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)

The name of page should be changed to Prayagraj. And Allahabad should be mentioned as former name. Currently the official name is just mentioned as a footnote. Aimaadi (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The standard should be as the page for Chennai is maintained. Aimaadi (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aimaadi: You are too late. We had a change of name discussion earlier in August, and it is over. There will be no more move discussions for Allahabad for at least a year. -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aimaadi, we follow WP:COMMONNAME. Also notice that the name of the Madras city was changed to Chennai in 1996, many years before Wikipedia came to be. The article was created with the name Chennai, not Madras. A better comparison would be with Bangalore, which after 15 years and multiple move requests, is still Bangalore, not Bengaluru. Wait for Bangalore→Bengaluru to happen first. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The decision to keep the name Allahabad even the city has been informally known as Prayag for ages and officially changed the name to Prayagaraj and shutting down the discussion on it for a year shows the biased nature of whoever is monitoring this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.120.14 (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC) The argument of google searches pretty much baseless. Most results when someone searches for Allahabad are related to institutions named after the city not the city itself. Prayagraj is the relevant name of the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu487 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Just reading through some arguments against the name change by (talk). Don't you think you are trying to right great wrongs by resisting the formal name change and striking off any further discussions until a year. And how are people comparing Bangalore/ Bengaluru with Prayagraj. Bombay and Madras were changed to Mumbai and Chennai, Bangalore was a mere phonetic change.

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 [13] justifies the classification of "Allahabad Urban Agglomeration" as a "metropolitan area".

From 2014 to 26 May 2017 there was an article called "Allahabad Metropolitan Area" Version of 29 March 2016. Then an editor decided that "urban regions should go into city page" and turned it into a redirect. He/she did not bother to transfer content across, so the useful text in the Allahabad Metropolitan Area article was lost. As I understand it, the different editor's points of view are as follows:

• Kashmiri thinks that the article called Allahabad should be about the city, not the urban agglomeration/metropolitan area.
• Harshv7777 thinks it should cover both.
• Toddy1 does not mind either way, but if it is going to cover both, it should have a section on the urban agglomeration. I am working on a draft section for that. But when it is finished, I do not mind if people recreate the metropolitan area article (preferably with the title "Allahabad Urban Agglomeration").

-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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

October/November 2020 discussion

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

My personal opinion is that the lead should say "Allahabad... is a city in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh." But I think the article should cover both the city and the metropolitan area. Governance is not the same for the entire metropolitan area, and I think the infobox should primarily reflect governance in the city. The fifth paragraph of the lead mentions the metropolitan area.

I think that a case could me made for an article Draft:Allahabad metropolitan area. Though I am not sure that the time is right for this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless expanded, the article as it stands is about the city, not about the metropolitan area. Period. Compare New York City vs New York metropolitan area, Los Angeles vs Los Angeles metropolitan area, Paris vs Grand Paris, etc. Your defining of Allahabad here as "metropolis" is misleading; if you want to discuss the Allahabad metropolis, create a separate article for it as Toddy1 has suggested.

Besides, Allahabad is neither a state capital nor even among the first 30 largest cities in India, so to call it metropolis is a bit of an overstatement. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Change the page title

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

PLEASE read the section above this one, titled "Requested move 10 August 2020". It is far too soon to start that entire long wearisome argument all over again. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - we usually have a 12 month moratorium on such requests, as per the agreement about the edit notice, also above - Try again next August - Arjayay (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

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

How to spell Illahabad - one "L" or two

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

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

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

On one hand, double l is more correct etymologically, and this is also how it's spelled in the Arabic script. On the other, both the actual pronunciation and the Devanagari spelling have a single l. I am slightly more in favour of a single l as this is how the city name is pronounced, although we need to go by the sources and consensus. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I changed the spelling in the infobox from Illahabad to Ilahabad. Adding single 'l' in Ilahabad should be more appropriate not only because it is pronounced as such in Hindi but also because 'Ilaha' in the name is not derived from Arabic word Allah but from Persian word Din-i Ilahi, the name of a syncretic religion founded by Mughal emperor Akbar after which he named the city he founded in Prayag as 'Ilahabad'. The city was renamed as "Allahabad" by Akbar's successors and the same name was anglicized by Britishers (check the Wiki article on History of Allahabad#Mughal rule). However, the name Ilahabad remained more popularly used in vernacular languages of the region. When Ilahi of Din-i Ilahi is not written or pronounced 'Illahi', what's the point of writing Ilahabad as Illahabad ? And I didn't notice the name in lead section, otherwise I would have changed it too. Vibhss (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2020

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

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

Disappointed

No attempt to improve the article.
I was expecting the Talk page to be absolutely nasty ChandlerMinh (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

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

“Allahabad” is still relevant

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

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

Change title from Allahabad to Prayagraj

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

No - as explained above, and in the archives, this has repeatedly been discussed at length, always sticking with Allahabad, the last one was in August 2020. As we usually have a moratorium of 12 months before the subject can be raised again, please do not come back until August 2021 - Arjayay (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

As an example of what you are up against, Bangalore was renamed in 2006, and has since been through 11 major renaming discussions, but we still call it Bangalore. - Arjayay (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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