Talk:Naga Chaitanya

Untitled

stydied in st mary's college hyderabad yousufguda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.205.93 (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC) many people doesn't know that chai loves to leave as a normal people and his attitude is very good.most of people are think that is very romantic with heroins but the fact is' off the screen he doesn't talk to them.....once thammana also said in tv5 interwive',her gives full fredoom to the girls and feel comfort them

Hello.. I want to know about Naga Chaitanya.

Bedakhatiwoda (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Separation is not divorce

@Adithya003 Please note that "announcing separation" is not a "divorce". Please revert your changes accordingly. — DaxServer (talk to me) 11:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Revert regarding MOS:SURNAME

@Ab207: I see you reverted my changes regarding MOS:SURNAME. Given the discussions we've had elsewhere on other articles, it seems like you're confused about Wiki policy (and English etiquette) on names. The common name, which is used for article titles, has absolutely nothing to do with subsequent usage within the article body; that has to do with their professional use. The actor is credited in numerous films as "Akkineni Naga Chaitanya" or "Naga Chaitanya Akkineni", which establishes professional use of his full name. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Getsnoopy. My stand has always been that that subsequent usage must be consistent with the COMMONNAME/artile title of the person, which has been the outcome in P. V. Sindhu RfC as well. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

But Ab207, this seems to just be your opinion. MOS, however, expressly states that this is not the case; the article title and subsequent use have absolutely nothing to do with each other. If you disagree with this policy, I'd recommend you propose an RfC on the relevant MOS page. Reverting others' edits because of your opinion despite clear policy stating otherwise, however, seems like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is disruptive editing. I hope you will stop doing this. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Getsnoopy, it's not just my opinion but a long-standing version of the page. The onus to seek WP:CONSENSUS rests on those who seek to make the change. Moreover, MOS is a guideline, not a policy which clearly states "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Therefore, I vehemently object to your acussastion of disruptive editing. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Ab207, My stand has always been that that subsequent usage must be consistent with the COMMONNAME/artile title of the person This definitely is your own opinion as you yourself stated, and something which I keep repeating that this is simply not the case; article titles and subsequent use have nothing to do with each other. Article titles have to do with discoverability of the article throughout WP and the wider Web; subsequent use has to do with etiquette and style, something which only concerns the article itself. Consider yourself informed. You keep citing "common sense", when this is anything but. In the P. V. Sindhu case, your argument that her surname was abbreviated was the reason, so it had some sort of teeth. This is completely not the case here; there's absolutely no reason to do that here. This is not an exceptional case; he uses his surname professionally. This is no different than the myriad other articles that do the same thing. To go against that policy would mean the onus of providing strong evidence rests on you. Just because an article has been in a certain state for a long time doesn't mean it arrived there via consensus (e.g., it could've been a seldom edited page, the issue could've been overlooked, etc.). On the other hand, MOS policy is indeed an act of active consensus. You seem to be callously disregarding MOS as "guidelines" that can be transgressed at will. While it is true that MOS policies are not completely "hard" rules as it were (i.e., there can be exceptions), they are meant to be followed unless there is strong evidence to justify doing otherwise. This is no different to, for example, the MOS policy on WP:ENGVAR; it's not allowed unless there is a strong reason to do it. Similarly, unless you can show that here, there's no reason to be using his given name in subsequent use. Getsnoopy (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Getsnoopy, even in the Sindhu's case, you kept re-iterating that she used her surname professionally, so we ought to refer her by surname. However, majority of reliable sources refer to her only with an intial. Here, its even more straightforard wherein reliable sources refer to him without the surname.

If you feel there's a need for change, you may go for disupte resolution while the status quo is maintained. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Ab207, again, you keep making the point about how sources are using their names subsequently, which is not at all what policy says. It is entirely unrelated to what WP decides to per its own MoS and policy. In this case, there are numerous reliable sources which all list his full name, which clearly shows that he uses his full name professionally. I'll be soliciting another editor's opinion on this (despite it clearly not being up to anyone's opinion). Getsnoopy (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Getsnoopy, While subsequnt usage in reliable sources does partially support this rationale as evident in the closure of Sindhu RfC, my primary argument has been that when surname is not part of the COMMONNAME/RECOGNIZABLE name of the subject, it cannot be used in the subsequent usage. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ab207, Not only is that not true (again, as explicitly stated in MoS: COMMONNAME and subsequent use have nothing to do with each other), but it seems like even that might be a moot point seeing as the actor's own Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, IMDb, etc. all credit him as "Chay Akkineni", "Naga Chaitanya Akkineni", or "Akkineni Naga Chaitanya". Ironically, we might have a case here to change the COMMONNAME of the article to "Akkineni Naga Chaitanya" to solve this issue once and for all. Getsnoopy (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed rename to Akkineni Naga Chaitanya

Per the discussion in the section above, I'm proposing to rename this article to Akkineni Naga Chaitanya given that that's what self-attested sources and myriad other sources credit the actor as (i.e., with his surname present in some form). If nobody has any stark objections to this, I will make this move in 7 days. Getsnoopy (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Better to open an RM instead so that the discussion gets more visibility -- Ab207 (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 12:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure) Naga Chaitanya → Akkineni Naga Chaitanya – Most reliable sources and self-attested sources point to the person using their surname professionally, as evidenced by the sources given in the section § Revert regarding MOS:SURNAME above. Getsnoopy (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - A simple Google search reveals that the name usage in the current form "Naga Chaitanya" in reliable sources is overwhelming. "akkineni naga chaitanya" : ~8,200 ; "naga chaitanya" : ~115,000 ; "naga chaitanya" -akkineni : ~118,000 ; "naga chaitanya akkineni" : ~1,500. This is not a WP:NAMECHANGE scenario. The WP:STAGENAME also asks to consider what the reliable sources use. I'm not so sure what the nominator meant by "most reliable sources" use Akkineni Naga Chaitanya when the uncontested majority actually use the opposite, Naga Chaitanya. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC) (Note: I tried to link the 10th results page from Google, but the MediaWiki software screws up Google links, so updated to the first page — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC))
• Oppose Most English-language reliable sources refer to the subject as "Naga Chaitanya." Personal preferences may be considered in some cases but the other names aren't nearly as common as the current title per the above data by DaxServer -- Ab207 (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2022 (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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Naga Chaitanya MW cover.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable Citations

So many Unreliable citations have been used in the article, according to WP:FILM/INDIA "Filmibeat.com" is Not Reliable source and according to WP:IBTIMES "International Business Times (IB Times)" is unreliable source, but articles from these websites have been used as citations more than once, these citations should be replaced with reliable sources. Arctic Writer (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2024

Should update the spouse status Akashsmu (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)