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

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]
yikes we will follow taliban now. Pratiwiki (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pratiwiki what? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 03:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allahabad should be a synonym not a former name

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus for "also known as Allahabad"

This seems to be a very politically charged topic and my closure is going to displease a lot of people either way. I am uninvolved and have no personal stake in the discussion.

One point of contention in the discussion was regarding whether contemporary WP:RS use Allahabad as a synonym for Prayagraj. Editors were in agreement that there are WP:RS that still use it either in parentheses or "also known as", even though editors pointed out that RS where "formerly known as Allahabad" is used are more numerous.

The argument deciding the rough consensus was by the editors who mentioned Mumbai and Varanasi as examples to be followed. Mumbai in particular sets a very relevant precedent for recent city name changes. Even editors opposed to the change, have pointed out that in Prayagraj, like in Mumbai, some important institutions have retained their old name despite the formal name change, further showing that the cases of the two cities are alike.

In the Mumbai article the name is written as: 

Mumbai (also known as Bombay (/bɒmˈbeɪ/ bom-BAY; its official name until 1995)

therefore something similar should be done for this article.

Note: Finding arguments among votes, anecdotal statements or accusations of bias was a difficult task. I tried to follow WP:DISCARD and WP:!VOTE when closing this discussion. If you think I have done a poor job, feel free to let me know. This is my first RfC close, mistakes are expected. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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 [6]. 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: 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]
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 "formerly" 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 - Fact of the matter is Allahabad is officially changed to Prayagraj so it should be clear at the lead. And old academic sources and research will be as Allahabad until evaluation. Notatall00 (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abusive messages
welcome back, @Themasterone125 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who ?? By the way. I went to your profile. You are 18 years old, Islamic fundamentalist. you is doing edits according to your ideology. You started this discussion without relevance after Mahakumbh popularity. You should be blocked by Wikipedia authority. Notatall00 (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nice and personal attacks too? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen As you take your facts, it's up to you. You are literally 2006 born. Notatall00 (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2007* and i dont see how that is relevant here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen As same as this useless discussion you started. Notatall00 (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
anyways whatever. Thanks for admitting that you're a sock 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sock vock. It's you who are manipulating things biased fully.
@25 Cents FC @Toddy kindly look into this. Majority people have opposed this. Kindly close this discussion and initiate block to Abo Yamen. Notatall00 (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Considering Allahabad synonymous to Prayagraj simply on the basis that it is still used in multiple institutions name is incorrect. Bombay High Court exists, IIT Bombay exists, however it is widely held that Bombay is 'former' name of Mumbai, and so is found in RS. The institutions generally prefer to keep old city name as they have established an identity with the old name, like say IIT Bombay, or IIT Madras. Check Chennai's article, it says 'formerly known as Madras'. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 12:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, if somebody could put forth or highlight other reasons, they could be considered. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 12:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
#c-Vice_regent-20250118043000-Requested_move_9_January_2025 shows that scholarly sources still use the name Allahabad 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen It is now former name. If it is highlighted as former name, it is enough to understand that it was known as Allahabad formerly. Notatall00 (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is more suitable from a common name perspective and not if it is technically a synonym or a former name. Note, we are not here to research or publish our own documents based on collection of different sources, but to find out if majority of reliable sources are using it as a former name or synonym itself. If 'formerly called..' and old documents boost up the results for 'Allahabad', it becomes irrelevant to what we are trying to establish here. Let me check. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 12:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are not deleting the article, it is more about consistency and uniformity, and reference to how it was handled other times. See also WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 12:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RS citing Allahabad explicitly as 'former name':
  1. BBC (Multipe sources including [7], [8], [9])
  2. Britannica (In Prayagraj, on righthand side 'Also called:Prayag, Formerly:Allahabad or Ilāhābād')
  3. NPR (In [10], image caption)
  4. Multiple Indian news sources (RS) across political spectrums like Indian express, The Hindu (both center), The Wire,theweek (both left leaning) and News18, ANI (Both described as pro-government, hence by nature right).
  5. Amnesty International ([11])
  6. Research papers and scholarly articles ([12], [13], [14], [15])
  7. Multiple sources not fitting in these categories, like [https://iapp.org/news/a/notes-from-the-asia-pacific-region-india-focuses-on-dpdpa-rules-ai-governance-risks.

RS citing Allahabad explicitly as 'also known as':

  1. https://swaut.co.in/smart-cities/allahabad
  2. https://madrascourier.com/insight/why-the-allahabad-pillar-inscriptions-are-a-national-heritage/

If others are able to find more 'reliable' sources referring to one of them, you may add them in your comments. Thanks, 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 13:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think there's a clear understanding that using terms like "formerly" would fit better rather than using any synonym adjunct. This is not even a proper proposal let alone RfC, so I wouldn't "Support", "Agree" or "Oppose" but any more forthcoming inputs wouldn't hurt, (if someone really wants to put their points or counter argue with sources) although I think an uninvolved user may proceed to conclude this "proposal". To add more: I'd definitely agree with ExclusiveEditor's analysis, since putative outlets such as TOI BBC HT and above sources provided tend to use the "formerly/previously known as Allahabad", I don't see any reason not to go with this notion. Ngram and Google Scholar may not show large numbers compared to news outlets simply because they do not typically follow such trends or say, lacks up-to-date information. Saying "previously/formerly known as" is absolutely off-base based on the latter two, which is why the word "also" should be used instead. This argument is entirely non-imperative. The fact that most of such RM are primarily based on media outlets rather than Ngram or Google Scholar trends (not implying that such methods should be disregarded, but in this particular case, this is becoming WP:SNOW). – Garuda Talk! 22:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Garudam: You cannot be serious. None of the sources you cited support "formally"; they support "formerly", which is an entirely different word, with a different meaning.
  • "Formally" = "in accordance with convention or etiquette" or "officially".
  • "Formerly" = "in the past".
For example the Hindustan Times source you cited says "Prayagraj (formerly Allahabad)"; the BBC source also says "Prayagraj (formerly Allahabad)"; and the Times of India source says "Prayagraj (formerly known as Allahabad)". -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aight. Err, ce'd my comment. It's late night, my brain must be switching off. Although common typo mistake isn't a big deal, uh. – Garuda Talk! 23:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Reliable academic sources treat Allahabad as synonymous with Prayagraj. Therefore "also known as Allahabad" is appropriate.
  • Arab, Pooyan Tamimi; Hughes, Jennifer Scheper; Rodríguez-Plate, S. Brent (2023-09-01). The Routledge Handbook of Material Religion. New York,: Taylor & Francis. p. 386. ISBN 978-1-351-17622-4. In 2019, the Ardha Kumbh Mela (the half-melā) drew 150 million people...... at Prayagraj (Allahabad){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  • Bucerius, Sandra M.; Haggerty, Kevin D.; Berardi, Luca (2022). The Oxford Handbook of Ethnographies of Crime and Criminal Justice. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 490. ISBN 978-0-19-090450-0. 2007 Ardh Kumbha Mela in Allahabad (also called Prayagraj)..
  • Lothspeich, Pamela (2020). "Introduction: The Field of Ramlila". Asian Theatre Journal. 37 (1). [University of Hawai'i Press, Association for Asian Performance (AAP) of the Association for Theatre in Higher Education (ATHE)]: 7. ISSN 0742-5457. JSTOR 27120405. Retrieved 2025-02-10. there is anecdotal evidence that there are other very old Ramlilas at places like Ayodhya, Prayagraj (Allahabad)

CharlesWain (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlesWain Obviously old academics used Allahabad, because it was then Allahabad.
"formerly called Allahabad" will indicate both things that now it's former official name and let them know that is Allahabad. Notatall00 (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also called is confusing that what is official name of the city. Notatall00 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CharlesWain, with all due respect, I'd have to disagree with you. Reliable academic sources also frequently refer to 'Allahabad' as "formerly known as" and "now known as":
Until now, no votes above have explained why using this notion is "inappropriate" when reputable media outlets and reliable academic sources are consistent with it. – Garuda Talk! 13:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not synth, see what RS and popular, current sources say. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 14:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am a resident of Prayagraj. No one calls it Allahabad anymore which was its former name. Only some old institutions in the city have retained Allahabad in their name. Many people don't even use Prayagraj and simply call the city Prayag. 182.185.81.96 (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a resident of Prayagraj with an ip from pakistan? I like how every ip participating in this discussion is from pakistan too 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant fact. Do not cast aspersions. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 15:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. I did not doxx anybody. That's publicly available info.
2. god forbid you could quote the part where I cast aspersions 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is more worrying that this discussion is swiftly turning into a chat forum. Even if an IP is troll, you must learn to ignore them. – Garuda Talk! 16:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I can bet these guys claiming to be from Prayagraj know nothing of Prayagraj or its history. Just the simple fact they’re stating “No one calls Allahabad anymore” is ridiculous. Your opinion is not everyone’s opinion. I was born here, I live here, and I can definitely say both names are used simultaneously and synonymously. Wikipedia is not a place to prove your political leaning. You can do that elsewhere. Shresthsingh71 (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything else to put in or you're just going to tell us about your stories and personal opinion? No one is interested to hear these tales. Bring up sources next time. – Garuda Talk! 12:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bit rude no? I actually wanted to know more about their story. Funny how you let IPs give their opposition based on opinions slide.
How about both me and you stop replying here and wait for someone to take the WP:CR? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, not in the slightest, especially when users think the talk page is some kind of forum for chatting. Just how many times do you need to be reminded to stick to the topic? What do you think "these tales" is referring to? Of course, it refers to all of the above personal opinions, and no one is obliged to reply to every comment. – Garuda Talk! 13:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Taking it to CR is unwarranted, considering there's clear understanding (I see more opposing stances than supports). Any uninvolved user can close the proposal. – Garuda Talk! 13:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I see more opposing stances than supports)
Weren't you the one who added the "please note that this is not a majority vote" tag to this discussion? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
with this edit summary: "those (specifically Abo Yemen) who thinks this is all about !votes. But no this is not a ballot to cast your !votes" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh: "stance," "understand," and "consensus" are completely different from "votes." If you read my above comment thoroughly, you'll see that I never mentioned the word "vote." If you have any more personal queries, please come to my talk page and refrain from unnecessarily elongating this thread. – Garuda Talk! 13:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tally 12:50 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Year registered or/also formerly
Never 0 5
2025 0 2
2024 1 2
2023 2 2
2021 1 0
2020 1 0
2017 1 0
2014 1 0
2012 1 0
Total 8 11

This is what the tally looks like. Notice that it seems to depend a lot on when users first registered.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC) corrected 21:25 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly done @Toddy1, however I think there are 9 users who are on "formerly" side even if we discount Notatall00. – Garuda Talk! 19:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. I missed 2 editors and have corrected it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:26, 17 February 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.

Gupta Empire section

[edit]

The section Prayagraj#Gupta Empire appears to consist entirely of sentences copied from other places, with minimal adaptation to an article about the city of Allahabad/Prayagraj. In addition some parts of it appear to be machine translation from another language and do not make sense. There are lots of grammar errors. Much of it seems irrelevant to an article about the city, but if worded properly might be relevant. Someone needs to look at what the cited sources actually says about (1) Allahabad Pillar inscription, and (2) the ancient city called Prayaga, and then rewrite the section in good English in a way that is both relevant to Allahabad/Praygraj and makes sense. Moving the present Gupta Empire section to a sandbox would be a good first start.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Garudam since they added that section 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. I don't copy content without giving proper attribution to begin with. If you think these recent additions were copied from other articles then you should specify them, simply accusing me of copying won't work. Now may I ask how these additions provide minimal coverage of the city and its history itself? The whole subsection spun around the Allahabad pillar/Prayag Prasasti and the subsequent history of the Guptas in relation to the city's past. Additionally some parts of it appear to be machine translations from another language and do not make sense. Just how? You do realize all the cited sources are in English so where is this "machine translation" claim coming from? Grammatical errors can be ce'd, although it's not in such irreparable English that it warrants moving to a sandbox. One could however argue about the relevance of the third paragraph in the subsection. Any other further input is welcomed. – Garuda Talk! 14:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section on Gupta Empire needs to be trimmed and copyedited. A good chunk of it is excessive, undue as well as out of scope. For example the part on Samundragupta should be truncated. We do not need information of him being an "excellent statesman, a gifted poet, and a musician" or "a great conqueror who unified north and central India". These things do not belong in this article nor the state article, not to mention the unecyclopedic puffery-ridden writing. Similarly, the information about Nepal/Licchavis/Magadha should be truncated or removed so as to conform to the definition of the modern region of Prayag and Uttar Pradesh. Genealogical and expansion related parts should be restricted to the Gupta Empire article only and are not within the scope of this article unless we want the same content repeated everywhere (fork) there is mention of the Guptas. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Specifically the 3rd, 5th and 6th para seems excessive and unwarranted (In parts if not as a whole). I was already working on trimming and moulding the sub-section, would fix this in a day or two. – Garuda Talk! 15:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prayagraj&oldid=1277416774"