Talk:Prayagraj

Allahabad should be a synonym not a former name

Template:Closed rfc top Template:Reopened by the closure, see this ANI thread. Please add more comments before it reaches its final close. Thanks. Template:Mbox

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)

agreed 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This is WP:PPOV. Template:Tq, no please this is not warranted unless you back it with RS'es. – Garuda ^Talk! 11:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Agree but I think for this you have to cite sources without sources nothing gonna happen. Therealbey (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• Would you mind explaining this Template:U? I suppose this very discussion you're referring as "per talk"? – Garuda ^Talk! 15:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Again, would you stop this for a moment? And let us know which discussion you're referring to. – Garuda ^Talk! 16:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Stop what exactly? Why are you making it sound like I am the one engaged in an edit war when you're the one who did 3 reverts already? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Please don't misinterpret anything. You might need to go through WP:3RR and WP:3RRNO. One of the reverts was a self-revert, which is not what I was asking about. I want to know on which discussion your changes are based on. – Garuda ^Talk! 16:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  They are based on #c-25_Cents_FC-20241114145700-2607:FEA8:4B60:C700:3607:7E78:A05A:5895-20240928174300 by @25 Cents FC and multiple of the arguments in the RM above. The name is still in use 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh and for the record I wasn't accusing you of breaking the 3RR. I was just pointing out that you were doing most of the reverts and you're here making it sound like I was the one edit warring 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well, no. 25 Cents FC didn't propose adding 'Allahabad' as a synonym. All I see is that they agree with the point made by Toddy1 [1], who said, Template:Tq In fact, we would all agree with that, of course. Your changes were unnecessary. I had to go through the page history and verify your nonexistent 'per talk' claim, so it's obvious that I would make more reverts. – Garuda ^Talk! 17:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Template:Tq
  Never said he did. What I clearly meant to say is that he provides proof that the name is still in use
  Template:Tq
  Okay.. So what?
  Template:Tq
  Multiple users in this discussion: @TianHao1225, @Therealbey and @Toddy1 (Who didn't participate here but thanked me for this edit) clearly wanted the change and you are the only person where who disagrees with it. WP:DROPTHESTICK 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Then why do you link their comment if they didn't propose it? And right below their comment, RohitSaxena has expressed disagreement [2]. Do you really expect me to verify your nonexistent consensus from your thanks log instead of this talk page? I didn't know that receiving thanks was a better way to attain consensus than actually discussing it. And may I ask why it took several days after the discussion for such a controversial change to be made? That would only imply that you are referring to TianHao1225's proposal and not 25 Cents FC's. Template:Tq Yeah, no [3][4]. In fact, you're using DROPTHESTICK to justify your controversial change. I don't think this is something about "winning" or "losing". – Garuda ^Talk! 19:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  What do you want me to explain exactly? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Pretty sure I made it clear [5] – Garuda ^Talk! 16:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

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 Template:U's WP:PPOV, so it doesn't make much sense to go with it. Pinging Template:Ping for their input. – Garuda ^Talk! 17:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tq
First of all, what you've just did is WP:CANVASSING. You know very well that those users are biased towards your POV.
Template:Tq
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)

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 Template:U 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)

@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)

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)

@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)

PS: You proceeds to argue that the "proposal" given by TianHao1225 is not poorly thought out. Ehh:

Template:Tq2

I don't have much to say. just avoid this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

@CX Zoom sure 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)

• 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)

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

• 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)
• Oppose Totally unnecessary suggestion with politically motivated undertones. Dexmed (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

how is the wording "Prayagraj, also known as Allahabad" a Template:Tq?
𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Oppose I oppose this move.182.185.83.184 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Nobody's moving anything 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose User Garuda's comments in this discussion are more convincing. Quincke (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support - All academic sources still consider Allahabad as the alternate name for this city, its only news website that have moved away from it and academic sources are preferred and much more credible than any news sources. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

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) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahil1610

Template:Collapse top

welcome back, @Themasterone125 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

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) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahil1610

Oh nice and personal attacks too? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@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) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahil1610

2007* and i dont see how that is relevant here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen As same as this useless discussion you started. Notatall00 (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahil1610

anyways whatever. Thanks for admitting that you're a sock 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

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) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahil1610

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)

However, if somebody could put forth or highlight other reasons, they could be considered. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 12:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

#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)

@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) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahil1610

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)

• Oppose Why you keep using the same flawed logic again and again? The ngrams argument by vice regent is invalid because they also put Constantinople over Istanbul, Calcutta over Kolkata, Bombay over Mumbai, Madras over Chennai. 2401:BA80:A341:C856:A6C:88A0:F8C5:BE1D (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

RS citing Allahabad explicitly as 'former name':

1. BBC (Multipe sources including [7], [8], [9])
2. Britannica (In Prayagraj, on righthand side 'Template:Tq')
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)

• 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 Template:U'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)

Template:Ping 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)

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)

• Support -Reliable academic sources treat Allahabad as synonymous with Prayagraj. Therefore "also known as Allahabad" is appropriate.

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

@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) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahil1610

Also called is confusing that what is official name of the city. Notatall00 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahil1610

Template:U, 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)

Do not synth, see what RS and popular, current sources say. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 14:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Irrelevant fact. Do not cast aspersions. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Template:Thumbs up 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Template:Tq
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)

with this edit summary: "Template:Tq" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

• I think the current version of this article is fine, leave it as it is. Don't change it to "or". 2402:8100:29E1:6E51:198C:1EB4:824B:5549 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Tally 12:26 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Year registered	or/also	formerly
Never	0	5
2025	0	2
2024	1	3
2023	2	2
2021	1	0
2020	1	1
2017	1	0
2014	1	0
2012	1	0
2007	0	1
Total	8	14

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)

Amazingly done @Toddy1, however I think there are 9 users who are on "formerly" side even if we discount Template:Noping. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I missed 2 editors and have corrected it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above. I found the arguments made above in favour of "formerly" are more compelling, especially since sources also point to its consistent use. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Formerly if not anything. It's befitting and supported by sources above. Also there's some sort of consistency or say convention to follow this conviction in many articles: Visakhapatnam, Chennai and Bengaluru. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 11:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Formerly There are examples of both "formerly" and "also known as", but "formerly" is more descriptive as it acknowledges the name change immediately. It also doesn't require any further clarification (such as the "its name until 2018" bit and bad semicolon use) which helps keep the first sentence uncluttered. Anyone who wants to know why it's "formerly" can read the rest of the lede and will see the name change there. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose any synonyms, and use of formerly is coherent. I'd also request any NAC to refrain from closing this rfc. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• Formerly for now. Surfed through many frequent sources and mostly spin around this wording. I would also agree with EducatedRedneck that this term fits more and is descriptive. Mr.Hanes File:Speech bubble icon.svg Talk 14:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC) Sockstrike 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• Formerly After reviewing the reliable sources it appears a brief mention is the best path forward. Nemov (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Regarding the five IP votes, their only contribution to Wikipedia is a vote in this RfC. Regarding the regularly updated "tally", WP:NHC and WP:!VOTE TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion seems to have gone stale. Some uninvolved may close it. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 09:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

First sentence grammar

The first sentence uses a semicolon in a counterintuitive way, and contrary to MOS:;. MOS:FIRST notes that the first sentence should not be cluttered. For ease of reference, the lede currently reads: Template:Tq Changing the semicolon to a comma just makes a labyrinthine run-on sentence, and only marginally improves readability.

I suggest changing it to: Template:Tq or, if the above RFC is upheld, Template:Tq The name change date is noted at the bottom of the introduction and does not require a place in the first sentence. If it is felt strongly that the date of the name change should be prominent, it should be in a a standalone sentence immediately after (e.g., "The name was changed from Allahabad to Prayagraj in 2018.") or else have the other name occupy its own sentence, as follows:

Template:Tq EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

how about placing info about the "official" name change in a {{efn}} tag? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

That would work quite well, I think. Good idea, and thank you for the suggestion! I've WP:BOLDly implemented it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rehmanian care to explain why did you revert @EducatedRedneck's edit? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen Of course, i can explain sir.

Although i have explained there but let me explain to you also here.

It was discussed to be written as (its official name until 2018) openly as Mumbai and Kolkata, not under {{}}. It should be clear at one visit. Rehmanian (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahil1610

Allahabad is former name must be visible in one visit, otherwise all the previous discussion will be irrelevant. The tactics of Template:Tq is used without discussion. Rehmanian (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahil1610

The article on Bombay starts:

• Mumbai (Template:IPAc-en Template:Respell; ISO: Template:Tlit, ), also known as Bombay (Template:IPAc-en Template:Respell; its official name until 1995), is the capital city of the Indian state of Maharashtra.

That seems to work OK. It works a lot better than:

• Mumbai (Template:IPAc-en Template:Respell; ISO: Template:Tlit, ), also known as Bombay (Template:IPAc-en Template:Respell)Template:Efn is the capital city of the Indian state of Maharashtra.

Template:Notelist -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Toddy1 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 to

Mumbai (/mʊmˈbaɪ/ muum-BY; ISO: Muṁbaī, Marathi: [ˈmumbəi] ⓘ), also known as Bombay (/bɒmˈbeɪ/ bom-BAY; its official name until 1995), is the capital city of the Indian state of Maharashtra.

This looks better and not confusing.

Same should be with Prayagraj also. Rehmanian (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahil1610

I have no objection to the current formulation; as long is it got that MOS:; violation out of there, I'm happy. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)