Talk:P. V. Sindhu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Subsequent use[edit]

@Zoglophie: Reo kwon has a valid point. "P. V. Sindhu" has their family name initialized, which means it is little known and seldom used. Even the reputed media houses like BBC, The Hindu, which represent the professional standard of writing, refer her by the given name subsequently. MOS:SURNAME is not a hard and fast rule, and common sense trumps all guidelines. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ab207:, over years the Mos:surname is applied here. So let us wait for further suggestions. Zoglophie (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fylindfotberserk:, :@Stvbastian:, :@Florentyna:, :@GlashaLeo: you all are free to comment here. Zoglophie (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps MOS:GIVENNAME can be applied. Although the guideline doesn't talk about Telugu names particularly, but in common parlance (English media), "Sindhu" is used in place of the relatively unknown "Pusarla". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For my better understanding, what should be changed? Florentyna (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Florentyna: Whether to use Pusarla or Sindhu when referring to the subject of the article. Check this, you'll get the idea. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the name was "Sindhu Pusarla" (standard [first name]-[last name] format), then MOS:SURNAME makes sense. But that's not the case here, using little-used surname would only puzzle the readers. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207: if there's no opposition in a week to come, you can revert my edit in P. V. Sindhu. I think you have a point. Thankyou Zoglophie (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Reo kwon: your views are welcome here too. You may comment. Zoglophie (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I second Ab207. Pusarla is rarely used even in media. She is almost always referred to as Sindhu in media mostly because she initialized her surname. Reo kwon (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207: No, as per MOS:SURNAME, we want to use her surname if she uses her surname at all in her profession. Almost every badminton game refers to her as "Pusarla Venkata Sindhu" or some other variant which includes her surname. In fact, in the Olympics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klAbKqpTHpo&t=56 since I apparently can't link to YouTube), her jersey read "Pusarla V S". This has been discussed before; MOS:GIVENNAME doesn't apply to her. The case of her surname being written before her given name is not a criterion for anything, as people like Xi Jinping are referred to as "President Xi", not "President Jinping". Getsnoopy (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getsnoopy, I reckon this is a case of surname being initialized as opposed to surname being written before. Her professional name has little bearing as we write the encyclopedia for a generalized audience who may or may not be sports enthusiasts. There's no "Pusarla" in the common name PV Sindhu, hence it makes little sense to refer to the person as such. Ab207 (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207: I sense you're confusing WP:TITLE with MOS:SURNAME. The article's title already uses the name as cited by most reliable sources. Her professional name has all the bearing in this case, since it has to do with subsequent use, which is what the policy states. She has an actual family name that is not a patronymic, and she uses it professionally consistently. I have a feeling the other editors above are also confusing subsequent usage in general media vs. WP's subsequent usage policy. It might be common in Indian media to use first names in subsequent usage despite people having clearly publicized surnames (e.g., in Saina Nehwal's case), but it is jarring in general English usage and is considered inappropriate, especially for a formal encyclopaedia. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getsnoopy, There's no confusion. Since the subject's common name has an initial rather than a surname, an average reader would not be aware of it. That's why we can hardly find any English-language sources which refer to her by surname. As I said in my earlier comment, MOS:SURNAME is a generalized guideline suited for names which are in standard [first name]-[last name] format, which is certainly not the case here. Ab207 (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207: That's exactly what the lead sentence is for; it clearly states what the person's full name is. That's why we can hardly find any English-language sources which refer to her by surname. Again, this is what I was pointing out; I have a feeling you're confusing what sources' subsequent usage is vs. what WP's subsequent usage policy is. It doesn't matter what other sources are doing with regard to our subsequent usage policy. You argument would be valid if the article made no mention of her last name at all, but just had "P. V. Sindhu" everywhere. Since it introduces her full name as the first word of the article, the question of whether someone would be familiar or not is immaterial; it's right there.
Similarly, if she exclusively used her name as "P. V. Sindhu" professionally, then there again I'd agree with you. This isn't the case, however; she almost exclusively uses "Pusarla Sindhu", "Pusarla V. Sindhu", or "Pusarla V. S." professionally, which is what MOS:SURNAME alludes to as well. Subsequent usage has to do with the self-referentiality of articles, not with whether every subsequent use would be recognized by people otherwise. Also, there is no evidence that MOS:SURNAME is only for FirstName LastName formats; as I've already pointed out, it is used for myriad articles on Chinese people and people of other cultures where it is customary to put the last name first. Let's not invent rules or reasons. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getsnoopy, She may or may not use her common name professionally but our average reader knows her by the name P. V. Sindhu, not Pusarla. The customary mention of the full name in the introduction does not remove the unfamiliarity. The LastName FirstName format of Chinese names is not parallel to the Initials FirstName format which we have here. This is not inventing new rules, Wikipedia has no firm rules and there's always room for exceptions. Ab207 (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207: but our average reader knows her by the name P. V. Sindhu. Firstly, this is refuted by the fact that people who know her know her for her badminton, not for other reasons. Saying that she is known professionally as "Pusarla [V.] Sindhu", but that people don't know her as such is illogical. Secondly, the statement is not corroborated by evidence, seeing as even most of the non-sports-related reliable sources refer to her as "Pusarla Venkata Sindhu" at first mention. So even going by your logic of reliable sources not mentioning it, the argument doesn't hold up. Thirdly, are you arguing that a person who's landed on an article entitled "P. V. Sindhu" and has the first mention as "Pusarla Venkata Sindhu" is going to suddenly get confused when they see "Pusarla" in subsequent mentions? The point isn't that the rules are firm; it's that there's absolutely no reason to break them in this case. MOS:SURNAME is pretty clear: if they have a surname and use it professionally, use it in subsequent mentions; if not, then use their professional/given name. I don't know why you're complicating it unnecessarily. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getsnoopy, Each and every single article you've gathered subsequently refer her as "Sindhu." There isn't a single source that refers to her by surname, for the same reasons we discussed above. Guidelines are for vastly generalized cases, there's no need to be bureaucratic about them. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207: I feel like we've ended up where we've started. Every one of those examples invoke her full name at the beginning, which is the point. I've already pointed out that those publications' subsequent use policies are irrelevant to WP; we have our own subsequent use policy. Many of those publications also refer to Saina Nehwal as "Saina" in subsequent use, yet you wouldn't endorse we refer to her as "Saina" in her article as well, would you? It's not about bureaucracy; it's about proper English usage. It is entirely inappropriate to subsequently refer to someone by their given name in any formal writing, let alone a professional encyclopaedia. The only exceptions to this are if they simply don't have a surname / family name or if they exclusively use a different stage/professional name, neither of which clearly is the case here. MOS:SURNAME merely codifies this unwritten general rule. I don't understand why you're convinced this is "an exception" despite all evidence to the contrary. Getsnoopy (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getsnoopy, We cannot overlook the fact that the subject uses an initial rather than a surname in their WP:COMMONNAME. @Reo kwon: As someone who first made the change, you may express your views here. Ab207 (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207: Again, yes we can; WP:COMMONNAME is related to titles due to the issue of discoverability. If one types in "P. V. Sindhu" into a search box on WP, they should be able to find the article easily. This has no (and shouldn't have any) bearing on their name throughout the article; it merely happens to be correlated in many cases because someone's exclusively-used professional name happens to be their common name. This isn't the case in P. V. Sindhu's case. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getsnoopy, Let me put it this way, take a hypothetical scenario where the subject's COMMONNAME is V. Sindhu or just Sindhu. Would you still recommend applying MOS:SURNAME? Ab207 (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207: I would if she uses Pusarla (V.) Sindhu professionally and wouldn't otherwise. That is exactly my point: it doesn't matter what her COMMONNAME is; what she uses professionally is what matters (because, evidently, she is famous for her profession). And in her case, she exclusively uses Pusarla V. S. (arguably the complete opposite of the current situation), Pusarla V. Sindhu, or Pusarla Venkata Sindhu. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getsnoopy, Yeah but we ought to write our article to an average reader who may not be a badminton enthusiast and may not know what their professional name is. Ab207 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207: I don't understand why you keep harping on this point. Encyclopaedias are to educate people about topics; if people are reading the article, I think it's safe to assume that they have landed on the article to learn about her. We have her full name as the first words of the article. I don't think you claiming that they wouldn't have learned what her name is after reading the first 3 words of the article is convincing at all. This is also overlooking the unconvincing assumption that people arriving on the article do not know her for her badminton, but (inexplicably) know her anyway; they either know her or they don't. And she doesn't have a "professional name" and a "non-professional name"; it's just one name that happens to be commonly abbreviated, but used in full in her profession. All of this is notwithstanding the fact that any average reader has the capability to understand subsequent uses, in the same way an average reader has the capability to figure out that if a term is mentioned initially (e.g., "Reserve Bank of India (RBI)"), then subsequent mentions of only its abbreviation (e.g., "RBI") must be referring back to the initial mention. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getsnoopy, I believe we are in a clear disagreement which seems unlikely to resolve without outside intervention. We may invite the previous participants/major contributors to the article and seek which version they endorse so that the discussion is concluded. Regards Ab207 (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207: That sounds fine; let's wait for others' opinions. I will be reverting back to the way it was until the discussion is resolved. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was linked to this debate on another another discussion about Telugu names. This seems to have descended into a "professional" vs "non professional" name argument, when really it is about cultural differences. Traditional Telugu names are in the order "[family name] [given name] [optional caste name]", with people being referred to by their given or caste name in both Telugu and English. As per MOS:GIVENNAME, there are several cultures where people are referred to by their given name on Wikipedia. Vietnamese is the most similar one in this regard: for example, Ngô Đình Diệm is not referred to by his surname Ngô, but by his given name Diệm as per Vietnamese customs. In a similar context, Tamil names have a similar structure where (a) patronymic(s) is placed first and a given name is added on after that, with the given name being used to refer to that person (ex. E. V. K. Sampath).

As for the jerseys, is it indeed true that in international events her jersey reads Pusarla (2016 Olympics, 2018 Asian Games, 2019 BWF World). However, it could be that they put the surname without realizing that its the given name that is supposed to be used (which seems to have resulted in the ridiculous situation that only "P V" is written on the virtual score widget on RTVE's telecast in the 2015 Denmark Open, even though her jersey had "P V Sindhu" written on it). The 2014 Asian Championships has gotten it right, with Sindhu P V (that is to say, "Sindhu, P. V.") being written on the jersey and "Sindhu" being the name used on the broadcast widget. In addition, Sindhu is referred to as such in interviews (links: 1 2 3) which I think is better evidence. MSG17 (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P. V. Sindhu already used her surname "Pusarla" on her jersey (see: Youtube Pusarla 2016-2021 tournaments in BWF tour and Olympics), and BWF news also generally referred by her surname "Pusarla" in their articles (ex: [1]). But, most of Indian website and newspaper still referred Sindhu in their articles per her Telugu name P. V. Sindhu. Imo, since Pusarla well-known by her Telugu name P. V. Sindhu, we can keep the title as "P. V. Sindhu", but in the prose we should referred by her surname "Pusarla" per MOS:SURNAME. Stvbastian (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stvbastian Could you also refer to the next section where I compiled several reliable sources, both Indian and international, using the MOS:GIVENNAME? -- DaxServer (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Subject is exclusively referred as Sindhu or P V .Sindhu in all almost WP:RS sources not Purshala and even in School and College she was called Sindhu .In this Indian name, the name Pusarla is a patronymic, and the person should be referred to by the given name, Sindhu.Her father's name is also Pusarla Venkata Ramana that is P. V. Ramana and he is refered as Ramana not Pusarla just as Sindhu. Readers almost exclusively know as Sindhu which is WP:COMMONNAME not Purshala. Further in South Indian names like Muthuvel Karunanidhi the subject is referred as Karunandhi not Muthuvel. Sindhu's sister Divya is referred as Divya not Purshala.Her name is also Pusarla Venkata Divya .Both Sindhu and sister Divya are called Sindhu and Divya not Purshala

Pharaoh of the Wizards, you are correct when that she is referred to as Sindhu by all reliable sources and so should we. But just be clear, Pusarla isn't a patronymic, it's a family name that is used as an initial. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like some kind of hatnote is necessary after all. -- DaxServer (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think DaxServer on to refer her? Do you believe MOS:SURNAME is applicable in this case? -- Ab207 (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on quick glance as what the RS state, I believe it should be "Sindhu" and not "Pusarla". MOS:GIVENNAME applies here and supersedes MOS:SURNAME. But this has been widely discussed just two months ago but without reaching the consensus. Do you think we should boldly use the GIVENNAME? I still think some sort of hatnote is necessary, not the patronymic of course. Perhaps we should go for an RfC? -- DaxServer (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:GIVENNAME does not mention Telugu names particularly, because it hadn't been discussed earlier. I think its time for an RfC to reach a consensus. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For Sindhu or Telugu names? In case of Telugu names, I would go to India board for RfC -- DaxServer (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised it in the India Board. Purshala is wrong if that logic is extended then both she and her sister will be called by the same name. Corrected for the last time will not do it again. Highly viewed page and the name is clearly wrong.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SURNAME dictates that "after the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only". For example, see Rahul Gandhi. There are so many Gandhis out there including Mohandas and even some in his own family, but he is referred as "Gandhi" after the initial mention of his given name of "Rahul". And WP:COMMONNAME is a article title policy, not related to what you have come with. And his father's and sister's articles should also be edited, per the MOS:SURNAME and should be referred as "Pusarla", after the initial mention of their given name, just like the Gandhis. Pusarla is not a patronymic, it is a family name that is used as an initial. Also, see her jersey, which has the words "Pusarla V S". Regards, Peter Ormond 💬 14:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the same article you've shared, it goes on as Sindhu became the first Indian woman to win two individual medals at the Olympics, having added to her silver in Rio 2016 but not Pusarla became the first [...]. I think MOS:GIVENNAME (Culture-specific usages) (In Southeast and South Asia, many people use only a personal name, which may be followed by a patronymic; in such cases, they should be referred to by their personal name.) supersedes the MOS:SURNAME (Subsequent use) here. I think we should follow RS and the MOS:GIVENNAME guideline for the subsequent use and not MOS:SURNAME. (Same reply copied from India noticeboard (Special:PermaLink/1036935778#P. V. Sindhu). I think we should decide where the discussion must go, and not be duplicated.) -- DaxServer (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say I disagree with you .Her official name is Sindhu not Pusarla.Both she and her sister and father are known as Sindhu,Divya and Ramana all 3 of them are not called by the same name Pusarla this is case in South Indian names like Muthuvel Karunanidhi ,Conjeevaram Natarajan Annadurai the subject is refered as Karunanidhi and Annadurai MOS:SURNAME does not apply here.Anyway taken to the Indian board.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for breaking threaded replies, but it's needed for the table. I've compiled a short list where reliable sources used "Sindhu" for subsequent usage. A few articles mentioned the full name, but have fallback to Sindhu for later use in the articles. I've come across some articles where she is only referred once or twice, and in such cases the article noted P.V. Sindhu and not other format. I've added archived URLs as not all of them are freely accessible, and could be useful broadly for everyone. Let me know if: you've noticed any articles that were syndicated and/or duplicated across publications; you'd like to add more to the list; you've noticed any errors. I could not find coverage in NYT, WSJ, WaPo, The Guardian, but if you could find some, please do so! The articles were chosen at random, mostly the first one I could get when I queried in the format "pv sindhu 2019 site:thehindu.com"

Reliable sources using "Sindhu" for subsequent usage
Publication Now One year ago Couple of years ago A while ago A long time ago
The Hindu [2] (Aug 2021) [3] (Aug 2020) [4] (July 2019) [5] (Nov 2015) [6] (Sept 2013)
The Indian Express [7] (Aug 2021) [8] (Sept 2020) [9] (Sept 2019) [10] (Oct 2015) [11] (Dec 2013)
Hindustan Times [12] (Aug 2021) [13] (Oct 2020) [14] (July 2019) [15] (Nov 2016) [16] (Dec 2010)
Reuters [17] (Aug 2021) [18] (March 2020) [19] (Sept 2019) [20] (Oct 2016)
BBC [21] (Aug 2021) [22] (March 2020) [23] (Aug 2019) [24] (Aug 2018) [25] (Aug 2016)
Mint [26] (Aug 2021) [27] (Nov 2020) [28] (Aug 2019) [29] (Aug 2016) [30] (Aug 2013)
Business Standard [31] (Aug 2021) [32] (March 2020) [33] (Aug 2019) [34] (Aug 2016) [35] (Aug 2013)
The Times of India [36] (Aug 2021) [37] (Aug 2020) [38] (Aug 2019) [39] (Aug 2016) [40] (Oct 2012)
The Economic Times [41] (Aug 2021) [42] (July 2020) [43] (Sept 2019) [44] (March 2017) [45] (Aug 2014)
The New Indian Express [46] (Aug 2021) [47] (Sept 2020) [48] (Sept 2019) [49] (July 2016) [50] (May 2010)
Associated Press [51] (Aug 2018) [52] (Aug 2016) [53] (Aug 2013)
WaPo [54] (July 2021)
The Independent [55] (July 2021)
Al Jazeera [56] (Aug 2021)
CNN [57] (July 2021)

From the list, one can observe that the Indian sources as well as International sources across a reasonably broad timeframe used "Sindhu" and not "Pusarla". -- DaxServer (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DaxServer, thanks for the compilation. By this, I think we are able to demonstrate that she is almost always referred to by the given name in the subsequent use by the reliable sources. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly added {{Given name hatnote}} to the article. -- DaxServer (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of sources using Sindhu in their articles because she is well-known as P. V. Sindhu. But in fact, her surname is Pusarla. Her family names earlier abbreviated as P. V. Sindhu per Telugu name, but lately, some articles have been mentioned P. V. Sindhu surname "Pusarla". Sindhu are used in the beginning of the articles maybe because of WP:BLPPRIVACY, but after her surname has been spread and used in several articles, i think we should referred by her surname "Pusarla" right now. Some of Indian and International articles maybe not written per MOS:SURNAME, for example Satwiksairaj Rankireddy and Chirag Shetty. In The Hindu and The Indian Express, the duo referred as Satwik and Chirag, but per per MOS:SURNAME the duo should be referred as Rankireddy and Shetty (per MOS:SURNAME in the Hindustan Times). And, i do agree with Zoglophie revision. Stvbastian (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rankireddy and Shetty use a surname as their last name, hence MOS:SURNAME. But Sindhu's case is not a parallel here because there is no surname in "P. V. Sindhu", rather there's an initial. Therefore, using Sindhu over her little-known surname definitely makes sense. Zoglophie too agreed with that ratioanle. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point by mentioning Rankireddy and Shetty are about written style by the sources that ignored MOS:SURNAME. Addition, this case seems like Srikanth Kidambi. Earlier the title was K. Srikanth, but after some articles have been mentioned and used his surname "Kidambi", Wikipedia article started reffered K. Srikanth as Srikanth Kidambi. And for P. V. Sindhu, she is using Pusarla in her jersey right now. So, there is no harm for Wikipedia article referring her by Pusarla. Stvbastian (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering, who is the one that decides the name on the jersey? Nor I know why she's using that, neither I know if she made it clear which name she goes by. Either way, we have a MOS:GIVENNAME which is "Culture-specific usages" (the heading of that section) that overrides the MOS:SURNAME. I can't comment on the other articles. But if there is a dispute about P. V. Sindhu, I'd say referring to reliable secondary sources is the best option, as we being editors of Wikipedia, can only summarize what those sources say, and not derive our own conclusions (unless supported by predominant majority of those sources?), which is simply WP:OR. -- DaxServer (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MSG17 has rightly pointed out the inconsistencies in the jersey naming above, so that is something we wouldn't want to bank on. Also, referring to her as Pusarla makes it inconsistent with the title P. V. Sindhu. This case is similar to former international cricketer VVS Laxman more than anything, where he is always referred to as Laxman by the cricketing fraternity and the media. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Olympedia clearly states P.V.Sindhu here and the Badminton Association of India clearly lists her as P.V.Sindhu here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By reading this , I want to say that, I think she doesn't have surname.Many South Indian folks , I think don't have surnames. Such as K L Rahul - K. Lokesh Rahul , here Lokesh is his father's name and his given name is Rahul. Many south use their father's name first & then their given name. Newton Euro (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newton Euro, Telugu people have surnames while Tamil people have patronymic names, which is their father's name being the surname. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This issue keeps coming up, as evidenced in the previous section as well (I don't know why this new section was created). MOS:SUBSEQUENT has to do with Wikipedia's policy on subsequent usage, not other reliable sources' usage. Many of the same RS that are being cited refer to Saina Nehwal as "Saina" in subsequent uses, and similarly for many other people. This does not make it OK for use on WP nor does it make it acceptable for general English usage; using people's given names in subsequent use is incredibly unprofessional. All of this is not to mention that she uses her surname professionally in many places (BWF, Olympics, etc.), so it's a non-starter that her given name could be used given her exclusive use of it in her professional life, as MOS guidelines allow. This was recently reinforced by the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, where she was constantly referred to as "Pusarla" and even had the same on her jersey. I highly recommend people just put this issue to bed to avoid WP:DEADHORSE. Getsnoopy (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should go for an RfC here? — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc: Subsequent usage[edit]

There's a clear consensus for "Sindhu". Editors seem to overwhelmingly favour the application of MOS:GIVENNAME and not of MOS:SURNAME; and a partial reason for this is that it is backed up by the usage of sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.



What should be the subsequent usage for P. V. Sindhu?

Requesting comments. — DaxServer (talk to me) 10:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Sindhu per MOS:GIVENNAME, the section titled "Culture-specific usages" quotes "In Southeast and South Asia, many people use only a personal name, which may be followed by a patronymic; in such cases, they should be referred to by their personal name." (links in original) In the context of this article, the MOS:GIVENNAME supersedes the MOS:SURNAME, plain and simple. I've compiled a list of ~72 links (~55 in early August 2021), supporting the givenname usage where secondary sources near-unanimously used "Sindhu" for subsequent usage. Please see the Discussion below for the table. (Also requestor) — DaxServer (talk to me) 11:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The culture-specific usage refers to patronymics (usually for Tamils and Kannadigas); she does not have a patronymic. Getsnoopy (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. which may be followed by a patronymic You missed "may be" — DaxServer (talk to me) 22:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, it may be, or it may not be. Regardless, Telugu people have surnames, which makes that point moot. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really know what to reply to your original research arguments in the discussion below, but I've laid out the table with sources. If she's known by as Sindhu then we'll use it. I don't see anything moot in that. — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sindhu per the weight of sources. If we have two conflicting guidelines then let's go back to what we do for all content, check the weight of the reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)[reply]
  • Sindhu It makes absolute sense to refer to her as Sindhu becasue the surname Pusarla is not part of her common name "P. V. Sindhu". This is tacitly told in MOS:SURNAME as well. "When a majority of reliable secondary sources refer to persons by a pseudonym, they should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames." When the pseudonym is P. V. Sindhu, Sindhu becomes her pseudonymous surname. MOS:GIVENNAME also allows culture-specific exceptions which has been demonstrated by usage in reliable sources. So here, I see both MOS:SURNAME and MOS:GIVENNAME supporting the subsequent usage as Sindhu. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Her name is not a pseudonym. The culture-specific exceptions are referring to patronymics, which she does not have; her father and mother have the same surname as her. Getsnoopy (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The name PV Sindhu doesn't have the surname in it, which is akin to using a pseudonym. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not a pseudonym. A pseudonym is a fake or assumed name. Abbreviating your name doesn't make it a pseudonym, nor does it change the characteristics of what your surname is. If the name is Xi Jinping and it is abbreviated as "X. Jinping", "Jinping" doesn't suddenly become the surname. If you want to be technical about it, her (abbreviated) surname is "P." Getsnoopy (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to draw an anology with pseudonyms to explain my point here, that we don't necessarily use the surname all the time. MOS doesn't address the case of abrreviated surnames, which is unique to Telugu people if I'm not wrong. There's no need to create hypothetical case of some Chinese name. Because we already have the examples in the likes of the former Indian President V. V. Giri who is referred to as Giri, and the present CJI N. V. Ramana is referred to as Ramana with the same rationale. None of that has ever been in contention because it makes perfect sense. -- Ab207 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MoS already addresses it with For people well known by one-word names, nicknames, or pseudonyms, but who often also use their legal names professionally, use the legal surname. She is known by a one-word name "Sindhu", but she often (if not always) uses "Pusarla V. Sindhu" professionally; therefore, we should be using her legal surname. It really doesn't get any clearer than that. which is unique to Telugu people if I'm not wrong It is not unique to them; Tamil people, Kananda people, and Malayali people do it all the time as well. Regardless, as for your examples of V. V. Giri, N. V. Ramana, that's exactly my point: they never use their legal surname professionally (unless you can show me otherwise), which is why it has not "ever been in contention". It seems like you're confusing this coincidence with a heuristic that somehow if something "makes sense", it should be done. WP would be far more chaotic if that was the case, seeing as given the RS you've cited, many people are referred to by their given names regardless of whether they're abbreviated or not. I don't understand this relentless effort to complicate things more than what they need to be. And while WP:IAR sounds like a quip, the big caveat there is "for improving or maintaining WP". Devolving to refer to someone by their given name in an article is not an improvement; not even close.Getsnoopy (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We both admit that there are cases where using given name is appropriate. Hence, it cannnot simultaneously be said that using given name is not an improvement. We can go on like this all day by refuting each other's arguments. But its better if we just agree to differ on this and not risk bludgeoning the process. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are cases where using a given name is appropriate, but this doesn't necessarily mean it is an improvement. While using Sindhu could be appropriate if the situation called for it, it's not automatically an improvement. However, in this case, using Pusarla is just as appropriate (if not more) because of the context, which means that given that someone's given and surnames are appropriate in this (hypothetical) case, using their given name is not only inappropriate (per MOS) but also a degradation (because it is unprofessional/colloquial to use given names in English in subsequent use). You haven't refuted any of my arguments, which is my point in trying to discuss this: there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what policy is or how to use it with regard to what's going on in this vote.
My contention is not that you disagree with me, but with the fact that you disagree with me because of reasoning that is flawed. What RS are doing in their subsequent uses is entirely irrelevant to what WP does; any article (or even piece of text) that introduces a term at the beginning has its own way of referring back to the term, and virtually any reader can follow that subsequent use throughout an article. Furthermore, citing RS that use given names for many (if not most) people regardless of what their common name is is not good evidence to base your argument/vote on when your argument is "RS do this for subsequent uses in this case, so we should follow them because they are correct for all subsequent uses". But anyway, I'll not reply further to avoid the risk of trying to bludgeon this. Getsnoopy (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pusarla. Subsequent usage in reliable sources doesn't matter, as discussed over and over again in the previous discussions, seeing as they use given names for people who use their full name consistently as well. Her name is not a pseudonym, nor is her surname a patronymic (which really only applies to Tamils and some Kannadigas). She uses her full surname consistently in professional life, which is clearly laid out in MOS:SURNAME: For people well known by one-word names, nicknames, or pseudonyms, but who often also use their legal names professionally, use the legal surname. Getsnoopy (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sindhu It makes little sense to use a name that almost no one recognizes. As for the MOS:SURNAME argument, the "common sense" exception applies here (Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply)--RegentsPark (comment) 18:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sindhu by the weight of reliable sources.She is known as Sindhu in both her official twitter and Facebook use that and and as pointed above by RegentsPark common sense applies. Her father is known as Ramana not Pusarla and her sister Divya not Pusarla and Sindhu is referred as Sindhu not Pusarla. Now if the other logic is applied then all 3 of them will be called Pusarla which is wrong.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Her father is known as Ramana not Pusarla and her sister Divya not Pusarla and Sindhu is referred as Sindhu not Pusarla I think you fundamentally don't understand the crux of the argument. Everyone has their own given name; Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Donald Trump are all known by their given names to people who know them. That, however, is not the point at all; in any article that refers to them in subsequent uses, they would be referred to as "Trump" (unless it is referring to multiple Trumps, in which case they would be disambiguated with their given names). This is clearly spelled out in MOS:SURNAME as well. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sindhu It makes little sense to use a name that almost no one recognizes. per RegentsPark, it hardly matters whether it is 'sur' or 'given' name if it is the COMMONNAME, which sources clearly indicate it is. Pincrete (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete and RegentsPark: that almost no one recognizes Yes, except for literally anyone who has seen one of her badminton games where she is credited as "Pusarla V. Sindhu", which is, of course, how she became notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Or for those who've read practically any article cited as a RS below that starts with "Pusarla Venkata Sindhu" or the like. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC is about subsequent use in the article and all indications are that 'Sindhu' is preferred for that in RS. Pincrete (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And therein lies my point: appropriate subsequent use is established by any text in the introduction. Any article has full forms at the beginning (e.g., "Reserve Bank of India (RBI)" at the beginning & "RBI" subsequently), so arguing that people do not recognize something that was defined at the beginning of the article is not only dubious, but a bit insulting to any reader. Also, what RS are doing with regard to subsequent use is of no concern to WP, since we have our own policy on it (and because all cited RS seem to be using given names for many people regardless of their surname being abbreviated, which contradicts using those RS as evidence for what should be done). Getsnoopy (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sindhu - Please see my point in "Subsequent use" about Telugu name customs. MSG17 (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pusarla. Per Getsnoopy. Peter Ormond 💬 17:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pusarla. - Sindhu is used when she known with patronymic name P. V. Sindhu. But, right now she doesn't use the patronymic name. Stvbastian (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This comment from Stvbastian is a result of canvassing by Getsnoopy on the former's talk page. — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soliciting opinions from previously involved editors in a neutral way is hardly canvassing; it says it right there on the page you linked to. Please stop with these accusations. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see you posting on the talk pages of Fylindfotberserk or MSG17 who expressed support for Sindhu, but has only posted on Stvbastian who expressed support for Pusarla. I'm assuming you missed the part The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions on the same page that I linked to? — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absence of evidence is not evidence. MSG17 already voted, and I figured most others did as well. As for Fylindfotberserk, I just pinged them :) I hope this nonsensical accusation will end here. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Customary ping to participating editors who may have been missed by Getsnoopy, @Zoglophie and Reo kwon: -- Ab207 (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I've compiled a short list of ~72 links (~55 in early August 2021), supporting the givenname usage where secondary sources near-unanimously used "Sindhu" for subsequent usage. A few articles mentioned the full name, but have fallback to Sindhu for later use in the articles. I've come across some articles where she is only referred once or twice, and in such cases the article noted P.V. Sindhu (with or without spaces and dots) and not other format. I've added archived URLs as not all of them are freely accessible, and could be useful broadly for everyone. Many sources publish syndicated articles from Reuters, ANI, AP, PTI, among others. Let me know if: you've noticed any articles that are duplicated [by syndication] across publications; you'd like to add more to the list; you've noticed any errors. I could search for non-syndicated articles, if you request, or perhaps you could be so kind and comment below, following which I would add to the table (one may update the table AGF). There were couple of articles in NYT which used PV Sindhu. Apart from that, I could not find coverage in NYT, WSJ, The Guardian, but if you could find some, please do so! The articles were chosen at random, mostly the first one [in that particular year, not the search engine result] I could get when I queried in the format "pv sindhu 2019 site:thehindu.com"

Sources using "Sindhu" for subsequent usage
Publication Now One year ago Couple of years ago A while ago A long time ago Ages ago
The Hindu [58] (Aug 2021) [59] (Aug 2020) [60] (July 2019) [61] (Nov 2015) [62] (Sept 2013) [63] (Oct 2011)
The Indian Express [64] (Aug 2021) [65] (Sept 2020) [66] (Sept 2019) [67] (Oct 2015) [68] (Dec 2013) [69] (Dec 2011)
Hindustan Times [70] (Aug 2021) [71] (Oct 2020) [72] (July 2019) [73] (Nov 2016) [74] (Aug 2013) [75] (Dec 2010)
Reuters [76] (Aug 2021) [77] (March 2020) [78] (Sept 2019) [79] (Oct 2016)
BBC [80] (Aug 2021) [81] (March 2020) [82] (Aug 2019) [83] (Aug 2016)
Mint [84] (Aug 2021) [85] (Nov 2020) [86] (Aug 2019) [87] (Aug 2016) [88] (Aug 2013) [89] (Sept 2012)
Business Standard [90] (Aug 2021) [91] (March 2020) [92] (Aug 2019) [93] (Aug 2016) [94] (Aug 2013)
The Times of India [95] (Aug 2021) [96] (Aug 2020) [97] (Aug 2019) [98] (Aug 2016) [99] (Jan 2014) [100] (Oct 2012)
The Economic Times [101] (Aug 2021) [102] (July 2020) [103] (Sept 2019) [104] (March 2017) [105] (Aug 2014)
The New Indian Express [106] (Aug 2021) [107] (Sept 2020) [108] (Sept 2019) [109] (July 2016) [110] (Aug 2013) [111] (May 2010)
Deccan Chronicle [112] (Aug 2021) [113] (Oct 2020) [114] (Aug 2019) [115] (Dec 2016) [116] (Dec 2013)
First Post [117] (Aug 2021) [118] (Aug 2020) [119] (Dec 2019) [120] (Aug 2016) [121] (Aug 2013) [122] (Oct 2011)
Associated Press [123] (Aug 2018) [124] (Aug 2016) [125] (Aug 2013)
Washington Post [126] (July 2021)
The Independent [127] (July 2021)
Al Jazeera [128] (Aug 2021)
CNN [129] (July 2021)

— DaxServer (talk to me) 11:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing; most RS also refer to Saina Nehwal as "Saina". This is the point I've been making: "P. V. Sindhu" or "Sindhu" might be common, but she uses her full surname professionally quite consistently, which makes this RfC somewhat moot since MOS:SURNAME is very clear on this. Getsnoopy (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Saina Nehwal" is not comparable to "P. V. Sindhu." If we are looking at parallels, then its the former international cricketer VVS Laxman who is referred to as Laxman, not by his surname Vangipurapu. Regarding the RfC being moot, please note that MOS is a only a guideline, not a rule. "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and occasional exceptions may apply." -- Ab207 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... she uses her full surname professionally quite consistently You haven't provided any sources for it. ... her full surname, I am guessing you meant Pusarla? — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207: The argument you and @DaxServer seem to be making is that reliable sources use "Sindhu" in subsequent uses in their articles; therefore, we should use it as well. This, of course, assumes that in "normal" circumstances, they would not do this. (Otherwise, you'd be arguing that WP should always use people's given names in subsequent uses, which would, of course, be an entirely separate discussion.) This, however, is not the case at all; cases in point: Nimmigadda Prasad and Pullela Gopichand (as "Gopi", no less), none of whom abbreviate their surname. Now, if you're going to point out that these people write their surnames first, then allow me to address that as well: Saina Nehwal, Jaganmohan Reddy (as "Jagan"), Rohit Sharma, and so on. Citing the reliable sources you seem to be citing as examples for WP to follow only works when you can prove that they would not do so otherwise in "normal" circumstances, which is clearly not the case. The example of V. V. S. Laxman, on the other hand, is a good example because as far as I know, he never used his full name professionally, so the article uses his given name in subsequent uses (which is still the MOS:SURNAME rule, btw). As you can probably see, this is a bit of a black swan situation: if people use their full name professionally, then WP should use their surname in subsequent uses. And rightly so, seeing as their profession is what gives them notability, which is how their article ended upon WP in the first place.
Which brings me to P. V. Sindhu, @DaxServer. Here are just some of the myriad examples of her using her full surname professionally. I get that "common sense" should be used when appropriate, but only if such discretion is required. Half of her life (i.e., her professional life), she uses her full name (at least, her full surname), while the other half of her life (i.e., that which is in news media and the average person's consciousness), she uses her abbreviated name (which, frankly, is a term of endearment in the same way "Gopi" for Pullela Gopichand is). MOS is clear on what should be done here; there's no need to apply so-called "common sense" because there's no sense in it, nor is it common. Everyone who is familiar with her professionally recognizes her last name. If they don't, they likely would've read the first 3 words of the article to familiarize themselves with it. This is no different than reading any prose where someone's name is introduced and subsequently referred to by their surname. Getsnoopy (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who decides to put what name on the jersey? Is it her or her sponsers or the BWF or ...? But that's original research, and so is your argument (part of your reply to me) unfortunately. Either way, if I am someone who never heard of her and landed on her WP page and decided to verify the citations, I would be baffled when all the citations call her Sindhu and WP calls Pusarla. It's either those perennial sources got wrong or WP got wrong. Just thinking aloud. there's no need to apply so-called "common sense" because there's no sense in it, nor is it common. When I verify the citations and see that they use Sindhu, then I would know that she's commonly known as Sindhu. That seems "common sense" to me. To quote ScottishFinnishRadish, when in doubt, fallback and weigh reliable sources. That seems "common sense" to me. — DaxServer (talk to me) 22:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The jerseys are made in coordination with the athletes for each event they're participating in in accordance with the rules of the sporting body (e.g., BWF, Olympics, etc.). This means that the athlete is consenting to their name showing up as it does on the jersey (after all, it is their name), which should really be the settling argument for this discussion. I'm not sure which parts you're referring to are OR. As for perennial sources, the list only shows that the news (i.e., content) those sources report is reliable; it says nothing about whether their editorial standards are up to the highest standards. I see many spelling errors on most of the sources you linked to in your table above, and I already just pointed to examples of how even people with "normal" names are referred to by their given names, so one should take that into consideration. Many of the very sources you cited start off many of their articles with "Pusarla Venkata Sindhu" as the first line or thereabouts, so the idea that people would be baffled by the use of her surname is unconvincing.
This is why practically every publication has its own style guide, and WP has one all the same. My point is that the style that is being used in a certain publication cannot be used as an argument for why we should do something a certain way here, especially when our style says the opposite; WP:RS has to do with content. That is, indeed, why we have our own MOS. MOS says to write the unit megabits per second as "Mbit/s" (which is the official, international symbol) despite myriad (dare I say most) publications still using the "Mbps" abbreviation, but that doesn't mean we should be writing it that way. This situation is no different. Getsnoopy (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous discussion #Subsequent use, MSG17 has pointed out the inconsistencies in jersey naming in various tournaments. It might very well be possible that Sindhu does not have the flexibility to use her preferred name, so that is definitely not something which we can solely rely on.
My primary argument is that she should be referred to as Sindhu, inline with her common name PV Sindhu. This is consistent with other Telugu people with abbreviated surnames like VVS Laxman, V. V. Giri, S. S. Rajamouli etc., who have been referred to by their given name through out, and Sindhu is not the only outlier here. We are not conforming to the subsequent usage in relibale sources, rather confirming with them. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can't solely rely on them, but they give a good indication. Furthermore, the BWF main website itself shows her as Pusarla V. Sindhu, as do Olympic websites. The point is that she uses her full surname professionally, which is all that matters. Every other person you've mentioned happens to also never use their full surname professionally, which is why their WP articles refer to them subsequently using their given names. This is clearly not the case with P. V. Sindhu or with K. Srikanth. See El Chapo for another example; the article doesn't refer to him as "Chapo" despite that being his overwhelmingly common name. Common names and surnames have nothing to do with each other. What matters is the use of their name professionally (which is how their got their notability). We are not conforming to the subsequent usage in relibale sources, rather confirming with them Except you seem to be citing them as reasons for your vote, and I've already pointed out many times where they're not reliable for good examples of subsequent usage (e.g., Saina, Rohit, Jagan, etc.). Getsnoopy (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El Chapo article is titled Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, so he is rightly referred to as Guzmán. If the article was just El Chapo, he should probably be referred to as Chapo. As said before Sindhu's case is not similar to Saina, Rohit, Jagan etc., hence they should not be our concern. This is clearly not the case with P. V. Sindhu or with K. Srikanth. This only adds to my earlier point that badminton folks probably do not have the flexibility to use initials, unlike other professions. Hence, its better to stick with the common name PV Sindhu. -- Ab207 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see where the confusion seems to be arising. The title of an article has no bearing on the subsequent usage within that article; they're entirely separate. You'll notice that "El Chapo" is an article name itself (when searched), but it has just been redirected to that title. In fact, the titles "Pusarla Sindhu" and "Pusarla Venkata Sindhu" redirect to the page as well, so this just reinforces the fact that it was merely an administrative decision to use the article title "P. V. Sindhu" as the canonical article title based on the overwhelming popularity of that form of her name. Nevertheless, you can look at examples like 50 Cent ("Jackson" in subsequent uses), Lil Wayne ("Carter" in subsequent uses), etc.; the list can go on and on. As said before Sindhu's case is not similar to Saina, Rohit, Jagan etc., hence they should not be our concern. They are our concern if you're citing reliable sources' use of "Sindhu" in subsequent uses as a reason we should be doing the same here, which is what you've done in the your vote above. This only adds to my earlier point that badminton folks probably do not have the flexibility to use initials, unlike other professions. That is speculative, and is not a strong argument at all for why we should use "P. V. Sindhu" instead. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are treating PV Sindhu as just another western name, which its not. Anyway, we've been arguing back-and-forth for so long, unable to find any middle ground. I think its time we should step back a bit and agree to disagree. We both made our arguments, let others put forward their comments and RfC run its course. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which parts you're referring to are OR. I'm referring to your process of analysis and reaching conclusions without providing citations. You can read more in the WP:OR page. Ironically the Firstpost link you shared uses Sindhu all over the article. The Olympics and BWF seems to capitalise the surname (I'm guessing at a quick glance), I can't say why. As for perennial sources [...] it says nothing about whether their editorial standards are up to the highest standards. I see many spelling errors on most of the sources... There's a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard which deals exactly this kind of questions. Perhaps, you could post these links there? — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
reaching conclusions without providing citations I just provided you with many citations that exemplify my point, but nevertheless, I hope you realize that WP:OR has to do with articles, not talk pages. Ironically It's not ironic at all; I was deliberately showing how she uses "Pusarla" in her professional life, but many of the sources you've cited (such as Firstpost) refer to her as "Sindhu" in subsequent use. It was meant to prove my point about the sources you've cited being poor benchmarks for what subsequent usage should look like on WP, which it does. seems to capitalise the surname...I can't say why. It's because they want to clearly delineate surnames from given names, since players from around the world place their surnames & given names in different places (i.e., Western names have "first names" as given names and "last names" as surnames, while the opposite is true of many Asian names). Perhaps, you could post these links there? As I've said before, the content/events that these sources report is reliable, which is the whole point of WP:RS in the first place. It was never meant to use RS as way to justify style decisions; that's what MOS is for, and MOS is clear on what to do for subsequent usage when it comes to names as in this case. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Padma Shri - youngest[edit]

@Phenol123 Why did you remove the became youngest qualifier for Padma Shri Special:Diff/1129990482 ? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may not be enough reliable sources confirming that. There are also sources which state the youngest Padma Shri recipient is Sania Mirza, she and Sindhu both seem to have gotten it at the same age (not very sure about the months/days difference) Phenol123 (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too detailed and borderline irrelevant[edit]

Hi @Zoglophie, Ab207, and Fahrurozi.86: I find the recent additions in the "Early life" section to be too detailed. What do you guys suggest? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specifying the district seems fine but offering prayers does not seem very relevant without context. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles on famous personalities have entire sections on family history.
As for her family deity, I have added that part as it seems to be an important part of her belief system. She and her family very frequently visit it and it being her ancestral place seems relevant to discuss in the early life section. Reo kwon (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:P._V._Sindhu&oldid=1210388800"