: WP:SOURCETYPES tells us that peer-reviewed scholarship is the most reliable type of source. And I agree.VR (Please ping on reply) 00:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOURCETYPES is about content. When it comes to statements about the city, peer-reviewed schloarly sources obvious have more weight than reliable news sites. But this discussion is about establishing which title best meets WP:COMMONNAME, and one of it pillars, recognizability, does not necessarily rest on the evidence from schloarly sources alone for this specific topic. –Austronesier (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because Turkey hasn't fallen out of favour yet (check any English source on the recent hotel fire) whereas Allahabad did (check English sources on the recent Mahakumbh event). —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true[15][16].VR (Please ping on reply) 13:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Al Jazeera is just one source using Turkiye among several news media reporting on the matter. How many at 2025 Kartalkaya hotel fire#References use Turkiye over Turkey yet? And the second link from Hindustan Times very clearly uses Prayagraj in its reporting, I don't see how it makes my statement untrue. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you, Not just Hindustan Times, All domestic media and international news media are using Prayagraj. Turkey is exception. It can't be apply on Prayagraj-Allhabad, Mumbai-Bonbay, Chennai-Madras, Kolkata-Culcutta. Prayagraj is widely accepted. Themasterone125 (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) — Themasterone125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hindustan Times had to tell people that Prayagraj is Allahabad because of how popular the name Allahabad is ("Prayagraj (formerly Allahabad)") 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't pick one outlet and generalize it, look at BBC, NYTimes reports, they didn't tell. People got it, Mr Abo Themasterone125 (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) — Themasterone125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No, Mr The, I did not generalize anything. Also, I like how you're a one-day-old account participating in an RM that had lots of socks participating in 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article says Prayagraj 5 times (not counting image captions, or related news links), and the former name accompanies the 4th instance near the end of article. Here's a WSJ article that says 'Istanbul, formerly known as Constantinople...": [17]. We can keep doing this as long as you want with any city that has ever been renamed like New Amsterdam (New York) or Bombay (Mumbai). —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAMES Constantinople was changed way before and it is now Known as istanbul but look at Turkiye it's still Turkey in Wikipedia Therealbey (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I have been saying all this time. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Allahabad should be a synonym not a former name

[edit]

Allahabad is still commonly used. Just its official name has been changed but irl outside Prayagraj many people dont even know the name change happened. Ill share my personal experience, so the name change happened in 2018 but i learnt about it just a couple months ago. All my textbooks still refer to it as Allahabad. So the paragraph should open with Prayagraj also called Allahabad not formerly called Allahabad, just like Calcutta is mentioned as a synonym of Kolkata TianHao1225 (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

agreed 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:PPOV. Ill share my personal experience, no please this is not warranted unless you back it with RS'es. – Garuda Talk! 11:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree but I think for this you have to cite sources without sources nothing gonna happen. Therealbey (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prayagraj also known as Allahabad. Since the name Allahabad is still used and not completely obsolete.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 17:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason to change "Prayagraj, formerly known as Allahabad"? It reflects the sources. Besides, this proposal seems poorly thought out and is based on TianHao1225's WP:PPOV, so it doesn't make much sense to go with it. Pinging @RohitSaxena and CX Zoom: for their input. – Garuda Talk! 17:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @RohitSaxena and CX Zoom: for their input
First of all, what you've just did is WP:CANVASSING. You know very well that those users are biased towards your POV.
Besides, this proposal seems poorly thought out and is based on TianHao1225's WP:PPOV, so it doesn't make much sense to go with it.
It is not. Proof that the name is still in use was provided by 25 cents himself above. This isn't about Tian Hao anymore 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, a terrible misinterpretation and accusation from you. Since when has pinging the involved users been considered canvassing? At this rate, I fear you might even accuse Toddy1 of doing the exact same obvious thing [24]. What's even more utterly obnoxious is that you're accusing them of being biased toward my PoV. You do realize this is a blatant WP:PA? – Garuda Talk! 18:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Garudam those two users were not involved in this discussion and you know that very well. And no, acknowledging that someone is clearly on the other pov is not a blatant personal attack 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense. RohitSaxena was the first to oppose the proposal of 25 Cents FC, so how is he not involved? Either they are both uninvolved, or they are both involved. OTOH, CxZoom has actively participated in the recent RM which is directly related to this discussion, which I don't need to clarify to you. Accusing someone of sharing another person's PoV is indeed considered a personal attack. So instead of unnecessarily WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion thread and casting WP:ASPERSIONS, you should stay on topic. – Garuda Talk! 20:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Garudam I never accused anyone of misconduct except for the canvassing part and the policies that you've cited says nothing about obvious pov problems. There's nothing wrong in aknowleging that people are biased to a pov. What's wrong is notifying people who you know that they are more likely to oppose the removal proposal. And just because that i cited 25 cent's argument doesn't mean that rohit and zoom are involved. Anyways goodnight Garuda 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 21:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You proceeds to argue that the "proposal" given by TianHao1225 is not poorly thought out. Ehh:

Allahabad is still commonly used.[failed verification] Just its official name has been changed but irl outside Prayagraj many people dont even know the name change happened.[citation needed] Ill share my personal experience,[according to whom?] so the name change happened in 2018 but i learnt about it just a couple months ago.[unbalanced opinion?] All my textbooks still refer to it as Allahabad.[vague] So the paragraph should open with Prayagraj also called Allahabad not formerly called Allahabad, just like Calcutta is mentioned as a synonym of Kolkata[clarification needed]

I don't have much to say. just avoid this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. – Garuda Talk! 19:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I do think that Garuda is correct in that you have been acting WP:BATTLEGROUND-like throughout the discussions on this page. Please engage with a calm demeanor. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CX Zoom sure 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Garudam did you just ask "accordingly to whom" to the "ill share my personal experience" part???? Please leave Tian's message alone. You are denying the proof that we gave you above that the name is still in use and you ignoring it and marking Tian's message with 6 tags as if you were a teacher grading a homework isn't really helpful 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How could it be sidelined if you continue to believe that their proposal should be considered? "Proof that we gave you"—so far, you have provided nothing. What 25 Cents FC has actually given are some institutions with former names, which have been readily counter-argued by RohitSaxena. "As if you were a teacher grading homework" isn't really helpful—well, at least I don't have to clarify anything further to anyone who thinks their proposal isn't poorly thought out. Furthermore, several other pages follow this style; we could use Bengaluru as an example (this is not an "other content" argument, as I am presenting a relevant example). – Garuda Talk! 21:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Allahabad is the former name of the city not the current one.2401:BA80:A18D:558A:28CE:3460:DBC8:A0B (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
𝗢𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲: Do you understand the meaning of synonym ? This baseless discussion started again. Prayagraj and Allahabad have difference like earth and sky. Prayagraj is widely used. Nobody calls Bangalore, Bengaluru, but in Wikipedia it is Bengaluru. Themasterone125 (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loveforwiki[reply]
Oppose: Allahabad is the former name of the city and removing this fact is not good. Even a former name can be an "also used name", so no specific reason to add "also known as Allahabad". 𝐀𝐃𝐈𝐈𝐈𝐓𝐘𝐀 ♘♞ 15:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Totally unnecessary suggestion with politically motivated undertones. Dexmed (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how is the wording "Prayagraj, also known as Allahabad" a totally unnecessary suggestion with politically motivated undertones?
𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And where are the sources to back this notion of yours? At this point you're just doing OR/PoV pushing. – Garuda Talk! 17:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allahabad High Court, IIIT-Allahabad and NIT Allahabad. At this point you're harassing me. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, your notion is based on these institutions? These are not sources, huh? Most media outlets use the terms "formally" and "previously." Asking for sources to support your claim is far from harassment. – Garuda Talk! 19:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's incredibly disingenuous (or IDHT in wikijargon) to cry for sources right after the page move discussion that had sufficient manifest evidence (Ngram, Google Scholar) for the fact that "Allahabad" still outranks "Prayagraj" in all source types except for news sites, and even for the latter only starting from 2023. "Previously known as" is absolutely off based on this evidence, and "formerly" doesn't do a good job either. "Also" is the best option here, which works perfectly in Mumbai and Varanasi. –Austronesier (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I oppose this move.182.185.83.184 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's moving anything 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose User Garuda's comments in this discussion are more convincing. Quincke (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prayagraj&oldid=1274496061"