Template talk:Indian patronymic/Archive 1

Variations of this template

As Indian names differ greatly, it may be necessary to create variations of this template – please leave a message on this talk page if you have any suggestions. For instance, I've noticed that some people use "a/l" instead of "s/o" (son of). I assume that "a/l" means "son of" in Tamil, but don't know what it stands for or the equivalent of "daughter of". Also, someone will need to explain to me how Sikh names work. (Is "Kaur" or "Singh" regarded as a surname?) Cheers, Jacklee 09:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a/l" and "a/p" stand for "Anak lelaki (son of)" and "anak perempuan (daughter of)" in Malay. And "kaur" and "singh" are not a surname.. that's for sure but I don't know what is the meaning.. izz ud in 10:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've updated the template based on this information. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed --> referred

Jacklee, this is a useful template to use in many articles about people of Indian origin. I have made one change to the text, using "should be referred by" instead of "should be addressed by", so that the template can be used for dead people also. Please feel free to further modify the text. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 16:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a useful change. I may make the same change to {{Malay name}} and {{Malay name2}}. Cheers, Jacklee 20:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of parameters

Hi, when an Indian name consists of a given name and a patronymic, is it always the case that the patronymic is put in front of the given name? In other words, if an Indian person's name is, say, "Shunmugam Jayakumar", would it be safe to assume that the person's given name is "Jayakumar" and that his father's name is "Shunmugam"? I'm wondering whether the order of the parameters in the template should be reversed. At the moment, it is necessary to type "{{Indian name|Jayakumar|Shunmugam}}". If the patronymic is always in front of the given name, perhaps it would be better to change the template so that it can be used like this: "{{Indian name|Shunmugam|Jayakumar}}", as this may be more natural for editors. Comments? Cheers, Jacklee 23:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Indian patronymic" would be better. Most Indians have last names, even Tamils (like Jayakumar I assume) do but they are not commonly used.Baka man 00:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting renaming the template itself? I think "Indian name" is easier to remember (and spell), and is in line with how other surname disambiguation templates are named. My question concerns the order of the parameters in the template: would it be more intuitive for editors to put the patronymic in front of the given name ("{{Indian name|Shanmugam|Jayakumar}}") or the other way around ("{{Indian name|Jayakumar|Shanmugam}}", which is the present position)? Cheers, Jacklee 00:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian names differ by region. From my own knowledge, most North Indians do use their surnames, not a Patronymic, especially if they are from a high caste. Examples of a Tamil name would be Gautham Suresh and Kartik Ramesh. Here Suresh and Ramesh are the patronymics. There are also people who replace their their surname with their middle name. Kumar, Singh and Kaur are common examples. Gizza^Discuss ^© 01:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you have said is correct. But in the above example, (when Gautham is Son of Suresh) the School and other records will be S.Gautham (and not G.Suresh as you would have in western world or north india) and (when Karthik is son of Ramesh) the records will have R.Karthik (and not K.Ramesh). If Wikipedians from Europe, US and North India can understand this concept, (it is enough if you understand... you need not accept :) :) ) it will lead to better edits. See the examples and exception section I have written below Doctor Bruno 20:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gizza. For biographical articles about Indians who have surnames, it's not necessary to use the {tl|Indian name}} template at all. The template is only necessary if a person's name consists of a given name and a patronymic, and it's desired to indicate which element of the name is a patronymic. As for the names "Kumar", "Singh" and "Kaur", are you saying they are regarded as middle names and not surnames? Cheers, Jacklee 03:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar and Singh and Kaur have become both middle names and surnames. From my personal knowledge, (but of course, I'm not WP:RS) originally all of them were only titles and used as middle names. Gizza^Discuss ^© 04:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Perhaps when we do find a reliable source we can think about a template, perhaps called {{Sikh name}}, which explains the significance of "Kaur" and "Singh". In the meantime, what are your views on the issue of the order of the parameters? Cheers, Jacklee 11:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the name is Shanmugam Jayakumar, typically Shanmugam would be the given name and Jayakumar would be the father's name. In other words, if somebody's name has two parts, the first is invariably the given name and the second is patronymic or surname (singh, kaur, kumar, mukherjee, chatterjee, Gowda, mudaliar, tendulkar, manjrekar, ganguly etc.,) as the case may be. Of course, there are exceptions. In some cases, people also use the name of their native village/town/city as the second name. Example - Anil Kumble where Anil is his given name and Kumble is the name of his native village(his ancestors' actually). otoh, we have Javagal Srinath where Srinath is his given name and Javagal is his native village (again, his ancestors'). The template needs to be changed accordingly. Sarvagnya 11:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me preface my response by saying that I'm not Indian. However, in Singapore, at least among Tamils, it seems to be the practice to put one's father's name in front of one's given name. Thus, the given name of the politician Shanmugam Jayakumar (who often abbreviates his name to "S. Jayakumar") is "Jayakumar" and the patronymic is "Shanmugam". From what you said, it seems there is variation among Indians as to whether the patronymic or surname is placed first or last. In that case, I shall leave the order of the parameters in the template untouched. Editors will have to note that the given name must be stated as the first parameter and the patronymic as the second one, regardless of how they actually appear in the person's name. Cheers, Jacklee 13:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Please note that the Indian Naming conventions are different. The son's name is written first and then only the father's name (or surname) is written. Hence the Correct name will be Kamaraj Kumaraswami and not the opposite. In fact the correct way would be K.Kamaraj only.

Initials in Tamil naming conventions mean the father's name and not the son's name. For example brothers Robert Smith and William Smith are written as R.Smith and W.Smith. But brothers Lavan and Kusan are written as R.Lavan and R.Kusan in Tamil Nadu. Tell me how this should be expanded so as to give the westerners a correct interpretation. WIll you write it as Raman Lavan or Lavan Raman. WHat will be the impression that will be generated in the global community when it is written as Raman Lavan. Who will be considered as the father and who will be considered as the son. If you are going to name them as per western conventions it is K.Raman and L.Raman which is never done in Tamil Nadu. Similarly the smith brothers will be called as S.Robert and S.Williams. I can't comment upon this system, but please expand R.Lavan as Lavan Raman and not Raman Lavan

However the use of initial is different in South Indian context and western context. Rajaji, Viswanathan Anand, Dr.A.Ramadoss, Palaniappan Chidambaram are classic examples of how North Indian Media and Western Media have misintepreted the South Indian naming conventions. The glaring example of wrong naming conventions is referring Anbumani as Dr.Ramadoss. Ramadoss is his father's name and not surname. (If it is a surname, Dr.Ramadoss can refer to either the father and son, but since it is his father's name, the english media are committing a blunder when they say that Dr.Ramadoss is the Health Minister) Just because such errors have been committed by those who are not well versed in Tamil Naming Conventions, it does not mean that it should be continued. (Inspite of the fact that the bharat ratna citation - In Hindi - probably written by some one without any knowledge about Tamil Naming Convention - gives his name in the wrong way)

Yet another example of how Western Media misinterpret Indian Naming conventions and use the father's name instead of the subject's name can be seen from the BBC Report which says Soundararajan is refusing to comment. (Common Guys... Soundarajan is her father) But atleast BCC mentioned S.Shanthi as Santhi Soundararajan, and not Soundarajan Santhi !!!!

If some one cannot still understand the naming conventions, please ask yourself as to how you will expand J.Jayalalithaa ??

For more details please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:M._Karunanidhi Doctor Bruno 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical articles about persons with South Asian names should be named according to how those persons normally refer to themselves. So if a person calls himself "Shanmugam Jayakumar" and his given name is "Jayakumar", the article should be called "Shanmugam Jayakumar". Similarly, if a person calls herself "Santhi Soundararajan" where her given name is Santhi, then the article should be called "Santhi Soundararajan". That is why the {{Indian name}} template is useful: it allows editors to place a notice at the top of the article to inform readers as to which is the person's given name and which is the patronymic. For the reasons I gave above, I think there is no need to change the order of the parameters in the template.

If a person's name has no patronymic but has a surname, then it's not necessary to use the template at all, as the ordinary reader will just assume that the second name is a surname, which would be correct. Cheers, Jacklee 23:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exception

For communities using double initial (the first is the name of the Town/village and the second the name of the father) it is appropriate for the naming conventions used for Thiru.Vi.Ka. That is called as vilasam. Hope you all have heard about அய்யம்பேட்டை அறிவுடைநம்பி கலியம்பெரும்மாள் இந்திரன் and அய்யம்பேட்டை அறிவுடைநம்பி கலியம்பெரும்மாள் சந்திரன்

So there is no hard and fast rule. In few cases there are exceptions. Muthuvel Karunanithi (for M.Karunanithi or மு.க) and Kumarasamy Kamaraj(for K.Kamaraj or கு.க), Jayaram Jeyalalitha (for J.Jeyalalitha or ஜெ.ஜெ) are wrong, where as Kancheepuram Natarajan Annadurai (for C.N.Annadurai) is correct !!!!

Many musicians prefix their place name eg - Kunnakudi Vaidyanathan - means Kunnakudi is his place and Vaidyanathan his name. The debate has to be done on a case to case basis. Any one trying to take a decision regarding the correct convention based on anecdotes or (only) one or two examples will be mislead Doctor Bruno 20:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to use footnote instead of hatnote

I started a discussion here as I believe these types of templates would be less jarring if they appeared as a supplementary footnote rather than a "warning" above the lead. —Designate (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a person reads an article before understanding this naming convention (s)he may be confused. So would not hatnote be better? Jose Mathew C (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu names

Though using a patronymic name is common among south Indians, it is not valid for Telugu peoples. They follow the order Surname - Given name (refer List of people from Andhra Pradesh, almost every entry followed this order), much like Chinese, Japanese and Sinhalese. Can someone make extensions in template to accommodate this. This is becoming a common confusion especially with North Indians who follow Western naming order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs12b006 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a template for Telugu names should be created (in simple English Wikipedia already exists: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Telugu_name). Sophia91 (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a Telugu name template.