Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2015 archive

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

Infobox

There should be biography-specific advice about filling in the fields of an infobox, especially since most biographies include one.– Gilliam (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Occupation titles

Under heading "Occupation titles" are offered the examples Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France. At MOS:JOBTITLES is offered the example In 1974 Vice President Ford was sworn in as the 38th president of the United States by Chief Justice Warren Burger. "President of the United States" looks like the name of an office, so I think that a little more discussion belongs in both articles explaining when something that looks like the name of an office should not be treated as such. How would the Ford example be capitalized if we omitted "the 38th"? If that means capitalizing "president", why should "the 38th" matter? Obviously Wikipedia editors have a lot of trouble understanding this rule. Examples abound:

and fewer compliant examples:

  • John Lindsay: John Vliet Lindsay (... November 24, 1921 – December 19, 2000) was a ... mayor of New York City ...

— Anomalocaris (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd go for downcasing where the job title isn't directly associated with a person's name. Even then, the boundaries become difficult and cause editors extra decision-making—We spoke with Garbage Collector John Blow about the new vehicles. – really? And seniority is an awkward boundary. "The chief executive officer, Rebecca Schmidt, was unavailable for comment." Why poke our eyes with a row of caps? Chicago MOS and Oxford's New Hart's Rules both favour avoiding unnecessary caps. Tony (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am in favor of avoiding unnecessary caps... but let's go overboard on that... editors can disagree over whether the caps are necessary or not. To my mind a job title like "President of the United States" or "Governor of New Hampshire" should always be capitalized. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with Blueboar. If you are dealing with the name of a particular position then, as a name, it should be capitalised. The "President of the United States" is a particular position, as opposed to a meeting of presidents that weren't specified. In "Garbage Collector John Blow", it is not the name of a particular or specific job where there is a one-is-to-one between person and position, noting that this might not be initially apparent from a shortened form of the full formal name of a position. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I've always written it fairly simply, with regard to Wikipedia articles. When working on Ukrainian crisis-related articles, as I often did, I would write "Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko", as "Ukrainian president" is not the title, but a description. However, if I simply wrote "President Poroshenko" sans "Ukrainian", president would take capitalisation, as that's a formal style. In other words, I believe that the proper title should always be capitalised, e.g. "President of Ukraine", but that descriptive usages should not be capitalised, e.g. "French prime minister". As a final example, "Alfred Gusenbauer served as Chancellor of Austria", but "Alfred Gusenbauer was the Austrian chancellor". RGloucester — ☎ 01:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Tony; sources mostly agree, too, at least up through "the governor of New York". At the president level, it's less certain. At vice president of the United States, the trend in recent decades is toward less capitalization, now being at a tie. So, in general I and sources agree that caps are not necessary. I'm not happy about making the president of the U.S. an exception the general rule, but we might have to live with it, based on the last time something like this came up in RM, iirc. Things like List of Governors of Ohio ought to just be fixed, though, since caps in such contexts are neither necessary nor even particularly common; it's not clear to me why Blueboar and Cinderella157 suggest caps for that; not from guidelines, not from sources, so what is it? Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As, apparently, we have to live with Q in "the Queen" in class-ridden supplication—come to think of it, the US president is in the guise of the British monarch (compare their relationships to their parliaments at the time). Tony (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Proper names are capitalised. This includes the names of objects, entities and the like and not just the names of people. A name is a discrete identifier and applies to positions. The MOS is ambiguous on this subject otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion and there are expert sources that are not inconsistent with my position. I suggest that there may be some regional basis for variations in usage too. I believe I am saying much the same as RGloucester . The observation I would make is that there is a divided opinion. Avoiding unnecessary caps does not mean not using them when appropriate. The only way to fix this is to determine a style to be used and write it so it is clear and easy to apply and, while not necessarily addressing every conceivable instance nonetheless provides adequate guidance to address most circumstances. I should point out this discussion - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposed change. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
"Proper names are capitalised."—Could you please define "proper name"? Tony (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
True, the MOS is ambiguous where it says, "When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name". When is that? That, I presume, is what we need to look to sources to help figure out. If we want to clarify, I'd add that it's hardly ever the case that a correct formal title is itself treated as a proper name. Do you know of any that are, as evidenced by sources? Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I refer particularly to the third dot point below (from the MOS) and beg to differ on, "that it's hardly ever the case that a correct formal title is itself treated as a proper name." When you refer to the the position by its formal title, then, it is treated as a proper name. By this, all of the examples indicated as wrong (above) would actually be correct although the MOS ambiguously treats adding the ordinal as different. See Fowler. The '64th Governor of Ohio' or 'List of Governors of Texas' would be written with capitals, where it is the name of the particular position save that it is in the plural form or specifies a particular number in succession. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Fowler's tome was written in, what, 1923? He (actually his brother, who wrote most of it) was not a professional.[clarification needed] Tony (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e. when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon
  • When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g. the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II
  • When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g. King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king)
@TONY I was indirectly quoting the MOS (immediately above) when I referred to a "proper name". Synonyms for proper include correct or accurate. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters opens with: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms." At this point, it links proper names to Proper noun. The page also addresses what a proper name is (not very well, I would observe) at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names. If the meaning of a proper name is a matter of conjecture, then this whole page lacks any objective basis and requires a full review to address at least this issue (not something I would necessarily dispute).
In the third dot point (above), King of France is the correct or accurate name but the French king is a variation. Thankyou: in considering your question, I believe I have identified the source of the ambiguity. The words do not accurately describe the intent as indicated by the example. I suggest the intent might better be said as:
Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot ... are capitalized only in the following cases: ... When the correct formal title is used (e.g. King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king).
Alternatively:
A correct formal title is treated as [considered to be] a proper name and is capitalised [accordingly].
Fowler was first published in 1926. The CMOS was first published in 1906. Both have been revised since their first publishing and both are recognised as authoritative works. Regarding the provenance of authorship, I would refer to Henry Watson Fowler#Writing partnership, noting, of course, that this is not a reliable source. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I am drawn to recall some work on literacy in vocational education. The gist of the work was that vocational literacy was not just about reading, writing and comprehension in a general sense but there was a vocation specific jargon that educators needed to identify and make explicit. The purpose of a MOS is to make explicit the conventions of style that are not universally held by the domain of users or vary from the conventions that are universally held. For WP, the domain is global. Many conventions of English have variations that differ by region, occupation or discipline of study. For a global domain, few conventions can be assumed to be universally held. A MOS should be comprehensive, easily interpreted and easy to apply across a diversity of situations (content areas) to consistently produce a uniform style. WP applies exacting standards of quality to its encyclopedic material. It is disappointing that the same standards are not applied to the back of house - the how to and why. I believe this to be a barrier to the uptake and retention of new editors, which is compounded by what can easily be perceived as brow beating for not knowing what the unwritten rules are. "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names ... ". This whole page is based on the dubious assertion regarding "most capitalisation" (many derivatives of proper names are consistently capitalised) and the assumption that there is a universal understanding of what is necessary capitalisation and what is a proper name. "Assumption is the mother of disaster..." [CSI Miami]. Many of these recurrent discussions might be avoided if the WP:MOS made explicit the unwritten rules. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

What about images?

I mean: a good image is better than a bad one. But what is a "good image" for the subject of a biography? For example in this article at least one image where the subject's face is not hidden by dark sunglasses seems reasonable to me, but not to the anonymous ip. Well, he probably consider himself the owner of the page because is reverting any edit, but this is another problem... Anyway: is there any guideline about what is a "good image" for a biography? It would be useful in these cases. Thanks in advance. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 07:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Race/Ethnicity

What's the consensus (or is there one) on discussing a person's race, ethnicity, and ancestral origins? I've noticed most articles don't; and I'm sure in most articles it's unnecessary and potentially inflammatory; but if there is something interesting about their race or ethnic heritage, is there a consensus on where in the article it should be discussed and how? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. For example, Italian or German ethnicity is mostly given also if the subject was born before 1860 (formation of Italy) or 1870 (formation of Germany). Alex2006 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
For living persons, WP:BLPCAT applies. For ancients, we stick to what the historians state as much as possible. The only grey area is the in-betweeners, who were born before the great national movements in Europe and the varying empires and dissolved empires. In general, if the person while still alive self-identified as a specific group, we should generally use their own view of themselves. If they did not specify the group they considered themselves a part of, then we can use what current reliable sources state. Race is a more delicate matter, and where no self-identification exists, we still must tread carefully due to modern concerns about categorizing people by race. For "ancestral origins" I suggest we not use them as a general feature of biographies, as too often the genealogical sources are weak at best, and outright frauds in too many cases. IMO of course. Collect (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Osama bin Laden#Referred to by "bin Laden"

I've copied over a point made by IP: Stacie Croquet (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the name section of the article says that "Arabic linguistic convention would be to refer to him as 'Osama' or 'Osama bin Laden', not 'bin Laden' alone, as 'bin Laden' is a patronymic, not a surname in the Western manner." However, several times the article refers to him as "bin Laden," which would seem to contradict this. Is there a resolution I'm missing? It just seems weird for the article to contradict itself. Why don't we change each instance of "bin Laden" to "Osama" or "Osama bin Laden" as the article itself suggests? 66.229.133.209 (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
How do English mainstream reliable sources refer to him? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comma after "Jr.", "Sr.", etc.?

NAC: This section was not an RFC, but there is an RFC below that obtained consensus to omit the comma. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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.

An editor made this edit which I've rolled back pending discussion and consensus.

The gist of the editors point is is: as we know, the usual form is not include a comma before "Jr." in a name, so that the normal form is Sammy Davis Jr. was a member of the Rat Pack.

But if, for some reason, either Mr Davis or the preponderance of sources regarding Mr Davis went out of their way to style his name as "Sammy Davis, Jr." (with a comma between "Davis" and "Jr.") then.... speaking for myself, I don't think we should pay very much attention to either the subject's wishes or the preponderance of sources for issues of typography on this level of detail. As a practical matter we do use non-stylebook typography for some cases (k. d. laing, eBay) and not for others (Macy's rather than Macy*s)... but for "Jr.", for some unaccountable reason, some person wrote into the rule that we do, probably years ago, and so it is what it is.

So anyway, it is what it is, and what the editor has proposed is that we should add material to the effect that, in cases like this, our proper form is

  • Sammy Davis, Jr., was a member of the Rat Pack

and not

  • Sammy Davis, Jr. was a member of the Rat Pack

Why? This doesn't follow at all. It is true that we have a problem if Mr Davis or most of his sources choose to use this nonstandard format (since we have chosen to bind ourselves to following that), and there's no perfect solution to that problem. However, presenting "Jr." as a comma-delimited phrase -- essentially similar to writing "Sammy Davis (Jr.) was a member of the Rat Pack" -- is not prima facie better than treating "Sammy Davis, Jr." as a unitary name which happens to have the oddity of having a comma embedded within it.

I am very much not in favor or editors making changes to any of our rules, regardless of merit, without a thorough discussion and acceptance. So the place to begin making the case that this is an improvement is here. Herostratus (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, why did you revert my unrelated edit to avoid the apocryphal text about royal names which contains mismatched parentheses, as noted in my edit summary?
Secondly, as I noted above before making the change (and references in the edit summary), style guides (including CMOS) confirm that a comma must follow designations such as "Jr." if one also precedes it, in the same way that a comma follows a year in month–day–year format and after city–state and city–country combinations, two rules which are well accepted by MOS yet often flouted. I happen to agree with you, as I wrote above, that individual subjects and sources should not dictate the formats adopted on Wikipedia and it would be preferable for us to adopt a uniform house style, and that remains under discussion; but as it stands, the clarification that I added regarding commas is beneficial in guiding editors to use correct formatting if the commas are used at all. —sroc 💬 23:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
My view (and this is really nothing more than a personal taste) is that the effect is better with as few commas as possible - and that if a comma before is going to be felt to necessitate a comma after (which I don't feel it does) then that's all the more reason to avoid using the commas before. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
As noted above, style guides call for matching commas before and after if they are used. (It's not about our "taste" or what we "feel".) —sroc 💬 12:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
References
  • Chicago Manual of Style—Jr., Sr., III:

    Q. John Smith Jr. or John Smith, Jr.? John Smith III or John Smith, III?

    A. Traditionally, it would be John Smith, Jr., and John Smith III. But beginning with the fourteenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (1993), the recommendation is to use no commas in either case (see paragraph 6.47 of the sixteenth edition):

    John Smith Jr.

    But please note that within text, if you decide to use the more traditional comma before Jr. or Sr., the function of the comma is to set off these abbreviations, so an additional comma is needed after the abbreviation if the sentence continues (as in my first sentence above).

  • National Geographic Style Manual—Jr., Sr., III:

    Jr. and Sr. are preceded and followed by comma in full name:

    John M. Fahey, Jr. (left), went to...

    but John Jr. hurried...

  • Grammar Book—Commas:

    Rule 8. Traditionally, if a person's name is followed by Sr. or Jr., a comma follows the last name: Martin Luther King, Jr. This comma is no longer considered mandatory. However, if a comma does precede Sr. or Jr., another comma must follow the entire name when it appears midsentence.

    Correct: Al Mooney Sr. is here.

    Correct: Al Mooney, Sr., is here.

    Incorrect: Al Mooney, Sr. is here.

  • Daily Grammar—Lesson 341:

    Use a comma or commas to set off the abbreviations Jr., Sr., and Esq. Example: Carl Harris, Jr., is here now.

  • Answers—Is there a comma after Jr or Sr?:

    A comma would be used both before and after then designations of "Jr." or "Sr.," as long as the sentence continues. If the designation is at the end of the sentence, then a comma is used only before it.

    For example: John James, Sr., was well regarded in the community. However, the community had no use for John James, Jr.

  • Knox News—Grammar gremlins: Style for "Jr." and "Sr." varies:

    Sometimes the simplest point can cause us a problem when writing. For example, should "Jr." or "Sr." in a name be preceded by a comma?

    Some stylebooks say no, others say yes, but the "nos" outnumber the "yeses."

    However, those that specify no comma say you should follow the person's preference if you know it.

    A point to remember is, if you use a comma before either of these designations, you must use one after it.

—sroc 💬 13:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that commas should be matched, if we have to have them, but since the post-nominals are very short, I'd prefer that we lose both commas. Otherwise there will be a lot of punctuation marks very close to each other, and that looks ... awkward. I guess this is why the style guides have abandoned it. If you ask me, we could lose the period/full stop too. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mismatched commas are registered as errors by English-literate people. I agree with Chicago that omitting both is a good modern solution, and I see that many sources do so with Sammy Davis Jr. and others. I don't understand why we would suggest using different styles based on the preference of the subject. Dicklyon (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree too, let's simply make the comma-less version our style and be done with it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I concur. Note that the above sources all include a full stop after "Jr." and "Sr.", so I assume this should be part of our house style, too, even if the commas are omitted. —sroc 💬 09:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hearing no objection, I recommend one of you just change the MOS page. That will bring out the objections! Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I object. Rather replace "Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation unless it is the preference of the subject or sources concerning the subject" with "Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation" which is shorter, easier to remember, more consistent, and better in every way. Sources are great for facts. They are largely worthless for style questions. "Preference of the subject" leaves us subject to the whim of any mook on whom we have an article, to the detriment of what we're trying to do here. I honestly don't give a rat's ass for the "Preference of the subject" on this particular matter and neither should anyone IMO.

I would be interested in how we are supposed to treat names like will.i.am. Above it's asserted that in "Sammy Davis, Jr." the comma is not part of the name, but rather part of the sentence and requires a matching comma and such other grammatical structures as needed.

Ditto for will.i.am I guess. The dots don't indicated a truncation or abbreviation (there is none) and the only other way to parse them is as full stops, and full stops are followed by a space and the beginning of a new sentence (which requires capitalization), we would have to render this as "Will. I. Am". (Note that sentence capitalization overrides non-capitalization of names so that a sentence starting with a normally uncapitalized name is capitalized, e.g. if starting a sentence with the last name of "Bobby del Greco" you would write "Del Greco was also...")

Since the ""Preference of the subject" is to sprinkle his name with dots (there are other similar people who are pleased to insert various types of punctuatation in their names) our "Preference of the subject" clause requires us to scratch our heads over this stuff and generally dance to their silly tunes.

Let's not. Herostratus (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, you actually agree with what was last proposed, rather than objecting to it? W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like we have a general agreement. I'll put it in. Dicklyon (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Testing new consensus

Still hearing no objection, I went ahead and updated the section to say

And since this involved removing the comma from Sammy Davis, I went ahead and opened a Requested move discussion to make sure we have consensus: Talk:Sammy_Davis,_Jr.#Requested_move_25_December_2014. We'll see. Dicklyon (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But there is still the problem, referred to in one of the previous threads on this topic, that WP:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguating implies that the comma is to be included, and gives as examples several articles that have the comma. If this new consensus is found to hold (or as a way of further testing it), then we should also update that other guideline and propose moving those articles. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not familiar with this other thread/topic you mention. Give us a link? Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see, WP:NCPDAB says In the case of Senior/Junior, the preferred format is with ", Sr." or ", Jr." written after the name, without specifically mentioning the comma, but showing it; in one of its examples it shows no comma, too. It would be easy to unify these to no comma if we agree here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
That comma came in there in this undiscussed change on 30 Sept 2014. I undid that undiscussed change in this edit, which will make it easier to keep that page consistent with what people are proposing here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

No consensus above

Sorry, but there is no consensus above. Three editors agreeing isn't enough to change a guideline like the MOS. I would suggest using an RFC to get consensus for the change, because a requested move isn't a valid way to weigh such changes. -- Calidum 21:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was all four of the participating editors, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any arguments against the conclusion reached by the other editors? As long as all the arguments are on one side, it can hardly be claimed that there isn't a consensus. W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Well no harm in running an RfC. Herostratus (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I recommend Calidum write a neutral RFC no this, as he hasn't taken a position himself. Dicklyon (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem doing so, if no one else does. Would the discussion take place at this talk page or at WT:NCP? -- Calidum 04:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Might as well do it here, and notify there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Done, see below. I notified at WT:NCP and at WT:MOS. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Religion/Ideology

Would someone check Talk:Nathuram Godse#Lead: why .22sole.22? Few weeks ago, I had discussion with an editor and very soon it became repetitive. Main objection[1] was, whether he was "sole" assassin or not and it turned into a lead re-write. I still think that the lead fails per WP:OPENPARA. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment: Child named for parent or predecessor

Both commentators, one from either side, have complained about the RfC.[2][3] So, I have closed it. DrKiernan (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

Should the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Child named for parent or predecessor be removed? Is it necessary or required? DrKiernan (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it should not be removed. Yes, it is needed, as is evident by the disputes caused with so many users not knowing how to use commas in English and arguing over whether they should be used in individual cases. It must, however, be updated to reflect the consensus for change in the most recent RfC, which will hopefully be borne out in the review; in the interim, it would be premature to debate further changes. —sroc 💬 09:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes it should be removed. Names are unique to an individual. Some Juniors/Seniors write their names with a comma and others don't, and we need to respect how the subject himself/herself writes their own name. I realize that there is a desire to have consistent wiki-wide style guidance... However, my experience is that style "rules" that affect how names are presented always end up causing more arguments than they resolve. That's because names are unique to each individual subject, and not consistent between subjects. So... I think it is better to remain silent on this issue than it is to attempt to impose a "rule" that will be endlessly challenged. Allow both "with comma" and "without comma". Intentionally don't decide which is "correct". Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question about "Jr" in full name names

I would like some clarification on the issue of whether people, usually men, who have the same name (or at least the same first name and family name) should have "Jr" included in their full name even when such people didn't include it in their name. Some editors include "Jr" for such people on the basis or assumption that this should be part of their full name. I seem to recall, however, that there is, or used to be, a comment in the MoS that "Jr" should only be included in a people's names if they used it themselves. Apologies if this has been discussed before. Thanks, Afterwriting (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It would seem peculiar to append Jr to a name if a person didn't use that. Do you have an example of where this question has come up? Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I have seen it ~ and changed it ~ in numerous articles in recent years. There is a long discussion about this matter on the talk page of the Bob Hoskins article. When he died some obituaries and articles added "Jr" to his name even though he didn't use it. Afterwriting (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
If only a few reliable sources mention the fact that the subject is actually a Junior, I think it would be appropriate to at least mention it in passing somewhere in the article (perhaps in a parenthetical added to the opening sentence). I certainly would not use it more than that (and not in the title).
If, on the other hand, a clear majority of sources include the Jr. when referring to the subject, then so should we (even if the subject himself/herself does not personally use it)... per WP:COMMONNAME, we would certainly include it in our article title, as that would be the most recognizable version of his name. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
One has to be careful. If the subject didn't use "Jr", there could be a very good reason why. One member of my family is named after his father, but they have different middle names, much like George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, so there is no junior–senior relationship to be had because of the differing middle names. Imzadi 1979 → 00:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I doubt a reliable source (defined as one with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy) will make that sort of mistake. So if we base what we write on reliable sources, we should be OK. Blueboar (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The MOS guidelines do not cover Article titles

There have been two long RfC in the last two years on the talk page of AT there is no consensus that the MOS guidelines cover article titles. Therefore discussions such as "#RfC: Comma or no comma before Jr. and Sr." are taking place in the wrong locations and any consensus that comes out of them are not binging on article titles. If there is to be a change to the article title policy or its naming conventions guidelines then any such changes ought to be discussed on the title policy talk page and/or the appropriate naming convention. -- PBS (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there has always been a clear consensus that the MOS applies to all parts of an article including titles. But there are a few like you who have resisted clarifying the AT policy to state explicitly that commonname is not about styling, even though a clear majority agree. So don't bring that up as a claim that "there is no consensus that the MOS guidelines cover article titles". They clearly do. Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting opinion, but the comma question is just punctuation, not naming. Is "binging" a typo above? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Could we please not play the "my policy trumps your policy" game again. The claim that AT has no standing because "the comma question is just punctuation" is rediculous. The reality is that we are talking about much more than "just punctuation". We are talking about punctuation that is part of a name. Thus, AT and the various naming conventions most certainly do need to have at least some jurisdiction here. I am not saying that MOS has no standing... but if MOS starts to make rulings on how we present names, rulings that ignore what AT and the naming conventions say, all you are doing is creating argument and disruption. Our policies and guidelines are supposed to work together and support each other. If they don't, then we have a problem. Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Style guides don't seem to accept that concept. They treat the comma as punctuation, or styling, not as an inherent part of a name. Can you point to anyone or anything where there is evidence of the comma being thought of as a required or preferred part of a name? We had "Sammy Davis, Jr." as an example, yet most of his albums and many of his biographies, including one by his daughter, omit the comma. Who could then claim it's an inherent part of his name? By the way, my dad is a "Jr." and for 60 years I always wrote his name with a comma; yet I have no qualms about moving to a more modern style; shall I ask him if he minds? Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record... my father was also a "Jr."... and I know he did mind when people omitted the comma in his name. Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Whatever happens, AT and MOS need to sing from the same songsheet. Otherwise we look like fools. Tony (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"Junior" or "Senior" appended to a name is not really part of the name per se. For example, George Bush, the 41st President of the United States, did not change his name by deed poll to "George Bush Sr." when he named his first son George; rather, "Sr." is sometimes appended to his name to distinguish from the 43rd President, who may equally have "Jr." appended to his name even though it does not form part of his name proper. As such, the styling of punctuation is a matter for the publication to decide, which is why it is covered by numerous reputable style guides, in addition to our own MoS. —sroc 💬 05:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree... the appendage Junior and Senior are most definitely an integral part of the name. The Bushs are a poor example, as they are not actually "Senior" and "Junior" in the first place... they have different middle names. (I don't think many reliable sources make the mistake of referring to them as "Sr." and "Jr."... but any that do are factually incorrect.)
The thing about saying "we are free to set any style we want for our own house style" is that we tend to forget to ask the most important question: whether it is wise to do so. We forget that this freedom also includes the option to intentionally NOT set a style... or to allow for multiple styles. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the article at George H. W. Bush says: "Bush is often referred to as 'George H. W. Bush', ... or 'George Bush Sr.' to distinguish him from his son..." That aside, the fact is that "Sr." does not become part of one's name per se but is used to distinguish people with the same name. Whether it should be styled with commas (always with matching commas in a run-on sentence) or without commas is a matter of style which each publisher is entitled to decide for themselves (as many style guides do). —sroc 💬 13:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Jr. (again)

Sorry, I know this has been rehashed several times above, but the current wording on the page:

Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr., John F. Kennedy Jr., Otis D. Wright II.

which seemingly mandates not using the comma, does not match the decision of the RfC above, which was:

The consensus is that, while both forms are acceptable, the omission of the comma is preferred

The actual wording on the MOS page does not convey the message that "both forms are acceptable". Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we know. That is why the section is currently tagged. The wording is still under discussion. Blueboar (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The wording that was proposed and agreed by the majority in the RfC was "Do not...". The result of the closure is disputed and the subject of a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Closure Review Request at MOS page. —sroc 💬 13:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Sroc: ah OK, thank you, I hadn't spotted that closure review discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Nationality "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"

This message comes from the talk page of a biography (Talk:Marshall Rosenberg#Nationality), where the nationality is listed as "American" in {{Infobox person}}:

A USA citizen's passport gives the nationality as "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA".[1] This is a bit strange, since it is a noun, but "American" can hardly be a nationality, seeing as "America" is not a country (old debate, I know, but "American" seems like the worst of all possibilities, many countries being American). I guess "US-American" might do (even though Mexico is a "US", as well, apparently). Don't know how wide-spread this is on WP. kamome, 2015-03-03

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Interior_of_US_Passport.JPG

Good question! I suggest that we just go with what the passport says, and write "USA". — Sebastian 19:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep it at American. -- Calidum 19:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
When you say "keep", it sounds like it's an established standard. Has this already been established? — Sebastian 19:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"'America' is not a country...." Really? Tell that to Tojo, Hitler, and Musso. I always write "Such-and-so was an American whatever..." because that's how people talk and everyone understands what it means. Using terms that everyone understands if useful and functional, so I don't intend to stop doing that. What I would like to see is a lot more use of "American" in lede sentences. "So-and-so was an American baseball player..." (or scientist or singer or whatever). A lot of editors just seem to to assume that American is the default nationality for everyone unless otherwise specified. Herostratus (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I do think that these two things are true: one, that some people resent that "American" is the adjective for people from the United States, and would like it if it wasn't so; but it is. Wishes, horses, beggars. And secondly, there is the type of person who, if you tell them you're from America, will cleverly ask "Oh, really, which country?". Such people are being disingenuous just to annoy and are best avoided. Herostratus (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement-en.svg
"Such people are ..." is on the lowest rungs of the hierarchy of disagreement, and is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia. Please let's have a reasonable discussion, based on facts. Kamome based their argument on what appears to me THE authority on nationality in the USA: The United States Department of State. I find that far more convincing than personal attacks. — Sebastian 06:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Rubbish, man. In English, there is no ambiguity. People from the United States of America are American, have been, and always shall be. "American" is the demonym for people from the United States. Deal with it, and find something better to do. RGloucester — ☎ 21:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Certainly not "USA", per WP:NOTUSA. As a nationality for infobox purposes, I would personally suggest "United States". As an adjective, "American". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The denonym is 'American' so that is what we should use. GiantSnowman 13:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Spouse question

at Randy Stonehill, there is a section discussing the subject's marriages.

Stonehill has been married three times, to Sarah Mae Finch, Sandra Jean Warner, and Leslie Sealander, with the first two marriages ending in divorce. His marriage to {second spouse} produced one daughter, Heather.

The issue is not about accuracy but about how to describe the second spouse. She took the subject's married name, so should it be "Sandra" or should it be her family name? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Write "His second marriage produced one daughter, Heather" or "He has one daughter, Heather, from his second marriage." DrKiernan (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

OPENPARA dispute

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Terry Acebo Davis#BRD. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Applicability of WP:LASTNAME to Ada Lovelace

Need 2nd opinions at Talk:Ada Lovelace#Ada Lovelace's name. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed style noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at the village pump about creating a noticeboard (similar to the RSN, ORN and NPOVN) for people with questions about how to implement Wikipedia's style policies. The proponents say that one centralized board would be easier for editors to find than many talk pages, and opponents say that it might be a venue for forum-shopping and drama. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr.

Is there an active discussion anywhere on the Jr. comma issue? There are several pending RMs but none of the discussions on this page appear active. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we're just waiting for a close of the closure review. Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Given the lack of movement in four weeks, we should just ignore that closure review and let anyone who wants to open a new broader RFC on what to do about Jr. etc. go ahead. Dicklyon (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity vs. Nationality

There is a dispute here (Nicki Minaj article) over the understanding of when to include a notable person's ethnicity in the opening line of the lead. I assume I have a proper understanding of MOS:BLPLEAD, but would appreciate any constructive feedback other editors here can provide in that discussion. As a common courtesy, I thought it would be a good idea to give this a broader audience. Thanks in advance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: see the discussion a couple of sections above! Good timing :). Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ironholds. I am often known for my impeccable timing! I did notice the discussion earlier, but it appears to be a clarification of MOS:BLPLEAD, with the basic premise surrounding the exclusion of ethnicity staying intact. Unlike that RfC discussion, the opposition in the dispute I'm involved in believes that ethnicity should be mentioned instead of nationality, a significant departure from the MOS guideline. Either that, or they are confusing the difference between the two terms. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Instead of? Yeah; the discussion above is "as well as". I'm not aware of any additional guidance on replacement but I'd say that I wouldn't consider the two interchangeable. The answer should be to note both. Ironholds (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, a solution I threw out there in this particular case was to refer to the artist as a "Trinidadian-born American", which seemed like a good compromise. However, the argument against the compromise (or any reasonable solution) is that the artist was born in Trinidad from Trinidadian parents, and therefore shouldn't be referred to as "American". --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Was Minaj naturalized? Is she still a Trinidanian citizen, or dual-citizen? What can be verified? Is her ethnicity central to her notability?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Her citizenship cannot be directly verified in any sources that I'm aware of, and I've sifted through nearly a hundred. In most, however, she is recognized as "American" more often than "Trinidadian". Of all the sources, one is a tertiary source from the Encyclopedia Britannica which explicitly refers to her as an American artist. After reading the comments in the above RfC and in light of the WP:OPENPARA, I'm inclined to suggest in that talk page discussion that we remove any mention of her ethnicity and place of birth in the lead, as there aren't any sources that link the significance of those facts to her notability. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That maybe the best way to go. Let the body get into the detail of the matter, especially if there is conflicting reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:LASTNAME change

In WP:LASTNAME, the third paragraph (with emphasis (not in the original) added to a problematic passage) reads:

The person may be referred to by given name in the case of royalty, or as "Prince John", "Princess Jane", "the Duke", "the Earl", "the Duchess", "the Countess", etc. For other subjects, it is preferable to refer to the person by surname, not given name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant.

What in heck is the purpose of the highlighted passage? Has this ever been an issue -- that only controversial persons should be referred to by their last name? The controversial J. Edgar Hoover as "Hoover", but the uncontroversial David Brenner as "David"? Makes no sense to me and although I generally oppose changes to rules pages before getting consensus, but in this case I went ahead and removed the passage. Maybe I'm missing something tho. Herostratus (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Herostratus I think that it is best that you removed this. I cannot make sense of this sentence. It is to be expected that Wikipedia typically refer to people by surname. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Names of royals

The Manual of Style insists that royals have their names split at the beginning of the article. For instance, the article on Princess Charlotte begins "Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (Charlotte Elizabeth Diana)". What is exactly is the reason for this? The Manual says something about "visual clarity", but what is visually unclear about starting the article with her full name, viz. Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge? This is the format used on all non-royal articles; for instance, the article on David Cameron begins "David William Donald Cameron", not "David Cameron (David William Donald)".

I therefore propose that the Manual be amended to state that articles on royals begin with the subject's full name, as any other article would. Zacwill16 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, it should remain as is. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, WP:OTHERSTUFF. While Cameron's article may presently show something, that doesn't mean the article must show that something, nor that it what it shows is either proper or better.
Secondly, the use of "Princess Charlotte of Cambridge" (to continue with that example) has the bold in the opening sentence repeat the title of the article, as required by WP:LEDE. There are also royal persons with longer full names than the princess'. Are we to use their full names first, as well? Alternately, if the current stipulations in the guideline are to apply to the biographies of only some royal persons, where is the line drawn and why draw a line at all? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF does not refer to this kind of thing. It states that it's not valid to invoke a single occurrence of something. Whereas literally any article on a non-royal follows the format I propose; I only chose Cameron as a specific example. And I cannot comprehend why you are bringing up WP:LEDE. It does not say that the emboldened words have to exactly repeat the title. As to your third point, I agree. We should begin with the full name for all royal persons. Zacwill16 (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Mm, well, yes, it does seem bios of non-royals typically use full names first. Still, because they do doesn't mean bios of royal persons have to. And I don't see why they should. Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David is not a good way to begin Edward VIII, nor is Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York an easily readable way to start Prince Andrew, Duke of York. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Notwithstanding its readability, which in any case is subjective, it is the full name, and it is misleading to split it up in the manner we currently do. The shortened form can still be used at the head of the infobox. Zacwill16 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Sensible exceptions are nevertheless made. The most notable would probably be Princess Charlotte of Wales, a Featured Article, and Maria Theresa, a Good Article. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the intro at Queen Letizia of Spain should be changed to conform with royal bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
A famous person said that conformity is the enemy of growth. Besides, it conforms with articles about other Spanish queens - Julie Clary, Mercedes of Orléans, Maria Christina of Austria, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Letiza's intro doesn't match well with her article's title. Anyways, others can weigh in on that, as you & I will always 'disagree' on that article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Comma or no comma before Jr. and Sr.

NAC:The consensus is that, while both forms are acceptable, the omission of the comma is preferred. One of the reasons is that the rules about following the qualifier with a comma are themselves complicated. The MOS page already states that the comma is not needed, so that the MOS page can be left as it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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 guidance should be given (on this page and on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)) concerning the use or non-use of commas between a person's name and "Jr." or "Sr."? W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  • There was an RFC on this matter earlier this month (no consensus), followed by a subsequent discussion - what good would a fresh RFC do so soon? GiantSnowman 10:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Most recent discussion (see threads above) seems to imply a new consensus may be forming; in any case the matter needs to be resolved somehow, since at least one editor is insisting on making WP:NCP say something that contradicts this guideline. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designations. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr. (not Sammy Davis, Jr.); John F. Kennedy Jr. (not John F. Kennedy, Jr.); Otis D. Wright II (not Otis D. Wright, II).

Style guides vary on whether or not to include a comma before "Jr." and "Sr."; both forms are acceptable, but there is no good reason why Wikipedia's style should bow to the subject's preference. (Determining the subject's preference is also needlessly time-consuming and can lead to disputes.)
The contemporary trend is to omit the commas. As noted above, where a comma is included before, one must also be included after when used mid-sentence, although some editors disagree and this could lead to confusion where there is other punctuation, so it would be simpler all around to omit them. (If the consensus was to include the comma, or to allow it in some cases, the guidance would be more contentious and would need to be more complicated to reflect authoritative style guides on the matching comma.) —sroc 💬 07:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC) [added first parenthetical remark 11:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)]
Accordingly, consequential amendments to remove the commas from:

...

In the case of Senior/Junior, the preferred format is with "Sr." or "Jr." written after the name without any preceding comma (see WP:JR); ...

—sroc 💬 07:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC) [added to latter section 11:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)]

Can we just vote... sorry, get a show of hands on this?

Well, given the previous discussions, I don't think we need a general discussion of what guidance should be provided, but rather a simple up-or-down show of hands on what we want to say. So pick one:

  • Option 1: Do not place a comma before "Jr.", "Sr.", or Roman numeral designation. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr., John F. Kennedy Jr., Otis D. Wright II.
  • Option 2: Do not place a comma before "Jr.", "Sr.", or Roman numeral designation unless it is the preference of the subject or sources concerning the subject. Examples: Sammy Davis, Jr., John F. Kennedy Jr., Otis D. Wright II.

[N.B.: bolding in Option 2 is just to highlight the existence of the additional text, which will not be bolded in the actual rule.] Herostratus (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option 1 for my part. Herostratus (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Wikipedia doesn't use standardized spelling (US vs British English) or consistent date formats (MDY vs DMY; BC/AD vs BCE/CE), so why should we have a hard rule for this? It's really a solution in search of a problem. And, a subject's consideration should be taken into account. -- Calidum 19:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Why should a subject's consideration be taken into account on a question of style? Do you think other encyclopedias, newspapers and publications consult the subject's preferences? Making allowance for the subject's preference (if they have one) or a preponderance of sources (which likely use their own style rules regardless of the subject's views):
  • is irrelevant, as the subject's style (or sources' styles) should not determine Wikipedia's style;
  • needlessly takes up editors' time checking sources and debating preferences;
  • can only lead to arguments over which style should apply in individual cases;
  • makes the guideline more involved than it needs to be;
  • lends to inconsistency if different subjects are formatted differently and discussed together, say, in a list of famous Americans that mentions "Sammy Davis, Jr." and "John F. Kennedy Jr.";
  • leads to arguments amongst editors over whether a comma should also appear after the "Jr." (it most definitely should, although some editors find this hard to believe).
Option 2 is a bad idea. Option 1 is a simple solution that avoids all these issues. —sroc 💬 09:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 1 if the Sammy Davis Jr. example is fixed to reflect the rule, as I proposed above. Option 2 is deficient for the reasons I have already given above. Consequential changes to WP:NCP would also be needed, as noted above. —sroc 💬 08:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC) [addendum 08:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)]
And can we put the "Jr." and "Sr." in the rule in quotation marks or italics, as they are used meta-syntactically? —sroc 💬 09:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
OK fixed. Herostratus (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 1 is my preference, as it's a simple rule, consistent with modern style guides, and probably the only way to avoid the inconsistencies such as people who put a comma before but then don't want to put the matching comma after, in violation of ALL style guides. It also avoids all the arguments and guesswork about what someone might have preferred, like on the Sammy Davis Jr. case where some think the comma is better, but half of the books about him, including the one by his daughter, don't use the comma. It's obviously a style choice, and if WP expresses a simple style rule things will go easier. Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If I have to choose, Option 1 is also my preference, for the same reasons. But, let's take a look at the advice in the Oxford New Hart's Rules (latest ed., 2005, p. 103). The fact that NHR now includes explicit guidance for American writers and editors—and apparently enjoys significant sales and readership in the US—raises its status in this context. For these two identifiers they distinguish both American and British usage, and American and British people to whose names these identifiers might be added (a 2 × 2 situation, if you like). I quote:

    "Use the abbreviation Jr (with a point in US use) for Americans, prefaced by a comma unless it is known that the bearer of the name did not use one. In British usage, Jun. is more common, and the comma is not usual."

    I think NHR's intended meaning would be clearer if they started the second sentence with "In British usage referring to Britons,"). Am I right in saying that? They seem to leave it open for US usage in referring to Britons (admittedly, it arises much much less often). Either way, it seems to me that our old article-consistent model—so successful for spelling varieties, units of measure, and date formatting—might be the first principle to state, with some flexibility written in and pointers to the most usual US and UK practice. Could be done fairly succinctly, I think. Tony (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you propose an Option 3 for consideration? Sounds complicated though. I have that New Harts Rules of 2005; but I haven't noticed anyone using it or referring to it. Amazon shows a 2014 edition; looks like it also has complicated advice on that: "Page 109 ... Each has several abbreviations (Jun., Jnr, Jr; Sen., Senr, Snr, Sr)." & "Page 176 …end in full points while contractions do not, so that we have Jun. and Jr f…" in which they seem to be saying no period after Jr or Sr; I've never seen that before. Dicklyon (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It is a convention of some age (depending on where you come from) that a full-stop is omitted from abbreviations ending in the last letter of the unabbreviated word - Dr, Mr, Jr etc. I think Jr or Jnr are to be preferred over Jun (and like for senior) because of possible ambiguity. Option 1. I think there is scope to address both the preferred abbreviation here and the absence of a full-stop as well. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - consistency. Commas seem to inundate the line when other names are involved - for example John F. Kennedy, Jr., Joe Blow, Sr., Bill King, III, ugh. Atsme☯Consult 01:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course a comma before 'Jr.' should be kept if the person is known by that name, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. A very few people on a talk page in a non-binding discussion should not be able to say that Martin Luther King's name should be changed on Wikipedia even though the world at large, the U.S. government, and his family adds the comma. I see that Dicklyon has gone ahead and changed the main page of this talk page already, believing that some kind of consensus has been formed here. It has not. The naming of names seems to be a point of conflict, but in this case common sense and common name should prevail, not a set-in-stone policy which is actually a non-set-in-stone guideline. Randy Kryn 6:14 9 February, 2015 (UTC)
  • It's too trivial for most people to care either way. We have inconsistent citation styles between articles, inconsistent spelling, some articles are written in American English, others British, etc. There is no need to impose one way or another. This is a case where it essentially doesn't matter whether there is a comma or not. So, neither or both should be acceptable. DrKiernan (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I, too, find sroc's reasoning on this issue persuasive, tending to clarify a prevalent standard and to minimize disputes by affirming its usage. FactStraight (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 When in doubt, the usage by the particular person ought to be adhered to. I doubt this will cause any substantial inconvenience, and conforms to the general principle of accepting the person as a source for their own name as presented in titles on Wikipedia, while allowing names found in reliable sources also to be used in the body of such articles. Collect (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

IMO sroc kind of nailed it. To reiterate what he said, Option 1 is the way to go because using Option 2:

  • is irrelevant, as the subject's style (or sources' styles) should not determine Wikipedia's style;
  • besides which sources' styles are only reflecting their own style books, which who cares;
  • needlessly takes up editors' time checking sources and debating preferences;
  • can only lead to arguments over which style should apply in individual cases;
  • makes the guideline more involved than it needs to be;
  • lends to inconsistency if different subjects are formatted differently and discussed together, say, in a list of famous Americans that mentions "Sammy Davis, Jr." and "John F. Kennedy Jr.";
  • leads to arguments amongst editors over whether a comma should also appear after the "Jr." (it most definitely should, although some editors find this hard to believe).

IMO this is a pretty strong argument and a close on strength-of-argument alone could be called for here. Herostratus (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Followup

Just to be clear, when the closer says "the MOS page can be left as it is", that's because I already made the change a while ago to remove the exception "unless it is the preference of the subject or sources concerning the subject" per consensus here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have made corresponding revisions to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) (see [4][5]). —sroc 💬 08:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been moving and editing to get rid of the unbalanced commas. Maybe a hundred articles so far; but miniscule impact on the problem. No pushback encountered. In most cases I find the classic mismatch comma error that all the guides warn against. And in many the titles of cited sources have commas inserted where the source did not use it. Apparently a number of editors felt that comma before was really important for some reason. I also see quite a few uncommented moves to titles with comma, when the article originally was without. Dicklyon (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Per discussion below, I regret that I had not noticed that my change to the MOS per the text proposed in the RFC had been changed by DrKiernan before the close. What a mess this causes now. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Consequential moves

I recently moved:

These moved have been reverted by Richard Arthur Norton claiming that the names with a single comma should remain "per the name from government website" or "the actual name", even though the names with a single comma are not only against MOS but also style guides on English punctuation. I have started a move request at Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015.

I have also requested a technical move for:

See Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015. —sroc 💬 08:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

One wonders what would motivate Richard Arthur Norton to oppose a move toward compliance with the MOS, especially when the nps.gov site is itself so inconsistent in their styling. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves are decided on the AT policy and its naming convention guidelines. So why are you posting this here? and not on WT:AT? -- PBS (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Don't we style titles the same as text? Does AT have a separate recommendation on how to style Jr. and Sr.? Not that I've seen. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Please let's not have this MOS–AT loggerheads thing again, PBS. Tony (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on wording

There seems to be some confusion about what this RfC actually decided. The whole point of the RfC was to amend the previous wording:

Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation unless it is the preference of the subject or sources concerning the subject. Examples: Sammy Davis, Jr., John F. Kennedy Jr., Otis D. Wright II.

On the basis that there was a consensus forming that Wikipedia's style should not be subject to an evaluation of the subject's preferences, I proposed that the wording be amended to read:

Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designations. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr. (not Sammy Davis, Jr.); John F. Kennedy Jr. (not John F. Kennedy, Jr.); Otis D. Wright II (not Otis D. Wright, II).

Herostratus restated this as:

Do not place a comma before "Jr.", "Sr.", or Roman numeral designation. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr., John F. Kennedy Jr., Otis D. Wright II.

This wording was broadly supported by most respondents. Dicklyon made the change on 7 February to reflect the above wording. DrKiernan made a further change on 9 February to read as follows:

Generally, there is no need to place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr., John F. Kennedy Jr., Otis D. Wright II.

I reverted that edit on 10 February as it was not supported by the RfC discussion but DrKiernan again edited it to read:

It is unnecessary to place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr., John F. Kennedy Jr., Otis D. Wright II.

Although the above change was not supported by the above RfC, it was the wording that was in place when Robert McClenon closed the RfC on 13 February stating:

The consensus is that, while both forms are acceptable, the omission of the comma is preferred. One of the reasons is that the rules about following the qualifier with a comma are themselves complicated. The MOS page already states that the comma is not needed, so that the MOS page can be left as it is.

The consensus of the RfC was that the commas should be omitted; however, the final wording at WP:JR does not reflect this. In fact, the final wording arguably opens up the case to allow a comma before "Jr." and "Sr." at editors' discretion where this was not permitted before (it previously said "Do not" except for following the subject's preference). The current wording has been used in discussions to thwart page moves on the basis that the wording does not prohibit commas before "Jr." and "Sr.":

The current situation remains deplorable also because WP:JR provides no guidance on matching commas having to follow "Jr." or "Sr." if one precedes it, which is also being disputed by various users, and which is one of the reasons supporting the RfC to omit the commas altogether.

It seems that Robert McClenon, in closing the RfC, did not realise that the words "It is unnecessary..." would be interpreted in this way and used to undermine the whole point of the proposal. The wording "Do not...", which was as it appeared in the original text and in the proposals put forward in the RfC and agreed by most respondents, should be restored to WP:JR to avoid any ongoing confusion. —sroc 💬 14:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The consensus is not "do not place a comma"; the consensus is "both forms are acceptable, the omission of the comma is preferred". DrKiernan (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The wording proposed and agreed by the majority was "Do not..." You snuck in your wording unnoticed and Robert didn't realise the difference. Let's ask Robert to clarify this. —sroc 💬 15:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't sneak in anything. Your personal attack is unwarranted and offensive. DrKiernan (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry I you see this as a personal attack; I did not mean to offend you. The fact is that you made a change to the wording of WP:JR from "Do not..." to "It is unnecessary to..." which I do not believe was supported by the RfC discussion (it was contrary to the proposal that had majority support) and it either went unnoticed or the subtlety was not realised by the time the RfC was closed. I do not believe that your version reflects the consensus, but the AN review will hopefully resolve this. —sroc 💬 00:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support restoration of the version that the RFC agreed on before DrKiernan modified it. I'll do that now. Dicklyon (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Closer comments

It appears that I may have made the mistake of following a Wikipedia policy, assume good faith. I am no longer sure that there is good faith, because there are low-grade personal attacks. On the one hand, my own opinion is that the use of a comma between the name and the suffix should not be prohibited, provided that two conditions are met, first, the subject has expressed the desire for the comma, second, the rules concerning subsequent punctuation, which are complicated, are followed. However, my own opinion is not important, because I was trying to summarize consensus in closing the RFC. I will be requesting closure review at WP:AN with regard to three issues: first, did my closure reflect consensus, or, at least, was it a valid assessment of consensus; second, were there issues that should have been addressed that were overlooked; third, is administrative attention needed because of low-grade personal attacks? Normally non-administrative closure is just as good as administrative closure, but this may be a case where administrative closure is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

New RFC

It has been suggested by administrator User:EdJohnston that a new RFC be opened to change the current wording "It is unnecessary to" to "Do not", as in "Do not use a comma". I will be opening such an RFC shortly, but would appreciate comments on one particular point. That is the impact in cases where the subject prefers the use of the comma. In those cases, we have two choices. We can say that, in Wikipedia, we will not use the comma. (The policy on biographies of living persons doesn't require that degree of deference.) Alternatively, we can specify that we will use the comma in that situation, but that the rules concerning subsequent punctuation must be followed. My wording of the RFC will simply say "Do not", thus mandating no comma. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well let's see. The close was

The consensus is that, while both forms are acceptable, the omission of the comma is preferred. One of the reasons is that the rules about following the qualifier with a comma are themselves complicated. The MOS page already states that the comma is not needed, so that the MOS page can be left as it is

Striking to heart of this, it devolves to

both forms are acceptable

when push comes to shove, since "is preferred" is just a general admonition with no enforceability, and "not needed" is far from "forbidden".

The difference is that, if I am reading things correctly, formerly the rule was:

Both forms are used, use the one preferred by the subject and/or most sources

and now it is

Both forms are used, use the one you prefer

since it just says "It is unnecessary..." which can certainly be interpreted as "Not required but allowed". Looking at it one way this is even worse than it was (endless arguments, even less uniformity), looking at it another way it removes one small bureaucratic rule preventing writers from writing how they like.

So how about a clean RfC which simply asks for preference:

  1. Don't use the comma, it's forbidden.
  2. Do what you think is reflects the will of the subject and/or most sources.
  3. Do what you like (adding some vague handwaving language that not using the comma "is preferred" is optional and not very important).

Let voters rank these 1-2-3. (You could add a #4 "must use the comma" if you think that ought to be on the table (it hasn't been brought up as a possibility before, though)). If #3 wins the day we would then (I guess) be faced with whether to have an admonition to leave existing material as you found it. How this would work with article titles I don't know -- probably simple majority rule on a case-by-case basis. Herostratus (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well the preceding RfC is now the subject of an AN review so I suggest that we wait for that to play out first. No point confusing the matter further with another RfC which could lead to conflicting results. —sroc 💬 23:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Despite my comment that another RfC would confuse matters, DrKiernan has started one anyway (§ Request for comment: Child named for parent or predecessor).
Note that saying "both forms are acceptable" in English does not mean that we can't mandate one form or another in our Manual of Style; we are free to adopt a style from those forms that are generally acceptable in English. This is the nature of the MoS.
Also, the former rule was not "Both forms are used, use the one preferred by the subject and/or most sources", as stated by Herostratus, but "Do not use commas unless preferred by the subject"; the preference of the subject was always a matter of conjecture, but the general rule was not to use commas if the subject's preference was unknown or unclear. In contrast, DrKiernan's wording seems to allow for the editor's preference when this was not the case before (and the RfC never discussed this outcome as being a desired change). —sroc 💬 09:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't like these terms "mandate" and "forbid". The MOS says what is preferred. Editors should be encouraged and supported to move toward more preferred styles. Nobody should be forbidden for doing things differently, nor mandated to conform. But it's bad form to fight those who are working to move toward a more preferred styling. Whether the MOS expresses it as "do not" or "it is not necessary to" hardly makes a difference, if people will understand that these are just ways of expressing the preferred style. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that we still have disagreement as to whether one form actually is (or even should be) preferred over the other. If people are fighting those who are "working towards a more preferred styling"... I have to question whether that styling is actually "preferred". The more I think about this issue, the more I am reaching the conclusion that we should adopt the third option that is always available... to intentionally not adopt a single style. If we have to say anything, simply state that both forms are acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
If we were to allow both styles, then we need to make it clear that a comma before "Jr." or "Sr." requires a comma afterwards. This is a standard rule of English punctuation universally supported by style guides but often overlooked by those who sometimes insist on using only one comma, sometimes copying "official" sources that have it wrong. For this reason, it is simpler to omit the commas altogether (and consistent with MOS:COMMA, which states "Modern practice is against excessive use of commas"). —sroc 💬 16:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Separate issue... let's see if we can gain consensus for "allow both" on the "comma before" question... and then tackle the "comma after" issue in a separate discussion. (Grammatically speaking, I would agree... but once again I have to point out that names are unique things, and don't always follow the standard rules of English punctuation. So there would be exceptions no matter what we decide). Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Why should there be exceptions? All style guides say a comma before "Jr." or "Sr." requires a comma after. —sroc 💬 13:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

My issue isn't about whether or not to have a comma, but whichever it is, it should say why -- not just say do not do it. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Are we ready?

Are we ready for a new, broader RfC? The current RfC languishes at a closure review that may or may not be acted upon any time soon. In the meantime, we have had several ad hoc RMs on the issue of Jr. commas. User:sroc above said that we should wait for that review to close before starting a new RfC, while User:Dicklyon has queried why some RM participants have not already started a new one if they intend to.

I think it's time to start the new RfC. The current RfC asked a narrow question: whether to allow evidence of personal preference over comma usage, or only to mention guidance to avoid the comma. The RfC will include several options, some of which were not presented in the current RfC. For that reason, the new RfC will likely make the current RfC moot. Instead of waiting for that RfC closure review to conclude, I'd like to start the new RfC now. But I think we'd all like to avoid procedural objections from people who think we should wait.

So I'm asking here: does anyone object to starting a new RfC on Jr. commas now? Dohn joe (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please do. The close review isn't going to accomplish anything one way or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I support a new RfC, given that the close review has stalled and several users have now criticised the previous RfC for not being widely signposted. I would still support the wording proposed last time (i.e., "Do not place a comma before 'Jr.', 'Sr.', or Roman numeral designation"). In any option to allow for the subject's preference or editors' preferences (either of which are fraught with difficulty and prone to argument), I would recommend including guidance that a preceding comma must be matched by a succeeding comma (as unanimously indicated by style guides). —sroc 💬 04:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Great. I'll wait a couple more days to see if any dissenters show up. Any thoughts on venue and/or notifications to bring in a wider audience than last timeDohn joe (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't object to a second RFC... However, I suspect that if you ask the same question as before, the outcome will be the same as before (ie no real consensus will be reached). Blueboar (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Fear not. New questions will be asked. Do you have a suggestion as to how to more widely advertise the new RfC? Dohn joe (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:VPP would likely be the best venue to hold the discussion at since the result of it will affect both MOS:BIO and WP:AT. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 05:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The best venue for such an RfC is WP:VP/P, which has a wide audience, and which is the appropriate place for discussing such changes. RGloucester — ☎ 05:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
So, are we doing this? Do we want to draft the question here first? —sroc 💬 08:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes - sorry for being so deliberate. I just want to make sure no one raises procedural issues that would muddy the RfC. As for the question itself, I was thinking it could extremely simple, as "What should WP's guidance be regarding commas before Jr. and Sr.?" Then we present comprehensive options for people to consider. I would suggest 1) no commas, no exceptions (current language); 1A) no commas, subject and source exception (previous language); 2) use commas, no exceptions; 2A) use commas, subject and source exception; 3) allow both, with internal consistency; 4) no guidance (remove WP:JR). Editors could choose one, or possibly rank their choices in order. Others are free to suggest further options.

The big question for me right now is what to do with guidance on the comma after Jr. Addressing that issue right now is good because it would hopefully resolve the WP:JR guidance completely. Doing so now is bad because it could make the RfC too unwieldy, and doom consensus on the comma before. We could split this into two questions, with the second question being something like "When a comma is used before Jr. or Sr., what should WP's guidance be regarding a comma following Jr. or Sr.?" The options could be 1) include a following comma, no exceptions; 1A) include a following comma, subject and source exception; 2) allow both, with internal consistency. I'm on the fence as to whether to include this at the same time as the other. Any thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you've outlined the options perfectly. Although it might be useful to ask both questions at once to avoid re-hashing the same arguments, the second question becomes redundant if option (1) is carried on the first question (as I hope it will). For the sake of simplicity, it may be better to hold off on the second question until the result on the first question emerges, although it would be prudent to flag this as a point for further discussion (if relevant). —sroc 💬 17:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I agree. Let's see if anyone else has feedback, and then I'll post the RfC tomorrow. Dohn joe (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

New RfCs

Conversation at WT:MoS about making that talk page the official site for style questions

The proposed style noticeboard has fallen through. There is now a conversation under way at WT:MoS about endorsing and centralizing its longstanding Q&A function. One of the issues raised is encouraging users to ask questions about style and copyediting either at WT:MoS or a subpage and not at other talk pages. The discussion is still very preliminary and participants from other pages that would be affected are very welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There is now a proposal at the Village Pump that WT:MoS be established as Wikipedia's official page for style Q&A. This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Bias, name, and linking

This edit summary requested a discussion. It's unclear, though, what new can be said that wasn't already in previous edit summaries. Can someone please clarify what the problem is now? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, the problem is, you're continuing (at this MoS page) to downplay the United Kingdom's unique status among the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Unsurprising that's your opinion, since it is (for some unknown reason) your mission to see Wikipedia reflect your personal Britannicentrism. Can you provide a reason why any country need be mentioned here? The focus is the article as an example, not the person and what she is/does. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You shouldn't be accusing anyone of pushing a personal opinon in this area. Anways, the UK is the commonwealth realm that's associated the most with Elizabeth II. She lives there, was born there, will likely be buried there. There's a reason why the UK doesn't have or 'require' a Governor General. PS - I'm going to let others have their say on this matter, as you & I, will never agree with each other on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I should when someone is.
You didn't answer my question: Can you provide a reason why any country need be mentioned here? The focus is the article as an example, not the person and what she is/does. If you cannot do so, you have no objection to my edit, which doesn't at all play this one-country-is-better-than-the-rest game. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's allow others to weigh in. Going in circles, isn't going to be productive. PS- I object to your 'ongoing' attempts on Wikipedia, to downplay the UK's unique status among the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
(Putting aside questions of why Queen Elizabeth II should be referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" and why there should be implication there is more than one biography of Elizabeth II on Wikipedia...) GoodDay, if you don't present a cogent argument for why a country needs to be mentioned and continue to revert, you'll be meeting the text book definition of edit warring. This kind of behaviour--the repetitious straw men on talk pages, the tendentiousness, the edit warring--is what's had you banned before. You are the only person contesting my edit. I've asked you a very legitimate question. For the third time, please answer it. Or cease reverting. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The edit you're trying to force onto this MOS page, is pointy. For years, you've been 'downplaying' the United Kingdom concerning Elizabeth II. I'm asking you to STOP pushing this & go onto something else. Therefore, I'll let you have your way, if nobody else opposes you 'here'. But, I do wish you would for once STOP, just STOP :( GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
You don't understand WP:POINT. You also don't see the hypocrisy in accusing me of pushing some anti-British POV everywhere while you push your pro-British one everywhere.
I will put this fairly simple question to you one more time (so I can get some idea that your objection to my edit is more than just kneejerk): Can you provide a reason why any country need be mentioned here? I truly hope you provide a clear answer. I've given you four chances to do so. If you don't this time, I'll put my edit back. If you then revert once more, your name is unfortunately going to appear at WP:AN/I again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I've put in a compromise - Sweden's monarch. If you don't except the compromise, then you're free to restore your edit. I still oppose your edit, but we both know, you have the advantage over me. I've no intentions of getting into an edit-war with you, seeing as you're willing to take this to the extreme - which would be devastating for me. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You have an odd definition of "extreme", too.
I clearly asked why a country need be mentioned. Rather than answer that, you've just replaced one country with another. It certainly avoids an NPOV breach. But, the country name is still entirely unnecessary, as I see it, and I've seen no counter-argument to even consider. I'd now just change "an" to "the" and take "Sweden" out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to @GoodDay: for the request to join this discussion. I don't have an opinion on the matter one way or the other as I don't edit on these kind of articles, however @Miesianiacal: (or anyobody else for that matter) should not be making changes which affect so many articles without going through RFC or similar lengthy discussions. GiantSnowman 16:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, my change affected one article: this one. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I think GS means the changes you've made, over the years, across Wikipedia. But, I'll let him clarify what he means. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you stop with the unnecessary and inflammatory comments, please? Again, recall why you were banned. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, Mies. GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I mean changes to the MOS like this and this - @Miesianiacal: if you continue to make edits to the MOS while a discussion is ongoing, especially edits where you cite non-existent consensus, then I will raise the matter of your behaviour at ANI. GiantSnowman 08:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me; when the only person who's shown any disagreement with my edit can't articulate why he opposes my edit, then states clearly he won't further oppose my edit, and nobody else, after a number of days, expresses opposition to my edit, how, then, am I not entitled to make the change? The change doesn't affect "so many articles"; how can you honestly feel such a minor alteration requires an RfC??
I have been collegial, patient, and followed the editing process guidelines. So, if you ever feel a need to go to AN/I, please, do so. You'll be soundly disappointed with the result. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that we continue to include the country of the monarch's entry we're mentioning in the section we're discussing. Not all of our readers are fully knowledgeable of which country a monarch lives in. GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you object to my edit or not? You appear to have reversed yourself twice now. Please be more clear.
This isn't an article. As I already said (though here altered to take subsequent changes into account): The focus is on the article [Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden] as an example, not on the person and what he is/does. A user can click through to the article to find information on the monarch; this isn't the place for biographical or geographical information. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
No, GoodDay has explained his opposition to your edits, you have simply chosen to ignore it and make edits while a discussion (albeit it a slow one!) continues here between you two. GiantSnowman 16:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you read through this discussion again. GoodDay first made repeated accusations of anti-British bias to which I responded (which is, by definition, the opposite of ignoring) with an explanation of why a country name is unnecessary here and asking him why he feels a country need be mentioned at all. He did not reply to that question until only just today. Add to that evasion a statement that he won't revert my edit and an absence, over seven days, of an objection from any other editor to my rationale and any reasonable person would conclude the edit can go ahead.
Now, in regard to GoodDay's newly given recommendation: It is not an articulated argument countering my earlier explanation of why the country is unnecessary. Hence, I can only repeat myself in response. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
No, GoodDay's compomise was to replace the use of a British Monarch with a Swedish one - you will note with nationality. You removed the nationality. Therefore the issue rumbles on. GiantSnowman 17:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
No, you will note that at 23:34, 7 May 2015 I reiterated "the country name is still entirely unnecessary, as I see it, and I've seen no counter-argument to even consider" followed by "I'd now just change 'an' to 'the' and take 'Sweden' out." In the three days between my writing those words and making the edit I suggested, GoodDay made one remark and it had nothing to do with the suggested edit. In what way is anyone supposed to construe three days of silence on the matter of an edit, following an assertion by the supposed objector that he wouldn't revert any edit, as an objection to the edit? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Jesus Christ... Someone add this debate to WP:LAME where both Miesianiacal and GoodDay can be enshrined forever. Two Canadians - one a staunch monarchist and the other a staunch republican - fighting it out over whether a MOS page refers to Elizabeth II as being "British" or not is asinine. GoodDay: This is exactly the kind of behaviour that resulted in your site ban. Miesianiacal: You are edit warring against multiple editors. Both of you need to go find something better to do with your time. Resolute 17:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Jeepers, Resolute. Afterall, we did reach an agreement :) GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Nationality of people from the United Kingdom (yet again...)

The essay at Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom was put together some seven to eight years ago, following extensive discussion, to help editors in addressing the thorny question of nationality in relation to biographies of UK subjects - in particular, whether they should be described as British, English, Scottish, Welsh, etc. etc. Many would argue, I think, that the essay has been more helpful than unhelpful in reducing pointless arguments, edit warring, etc., over that period. However, discussion had now flared up again on the talk page - with some unilateral editing of the essay and subsequent reverting - and is focused in particular (but not solely) on the question of whether the nationality of all UK subjects should be described as British (rather than English, Scottish, Welsh, etc.) in the infobox. (The word "nationality" has several meanings - its meaning in law being just one of them.) The move to change (or delete) the existing essay was initiated by Martin Hogbin, and is supported by Twobells and GoodDay. I and others have argued against many of the proposals being made by those editors, believing them to be ill-considered and unhelpful. The discussion on that talk page is clearly never going to achieve a consensus. I am raising it here, firstly to alert a wider group of editors of the continuing discussion and disagreement, and secondly to seek some help in identifying the best way forward. I'm aware that many, many experienced (and not-so-experienced) editors have tried to address this issue before, and the great majority of those editors are probably fed up to the back teeth of it being raised again. But, the issue refuses to go away, and some editors are unfortunately becoming increasingly agitated as a result. I'm sure that the three editors I've mentioned will comment here, but, personally, I'd like to hear a wider range of views. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, we need input from the wider community. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, a wider reange of view would be better. Particularly suggestions for reaching a consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
A long dormant discussion at James Clerk Maxwell was re-opened by Martin Hogbin on 26th October 2014. Thereafter it continued both there and in a number of other forums, including Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, the Village Pump, and the raising of an Arbcom case request. The decision of the Arbitration Committee to decline Martin Hogbin's case can be found here. On 12th January 2015 Martin Hogbin posted the following statement on the James Clerk Maxwell talk page: "I will not edit this page again. It seems that Arbcom are not interested in fixing what is likely to lead to the downfall of WP; editors here deciding what the truth is. This is problem in many other places. The concept of an encyclopedia seems to have been lost. I have lost all faith in WP and do not intend to waste much more time here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)" It is sad to see that he is once again in the vanguard of the same tired campaign. FF-UK (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I did not initiate anything, I joined an existing discussion. It would be better if editors here stuck to discussing content and not to atacking othere editors' actions. Let us all try assume more good faith and work together. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Not an attack, but an observation in the interests of ensuring that anyone who may first become aware of the issue on this forum is aware of the other forums on which Martin Hogbin has conducted this campaign during the past year. I would also note that since he "joined an existing discussion" two weeks ago, he has contributed 41 posts on the subject. We should also bear in mind that this campaign is an apparent attempt to overrule the importance of sources, replacing them with a synthesis based on assumption. Editors should cite sources for all articles and, if nationality is mentioned, must use the nationality descriptor which appears in those sources. WP:NOR prevents editors from synthesizing nationality as British if the sources indicate English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. FF-UK (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You could just write nothing. State "So-and-so is a <job title> born in <city>." Stick to statements which are not open to debate. --Jayron32 02:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
That is an excellent idea which I have suggested many times before. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been on the 'pedia for nearly 10yrs. I'm still amazed that there's a resistance to using British & United Kingdom across most British bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What do RS say? Many describe people as Scottish/Welsh/English/Irish - not 'British'. This is especially true of footballers. GiantSnowman 12:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course they do. AGF is not a suicide pact. At a certain point this will become something which will need to be dealt with as a behavioural issue. We cannot go on discussing this every few months as some of us have better things to do. It is almost ripe for WP:PEREN. Whether it goes there via AN/I, Arbcom, topic bans, blocks etc remains to be seen. Any other editors who can overcome their boredom and disinterest in this stale topic would be welcome at the essay discussion page meantime. --John (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Soccer is a unique case though given the home nations each have their own national teams, therefore being English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish is a fact of key importance for such an athlete. That may not be nearly as relevant for other occupations - or even other sports, for that matter. Resolute 19:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, partly correct. Football and rugby are by far the most important ball sports in the British Isles and in both cases Scotland, England and Wales have their own internationally recognised teams. Cricket too, come to think of it; it isn't really played in Scotland but the main team is called England, not Britain. One cannot win arguments by referring to sports teams, but this is a significant data point and surely ought to register with those who persist in comparing the UK nations with the states of the US or the provinces of Canada. Ontario and California are not represented in the World Cup; Scotland and Wales are. --John (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
And, of course, the Six Nations Championship is the annual international rugby union competition involving the six European nations of England, France, Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales. FF-UK (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Then again the Olympics and Tennis only fields the team from Great Britain. So people who are notable for those sports are given Great Britain as their nationality, with of course a mention that they are from Scotland or Wales. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


The people of the UK are British, whether they like it or not. But, we'll never be able to get those British bio articles corrected, as long as opposition continues :( GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

My perspective is that in recent years there's been far more of a push against describing people as 'British' and in favour of having them as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. It's being forced as the default on articles where the subject is not known to have any particular preference for their allegiance. For instance almost all contemporary British actors aren't allowed to be British but have to be English or Welsh or Scots. I would far prefer to see the default being 'British' with exceptions for those who have made it clear they consider themselves English/Welsh/Scottish over or instead of being British. Sports figures are however a case apart; almost all sport in Britain (with the principal exception of the Olympic team) is organised on an English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Ireland basis, so it makes sense for sporting figures to have their sporting allegiance used as their nationality. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@GoodDay: While this is true, for some people, their specific nationality is notable. Take Scottish poet Robert Burns, "widely regarded as the national poet of Scotland", who notably wrote "Scots Wha Hae" (Scotland's "unofficial national anthem") and Address to a Haggis, and for whom the traditional Burns supper is named—he is more relevantly described as Scottish, although he was also British. Or Ieuan Wyn Jones, former Deputy First Minister for Wales and former leader of Plaid Cymru—it is more relevant to characterise him as Welsh than as British. These are just two examples of people who are better known and more notable for their specific home country than more generally as British. —sroc 💬 23:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Burns & Jones are both British, as they lived in the UK. However again, I'll never be given the oportunity to make these corrections. Thus is the nature of the 'pedia, when sources collide, it's the majority of editors who decide. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Sources decide. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
..and sources say that England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland are within a sovereign state called the United Kingdom. You & I can go around in circles on this for weeks or months. Again, the deciding is & always has been -How many editors want this -vs- How many editors want that-. GoodDay (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
...Goodday, the problem is that you persist in ignoring the simple fact that the sources which matter are those that refer to the nationality of the individual subject of a bio, you CANNOT synthesize something which is not in the cited source! WP:NOR FF-UK (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
They're British, as long as their constituent countries remain within the UK. But as I told Ghmyrtle, we can in circles for hours. I'm not going to convince you & you're not going to convince me. GoodDay (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually GoodDay, you did have that opportunity. One of the many disruptive edits you made at Robert Burns (after you added 'UK' to his places of birth and death) removed 'Nationality – Scottish' from the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice try Daicaregos. But, no cigar. If there were a huge enough number of editors pushing for British usage? there'd big nothing you could do to stop it. However, so far, there's enough editors on your side, to prevent such changes across the board. PS- I've no doubt that you would continue to resist such changes strongly, on Wales-based bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by "Nice try". I brought this up here to refute the claim that you had no opportunity to make what you term 'corrections'. Indeed, you even brought a proposal to WikiProject Biography, citing Robbie Burns as an example, replacing Scottish in the intro and infobox with British. You withdrew the proposal (due to WP:SNOW) two days before making those edits on the article. You were being disruptive on that article and have been on many others, which is why you were banned. And, quite frankly, you are becoming so again now your ban has expired. Stirring up other editors on their talkpages and endlessly repeating the same opinion on various other talkpages including this one is wearysome and unnecessary. Please stop. Daicaregos (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Howabout we just no longer respond to each other's posts. We've too much history between us. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Be careful to distinguish national allegiance from nationality law. There is no such thing as Welsh or Northern Irish nationality and since 1707 there has been no such thing as English or Scottish nationality - in the sense that no-one now has a legally valid document which is a Scottish passport. There is only British nationality. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
No such thing legally... but that is not the point. We are discussing identity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
As long as there's many editors opposing the usage of British, we're quite limited to correcting the British bio articles, Sam Blacketer. If anyone should be aware of this fact, It would be me. GoodDay (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems for the most part we are in consensus with Ghmyrtle being against, with this in mind we cannot let the 'consensus' argument be a reason to prevent credibly-sourced evidence being included in articles as that is against long-standing policy. Subsequently, credible sources state categorically that people of the United Kingdom are British. I move that the essay confirm uniformity, following guidelines that British people are not broken down into their constituent parts. Also, threats of banning for trying to add credible sources confirming the subject of the bio is British also be removed from the essay for being over the top draconian npov push that it tries to be. Twobellst@lk 12:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Twobells, you are making the same fundamental error as GoodDay in that you both persist in ignoring the simple fact that the sources which matter are those that refer to the nationality of the individual subject of a bio, you CANNOT synthesize something which is not in the cited source! Applying uniformity as you would wish can only be done on the basis of synthesizing the nationality as British where the sources may say that it is English, or Irish, or Scottish, or Welsh. WP:NOR You may have noticed that those who oppose such "unWiki" concepts do not deny that British is a valid nationality, but it is only one of the possible valid choices for persons belonging to the nations of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales (as another editor has pointed out, on your own user page you describe yourself as English rather than British). Why is English permissible for you, but only British for others? As for your impression of who is for and who is against, look again! FF-UK (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Synthesis? Credible cited sources for British bio's confirm that they are British, yet seemingly we have editors with a nationalist agenda who wish to break down British people from Britain into their constituent parts, an action that is against the essay's guidelines. No-one has attempted to rectify the numerous non_English bio's back to 'British' and when anyone attempts to revert they are overuled. Twobellst@lk 19:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems that Twobells is unable to "do the math", as he puts it. We currently have three in favour of removing the section concerned, five against (not including myself), and probably many more waiting for her/him to move on. No-one, of course, denies that UK people are British in one sense - the question is whether that sense should override all other senses of the word "nationality", and there is no consensus that it should. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Where did those other editors suddenly appear from? WP:Canvass? canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour.Twobellst@lk 19:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably because I raised the question on this page, as I indicated I would, and as the box at the top of Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom suggests probably should have been done some time ago. Both GoodDay and Martin Hogbin agreed with this course of action, incidentally - see the top of this thread. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes

We could adjust the infoboxes, to add UK to the birthplaces or deathplaces of those who were born or died in a foreign country. As for those born & died within the UK, we'd merely leave UK out. For examples: We should add UK to Andrew Carnegie's birthplace, because he died in the United States. Meanwhile, we don't add UK to Robert Burns, because he was born & died within the UK. GoodDay (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

I'm wondering why the MOS has a section called "Opening paragraph" (singular) instead of "Lead section". But my main question is this: I've seen several bio articles where most of the lead is basically a listing of awards and nominations given to the person. Is that really what an intro section should be like? --Musdan77 (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the opening paragraph is different from a lead section. A lead section may have multiple paragraphs. --Jayron32 02:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
We would need to see examples to make a determination. Most Wikipedia articles are deficient in various ways, the lead section included. Resolute 19:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Jayron32, how is "the opening paragraph different from a lead section", when it's in the lead section? And if the first paragraph is so different from the following paragraphs, then it should also say what should be in those following paragraphs in the lead. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Because there are certain things, and a certain organization, expected specifically of the opening paragraph specifically. Other paragraphs in the lead exist where needed in longer articles. --Jayron32 23:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
But, the MOS doesn't say that -- and that's (in part) why I brought this up. If that's how a lead section should be then it should say that. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Post-nominals

I suggest to insert the following phrase, or similar, into the section Post-nominal letters before the words "ensuring that readers".

or by using the template {{Post-nominals}},

I also suggest to remove the line "See also" at the beginning of this section because a) referring to 'Middle names and abbreviated names', its relevance in this section is unclear; b) the target section doesn't exist under that name. Lastly, the meaning of the sentence "(See above in regard to academic titles and post-nominal initials.)" is unclear and it should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: See my revisions in light of your comments above. I'm not sure about the "See also" hatnote: I've updated the link, but it can be deleted unless someone can explain the relevance to this section. —sroc 💬 11:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Expanding the permissiveness around ethnicity or sexuality

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The proposal was rejected. --GRuban (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

So, WP:OPENPARA currently states that "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." This feels highly reductionist and very limited. It's possible for somebody to be notable, generally, and their ethnicity or sexuality to be a prominent contextual element for understanding their work.

A good example of this is artists; there are a lot of artists who have an ethnicity and a nationality; say, Chinese-American or African-American. Their ethnicity is not part of their notability: they are notable as artists. But it is important in understanding the context in which they work. When you have an artist who is a first generation Chinese-American and their work is centred on that identity...sure, they're notable without it. But it's pretty much impossible to understand the work they do, or why they do it, or what it refers to, without also understanding their background.

I'd like to propose amending the guidelines around the opening paragraph, specifically, changing:

Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

to:

Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability, 'or provides important context to understanding the subject or their work. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they meet the same standard.

Bolding for the diff (I don't plan to have random bold text in guidelines ;p). Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree and support. Certainly there is a tightrope Wikipedia walks, in terms of over-emphasizing ethnic heritage, so prudence is warranted. But often there seems to be a disingenuous de-emphasis, on the well-intentioned assumption that "it ought not to matter" when, in some contexts, it does. When the contextualized importance of ethnicity is well attested in respected, reliable sources yet omitted or downplayed here, it can have the un-intended effect of minimizing a historical or cultural milestone, e.g. the elections of Nelson Mandela and Barack Obama as the first black (in the latter case, by U.S. definition) presidents of nations with records of recent legal racial discrimination. It comes across as a glaring, almost suspicious omission and, more importantly, deprives readers unfamiliar with the subject of the ability to readily learn and understand a significant factor in the person's notability. FactStraight (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@FactStraight: Good to hear it's not just me who finds this problematic! Think I should start an RfC, orrr..? Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
With notification to the Ethnic groups, Discrimination and any other relevant or potentially interested Wikipedia:WikiProjects, yes! FactStraight (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Done!
The intention was always to include ethnicity for articles like Nelson Mandela, but not for all biographical articles. Part of the difficulty is that emphasizing ethnicity is not always an unalloyed good, as when for example we have an article on a controversial or criminal figure, and their ethnicity has sometimes been emphasized in the past for no clear reason.--Pharos (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose and counterproposal. Isn't the real problem here with the use of the word "notability"? Notability has a very specific meaning here and is actually a fairly mechanical concept only affecting inclusion or exclusion from the encyclopedia. We don't evaluate significance or importance to determine notability, we look for multiple reliable sources. That makes this standard, frankly, nonsense. If "notability" were replaced with "overall importance or significance," then it wouldn't seem to me that we would need to invite rule creep by adding the proposed qualification. I would note that the current formulation has been here (in reference to ethnicity, sexuality was added later) since this edit by @Pharos in 2006, whose edit comment refers to this discussion on the talk page, in which Pharos' comment before making the edit was, "It's not official anywhere, but it's I think this is the general consensus of the very long discussions above. Exceptions would be in cases where someone's ethnicity was exceptionally tied to their significance; e.g. some minority rights activists and ethnically-focused artists. Since the issue comes up so often, perhaps we should establish a simple guideline on ethnicity for the fromt side of this page." (Diff, emphasis added.) Perhaps Pharos will respond here and say why he chose "notability" over "significance" in the actual edit. Since I spend most of my time doing dispute resolution, I'm really afraid that the proposed addition is going to provide an excuse to open up a furball of contentious claims between warring ethnic and national groups and have to wonder if the current reductionist formulation wasn't designed to avoid that. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This was the original intention that I had back in 2006, to reduce the type of edit-warring that sometimes comes up, for example, in Eastern European articles.--Pharos (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem with "importance" is, well - what if it's nothing to do with their importance, but is necessary context to their work? Jayron's comments below are excellent. Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I think if we're going to discuss changing this, we really need to hammer down the language so we're including highly relevant information in lead paragraphs where appropriate, and excluding such information where not. Just a few examples I can think of off hand:
  • Compare Jackie Robinson to, say, Dave Winfield, two African-American baseball players. Consider the men's relation to baseball's color line. Jackie Robinson's biography rightly mentions his ethnicity in context because to entirely omit it would seem out of place. Dave Winfield's biography doesn't mention his ethnicity, also quite rightly, because while he is African American, his ethnicity is not a major part of his narrative.
  • Compare Harvey Fierstein to Neil Patrick Harris, which I think probably gets it a bit wrong. Both are openly gay actors, but Fierstein's professional career is built upon his semi-autobiographical accounts of life as a gay actor. To minimize the importance of his sexuality to his professional career and public life is to ignore a major facet of his biography. Neil Patrick Harris, on the other hand, while he is openly and publicly gay, has not made his sexuality a major portion of his professional career the way Fierstein has. Fiersteins art is in many ways centered on the life of a gay man in America. Harris's, much less so. The fact that the lead of Harris biography has made his sexuality more prominent than Fierstein makes them both WP:UNDUE in opposite directions: It's more of a central issue to Fierstein's biography and less of one to Harris's.
This is not to downplay the real impact of ethnicity and sexuality (and related issues of identity) to these men's lives as a whole. I'm certain Winfield is quite aware that he's African-American, and I'm certain it is important to him. Likewise, Harris is very publicly and openly gay, and to deny that being "gay" is not important to Harris would be stupid. But that's not the same thing as saying these facts are central issues in the men's biographies. I think if we're to rewrite policy here, we need to indicate in some way the difference between "Every person's ethnicity and sexuality and other identity features must be featured prominently in the lead", which is ludicrous, and "No one should ever mention it ever", which is also ludicrous. I'm not sure how to solve the problem directly, but wanted to capture the realness of the issue. This is at least how I read it, and the issue before us is finding the appropriate middle road that results in well-written biographies. --Jayron32 23:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I pretty much completely agree with Jayron's analysis here too, and this is the same thinking that I had tried to use in originally wording the "relevant to the subject's notability" standard. This doesn't mean that this aspect of personal identity must be essential to the subject's work, just that it is relevant to it in a major way. For example, I could imagine that if we are writing on the hypothetical artist mentioned, and it is possible to back up with WP:RS that "a major theme of her work is her Chinese American identity", then certainly that should belong in the intro. The key should be that it is introduced in a sentence that actively shows its relevance, it's not just "X is a Chinese American artist". But aspects of personal identity wouldn't be emphasized in the intro if art critics, etc, have not considered it a major theme of that particular artist, while the information would still be covered in a family or personal life section.--Pharos (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Remember what the leading paragraph and the introductory section is. It is a summary and introduction to what follows in the article proper. If ethnicity and sexuality are a very important part of an individuals identity, that it forms a significant part of the article proper, then it should also form a significant part of the lead. If it is not mentioned at all in the article proper then it probably belongs in the infobox but not in the lead. Greater or lesser significance of anything in the lead section should reflect the weight it is given in the article proper.--KTo288 (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there is no need to emphasize the ethnicity or the sexuality of the subject unless there is significant weight from a multitude of reliable sources that emphasize the subjects ethnicity or sexuality as the primary reason why they are notable. This is usually the case for those who have made a notable first. Therefore, the subject's sexuality and/or ethnicity need not be in the lead sentence. Perhaps elsewhere in the lead paragraph if reliable sources give it weight, but not the lead sentence.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Okay. Why? You've made an argument for a standard for inclusion, not an argument for why that standard for inclusion is the right one. Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it seems redundant. Understanding the subject's work really has to do with notability - and if they are notable for being, say, an American artist, then it will say that, if they are just notable for being an artist, then it should say that. — kikichugirl oh hello! 08:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Kikichugirl: Except that's not how it's being interpreted by people. I started this discussion precisely because the person immediately above you in this section decided that readers would not find any additional context in the fact that an artist from Oakland who exclusively worked on Filipino-American cultural divides and elements was Filipino-American. Someone can be a notable artist as a result of making works influenced by their cultural background, and not be "notable for their cultural background", which is what you seem to be suggesting the solution would be. Pharos says, above, that when he drafted this section my point was precisely what he meant, but there's clearly some ambiguity or we wouldn't be having this discussion. So all this is really doing is more clearly stating the status quo. Ironholds (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know. I see the point that the original proposer is making and it's a fair point. Jayron32 has a good analysis and makes his point well. The problem, as Pharos points out, is that we also need to "reduce the type of edit-warring that sometimes comes up, for example, in Eastern European articles". Tell me about it! You are always going to have editors who are just really really really excited to make sure that for every article subject who has a touch of Macedonian blood or (or whatever... not to pick on on Macedonians, applies equally to many ethnic groups), this is put front and center in the lede for the reader to admire and ponder over. And then you have [historical figure who died in 1123 or whatever]... it's just really really really important for the reader to understand that his paternal grandmother was Herzegovinian and not Montenegrin, and this need to be in the lede or whatever. And so on. I exaggerate, but not much. And this is why we can't have nice things, like the nice and subtle contextual distinctions that Jayron32 expounds on. But maybe with the right wording this could be a go. Herostratus (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's why it's "necessary to context"; if you can convince the other editors it's necessary context, great! If not, not so much. But the status quo opens us up for problems in completely the other direction - essentially, whitewashing a lot of culture because we've decided someone's passport summarises their cultural or racial identity. Ironholds (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I agree with all the specific wording changes suggested, but I do hope that this recent discussion has established that the relevant to the subject's notability. standard is not (and never was) just about "firsts", and I hope this can be considered clarified through general agreement here. The intention was always that these aspects of personal identity be treated pretty much as described in Jayron's examples.--Pharos (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Pharos: what? No; that's not why we have policy. We have policy because a wider audience than "people who showed up to have an opinion in the right discussion at the right time" might, over time, care about the outcome. If you want to clarify it, suggest an amendment or endorse an existing suggestion - ideally one that removes the word "notability", which has a very specific meaning. Ironholds (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced it's terribly unclear now (I think it has worked in most cases), but if we're looking at potential replacements, I would perhaps suggest something like "reliable sources support this as a major topic of the article" or "as part of a sourced statement establishing the context of their importance".--Pharos (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    The fact that I opened this discussion because it wasn't working doesn't indicate to you that it doesn't work? "Reliable sources consider this a major part of the subject's identity"? Ironholds (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
All this discussion and not a single reference to the WP:EGRS guide, even though it deals with categories, it is where the issue is actually fleshed it much more detail and nuance than the simplistic "summary" in WP:OPENPARA. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a good point! (although the category context is indeed a bit different)--Pharos (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
IMHO I think the present guideline is "working" in a great majority of cases. If there is a debate/content dispute about it, that is why there is that article's talk page. Let consensus be formed there. No need to instruction creep, or to make less clear edit to the established guideline thus making it more difficult.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: if it's "working", could you explain why you're precisely the person I had to bring this case because? You personally deciding the status quo works for you when you're the reason I'm trying to change it is not, actually, tremendously informative. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ironholds: don't get personal, see WP:AVOIDYOU.
Yes this is my opinion of it, and compared to the thousands of active Wikipedians, there are very few who have found an issue with the guideline as it stands. Furthermore, any change, would need more consensus than the few Wikipedians presently involved.
The article in question, there was a wide difference, and there remains a wide difference, as to opinion as to the subject's ethnicity being central to their notability. As others have pointed out this leads to unnecessary content disputes when different ethnicities attempt to claim that individual as soley their own. Loosening the guideline as it stands will lead to more unnecessary content disputes. Furthermore, IMHO it is the burden of those who want to emphasize a subjects ethnicity and or sexuality in the lead sentence. If an editor, or group of editors, show that reliable sources give the subject's ethnicity or sexuality as central to their notability, than they can seek consensus to invoke IAR. Otherwise, we have these guidelines to reduce the likelihood of content dispute in this regards, as there is an established consensus against emphasis of subject's ethnicity and or sexuality.
Sometimes, emphasis is necessary. Sometimes, emphasis is useful. Do you acknowledge that "notability" as used in this guideline is a lot wider than, say, the GNG? Because that's what I'm reading from, say, Pharos's comments, and the fact that I keep having to ask questions like this is why I want to change the wording - notability is a term of art with a very specific meaning, and that meaning is not what is meant here. Ironholds (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
May I suggest that we use the word "Noteworthiness" rather than "Notability" (since the term Notability has a defined meaning on Wikipedia). Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "...provides important context to understanding the subject or their work" is too vague and subjective and is just likely to create disputes. Moreover, I think the OP fails to make the case for a change being needed. We deal with the hypothetical artist whose work is all about their ancestry by describing their work in the article. That's adequate and nothing is gained from also pigeon-holing them. Formerip (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Placement of a nickname in the full name

There are no clear guidelines for when a nickname is supposed to be placed within the full name as opposed to being mentioned separately afterwards, e.g. (using listed examples from the article itself) William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton vs. David Drew Pinsky, nicknamed "Dr. Drew". Can this be addressed? MarqFJA87 (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  • This has always been one of the formatting eccentricities of Wikipedia bios, in contravention to the manner in which pretty much every other serious encyclopedia or biographical compilation lists full names of subjects. William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton is mildly off-putting; David Drew "Dr. Drew" Pinsky is redundant and repetitive. The silliness of this practice is even more apparent in cases such as Michael "Mike" Smith and Jennifer "Jenny" Jones, wherein the included nickname is the most common diminutive form of the subject's given/first/Christian name, and especially so where the nickname is included in the article's title and infobox. it gets even messier for women when we attempt to insert their nickname in the middle of their maiden name or married name, confusing readers as to what the subject's full name actually is. There may be circumstances where including the "quoted" nickname in the statement of the subject's full name is appropriate, but more often than not, it is unnecessary, redundant, inaccurate and confusing. It would be far better to adopt the following practice:
  • William Jefferson Clinton, born William Jefferson Blythe III, and commonly known as Bill Clinton, . . .
  • George Herman Ruth, Jr., commonly known as Babe Ruth, and nicknamed the Bambino and the Sultan of Swat, . . .
  • Elizabeth Ann Ford, née Elizabeth Ann Bloomer, and commonly known as Betty Ford, . . .
  • David Drew Pinsky, commonly known as Dr. Drew, . . .
Inserting the "quoted" nickname in the middle of the subject's full name, as if it were an actual part of the subject's full name, is a sloppy practice and far too casual for an encyclopedia that should be written in relatively formal style and encyclopedic tone. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. This insertion of nicknames was never something that tended to be done on Wikipedia until fairly recently when we had an outbreak of it and now many seem to think it's established practice. It isn't and it shouldn't be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I want to give very strong support to the view that any nickname, or common name variant, should be given separately from the subject's full name. It looks very casual to have the nickname placed inside the full name and it's also confusing - it can be unclear whether the nickname is actually part of the formal name. I think this is a topic on which the Manual of Style should give firm guidance. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
You guys raise quite a few good points. I should note, however, that the insertion of the nickname in quotes into the subject's full name (typically right before their surname) is something that I've seen being used a lot outside Wikipedia, so it doesn't appear to be a unique phenomenon to it. That said... What now? MarqFJA87 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is very common in informal writing. Perhaps it is not so common in writing at the level of formality thart Wikipedia aims for. Personaly i woulkd linit it to cases where the nickname is by far the most common way in which the person is known, and it does not duplicate an element of the full name (so yes to "Bill Clinton", but no to "Dr Drew"). But it may be simpler to ahve a clear bright line rule of never do this. DES (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A lot depends on how sources typically present the name. For someone like Babe Ruth... sources often write his full name with the familiar nickname included... as: "George Herman "Babe" Ruth For someone else they may not... using either the nickname of the more formal name. Ultimately how we write it comes down to consensus... and consensus is notorious for being inconsistent. This may not be something we can or should write a firm "rule" about... It may be something that has to be determined on a subject specific (article by article) basis. Blueboar (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Blueboar: Unfortunately, a lot of editors seem to think this practice represents project-wide consensus, leading them to insert a lot of the really egregiously redundant examples, like Michael "Mike" Smith for an article entitled "Mike Smith". I know that several WikiProjects, including WP:Golf and WP:Swimming, tend to strive for the common nicknames in the article title per WP:COMMONNAME, have a specific infobox parameter for "nickname," and therefore frown on the insertion of common diminutives in the bolded full name in the lead. Perhaps they should adopt express WikiProject-level guidance on point, and simply refer editors to such consensus. Clearly, there is no explicit MOS-level consensus on point, despite the misperceptions of some editors.
I would like to see the MOS provisions tweaked to clarify that there are several acceptable alternatives for dealing with the nicknames of subjects of our biographical articles, and perhaps two or three additional examples added regarding the treatment of nicknames and other name variants. We also really need clarification and several good examples of how we should deal with the married names of women subjects, especially for those women who have used multiple married name variants over time. I have yet to find good, consistent advice on this latter point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I've definitely been guilty of the "Michael "Mike" Smith"-type useage, whereas something like "Michael John Smith, commonly known as Mike Smith" is much more appropriate and in-line with WP:OPENPARA. GiantSnowman 15:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It used to be standard procedure here that recording an obvious diminutive at all when the article title reflected that diminutive was completely unnecessary. When did that common sense consensus change, I wonder? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I have seen past discussions on this very page where editors verhemently defended the Michael "Mike" Smith silliness in the name of consistency and Wikipedia having "its own style," intentionally different from Britannica, World Book, and any other encyclopedia or biographical dictionary. I think the way to tackle this problem, without imposing some new mandatory format, is to add several additional examples of the accepted treatment of common nicknames in the lead sentence of bio articles. If I had my way, we would also include specific guidance that it is unnecessary to insert obvious and commonly understood dimunitive and short-form nicknames, including, but not limited to Al, Alex, Allie, Andy, Angie, Annie, Art/Arty, Barb/Barbie, Becky, Beth/Betty/Libby/Liz/Liza, Ben/Benjie, Bev, Bill/Billy, Bob/Bobby/Rob/Robby, Brad, Cat/Cathy, Charlie/Chuck, Chris, Chrissy/Christy, Cindy/Cyndy, Dan/Danny, Dave/Davey, Debbie/Debby, Dick/Rich/Rick, Don/Donnie, Ed/Eddie, Fran/Franny, Frank, Fred/Freddy, Jeff, Gene, Geoff, Greg, Jan, Jen/Jenny, Jess/Jessie, Jim/Jimmy, Joe/Joey, Kathy/Katie/Katy, Ken/Kenny, Larry, Marty, Matt, Max, Mike, Nate, Nick/Nickie, Niki, Mitch, Pat, Pete, Phil, Randy, Reggie, Ron/Ronny, Sam, Steve, Sid/Syd, Sue/Susie/Suzie, Teri, Terry, Tom/Tommy, Tony, Vicky, Walt/Wally, Will/Willy. I'm sure I missed plenty, but I think that's a representative list in common Australian, British, Canadian and American usage. If any of those names are included in the article title, they really don't need to be restated in the lead at all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
First, we need to distinguish between how we format the article title and how we format the running text. For the article title, we follow source usage (see WP:COMMONNAME). If a significant majority of sources use a nickname when discussing the subject of an article, our policy is that the nickname is used in our title. The example used in our WP:AT policy is Bill Clinton not William Clinton (nor William "Bill" Clinton). On the other hand, should the majority of sources routinely use the full name... or with a mix (such as giving the nickname in quotes)... we would follow the sources and use that format as our article title.
Now... for the running text we don't have a set policy... we can be more flexible and use common sense. Every article should mention the subjects full (formal) name somewhere in the lede paragraph (it's important information)... and if the subject has a nickname that should also be mentioned in the lede as well (it is also useful information). However, There is no need for every article to use the same styling format when doing this. Let article writers have the freedom to write in the style of prose they find most pleasing. If two writers disagree, let them discuss it on the article talk page and encourage them to find common ground. Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Blueboar: There's no need to belabor the WP:COMMONNAME guidance; we're already on the same page 100%. The article titles are always going to be "Bill Clinton" and "Babe Ruth," because those are the names for which the majority of our readers know to search.
To restate the premise, the question is how we deal with nicknames? Currently the sum total of MOS:BIO guidance on nicknames is embodied in a single example, William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton; MOS:LEAD provides a second example, Harvey Lavan "Van" Cliburn, Jr.. Given the only two nickname examples provided by MOS, it's not outrageous for some of our more formulaic gnomers to assume that those examples represent exclusive consensus how to deal with nicknames in the lead, when in fact they do not. This needs to be clarified, so that we are not stuck with the silly Michael "Mike" Smith redundancies. I think the best way to accomplish that is with additional MOS examples of nicknames in the lead, as well as additional examples of other name variants, like women's married and maiden names. What do you think? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this is something the MOS should not try to dictate... attempting to have any consistent "rule" about nicknames is overkill. There is no need to have a consistent format on nicknames. What is appropriate will depend on the subject of the article, and consensus of editors working on the article.
Personally I prefer to have nicknames presented in a parenthetical... as in:
  • William Jefferson Clinton (more commonly known as Bill Clinton) is..." or
  • William Joseph Donovan (nicknamed "Wild Bill" Donovan) was..."
I think that reads better. However, that's simply my own personal preference... and I can accept that other editors might have a different preference. If I really disliked the way a specific opening sentence is written, I would go to the talk page, discuss it, and reach a consensus.
So... to answer the question: How do we deal with nicknames? On a case by case basis... through discussion and article level consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@Blueboar: Let's be crystal clear: I am not arguing for a single mandatory formula for how we state nicknames in the article lead. Exactly the opposite in fact; I am arguing against a very common misinterpretation of the only two MOS examples of nicknames in the lead as the sole and obligatory way in which is to present them, which leads to the silly Michael "Mike" Smith-type redundancies. I want to make it perfectly clear that there is more than one acceptable way to state commonly used nicknames in the lead, including those examples I provided above.
Regarding the tangential issue you raise: putting the nicknames in parentheticals is problematic because it visually conflicts with the birth date/death date parenthetical. I only mention this because you did; it is tangential to the principal subject of this thread, which is that there is absolutely, positively, no consensus to require that nicknames be stated in quote marks in the middle of the subject person's full or legal name as the sole manner to present nicknames, although that way remains an option. Let us provide absolute clarity on this point by providing more examples of other acceptable ways in which nicknames may be stated in the lead. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
My own preference, and the one I always use, would be:
  • William Joseph Donovan (January 1, 1883 – February 8, 1959), often known as "Wild Bill" Donovan, was...
But:
  • William Jefferson Clinton (born August 19, 1946), born William Jefferson Blythe III, is...
I always think parentheses look awkward for anything other than dates and that it's best to put additional info after the dates and not before them. It's completely unnecessary to state that William Clinton is known as Bill because (a) it's a common diminutive of William, and (b) it's in the article title. If he was usually known as Bill Clinton but occasionally as Willie Clinton instead then that would be a different matter. It would then be:
  • William Jefferson Clinton (born August 19, 1946), born William Jefferson Blythe III, usually known as Bill Clinton but sometimes also as Willie Clinton, is...
Since then we do have to state his commoner against his not so common but still common enough to be recorded diminutive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I think all of those are acceptable alternatives for dealing with nicknames, Necrothesp. Obviously circumstances vary from subject to subject, and some alternatives work better than other given the particulars. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Choor monster, are you asking what we should do with the "Jimbo" nickname in the lead of his article? Before answering, I would ask a question: does anyone in the mainstream media (i.e. reliable sources) actually refer to him as "Jimbo Wales"? Is his legal first name really "Jimmy," or is that a nickname for James too? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, in reviewing the article, it appears that "Jimbo" is a reference to his Wikipedia username, not a nickname per se. Of course one could reasonably ask "what's the difference?" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I was being slightly sarcastic. As it is, the footnote to this source reveals that "Jimbo" is indeed a nickname. It may have originated as an on-line handle, the article doesn't say. (I was unaware that he was called "God-King" on WP; I will resist "fixing" the article to include nickname #2.) Choor monster (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
If the consensus at the article level supports Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales, that's good enough for me. As for the second nickname, I'm not sure it's widely recognized enough to merit adding it to the article in any way. I try to avoid Wikipedia self-parody whenever possible, lest we descend to the level of "life imitates The Onion". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Question, what do manuals of style for major publications say? NYT goes with full name, also known as nickname, format. I cannot access the Chicago Manual, which has a section on it (8.36). Christian Writer does not give a preference to within the name or after the name, but when in the name quotations are required. We should take some of our guidance from other MoSs if we are to create an essay or guideline about such a thing, as it will impact a large number of articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that the use of nicknames (although only in relation to Bill Clinton) was added to the MOS in this edit in 2013 without discussion and is now being used to mandate mass of these pointless things to articles. I vote we remove it and stop it being used as a precedent for their addition. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Seconded. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Affirmative. That said, as I have stated above, it would be helpful to our editors to provide additional alternative options for the presentation of nicknames, maiden names, birth names and other name variants in the lead. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I just want to ask one important question... we are only talking about how we present the name in the text of the lede sentence of the article... yes? None of this should change what is used for the article titles (which would remain governed by WP:Article titles and especially WP:COMMONNAME), nor would it have much impact on subsequent references to the person in the rest of the article text (where it may be appropriate to be a lot less formal, and just use the nickname). Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Correct, BB. But remember, standard MOS usage is to refer to the article subject solely by his or her surname and or pronouns after stating the subject's full name in the lead section. So there really should be no occasion to repeatedly refer to the subject by his or her nickname in the main body text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • BTW, here is a perfect example where inserting the nickname into the full name may be appropriate: Ambrose "Rowdy" Gaines IV; the nickname is not the common diminutive of the subject's first or middle name, and it's short enough that it does not really disrupt the statement of the full name. This is the opposite end of the spectrum from the Michael "Mike" Smith redundant nonsense. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Personally I'd still prefer "Ambrose Gaines, IV (born February 17, 1959), known as Rowdy Gaines, is..." It looks more professional to my eye. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Necrothesp: And I have no problem with the format you suggest above. None whatsoever. In fact, I have already used it in a number of my watch-listed articles, and it usually works far better for maiden and married names than other formats in use. My point with the "Rowdy" and "Red" examples is that the inserted-nickname format works better in certain circumstances than others. I'm not seeking to impose a new mandatory format for dealing with nicknames, but I do want to dispel the wrong-headed idea that the inserted-nickname format is required by MOS, especially when it leads to silly redundancies like Michael "Mike" Smith. I would like to see additional MOS examples of how nicknames, birth names, maiden names, married names, and other name variants may be addressed in the lead section under different circumstances (see previous examples given above). I'm going to wait for further comments for a while longer, then I am going to propose some new examples for the MOS text for further discussion on this talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted Necrothesp on the removal of "Bill." I don't see a problem with having "Bill" in the WP:Lead sentence, especially since it is his WP:Common name. Per WP:Alternative name, that name should be bolded in the lead somewhere; same goes for similar articles. Flyer22 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a problem because saying "William "Bill" Clinton" is stating the obvious and is completely unnecessary (it's already the title of the article), although I would have no particular problem with it being added after his dates. Please see all the discussion above and don't just revert a change that has been discussed. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Flyer22: May I suggest that you read the discussion above, which has been underway for over five weeks, and then participate in it? The problem is not the article-level consensus to use the inserted-nickname format for the lead of that particular article, but the misinterpretation of that MOS example as the mandatory treatment of all nicknames throughout Wikipedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Necrothesp and Dirtlawyer1, I'd read the discussion before reverting. This page is on my WP:Watchlist, which is why I saw Necrothesp's edit. I don't see any problem with using "Bill" in the lead of the Bill Clinton article. I don't see any problem with including any nickname in the lead of a biographical article, as long as it is not trivial, unnecessarily offensive, and/or violating WP:BLP. Significant alternative names should usually be in the lead, per WP:Alternative name. And, of course, the article title should usually be in the lead. Necrothesp stating that including the name is "stating the obvious and is completely unnecessary" because of the article's title is like stating that we should not follow MOS:BOLDTITLE for any article title. I don't see that this guideline is mandating a style in this regard. It's a guideline, not a policy. It's simply reporting a common style seen on Wikipedia. And as for Necrothesp reverting me and stating that the content was added without discussion, it's been there since 2013. A lot of content in this guideline was added without discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Flyer22: This is not about the actual Bill Clinton article; it's about the MOS example regarding nicknames in the format of Michael "Mike" Smith, (a) which is redundant, and (b) for which there has never been a consensus to require this particular format to be used in all cases. Concerned editors are welcome to use (1) William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton, or (2) William Jefferson Clinton, commonly known as Bill Clinton, or (3) any similarly acceptable construction, based on article-level consensus among those concerned editors. But many, if not most, editors disagree with requiring that the Michael "Mike" Smith formula be used for the presentation of all nicknames throughout Wikipedia. That is what is under discussion here: the single MOS:BIO nickname example, not the Bill Clinton article. Do you believe that every nickname throughout Wikipedia should be presented in the Michael "Mike" Smith format? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer1, again, this page is on my WP:Watchlist; so there is no need to WP:Ping me to it. I know that this discussion is about more than just the Bill Clinton example. I brought up the Bill Clinton example because this discussion features it and the removal of the two-year old guideline text is about it. I'm stating that I see no problem at all with cases such as the Bill Clinton example. I didn't state that "the Michael "Mike" Smith formula" should be used for the presentation of all nicknames throughout Wikipedia. I'm stating that I see no problem with that formula, and that it is a common formula. With how common it is, I don't think it's true that most Wikipedia editors, or even most experienced Wikipedia editors, have a problem with it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
No one is going to memorize your notification preferences.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

in this edit Necrothesp removed the "Bill" Clinton example with the summary "removed contentious edit following support and no opposition on talkpage". I said above that I thought this form was acceptable in the case of Clinton and other similar cases where the nickname is the true COMMONNAME, so there was not "no opposition". What I think we should do is not remove the Clinton example, but instead add several other examples showing the variety of acceptable forms, as has been done in this thread. That way the examples cannot be rationally taken as a mandate for a single site-wide format, as a single example might. Would others favor such a change? DES (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Uh . . . Yes to more examples of the acceptable presentation of nicknames and other name variants in the lead. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no problem including an example with the Firstname "Nickname" Lastname formulation ... however, the example we include should be one that is supported by source usage... so it should be someone who is routinely referred to by sources using that formulation. Clinton was a bad example because he is rarely referred to as William "Bill" Clinton... he is usually referred to as either Bill Clinton (less formal but more common) or William Jefferson Clinton (more formal, but less common). It is rare to find the nickname in conjunction with the full formal name. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It really should follow the modified name part when it's just a modification (unless a modification of/including the surname), and precede the surname otherwise; should use parentheses for diminutives used by the subject, quotation marks for epithets (including media-bestowed ones like "JLo" if not actually used by the subject, which would otherwise be put in parentheses if they were); aliases/pseudonyms not using the surname (or using it but changing not modifying the given names) should be given separately (Lady Gaga is never Lady Gaga Germanotta, with any markup):
  • Alexander (Al) James Calhoun
  • Alexander James (Jim) Calhoun
  • Alexander "Alexoid" James Calhoun
  • Alexander James ("Jimmy the Dude") Calhoun
  • Alexander James (AyJay) Calhoun (what the subject himself uses)
  • Alexander James "AlCal" Calhoun (a "JLo"-type epithet the subject doesn't use, and put before the surname since it abbreviates both the first and last names)
  • Alexander James Calhoun, often writing under the names Cal Xander and Alexandra J. Calhoun
In a case of use of simple initials (where including them in mid-name may confuse ('Why is wikipedia telling me "Alexander James" is abbreviated "A. J."? I'm not stupid.'), explain:
  • Alexander James Calhoun, usually credited as A. J. Calhoun
Hardly rocket science. :-)
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

NOTICE: Persondata has been officially deprecated

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of biography subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve all accurate data. Here are two examples of Wikidata for film actors: Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"… advised to manually transfer that data …' – That's the most pointless/impractical advice I've read in a long time.
For convenience: {{Persondata}}, Wikipedia talk:Persondata#RfC: Should Persondata template be deprecated and methodically removed from articles?, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 122#RfC: Should Persondata template be deprecated and methodically removed from articles?. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Michael Bednarek: While it is certainly helpful to link to the discussions underlying the decision to deprecate persondata, so that folks may understand why we are switching to the better Wikidata system, everyone needs to understand that accurate data that they previously entered into persondata templates is at risk of being lost in that process, name variants such as married names, maiden names, and full names in particular. Over the last five years, I have added persondata to over 2000 bio articles. And as "impractical" as it may be, I am manually transferring that data to Wikidata so that it is not simply deleted when the persondata templates are removed by bot edits in the near future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I understood what you wrote and I admire your zest to retain the work you did by transferring it to Wikidata, but I suspect not many editors have a way of following up on years of occasionally improving Persondata details. My spontaneous comment above was driven by my concern that the non-unanimous decision to deprecate might have unintended consequences. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Michael, I think we both wish that the engineers of this transition were committed to preserving more of the accurate information currently found in the persondata templates. The two or three editors leading the charge for immediate removal of persondata from all articles seem to put very little value on the past work of their fellow editors in contributing to persondata over the last five or six years. There should be a reasonable period of "deprecation," with editors given plenty of notice and ample opportunity to transfer data from the old to the new system. In the mean time, the continued presence of persondata does no harm. The rush to delete is unseemly and ill-considered, and seems to be based on biased information regarding the "unreliability" of existing persondata datapoints. Given the wiki-politics, I'm doing what I can to preserve the accurate persondata of articles on my watch list by transferring it to Wikidata, and advising others who care to take similar steps. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon Couldn't have said it better. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
You may want to share your opinion regarding a reasonable transition period in some of the following threads:
Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The decision may have been (like many on Wikipedia) non-unanimous, but it still had strong consensus. The issues have been long and knowledgeably discussed and the consequences well-considered, both here and on Wikdiata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Apparently no updated data in the persondata templates has been pulled by the bots since at least November 2014. It is unclear whether newly entered data has been added or not in the eight months since then, or whether the bots have simply ignored updated datapoints. It is apparent that the issues have not been long and knowledgeably discussed because in manually transferring over the persondata from over 150 articles in the last two days, I can substantiate that many items of accurate data have not been previously transferred by bot action to Wikidata, including full names and other name variants, birth places, and all "brief descriptions" updated since November 2014. It's more than enough to raise doubts about whether these issues have "been long and knowledgeably discussed and the consequences well-considered." I'm happy to share details of my review. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Jeez. I wonder what the actual point of failure is?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:HONORIFIC

One of the exceptions provides that we can use "Mrs Alfred Jones" and other Mrs situations when we don't know the woman's given name. Why doesn't this extend to men with unknown first names? When writing about historic-but-somewhat obscure houses, I often discover that my source says something like "it was bought by a man by the last name of Lastname. He lived here a long time until John Someoneelse bought it", and it's much easier to say "the original owner sold it to a Mr. Lastname. In later years, Lastname sold it to John Someoneelse". The source's usage is in line with WP:HONORIFIC, but my preferred style is simpler and conveys the fact that we don't know Mr. Lastname's first name. Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, if the source is certain about the gender (beware assumptions; if the source says "John Someoneelse later sold it to one Jones, of Chicago" or something, we can't assume male).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Why are some personal names in Philippines-related articles (entities, organizations, etc.) prefixed with some 'honorifics' like Attorney, Architect, Engineer even though the Wikipedia's manual of style recommends using none at all, especially when taken from external sources? Santiago Claudio (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Professions are not normally considered "Honorifics" in English... that said, it is hardly standard English to refer to someone as "Architect John Doe". So... my guess is that the usages are simply the result of poor writing by editors who do not speak English as a primary language. WP:FIXIT. If it is important to note the profession of the people being discussed, this can be done either through an appositive or a parenthetical - examples: "John Doe, a prominent architect, was elected to the board in 2013" or "In 2013, John Doe (a prominent architect) was elected to the Board" Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I see this a lot in articles on topics relating to non-English-speaking countries (i.e. frequently edited by non-native English speakers); there seems to be an assumption that because official, highly specific job titles used directly with names, as in "XYZCorp Vice-president of Engineering Jane Doe", are capitalized, that every occupational reference is capitalized, e.g. "Taxi-Driver John Smith", or "Ana Gutierrez is a Make-Up Artist". It's wrong and should just be lower-cased on sight.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I would agree... but my point was less about the capitalization of "architect" (etc) and more about the way the words are used ... in standard English, it is rare to preface someone's name with their profession (as if it were an honorific) - regardless of whether it was capitalized or not. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, we don't need to do that in encyclopedic writing except for the same reason it's done in journalism, for contextual clarity, e.g. "the department consulted with architect Jane Doe and structural engineering firm MacDoe Enterprises".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Heights of children in infoboxes

I'd be interested to know what the guidelines and current consensus say on including details of the height of children in infoboxes. I have stumbled across a number of articles about junior figure skaters (Kaori Sakamoto, Marin Honda, and no doubt many many more) which include the individuals' height in the infobox. While the heights are confirmed by their official profiles, my view is that, as these people are still in their early teens, their height will be increasing over time, and so it is not a good idea to include such time-sensitive information in the infoboxes. What do other editors think about this, and what is common practice in articles about children who are still growing? --DAJF (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I would say that it probably needs to be tagged with {{as of}} in some way, as all WP:DATED material needs to be. Elizium23 (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Dating

Do we have a guideline on contributions along the lines of "X is currently dating ..."? (I'm looking at this.) If it's a disparaged practice, do we have a guideline on distinguishing gossip-sheet fodder from relationships other than marriage that definitely rate mention (such as Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell's)?

Yes, we do... see WP:NOTGOSSIP (Point #3) Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Preparing two proposals that would change transgender policy

A recent proposal at the Village Pump: Policy about how to refer to Caitlyn Jenner in an article about the 1976 Olympics ended with the recommendation 1) that MOS:IDENTITY's policy on transgender individuals be revisited and 2) that the issue of how to refer to transgender individuals who are mentioned in passing in articles of which they are not the principal subject be resolved. We want help working out the wording before we post them to WP:VPP.

We are preparing two separate proposals for the Village Pump, one about whether the main MOS:IDENTITY should be kept or changed, and one about drafting a new rule for transgender individuals who are mentioned in passing. Here's where we could use a little help: We don't want this to confuse anyone or to have too many moving parts, and we don't want to ask the community "Do you want bananas or apples?" if half of them have been yelling "Oranges! Oranges!" for years. You guys have probably worked on more articles about transgender subjects than the MOS regulars have, so you probably know what issues actually come up and what just looks like it would.

For Proposal 1, are the two options that we're offering actually what the community wants? Are they phrased well? Are they easy to understand? Did we leave anything out? Could we trim anything back?

For Proposal 2, are the four/five options that we're offering actually things that people say they want? Should any of them be discarded? Are they easy to understand? Are the examples easy to understand? Did we leave anything out? Could we trim anything back?

Your contribution is welcome.Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

These two proposals are now up and ready for participation. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Outing and Wikipedia

BLPNAME says that "in the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should only be included in the lead sentence if the person was notable prior to coming out." I presume that this excludes the case where the subject is not out -- where the subject does not claim to be transgender or non-binary? The analogy with our policies on sexual orientation and religion seem clear: we require reliable sources and a public affirmation.

I am especially concerned regarding the situation where a person is termed "transgender" on Wikipedia by their opponents, who may seek to publicize purported birth names or distribute purported images either in order to damage their opponents or to promote self-harm. This pattern, alas, is not unknown at Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Specific case in question now? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The specific case that raises this question has already been oversighted. I'm not eager to further publicize the smear here; after all, that’s what the subject’s opponents want from Wikipedia. I believe the scenario is clear. If John Doe is not out -- does not claim to be transgender or non-binary -- then I presume that BLPName also says their birth name (or alleged birth name) does not belong in the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Correct. For a transgender person we include both pre- and post-transition names only if the person in question is notable both before and after transition, there are reliable sources for both names and for the fact that both names relate to the same person. If someone is not publicly out then I do not see how the latter can exist. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
What if a person was not notable before transition, but later became notable, is very publicly out, and frequently refers to the pre-transition name, including in a biographical sketch on his or her own web site, and in published interviews. In such a (hypothetical) case I can see no value to suppressing the openly published birth name, any more than we suppress the birth name of a woman who married and changed her name on marriage, and later became notable. DES (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. WP should not be in the business of actively suppressing from articles information which is freely and widely known. The analogy to a name-change due to marriage is a sound one. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Multiple occupations

Is there any consensus/guidance for determining what/how many occupations to use in identifying a person in the lede? I see many articles which try to recap the subject's entire resumé, even delving into hobbies, (e.g. "actor, director, producer, writer, voice actor, comedian, singer, juggler, and television host"), which is awkward to read and isn't terribly information for someone who is simply wondering why this person is notable. Obviously someone such as Ronald Reagan who had two substantial and distinct careers needs more than one occupation listed, but how many items is too many, how much detail is too much, and how minor a role is too trivial? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be as minimal as possible per "avoid overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles" and "Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph". In the above example, "voice actor" is redundant to "actor" and "comedian, singer, juggler, and television host" sounds like "entertainer". DrKay (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI, it's at the bottom of this section MOS:BLPLEAD. Just clean up the lead sentence whenever you see a big mess like that, and refer back to here in the edit summary (e.g. clean up lead sentence, see MOS:BLPLEAD). LK (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that ref will be invaluable. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

People commonly known by nicknames

Right now, the guideline doesn't mention what to do about nicknames. The common practice on Wikipedia seems to be to put it in quotes. See Billy Carter, Casey Jones, Dick Van Dyke, Jimmy Hoffa, Tom Daschle, and our own Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales. Let's put something in the guideline at WP:FULLNAME, maybe something like: "When the subject is commonly known by a nickname, the nickname may be included in quotes next to the proper name." Thoughts? Darx9url (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note that discussions regarding this exact topic are ongoing at WT:Article titles and at the main WT:MOS page. I don't mind including something about this here... but let's make sure that whatever we include matches the consensus at other pages. We don't want to give conflicting advice. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2015 archive#Placement of a nickname in the full name held on this page a few months ago. Many people there opposed general use of the William "Bill" Clinton form. DES (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, guidelines are supposed to reflect practice, not dictate what to do from on high to the masses. So maybe we should follow what people do instead of pissing into the wind. Just a thought, Darx9url (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
If anyone's interested there's also a discussion here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games--Prisencolin (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Although increasingly it is being put into quotes this is actually completely unnecessary, looks very messy and amateurish (it's the sort of thing that may be okay in a book of pop culture, but not in a serious encyclopaedia as Wikipedia is attempting to be), can be confusing, and contradicts existing guidelines. If the commonly used name is given in the article title then there is no need to further explain unless it's not an obvious contraction, in which case an explanation should be included after the dates. Bill Clinton is called Bill Clinton in the article title and since Bill is a common contraction of William there is absolutely no need to put his contracted name inside his full name - it looks like we're idiots writing for idiots. If anyone really feels the need to state the obvious then put "commonly known as Bill Clinton" after his birth date. As stated above, this has already been discussed and is explained at WP:MOSBIO#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
In general, encyclopedia should state the obvious. We're (hopefully) writing for posterity. Who knows what would be common knowledge, and what not, 50 years from now. I think we should explain nicknames as not doing so leaves a gap in our biography of a person. LK (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Surely you're not advocating Michael "Mike" Smith or David "Dave" Jones? We're not writing for idiots! If such a blatant contraction is in the title then it's obvious. If it's less obvious, include after the name, not within it, which is not a clear way of doing it. And incidentally, Bill has been used for William for centuries. I don't think it's going to change any time soon. Unless the whole English language changes, in which case we're going to have to rewrite the whole of Wikipedia anyway and such minutiae would be the least of our worries! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARA

Can we please do something about the nonsensical guideline to not have places of birth in the opening line. This has been discussed before as being WP:Local consensus. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been like this for a long time, and most people editing BLPs agree with it. If you really think most Wikipedians disagree with the guidelines in WP:BLPLEAD, start a RfC and see what people say. Darx9url (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The place of birth/death should not be in the opening brackets - partly because it is not relevant to notability (and also UNDUE), partly because it cannot be agreed how to display it, and partly because it looks out-of-place. It is a long-standing element of MOS, it's hardly 'local consensus' is it? GiantSnowman 09:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, most of us seem to agree with this. I know I do. So no, it isn't "nonsensical" and there's no "consensus". -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Concerning the first of the three rationales Giant Snowman gave above, how is year of birth more relevant to notability than place of birth? For instance, Barack Obama's place of birth has been the subject of enormous attention while it really doesn't matter much to the world whether he was born in 1961 or 1958 or 1964. For Virginia Dare, the place of her birth goes hand in hand with her date of birth in establishing her notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
It is nationality and sometimes land of birth that is most important, and that is recorded in the opening paragraph (for both of those you mention above, plus almost everyone else). Specific place of birth is very rarely so important. Dates are always considered to be vital pieces of information and are recorded in all encyclopaedias; specific places of birth nowhere near so much. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

People who change their surname but not through marriage

Apologies for the rather awkward subject line! The situation I'd like feedback on is this: the subject of a biography changed her surname simply for personal preference, not through marriage, and not to her original/birth name. In this situation is it appropriate to use "née"? i.e. Jane Doe is born, later changes her name to Jane Bricken because Doe is too boring, and becomes famous as Jane Bricken. Is she now "Jane Bricken (née Doe)" or "Jane Bricken (born Doe)" or "Jane Bricken (formerly Doe)" or "Jane Bricken" and the name change is noted in the body of the text? Or some other solution? I feel uncomfortable using "née" as this is typically used to signify a surname used before it was changed by marriage, and in this case the change is not due to marriage. The use of "née" might give the reader an inaccurate impression of the person's decision. FYI the bio in question is Suzie Moncrieff. Many thanks! MurielMary (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Dont normally use nee if the change doesnt relate to a marriage we have lots of entries for people better known by a stage name and they use "born", see Elton John for an example. MilborneOne (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sections of the article

This MoS currently has a section on the Opening paragraph. but none on the sections of the main part of the article. E.g., for a person who founded an organization, can there be a section for Appearances containing links to interviews they gave? What sections should typically be included? — Sebastian 19:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nationality

Users (mostly IPs) keep changing the nationality of notable citizens in the open paragraph, when someone was born in country A but became notable in country B. Two examples are Riccardo Giacconi and Richard Rogers. I always revert these changes according to the WP:OPENPARA guideline, but I am wondering whether it would not make more sense to mention the double nationality in the lead (although I am aware that this would simply change the targets of the POV pushing, but not solve each problem).

Moreover, I would like to ask if this rule can be enforced asking help to an admin. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2015_archive&oldid=1091645793"