Talk:Prayagraj

Change the names of other pages related to Prayagraj

As the name of this page has been moved to Prayagraj, so now the names of the pages like Allahabad Division and Allahabad District be also changed to Prayagraj Division and Prayagraj District respectively. In addition names of the other "OFFICIALY RENAMED" institutions located in Prayagraj should also be changed. TheOneRiding (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That appears a natural consequence of this rename here. I'll leave it to others to do it, though. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I would support the renaming of Allahabad division and Allahabad district but we need to be very careful about renaming other articles. For example Allahabad High Court is still officially the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, so should not be renamed. - Arjayay (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Rename Allahabad district and Allahabad division

Prayagraj is the common and official name of this city. Prayagraj district and Prayagraj division is also common names. I guess you should change the name of Allahabad division and Allahabad district as Prayagraj division and Prayagraj district. Bikapur (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @TheOneRiding, @Kashmiri, @Arjayay and @Bikapur for their opinions at this RM. — Akshadév™ 💬 02:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This too should be moved

• Allahabad railway division → Prayagraj railway division
• Allahabad Chheoki Junction railway station → Prayagraj Chheoki Junction railway station

Shaan Sengupta (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hadal, The consensus has already been reached for the RM proposal for History of Prayagraj (See Talk:History of Prayagraj). It's been 12 days now, why is it getting delayed? — Akshadév™ 💬 14:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Akshadev: Do not ping users (Hadal in this case), asking them to take a decision. It is WP:CANVASSING. Per WP:RM policy, the closure will be done by non-involved admins/users per their own. Besides Talk:History of Prayagraj doesn't seem to have a WP:CONSENSUS, there are many opposes also note consensus ≠ vote. Let the process complete. Also consider this a warning. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

repinged - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: If asking a question to an administrator violates any policy then I apologise. But I simply (and clearly) asked the reason of delay, not to take a decision. — Akshadév™ 💬 15:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2023

Theashishktiwari (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

In the article - I have seen the Prayagraj Juctuion named as Allahabad Junction So I think it should be added updated name.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theashishktiwari (talk • contribs) 06:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Already in discussion above. Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 07:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Map of india

Please update the map of India from 'India' to 'India1' so that the correct map is displayed. Wikediter.fact (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

​Please be more specific.

• File:India location map.svg is the map of India displayed.
• File:India1 location map.svg is a red link.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Toddy1 - India1 links to File:India location map 3.svg an inaccurate map "which also includes regions claimed by India (but not controlled): Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, and Aksai Chin."
Clearly we should be using an accurate map of the de facto borders, not a "fantasy" map. - Arjayay (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand by your tone and actions that you have certain biases against India that I don't want to get into, but if you look up the articles of major cities such as delhi and mumbai, you will find that the claimed territories are either shown completely in India or shown in a different colour. For the sake of tradition (and to some extent Indian law), atleast the articles of Indian cities should follow the same. Not doing so is like showing Russian controlled Ukrainian territories as parts of Russia and not Ukraine. Wikediter.fact (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not have "certain biases against India" as my editing history clearly shows. The only "bias" is that I want Wikipedia articles to show the actual facts, rather than jingoistic fantasies. - Arjayay (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I request you to visit the article of Ukraine where you will see that the areas that are not controlled by them are still shown as a part of their map, some without distinction while some in a different colour. If the map 'India1' seems too 'patriotic' to you, the map used in Delhi's article should be used ( which shows disputed areas in a lighter shade). Also I request you to not make edits in articles based on your opinion, without discussing on their respective talk pages ( relating to your previous edits). I hope we can work constructively, without prejudice, together and not try to forward our ideas by force. Wikediter.fact (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERCONTENT as to why your first comment is not how Wikipedia works. As for your request to discuss things before making changes, please explain why you did not do so yourself, when changing the map at Indore on 1 May in this edit - Arjayay (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

'because what you did is wrong, I will do it too' is usually not a strong argument. The reason why I did it there was because I saw it on the pages of other major cities of India, and thought of it as the standard for Indian cities. Also, the article for Indore is not protected (Unlike the articles where you made similar changes) and of comparitively very low visitor count, making the talk page inactive. Looking at your user page, you seem to be doing this (disruptive changes without discussion) every day for the last 16 years. I am still new here and learning, but you do this while knowing it's wrong. You have been rebuked in the past too for such actions (as per your talk page and archived conversation) but you still continue to do this, showing a certain obsession of passing your opinion as facts (particularly on Indian pages). regarding the article you told me to read, it 'suggests' to not make arguments comparing articles to each other solely because the reference articles could themselves be anomalies. Seeing other articles of countries (which are certainly vetted) such as the UK, Pakistan and Ukraine, it clearly shows that even claimed territories are shown as part of the respective countries ( sometimes in a different shade and sometimes not), which means not showing Indian claimed territories atleast in a lighter shade is just wrong. Sorry for the long answer, and I hope this clarifies your doubts regarding my previous answers. Wikediter.fact (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah sure. Do you also want Wikipedia to show all the Chinese claims across South and South East Asia on every map of a Chinese settlement? Shall we mark all of Arunachal Pradesh as Chinese claimed? If no, then let's end this discussion here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Your statement exudes much confidence in your single handed ability to change facts on Wikipedia. This is the problem. You forget Wikipedia is not run just by you. Wikipedia is a community project that involves the whole globe. You have no ability to make the changes you just mentioned, alone. Let this discussion be here, and if the community feels the map should be changed, it will be changed. Wikediter.fact (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

[yawn] — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion that is relevant to the above at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 May 4#Module:Location map/data/India1.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)