Talk:Shivaji

Frequently asked questions - READ BEFORE POSTING

Q: Why can I not add "Shri", "Chhatrapati", or "Maharaj" to Shivaji's name?

A: Per WP:Honorifics and WP:Commonname, in Wikipedia, we refer to people by their commonly used name in the cited academic sources. We do not include titles or Honorifics unless they are commonly used in the cited sources (Shivaji does not fall in this category).
For example, Charles III is referred to as "Charles" throughout, not "King Charles" or "His Majesty" or whatnot. We clearly note Shivaji's titles in the article, we just don't repeat them each time his name is written.
Please refer to this talk discussion for more details.

Q: Why was my request or comment removed?

A: Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to move the page or to change the name will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:HONORIFIC, WP:Requested moves, WP:Common name, and WP:Article titles.

This section is permanently on this talk page and does not get archived. It is for mobile-device users for whom the normal talk page header and FAQ are not shown.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2026 (8)

~2026-19744-20 (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The correct and respectful full name should be "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj" instead of just "Shivaji". He is a great historical figure and founder of the Maratha Empire. Requesting Google to display his full respectful name in the knowledge panel. ~2026-19793-07 (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. meamemg (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

i'm sure these are probably sockpuppets or bots. Theonethatknowsyouripaddress (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Nope, these are more likely than not people from India who feel quite strongly about their historical figures and have no interest in sticking around to see whether or not the demands they've made are being honoured. This is actually fairly routine for controversial Indian topics. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

okay? Theonethatknowsyouripaddress (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Request to Rename Article "Shivaji" to "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj"

Hello Wikipedia Team, I would like to request a page title change from “Shivaji” to “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj”. “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj” is the full and widely recognized respectful name, and is commonly used in historical, cultural, and public references. Kindly consider renaming the article to reflect the correct and complete name. Thank you. Saurabh1Tamhane (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

See Talk:Shivaji#Frequently_asked_questions_-_READ_BEFORE_POSTING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Any further requests along these lines should be reverted off as repeatedly requested and rejected. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

It may be worth adding another FAQ entry for this, such as the final question in the FAQ at Talk:Adam's Bridge. I'll do that. From now on, revert on sight. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

"Ji" is already an honorific Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 04:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

That's integral to his name, and it's how reliable sources spell it. No need to slap more honorifics onto it. The honorific suffix "ji" may have originated from Shivaji rather than being a product of modern honorific usage, but I don't know for sure. In any case, there are many surnames and given names that include an honorific already built into the name, such as Sridhar or Shreenivas (sri/shree="respected"), Santosh or Sanjay (san="saint"), Sahebzada (literally "son of the Sahib"), Contessa (derived from "count"), Fitzgerald ("son of Gerald"), and so forth. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

What is honorific about Fitzgerald? —Antonissimo (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Technically a surname that's derived from a patronym. I think Anachronist is technically wrong with some of the honorific examples, but the larger point about how we treat honorifics is accurate and the important thing here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@Antonissimo: "Fitz" is old French for "son of". Whether "son of" is an honorific is a different question; I just assumed it is. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

My apologies for being the "Well, actually..." dude here, but the question was asked! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

It is frequently an honorific addition to a name, but not in this case; as Anachronist points out above it is integral to this name. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a useful way to look at is that it's not that honorifics are forbidden we're just honorific-neutral in that, unless there's a specific exemption, we go with the WP:COMMONNAME whether or not it has the honorific and don't default to the honorific. Shivaji is the WP:COMMONNAME by consensus, so it doesn't really matter if there's an honorific in the name or not. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Right, if honorifics were forbidden then we wouldn't have the title Mahatma Gandhi. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Or U Thant. They are so common that many people don't realize they're honorifics. Queen Latifah is probably off-topic, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

However, in my opinion, wikipedia team should once again consider whether the current article title “Shivaji” should become “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj” in accordance with the general practice and guidelines of Wikipedia.

While the statement about the avoidance of any honorifics in article titles is true, there are certain peculiarities which should be taken into account. Unlike any modern honorific such as “Shri” or “Ji,” “Chhatrapati” is a royal sovereign title bestowed at the moment of coronation. It is comparable to the imperial designation of emperor. Thus, its presence in an article title is justified and cannot be considered improper.

Moreover, the WP:COMMONNAME policy should be applied in a contemporary context with respect to international usage. In numerous high-quality articles, journals, official documents, educational textbooks, and museum resources, the historical maharaj is referred to as “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj,” not only “Shivaji.” As such, the omission of the title may be regarded as incomplete information.

Also, the issue of disambiguation must be considered. Being a common given name, “Shivaji” could easily refer to another person or location without the addition of the title which serves as a means of distinction.

Finally, Wikipedia follows the rule of using regal titles or any other.

@Saurabh1Tamhane @Vanamonde93 @Anachronist @Antonissimo @CoffeeCrumbs @EasternShah @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Jéské Couriano VedantAndhale (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Should Henry VIII be renamed His Majesty Henry, eighth of that name, King of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith? —Antonissimo (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I see what you’re getting at with that comparison, but I don’t think it’s quite the same situation.

Something like “His Majesty Henry…” is clearly a full ceremonial style, it’s not how reliable sources normally refer to him, so it makes sense that Wikipedia doesn’t use it as a title.

With “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj,” it feels a bit different to me. “Chhatrapati” isn’t just a decorative or stylistic addition, it’s a formally assumed royal title, and the full name does show up quite a lot in academic and institutional sources, especially those dealing with Indian history.

So I think the real question here isn’t about adding a long formal style, but simply about what name is actually most commonly used in reliable sources. If it turns out that “Shivaji” on its own is clearly the dominant form, then that’s fair enough, but I think it would help to base that on actual source comparisons rather than an analogy that might not fully line up. VedantAndhale (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

And for those who will point me to FAQ. I’m not entirely convinced that the FAQ applies cleanly to this particular case. It feels like it may be generalizing how WP and WP should be used, especially when it comes to a historically established title like “Chhatrapati.”

The FAQ seems to group “Chhatrapati” and “Maharaj” together with honorifics like “Shri” or “Ji,” but I think that comparison is a bit questionable. “Chhatrapati,” as I understand it, isn’t just a courtesy title, it’s a formally assumed sovereign title, granted at coronation, much closer in meaning to something like “King” or “Emperor.” In many historical contexts, titles like these are treated as part of a ruler’s identity, not just an optional addition.

More importantly, WP is based on how subjects are actually referred to in reliable sources, not just on a general preference to avoid titles. The FAQ states that Shivaji doesn’t fall into the category where titles are commonly used, but I think that’s something that really needs to be backed by evidence. From what I’ve seen, a significant number of English-language academic works, as well as government and institutional sources related to Indian history, do regularly use “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.”

Because of that, leaving out the title altogether can feel a bit counterintuitive and possibly less reflective of how he is widely recognized in reliable sources.

I’m not saying the FAQ is wrong in general — just that this might be a case where its application deserves a closer look. If “Shivaji” is indeed the most common form in reliable sources, it would be helpful to demonstrate that with comparisons, so the conclusion is clearly grounded in evidence rather than assumption.

Happy to help gather sources if that would move the discussion forward. VedantAndhale (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:RFC is an option (Talk:Shivaji#Requested_move_30_March_2026 is quite recent though, but not the same same thing), or at least it will be after you are WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. But if you want to try that, read the instructions on formatting/listing carefully. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Given the topic area Shivaji falls into, VerdantAndhale technically shouldn't be anywhere near this topic. The main reason I'm not dropping them a contentious topic warning is because they're doing something pretty much nobody else demanding we change it has done - actually stay and defend their position. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh right, I forgot, we're in draconic-land. But yes, that is appreciated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The way I see it, any effort to reasonably discuss the matter by these users is both very welcome and something that should not be interrupted once they get to the stove and start cooking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

In any case, VedantAndhale, unless you have a more general RFC that would apply, rather than something that's specifically Shivaji-related (or Sambhaji for that matter), it's something that should really wait until you're extended confirmed. Because of the long-term chaos in this topic area on Wikipedia, there's really not much flexibility tolerated by the English Wikipedia communication. That has nothing to do with anything wrong with what you wrote; it's just what the situation is right now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The fact remains that we do not as a rule include monarchs' titles in the titles of their Wikipedia articles. As I pointed out above, we have Elizabeth II, Akbar, Akihito, and Salman of Saudi Arabia. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Is it a common given name because of this Shivaji, or independently? —Antonissimo (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC) And are parents who give that name disrespectful in not naming their sons Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj? —Antonissimo (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It's likely the same situation as Muhammad/Mohamed/etc being a common given name because of the Muhammad. In Latin America, Jesus is a common given name for a similar reason. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Bro your are absolutely right because The Chatrapati is not just word it's a big position 👑 in swaraj so Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj is right

Jay Bhavani 🚩 Jay Shivray 🚩👑 ~2026-31455-60 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

okay, I know this might scare you, but WP:HONORIFIC. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 16:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Recent postings

Is there a particular reason this seems to be getting a lot of drive-by IP edit requests to add honorifics/titles to the article title? Like a film, or news report, or something? 331dot (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

My guess is it has to do with Google's Knowledge Graph, as a lot of them have referenced wanting to change that and thinking that forcing the change on Wikipedia will get Google to change it as well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to adding the honorifics into the article, but they should just be part of the lead/infobox, like with David Attenborough - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 03:29, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Them being in the article is not the issue. The issue is entirely WP:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names in conjunction with WP:Manual of Style/Biography#Honorific prefixes and suffixes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

So they want the article renamed? They really should read the FAQ :( - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 16:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Several at Talk:Wikipedia as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

And I first saw it on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. —Antonissimo (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Note that this is very blatantly the result of some sort of offsite campaign, or indistinguishable from such. Even leaving aside the continual bombardment itself, the fact they all use very similar wording is a tell. I've blocked a bunch of the latest accounts/TAs doing this (but unblocked VedantAndhale after seeing them actually engaging above) and semiprotected the talk page for a month after the previous shorter protections have clearly failed - hopefully that will allow the wave of disruptors to get bored and find something else to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the month will help. Given they're pointedly trying to change Google's Knowledge Panel (because we all know that clearly will happen in response to a pressure campaign from Wikipedia), it'll likely recur once the protection drops. I'd also put Talk:Sambhaji on your watchlist as well; that page tends to receive similar drive-by demands. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

So it should just be indefinitely protected? Either way, these requests have me fuming, since they clearly don't care about the FAQ... >:( - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 11:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, it'll help for a month. And if needed, the next protection can be 6 months, and so on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2026

Sanketh0512 (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

see Talk:Shivaji #Frequently asked questions - READ BEFORE POSTING-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2026

~2026-31455-60 (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)