Talk:Shivaji/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Detail in the lead

Regarding This edit by @Nonentity683 This talks about events that happened decades if not over a century after Shivaji's death. This article is specifically about Shivaji, therefore there is no need to add this, especially in the lead section. We already have a separate article about the Maratha Empire.

In the same way, we don't talk about the British Empire in the Article about Æthelstan or the Portuguese Empire in the Article about Afonso I. In Biography articles about Historical figures we focus on events that the specific figure was involved in, not events that happened decades after their death. SKAG123 (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 : This is a misleading argument.

1. Changes done in Lede section are about Shivaji's legacy, not about British Empire or current India.
2. Shivaji's legacy was creation of Maratha Empire, and the Article needs to point out the fact.
3. Changes did not add information about Maratha Empire in Lede, they only pointed out the fact that Shivaji was founder of Maratha Empire, and pointed out place in Indian History of Maratha Empire.

These changes are supported by solid academic sources.

If you have issues with specifics, those can be discussed.

@Vanamonde93 : See above.

The challenge here is not about facts, but about "do we really need this info here". Consensus needs to be about content, facts, and sources.

I am reverting your revert for now given that changes done are backed up by solid academic sources. If you feel that there are issues with Grammar, feel free to copy-edit. Nonentity683 (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That's simply not how consensus works; you need consensus to make a large, contested change, period. Please don't edit-war: I don't particularly want to escalate this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 : You have blindly reverted changes, thats the point.

The changes in question are all new (e.g. Phrase "National Hero" is not used, neither is Mughal-Maratha War discussed, which was the subject of discussion earlier), and we have not discussed those in any other threads. As such, your comment in revert "problems have been discussed on the talk page with this user and on several previous occasions when the same phrases were introduced; " is provably false.

To reiterate, and no offence meant, all changes in this particular edit are backed up by solid academic sources.

Going forward, would suggest that you do due diligence. Nonentity683 (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 :

Your assertion that "problems have been discussed on the talk page with this user and on several previous occasions when the same phrases were introduced; " is not true. These changes are new, and do not mention "National Hero" anywhere. Going forward, you might want todo due diligence before blindly reverting changes. Nonentity683 (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a very ironic comment. I've been watching this page for close to a decade at this point, and have read numerous discussions about the content you sought to add, such as claims about him founding the Maratha Empire, and material about the Maratha impact on the Mughals. Did you read the talk page archives when I said the content had been previously discussed? And how do you come to the conclusion that you don't require consensus for your changes? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be sure, have you actually gone through the sources? Gordon in particular has explicitly called Shivaji a "Founder of Maratha Polity" multiple times, other sources cited have called him a "Founder of Maratha State". These are all from solid academic sources.

As for Maratha impact on Mughals, see what Stewart Gordon has written -

In the 1750s, the "frontier" extended north to Delhi. In this period, the Mughal government directly controlled little territory further than fifty miles from the capital. Even this was fiercely fought over. Jats and Rohillas disputed for the territory; factions fought for the throne, and the Afghan king, Ahmad Shah Abdali, periodically descended on the capital. ... For the Marathas, probably the two most significant events of the whole chaotic period in Delhi were a treaty in 1752, which made them protector of the Mughal throne (and gave them the right to collect chauth in the Punjab), and the civil war of 1753, by which the Maratha nominee ended up on the Mughal throne.- (Cambridge History of India Vol. 2 Part 4 pp138 - 139)

These lines are saying exactly what was mentioned in changes.

Also, You comment was "problems have been discussed on the talk page with this user and on several previous occasions when the same phrases were introduced; ". These have not been discussed with me before, or have they? Nonentity683 (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@ Vanamonde : Seeing as you are asking for consensus, was wondering if you can list down specific issues. We can discuss them one by one. Nonentity683 (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not, actually, going to engage in detailed discussion here, because as I've said previously none of these issues are new; they've been discussed on this talk page before. Not all content that is verifiable belongs in an article, and definitely not all content that is verifiable belongs in the lead. A high-quality Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources have to say about its subject. In this case, the preponderance of sources support the idea that Shivaji founded a polity that grew into the Maratha Empire, which is what our article already says. Similarly, we cover his direct conflict with the Mughals in the lead, and the more distant material in the body. My opinion on this is unlikely to change. As such, your options are to 1) drop the matter, 2) persuade anyone else already watching this discussion, or 3) launching an RfC. And I want to be very clear that you may not get what you want, even with 2 and 3; that is the nature of a collaborative project. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

1. This your addition is clearly a summery of the Maratha Empire. This article is about shivaji therefore events that took place decades after are not needed. (Same way we don’t talk about the British Empire or even the kingdom of England after Æthelstan’s death on his article
2. We already talk about Shivaji founding the Maratha empire. We just don’t need to include events that happens decades after his death.

SKAG123 (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 : If you are not going to engage in discussion, then it should be enough for you that the person who reverted the edit is satisfied (and no one else watching this page has raised any objection).

"A high-quality Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources have to say about its subject. " - That is a generalisation that has no bearing on discussion.

"In this case, the preponderance of sources support the idea that Shivaji founded a polity that grew into the Maratha Empire, which is what our article already says. " - Changes identified Shivaji as Founder of Maratha Empire, which is saying exact same thing. Not sure what this point is really trying to say.

@SKAG123 : In both the points, you have mentioned "We just don’t need to include events that happens decades after his death" or something to that effect.

Only thing that fits that bill is Anglo-Maratha wars. If we remove the part about Anglo-Maratha wars and only mention that "Marathas remained pre-eminent power in India until 1818", will that be enough?

Point being, Maratha Empire was Shivaji's legacy. i.e. any discussion about Shivaji's Political legacy that does not mention Maratha Empire cannot be taken sriously. As such, we need to mention Maratha Empire in lede, and also very briefly point out Maratha Empire's place in Indian History, which is that it was the pre-eminent power in subcontinent until EIC took over. Whether or not we discuss other details is another discussion.

Just to be sure, are these the only issues you have, or do you have any other points to raise about the changes in question? Nonentity683 (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Only thing that fits that bill is Anglo-Maratha wars." - and point re Mughals. But both are needed to understand the place of Maratha Empire in India's History. i.e. It might confound casual reader if article were to say that Marathas were pre-eminent power in India after Mughals and before EIC without actually pointing out that it was Marathas who restricted Mughals to Delhi. Nonentity683 (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The Marathas became a major power well after Shivaji’s death (under the Peshawas during the mid 18th centuries) During Shivaji’s lifetime the Marathas were a regional kingdom in western India. We have an article that talks about The Peshawas and The Maratha Empire, therefore no need to include this. SKAG123 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 :

1. There is a reason why they are called, and your sentence mentions "Marathas" and not "Peshwas". Peshwas ruled under the authority and with legitimacy granted to them by Maratha Emperors, as Prime Ministers of Maratha Emperors.
2. There is a reason the Phrase is "Maratha Empire", not "Peshwa Empire". All people who fought had loyalty to Maratha Emperors, not Peshwas.
3. The changes do no say that Shivaji did any of those things.

Changes done simply identify Shivaji as founder of Maratha Empire, and point out its place in history.

Again, the changes done to Lede do not discuss specifics of Maratha Empire. Would strongly suggest that you not raise the point re separate page on Maratha Empire.

You earlier said that your concern was that the changes discuss events that happened after Shivaji's death, but now you are saying something else.

Was wondering if you can create a unified list of concerns. You cannot keep shifting goal posts and expect people to get anywhere. Nonentity683 (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The Marathas became a major Power only after Shivaji's death. Therefore this sentence is unnecessary. This is the same concern as the rest of the paragraph: It talks about events after Shivaji's death. SKAG123 (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 : The added sentences are not saying that Shivaji expanded Maratha Empire. Had that been the content that was added, your argument would have been valid. In fact, the content you removed clearly identifies that the expansion of Maratha Empire happened after Shivaji's death. There was a sentence around Mughals being confined to walls of Delhi by 1750. Correlating that with date of Shivaji's death 3 April 1680, it is easy for anyone to see that the northward expansion happened after Shivaji's death. If you want to make it explicit, we can add a sentence to to that effect.

Added sentences are only saying that Shivaji's Legacy was Maratha Empire.

To copy-paste from Cambridge Dictionary the definition of Legacy (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/legacy) - "something that is a result of events in the past", "something that is a part of your history or that remains from an earlier time".

Mention of Maratha Empire as a legacy is very much necessary, since that is exactly what Shivaji founded. Nonentity683 (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree we should mention that shivaji founded the Maratha empire.

we don’t need to mention details. Since the northern expansion as it happen well after Shivaji’s death we don’t need to mention it at all.

this article is about Shivaji, not details which happened after his death. We have separate articles about those events SKAG123 (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 : Good to see that we are making progress. How about following description -

"Shivaji's legacy was creation of Maratha Empire, which became pre-eminent power in India shortly after Aurangzeb's death, and remained one until 1818."

This pinpoints the place of Maratha Empire in Indian History without mentioning northern expansion.

Also was wondering if this means that you are fine with rest of changes in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shivaji&oldid=1170672669, seeing as you have not pointed out any other issues in this version. Nonentity683 (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

"This pinpoints the place of Maratha Empire in Indian History " - This is required for reader to fully understand Shivaji's legacy. Nonentity683 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Still too much detail about the empire after Shivaji’s death

just “Shivaji founded the Maratha Empire” is enough SKAG123 (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 : Not only is that not too much detail, that does not adequately pinpoint Maratha Empire's place in Indian History.

Your suggestion only identifies him as Founder, it does not help understand reader understand the place in Indian History of Maratha Empire. That is, it does not adequately identify that Maratha Empire was the pre-Eminent power in Indian subcontinent after Mughals and before EIC.

Legacy is about both what he created, and place in History of what he created.

For example, look at following pages in Wikipedia, note how these are talking about events that happened well after the death of person in question -

1. Chandragupta Maurya - Copy-paste from Lede - "He reigned from 320 BCE to 298 BCE. The Magadha kingdom expanded to become an empire that reached its peak under the reign of his grandson, Asoka, from 268 BCE to 231 BCE. ", "Chandragupta's reign, and the Maurya Empire, set an era of economic prosperity, reforms, infrastructure expansions, and tolerance. Many religions thrived within his realms and his descendants' empire." Notice how this talks about events that happened during the lifetime of his Grandson and other descedents.
2. Alexander the Great - Copy-paste from Lede "Alexander's legacy includes the cultural diffusion and syncretism that his conquests engendered,", "Alexander's settlement of Greek colonists and the resulting spread of Greek culture led to the overwhelming dominance of Hellenistic civilization and influence as far east as the Indian subcontinent. The Hellenistic period developed through the Roman Empire into modern Western culture; the Greek language became the lingua franca of the region and was the predominant language of the Byzantine Empire up until its collapse in the mid-15th century AD. Greek-speaking communities in central Anatolia and in far-eastern Anatolia survived until the Greek genocide and Greek–Turkish population exchanges of the early 20th century AD. "
3. Timur - Lede mentions "From these conquests, he founded the Timurid Empire, which fragmented shortly after his death."
4. Osman I - Copy-paste from Lede - "Turkoman principality during Osman's lifetime, his beylik transformed into a world empire in the centuries after his death. It existed until shortly after the end of World War I." Osman I died in 1323, but this mentions events until WW I.
5. Suleiman the Magnificent - Copy-paste from Lede - "In the decades after Suleiman, the empire began to experience significant political, institutional, and economic changes, a phenomenon often referred to as the Transformation of the Ottoman Empire."
6. Napoleon - Copy-paste from Lede - "Napoleon had an extensive impact on the modern world, bringing liberal reforms to the lands he conquered, especially the regions of the Low Countries, Switzerland, and parts of modern Italy and Germany. He implemented many liberal policies in France and Western Europe."

List can go on and on.

To be clear, this is not comparing Shivaji to any of these figures. There are 2 points here -

1. It is hard to put a limit in terms on time when it comes to discussions of Legacy. Notice how each one of these talks about events that happened well after the death of person in question.
2. It cannot be that there is one set of rules for Shivaji and other set of rules for other people. If you are saying that discussions around Legacy have to disregard all events that happened after a persons death (in Lede or otherwise), then we need to make changes to all these pages. If we are not willing to make changes to these Pages, the proposed changes to page on Shivaji should be fine.

Its hard not to notice the fact that you have not clearly called out whether or not you have any other issues in the proposed version. Its hard for me to overemphasise this - we cannot keep shifting goal posts. You can forgo answer to this question, but you cannot claim later on that you have other issues. Nonentity683 (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Most of this talks about events that the figure was directly responsible for and happened only shortly after their death. This is not the case for shivaji as the Maratha conquest of north india happened almost a century after shivaji was born. The Marathas were a small kingdom under his region and had little to no intentions of capturing north india. I agree we could include this statement in the articles about Bajirao I and Shahu I, but not here SKAG123 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 : Just to be sure, have you actually read any of above? "Most of this talks about events that the figure was directly responsible for and happened only shortly after their death. " - This suggests that you have not.

Osman I's lede in particular talks about events that happened few centuries after his death. Ashoka's lede talks about how his Empire was expanded by his grandson. Alexander's lede discusses his legacy to current day.

To reiterate, the changes in question are not saying that Shivaji expanded Maratha Empire.

"had little to no intentions of capturing north india" - This is unsubstantiated. No one is a mind reader, and no scholarly source can prove this. You cannot use guesswork as rationale.

Its hard to emphasise this, you are still not confirming if you have any other issues with the proposed changes. Nonentity683 (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 : You can either go through Lede of respective articles, or go through copy-pasted content of Ledes in question, which can be found above. Nonentity683 (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I oppose changing this to "founded the Maratha empire". The current wording is adequate. The majority of sources presented here say that Shivaji founded an entity that later became the Maratha empire; it was not an empire when he died, it was turned into an empire by his successors. Yes, that was part of his legacy, but needs to be described as such, not with the use of imprecise terminology. Also: per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for reaching consensus on any given change is on the person who wishes to make the change. Repeating the same arguments until people are unwilling to respond further is not a substitute for consensus; I have listed several issues above and in edit-summaries, and I remain opposed to the entirety of the change I last reverted. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93 : For nth time, you might want to not make assumptions about people's intentions.

  "Repeating the same arguments until people are unwilling to respond further is not a substitute for consensus; " - This thread is not repeating same argument again and again, but really providing counterpoints to what @SKAG123 mentioned. For nth time, this goes against Wikipedia policy of assuming good intent.

  This is the first time that anyone has pointed out that the concern is about wording, rather than about "events that happened decades after Shivaji's death", so how about this - "Shivaji created Maratha Kingdom which was later expanded by his successors and became Maratha Empire".

  Again, we can discuss how this is framed.

  While the Onus is on person proposing change, it is at the end of the day a collaborative exercise. Nonentity683 (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Shivaji article lead

This is the current lead sentence:

Shivaji (Shivaji Shahaji Bhosale; Marathi pronunciation: [ʃiʋaːd͡ʒiˑ bʱoˑs(ə)leˑ]; c. 19 February 1630 – 3 April 1680), also known as Chhatrapati Shivaji, was an Indian ruler and a member of the Bhonsle Maratha clan.

1. There is no need to say "Shivaji, also known as Chhatrapati Shivaji". It's like saying "Napoleon, also known as Emperor Napoleon". Chhatrapati was the name of the office of the head of state of the Maratha Empire, similar to "Emperor" in the French Empire or "Sultan" in the Delhi Sultanate.
2. The lead paragraph already does mention that he crowned himself Chhatrapati of his realm, and the infobox already mentions that he was the "1st Chhatrapati of the Maratha Empire".
3. No similar articles, like Ashoka, Napolean, Wilhelm II, Louis VII, or Alivardi Khan mention "also known as Samrat Ashoka", "also known as Emperor Wilhelm II", "also known as Emperor Napoleon", "also known as King Louis VII" or "also known as Nawab Alivardi Khan", respectively.

This construct is just completely unnecessary and over the top, and is not required here at all and I suggest we remove "Shivaji, also known as Chhatrapati Shivaji" from the lead.PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• This is a poorly formatted RfC, PadFoot2008. It should include a neutral statement of the question at the top, and your reasoning in a separate bolded vote. I recommend withdrawing this before anyone has opined, and relaunching. I would frame it as "should we remove the fragment "also known as Chhatrapati Shivaji"? For the record, though, I support this change, for all the reasons I've stated above; it's redundant, and it's oddly phrased. Chhatrapati was his title, and needs to be in the lead, but it already is. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  All right, sorry, I am kind of new RFCs. I am relaunching it. Also, right now I am just striking though it, am I allowed to simply delete it? PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  User talk:PadFoot2008 Please discuss with the regular editors before starting an RFC. Please read: WP:RFCBEFORE "Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC."Akshaypatill (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Akshaypatill, I have reverted your out-of-process removal of an RFC; as an editor involved here you cannot close it unilaterally, and in any case blanking an RFC is completely inappropriate. You also have not read this talk page: there has been a discussion open for a couple of weeks now, and it was specifically the lack of participation there that led to the RfC being launched. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Controversies section

Why it didn't mentioned that James Lane, was opposed because he tried, conspired to defame, Chatrapati Shiavji. Tesla car owner (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The content on Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources. Please provide a reliable source that supports these claims. Akshaypatill (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Restoration

User:Nonentity683 had made a lot of changes that I don't find to be an improvement. The other editors have restored some but a lot of it remained. I have restored the content, which was written by me, Fowler&Fowler and MatthewVanitas. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Akshaypatill : What does "I don't find to be an improvement" mean here? Also, which section is being referred to here - Early Life or Lede?

If you can list down what you see are the problems with the changes I made, we can try to create a consensus. As it stands, it is not clear as to why you reverted the changes. See below for why I made these changes to begin with.

Early Life Section

The version that you restored that is not well written - it first describes Shivaji's birth, and then gives details on his family, and in general, IMO, does not offer a clear chronological view.

Some of the information in version you restored is not required (e.g. Maloji was given epithet of "Raja"), some is self contradictory, and some is factually incorrect.

Factual Inaccuracies and Self-Contradictions

For example, the version you restored says "His paternal grandfather Maloji ... was awarded the epithet of "Raja". He was given given deshmukhi rights of Pune, Supe, Chakan and Indapur for military expenses. " This says that Maloji was given the rights for Pune and other towns. In fact, the rights were awarded to Shahaji.

The text below in the version you restored says "In 1636, Shahaji joined in the service of Bijapur and obtained Poona as a grant.", which directly contradicts statement above.

To quote from Gordon (pp 44-45)

"In the period after the battle of Bhatvadi (perhaps because his relatives had been rewarded more than he), Shahji took service with Bijapur, though he apparently retained jagir rights in the Pune region, which was claimed by both Ahmadnagar and Bijapur. Nothing is known of his activities between 1626 and 1628."

Battle of Bhatvadi happened in 1624, so Shahaji was awarded Jagir for Poona much earlier. In 1636, these right were reaffirmed by both Bijapur Sultenate and Mughals. This is a factual inaccuracy.

Rights For Pune were not Deshmukhi rights per se

Jagir for Pune that was awarded to Shahaji was not a Deshmukhi right per se. To quote again from Gordon (pp 55)

"It is worth emphasizing that the rights that Shahji had in the Pune region were a mixture of village headman rights, deshmukh rights, and the jagirdari rights, held subject to satisfactory service with the Bijapur government."

and pp 59-60

"Shahji, as we have seen, succeeded in getting a grant in the Pune region confirmed by the Bijapur government ... . The core of the rights was the hereditary patil rights (village headman) to three villages in the Pune district and the deshmukh rights of Indapur, some seventy miles south-east of Pune. The family was, thus, a deshmukh family, though not a large one. Beyond these hereditary rights, Shivaji's father also held the mokasa of the Pune region."

Lede

Credits only Nationalist movement with revival of Shivaji

This section credits only Indian Nationalist Movement for revival of Shivaji when in fact, any number of people / entities can be credited with re-popularising Shivaji with general public.

Tilak did start Shivajayanti festival, but no account has ever proved the size of the audience that Tilak was able to reach. i.e. No account has ever said that Shivjayanti festival was held across Maharashtra in Tilak's time.

Tilak's contemporary Phule did his bit to revive Shivaji for masses. In more modern era, Purandare did his best to take Shivaji to masses, and Ranjit Desai and Pansare have tried to come up with their own accounts of Shivaji. As such, identifying only Indian Nationalist movement with revival of Shivaji is incorrect.

Does not offer a clear description of Shivaji's contributions to Military and Maratha Mode of Warfare

The part that you undid clearly credits Shivaji with building and strengthening Hill Forts, building Navy, and perfecting and using Guerrilla Warfare against much larger armies. None of this is present in the version you restored.

To quote from Lede you restored - "Shivaji's military forces expanded the Maratha sphere of influence, capturing and building forts, and forming a Maratha navy."

The first part describes the increase of Maratha Sphere of influence, but same sentence mentions Navy. Maratha Navy was built by Shivaji, not by his descendants. As such, this statement is misleading / factually inaccurate. Nonentity683 (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nonentity683, thanks for these suggestions. Your points are somewhat valid, but a lot of things had happened in the period and Shahaji had changed sides a few times. Poona wasn't under him continuously. In 1625 Poona was taken by Sabaji Anant. Shahaji took it back in 1628 and again left soon etc... This kept happening. Please refer to books by Maratha historians A. R. Kulkarni and Gajanan Mehendale for more details. They have covered it in more detail. We can't include everything here, it will eat a lot of space, moreover, it is out of the scope of this article.

The lede is a brief summary of the body. You can't add everything. The lede I restored is the result of lots of lengthy discussions. Please go through the talk page achieves. Thanks. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Akshaypatill : The concern on the point in question is around the claim that "In 1636, Shahaji joined in the service of Bijapur and obtained Poona as a grant."

Shahaji did not get this Jagir from Bijapur. He originally got it from Ahmednagar sultenate, which was granted again to Shahaji as part of 1936 Treaty between Bijapur Sultenate and Mughals. As such, the claim that this sentence makes is incorrect.

Also, your claim contradicts the sentence from Article - "Shahaji often changed his loyalty between the Nizamshahi of Ahmadnagar, the Adilshah of Bijapur and the Mughals, but always kept his jagir (fiefdom) at Pune and his small army."

In any case, your reply covers only the grant of Pune. It does not cover rest of the changes you have restored. If you can list down your concerns with rest of the changes, we can try to see how this section can be modified.

The Background section as it stands is written very poorly. It lacks a clear structure, does not provide a clear chronological view, and can use rewriting. Nonentity683 (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Rfc: Should we remove lead fragment "also known as Chhatrapati Shivaji"

This is the current lead sentence:

Shivaji (Shivaji Shahaji Bhosale; Marathi pronunciation: [ʃiʋaːd͡ʒiˑ bʱoˑs(ə)leˑ]; c. 19 February 1630 – 3 April 1680), also known as Chhatrapati Shivaji, was an Indian ruler and a member of the Bhonsle Maratha clan.

Should we remove the fragment "also known as Chhatrapati Shivaji"? PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support:

1. There is no need to say "Shivaji, also known as Chhatrapati Shivaji". It's like saying "Napoleon, also known as Emperor Napoleon". Chhatrapati was the name of the office of the head of state of the Maratha Empire, similar to "Emperor" in the French Empire or "Sultan" in the Delhi Sultanate. #The lead paragraph already does mention that he crowned himself Chhatrapati of his realm, and the infobox already mentions that he was the "1st Chhatrapati of the Maratha Empire".
2. No similar articles, like Ashoka, Napolean, Wilhelm II, Louis VII, or Alivardi Khan mention "also known as Samrat Ashoka", "also known as Emperor Wilhelm II", "also known as Emperor Napoleon", "also known as King Louis VII" or "also known as Nawab Alivardi Khan", respectively.

This construct is just completely unnecessary and over the top, and is not required here at all and I suggest we remove "also known as Chhatrapati Shivaji" from the lead. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support, per above; as written, the fragment makes no sense when translated into English. "Chhatrapati" was his title, and it is mentioned as appropriate where the lead discusses his coronation. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Chhatrapati was not only a title. It was both an office and a Title.

  We should not vote going by how Translation seems, and it is important to get facts straight. Nonentity683 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support, the statement is not needed and does not support the format used on pages about other monarchs SKAG123 (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per PadFoot2008 — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support, As I have said many years ago, even the University named after him in the city of Kolhapur is plain Shivaji University.This is despite Kolhapur having a very strong connection to Shivaji due to being ruled by Shivaji's descendants for 250 years until 1947.The "requirement" for adding prefic Chhatrapati and Maharaj suffix is quite recent, and can be linked to the rise of the Shiv Sena party. My two cents! Jonathansammy (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Whether or not University name includes "Chhatrapati" has nothing to do with the matter in question. Nonentity683 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be sure, is the decision criteria here Wikipedia policies, or contemporary Maharashtra politics?

  Also note that both Mumbai International Airport (Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport) and Western Railway Headquarter (Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus) include "Chhatrapati" in name. Name change for both involved Central Government, so it is not just about Shiv Sena. Nonentity683 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Remove per PadFoot2008 and Jonathansammy. This is both improper grammar and appears to be pushing a political POV. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, what is the evidence for the claim that the content in question is "pushing a political POV"?

  Also, are we going to decide this based on Wikipedia policies, or contemporary Maharashtra politics? Nonentity683 (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose :

1. If we remove this snippet, we are not informing user that Shivaji has been referred to as "Chhatrapati Shivaji" in literature, academic or otherwise.
2. Examples cited are not necessarily related to title in question. e.g. Sultan is not a unique title. Chhaptrapati is a unique nomenclature to Maratha Empire.
3. Chhatrapati is both a Title and an Office (as opposed to what Vanamonde has said). As such, WP:HONORIFIC does not apply.
4. Even by Padfoot's own admission, "Chhatrapati" is a regnal title, and as such is eligible for inclusion.
5. "Chhatrapati" is different from most titles noted by Padfoot. It is not as common as Emperor or Sultan. It is also not an English language title, so the Readers might not be aware that it is actually a title. Given that it is not an English language title, translating it to English does not make any sense.

This entire thread seems based on assumption that inclusion of this snippet in Lede is somehow an evidence of bias / agenda (as mentioned by voorts and Jonathansammy). We cannot start with this assumption and remove valid content.

The question itself is Neutrally stated, but the supporting data points are biased to hilt and / or ignore counterpoints. Consider following counterpoints to what Padfoot as stated (these are all from Wikipedia articles) -

1. Alexander the Great - Copy-paste from Lede - "commonly known as Alexander the Great"
2. Timur - Copy-paste from Lede - Osman I or Osman Ghazi (Ottoman Turkish: عثمان غازى, romanized: ʿOsmān Ġāzī; Turkish: I. Osman or Osman Gazi; died 1323/4), sometimes transliterated archaically as Othman""
3. Suleiman the Magnificent - "Suleiman I (Ottoman Turkish: سليمان اول, romanized: Süleyman-ı Evvel; Turkish: I. Süleyman; 6 November 1494 – 6 September 1566), commonly known as Suleiman the Magnificent in the West and Suleiman the Lawgiver "
4. Napoleon - "Napoleon Bonaparte (born Napoleone Buonaparte; 15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821), later known by his regnal name Napoleon I,"
5. Akbar - "Abu'l-Fath Jalal-ud-din Muhammad Akbar (15 October 1542 – 27 October 1605), popularly known as Akbar the Great (Persian pronunciation: [akbarɪ azam]), and also as Akbar I (Persian pronunciation: [akbar]),"
6. Sher Shah Suri - "Sher Shah Suri (Farid al-Din Khan; 1472, or 1486 – 22 May 1545), often called the Just King"
7. Aurangzeb - "Muhi al-Din Muhammad (c. 1618 – 3 March 1707), commonly known as Aurangzeb (Persian pronunciation: [ˌaʊɹəŋˈzɛb] lit. 'Ornament of the Throne') and by his regnal title Alamgir I "

Nonentity683 (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't use the "also known as" construction for officeholders either, and your list of examples is actually a perfect demonstration that in no case do we use such a phrase solely to add the king's formal title. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It would be great if we can finalise terms of engagement / decision criteria. Are we looking at Wikipedia policies for this, or Lede sections of similar articles?

As for policy :

It has been briefly alluded to above, but to make it explicit, "Chhatrapati" is different from most of titles in question.

1. It is an office and a Title
2. Given that It was assumed after coronation, it is a regnal Title for Shivaji
3. It is unique to Maratha Empire. No other Empire / Kingdom uses this title
4. It is a non-English title, which means that it might not be obvious to English speakers that Shivaji is also referred to as "Chhatrapati Shivaji"
5. It is in fact how Shivaji is commonly referred to as, be it contemporary Maharashtra, Press, or in official documentation.

As such, there seems to be no clear rule that can be applied in this case.

We cannot take decisions based on contemporary politics in Maharashtra. If the argument is that we need to look at Wikipedia policies when not placing "Chhatrapati" in name of title, we need to insist on same rigorous adherence to policies in this case as well.

Similar articles :

The list above is not exhaustive, and was compiled when replying to thread above.

Shivaji is commonly referred to as "Chhatrapati Shivaji", and list above includes examples that show how a given person is commonly referred to as / often called and regnal titles. Nonentity683 (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming support for removing the fragment. You are just repeating your arguments now. We should close this RFC and remove the fragment now. The consensus is clearly to remove the fragment. PadFoot2008 (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we should change Shivaji to Shivaji I in the lead and infobox. There were multiple Maratha rulers named Shivaji so this would help distinguish him. Also this matched the format of other articles about monarchs SKAG123 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

All right. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 and @SKAG123 : You cannot change names of Historical Figures for disambiguation.

Shivaji is never referred to as "Shivaji I" in any of the Scholarly works, or in general any of the literature.

They way to disambiguate names is through the disambiguation section at the top, not by changing names.

Name of a person is decided by their parents or chosen by individuals in question, which in this case is Shivaji. Nothing gives you right to change name of anyone else. Nonentity683 (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I is a Regnal number. They are used to distinguish monarchs with the same or similar titles. Other Articles contain similar Regnal Numbers. SKAG123 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 : Question is not what I is in this case, question is - is it used with Shivaji's name in any source, academic or otherwise? Has any academic source ever referred to Shivaji as "Shivaji I"? Do official Maratha records use that name? Do official records of Maharashtra or Central Government refer to Shivaji as "Shivaji I"? Are there any memorials / places named after Shivaji that refer to Shivaji as "Shivaji I"? Suggested change is not backed up by any proof, tries to solve a nonexistent problem, and is using a convention to change name of a historical character.

As pointed out earlier, way to disambiguate is using the disambiguation notice / section at the very top of article. Nonentity683 (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Regnal number are commonly used on wikipedia. even if they are not a part of the original name. See Rajndra I Chandragupta I Shahu I SKAG123 (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 : As for "You are just repeating your arguments now." - Much of the reply is a clarification, and the part that is slightly repeated has been called out as such "It has been briefly alluded to above, but to make it explicit, "Chhatrapati" ... ".

It is not at all clear as to which criteria is being followed - is it Scholarly works, or other Wikipedia articles?

1. Most editors have said "Per above".
2. One Editor that has left an explanation "Kolhapur University does not have Chhatrapati in title", while completely ignoring the fact that Mumbai Airport and CSTM have Chhatrapati in title.
3. The description of RfC and Editors are citing other articles, but other articles are mentioning alternative names, Regnal Titles, offices, or "commonly / also known as".

Wider point that the reply was trying to make was that there seems to be no clear criteria that can be applied to Chhatrapati. Nonentity683 (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have closed the RFC as the changes are already incorporated. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead mention of "Chhatrapati" not required

Hello fellow editor @Nonentity683, I noticed you recently reverted one of my edits and since I do not seek to edit war, I've opened this discussion. I do not think that the lead needs to say "also referred to as Chhatrapati Shivaji". It doesn't matter if it was an office or honorific title. Take Joe Biden for instance. He holds the office of the President of the United States of America. Does the lead of that article say also known as "also known as President Biden". Neither are titles of ruling heads of state mentioned in such a manner. Look at the page for Napoleon Bonaparte. The lead doesn't mention "also known as Emperor Napoleon" either. The lead paragraph already does say he was crowned the Chhatrapati of his realm and the infobox already says "1st Chhatrapati of the Maratha Empire". It really doesn't need to say "also known as Chhatrapati Shivaji". PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 : Thanks for contributing to the Article and Wikipedia.

Shivaji is in fact referred to in original sources and Literature as Shivaji or Chhatrapati Shivaji. That is, both original Sources and serious academic Literature use two interchangeably (although, it should be noted that "Chhatrapati Shivaji" is used to a lesser extent). As such, I am assuming that this is not a question of authenticity / reliability of sources.

Comparison with Biden is probably not justified, because "President" is only an office, not a mix of office and title. "President" is not the title in the way that Chhaptrapati or Emperor is.

Emperor is a well known title in English language and this is an English language Encyclopaedia, so it is probably fine to do without that title. Chhatrapati is not an English language term, so it makes sense to identify how Shivaji is referred to in an English language article.

Notice how this is not pitching for Chhatrapati to be included in Title of Article / primary name (i.e. "Shivaji (Shivaji Shahaji Bhosale; Marathi pronunciation: [ʃiʋaːd͡ʒiˑ bʱoˑs(ə)leˑ]; c. 19 February 1630 – 3 April 1680), ..."). That, IMO, would be a violation of Policies. Nonentity683 (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that President is not a fair comparison and Emperor is an English language word, but then we can look at the articles about Akbar, Ashoka, Osman Ali Khan, Birbal, who were also referred to as Badshah, Samrat, Nizam amd Raja respectively and these aren't English language titles as well. But the leads of these articles do not say "also referred to as Raja ...". Chhatrapati was the title of the head of state of the Maratha Empire and Shivaji was the first one to have it similar to the examples I gave above. The lead doesn't need to say "also known as ..." really. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 and @Vanamonde, requesting your opinions for consensus. Thank you. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 : Consider following articles -

1. Alexander the Great - Copy-paste from Lede - "commonly known as Alexander the Great"
2. Timur - Copy-paste from Lede - Osman I or Osman Ghazi (Ottoman Turkish: عثمان غازى, romanized: ʿOsmān Ġāzī; Turkish: I. Osman or Osman Gazi; died 1323/4), sometimes transliterated archaically as Othman""
3. Suleiman the Magnificent - "Suleiman I (Ottoman Turkish: سليمان اول, romanized: Süleyman-ı Evvel; Turkish: I. Süleyman; 6 November 1494 – 6 September 1566), commonly known as Suleiman the Magnificent in the West and Suleiman the Lawgiver "
4. Napoleon - "Napoleon Bonaparte (born Napoleone Buonaparte; 15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821), later known by his regnal name Napoleon I,"
5. Akbar - "Abu'l-Fath Jalal-ud-din Muhammad Akbar (15 October 1542 – 27 October 1605), popularly known as Akbar the Great (Persian pronunciation: [akbarɪ azam]), and also as Akbar I (Persian pronunciation: [akbar]),"
6. Sher Shah Suri - "Sher Shah Suri (Farid al-Din Khan; 1472, or 1486 – 22 May 1545), often called the Just King"
7. Aurangzeb - "Muhi al-Din Muhammad (c. 1618 – 3 March 1707), commonly known as Aurangzeb (Persian pronunciation: [ˌaʊɹəŋˈzɛb] lit. 'Ornament of the Throne') and by his regnal title Alamgir I "

Disregard the boldface.

Some of these are Honorifics, some are alternative names, some are regnal names, some are titles.

To be clear, this is not comparing Shivaji to any of these figures. Point is that we cannot have one set of rules for Shivaji and other set of rules for everyone else.

Note that "Maharaj" from "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj" has already been removed. What remains is not an HONORIFIC per se. Nonentity683 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nonentity683, I think you are thinking of Chhatrapati as something like Mahatma or Mother in Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa. Chhatrapati is not a second name or something. It's the title of the head of state of the Maratha Empire. If it was something like "Shivaji the Brave" or "Shivaji I" then it would've been alright but Chhatrapati was the title of an office not an honorific or something specific to him. It's like saying "Akbar, also known as Badshah Akbar" which the article lead doesn't say. My example regarding Birbal was indeed wrong, as Raja wasn't an the title of an office like Chhatrapati or Grand Duke but an honorific given by Akbar to him.

Also, I'm not opposed to mentioning Chhatrapati Shivaji anywhere in the article but not the lead. Most articles mention "King George V" and "Emperor Akbar" but never in the lead paragraph.PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 : Not to offend you, but was wondering if you can call out your concern very briefly.

What is happenening here is that you are giving examples (e.g. "do we have this in article on abc"), and when given coutnerpoint, you are saying "but what about that"?

You earlier gave example or President, which is clearly not applicable, then another one example which you are saying was your bad.

No one mentioned Mother Teresa or Gandhi. Not sure why you brought those two up.

If we are to take the view that @Vanamonde93 took below, and you also seem to be inclined towards, which is that Chhatrapati is a title Shivaji took when he crowned himself, then it becomes Regnal Title, which is mentioned in Lede in any number of wikipedia Articles.

No offence meant, but this looks like a case of ever shifting Goal posts. We cannot be dead set on removing Chhatrapati from Lede and then just keep picking our arguments based on counter-arguments. Nonentity683 (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Badshah became a title when Babur adopted it, as well. We still don't say Babur, also known as Badshah Babur. There are probably a tonne of similar cases where a ruler invents a title and others inherit it as the official name of the office of the head of state. As I said before the lead paragraph (the very first paragraph) already mentions that he crowned himself Chhatrapati. Following that the infobox mentions this once more. Also known as Chhatrapati is completely unnecessary. If he (Shivaji) had been the only to use that title, then I would have been fine. But it was the official name of the office of head of state, similar to the Shah of Iran or Badshah of Hindustan. PadFoot2008 (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 : I am more than happy to continue this discussion, but I am being accused in other threads of haggling other editors to death.

Here is I think where we are -

Issue :

Should lede mention that Shivaji is also referred to as Chhatrapati Shivaji? (Note how this says Lede, and not Title of Article. We are in agreement that adding Chhatrapati to Title of Article is not required).

My Take :

1. Chhatrapati is not only a title, it is also an office.
2. On the title part, it is a regnal title. Shivaji started using it after his coronation.
3. It is a non-English Title, so having it in Lede (in theory) might avoid confusion.
4. Academic sources have referred to Shivaji as Chhatrapati Shivaji
5. There are any number of Wikipedia Articles which have included these types of Titles and names in Lede to better inform readers.

As such, I think "Chhatrapati Shivaji" should remain in Lede.

Suggested next step here is for you to start a RfC.

Point being,

1. "Chhatrapati Shivaji" was present in Lede in some form for quite some time.
2. We have been discussing this for a while and we seem not to be going anywhere.
3. Vanamonde has agreed with you, but that makes it a 2-1 majority, not a consensus.
4. Given that Vanamonde has already pitched in, 3O might not be possible (since there are already more than 2 Editors involved). I have seen issues being removed from active 3O lists when there were more than 2 Editors already involved.

As such, I believe that RfC is the option for you if you wish to see this change made to this article.

Thank you again for contributing to this article and to Wikipedia. Nonentity683 (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

2-1 majority is enough to bring a change per Wikipedia, but still going to do an RFC, if you wish so. Also, I am completely aware that reliable sources use Chhatrapati Shivaji sometimes but this usage is similar to "Emperor Charles IV" or "King George VI", Badshah wasn't used by anyone before Babur but we still don't say "also known as Badshah Babur". People will definitely see that he was the "1st Chhatrapati of the Maratha Empire" and will then, no doubt, know what "Chhatrapati Shivaji" means, similar to how Napolean was the "Emperor of the French" and thus Emperor Napolean is also used but is not mentioned in the lead. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 : I think some process that involves a look into this by neutral Admins is required (not that people involved in this debate are not). It would seem that that process is RfC.

Please note that RfCs can take considerable time and effort. Nonentity683 (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

In fact, the examples that you yourself have given contradict your claims. Following are copy paste from two examples that you cited.

1. Ashoka - "popularly known as Ashoka the Great"
2. Birbal - "Birbal (IPA: [biːrbəl]; born Mahesh Das; 1528 – 16 February 1586), or Raja Birbal,"

Nonentity683 (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I dislike the "also known as" construction; translated into English, it sounds almost comedic: "Shivaji...also known as Emperor Shivaji"? It was a title he took when crowned, and should be mentioned at that point, which it is. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 : What you like is besides the point. We have already had discussions around how Admins are not supposed to talk from high horses. "Construction sounds almost comedic" is you talking down to others. This is not an office, but you are not talking to your friends either.

For nth time, you might want to stick to point. Nonentity683 (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

For someone who complains about being patronized all the time, you're very free with the advice yourself. And I'll note that of the preceding two comments, only one deals with the content. I suggest you take your own advice. Since you object to the term "comedic"; it's ungrammatical. We don't say that Narendra Modi was also known as "Pradhanmantri Narendra Modi"; we say he was elected Prime Minister in 2014. The logic is the same. Shivaji was crowned ruler of his kingdom, and we say so. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 : Copy-paste from above - "If we are to take the view that @Vanamonde93 took below, and you also seem to be inclined towards, which is that Chhatrapati is a title Shivaji took when he crowned himself, then it becomes Regnal Title, which is mentioned in Lede in any number of wikipedia Articles."

En-Oh, logic is not same. The rules and conventions for names / titles of Democratically elected heads of Government and rules in middle ages are different. We cannot equate those two.

As for advice, it depends on what we are talking about. Your advices are mostly insults, what I have said so far is really kind of a feedback. Nonentity683 (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

If you believe I've insulted you, please raise this at ANI, where someone else can ask you to recalibrate. Also, please stop pinging me to this discussion; I have it watchlisted. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Then why Pratap is used as Maharana Pratap? Gandhi is mentioned as Mahatama Gandhi? Mariuselop (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Sarkar

Somewhere around here is a tangential remark about the validity of Sarkar as a source. There is some truth to it, however: he was a Maratha apologist and Indian nationalist, writing pre-World War 2. I _know_ he is highly regarded as a populist historian even now but he doesn't meet our commonly accepted standards of reliability, eg WP:RAJ and WP:HISTRS. While those two links are essay-like, they are both frequently referred to, including in discussions at WP:RSN, and as such have a broad consensus in support.

It is difficult to imagine that some stuff investigated over a century ago by a person with such traits would be routinely considered reliable nowadays. What am I missing, aside from his heroic status in India itself? - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The link you posted doesn't work for me, but I don't have a dog in the fight as far as Sarkar is concerned, and I'd agree that a Raj-era source should not be used unless a compelling reason is presented for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The link isn't working for me either. Anyway, the article has cited Sarkar for non-controversial statements and almost every sentence has an alternative reliable source which isn't WP:RAJ.

Moreover, here is what Prachi Deshpande has said about Sarkar in her book "Creative Pasts: Historical Memory and Identity in Western India, 1700-1960" published by Columbia University Press in 2007 -

"In 1919, Sarkar published the seminal Shivaji and His Times, hailed as the most authoritative biography of the king since James Grant Duff's 1826 A History of the Mahrattas. A respected scholar, Sarkar was able to read primary sources in Persian, Marathi, and Arabic, but was challenged for his criticism of the "chauvinism" of Marathi historians' views of Shivaji.".

A. R. Kulkarni says:

Shivaji and His Times, was widely regarded as the authoritative follow-up to Grant Duff. An erudite, painstaking Rankean scholar, Sarkar was also able to access a wide variety of sources through his mastery of Persian, Marathi, and Arabic. Akshaypatill (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2023

Correction 

The name should be "Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj" not Shivaji 2409:4081:1C1C:6BB9:81B4:1672:755E:4E96 (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

2409:4081:1C1C:6BB9:81B4:1672:755E:4E96 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Updated the request template to show the article name RudolfRed (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see MOS:HON Cannolis (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)