Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indic)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hinduism#Naming_and_Transliteration

Check out the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hinduism#Naming_and_Transliteration. It might be helpful. --Dangerous-Boy 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we merge Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vedic) to here? There shouldn't be a problem unifying Vedic and standard Indic transliteration. I am personally in favour of using ISO 15919 for transliterating text primarily because it's a standard, but also because it applies equally to all the main Indic scripts.

In regards to the changes from IAST to ISO 15919, they are very minimal and listed on the main page. What do you think? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think they should be merged. The vedic articles mostly center around sanskrit and pali. The indic naming conventions should take into account all Indian languages such as the Southern ones. It shouldn't focus only on Hindi and Devengiri(sp). Take a look at the Mahatma Gandhi article to see how many scripts it has for his name. I think indic conventions could use the vedic conventions as a template but they about two complete different things. India is a secular country and Vedic is about religion. Also, take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles). i was always thought they did a wonderful job on their policy for transliteration and templates.

{{koreanname noimage| Devangiri=허황옥| English transliteration=許黃玉| south indian script=Heo Hwang-ok| English transliteration=Hŏ Hwang-ok| }}

We should not be centering our transliteration scheme around languages or particular subjects. We should however standardise based on each individual script. I completely agree with you that it shouldn't focus only on Hindi and Devanagari. Indeed, the good thing about ISO 15919 is that it slightly changes IAST so that other Indic scripts and languages can be represented equally.

I'm not sure why we should standardise only based on Dharmic (or Vedic) terms - there is no reason why that same transliteration scheme cannot be applied to all terms in that script (or script family, i.e. Brahmic).

If we were to merge the two pages, there would be very little difference in what is written. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. The page should be merged into indic. Go ahead and merge it.--Dangerous-Boy 23:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! However, I've going to be very busy for at least a week, so it might take me some time! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have some reservations about the proposed merge of the transliteration guide, posted at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Dharmic). Imc 21:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). The Dharmic naming conventions will be merged into Indic naming conventions because have a dharmic one is essentially useless. A manual of style article (Indic-related articles would also be need in the future. but right now, naming is probably more important. The indic languages will probably need to reflect the many languages of south asia. It might have to be split into several pages for each langauge. The content for naming conventions should be probably be

1 Romanization of names

1.1 Name order 
1.2 Family name 
1.3 Given name 
1.4 Royalty 

2 Place names 2.1 Province 2.2 Other administrative divisions

or

1 English words of Indic origin 2 Romanisation

2.1 Article titles 
2.2 Category link sorting of macronned titles 
2.3 Alphabetic order 

3 Indic terms

3.1 Template 

4 Names

4.1 Names of historical figures 
4.2 Names of modern figures 
4.3 Pseudonyms 
4.4 Names of emperors 
4.5 Names of fictional characters 
4.6 Place names 
 4.6.1 Suffixes 
 4.6.2 Temples and shrines 
 4.6.3 Train and Subway stations 

4.7 Names of companies, products, and organizations 4.8 Names in titles

--Dangerous-Boy 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Simplified transliteration

In the Amrita Pritama example, the as at the end of the two words are always pronounced in Sanskrit but not in Hindustani, so dropping the a would only be correct in a Hindustani context. --Grammatical error 18:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The first 'a' is a long 'a' and so it remains in a Hindustani context too. I definately appreciate what you mean, but in this example at least, as a Punjabi and Hindi poet, she would never have pronounced the final 'a' (or have written it in English).

There definately needs to be a distinction as to when the 'a' is dropped. If we're looking at a topic related to North Indian languages where the 'a' is dropped, then it should be dropped when writing a simplified transliteration. Conversely, if we're looking at a topic where a final 'a' is kept in the native language, then it should be kept in the simplified transliteration. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Usage of Devanāgarī

(This was copied from my post on the discussion page of the Dharmic naming conventions article and only concerns Sanskrit.) Why is the Devanāgarī equivalent for most Sanskrit words and names always included in articles? Should it have any special privilage over other Indic scripts which are also used to write Sanskrit and can represent the sounds just as accurately (like Grantha or Malayalam, but unlike Tamil because of its lack of aspirates) on the English Wikipedia. I think it would be better to just include the IAST. --Grammatical error 05:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the reason is that most Sanskrit scholars use Devanagari or IAST and not other Indic scripts. Sanskrit as a locale in Unicode's CLDR uses Devanagari as its script. It's just a general convention because it's by far the most widespread Indic script. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Many literate Sanskrit scholars in South India are probably not even able to read Devanagari, so I think we should just have IAST as compulsory and Devanagari as an optional extra - it really doesn't add anything to the article (except for special cases such as Aum) as IAST allows a lossless transliteration and is more neutral. --Grammatical error 15:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This can be an issue that we vote on once the proposals are more developed. Hopefully that will statisfy everyone :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think u should use both Devanagari and one south Indian script that's used the most. Maybe either Tamil or Kannada? What's the base script for the south indian scripts anyway? Aren't they also used in southeast asia as well?--Dangerous-Boy 20:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be almost as bad because many of the South Indian, as well as non-Devanagari North Indian, scripts are each written and read by millions of people. The vast majority of people from Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh would not be able to make out a word of Tamil, which is probably the most prevalent Southern script (albeit woefully inadequate for writing Sanskrit). Therefore, I think it would be best to just use the IAST (however, it would just be a ridiculous waste of time to go about removing Devanagari from existing articles for the sake of neutrality - I'm just saying that there's no need to add it in future). --Grammatical error 20:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of making this naming convention? Just having the english transliteration? No scripts? Isn't the whole point to have scripts?--Dangerous-Boy 20:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This naming convention is about romanisation of Indic words and names, and an Indic script is not needed for Sanskrit as IAST allows a lossless transliteration and everyone who is reading articles on the English Wikipedia will either know it already or will be able to understand it quickly by looking it up. In contrast, most Indic scripts are incomprehensible even to people who use other Indic scripts (I think Telugu and Kannada might be mutually legible to some degree, as are several other pairs of scripts, but there's no real universal solution other than having all the scripts which would just be ridiculous). --Grammatical error 05:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of retaining the Devanagari or other original script, wherever it is appropriate. It is standard practice for other languages (see e.g. Aristotle, Muhammad, Laozi). It also saves those of us who are not familiar with Devanagari (which I'm not) the necessity of painstakingly going through it character by character. There should only be one language / modern script used, and it should be the language/script of origin for that word, which need not necessarily be Sanskrit. Imc 07:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Language for the origin of the word.--Dangerous-Boy 18:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not agreed ,My prposition is different

• Similler debate- kannad Vs Marathi -I have seen on talk page of a Indian city page Belgaum
  • Wikipedia is Multy Lingual Community and already seems to have certain conventions in place in this respect.
  • Wikipedia is having Multy Lingual collaboration in place and some administrators Bots seem too working already on interwiki connectivity.
  • Please correct If I am wrong that these bots have been adding titles transliteration in all world languages,although it will not visible directly on page It will remain visible in edit page.
  • If such a facility is not there for Indian Languages then we need to start it simply because it is beneficial for refference and serch engines (I suppose)
  • Also we need to take into account India is having official three language policy, Inclusion of Hindi on this count across all India related articles need to be disussed at larger discussion forum of Wikipedia.That means Hindi article also should include one more refference to one more Indian language.
• Fore most is I would be happy if some one translates such a nice articles in more Indian languages for other language wikipedias.

Mahitgar 10:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Conflict?

This statement from "Dharmic": "Transliterated terms from Sanskrit and Pāli should take advantage of Unicode diacritics; for example, 'Nirvāṇa'," appears to contradict the statement in the next paragraph: "If a primary transliteration cannot be clearly established, then the article name should be be written in either a formal transliteration or a simplified transliteration," (not to mention perhaps contradicting the injunction to use a primary transcription if it exists). - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This statement was not written by me, so even I cannot understand what it actually means.Cygnus_hansa 21:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; it needs some further rewrite and clarification. I'll try and work on it a bit further. A problem is that there appears to be contradictory policies within Wikipedia in general; on the one hand, a drive to use the most commonly used terms, and on another, a drive to follow scholarly practice. Imc 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I see a sqaure in Nirvana.--Dangerous-Boy 05:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I see Nirvāna fine, both on a recently set up Linux PC with no special fonts installed, and on WinXP with the full Arial unicode installed. Imc 19:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you using mozilla? I'm using IE.--Dangerous-Boy 03:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I normally use Mozilla, but I've just tried IE and it works there too. Generally on Windows systems, I find that installing Arial Unicode MS means most scripts are rendered. Have you set up this particular font? Imc 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. If the article is coded with the {{IAST}}, I can see it.--Dangerous-Boy 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

IE 6 has issues with font-fallbacks for certain characters. You'll have to wait for IE 7 when the problem is fixed properly. In the meantime, ensure all text with diacritics is contained with the {{unicode}} tags. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hinduism article is mostly coded in IAST. We really have a discussion over the use of which template to use.--Dangerous-Boy 00:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the IAST tag does the same thing although I think it should be depreciated. The Unicode tag is used across all Wikipedia article topics so we don't really need the IAST tag. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions (people of India and Sri Lanka)

I propose that this be explicitly restricted to older history. It will be difficult to include those more recent figures who are usually well known in the idiosyncratic spellings derived from English.

e.g.

• Tagore --> Tagur ? (I'm only guessing with this one)
• Cariappa --> Kariappa
• Vajpayee --> Vājpayī ? (more guessing here)

Imc 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this still active? I thinking about taking off the merge with dharmic articles since this is pretty much dead and the dharmic one serves its purpose.--D-Boy 22:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work on unifying these. Could it be left a little while, while I write it up? And personally I think that this one would be better than the dharmic one. Imc 14:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree Imc. I know I've promised that I'd work on this, but I've been swamped. My assistance is coming soon! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

unicode and iast template?

should they be combined?--D-Boy 06:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My observations from Sikhism

I've been spending most of my time fixing this article up (which now looks a lot better than it once was) and I spent quite some time ensuring everything was a formal ISO transliteration. However, many people have objected to this over use of formal transliterations and many people dislike diacritics.

Just thought I'd mention my experience with implementing proper transliterations. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is amazing; I did a little work, went to get something to eat, and the topic was near complete when I came back!!

The article already indicates a simplified transliteration for article titles. How about we also specify the simplified transliteration for general use in the article body, and that the formal transliteration must always be given in the opening paragraph to accurately indicate the subject and its pronounciation? Imc 21:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! This is actually coming along nicely.--D-Boy 23:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what happens when I actually get time to work on something :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

New Template

Please take a look at Template:Indic. I've been working to make the IAST template obsolete. This wraps the text in the Unicode class and appends the language name based on language code. You can override showing the language name by including option 'x'. Please give your thoughts.... Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So this will get rid of the squares?--D-Boy 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully yes. Also, it does a lot more now (I've expanded it). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mongolian is indic? I heard the ghenghis khan adapting other scripts for the mongolian written language.--D-Boy 08:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Phagspa script is used for Mongolian. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Malayalam t

What needs to be confirmed about Malayalam t? The geminate symbol is the only one available in unicode. When it follows other consonants, one or two r symbols are written below the previous consonant. --Grammatical error 06:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically, both [1] and [2] show vastly different characters to the one written in the table. Do you know the reason behind this? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the archaic character for the non-geminate consonant on its own. It's not encoded in unicode, is it? If it is, I'll change it, but I'd already provided a link to [3] on the Malayalam language page for those wanting to see the archaic letters. --Grammatical error 16:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

redundant h's

What is the point of "simplifying" the ISO "c" and "ch" to "ch" and "chh" (which just looks ugly)? In this case, both the academic and the simplified transliteration should be the same. --Grammatical error 16:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it looks ugly. But, 'c' is never pronounced 'ch' in English (as far as I can remember), and the simplified transliteration is trying to follow English norms. If we were to use merely 'c' it would confuse readers. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I added it, and I agree it looks ugly (I would be happy with the strict transliteration), but I also agree with the other reasoning by Sukh. This enables existing articles such as Chandra, Chakra, Chera and Chalukya to remain unualtered. Imc 17:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Finish merging

Does anyone wish to finish merging while I complete the transliteration tables? Once they're merged we can begin a final check and put it up for review as a proper policy. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean? Just make redirects on the other pages? Also, are we going to make a manual of style? The history of India project wanted one.--D-Boy 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean if there is any information that is not in this article but is in the others it should be moved over. Once that's done, we can merely add redirects.

Manual of style... uhmm... does Wikipedia not already have one Wiki-wide? What does the History of India project have in mind? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't specify. Someone just put up a request but I think it's in our interests to prove it. These Chinese have one and the Koreans have one. The a lot Indian content that covers a vast array of topics. With wikiproject India, this will help a lot for the coordination.--D-Boy 23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I still see a lot of squares under Sinhala. Is it because I don't have the font installed on windows? As for the merging, the titles for honorific names needed to be moved from people of India and sri lanka. I think this would go into the manual of style article instead. Probably should put in use stage names of actors too.--D-Boy 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is a font issue. I used Windows Vista beta to do many of the newer Unicode characters (including some of the Sindhi Devanagari characters which have only just formally been released). I agree with your other suggestions. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved transliteration table

I've moved the transliteration table to Wikipedia:Indic transliteration scheme because it was taking up too much space. Hopefully this will enable us to finish this section and then concentrate on the specifics of transliteration. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal on Indian names

I propose that South Indian names like A.K. Gopalan, B.T. Ranadive, etc. should not have a space in the 'initials'. These are not initials in the Western sense, and it is the name given after these that functions as a western first name. --Soman 11:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully endorse the proposal. Also, I'm against expanding the initials in the title. Most South Indian personalities have titles with their initials expanded now.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}09:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Advertise?

I think this proposal is a good idea and it's well-written; however as most of the work was (apparently) done by a single person, maybe it's a good idea to ask around on the Village Pump and/or related WikiProjects to get some more feedback on it? Other than that I'd say it's fully acceptable as an NC. >Radiant< 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal still requires several hours of work I think. I've been very busy lately but hopefully after a fortnight or so I will have time to continue efforts on updating this. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Modern place names

This is probably be a minefield best avoided for this project. However, are there any attempts at providing a standard anywhere else? They could be referred to here. Imc 22:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Not that I know of. However, given the low traffic of this page, I'd suggest you ask at the village pump. >Radiant< 16:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal titles in India

It is difficult to find any information or list defining personal titles like Sri/Shri, Guru, etc. Is there such an article on Wikipedia, and if not, is there someone who would volunteer to write one? --Blainster 17:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What's going on with this?

?--D-Boy 23:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My real life is taking over again :) Just about to go to bed so can't actually do any work on it at the moment. However, this page is *nearly* there... I can't imagine it taking more than a couple of hours work to get off the ground. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Use_of_vernacular_scripts_in_India_bio_articles

interesting discussion --D-Boy 07:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

A merge with WP:Manual of Style (Indic-related articles) was suggested a long time ago, and the other page contains little information compared to this page, so I will merge the two. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 04:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Guidelines, Titles and Honorifics

I'm afraid these are very much proposed guidelines and the template should not have been removed. The "Titles and honorifics" section is especially problematic and full of errors. It says,

"Examples are Mahatma Gandhi where Mahatma is an honorific, Sri Chand where 'Sri' is a title, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada where Swami and Prabhupada are honorific, and Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Kanchi Mahaswamigal where Kanchi Mahaswamigal is an honorific."

Neither the Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi page nor the Chandrasekharendra Saraswati page has the honorifics attached. That is in keeping with WP:NAMEPEOPLE (paragraph 2 on qualifiers), which allows qualifiers (like "Saint," "Queen," (and "Mahatma") etc. only if they are essential for disambiguation (as they are in Mother Teresa or Alfred the Great), but not for other situations, where they are not (as in St. Francis of Assisi)

Similarly all the other South Asia pages links with the honorifics like: Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad, Allama Iqbal, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, Pandit Ravi Shankar, Ustad Bismillah Khan, Ustad Allauddin Khan, are redirected to the simple names.

There is no reason why a special dispensation (with regards honorifics) should be made for Indic names when it is not made in WP:NAMEPEOPLE. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree. the section should likely be removed. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The general principle at work should be that the honourific is only used if it is necessary to disambiguate it from another article. Compare the naming practices for saints, for royalty and nobility, and for politicians. Look at the FA-class articles in each category. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The policy is to use the name the person is best know under, and if this includes honorific, a title, or a honorific title, the name should not be shortened to a name that is unknown or unrecognizable. The consensus was reached on the names for the articles and for example shortening A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada to Bhaktivedanta will be confusing, there are 50 at least Bhakti Vedantas that I know, it is a title as well, Shastri is not the name of Shastri Narayanswarupdas. John Paul is not the name of Pope John Paul II. Wikid^as© 08:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to review wp:POLICY. wp:Naming conventions (Indic) isn't a policy, it's still a proposed guideline. The above changes are to bring it into agreement with the generally accepted and implemented wp:Naming conventions (people). That wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is unfortunate, but we don't need to choose the worst examples to follow. If we were to descend to mimicry here of what is at wp:Naming conventions (clergy) we should at minimum mimic the best parts of that guideline. It identifies specific exemptions to the more general guideline. Editors can know what it says they should name articles about popes, cardinals, bishops, etc. Having figured it out once, they don't have to keep rehashing it. But the better approach is to simply exclude those exemptions. Just because they made an unfortunate choice does not mean that we have to do so here as well. Of course there will be occasional hard cases, but for those we have wp:IAR, and in any case wp:Naming conventions (people) directly addresses the need for occasional exceptions. These occasionals should not warp the guideline out of shape. Now, Fowler&fowler identified this issue above almost three years ago, and LabattBlueBoy substantially agreed. When I stumbled across this proposed guideline I soon realized their agreement here on talk had not been transfered to the text, and did so, with minor tweaks. If others have better ideas on how to fix it, I'd love to see them implemented so that the proposal can move on towards becoming a guideline. Continuing to neglect it, however, is not a viable option. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped advice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy), and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) ‎LeadSongDog come howl! 18:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

An excellent and instructive comparison is available at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Islamic clergy) which addresses common prefixes and suffixes individually, with explanations in English for editors who do not understand Arabic. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bengali romanization

A discussion involving Bengali romanization issues has been instigated at Talk:Bengali script. Please weigh in if you care. — AjaxSmack 02:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Article titles

There are many inconsistencies in the formatting of the current titles of several Hinduism and India related articles. Some articles use an English title, while others use a transliterated title (generally using an ISO standard or IAST), and often the chosen title is the word used to refer to the subject throughout the article. It was discussed that some of these articles should be moved to achieve consistency. I personally think that in accordance with WP:NCIN (a proposed guideline) and WP:EN (an established guideline), all articles with transliterated titles should be moved to English titles, and the English word should be used throughout the article, with the transliteration referred to in the lead. Articles such as Mahābhārata and Jyotiṣa, for example, would be moved to Mahabharata and Jyotisha, respectively, and the new title would be the preferred reference to the subject throughout the article, with the transliteration mentioned in the lead. This is also the standard used by other Wikipedia articles with non-Latin titles. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 19:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the general principle (at least in cases where the "plain English" transliteration is consistently widely used), articles should not be moved based solely on discussion here without there first being notification on their talk pages. Shreevatsa (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the standard used by other Wikipedia articles. For example, the default for titles transliterated from Japanese is to use macrons. Titles without diacritics are the exception, and are only used where the macronless spelling is common usage in English-speaking countries. Similarly, for Old Norse, the principle is to use standardised Old Norse (i.e., with special characters) except where the other form is "well known to the average English speaking person" (e.g., Odin and Thor) or is "in common use in everyday English." Look at Category:Norse deities, and you'll see just how limited an exception this is. In my opinion, this is a perfectly sensible rule, and it is what we should be modelling our policy on. The rule should be to use IAST in Sanskrit-derived titles, except where there is a standard Anglicisation which is very well known. I can't imagine there are too many of those: Mahabharata, Ramayana, Rigveda, Bhagavad Gita, Krishna, Shiva, Vishnu, Brahmin and a few score others at best. The vast majority of articles in a category like Category:Hindu philosophical concepts, to pick a randomish example, should be under their IAST names. -- Arvind (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think when we actually have the discussion we'll find we agree; that's why I mentioned 'in cases where the "plain English" transliteration is consistently widely used'). Either way, this page doesn't seem to be watched by many people; this may not be the best place to have a discussion. (All the more reason why pages should not be modified based on discussion here.) Shreevatsa (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Where should a discussion be held? Perhaps there's no better option than simply to declare this page active again, posting announcements to village pump, the main naming conventions talk page, appropriate Wikiprojects, etc..—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. I agree that discussions also need to happen on a case-by-case basis, but we do need a policy on the basis of which we decide what we do in individual cases. -- Arvind (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Avatar usage under discussion again

I copy here a notification written by User:64.229.101.183 on an ongoing discussion about the term "Avatar" in case there are people who wish to participate. Hoverfish Talk 13:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Avatar_(Hinduism)#Requested_move_2 where it is requested that the move done by 2010 move request be undone, moving the Hindu concept to primary in place of the disambiguation page. 64.229.101.183 (talk)

Urdu?

Any attempt at coordinating transcription conventions with Urdu? — kwami (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Conventions for introducing articles with Sanskrit names

Forgive me if this has been addressed on another page, I am a new wikipedian. I have read the Indic naming conventions page but I am still unsure. Perhaps someone can direct me to the correct discussion or information.

In articles concerning Buddhist or Hindu terminologies, there doesn't seem to be a standard for Sanskrit names in the introduction (as outlined on the Naming conventions page). Some articles (ex.) use IAST, others (ex.) only Devanagari, and still others according to different combinations of IAST/Devanagari and simplified/Devanagari. Are there standards for this? If so, is there a single standard or separate standards according to categorization in Hinduism or Buddhism?

Thanks. Cm3866 (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The convention remains a draft; despite much discussion, there has been no agreement on adopting, let alone implementing it. IMO this makes Wikipedia less valuable, but there it is, others have argued that this is more in accordance with Wikipedia's core values. Meanwhile everyone uses their own preferred Roman spelling, causing confusion, which is not good.

However it is the only clear standard, so it makes sense to apply it to new articles, and to consider if old ones should be renamed in accordance with it. For established articles, additional reasoning for a rename would generally be needed. Imc (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments here: Template_talk:Infobox_Buddhist_term#Proposed_style_guide_for_Buddhist_terms - Dorje108 (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Kripalu Maharaj

Per above RM is Jagadguru part of article title? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No it is a honorific, and it should not usually be used in Wikipedia. Imc (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit out of context. Imc, could you look at the discussion for this [4]? It should "not usually be used", but the titles and honorifics section clearly states that honorifics may be used if the subject is overwhelmingly referred to by that name, see - [5]. There are many examples of this including Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Swami Vivekananda and A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Lotusjuice (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the disucssion is out of place here, I'll comment at the original discussion, so please don't reply here. Imc (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Honorifics

I've changed the text on titles and honorifics to refer to and reflect MOS for biographies.

IMO the same policy should apply to deities. Imc (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Please compare wp:PBUH to see how it can better be reflected. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like a promising basis for this convention as well. Thanks. Imc (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added clarification based on the above and on WP:Name. Imc (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed rename of article "Nirmala Srivastava" to "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi"

I posted this already at the Noticeboard for India-related topics but haven't received any response yet; so I'm posting it here in a more specific location. I know there is a policy of not using honorifics but I think Nirmala Srivastava should be an exception since she is more widely known as Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi. There has been a discussion on the talk page and I think the most conclusive argument is that academic articles on the subject use the honorific title far more often. I'm sure as time goes on Nirmala Srivastava will be known even less by the name she was born with and more widely known by her spiritual name considering the worldwide following she has as Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi. Any thoughts? Freelion (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above seems to show that the text on honorifics doesn't have a consensus.   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole naming convention still remains a proposal, mainly due to lack of interest. So it is not surprising that there is no discussion here of something that is already covered in wider policy, but it does not mean that there is not consensus on the wider policy. Imc (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We should continue the discussion on the article's talk page. Freelion (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, there is a genuine need for a standard approach to avoid repeating the same nonconstructive debate on each such article with a different set of participants. It might not be such a problem if in fact the convention was clear, but it is not. The clearest comparable standard is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). It leaves very little to debate for individual articles. While it is not universally liked, it is certainly understood. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

When did a western naming style enter India? Personally i know her by the name of Sri Mataji (...), but if her birth certificate is conclusive i see no reason why to import disambiguation. In this case, i'd say to keep Nirmala Srivastava as the article for the sake of unicity, unless another Nirmala Srivastava suddenly becomes noted. Or unless, of course, we have śrī mātā instead of Shri Mata, then i would agree with Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi to honour her followers. Or can we have both, the civil name for recent persons and the told name for 'legends'? Wakari07 (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Devanagari for all sankrit-based names ?

(moved from WT:Manual of Style (Indic-related articles), which should redirect to here:)

My inputs on this issue with references to the article Ramanuja :

• • - I think having Devanagari for all sankrit-based names (both personal & place names) is not a good idea. Should the article on Karunanidhi have this ?

• • - It is better to have the person's mothertongue or/ the language of the land the person mostly lived on - for this purpose.

• • - Otherwise we will need to have Devanagari for people like Megawati Sukarnoputri (an Indonesian), Wickramasinghe, Premadasa etc

• • - Same for placenames like Narayanganj in Bangladesh, Anuradhapura in Srilanka or even Singapore.

• • - Ofcourse, Ramanuja was a sanskrit scholor- But not all articles on Latin/Greek scholors have their names written in Greek or Latin. Ex. George L. Hart

• • - Neither all Hinduism related personalities can have Devanagari transliteration. For, ex. Appar, a similar religious figure doesnot/neednot have skt/nagari. Same for Nakkeerar.

• • - His contribution to Sanskrit literature ? - Offlate, a lot of technicians contribute towards Bollywood Hindi films - Should articles on ARRahman, Priyadarshan, Maniratnam have Devanagari names ?

• • - This kind of finding connections - can go on and on without an end. So we need to have a well-defined criteria as to where a person/place/concept belong.

• • - So I feel, the use of devanagari script on wikipedia should be restricted to the following articles:

       1- related to Hindi/Marathi/Nepal linguistic area 
       2- related to Sanskrit literature
       3- related to basic concepts of Dharmic religions.

• • - Shall NOT be used for the following articles:

       1- Just for 'any' personality with Sanskrit-based names.
       2- Just for 'anything' related to Hinduism. 

(Popular hinduism is considered to have multiple origins - other than sanskritic roots)

       3- Just for 'anything' Indian. 

Best case in point is the controversial template for Indian personalities with just English & Hindi (as in Mahatma_Gandhi , P_V_Narasimha_Rao etc)

• • - Would like to hear your thoughts on these points.

thanks.

Looks like I am late to the party. I strongly favor getting at least the title of an article in devanagari if the word comes from a language that uses this script. Linking to another article where the devenagari is given, my practice has been not to repeat the 'nagari in my writing.

I should point out that I mainly write articles about Nepal. If I write anything about India it is for adjacent areas that also use 'nagari. I personally would be happy to see the 'nagari for words from parts of India that use other scripts, but I think those scripts should be used too. It seems a little chauvinistic to only accomodate roman and 'nagari and I don't think there's any technical reason why templates can't do this, now that we have Unicode. LADave (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Still much later to the discussion here. In strong favour of preservation would be my first argument to claim as many IAST transliterations in the article titles as possible. Usability is the second: the transliteration is a pronunciation guide. Knowing that nirvāṇa is nirvāṇa and not something else will cetainly help people in their usage efforts. It is not that illegible for "roman" readers. Third argument is the unambiguousness of the body of knowledge. Wakari07 (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Some talking points are in Talk:Nyaya#Ny.C4.81ya, Talk:Hatha Yoga Pradipika#haṭhayogapradīpikā, Talk:Samadhi#Samādhi and Samadhi, Talk:Shri Mata#śrī mātā. Rāja yoga and Āstika and nāstika however seem accepted. Wakari07 (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

List of usage of honorifics

I made this commentary in the article on Bhaktivedānta Svāmī, but moved it here at the suggestion of LeadSongDog. The problem of honorifics, especially Asian honorifics, has certainly posted confusion and difficulties for researchers, historians and encyclopedists for decades. However, I think that a reasonable, acceptable, and manageable (not perfect) level of standards can be applied to the situation, always working towards an objective and non-devotional report and avoiding the worshipful non-critical approach that all believers have for their heroes and gods. I am just wishing that the following table I made might contribute to the deliberation and the attainment of a resolution to the issue. Notice that except for four names, the Wikipedia article titles all contain honorifics. (By the way, "ji," "jī," "jee," "jii," "jiew," "joo," "jiu," etc are all the same honorific suffix. Obviously, the same goes for Śrī, Siri, Shri, Shree, Shrii, Śrīla, Śrīman, Śrīmati, Śrīmat, Śrīmad, Śrī Śrī, Śrī Śrī Śrī.)

Wikipedia Article Title	Formal (Neutral) Name	Popular (Devotional) Name
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada	Abhaya Caranāravinda Bhaktivedānta Svāmī	His Divine Grace Śrīla Prabhupāda
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura	Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī	His Divine Grace Om Viśnupāda Paramahamsa Parivrājakācārya 108 Śrī Śrīmad Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Mahārāja Prabhupāda
	Chris Butler, Siddha Svarūpa dāsa, Siddhasvarūpānanda Gosvāmī	His Divine Grace Jagat Guru Chris Butler Siddhaswarupananda Goswami Paramahamsa Prabhupad
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu	Krsna Caitanya	Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu
Mahatma Gandhi	Mohandās Karamchand Gāndhī	Mahātma Gāndhī, Gāndhījī, Bapu
Lahiri Mahasaya	Syāma Caran Lahirī	Yogavatār Yogirāj Śrī Śrī Lahirī Mahāsaya
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi	Mahesh Prasād Warma, Mahesh Yogī	His Holiness Mahārishi Mahesh Yogī
Kirtanananda Swami	Kīrtanānanda Svāmī	His Holiness Swāmī Bhaktipād
Krishna	Krsna	Bhagavan Śrī Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead
Ramana Maharshi	Rāmana	Bhagavan Śrī Rāmana Mahārshi
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh	Rajneesh	Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
Sri Chinmoy	Chinmoy	Śrī Chinmoy
Sri Aurobindo	Aurobindo Ghose	Śrī Aurobindo
Sri Sri Harichand Thakur	Harichand Biswas	Śrī Śrī Harichand Thakur
Adi Shankara	Śankara	Śrī Śrī Śrī Śankarācārya Bhagavatpāda
Ramakrishna	Svāmī Rāmakrsna Puri	Guru Mahārāj, Śrī Śrī Rāmakrsna Paramahamsa, Thākur
Brahmananda Saraswati	Jagadguru Śankarācārya Svāmī Brahmānanda Sarasvatī	Guru Dev
Yukteswar Giri	Svāmī Śrīyukteśwara Giri	Gyānavatār Śrī Śrīmat Svāmī Śrīyukteśwara Giri Mahārāj
Satyananda Giri	Svāmī Satyānanda Giri	Svāmi Satyānanda Giri Mahārāj
Shivapuri Baba	Svāmī Govindānanda Bhāratī	Shivapuri Bābā
Hazur Rai Saligram Bahadur	Sālig Rām	Huzūr Mahārāj
	Brahm Shankar Miśra	Mahārāj Sāheb
	Mādhav Prasād Sinha	Babujī Mahārāj
	Ajudhyā Prasād	Lālājī Mahārāj
	Gur Prasād	Kunwarjī Mahārāj
	Agam Prasād Mathur	Dadajī Mahārāj
Baba Kirtan Singh Ji	Kīrtan Singh	Bābā Kīrtan Singh Jī
Baba Sawan Singh	Sāwan Singh Grewal	Hazūr Bābā Sāwan Singh Jī Mahārāj
Charan Singh (guru)	Charan Singh Grewal	Huzūr Mahārāj Charan Singh Jī
Param Sant Kanwar Saheb	Kanwar Singh	Param Sant Huzūr Kanwar Sāhebjī Mahārāj
Hans Ji Maharaj	Hansrām Singh Rawat	Param Sant Sadgurudev Hans Jī Mahārāj
Maharishi Shiv Brat Lal	Shiv Brat Lāl Verman	Data Dayal Mahārishi Shiv Brat Lāl Jī
Baba Faqir Chand	Faqīr Chand	Param Dayāl Bābā Faqīr Chand Jī Mahārāj
Nisargadatta Maharaj	Nisargadatta	Śrī Nisargadatta Mahārāj
Siddharameshwar Maharaj	Siddharāmeśwar	Śrī Siddharāmeshwar Mahārāj
Ganapatrao Maharaj Kannur	Ganapatrao Kannur	Shrī Samartha Sadguru Ganapatrao Mahārāj Kannur
Asaram Bapu	Asaram	Sant Śrī Asaramjī Bapu
Lakshman Joo	Laksman Raina	Swāmī Lakshman Joo
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar	Prabhāt Rañjan Sarkār	Param Pitá Bábá Shrii Shrii Ánandamúrtijii
Mahāvīra	Vardhamana	Mahāvīra
Nirmala Srivastava	Nirmala Śrīvastava	Shrī Nirmala Devī Mātājī
Adi Da	Franklin Albert Jones	Bubba Free John, Da Free John, Naitaubha Avadhuta Da Love-Ananda Hridayam, Da Avabhasa, Adi Da

Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be more than four non-honorific names in the above list. The use of ordinal names (suffixes Giri, Saraswati, et.c.) should not be counted as honorifics, and also the usage of the name 'Singh'. The disambiguation 'guru' in 'Charan Singh (guru)' could be seen as acceptable. The term 'adi' in 'Adi Shankara' can be seen as a disambiguation similar to the use of regnal numbers. Imc (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, you're right, Imc. There are 8 Wikipedia article titles with no honorifics (Kirtanananda Swami, Krsna, Ramakrishna, Brahmananda Saraswati, Yukteswar Giri, Satyananda Giri, Charan Singh, and Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar). "Giri" and "Saraswati" are not honorifics; they're two of the ten sub-orders of the Swami Order. "Singh" (lion) is not an honorific; many people in Panjab and Rajasthan use this name, aside from being mandatory for male Sikhs. Sankara is often called the "Adi Sankara," i.e. "the first Sankara," to differentiate him from the four heads of the Swami Order who occupy the ecclesiastical position of "Sankaracarya."Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

While we need to avoid honorifics when possible, we also avoid wp:CREDENTIALs, salutations, forms of address and other similarly superfluous stuff in article titles. They are instead described in article text, usually in narrative form. The only really good reason for using them in article titles is to disambiguate naturally when we have separate articles on similarly-named people. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC: On promotion

The following discussion 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.

---

This naming convention has been essentially stable for over a year. It's past time we discussed promoting it. Please comment constructively, including linked wikipolicy-based reasons for your position, and describing any edits that would be necessary to resolve problems with the page. This RFC will be listed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). LeadSongDog come howl! 17:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Support

• Support - as nom. While there is (as always) room for improvement, it seems useful in its present state. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - it is a necessary policy to bring in some consistency. Imc (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - So that every time I will not have to give long arguments. neo (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - though changes are needed, the basic structure looks good. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - and thanks to nom for proposal. Needed and should be done for all major geo-linguistic topic areas.Just one caveat - be careful that once formally adopted by RfC, active watching is needed on additions, for example 2 controversies which I have noted on Indic topics - use of IAST for Sanskrit titles for example, or second example not having the local name in bracket (like WP:RUSSIANNAMES example, even when there is only 1 clear local name (only Malayali, only Telugu) is a major departure from normal en.wp practice and I've noted before my own concern with what appears to be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at WikiProject India that is disadvantageous to readers familiar with Arabic, Russia and China articles. [Yes I understand when it is someone/somewhere/something with Hindi/Panjabi/Gujarati/etc names then it needs to be in an infobox]. That is an example, if something major like that is added to Naming conventions (Indic), which is out of normal Arabic, Russia, China, etc practice, then that will need a second RfC not just WikiProject India etc. active editors. That's a small point, otherwise congratulate nom on nomination and fully support current RfC. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Comment

• Comment Can the section Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Naming_and_transliteration be improved? There are a number of Request Move (at Talk:Māllīnātha) still pending presumably because the draft policy is not clear. Some examples of simplified translation can be there to illustrate what it is. Does removing diacritics from IAST makes simplified translation? Also, is there any other Wikipedia Policy which supports using simplified translation, or is this a completely new proposal? Rahul Jain (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean simplified transliteration? Wikipedia:DIACRITICS gives guidance already. While I'm roughly neutral on which to make the basic article title, redirects from all the common variations seem to be necessary anyhow. The usual advice is to "follow the sources". LeadSongDog come howl! 19:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:DIACRITICS states that use of modified letters is neither encouraged nor discouraged, however, this article, i.e. WP:NCIN clearly states to use simplified transliteration if a primary transliteration cannot be clearly established. My concern specifically is why simplified transliteration is being preferred over formal transliteration? Is this preference backed by another Wikipedia policy, or is there a consensus to do so?

Absent evidence in sources for a primary choice between transliterations, what alternatives are there? Would we leave individual editors to arbitrarily choose one, or just not show transliteration at all? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

We can use 1) Primary transliteration if it is established. 2) Formal translation, if primary transliteration is not established. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fiine by me, but which formal transliteration? Hunterian? IAST? ISO? Some other arbitrary choice? Leave it up to the first editor's whim? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

We can go with the consensus for that. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:DIACRITICS has been edited about quite a bit over the last 3-4 years and is not entirely stable, it is also mislinked to the wrong WP:Reliable sources page, and in what it says of line with absolutely universal use of diacritics for every European Latin language (except exonyms like Munich); I'm not even convinced that it has more editor input than this RfC. So this RfC and Indic projects should decide what is best by major pillars of en.wp policy and then deal with challenges. However bear in mind that Indic diacritics are almost 100% transliterations of Indic scripts. That is not the same as French or Czech diacritics, or even Maori and Hawaiian diacritics, so do not expect the same support from the whole en.wp editor community as French or Czech diacritics enjoy. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

In response to the first point about making simplified transliteration clearer, further detail is given at Wikipedia:Indic_transliteration_scheme complete with table, examples, explanation. It is more complicated than omission of diacritics. There is some unfinished business at the end, but this can be cleaned up, and appears unlikely to make much difference to titling of articles (as opposed to the article text). Imc (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've commented out the unfinished sections. These would benefit from a review by someone with good knowledge of modern Indian phonemes. However the missing items are not essential, so the transliteration table can be used. Imc (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not approve of simplified transliteration. Is there a consensus to create a whole new transliteration scheme just for wikipedia, or is this simplified transliteration borrowed from another source? It seems to me that using this would only create another variation in spellings, some kind of Wikipedia version. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we leave the details of transliteration to Wikipedia:Indic_transliteration rather than rehashing it here? I can't see any reason to have two (potentially conflicting) guidelines. Also, I've wp:BOLDly added that to wp:Romanization, though it likely still needs work before it will really satisy the community. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems acceptable. Rahul Jain (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems acceptable, yes. But permit me as a very occasional editor to South India topics to expand on caveat in my own support above. My own view (which is irrelevant, I'm just declaring it) is that an approach such as WikiProject Japan with simplified modern names, non-simplified historical/Buddhist/art names is probably appropriate. But my view is irrelevant, what I'm saying is that if a very basic rule like that is to be added a second RfC might be advisable. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

"Titles and honorifics" to include examples of exceptions

The section of "Titles and honorifics" of this guideline gives list of titles/honorifics "which should be questioned" when used. But i think that such list should include examples of exceptions as well there by giving clear information. Also, if there have been multiple discussions on any particular name, those needs to be recorded here by providing links to those discussions. We have enlisted a few titles/honorifics in that section but we still have article with them in article name. Hence i think its better to list them over here. This might open Pandora's box in some cases, but the bandage has to be ripped off at some time. We have following articles which could be exceptions or requiring move.

"which should be questioned"

• Acharya Mahapragya (redirect ~~ )
• Acharya Mahasharman (redirect ~~ )
• Acharya Tulsi (natural dab ~~ )
• Advaita Acharya
• Bhagavan Das (yogi) (explicit dab ~~ )
• Bhagwan Gopinath (natural dab ~~ )
• Bhakti Caitanya Swami (dubious ~~)
• Bhakti Charu Swami
• Bhakti Tirtha Swami
• Bhaktisvarupa Damodar Swami
• Brahmanand Swami
• Giriraja Swami
• Gopalanand Swami
• Gour Govinda Swami
• Gunatitanand Swami
• Guru Amar Das
• Guru Angad
• Guru Arjan
• Guru Gobind Singh
• Guru Har Krishan
• Guru Har Rai
• Guru Hargobind
• Guru Nanak
• Guru Ram Das
• Guru Ravidass
• Guru Tegh Bahadur
• Hansadutta Swami
• Indradyumna Swami
• Jayadvaita Swami
• Jayapataka Swami
• Kanji Swami
• Kirtanananda Swami
• Lord Alfred Douglas
• Lord Buckley
• Lord Clifden
• Lord Colin Campbell
• Lord Frederick Windsor
• Lord George Bentinck
• Lord Nicholas Windsor
• Lord William Bentinck
• Muktanand Swami
• Narayana Guru
• Niralamba Swami
• Radhanath Swami
• Raghavendra Swami
• Raja Jemaah
• Sacinandana Swami
• Soham Swami
• Sri Aurobindo
• Sri Bharati Tirtha
• Sri Chinmoy
• Swami Abhedananda
• Swami Adbhutananda
• Swami Advaitananda
• Swami Akhandananda
• Swami Atmajnanananda
• Swami Brahmananda
• Swami Gambhirananda
• Swami Haridas
• Swami Lakshmanananda
• Swami Madhavananda
• Swami Maheshwarananda
• Swami Nikhilananda
• Swami Niranjanananda (Niranjan Maharaj)
• Swami Niranjanananda
• Swami Nirmalananda
• Swami Paramananda
• Swami Prabhavananda
• Swami Pranavananda
• Swami Rama
• Swami Ramakrishnananda
• Swami Ramanand
• Swami Ranganathananda
• Swami Saradananda
• Swami Shivananda
• Swami Shraddhanand
• Swami Subodhananda
• Swami Swarupananda
• Swami Trigunatitananda
• Swami Turiyananda
• Swami Vijnanananda
• Swami Vipulananda
• Swami Virajananda
• Swami Vishnu Tirtha
• Swami Yogananda
• many more Swamis.....
• Trailanga Swami
• Tripurari Swami
• Vallabha Acharya
• Visnujana Swami

Please enlist other articles also as and when you find. If on cursory discussion here we find these titles in article names to be okay, i propose them to be listed as exceptions in the guideline. If we have some editor opposing any particular example, we can take the WP:MOVE way case by case on their respective talk pages. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree this is an issue - not just for Indic articles. Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of all honorifics except in those cases (a) where it is clearly a part of the common name and (b) where it may be necessary for disambiguation. The religious ones, in particular, are suspect since almost anyone can have a Bhagwan or Swami attached to their name and it's not for us to decide which ones are worthy of the honorific and which ones are not. So, for example, I think Guru Nanak is fine because he is well known, and commonly known by that name, but Guru Hargobind is not. As for the various Lords in the list above, the don't satisfy WP:NCPEER and need to be moved. --regentspark (comment) 14:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Eleven Gurus of Sikhism, KEEP ALL.
Guru Ravidass (Rohidas) is not known by any other name (doesn't have a full name/ full name not known by any), so KEEP.
Lord Clifden was a British thoroughbred racehorse & is named as such, so KEEP. Rest all, Lord's, as per consensus.
Rest all, Acharya, Bhagwan, Bhakti, Guru, Raja, Sri & Swami's, as per consensus.
Swami §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ Lord Dougweller Lord regentspark
- Ninney (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well Ninney, the discussion was never intended to be a MOVE discussion, but only to include exclusions and examples in the guideline. A common list does help in getting us to think on all at once. But their moves has to be as per WP:MOVE and needs to be on their talk pages. All articles needs to be gauged differently. What we want from here is (a) Should examples be included? (b) Should exclusions be included? (c) What should those be? Our WP:COMMONNAME includes examples which are good to have. (Although i had given a suggestion to modify those also, which went unnoticed and got archived at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_42#Suggestions_on_examples_listed.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that many of these honorifics, job titles, professions, and such might not stand close scrutiny, though as noted this is not the place for specific move discussions. Perhaps it would be helpful to have few standard short rationales explaining the exceptional retention. E.g., for Lord George Bentinck, it might be annotated briefly as "- natural dab - from George Bentinck (MP)". A handful of such notations would go a long way. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Primary name and reliable sources

Currently the policy says that the primary transliteration is established if at least 75% of all references in wider English usage are of that form. This now seems a bit loose to me, since it doesn't take account of other aspects of naming policy. I suggest that it be changed to if at least 75% of all references in reliable references in wider English usage. Imc (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sampling of inconsistency in Wikipedia

Opinion and guessing have their value, but factual information is often better. By way of the following table, I would like to demonstrate the inconsistent style of Wikipedia titling in connection with naming, and hence the need for some system of uniformity. As can be seen, it seems that Wikipedia titling shows arbitrariness, sometimes following the popular and devotional style (with honorifics), and then a formal non-devotional style at other times.

Wikipedia Article Title	Formal (Neutral) Name	Popular (Devotional) Name
Charan Singh (guru)	Charan Singh Grewal	Maharaj Charan Singh Ji
Baba Sawan Singh	Sawan Singh Grewal	Hazur Baba Sawan Singh Ji Maharaj
Param Sant Kanwar Saheb	Kanwar Singh	Param Sant Huzur Kanwar Sahebji Maharaj
Hans Ji Maharaj	Hansram Singh Rawat	Param Sant Satgurudev Hans Ji Maharaj
Maharishi Shiv Brat Lal	Shiv Brat Lal Verman	Maharishi Shiv Brat Lal Ji
Baba Faqir Chand	Faqīr Chand	Param Dayal Baba Faqir Chand Ji Maharaj
Nisargadatta Maharaj	Nisargadatta	Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Siddharameshwar Maharaj	Siddharameśvar	Sri Siddharameshwar Maharaj
Ganapatrao Maharaj Kannur	Ganapatrao Kannur	Shri Samartha Sadaguru Ganapatrao Maharaj Kannur
Asaram Bapu	Asaram	Sant Sri Asaramji Bapu
Lakshman Joo	Lakshman Raina	Swami Lakshman Joo
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi	Mahesh Yogī	His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Brahmananda Saraswati	Svāmī Brahmānanda Sarasvatī	Guru Dev
Lahiri Mahasaya	Shyāma Charan Lahirī	Yogiraj Sri Sri Lahiri Mahasaya
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada	Abhaya Caranaravinda Bhaktivedānta Svāmī	His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati	Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī	His Divine Grace Om Visnupada Paramahamsa Parivrajakacarya 108 Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja Prabhupada
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh	Rajneesh	Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
Sri Aurobindo	Aurobindo Ghose	Sri Aurobindo
Sri Chinmoy	Chinmoy	Sri Chinmoy
Mahatma Gandhi	Mohandās Karamchand Gāndhī	Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhiji, Bapu
Yukteswar Giri	Svāmī Śrīyukteśvara Giri	Gyanavatar Sri Srimat Swami Sriyukteswara Maharaj
Satyananda Giri	Svāmī Satyānanda Giri	Swami Satyananda Giri Maharaj
Satyananda Saraswati	Svāmī Satyānanda Sarasvatī	Paramhansa Swami Satyananda
Sivananda Saraswati	Swāmī Sivānanda Sarasvatī	His Holiness Mahapurusha Sivananda Maharaj
Ramana Maharshi	Rāmana	Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi
Hazur Rai Saligram Bahadur	Salig Rām	Huzur Maharaj
Govindananda Bharati	Svāmī Govindānanda Bhāratī	Shivapuri Baba
Mahāprajña	Mahāprajñā	Acharya Mahaprajna
Mahasharman	Mahāsarman	Acharya Mahasharman
Acharya Tulsi	Tulsī	Acharya Tulsi
Advaita Acharya	Advaita	Advaita Acharya
Bhagavan Das (yogi)	Bhagavan Dās	Bhagavan Das
Bhagwan Gopinath	Gopināth	Bhagwan Gopinath Ji
Bhakti Caitanya Swami	Bhakti Caitanya Svāmī	His Grace Srila Bhakti Chaitanya Swami Maharaja
Bhakti Charu Swami	Bhakti Caru Svāmī	Srila Bhakti Charu Swami Maharaja
Bhakti Tirtha Swami	Bhakti Tirtha Svāmī	His Holiness Srila Bhakti Tirtha Swami Krsnapada
Bhaktisvarupa Damodar Swami	Bhaktisvarūpa Damodara Svāmī	His Holiness Srila Bhaktisvarupa Damodara Swami Maharaja
Brahmanand Swami	Brahmānand Svāmī	Paramhansa Brahmanand Swami
Giriraja Swami	Girirāja Svāmī	His Holiness Srila Giriraja Swami Maharaja
Gopalanand Swami	Gopalānand Svāmī	Paramhansa Gopalanand Swami
Gour Govinda Swami	Gaura Govinda Svāmī	Srila Gour Govinda Swami Maharaja
Gunatitanand Swami	Gunatitānand Svāmī	Paramhansa Gunatitanand Swami
Guru Amar Das	Amar Dās	Guru Amar Das
Guru Angad	Angad	Guru Angad
Guru Arjan	Arjan	Guru Arjan Dev
Guru Gobind Singh	Gobind Singh	Guru Gobind Singh
Guru Har Krishan	Har Krishan	Guru Har Krishan
Guru Har Rai	Har Rāi	Guru Har Rai
Guru Hargobind	Hargobind	Guru Hargobind
Guru Nanak	Nānak	Guru Nanak Dev
Guru Ram Das	Rām Dās	Guru Ram Das
Guru Ravidass	Rāvidās	Guru Ravidassji
Guru Tegh Bahadur	Tyag Mal Sodhi	Guru Tegh Bahadur
Hansadutta Swami	Hamsaduta Svāmī	His Divine Grace Srila Hansadutta Swami Maharaja
Indradyumna Swami	Indradyumna Svāmī	His Grace Srila Indradyumna Swami Maharaja
Jayadvaita Swami	Jayadvaita Svāmī	His Grace Srila Jayadvaita Swami Maharaja
Jayapataka Swami	Jayapataka Svāmī	His Divine Grace Srila Jayapataka Swami Maharaja
Kirtanananda Swami	Kirtanānanda Svāmī	His Divine Grace Srila Kirtanananda Swami Bhaktipada
Muktanand Swami	Muktānand Svāmī	Paramhansa Muktanand Swami
Niralamba Swami	Niralamba Svāmī	Niralamba Swami
Radhanath Swami	Rādhānātha Svāmī	Srila Radhanath Swami
Raghavendra Swami	Raghavendra Tīrtha Svāmī	Sri Raghavendra Swamigal
Sacinandana Swami	Sacinandana Svāmī	His Grace Sachinandana Swami
Soham Swami	Soham Svāmī	Tiger Swami
Sri Bharati Tirtha	Jagadguru Śankarācārya Svāmī Bhāratī Tirtha	His Holiness Sri Sannidhanam 108 Sri Sri Sri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigalu
Swami Abhedananda	Svāmī Abhedānanda Puri	Swami Abhedananda
Swami Adbhutananda	Svāmī Adbhutānanda Puri	Latu Maharaj
Swami Advaitananda	Svāmī Advaitānanda Puri	Buro Gopal
Swami Akhandananda	Svāmī Akhandānanda Puri	Swami Akhandananda
Swami Atmajnanananda	Svāmī Atmajñānānanda Puri	Swami Atmajnanananda
Swami Brahmananda	Svāmī Brahmānanda Puri	Rakhal Maharaj
Swami Gambhirananda	Svāmī Gambhirānanda Puri	Swami Gambhirananda
Swami Haridas	Haridās	Swami Haridas
Lakshmanananda Saraswati	Svāmī Laksmanānanda Sarasvatī	Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati
Swami Madhavananda	Svāmī Madhavānanda Puri	Swami Madhavananda
Swami Maheshwarananda	Maheśvarānanda	Paramhansa Swami Maheshwarananda
Swami Nikhilananda	Svāmī Nikhilānanda Puri	Swami Nikhilananda
Niranjanananda	Svāmī Nirañjanānanda Puri	Swami Niranjan Maharaj
Niranjanananda Saraswati	Svāmī Nirañjanānanda Sarasvatī	Swami Niranjanananda Saraswati
Nirmalananda	Svāmī Nirmalānanda Puri	Swami Nirmalananda
Swami Paramananda	Svāmī Paramānanda Puri	Swami Paramananda
Swami Prabhavananda	Svāmī Prabhavānanda Puri	Swami Prabhavananda
Pranavananda	Svāmī Pranavānanda Giri	Acharya Sreemat Swami Pranavananda Ji Maharaj
Pranavananda Saraswathi	Svāmī Pranavānanda Sarasvatī	Swami Pranavananda
Swami Rama	Svāmī Rāma Bhāratī	Sri Swami Rama
Ramakrishnananda	Svāmī Rāmakrsnānanda Puri	Swami Ramakrishnananda
Swami Ramanand	Rāmānand Svāmī	Ramanand Swami
Swami Ranganathananda	Svāmī Ranganāthānanda Puri	Swami Ranganathananda
Saradananda	Svāmī Sāradānanda Puri	Swami Saradananda
Shivananda	Svāmī Shivānanda Puri	Mahapurush Swami Shivananda Maharaj
Swami Shraddhanand	Svāmī Sraddhānanda Sarasvati	Swami Shraddhanand
Subodhananda	Svāmī Subodhānanda Puri	Swami Subodhananda
Swarupananda	Svāmī Svarūpānanda Puri	Swami Swarupananda
Trigunatitananda	Svāmī Trigunatitānanda Puri	Swami Trigunatitananda
Turiyananda	Svāmī Turiyānanda Puri	Swami Turiyananda
Swami Vijnanananda	Svāmī Vijnānānanda Puri	Swami Vijnanananda
Swami Vipulananda	Svāmī Vipulānanda Puri	Swami Vipulananda
Swami Virajananda	Svāmī Virajānanda Puri	Swami Virajananda
Swami Vishnu Tirtha	Svāmī Visnu Tīrtha	Swami Vishnu Tirtha
Swami Yogananda	Svāmī Yogānanda Puri	Swami Yogananda
Trailanga	Svāmī Ganapati Sarasvatī	Trailanga Swami
Tripurari Swami	Tripurari Svāmī	Tripurari Swami
Vallabha Acharya	Vallabha	Vallabhacharya
Visnujana Swami	Visnujana Svāmī	Visnujana Swami
Sri Vidya Prakasananda Giri Swamy	Svāmī Vidyāprakāśānanda Giri	Sri Vidya Prakasananda Giri Swamy

Honorifics include: śrī, shri, shrii, shree, śrī śrī, śrī śrī śrī, śrīla, śrīman, jī, jiew, joo, jiu, swāmījī, mahātma, mahārsi, mahāyogī, mahāsaya, mahārāj, mahārājjī, prabhu, prabhujī, mahāprabhu, gurudev, gurujī, guru mahārāj jī, sāheb, sāhebjī, bābā, bābājī, mā, māta, mātajī, bhagvan, prabhupāda, bhaktipāda. Such situation probably should be handled by someone objective and neutral and who knows what he's doing, rather than by someone using guesswork. See my "Standardised List of Notable Dasanāmīs" in Dashanami Sampradaya. Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for preparing this. It was previously discussed at great length, please see /Archive 1, though your approach is a bit different. The biographical article naming practice has been somewhat problematic in areas where the bulk of the "literature" is devotional websites and tracts, published by followers/believers/supporters/etc., rather than neutral observers. Far too often we have accepted these as if they were impartial, reliable sources. Our default choice should be the simplest unambiguous option, leaving out the "Mr", "Emperor", "Brother", "Sri", "Swami", "Pandit" or whatever else except if that is the only natural way to disambiguate similarly-named articles.

I note that several of the articles you list are just redirects. You might want to tweak those entries in your table (I won't presume to do so myself), per wp:TPG. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, LeadSongDog. I think redirects have been made in those articles since I made the chart above. I'll look into them when...Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Indic script examples

As WP:INDICSCRIPT gives consensus for NOT having Indic script in the lead or infobox, could this page:-

1. Refer to that consensus
2. Remove examples, such as - "Mumbai (mumbəi; Marathi: मुंबई, mumbaī) is a..." - which contravenes that consensus

I'm not sure what you could replace that example with, without contravening WP:INDICSCRIPT? mMybe this page needs deleting? It certainly needs major changes - Arjayay (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like all mentions of scripts and transliterations need to be removed, except perhaps those referring to romanised IPA. - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Awards

According to the government, the Bharat Ratna, Padma Bhushan, Padma Vibhushan etc should not be used as honorific prefixes or suffixes, nor should abbreviations of those awards. I am in the process of cleaning up many instances where this has actually happened. Can we add something about it to this guidance, please? - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, it'll be quite helpful and I don't see foresee any objections. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Jaggi Vasudev -> Sadhguru RM notice

FYI: It has been requested that the title of Jaggi Vasudev be changed to Sadhguru. Please see the relevant discussion on the discussion page.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)