Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indic)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Titles and honorifics" to include examples of exceptions[edit]

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"

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.
Face-smile.svg Swami §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ Face-smile.svg Lord Dougweller Face-smile.svg Lord regentspark Face-smile.svg
- 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[edit]

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)