Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2018 archive

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


Birth/death places in lead clarification

The present wording is:

Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can be in the lead if relevant to the person's notability, but they should not be mentioned in the opening brackets of the lead sentence alongside the birth and death dates.

I think this is meant to read:

Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can be in the lead if relevant to the person's notability, but they should not otherwise be mentioned in the opening brackets of the lead sentence alongside the birth and death dates.

If one or both of these places are included because it's important in a particular case, putting it with the associated date is the most logical place for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, not necessarily. Take Fidel Castro, Napoleon and Joseph McCarthy (three random history GAs I picked). If the place of birth or death is significant in some way, then the best place to put it would be in the main text of the lead, not in the brackets, where it just needlessly clogs up what are often already very lengthy sentences. Frickeg (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I oppose this suggested change. These parentheticals (long, irrelevant, and needlessly distracting as they can frequently become, especially when they also include other incidental information like pronounciation guides or spellings in other languages) mainly serve to make the first sentence hard to read by splitting its subject from the rest, so that by the time readers get to the rest they have forgotten what the subject was. We should eschew changes that encourage making this bad style worse. And calling it a "clarification" is at best misleading; it is a change, and a change for the worse. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I also oppose it. It would add clutter, in my view unnecessarily. If the birth or death place is that important, it can be (and likely should be) mentioned in prose within the first couple of sentences. It doesn't need to be in the brackets.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Honorifics pre and post

I understand that post DBE (and similar) and pre Dame refer to the same thing. Should they both appear? See e.g. Elisabeth Schwarzkopf and Kiri Te Kanawa. (I understand that removing "Dame" from |name= in those edits is correct.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

They do refer to the same thing but removing one or the other would be incorrect. Substantive dames (and knights for that matter) use both the title (dame/sir) and the post-nominals: the title and post-nom come as a package. However, if its an honorary/foreign award, its different: foreign recipients may only use the post-noms. For example, Bob Geldof is Irish (and therefore an honorary/foreign recipient), and uses the post-nom "KBE" but not the title sir (although he is often wrong called Sir Bob). There is an exception in the form of Knight Bachelor: this is complicated but usually only awards the title sir and no post-noms, unless they can't use the tile (being clergy or having a higher title such as baronet) then they only use the post-nom "Kt". Hopefully this explains how it works. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation. Still, the way those epithets are displayed in {{Infobox person}} strikes me as a very poor return on the investment of screen space, but that's a discussion at another place (with no interest to me). Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be okay to list both as with Paul McCartney. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The second is included because the Order of the British Empire (and many other orders) have multiple ranks, and it makes a difference.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The pre-nominal (Sir/Dame) is included because it's an honorific title – see MOS:HONORIFIC. Post-nominals are always included somewhere (infobox and/or lead) but it's worth noting for this discussion that there's more than one "Dame" honour: besides DBE there's DCB, DCMG and DCVO, each of which may be honorary. — Stanning (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Conflict between WP:NCP and MOS:JR

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Conflict between WP:NCP and WP:MOS
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Giving full name at start of article body

This conflicts with the principle that the lead section should be purely a summary of the body. The reader should be able to skip the lead section and not miss anything, and we should not need a citation in the lead right after the name as a source for the full name. I would prefer the option of repeating the subject's full birth name in the first sentence of the body, with a citation for their name/date/place of birth, then using their surname from then onward. E.g.

Early years

Joseph-Eugène-Albert de Lachaud de Loqueyssie was born on 1 October 1848 in Montauban, Tarn-et-Garonne.[1] Lachaud's parents were ...

I propose modifying Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Subsequent use to say (without highlighting):

After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Ms", "Miss", or "Mx" or by a pronoun. For example:

Fred Smith was a Cubist painter in the early 20th century. He moved to Genoa, where he met singer Gianna Doe. Smith and Doe later married.

However, the first mention of the subject in the article's body may repeat their full birth name. Also, where a person does not have a surname but a patronymic ...

Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • While the lead section is a summary... I don’t think we can say the same for the opening (or lead) sentence . That identifies the article’s topic or subject, and is more substantive. We want the full, complete name listed there so readers know right away whether they have arrived at the article they were looking for. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • No dispute about putting the full name in the first sentence of the lead. This is just proposing that the full name may be repeated, with a citation, early in the body. The lead should preferably not have information that is unsupported by the body, and the rules should certainly not prohibit giving information in the body that is given in the lead. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of eponyms with name parts (L', von, de) not usually capitalized

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#L'Hôpital's rule.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Scouting conflict with MOS:JOBTITLE, MOS:DOCTCAPS

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Scouting conflict with MOS:DOCTCAPS, MOS:JOBTITLE.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion at C. C. H. Pounder

Please come participate in the move discussion at Talk:C. C. H. Pounder#Requested move 20 February 2018. It deals with interpretation and implementation of the WP:SPACEINITS section of the MOS. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

MOS:SURNAME and subjects commonly known under a "pseudonym" who deny the pseudonym

Ariel Rosenberg is an artist who released a string of albums credited to "Ariel Pink's Haunted Graffiti", and as such, journalists have generally (but not always) referred to him as "Ariel Pink". (Some exceptions: [1] [2] [3] [4].) Rosenberg has indicated in recent interviews that "Ariel Pink" is not meant to be a pseudonym. An excerpt from a September 2017 article:

I want to ask you about the birth of Ariel Pink. When was this persona born?

It's not a persona. My name is not Ariel Pink, it’s Ariel Rosenberg. In the early days, it was a home recording project and it was called Ariel Pink’s Haunted Graffiti. I wasn’t Ariel Pink – that was the name of the thing. This somehow was too hard for promoters to remember and for people to think about.

I started to get interview requests from people asking for Ariel Pink. For one campaign, I think, I maybe allowed these things to happen. I was like, “Ariel Pink will take your interview,” and that kind of thing. Well, this was a big mistake. Afterwards I tried to fix it and it was just impossible. People are like, “Now you’re Ariel Pink’s Haunted Graffiti. What made you want to start a band all of a sudden, Ariel Pink?” It’s like, “No, no, no, no! It’s nothing to do with a band! It’s a solo project and it was called Ariel Pink’s Haunted Graffiti. There’s no such thing as Ariel Pink.”

If "Ariel Pink" is the name of a "thing" rather than a person, then "Pink" is technically not a pseudonymous surname, and so it seems like the article's body should refer to him as "Rosenberg", per the guideline "For people well known by one-word names, nicknames, or pseudonyms, but who often also use their legal names professionally—e.g., musician/actors André Benjamin ("André 3000"), Jennifer Lopez ("J.Lo"); doctor/broadcaster Drew Pinsky ("Dr. Drew") – use the legal surname."

Is this correct?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, wanted to link the operative part of the guideline: People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames The line quoted above is specifically about one-word pseudonyms, which his is not. As the sources are virtually unanimous in calling him "Ariel Pink" (thus the common name, uncontested article title, etc.) the pseudonym guideline is quite clear. And for what it's worth, his last two major albums (2014 and 2017) are released under the moniker "Ariel Pink", so even if it's not his name, it's his clear artistic pseudonym. If he prefers not to be called that for purposes of biography, it's more a question of MOS:IDENTITY:

When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources. If it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses.

(Gender as reflected in the most recent sources is the only listed exception.) Already gave this opinion at Talk:Ariel Pink/GA1 so looking for outside views. (not watching page, {{ping}} as needed) czar 12:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The key to all this is the principle of Recognizability, as outlined in our WP:Article titles policy. We ask, what name/title will the average reader search for when looking for information on the subject. We determine this by seeing if there is a COMMONNAME. While we want to respect the subject’s self-identity (and should mention it in the article)... if the two conflict when trying to choose the best title, Recognizability out weighs IDENTITY. Our primary purpose is to help our readers find information, and if that displeases the subject, too bad. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Blueboar: This is not a question on the article's title (I think it should remain as "Ariel Pink") but on subsequent uses of the subject's name. If he considers "Ariel Pink" to be a distinguished entity (he identifies it as a "logo" for his albums), then when sources call him "Ariel Pink", the invocation is equivalent to a journalistic nickname. The only relevant content guidelines I can find for this issue are with regards to pseudonyms, but the subject explicitly denies that it's a pseudonym. I don't know any article on Wikipedia where we refer to a subject throughout their biography with a nickname they don't assume. Granted, this is a unique situation where the nickname is conflated with another entity ("Debbie Blondie" is the only other similar example I can think of).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah... in that case I would suggest using both names as context dictates... start of by explaining the confusion with the name (so the reader understands what occurred)... then refer to him by his actual name when discussing his life in general... but follow the sources and use the “Pink” pseudonym when discussing the relevant albums. The key is that the text can explain why different names are used in different situations. Blueboar (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I just converted all instances of "Rosenberg" in the article to "Pink" after discovering that he's doing a little historical revisionism (the liner notes for all of his albums in the 2000s, while credited to "Ariel Pink's Haunted Graffiti", also credit "Ariel Pink" with performing, recording, or writing the music).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
That’s probably overkill... It is appropriate to use his real name when talking about his personal life, and the pseudonym when talking about his professional life. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like the most logical way to do it.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Locking this page

Is there any reason why this page isn't protected? At the moment anyone can edit it, adding things without consensus. Given that this is used by editors as guidance, and is often cited in disputes, it needs protecting. At the moment MOS:MAIN is semi-protected, although I would prefer extended confirmed protection for the MOS pages to enforce discussion. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

We don’t protect our policy pages unless there is edit warring. Bold editing is actually allowed - but with the understanding that overly-bold edits are extremely likely to be reverted. The key thing to remember is this... If reverted... don’t edit war... discuss. Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Names as Sign Posts

I am interested in reaching a consensus about bolding names within the lead as sign posts. According to MOS:FULLNAME, the legal name of the subject has to be in the first sentence because its a first mention, makes sense. Many subjects, however, change their names, have their names changed, or assume another name for a variety of reasons (e.g. reach a certain age, after a certain event, personal preference, etc.) When their changed names are all bolted onto the first sentence it looks choppy and doesn't make for unfettered reading. As a hypothetical example:

  • John Davis Smith (born John Smithson; December 21, 2001), formally known as John Andronovo Smitty, better known as Basket John is an American underwater basketweaver ...
Changed to:
  • John Davis Smith (born December 21, 2001) is an American underwater basketweaver. Competing under the name Basket John, Smith has won a total of 34 national titles, making him the most decorated underwater basketweaver in U.S. history. He holds the all-time records for fastest double dutch and triple skittle basket weaves. During the 2018 All-American Underwater Basketweaving Games, he drew considerable controversy for illegally bringing scissors into the pool area; he received a three game suspension from the Underwater Basketweaving Association (UBA) and issued a public apology.
He was born as John Smithson to a small farmer family in Columbus, Ohio. At age seven he was drafted into the UBA as an professional weaver and began his professional career in that year's All-American Underwater Basketweaving Games. After placing second, the traveled across Europe and Asia to train with German and Mongol monks. After the training he assumed the name John Andronovo Smitty as a gesture of respect toward one of his trainers. He rejoined the national squad, and won 14 consecutive gold medals in the All-American names and was awarded the "Greatest Double Dutch Weaver" by the UBA in 2017. Shortly after the award was given, in an online poll, fans voted for him to adopt the name John Davis Smith after John Davis Smith, the winner of the 1983 Underwater Basketweaver Olympiad. After Smith adopted the name legally, he began competing as Basket John.

This is a ridiculous example but it illustrates my point. Just to pull some examples from the real Wikipedia:

  • (from Napoleon) Napoléon Bonaparte (15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821) was a French statesman ... He was born Napoleone di Buonaparte in ...
  • (from Augustus) Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August 14 AD) was a Roman emperor ... He was born Gaius Octavius Thurinus into an old and wealthy family ...
  • (from Caligula) Caligula (31 August AD 12 – 24 January AD 41) was Roman emperor from ... Although he was born Gaius Caesar, after Julius Caesar, he acquired the nickname "Caligula" ...
  • (from James Smithson) James Smithson (c. 1765 – 27 June 1829) was an English chemist ... Born in Paris, he was given the name Jacques-Louis Macie ... he naturalized to Britain where his name was anglicized to James Louis Macie.

Using the "Names as Sign Posts" method, readers can trace the names as they mark a subject's life phases and contextualize them. I think it would be good to have this put into Manual of Style, Biographies as a "Names as Sign Posts" policy because it will give editors the resources to deal with multiple names in a much better fashion. This method is already being used on a lot of articles but its not yet written as policy. Rather than being them being "exceptions to the rule" I think it would be best if it was just an option for editors to pursue. Editors don't have to use this, but I believe it should certainly be an option expressed on the Manual of Style, Biographies page. All the best. :) LivinRealGüd (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

This makes sense. It must be made clear, however, that this is not preferred for such articles as Bruno Mars. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Sign posting would not be useful with Bruno Mars. His situation falls within MOS:FULLNAME and MOS:NICKNAME. LivinRealGüd (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Title law

The policy currently reads:

"Note that titles signifying honours awarded by the United Kingdom (i.e. Sir, Dame) may be used[sic] as soon as they are gazetted. Investiture is not necessary."

Notation mine. This seems like the idea of British government law, dealing with its own aristocratic honorifics, being taken verbatim as Wikipedia policy. This violates Wikipedia's anti-POV guidances, to accept a particular government's ideas about titles and title usage. The section misuses the term "use" to mean the title may be 'used on Wikipedia,' when the British statute is meaning that the recipient may use the title. Wikipedia is an open culture project, and an open policy requires the section transformed to: 'even if the title is "gazetted," a reliable source is still needed quoting the recipient that they have accepted the title, before it can be used [in the article].' -Inowen (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a non-issue to me. It's true that in the past some people declined the honour after it was gazetted, but this doesn't happen anymore as potential recipients are contacted before that to make sure they will accept. If we have a reliable source that it's been gazetted, that's fine. Frickeg (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
"Gazetted" in this case refers to The London Gazette, a British newspaper in which the notification of all national awards/honours is published. The London Gazette is a reliable source. The gazetted vs investiture statement above is to clarify that the honours are awarded/valid from when they have been announced rather than from when the individual attends a ceremony to receive their medal/dubbing. In reply to Inowen's confusion concerning accepting honours and to expand on Frickeg's reply: a person is told they have been nominated for an honour; they then accept or reject the honour; if accepted, the process continues and results in the honour being awarded; this is then announced by the British government and through The London Gazette; finally, weeks or months later, the person attends a ceremony in which the medal/regilia associated with the honour is presented to them and the are dubbed if appropriate. This is not a case of Wikipedia kowtowing to the British government, it is a statement of fact so that editors aren't confused about when honours/titles become "usable"/valid. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Order of events

Per the current MOS "In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order. Exceptions to this rule may be apply to lists of works, such as publications or other media productions, where the most recent may be listed first, as well as for distinctions such as orders, decorations, and medals."

A simple question: WHY? Show me any other reliable sources that use reverse chronological order, or provide a good argument in favour of reverse chronological order please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I also do not understand why we would ever go with the most recent first. This is an issue on pages that include opinion polling, such as Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2015, Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration, Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, Opinion polling for the Russian presidential election, 2018. Those are not strictly biographies, but they involve BLPs. Why are we presenting things backwards? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a good answer to why, but I have frequently seen publication lists and award lists presented reverse-chronologically here. If we change this (and I wouldn't object to doing so) it is going to put a lot of our articles out of compliance. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
That it might take some work to fix is irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a fairly recent addition to the MOS. We were getting far too much reverse chronological ordering, and decided we needed to say that forward chronological was better. Maybe we didn't go far enough. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Link to previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2017 archive#Order of content in biography articles.. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The part about reverse-order was added in [5] by @Chicbyaccident:. When a person progresses to more important political offices, and an inverted pyramid style summary is written, the content will be reverse-chronological. Sites like IMDb use it as well, because people are most interested in current events. But I can't find any reason that it should be done this way here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The undiscussed modification added by Chicbyaccident ought to be removed urgently. It clearly goes against MOS in several places; e.g. WP:CHRONO. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The reverted order for these things exceptionally are often due to the more recent ones being more important. I wasn't the one who came up with that idea, it happened organically. I just made that practice reflected here. Yes, I do support to have this exception sanctioned, though. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
What exactly are the exceptions? As it stands, the wording is so vague that any list could be shown in descending order. This is a major change and I can't find any discussion supporting it, so that sentence should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The current-year Deaths in 2018 is an exception in WP:SALORDER, for practicality due to the sheer volume of updates to recent dates. I can't think of any other place where reverse-order is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I have always found this exception weak. At the end of the month someone has to reverse the reverse order. WP is not a news ticker. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC).

"House of"

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this question. Feel free to move the question to a more suitable location. Anywhay, what about the "House of" title inconsistency in terms of names of families? Many families are more or less colloquially referred as "House of X", whereas not all who are, are titles as such on Wikipedia. Has the conventions on this matter been discussed before? It seems as the plain "X" rather than "House of X" most often is preferred per the typical title criterias? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"Maiden names" to "Surname changes"

I would like to reach a consensus to change the "Maiden name" section of the Manual of Style for Biographies to read: "Surname changes". Last names are changed by many people for many reasons. Certainly the most common is maiden names. When a woman gets married she often takes the surname of whoever she is getting married to. However, men sometimes take the surname of their significant other upon marriage as well. When children are adopted, their surnames are changed as well. Some subjects might just change their last name because of certain customs or events in their life as well. It looks ridiculous to have something like the following:

John Davis Smith (born John Davis Smithson; December 21, 2001) is an American underwater basketweaver ...

When the following expresses the same information, more aesthetically, more simply without clogging up the lead sentence.

John Davis Smith (né Smithson; born December 21, 2001) is an American underwater basketweaver ...

By the way, the male form of née is né. It is a French word used in English to indicate the name at birth across the world. It would be good to get this in the policy. I'm seeing some notable examples with the following:

  • (from Nathaniel Hawthorne) Nathaniel Hawthorne (né Hathorne; July 4, 1804 – May 19, 1864) was an American novelist ... (Personal preference)
  • (from Jeff Bezos) Jeffrey Preston Bezos (né Jorgensen; born January 12, 1964) is an American technology entrepreneur ... (Adopted)
  • (from Jack White) John Anthony White (né Gillis; born July 9, 1975) is an American musician ... (Took wife's name)

I think the section should be changed with whatever examples one would like added to illustrate it. It certainly would be helpful for it to be something to reference to. All the best. LivinRealGüd (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

né should only be in the Manual of Style if it is to deprecate it as unnecessarily pretentious. DrKay (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Not pretentious, and certainly correct and necessary for males. On the substantive point, I support LivinRealGüd's suggestion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
It's also rare and unusual. So much so, editors feel it necessary to link it to try and explain what it means. DrKay (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd generally use "born" rather than either née or né (both are linked). But it would be wrong (and not "unusual") to use the female form for a male person (or vice versa). Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I never said it was or wasn't. Straw men don't impress me. DrKay (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I've often used née (for women); I think it is still common enough usage to be acceptable. But I agree that né (for men) comes off as pretentious and requiring explanation. Born is much simpler, not much longer, and therefore better. I think in the example we could just say "born Smithson" instead of repeating the whole birth name. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
The problem that arises there is that readers might think that he was born the name "Smithson", as in that was his full name. Most readers have seen the née form enough to know that né is an alternative form. DrKay, I was linking it and explaining what it meant to be as comprehensive as I could be so that editors from all over (who possible didn't know what it meant) could participate in the discussion. I also don't agree its pretentious. To me it looks like a two letter word that indicates someone's surname changed from birth (i.e. quite concise). LivinRealGüd (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
"The chopping French we do not understand." I think né is unfamiliar enough to most people that it will look like an error or be incomprehensible. I think, realistically, only née has been adopted into the English language as it stands. I'd say "born" for men (I have, in articles I've edited) and would be fine saying "born" for both sexes. Maiden name is a term which I would not sell life insurance to given attitudes in 2018, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Is there a gender neutral version we can use? Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree with the first part. The reduction of a singular 'e' from the more abundant 'née' will not be unfamiliar, erroneous, or incomprehensible to readers; they can put two and two together. I have seen the née form so many times for so long that I know exactly what it means when I see it (someone's surname has changed), no matter whose name its next to. But I would agree with you that maiden names are losing currency, quickly. Right now we need to figure out how to accurately denote the change of a surname, not just a maiden name. We denote Sally Sallerson (née Smith) and John Davis Smith (born John Davis Sallerson). It makes no sense to re-list his first two names. My proposal standardizes and clarifies this denotation. LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I think this is a solution in search of a problem. Né is very rarely seen and as Wehwalt says is likely to look like an error to many readers. And really, if you're crediting readers with the ability to figure out that né is the masculine form merely from context (which I think is vastly overestimating most English-speakers' knowledge of French), I think we can credit them with knowing that "born Smithson" indicates a change in surname and not the full name they were born with. Frickeg (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Using né is more likely to confuse readers than to be immediately helpful. bd2412 T 00:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
So readers don't know enough French to distinguish between née and né but know enough to interpret né as a misspelling of née? This doesn't really have much to do with their comprehension of French. Both terms are French expressions used in English so I doubt its going to be a language test for them. What I'm seeing looks like this:
John Davis Smith (born Sallerson; December 21, 2001) is an American underwater basketweaver ...
When we could have:
John Davis Smith (né Sallerson; born December 21, 2001) is an American underwater basketweaver ...
If anything the né can be hyperlinked so readers can either hover over it or click on it, although I doubt they will have to. It is commonly used to indicate name at birth, so I'm not seeing how its confusing. What are your thoughts? LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that we should avoid using contrived primarily foreign constructions that would need to be hyperlinked to avoid potential confusion. To be clear, it is not a matter of knowing French at all, because née is a common expression in the English language, whereas né is not. Therefore, I join the other participants in this discussion in opposing this proposal. bd2412 T 01:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Né does not need to be hyperlinked. Most usage of née on Wikipedia is hyperlinked. I agree with you this doesn't have anything to do with knowing French at all because (as you pointed out), née is an expression in the English language, as is né. Is née used much more than né? Yes, because its been used to indicate maiden names and women tend to take their husband's name thus using the feminine form. If men took their wive's names then the opposite would be true. It is indeed quite common to see the né form when men take their wive's surnames, however it is uncommon for men to change their surnames. You're arguing against maiden names not the usage of né. My proposal wishes to add the option of using né to refer to the instances when someone other than a married woman who changes her maiden name. LivinRealGüd (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Look at the following example side by side:

Now compare it to these two examples with a maiden name change and a surname change:

  • Jane Davis Smith (née Sallerson; born November 14, 1998) is an American deep sea explorer ...
  • John Davis Smith (né Sallerson; born December 21, 2001) is an American underwater basketweaver ...

You're telling me that a reader would look at Jane and say "Oh yes, because of a marriage her surname has changed" and then look at John and say "what does né mean?" Come on. What looks better and coveys the same information more concisely?

  • William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946) is an American politician ...
  • William Jefferson Clinton (né Blythe III; born August 19, 1946) is an American politician ...

Every single person who reads the second sentence completely understands that his surname was changed (for whatever reason). The same dynamic can be found with the difference between United States and 'U.S.' Sure, America is referred more commonly as the United States and not U.S. but the latter is still a viable alternative. I don't know what else to say about my proposal. Of the 7 participants in this discussion, 4 have expressed reservations while one has supported the proposal. I would either like to have further discussions about using née/né or move to reach a consensus on using "born" to indicate a change of surname. LivinRealGüd (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

One reason they know it is that they are not coming on the topic cold. They know Bill Clinton was born with another name, because we've been told all about it for a quarter century.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Thats a really good point. But I'm just struck by the notion that after the global proliferation of née throughout the past centuries, that even if they had come to a topic cold, they would fail to understand what it meant. Just look at the two example in green, I find it hard to believe that someone would misunderstand what it meant. There must be hundreds of thousands of née's on Wikipedia, so there is certainly context. LivinRealGüd (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I find "born" followed by the full birth name to be highly preferable to both née and né, as for example P. L. Travers. The use of French words in English is widely accepted in traditional highly educated elite social circles and née hearkens back to the era when women were only supposed to be in the news on the occasions of their birth, marriage and death. Many people, I would guess the majority, do not know what it means. Using the French words also introduces that language's problematic gender issues, which are easily avoided in English-rooted words. And there is the purely practical inconvenience of coming up with the accented é on English keyboards. Yes, it can be done, but it is on the precious side. If "born" is good enough for Jack Benny (and né would look absurd there, Caligula, né Gaius Caesar, even more so, which also tells us something about gender), it's good enough for everyone.
And I agree with the change that the person who began this thread suggested. Here we are in Women's History Month, supposedly also with a major effort underway to recruit women and increase articles about women; let's also deprecate the dated and sexist term "maiden name." Née is widely used on Wikipedia; sexism is also widespread. Let's change that too, or at least start moving in a more egalitarian direction.
It is notable that almost all the examples cited above are men, when name changes are made vastly more frequently by women. Aatist (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm laughing out loud because you've clearly not read anything above the last comment so what you wrote makes no contextual sense in this thread. But yes, you did touch on something we were talking about: the fact that men change their surnames. See final comment below. LivinRealGüd (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
And I'm groaning out loud, LivinRealGüd, because just above your comment I stated, "And I agree with the change that the person who began this thread, Here we are in Women's History Month, supposedly also with a major effort underway to recruit women and increase articles about women; let's also deprecate the dated and sexist term "maiden name." Of course I read the whole thing, but you didn't read all of my comment. I was agreeing with you. I see I omitted the word "suggested," so I will add it now. And, since the use of né and née was already in the thread, it seemed like the perfect opportunity to expand the discussion of how name changes are treated on Wikipedia. Those "nées" are an irritant that belong in the dustbin of history. But I am smiling too, though not out loud, because I have also read all the way to the end, and I am very pleased to see that you agree, and that Wikipedia will stop promoting the use of this archaic, elitist and sexist nomenclature. Thank you for listening and addressing this concern! Aatist (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Support "Born", per most understood word in English. And although I usually am skeptical of the "new" wordings ("launched" irritates me when I see it used. "Jesus launched his Sermon on the Mount when he...", etc.) and pov sexist blaming ("manned space mission" was one some people don't like, as if it were some kind of vile term), I'd agree that "maiden name" is one which should maybe be retired (although I still like how it sounds). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I wonder what Scottish historians writing about Malcolm the maiden will be forced to change his name to? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Support "Born" as the word is readily understood in English language, works equally for all genders, and avoids the use of a Latin letter. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
"Born" preferred. If you read contemporary obituaries of women in the New York Times or Washington Post, you will see that women were "born," not "née". "Née" has been extinct in the wild for decades, yet mysteriously survives in captivity on Wikipedia. Let's move on to born, a more egalitarian and widely understood term, now the preferred usage pretty much everywhere else. Conveniently, it is also easier to type. Aatist (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Suport "Born" - plain and simple, its the more universally understood option. Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Support born, universally understood by English-speakers, unlike the alternatives. Warofdreams talk 19:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Support Born It's better understood and gender neutral. Great suggestion. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Fantastic. Switching out née and né with born and the surname is a great alternative. Will update the manual of style bios. The fact that it is gender neutral is a big improvement from what we previously had. Both women and men (and those who don't fall within a spectrum) change their last names, its time Wikipedia showed that. Thank you all for participating in the thread I really appreciate it. :) LivinRealGüd (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
That is good news. Aatist (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Consider that more than the surnames may change. For example, the birth name of Louise M. Slaughter, the congresswoman who just died, was Dorothy Louise McIntosh. I suggest that, in such a case, "Louise M. Slaughter (born Dorothy Louise McIntosh)" is appropriate. As it states in Wikpedia's Primer for creating Women's Biographies, "...excluding the birth surname, effectively has written women out of history, and should be avoided." As it also states in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Essays/Primer for creating women’s biographies, "Dealing with women's names presents special problems." First and middle names are also important. The closest example given in First Mention is Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning.... It's peculiar that all the examples are men and transgender or non-binary people, when these changes are so much more widely experienced by heterosexual women. Can we have some inclusion here? Aatist (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps a change to Template:Nee to display Born may be in order. MilborneOne (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
MilborneOne, I added a MOS link to née ... that might help? Aatist, I was just thinking that. I am cognizant, however, that the first mention names all signify a variance of a changed first name (i.e. one has naming customs, one has a double barrel name, and the other has a different first name). We should certainly have inclusion. LivinRealGüd (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
It still feels a bit awkward to me, LivinRealGüd, though hugely better. As we see in the Louise Slaughter example, "Louise M. Slaughter (born Dorothy Louise McIntosh)", women's name changes at marriage are not necessarily surname only. And, like men, women may change names at other times and for other reasons than marriage. See also Sojourner Truth, Cher, George Sand, Harriet Tubman, Ayn Rand, Cass Elliot, Tina Turner, Doris Day, Mamie Eisenhower, Madeleine Albright, etc. Of the nine people named in the First Mention section, only one was born a woman, making the examples 89% male at birth, an even higher rate of over-representation than Wikipedia's notorious 85%, and despite the fact that most people who change their names are women. The sole female example is in the surname only subsection. Does change of surname only really need a separate section? What about incorporating this section into a more complete list of general name changes in the second set of bullet points under First mention? Can we include a few more women among the examples? Aatist (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I vote for including Ayn Rand in FM. Some of your examples fall into other categories on the MOS (e.g. George Sand). I think this is an important discussion so perhaps you should start a new section on the this talk page to discuss ... this post is mainly for the consensus reached with the presentation of changed surnames in the lead. LivinRealGüd (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Move most name changes away from the bracketed lifespan. We are too often ending up with
Jan Pang (born Foo Boo, Wildwood, Somona County, California, US, 12 December 1901 - died Plink Plonk, Street of Gallows, Flea bottom, Kings Landing, Thursday, St Swithin's Day, Year of Grace 1997) was a.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC).
  • Make no guidance at this time on nee/ne it is established usage, which many are familiar with. Nothing wrong with it, but nor do we need to prescribe it. Maybe revisit in a few years. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC).
Please don't double bold, it makes it seem like two different users are agreeing on something only one is. LivinRealGüd (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No Need for Change or devising yet another rule. Née/Né is widely accepted throughout the world, though if one is only familiar with English it may or may not be known well. While I grant that this is English Wikipedia, the terms are historically and contemporaneously used worldwide as an indicator that the birth name differs from the current appellation. In fact, it is useful to use as a search device when writing articles on non-English language subjects to determine early biographical history. There is no reason that such widely used terms need to be excluded from use, nor is there any reason to create a "rule". Follow keep it simple—use what you are comfortable using and if there is a concern of gender neutrality then use "born". SusunW (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Dun. Dun. Dun. The plot thickens! LivinRealGüd (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Use Born followed by the full birth name. While I have some personal fondness for née, it should be deprecated on Wikipedia, much as ibid is. Some may understand it, but anyone who reads English well enough to use this site will understand "born". It also avoids any gender difference when there is no need for one. Use the full birth name to avoid any possible confusion as tol whether only the surname changed, or other parts of the name changed as well. If only the original surname is provided, this is less clear, to no particular value. Keep it simple when complexity has no virtue. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Applications of the transgender/non-binary birth name guidelines

I have a few questions about the application of the "don't mention the birth name in the lead unless notable under prior to coming out" rule for those who changed their name due to gender identity issues:

1. Should that apply to a transgender person's birth last name or not if that was changed? In light of the recently revised guidelines regarding changed last names I thought about that, especially since a now perfectly normal notation like Jane Brown (born Smith) would not be indicative of their transgender status (even if her full birth name was actually John Smith). In my opinion, with the exception of cases involving "gendered" last names and changing to the last name they would've had at birth had their gender assignment matched their actual gender identity (e.g. some families as a compromise will give the boys the father's last name and the girls the mother's), the birth last name should be mentioned just like for cisgender people (since mentioning it wouldn't be denying their gender identity).

2. Should that apply or not in cases where the individual is not transgender per se, but changed their given name(s) due to the gender associations of their birth and/or chosen names? Examples would include someone who assumed a gender-neutral first name to acquire a more androgynous presentation but is not undergoing a full-fledged transition, or someone who is cisgender but was given a name that is much more common for the opposite gender and changed it to one that is more appropriate to their sex/gender. In my opinion, as long as the primary motivation for the change is due to gender associations (e.g. in the latter case people wrongly assuming their gender and/or falsely assuming they're transgender) and not mere dislike of the birth given name, the trans/non-binary guidelines should apply here too to be fair.

3. What about cases where someone was notable prior to socially transitioning, but not under their birth name (e.g. a pseudonym associated with their birth gender was used as in this case, or their name was previously changed due to non-transition-related reasons)? Should both the birth name and the name they were previously notable under be mentioned, or just the latter? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other here. Okieditor (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Place of birth

Per the current MOS, MOS:OPENPARA, the paragraph titled "context", "... the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Nearly all the biographies have the person's place of birth, which is probably not relevant to notability in the vast majority of cases, and of death (if the subject is deceased). This should be stricken to comport with the vast majority of practice, including many GA's and featured articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Carlossuarez46, can you provide an example of this(many GA's and featured articles)? --Malerooster (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I think "this should be stricken" is incorrect. Assuming it is properly sourced, it should be moved, from the lead to some other part of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I think he's saying this part of the MOS should be stricken. I move these when I see them if there is a convenient place to move them to. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, he's urging us to allow more cruft in the (long long parenthetical, consisting almost entirely of factoids divorced from any notability of the subject, making it impossible for a reader to understand the flow of the lead sentences) junk in our lead sentences. And the reason is that, even though it's bad style, lots of people do it anyway? No, I think such a change would be a bad idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Where someone was born and dies is not trivia, any more than dates of birth and death. It's basic biographical detail that is in most encyclopedic biographies. What you call cruft are the basic data that people reading a biography want to know. When you start a biography, one expects to start at the start, place and date of birth. And for a deceased person, where and when the person died. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
If you are saying that nearly all biographies have the person's place of birth and death in the opening paragraph, I find this to be untrue. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Place of birth (if known) definitely should be mentioned in a biographical article... but not necessarily in the opening paragraph of the article. There is nothing wrong with mentioning it in the opening paragraph, but other options exist... such as mentioning it in a section on the subject’s “Childhood” or “Early life”. When and how to mention any detail is a matter of editorial discretion, and will vary from article to article, subject to subject. One size does not fit all. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
My own rule of thumb, which (anecdotally) seems to be relatively wide practice, is that the opening sentence should ideally contain only dates of birth and death, with the respective places mentioned in the Biography section. An exception can be made for very short articles, where most of the body material is focused on the person's notable achievements rather than on life details – in such cases, it's acceptable to put places of birth and death in the lead sentence; once the article is expanded with full biography, they should be moved there. No such user (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Completely agree with @No such user: - the opening brackets should have dates of birth/death, and the places should form part of the biography in 'early life' and 'later life and death' sections respectively. Places should NOT be in the lede, and definitely not in the opening brackets. GiantSnowman 10:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that places of birth (or death) should ever go in the parens/brackets where the dates of birth and death are listed. In short articles, They might go in the lead section. Also in articles where the place of birth is either relevant to the notability of the subject, or provides helpful context they can be included in the lead section. Otherwise such info goes in an "Early life" "personal life" or other appropriate section, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with DES(iegel). ―Mandruss ☎ 23:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hold on. Would you rather have a stub like:

Giovanni Sciovanni (Cremona, 12 January 1656 – Paris, 14 March 1728) was an Italian mathematician. He taught at universities of Turin and Sorbonna. His major work was 400-pages Treatise of circling the squares, published in Genova in 1715, which would later influence Carl Friedrich Gauss's work on non-Euclidean geometries.

or like

Giovanni Sciovanni (12 January 1656 – 14 March 1728) was an Italian mathematician. He was born in Cremona. He taught at universities of Turin and Sorbonna. His major work was 400-pages Treatise of circling the squares, published in Genova in 1715, which would later influence Carl Friedrich Gauss's work on non-Euclidean geometries. He died in Paris.

I mean, if the places of birth and death can be gracefully accommodated in the opening parens (and nowhere else), as in the above example, why not? We should not cram the lead section with information that is essentially parenthetical. I'd be very reluctant to outright ban this practice. No such user (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing graceful about having the place of birth in the opening brackets. What you should have should be:

Giovanni Sciovanni (12 January 1656 – 14 March 1728) was an Italian mathematician. Born in Cremona, he taught at universities of Turin and Sorbonna. His major work was 400-pages Treatise of circling the squares, published in Genova in 1715, which would later influence Carl Friedrich Gauss's work on non-Euclidean geometries. He died in Paris, France at the age of 72.

That flows much better. GiantSnowman 11:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Not to mention that a more typical start will be:
Dale Leon Bumpers (Charleston, Arkansas, August 12, 1925 – Little Rock, Arkansas, January 1, 2016) was an American politician who served as the 38th Governor of Arkansas (1971–1975) and in the United States Senate (1975–1999).
Or, for the benefit of readers who don't know what Arkansas is:
Dale Leon Bumpers (Charleston, Arkansas, U.S., August 12, 1925 – Little Rock, Arkansas, U.S., January 1, 2016) was an American politician who served as the 38th Governor of Arkansas (1971–1975) and in the United States Senate (1975–1999).
Or worse. Places of birth and death identifiable by a single word are in a small minority. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the view expressed by Mandruss just above, and find the examples with the place of birth in the opening parens far from "graceful". I think we need a firm guideline on this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with me too. Really, the only reason to put the DOB/DOD in the first sentence is so the reader can be somewhat sure they have the right person without reading any further (in most cases). Otherwise I think it would be hard to justify even that much. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
We have a firm guideline - MOS:OPENPARA which currently states Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can be in the lead if relevant to the person's notability, but they should not be mentioned in the opening brackets of the lead sentence alongside the birth and death dates (my emphasis). GiantSnowman 08:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
What is a "firm" guideline, and how can it be distinguished from other guidelines? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hyphenation in surnames

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Q:_Do_we_use_hyphen_or_hyphen-minus_in_double-barrelled_surnames?. Comments there welcome.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"late" and "former"

I keep seeing this popping up in articles, for example Ronald Reagan being referred to as "the late former President of the United States. Encyclopedias know no time, they don't use informal colloquialisms such as "late" to refer to dead people and dead past office holders would not be referred to as "former" in formal English (i.e. "Gerald Ford, the 38th president of the United States", not "Gerald Ford, the former 38th president of the United States"). Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - it should be simply "was the [X]th president of the United States" or "was a professional baseball player" etc. etc. GiantSnowman 07:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Also agreed. No reason to treat later presidents differently from earlier presidents. Disagree that "late" is an informal colloquialism, but that's beside the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Not so much an informal colloquialism as a terribly and incorrectly overused term. It means "recently deceased", as in they lately died, and is time sensitive. Someone who has been dead for 200 years is not "late". oknazevad (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Question - How should the Lead and Infobox be set out for people who worked as a duo?

Here's a question, and I just want to see what people think. When one thinks of a duo on television or the stage, such as in comedy, what is the proper way the Lead and Infobox should be set up as? I mean, when we think about it, should the Lead be really set up like this:

"Eric Morecambe (John Eric Bartholomew, 14 May 1926 – 28 May 1984) and Ernie Wise (Ernest Wiseman, 27 November 1925 – 21 March 1999), known as Morecambe and Wise (also Eric and Ernie), were an iconic English comic double act, working in variety, radio, film and most successfully in television."

And should the infobox then include details on that persons date of birth and the day of death (where applicable)?

Or should the articles covering such partnerships be done differently? Should their Leads be set out as such:

"Morecambe and Wise (also Eric and Ernie) are an iconic English comic double act consisting of Eric Morecambe and Ernie Wise, who are primarily known for their work in variety, radio, film, and in television, of which they achieved most success in the latter."

I just wonder which is more appropriate. Why should biographical snippets on performers in a duo be put into such articles, when their own biographical articles cover that essentially? GUtt01 (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

First use of name after lede

After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only

Does this sentence count the lede/lead? It should clarify. In biographies, I've traditionally seen the first+last name repeated on first usage after the lede, which is in line with Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2014 archive#Use of surname alone and repetition of full name. czar 23:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Unwatching this page. Please {{ping}} me if you have a response. czar 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Surnames for drag queens

Further input is requested at Category talk:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants#Sorting --woodensuperman 15:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Further to above, editors have blanketly removed defaultsort keys from all of the articles, so some further input is desperately needed. --woodensuperman 09:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Info-boxes in BLPs

Hello, I was wondering if anyone could elucidate the circumstances that would lead to a successful argument for not including an infobox on BLP. There is an ongoing discussion on Nicholas Hoult's Talk page about the inclusion of an infobox and there seems to be no convincing the editors there. Information like the current age is being called vital and consistency is being used as a ground for inclusion. If that's the case then why is it that there is an option in the first place to not include them? I'm really at a loss for words to counter such arguments and might need an expert opinion here. I am not saying that Hoult's artcile should have an infobox and it's absolutely fine if it improves the article in any way, but I'd really like to understand what really is a fair argument when it comes to such discussions. I'll ping the participants of the discussion if that's deemed necessary, thank you. VedantTalk 15:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell whether this is an honest question or "I can't understand why the people who disagree with me are so blind", but assuming the former per WP:AGF: Try WP:DISINFOBOX. Infoboxes often are unable to describe nuanced information in a non-superficial way (e.g. someone who changed religions or citizenships, but the infobox lists one), and in some of the worst cases take up a lot of screen real estate to provide more or less the same information as the first sentence of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Ugh, it is in good faith and my question simply are: is age being mentioned a valid argument? Or is consistency one? I get that there might not be anything​ valid when it comes to such discussions, but if there's any way of knowing if these two arguments have any substance then it'd be a great help. Because these two can be brought up in any infobox discussion and can be Endgame. VedantTalk 17:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Just an FYI, religion is no longer an option in most infoboxes, and citizenship doesn't need a lot of explanation. Citizenship in the case of athletes who have represented multiple countries is generally quite clear, and infoboxes are extremely helpful in that regard. I like infoboxes because they present basic facts - I see them as worthless only in the cases of people where we don't have these facts (ie people born 1,000 years ago with no info on date or location of birth/death, etc.). —МандичкаYO 😜 07:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus needed on birthnames (ie née)

LivinRealGüd has vastly rewritten sections WITHOUT consensus based on his/her dislike of né and née to describe birthnames. As far as I can tell, he/she started one discussion that had fewer than 10 responses in a couple days, and simply rewrote it the way he/she wanted it, and seemed to edit war with David Eppstein when he warned against pushing POV etc. when LivinRealGüd added a ton of other crap not discussed. The MOS is now declaring that it CANNOT be used because it's "gendered" which is even further from the actual (brief) discussion (those against its use mainly felt it was too archaic and "French"). This is not how we update MOS:BIO, especially for something as visible as ledes of biographies. I discovered this because someone nominated the née template for deletion on the grounds that it "contradicts MOS:MULTIPLENAMES" (a shortcut created by ... drum roll... LivinRealGüd). I propose a real and thorough discussion, in order to determine a legitimate consensus, per Wikipedia guidelines. We should have hundreds of responses on something like this, not eight. An RFC is probably in order. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I had an idea for the usage of né and née, I made the proposal, everyone disagreed with it, they discussed it, they reached a consensus and I added it to the manual appropriately. I followed WP:PROPOSAL to a tee. If you would like to start another discussion go for it. There was no edit war between David Eppstein and I, we had a conversation in the edit history over sectioning (as David can confirm). So don't accuse me of not following the rules, thats a personal attack and unbecoming of this community. As a reminder I began that discussion arguing for something completely different, so assume good faith. Feel free to start a new discussion, reach a new consensus or maintain the old one, and happy editing. The conversation, consensus, and basis for change can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2018 archive#"Maiden names" to "Surname changes”. All the best, LivinRealGüd (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
You did not follow it to a tee, consensus to make a major change to WP:MOS is not obtained from half a dozen people, and you further added things that were purely based on your opinions. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:CON for our standards on consensus. Any additions I made to the section were asked to be made by the editors involved in the discussion--nothing more. I routinely correct spelling mistakes, fix grammar, reorganize, and format this page. Additionally, I update the manual for other people's posts when they, too, have reached a consensus. If you would like more information on Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies, again, see: WP:PROPOSAL. I hope the upcoming RFC will answer any further questions you have. LivinRealGüd (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Wikimandia, please do not change or restore the MOS until a consensus is reached to do so on this post. Your restoration uprooted many contributions for many talk page discussions. Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, please discuss your bold edit here to find a solution, although I suspect you will find answers at the end of your RFC. Happy editing. LivinRealGüd (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: if you meant "RFC" not "RFD", agreed. Please ping me if an RFC is started. wumbolo ^^^ 15:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, RFC, sorry. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I concur with the proposal of an RFC. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the use of née and né

The rough consensus is that the Manual of Style for Biographies of Living Persons should not restrict the usage of "née", "né", and "born" to indicate changes of name. Any of these may be used to indicate the original birth name, or birth surname if "née" or "né" is used, regardless of the reason for the change of name. If "née" or "né" is used, "née" should be used for persons identified as female, and "né" for persons identified as male. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2018 (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.

(non-admin closure)

Should née and né be used to indicate birth surnames? wumbolo ^^^ 11:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you mention the alternatives. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The alternative is "born" followed by the full birth name or the surname at birth. I will not mention anything else. wumbolo ^^^ 12:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
As a clarification, you mean should née and né indicate surnames changed by marriage... right? This makes it seem like any subject who has changed their last name for any reason (e.g. personal preference, stage names, adoption, cultural, religious, political, etc.) should have their surname denoted with née or né. Also what happens if both the first and surname at birth has been changed? I have opinions about this but need more context. LivinRealGüd (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I meant that, but if someone has a different take on those words, they can voice their opinion. Also what happens if both the first and surname at birth has been changed? Since the first name didn't change because of marriage, by definition of given name, the person changed their name multiple times, and those cases are not for discussion at this RfC (maybe a new one, since you were editing that MoS section as well). wumbolo ^^^ 14:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for clarifying. All the best, LivinRealGüd (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose any restrictions one way or the other née and né are perfectly acceptable and well-attested words to describe people who change their names through marriage. I see no compelling reason to stop using those terms. --Jayron32 15:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not restrict wording. English has synonyms or near-synonyms for many words. The MOS should not prescribe the use of one synonym over another, per WP:CREEP. These particular words may once have been French (like many English words) but they are now English. If you want to work with a small set of words, the simple English Wikipedia is thataway. Also, it's a little confusing using "born" for two different meanings in the same context (the birth name and the birth date). Are we supposed to write "Hillary Clinton (born Rodham, born October 26, 1947)" or is one "born" sufficient? What about when there is other stuff like pronounciations that are not modified by "born" between the birth name and birth date? "Née" is less ambiguous. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    @David Eppstein, from what I've seen, it is typically denoted as "Hillary Clinton (born Rodham; October 26, 1947)" (e.g. see Jeff Bezos), with one "born", if that's of any interest you. LivinRealGüd (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    A semicolon? Really? Where are the independent clauses it should separate? To me that makes the date look like it is sitting there unmodified and unexplained, as if we had just written "Jeff Bezos (January 12, 1964). Also, "née" has a more specific connotation, that the name was changed when the subject married, that does not apply to Bezos. So when we use née instead of born, we are conveying extra meaning. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    Exactly. I couldn't agree more. I, too, don't think we should restrict our wording to just born, ne or nee. LivinRealGüd (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    @LivinRealGüd: That makes it look as if Miss Hillary Clinton was born in the town of Rodham on October 26, 1947. Saying "Hillary Clinton (née Rodham, born October 26, 1947)" is unambiguous. Remember that whilst we may all have a good idea who Clinton was, Josephine Elizabeth Butler (née Grey) might be less well known, and before you ask Grey is a county in Ontario so "born Grey; 13 April 1828" would be confusing. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    Agreed, I didn't come up with the policy, I'm just reading back what I'm seeing on the MOS. . LivinRealGüd (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    The MOS says not to include the birth location in the parents, I invariably remove it when i see it there, and place it later in the article, often in an "Early life" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    But we can't rely on ordinary readers even knowing there is a MOS, let alone reading it. You may look at the Clinton entry and realise Rodham cannot be a place, but would a high school student realise that? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    Uh... what? I think you're going off road here. Drop me a line at my TP if you want to continue this convo, I want to make sure the RFC isn't bogged down by long convos. LivinRealGüd (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    My comment was in response to a suggestion that using "born" might be confuse with an indication of the place of birth. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    Ohhhh. Gotcha. LivinRealGüd (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No. né is a rare and unnecessarily pretentious term. If a man is born with a different name, just say born. DrKay (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Allow choice. All variants have a time and place: Pat Nixon uses née; Michael Oher uses né; Jack Benny uses "born". However, for living people like Bill de Blasio, the "born" construction looks a little clumsy as Martin of Sheffield noted above. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 20:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    Addendum – There are two reasons why I say "born", as in (born Jorgensen; January 12, 1964), is bad to use for living people: first, it appears that the birth name was a mononym, though this may be resolved with a glance to the infobox for "Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen"; second, simply writing this date does not clearly enough indicate it is the birth date. Instead, it requires a "born" before January. This is why writing (né Jorgensen; born January 12, 1964) is the best. If a reader knows née, they can interpret né. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 12:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Favor "born" "née" and "né" are simply the French words for "born", and can be used for name changes not due to marriage. They were traditionally most often used for name changes due to marriage, because that was traditionally by far the most common reason for a name change. I would not prohibit "née", but I would deprecate it. It can be confusing, and it adds no value. Just use "born". (and I would do the Clinton one as Hillary Clinton (born Hillary Rodham, October 26, 1947) always giving the full birth name, not just the surname. (If we are going to use "née" for a woman's name change, we should use "né" for a man's.) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposal could we use a template similar to {{circa}} to give give a tooltip for nee and ne? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    {{Nee}} has existed for years Martin of Sheffield, and SMcCandlish. Since 2009 to be exact. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Martin of Sheffield DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for reminding me. {{Nee}} has its uses (mainly avoiding the accent), but unfortunately doesn't include the tool tip. I know the circa tooltip isn't great, but the idea would be that hovering over née would pop up the text "original surname at birth" or something similar. Currently the target of a wikilink ("Given name") appears which is inaccurate and unhelpful. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    {{Nee}} used to have such a tooltip, its removal is discussed in Template talk:Nee#Link target, where WP:NOSYMBOLS is cited as a justification for this removal. The template could be changed, of course. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, and it should. This discussion by itself is a sufficient indication that the tooltip should be put back, and WP:NOSYMBOLS was mis-cited; it has nothing to do with cursor-hover tooltips, which we use for all sorts of things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No - per DrKay and DESiegel. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, because née and né have long been assimilated into English, and are regularly used in English-language publications, like rendezvous and sushi and macho. I agree with Martin's idea to provide a use-this-on-first-occurrence template for them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    So have op. cit and id est, but we discourage them in Wikipedia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    Invalid comparison. We discourage op. cit. (note the second dot), ibid., and id. for a technical and practical reason that isn't really surmountable: our citations are not in a fixed order, and move around at the whim of editorial rearrangement of the material, often without us doing anything to move them [depends on the citation system being used in the article in question]. Ergo, any kind of cross-reference between sources will break if it depends on one source or author having appeared before another in our citations. I think you meant id. and ibid. when you wrote id est, but I'll address that one, too: As a Latin phrase, it is not actually fully assimilated into English at all. The average (or maybe slightly below-average education) Wikipedia reader would not recognize it, only the abbreviation "i.e." We have no reason to use the full Latinism when the abbreviation is familiar to all fluent English speakers; the short version is more concise and more effective communication.

    Née has no common abbreviation, and there is no technical reason not to use it; it's simply a Frenchism we borrowed wholesale into English a long time ago – complete with the diacritic, just like souflée and façade. To the extent we suspect non-native or very young readers might be unfamiliar with it, we can deal with it via a template, or a link to Maiden name, or whatever. Or just let them look it up, like we do with a large number of fairly technical terms. At any rate, MoS isn't in the business of forbidding the use of everyday English (including "now English, once not English") words, unless slang or otherwise inappropriate in an encyclopedic register, just because someone somewhere might not get them. To work on the site where we do dumb the material down that much, please edit http://simple.wiki.x.io articles.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

    I did mean id est, not ibid I was trying to think of latinisms or frenchisms more or less adopted into English, but still recognizably foreign enough that they are often shown in italics. (I would normally droop the diacritics from "souffle" and "facade". Indeed I would be inclined to consider use of the diacritic on either in ordinary English prose to be an error.) I will try to think of a better example, you are correct about the technical reason to discourage op. cit. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    Well, dictionaries and other RS list these words with the diacritics, even if they also give the versions without as attested enough to bother listing. Facade is particular is a bad idea because c is not pronounced in English as s when it occurs before a; the diacritic – which is recognized by competent English readers – is a signal to use the s sound in this and other loanwords and non-English proper names. Anyway, let's not entertain any "diacritics ain't English" stuff; that "debate" never, ever goes over well on WP.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No restrictions, but usage of the {{nee}} template should be encouraged for those who use "né[e]". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Prefer born, allow née, discourage né. Both née and né are at least moderately pretentious, and I say that as someone who defaults to née for maiden names. But I would strongly disagree that né has been assimilated into English as SMcCandlish suggests above. As I said in the first discussion, it is not remotely common or usual in any form of English and is likely to strike most readers as an error. While this is not in itself a reason to prohibit its use, it is a strong argument for simply using the word "born" and avoiding the potential confusion altogether. Frickeg (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    Maybe it's matter of what kind of reading one does, but né has been familiar to me for decades. Not sure what to tell you. Well, I take that back; I do know: né is found, without any commentary about it being obscure or specialized, in mainstream English dictionaries such as:
    • Merriam-Webster [6]
    • Oxford Concise [7]
    • Collins (citing Webster's New World College Dictionary) [8], and providing a word frequency rating of middle-ground (most dictionaries don't provide this, and I don't know how this one determines it)
    • An online one with no paper equivalent: Your Dictionary [9].
    It's not listed in American Heritage (the entire raison d'etre of which is US-centric traditionalism; it was started as a prescriptivist rebuttal to the linguistic description shift of Webster's Third New International Dictionary), or the online version of The Cambridge Dictionary (I think I have a paper one around, if we care). The definitions are not limited to having anything to do with a post-marriage name change (which is not all that rare for men these days, especially in hyphenated form).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This is all very interesting. I've done plenty of reading in this area and can honestly say I never came across the masculine form before this discussion. Having done some more searching, I'm pretty sure it's more common in America, though - I notice Collins actually specifies that it's American and doesn't repeat the definition as "British" (as it does for Ne=Neon, for example), and both Collins and YourDictionary cite Webster as a source. It wasn't in the standard Australian dictionary the Macquarie (accessed online; others with an NLA library card can confirm). Oxford is interesting, but I notice it also doesn't specify "North American" for some (not many) other Americanisms like sweater. I also found zero instances in the Australian Dictionary of Biography (as opposed to over 11,000 for née). Similarly in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (British) I found zero instances of né and 10,000 of née. On the other hand there was a very small amount of né in the American National Biography [10]. Frickeg (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Prefer born, strongly discourage né(e) We shouldn't be using gendered adjectives in English (where adjectives are not gendered) as people always screw up the agreement and as Frickeg states, the masculine né is certainly not common in English. "Born" is great because a) it's a direct translation and b) it handles cases where people's names have changed not owing to marriage... it's simply more flexible and gender neutral. Obviously the way to use it is as in the HRC example above: Sir Elton Hercules John (born Reginald Kenneth Dwight; 25 March 1947) as per Elton John. Biographical articles nearly always describe the subject as being "born in" extremely early in the article—the notion someone might think "(born [birth name]; [birth date])" would be interpreted as "so-and-so was born in [birth name]" assumes people are extremely unintelligent and we really shouldn't be determining guidelines based on how some lowest-common-denominator group might misinterpret things. And honestly, people who might make that misinterpretation are probably just as likely to not understand the meaning of né(e). —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Allow any of the three options iff they are applied correctly. Several editors have claimed that using née and né are somehow pretentious without any sourcing to verify this isn't just their personal or regional prejudice. I've also checked the four hardcopy English-language dictionaries near me, and née (though not né) is listed and duly defined in each. However, we do need to elaborate that née and né may only be used for surname changes vis-à-vis marriage, and using "born" needs to be followed by a whole name lest the reader assume the person was born with a mononym. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    Can you provide a source for the statement that née and né may only be used for surname changes vis-à-vis marriage, please? It is my understanding that they may be used for any name change, and indeed if we use them at all, we should use them consistently for all name changes. Perhaps I am mistaken. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Prefer "born as", strongly discourage né(e). Silly pretentious synonym, get rid of alma mater while we are at it and replace with "educated at" or other simple wording. --RAN (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    All the definitions I read specified that née is for women who've changed their surnames with marriage. Also, I think somewhere in the discussion above it's mentioned, too. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Iff = if and only if. Otherwise an off-topic discussion. wumbolo ^^^ 09:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • @Fourthords: it's more than likely that a general, non-computer science audience doesn't understand you are using iff to signify if and only if. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    I am that "general, non-computer science audience". I didn't know that "iff" was used in programming; I learned that shorthand in school from teachers of various secondary school disciplines. — fourthords | =Λ= | 14:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    I have been a professional in a computer science field for over 30 years, with a strong inerest in mathematics as well, i had neveer heard of this usage of "iff" before this discussion. I supposed that this was a typo. I would advise not using this term on Wikipedia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    That's hard to imagine. I'm in the same professional boat, but have seen iff used this way since at least the late 1980s, and frequently. May have something to do with which programming and scripting languages one work with. I agree, though, that we should use it neither in our article wording nor our guidelines, since it's a geekism. But I'm not sure why we're talking about this in this thread.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    Because someone used iff, then someone obviously thinking it was a typo or spelling mistake changed it to simply if, and then the originator changed it back. I didn't want people to start edit warring about it, so I brought up the fact it was not a widely known shorthand. As subsequent discussion establishes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There has been a lot of discussion on whether "née and/or "né" should be allowed, or are "pretentious". But I haven't seen anything suggesting a reson why the use of "née and/or "né" improves an article, compared to the use of "born". "Born" can be used to indicate the original birth name whatever the reason for a change. Anyone who reads English well enough to use this site will understand "born". It is not gender-specific. It does not require a template, nor a link to explain its meaning. Why not make it the preferred alternative, going forward? Oh and i strongly suggest that when used "born' should be followed by the full birth name, not merely the changed surname (when that is what changed). This reduces any possible confusion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    Why is gender-specific a problem? Others have mentioned it as if it were an issue, but we are dealing with one human being at the time of their birth. We still permit "he" and "she", why not née or "né? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    Which form does one use for a trans person? Or must one use "born" in that case? In any case there is a general tendency on Wikipedia to avoid gender-specific language as much as possible. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    I'd have thought it was pretty obvious: the sex that they were born with since that is what né(e) means! A new-born babe does not "identify", it just is. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    Last year on this page there was a discussion about having long-winded introductory sentences. If the page began "Jeffrey Preston Bezos (/ˈbeɪzoʊs/; born Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen; born January 12, 1964)" it would be too repetitive. The terms "né" and "née" are perfect in this sort of scenario as they replace the first and middle names. I write "born" twice because the word does not carry over the semicolon, so to speak. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 20:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    What is wrong with Jeffrey Preston Bezos (/ˈbeɪzoʊs/; born Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen, 1964) or Jeffrey Preston Bezos (/ˈbeɪzoʊs/; born 1964 as Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen)? I would not repeat "born". I would also omit the exact date of birth for living people, as per WP:DOB. It isn't really needed anyway, the year gives the relevant context. That shortens the sentence a bit. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    There's nothing wrong at all with those constructions (except that in my view—and there has been disagreement about this—the full birth date, if widely published, should be provided in the lead). The only reason I would opt to use né in this case is that the repetition of parts of the name may be a little too conspicuous, whereas writing just the surname at birth and "né" is—and again, this is just a preference thing—more sleek. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    In that case, I would say it's just a matter of concision. If the subject of an article only had the one, upon-marriage change of their surname, then "née LASTNAME" actually conveys slightly more information while being far more concise than "born FIRSTNAME MIDDLENAME LASTNAME". If it performs both functions like this, why not use it? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I wrote above: Can you provide a source for the statement that née and né may only be used for surname changes vis-à-vis marriage, please?
    Well I checked some sources:
    • Merriam-Webster gives: 1: used to identify a woman by her maiden family name; 2 : originally or formerly called and quotes the old New York State Theater [has been renamed] for David H. Koch and Avery Fisher (née Philharmonic) Hall at Lincoln Center for David Geffen.
    • Dictionary.com gives "placed after the name of a married woman to introduce her maiden name"
    • The online OED says Originally called; born (used in giving a married woman's maiden name after her surname)
    • Vocabulary.com gives If a woman marries and adopts her husband's last name, her former name becomes a thing of the past. If your grandmother's maiden name was "Smith," describe her as nee Smith. This works when people change their names for reasons other than marriage as well.
    • The free Dictionary gives 1. Born. Used to indicate the maiden name of a married woman. 2. Formerly known as.
    • The Urban Dictionary gives used after a woman's married name to introduce the family name by which she was known before she married; also used when anything is renamed
    • Collins English Dictionary gives You use née after a married woman's name and before you mention the surname she had before she got married.
    So there seems some support for my belief that née and né can be used for any change of name, although it seems to be a minority position. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Highly selective sourcing. Here's more (including from some of the very same dictionaries):
  • The American Heritage Dictionary: "2. Formerly known as." [11]
  • Merriam-Webster: "2: originally or formerly called" [12] – also encompasses extended/metaphoric usage, e.g. in reference to organizational name changes, and quotes an example of that usage.
  • Oxford Concise: "Originally called" [13] – and gives this as the primary meaning, with "maiden name" as second.
  • Collins: "born" (citing Webster's New World College Dictionary); later in same page: "born, previously, formerly". [14]
  • Random House Unabridged (via Dictionary.com): "born (placed after the name of a married woman to introduced her maiden name)", yet then followed by an extended/metaphoric example where it's used to indicate the difference between someone's stage and real name (and for a man at that – Mickey Rooney). [15]
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
My comment was not WP:CHERRYPICKING, SMcCandlish, and I resent the suggestion. I reported every dictionary site that appeared on the first 2 pages of a google search for "née definition" except Wiktionary, which I didn't consider reliable for the same reasons we don't cite Wikipedia itself. Perhaps I should have run additional searches or checked further pages. But I was looking for support for the contention that née could be used for any name change, and was surprised to find this a minority position in the sources I saw. Had I been cherry picking I would have omitted some sources which failed to support my contention. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@DESiegel: My bad! I confused some of your material with some from someone else, and misread you as suggesting that "née and né may only be used for surname changes vis-à-vis marriage" based on the the dictionary material you quoted. Sorry about that, and I struck the cherrypicking reference. In the end, I do not agree the broader usage "seems to be a minority position". It's not a vote (even off-site). Better-regarded, more comprehensive dictionaries usually include the broader meaning, and more compact and casual ones tend not to, but that's indicative of what they're choosing to include, not what they think is true. Otherwise all dictionaries would be massive unabridged ones. If even the AHD includes it, it's well-accepted, since AHD is the last bastion of hardcore prescriptivism, and the most resistant of all major dictionaries to any shift in meaning or usage.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thank you, SMcCandlish. I was trying not to claim more support for my view than was warranted, indeed to understate it if anything. I apparently did not analyze the sources sufficiently, merely reporting raw mentions. In any case, it seems pretty clear that "née" and "né" can be used for changes of name for reasons other than marriage, and for changes of other than jsut the surname. That does not, of course, settle how the MOS should recommend that "née" or "né" be used in Wikipedia articles, particularly biographies. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand the "it's not familiar enough [to me]" argument, I just don't find it terribly persuasive. Most dictionaries of any repute have these words, the marriage-unrelated usage is well represented in them, and they aren't flagged as obsolete or rare. Meanwhile, we have templates and linking, and we don't have a principle to not use words just because someone might not understand them (though WP:JARGON suggests avoiding pointless use of geeky material when plainer English will do). We shouldn't require these words to be used, since in any particular case something else might work better. But we shouldn't try to "ban" them either, since they're useful in leads and other places where we need to save space, and they're even the conventional terminology in some contexts like genealogy. If the world's collective mind doesn't implode when our compressed lead material has something like "fl. 453 BCE" in it, then it's not going to melt on contact with née, either. Ultimately, MoS's job is to guide editors in communicating effectively and consistently, not to dictate what wording they can use (we only get anywhere near that at MOS:WTW, regarding words that can be misinterpreted, confusing, or offensive).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish & DESiegel, would it be fair to say that the rough consensus thus far is that the wording shouldn't be restricted? It seems, at least to me, that most editors would prefer the openness of selection rather than having to choose between born and né/née.. do you agree? LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Looking at the responses in the order they were posted, I see: choice, choice, opposed, choice, prefer "born" but retain choice, use template but retain choice, opposed, choice, choice, prefer "born" but retain some choice, prefer "born" but retain some choice marginally, and choice. So, free choice dominates, and choice at least within some limits overwhelmingly dominates, with only two respondents totally opposed. And I think their concerns have already been addressed anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah it seems like or "née"for the past five days we've just been beating a dead horse while going down unrelated roads. I'm going to leave a tentative rough consensus and see if there is any push back (or anything to add). If nothing, we should look to close and update the MoS. LivinRealGüd (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the question here is not whether to mandate or prohibit any option, but to establish a best practice, a preferred or recommended option. I see two editors suggesting prohibiting the use of "née" and "né", and three indicating that "born" should be preferred and "née" permitted (one of those would strongly disfavor "né") and several others favoring no specification. I think that may be enough support for a preference for "born" that it can be indicated as preferred, but "née" and "né" are definitely acceptable for any name change, not just changes due to marriage. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Summation of Discussion

The rough consensus is that the Manual of Style for Biographies of Living Persons should not restrict the usage of née/né and born. Subjects whose surnames change by way of marriage should use the feminine née and masculine né as it so pertains to the gender they identify with. The usage of né and né should be followed by the subject's surname before marriage. The MoS should remove (and respectively explain) any restrictions on the usage of né/née and "born".LivinRealGüd (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That makes it sound like né(e) has to be used to describe name changes owing to marriage, which is certainly not how I read the discussion. I would go with something like When née or né is used to indicate surname changes owing to marriage, it should match the gender the subject identifies as. You identify as (or not as) man or woman, not with. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I cannot agree that the above statement correctly summarizes this discussion. Instead I would suggest something like this:
    The rough consensus is that the Manual of Style for Biographies of Living Persons should not restrict the usage of "née", "né", and "born" to indicate changes of name. Any of these may be used to indicate the original birth name, or birth surname if "née" or "né" is used, regardless of the reason for the change of name. If "née" or "né" is used, "née" should be used for persons identified as female, and "né" for persons identified as male. However, "born" is somewhat favored over "née" or "né", and best practice is to use "born" in future, but not to change either form to the other except with local consensus.
    Could people accept that? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Stop short of “However, ‘born’ is considered best practice and should be used in the future”, and I think you reflect consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
In the future, lets not say "I cannot agree that the above statement correctly summarizes this discussion" if you change only a couple words, instead say "just add this one thing", etc. Anyway, if we combine all that was summarized above we would get:
The rough consensus is that the Manual of Style for Biographies of Living Persons should not restrict the usage of "née", "né", and "born" to indicate changes of name. Any of these may be used to indicate the original birth name, or birth surname if "née" or "né" is used, regardless of the reason for the change of name. If "née" or "né" is used, "née" should be used for persons identified as female, and "né" for persons identified as male. Anything else to add? LivinRealGüd (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Should {{nee}} be mentioned, or is it best to leave it out of the summary? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with the discussion regarding that template but in any case, I don't think it was too reflective of any consensus--best to leave out. If everyone is okay with this after 2 days, although I can prep for closing, it would be best if someone else could actually close the discussion (to do this see: WP:CLOSE) and I (or someone else) can go ahead and update the MoS. Best, LivinRealGüd (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

RFC Question

Should née and né be used to indicate birth surnames? The alternative is "born" followed by the full birth name or the surname at birth.

RFC Consensus

The rough consensus is that the Manual of Style for Biographies of Living Persons should not restrict the usage of "née", "né", and "born" to indicate changes of name. Any of these may be used to indicate the original birth name, or birth surname if "née" or "né" is used, regardless of the reason for the change of name. If "née" or "né" is used, "née" should be used for persons identified as female, and "né" for persons identified as male.

To closing editor (anyone can close): please post {{Discussion top}} at the top of the article and {{Discussion bottom}} at the bottom. Any further discussion about the topic can be undertaken in another, new post. After it is closed, an editor may update the MoS. In any case, editors should check what is added to the MoS to ensure it is consistent with the discussion summary above. LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not necessary to add anything, only to remove the current restriction. DrKay (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
DrKay, Would you mind closing the RFC? I want to make sure everything is done correctly. LivinRealGüd (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I commented in the discussion, so I'll leave it to an uninvolved editor. DrKay (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I just saw your discussion comments, no problem. @Numerounovedant, I don't think you were apart of this RFC, would you mind closing? LivinRealGüd (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2018 (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.

Relevant RFC

Resolved
 – This specialised-style fallacy was WP:SNOWBALL rejected.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) override WP:COMMONNAME in all cases?, a recently opened RFC which is relevant to the subject of this page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography – Current title is wrong for the scope. This MoS page is not only about writing an article that is a biography, but about all biographical material (though some bits of it, such as handling of biographical leads, are specific to bio articles).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename broke many redirects

Resolved

A number of redirects seem to have been broken by this move, notably MOS:NICKNAME. Not sure what to do about it. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It used to be necessary to do everything manually, but usually a bot comes through and fixes the double redirects fairly quickly. Unless there's something about the subpage status or the MOS prefix that works differently, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Of course, you can alter the redirects to point to the new title immediately if you'd like. Dekimasuよ! 05:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The bot usually works so fast, it often beats me to it, and some RM admins don't bother doing it manually any more. It rarely takes more than 5 minutes to fix them all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I manually fixed all those that the bot didn't get to yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge MOS:JOBTITLES to this MoS page

 Done

I propose merging MOS:JOBTITLES, presently in MOS:CAPS, to MOS:BIO instead, where it's more appropriate, and leaving behind just a summary pointer. Bizarrely, MOS:BIO doesn't have the string "job title" anywhere in it, which may explain why there's so much confusion on Wikipedia about what to do with job titles. There are also title-related considerations that are appropriate at MOS:BIO which would not be on-topic in MOS:CAPS.

Merge roadmap:

  • Use the heading of that section, "Titles of people", as a top-level heading in MOS:BIO, after the "Names" section.
  • Move the extant "Occupational titles", "Academic titles", "Post-nominal letters", and "Honorifics" sections (probably in that order) to be under this "Titles of people" heading (most of them are mis-placed under "Names").
  • Merge the rest of the MOS:JOBTITLES material to "Occupational titles". Massage the text as needed to flow well from "Occupational titles" to "Academic titles", which would be a sub-sub-section of the former; they might even be completely mergeable if much of the wording is effectively redundant.
  • Consider renaming the section from "Occupational titles" to something more inclusive like "Positions, offices, and occupational titles".
  • The WP:SUMMARY presently at MOS:BIO#Occupational titles should move to MOS:CAPS#Titles of people (with wording tweaks if necessary for the context); then reverse the hatnote relationship between these sections.
  • Retarget the relevant shortcuts.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

See the section just above this one, "Requested move 14 June 2018". I think it makes more sense to emphasize that mosbio applies to all biographical info than to separate out the parts that could apply to non-biography articles. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This should indeed be added to MOS:BIO and it's a bit surprising that it was missing in the first place. --Gonnym (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge – It took me a while to chase down all those places where this information appears. Completely agree it should all be in one place, here, with summaries elsewhere. Your plan looks exactly right to me. Are you volunteering to implement it? Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    Yes. I would have just done it, but people are more apt to revert sudden guideline changes (even non-substantive ones) than otherwise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge per above reasoning. Your version would flow better, and consolidate the info for future readers. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 23:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Just completed the merge. I think I've tracked down all the shortcuts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

City, state in infoboxes

I was wondering if someone could clarify this, as it seems in recent months I have noticed a trend in multiple articles of listing only the city in birth/death locations in infoboxes, typically major cities such as Los Angeles or New York City. From my understanding, it was always common practice to include city, state/province/territory, and country, irrespective of whether or not the city is culturally well-known. I know that Associated Press style allows for certain cities to be named without a state following, but I am unaware of Wikipedia having this policy. Is there any particular reason for this? --Drown Soda (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Often this is per the documentation of the relevant infobox - for example, {{infobox person}} specifies that "it is not necessary to state: New York City, New York, United States when New York City, US conveys essentially the same information more concisely". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
And there's a trend in the main text to just give the city name for "major world cities", whatever that really means. Everyone competent to read English Wikipedia probably does know that New York is in the US. The problem is that there's not a clear line to draw. Does everyone also know where Melbourne is? And what about London? When a Canadian or at least an eastern one says "London" they probably mean London, Ontario (similarly, New Mexicans generally mean Las Vegas, New Mexico when they say "Las Vegas"; the place in Nevada with the casinos is called "Vegas"). I've always preferred being specific, though one need not do it robotically. E.g., "Sam Foo (1967– ) is a British painter. ... Born in London, Foo has worked from Edinburgh since 1999." That doesn't need to say "London, England", etc. Piped links are good enough for the cities. But some people don't even want to include the links for cities like Chicago and Manchester and Berlin, just more obscure ones like Los Gatos, California. The controlling MoS guidance seems to be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked, and it's mutated a bit over time. Nor has it typically been applied to infoboxes, which aren't regular prose but more of a summarization and navigation system. Of all the MoS stuff this is probably the material I'm least certain has a clear and solid consensus.

It might be worth doing a kind of "take the community pulse" RfC on what we want to do about a) placename specificity and b) placename linking. There are at least four contexts to consider: lead, post-lead first mention, and infobox, plus |location= parameters in citations. The old community-wide RfC on what to do about date linking and auto-formatting might be a model.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't need the state/province/county of the town/city in the infobox unless it's ambiguous. GiantSnowman 08:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Ambiguousness is what I presume to be key here, but the issue with that from my perspective (as others have pointed out) is defining what is and isn't ambiguous. For example, just because most people generally know that New York City is in the state of New York doesn't mean that all readers will. In case of the issue that SMcCandlish raises about cities with the same names, it would be necessary to specify the state in which they are located (e.g. Portland, Oregon/Portland, Maine). As I noted in my original post, the trend of naming cities alone is one that I've noticed primarily in infoboxes, and often in the case of major metropolises such as New York City or Los Angeles (see the infoboxes of the Kate Spade or Marvel Rea articles), but I still thought it would be useful to check in as I don't recall this being the standard in past years (and I am unaware of any developments or consensus on it). On one hand, I think brevity is important, but on the other, it seems more uniform to include city, state/province/territory, country as a standard practice. --Drown Soda (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, relevance is also a consideration. In most contexts of simply mentioning NYC, the fact that it's in New York state isn't important. As for infobox practices, historically we've been using minimal verbiage in the lead, and more complete information in the infobox, when it comes to locations; but this seems to be shifting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Drown Soda. LivinRealGüd (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the note from {{Infobox person}}. At best, it was based on debatable WP:LOCALCONSENSUS from Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_36#New_York_City,_New_York,_U.S..—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I've re-added it, best to discuss there. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Coming out vs transitioning

In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out.

"Coming out" should be replaced with "transitioning". I made that change, but @Blueboar: reverted my change, saying:

No, we peg it on the announcement of identity (ie coming out), not the actual transition

I think some people think "coming out" is a synonym for transitioning because public figures tend to come out when they transition. But that's not necessarily the case. Somebody can transition (and change their name) privately, and be known by that name for many years before they "come out".

Example: Althea Garrison transitioned privately, prior to being elected, then was outed later by the press.[1]

--ChiveFungi (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

That’s a good point. I think it was written with the scenario in mind where someone might be privately transitioning for some time, at a later point they become notable, but only come out and publicly transition after that. Either way, it would be clearer to simply say “...only when the person was notable under that name.”—Trystan (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Trystan. --GRuban (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"under that name" is a good phrasing. Thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that does seem reasonable, and it's also less jargony and thus more difficult to misinterpret.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
My point was simply that (per BLP) we can’t label someone as being trans until they have actually stated their identity as being trans. That is closer to “coming out” than “transition”. If there is another, alternative, wording that uses neither term, I am fine with that. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I agree.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "FACT CHECK: Is Danica Roem the First Transgender State Legislator in the U.S.?". Snopes.com. Retrieved 2018-06-21.

Linking to surname articles

I have a difficulty to find a specific guideline at BIO, WP:APO/S, WP:ACCESSIBILITY, MOS:LINK, and WP:WBA for linking to surname articles. I would like to use this case as an example: recently was made informative article Modrić (surname) and it links as well was linked to at Luka Modrić (see revert). Considering MOS:UNDERLINK (In general, links should be created for... Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers; no specific policy at MOS:OL) and WP:AUDIENCE (People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions... It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully, Would a reader want to follow some of the links?, Establishing such connections via wikilink is a good way to establish context), arguably the most of the readers are not native speakers of Slavic/Serbo-Croatian language and hence do not know the surname's etymological meaning, and probably would be interested to follow the link and learn something about it and the subject's direct/indirect ethnohistorical ancestry (the surname article has reliable sources, one of which directly mentions the subject, and links to Bunjevci ethnic group). In conclusion, should biography articles include a link to the surname articles, depending on the context and article's quality, if not according to what reasoning?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I support linking the initial mention of the subject's surname in the body of the article. Of course, it should be decided on a surname-per-surname basis. This seems like a lot of work, but members of WikiProject Anthroponymy would surely be happy to help. wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Disagree: while in some isolated cases this may be useful, in most cases the etymology of a person's name is minimally relevant to their biography and to people interested in learning about them. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Also disagree. This is never encyclopedically useful unless a) the target surname page is an article about a specific family/dynasty, and b) the bio subject is a member of it and at least some aspect of their notability is tied to that membership. It's far more useful to readers, anyway, to explain such a case in the prose of the article, e.g. "a member of the prominent American business and political Kennedy family". It's just downright aberrant to do something like "Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (August 7, 1963 – August 9, 1963) was ..." in the lead. There's a reason that WP:APO/S is a WP:PROJPAGE essay, not a guideline.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
It wouldn't be included in the lead, that is against general principles, but in the body of the article as it was done. Contrary to you, I find it encyclopedical if the article is of enough quality i.e. has a good and reliable etymological and onomastic coverage, nevertheless if the subject belongs and links to some prominent or noble family/dynasty. Perhaps it isn't even a matter of whether it should how much if it can be linked.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not encyclopedic, per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and MOS:TRIVIA, MOS:LINK, etc., unless the target surname page is an article about a specific family/dynasty, and the person is a member of it and at least some aspect of their notability is tied to that membership. It's otherwise exactly like doing this: "... Elvis Presley's famous chorus 'You ain't nothin' but a hound dog' ...".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you link to specific statements of INDISCRIMINATE, TRIVIA and LINK with which you substantiated your opinion? After reading them I do not understand how they do not support it i.e. make it unencyclopedic. The target surname page is exactly about the person surname and ethnohistorical ancestry, it's not like linking some random word which is familiar to readers. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I should probably let someone else do that, since when someone does the "I just don't get it" thing, my policy explications run to multiple paragraphs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
To clarify SMcCandlish's explanation (with which I agree): From Indiscriminate, "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia": Having a surname in common with other notable people is clearly identifiable but in most cases (like for George Springer) linking does not give more information on the subject. LINK says that unless a subject is "particularly relevant to the context in the article" it should not be linked; most people's surnames do not tell as much about them as Slavics'/Serbo-Croats'. MOS:LINKCLARITY and MOS:SPECIFICLINK may shed some light on why the way that the Modric article had surname links was a bad idea. (The Trivia guideline is not particularly relevant, but the essay "WP:Handling trivia", in the section Connective trivia, essentially makes the point that linking from the surname to biographies is more helpful to readers than linking a biography to the surname.) Hameltion (talk, contribs) 04:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I keep forgetting that despite RfCs suggesting we should consolidate the trivia-related material, we have a whole disambiguation page worth of stuff; the hatnote atop MOS:TRIVIA: "... You may be looking for the essay Wikipedia:Handling trivia (to which WP:TRIVIA formerly pointed), or the related essay Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. You may also be looking for the essay Wikipedia:Trivial mentions, or the Wikipedia:Notability guideline."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The lead date-range vs. full dates thing

Sounding the depths of WP style guidelines; sailor's exact birth date unknown

Someone removed the idea that biographical leads might just use a general year range instead of full birth/death dates, if the full dates are in the article body. The rationale was that it doesn't reflect practice, including in FAs. The deletion was reverted as an undiscussed major change, but it may actually be worth discussing.

I argued previously to retain the wording that was removed (and may have even written that version of it; I forget), due to the number of editors in the "leads must be as concise as possible, no matter what" camp at the time. I don't think they're steering the ship any longer. Clarity is more important than brevity, especially in an era when over half of our readers are accessing the site via mobile devices at least some of the time, and many of them do not read beyond the lead and infobox unless they're looking for something specific.

Pointers to this thread have been posted at WT:MOS, WT:MOSLEAD, WT:MOSNUM, and WT:WPBIO. It might actually be worth putting a {{RfC}} tag on this and notifying WP:VPPOL; or maybe just "usual discussion" is sufficient to take the pulse.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC); updated: 13:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I was the 'someone' who removed it. Using only the years of birth/death in the lede (as opposed to full dates) is unhelpful not reflected in practice, and I'm not sure why we have a MOS which provides readers with less information... GiantSnowman 13:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't suggest providing less information – just less information in the lead. EEng 14:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Dates in the lead are to help the reader identify the topic of the article, eg to distinguish a 20th century person from an 18th century person of same name. Years are sufficient unless we are dealing with two eg footballers born in the same year. The lead is not sourced. The full dates of birth and death, with places where known, should appear elsewhere in the article with full sources. That way the reader is provided with more, sourced, information. PamD 14:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
(a) Because the infobox is where people know they can look to quickly find matter-of-record reference information, should they desire it; in the opening sentence – the purpose of which is to set context – it's just clutter. (b) FAs do follow MOS, which allows either full dates or just years in the opening. EEng 14:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I've not seen a recent FA that only uses years; and what's the point in a MOS which says 'either is fine' - how does that help with disputes? GiantSnowman 15:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Could it be the FA reviewers insist on picky made-up rules that they cannot gain consensus for in the MOS? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:GUH. EEng 15:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Background: There is something like a WP:FACTION at WP:FAC who aren't happy with MoS (and various other guidelines and such). While they get really noisy sometimes (see top half of Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive66, including multiple proposals to either WP:POLICYFORK their own "anti-MoS" or change WP:FACR to make FAs magically exempt from almost all of MoS), overall it's rather harmless noise, and not very frequent. The real FA-related problem is individual page WP:OWNers – editors with a long-term vested interest in a particular article as "their baby", who are resistant to any change of any kind at it, and bizarrely often convinced that if it passed FA in 2005 that it's immune to all post-2005 guideline and policy changes. They're wrong.

On-topic: if the MoS says "A or B is acceptable", then FAC isn't ignoring MoS when they go with B. I posted this quasi-RfC on for the same reason GiantSnowman asks "what's the point in a MOS which says 'either is fine' ...?" MoS should recommend something specific, or not say anything at all, unless there's an ENGVAR or other important rationale to say something like "either variant is fine so don't fight about it" in a particular case. This doesn't seem to be such a case. We really either should recommend full dates in the lead or recommend that they be moved into the body when the article is past the stub state.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 

I'd be all for that, but I think it's too steep a hill to climb right now. EEng 23:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What PamD said. Stuffing vital statistics down the reader's throat literally three or four words in is a brilliant recipe for getting him to lose interest right off the bat. EEng 14:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the general sentiment of WP:LEAD should be applied to everything in the lead, including the set of parenthetical statements that can often be found after the first bold use of the topic's name. So I'm generally agreeable even to advising "just the years, unless ambiguous" or maybe even "only add the birthdate/birth years in the lead if ambiguous". --Izno (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm no fan of rigid prescription, but I think it's time for reform – these full dates have been cluttering leads for too long. The current text reads:
The opening paragraph should usually have dates of birth and (when applicable) death. These specific dates are important information about the person being described, but if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context.
Here's a thought:
The opening sentence should usually give birth date (or birth–death dates), but if full dates are mentioned in the article body or infobox elsewhere [modified per comments below], simple year are usually sufficient in the opening sentence, to provide context. [Footnote: Exceptions include cases where someone with a similar name was born or died in the same year, or there is some special significance to the specific dates (e.g. John Adams, who died on July 4, American Independence Day).]
I actually think the "special significance" bit is too much in the weeds, but I'm throwing it out there. EEng 16:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
So are we going to have to have brief stubs which have a lede which says 'X (born 1990) is an American musician' and then a section immediately after that which states 'X was born on 25 June 1990'? Absolutely ridiculous. GiantSnowman 16:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you're stupid enough to write a brief stub that way, then I guess yes. If you're smart enough to realize that in a brief stub it's awkward to repeat overlapping information so quickly, then you won't put the full date in the body and instead put it in the opening sentence. Or, since even a stub might have an infobox, give year-year in the lead sentence, and full dates in the infobox. EEng 16:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Infoboxes are not supposed to contain claims that are not in the main text of the article. But yes, in a longer article (one long enough to have a separate sentence about birthplace) the same sentence can and should contain the full date of birth. It should not be required to be in the lead. (It should also not be required to be kept out of the lead, which is all GiantSnowman actually seems to be arguing about.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the infobox giving data that's nowhere else, as long as it carries a cite. EEng 17:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE disagrees. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I realize that, but that's overly rigid. There's a similar rule for the lead, except that rule says Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article – that's what it should say about infoboxes. Here's an example: the infobox for Sacred Cod says it weighs 80 lb. There's really nowhere natural, in the article proper, to mention that, but it probably should be somewhere, so why not the infobox?. EEng 18:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I still cannot fathom why you would seek to remove a small amount of important biographical information from the lede. GiantSnowman 19:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Because the full dates are not important, and they clutter not just the lead, not just the lead sentence, but the very first few words of the article. You might disagree with the balancing of desiderata, but if you genuinely "can't fathom" what we're saying, then we may as well quit discussing. EEng 19:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe try and persuade me rather than being insulting and rude? GiantSnowman 19:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Well which is it: you disagree with what four others are saying, or you don't understand ("can't fathom") it? EEng 21:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
On I-boxes: We do need to revise the wording. For one thing, it's never, ever been accurate about the intent and practice of infoboxes. The original infobox, {{Taxobox}}, explicitly exists to provide a full taxonomic run-down of an organism (or group thereof), and this information never appears in the article body (only the most relevant taxa do). Similarly, the infoboxes on domestic animal breeds house links to various organization's official breed standards, and these do not otherwise appear in the article except when they're used as citation for statements about the breed's features. Another: The I-box for TV stations/networks provides a tremendous amount of quasi-technical detail (see, e.g., Sony Ten), and there's no way on earth that all that stuff will every appear in the body. The real fact is that infoboxes serve two very distinct purposes: 1) As highly compressed meta-summaries of the key details of the subject, in a different form than the lead section; it's a tabular-data abstract. 2) As a sidebar of factoids that are [sometimes only marginally] encyclopedic, but are too much of a rote litany of details to integrate into the article body without making readers fall asleep; this function is for looking up minor detailia. Another example is the typical cell phone make/model article, which has full tech specs in the sidebar, but only the most important tech specs spelled out long-form in the body. So, the guideline is not only out-of-step with well-accepted community editing practice, it has been since the day it was written.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Going back to that brief stub: there's no problem having a brief lead sentence and then in the next paragraph the detailed date, with its source, even if that's virtually all that the article comprises. All our information on birth and death dates is of course sourced, so needs to be shown in the body of the article where it's appropriate to add the citation. The lead is generally unsourced, just because the information is duplicated elsewhere in the article. PamD 21:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The first-draft proposed re-write up there has a fatal flaw, at "if full dates are mentioned in the ... infobox". This is tail wagging dog, cart pulling horse. The infobox is a summary derived from the article (including its lead), not vice versa, and it is entirely optional. While drama typically surrounds attempts to do so, an infobox can actually be completely removed from an article. Thus, nothing in the lead can be dependent on its presence.
Aside from that issue, juggling the wording around isn't something I care about much. I'm not even sure I care if we go for recommending almost always using just a year range or always using full dates, as long as we recommend one or other more firmly that "do what you like". I don't buy the John Adams footnote, though. It isn't significant, just blind coincidence. The Continental Congress's Declaration of Independence had nothing to do with Adams's death, and his death had nothing to do with the declaration. There's just no relationship at all. Its a lot like the linking to surname articles thread elsewhere on this talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I changed the proposal to avoid the infobox issue. Now what do you think? EEng 23:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
It would still be taken to include "infobox" again, so same problem. There's not any other elsewhere but "in the article body", so I would just say that. And not have the July 4 thing. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I intentionally made the text silent on that point so that can be a separate fight. BTW here's an example of an article giving full birthdate only in the infobox, with no natural way (or reason, for that matter) to include it in the main text: Lionel de Jersey Harvard. EEng 11:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, faintly hoping you might still be able to get on board with this very minor wording change. EEng 17:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@EEng: I'm not sure exactly what wording we're talking about at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The opening sentence should usually give birth date (or birth–death dates), but if full dates are given elsewhere, just the birth year (or birth–death years) ranges are usually sufficient in the opening sentence, to provide context. [Footnote: Exceptions include cases where another person with a similar name was born or died in the same year, or there is some special significance to a specific date (e.g. John Adams, who died on July 4, American Independence Day).]
EEng 19:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, nudge. EEng 14:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@EEng:I would go with "... but if full dates are given in the body of the article, just the birth year ...". That actually gets around the infobox issue. People are otherwise apt to misunderstand that if the full date is in the i-box it need not otherwise be in the article at all, which is wrong. And the Adams point doesn't work: it's blind, trivial coincidence. Better to use someone whose death date is commemorated as a memorial holiday; there's probably one somewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
(I changed mentioned --> given in your text and my text just above.) To the extent that the infobox isn't supposed to have stuff not in the body, then saying the full dates are "given elsewhere" is the same a saying "given in the body", so it shouldn't matter which wording is used except that your wording drags in infobox issues that we can avoid using my wording. So can you live with my wording? EEng 23:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I am the editor that reverted the change and suggested discussion here instead. My position is that it should be allowed, and is usually preferable, to only use years in the lead sentence and to state the full dates later (probably in the same part of the article that the birthplace and parentage of the subject is mentioned). I think the lead should as much as possible focus on the essential and significant aspects of what the person was known for, and their astrological sign or whatever else one might infer from the full birthdate just isn't essential and significant. To put it bluntly, it's clutter, and should be relegated to later parts of the article to allow readers to get to the point more quickly. I would support stronger wording that, in general, the lead sentence should only include the years, but unfortunately I doubt there's consensus for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a peripherally related concurrent discussion open at Template talk:Infobox person#New York City. Infoboxes have mostly been using full dates, because they are stand-alone abstracts, in a sense, and are a form of tabular data. For the same reason, they often have provide more detailed location information, e.g. "Oxford, England, United Kingdom" or "Los Angeles, California, United States". This isn't done in the lead because the contextual prose makes it redundant (e.g. "Snorkel X. Weasel (1943–1989) was an American underwater basketweaver best known for establishing the Watery Weavers School in San Francisco, California", or whatever).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't know that I've even seen an article where the subject's full birth/death dates are known that doesn't use them in the lead. Wikipedia wide practice for at least a decade now has been full dates, and I see no reason why the MOS should reflect anything other than that. The idea that full dates are not important, or would cause a leader to lose interest is, frankly, ludicrous. If either was the case, we would have a hell of a lot more than a half dozen or so editors pushing to reduce the accuracy of an encyclopedia. Resolute 23:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    Do you have anything less fallacious than a pooh-pooh or argumentum ad populum to justify your position? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    You mean, "That's the only way I've ever seen, so it must be the right way and the only way conceivable" isn't good logic? EEng 00:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    Well, this really is just WP:IDONTKNOWIT and also WP:YOUCANSEARCH. Look through GAs and FAs for ten seconds or so. :-) E.g.: William A. Spinks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, we know that the FA enthusiasts have made their own much stricter rules that have nothing to do with MOS, and their enforcement of those rules has caused those articles to all have long dates in the lead. That has very little to do with whether those rules are a good idea. And citing the results of their enforcement as evidence that it is a good idea is just fallacious. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    My point was the opposite; please look at the GA I just pointed to (though this was really for Resolute). Some FAs also have this "just a year range in the lead" style, though it seems to be older ones. (I do agree with the general assessment that FAC has been making up its own pseudo-rules and/or just defying/ignoring real MoS ones, and that this is a problem – I addressed it in some detail above, somewhere); but MoS itself is wishy-washy on this particular matter, so FAC and GAN aren't at fault on this, I would think.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks for the clarification. Still, it does make an amusing game to look through FAs and calculate how much one has to skip over to get to the point of the lead sentence (winner so far: Pedro Álvares Cabral, with 218 characters from his name until you find out that he discovered Brazil, with Alcibiades a close second). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I've notified WT:FA. GiantSnowman 11:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the birthday and date of death should be at the top of the article, either in the lede or infobox. That may well be the reason the reader is consulting the article, and I'd rather not make them hunt (in the case of date of death quite a ways). In general, I agree with removing things that may lose us the reader, but our articles may be more useful with the date at the top.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox is perfect for that. EEng 15:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Except, of course, there are a large number of articles without inboxes... GiantSnowman 15:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
That's easily fixed. EEng 17:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Not when you have editors (particularly those that edit classical music-related biographies) vehmently opposed to them. GiantSnowman 18:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't mind letting the classical music editors have their little fiefdom. The rest of us can write articles people will actually find useful and enjoy reading. EEng 23:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't mind if the MoS says alternatives are allowed, but the overwhelming practice is to give the full dates in the lead if they are known. This is not just the practice of some "faction" at FA. I checked 30 GA and 30 B-class biography articles. I found one that used only years in the lead, but had full dates elsewhere. Three others had years for pre-modern persons where the exact date was not mentioned and is probably unknown. Four had no dates in the lead; with one exception these were also pre-modern. So out of 54 articles with specific dates to provide, 96% included them in the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
For years we linked and autoformatted dates, but the project recovered from that bad idea as well. EEng 17:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I've seen a bio where the full dates are reliably sourced but aren't in the lead (not counting BLP objections). The MoS should reflect what is actually done. SarahSV (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Apparently you haven't actually read the discussion so far. And no, MOS should reflect best practices, which is what we're talking about. EEng 21:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
But that isn't best practice on Wikipedia. Best practice and widespread practice is to include full dates in the lead if they're reliably sourced and don't cause BLP issues. SarahSV (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
You're saying that is best which is most widespread? Really? EEng 23:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In my opinion it does not matter whether the lead contains full dates or just years (its a matter of style and can be left to editors to decide). However the full dates in the lead may be of help to the people over at Wikidata.
What matters is when an editor removes the dates from the body of the text, because in doing so the lead either has to contain an inline citation to the source (or sources) that gives the DOB-DOD or the dates do not have an inline citation to support them. As the lead is meant to be a summary of the body of the article the article body ought to contain the dates along with a supporting inline citation (then there is no need for supporting citation in the lead. -- PBS (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This whole thing does seem rather like an argument for argument's sake. The one substantive point offered in favour of a change is that readers may put off by the clutter in the first line when the full birth and death dates are given in the lead, and "lose interest" in the article. Is there any objective evidence that this is so? Otherwise I suggest we all move on. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    Of course there's no "objective evidence" – where would that come from? – so we just have to rely on our judgement. Anywhere in an article, each little thing added must be evaluated for the value it brings versus the iota of the reader's limited budget of attention and interest which it consumes. If we think this doesn't matter, then let't put in the place of birth and death too, and cause of death, and specific time of birth and death, and ... – after all, some readers are after those things, so why not serve them up right there at the beginning of the article as well? What readers need to know is X was a [place] [era] [occupation/notability], either to learn the key facts for the first time or to confirm they've reached the right article. You want to grab them with that right away. While the article should certainly have all that matter-of-record stuff somewhere, the specific month-and-day of birth and death is just about the least useful thing we could offer a newcomer literally first thing after the subject's name. It's an astonishing inversion of priorities when you think about it, a small one perhaps, but every little bit counts. EEng 23:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    • You do realize that the status quo is to allow year-only dates, and the proposed change is to disallow them and force all lead-sentence dates to be in the long format? Because your wording suggests the opposite. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
      That is what happened in the edit that spurred the discussion, but once it was opened, some people began suggesting a push to eliminate full dates from the lead as clutter. So now two changes, from opposite perspectives, are represented in the thread. --RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
      No, my proposal, essentially, was to change from saying that years-only "may be suffient" to saying they're "usually sufficient". Hardly a seismic shift. EEng 00:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
      I haven't looked to see when the change was made (i.e. when "years only in the lead" was added to this guideline), but the point is that editors should not add to the MoS advice that clearly goes against standard practice. RfCs are needed for this kind of change. SarahSV (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
      I think it was added on 16 June 2010. --RL0919 (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
      (edit conflict) I also advertised this thread around quite a bit, because what the actual consensus on the matter is has been open to question for quite some time (same with the location formatting stuff that's being discussed concurrently, especially at Template talk:Infobox person). On the meta point: Due to WP:EDITING policy, and guideline pages not being protected against editing, people will edit them to reflect, in usually good faith, what they think best practice is. We just have to deal with it. It's more productive, by orders of magnitude, to simply have the discussion than to castigate or complain about there not having been a discussion. It's one of those not-a-bureaucracy matters. Lots of productive changes happen when people do something bold, and a BRD ensues. (Though lots of drama can happen too; two-edged sword.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The degree of clutter in lead sentences has become laughable. Anything that mitigates this is to be supported. --John (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's some detail readers really want to know right off [16]:
James Nicholas "Jim" Gray (born January 12, 1944; lost at sea January 28, 2007; declared deceased May 16, 2012) was an American computer scientist ...
EEng 13:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, the lost at sea and declared deceased things were major newspaper stories at the time. So maybe there are readers for whom this is the first thing they want to know. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Probably not the declared part; that's legal trivia that really only matters for settling his estate and such things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
My point exactly. EEng 14:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, Jesus. How many months has it been since we just had this discussion? There is a small group of editors who would like to force the removal of everything they can from the lead parentheticals, and screw editorial judgement or what readers actually want (and what evidence is there that any reader ever has stopped reading an article because they ran into a full birthdate?). This group is very vocal and will continue pushing for this several times a year, it seems, always dredging up ridiculous, easily fixable edge cases that don't represent common practice. This is not what the MoS is for. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Not Oh, Jesus, but au contraire. For ten years [17] the guideline has said that full dates are optional in the "opening parenthetical", and it's a small group of editors who would like to remove that flexibility. This thread started exactly because someone tried to do that. I'm happy the way the guideline is, though I do think the wording could be improved, as discussed above. EEng 00:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
There are enough editors here who are not arguing to "restore flexibility" but to reverse the inflexibility (and have been for a long time), and the arguments remain just as ridiculously insupportable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
No idea who you're saying did or tried to do what. EEng 04:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Mm hm. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox person discussions

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussions elsewhere

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Consolidation of MOS:BIO

I've resolved all the out-standing merge tags at WP:Manual of Style/Biography, including:

No adjustments to the main MoS page should be needed.

Not done yet:

  • The merge of WP:Manual of Style/Proper names into MOS:BIO, MOS:CAPS, and MOS:TEXT, as appropriate. We decided to do that over a year ago (because the page is redundant and disused, and a few bits in it cannot be found in the pages people actually refer to), but no one's gotten around to it yet.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There's been a minor flare-up about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#On wholesale changes; it seem to mostly be predicated on the idea that there wasn't discussion/consensus for the merge, rather than any particular content-related objections; but there was actually a consensus discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Job titles that are used "generically"

In MOS:JOBTITLES, the phrase "should be in lower case when used generically" causes some editors to veer off the course that this MoS has set for lower-case job titles except under three specific conditions (When followed by a person's name to form a title/When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name/When a formal title for a specific entity ... is addressed as a title or position in and of itself). Some editors feel that they can capitalize if the job title is not utterly and unassailably generic. For them, "senior vice president" is generic, but "Senior Vice President of Football Operations" must be capitalized because it "is not a common and generic title that every company has". See talk page for Template:Washington Redskins staff and the edit summary that accompanied its changing back to upper case. Can we tweak the phrase "when used generically" to help editors understand that job titles should only be in upper case when there is a stinking good reason, like the three reasons spelled out? Chris the speller yack 17:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chris the speller: That's just a failure of reading comprehension. "Is itself generic" and "is used generically" aren't synonymous, or even conceptually related. That said, we can probably clarify it. Did you have a particular suggestion?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, rather than try to monkey with the "generically" wording, just spelling it out should be more effective [18].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed MOS:JOBTITLES tweak

Unopposed, thus implemented.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:57, 25 July 2018 (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.

Old draft; ignore ...
Capitalization is optional for commercial and informal titles: OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare, team co-captain Chan

[The above version raised an objection.]

An earlier version, I think, had addressed this, but it's been lost in the shuffle over the years. The simplest approach is probably this:

Add:

Even when used with a name, capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles: OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare, team co-captain Chan

Rationale: This would better reflect contemporary usage, both off-site and (among those who don't read much MoS) on-site. It would help us avoid dreadful "capitalization forests" like: According to Clovis Wildcats Senior Player Development Advisor and Team B Head Training Coach Sam Uskilith .... It will also encourage use of lowercase for trivial titles: During the robbery, night-shift assistant manager Pat Strelicz was .... It will also be a readability boon (excessive capitalization slows reading and decreases comprehensibility).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments on JOBTITLES proposal

After reading it a few more times, I came to see that you meant for capitalization to be optional when used with a name, and I agree with your suggestion. Chris the speller yack 04:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't a better phraseology be capitalization is discouraged ? Tarl N. (discuss) 23:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    Well, that would be a sudden guideline reversal on that subset of titles. I'm just looking to optionalize, for the titles we don't really need to capitalize, because the real world increasingly doesn't. If almost all of those are lower-cased a year or two later, that would be a clear signal to propose moving it into the "never capitalize this" basket. I take a WP:There is no deadline approach to these things. MoS changes can potentially affect millions of articles; for something this broad, it's best to reduce a hard rule to a soft one, and see where practice wants to go over time. And on something like this, it's not that any style is wrong, it's just producing bad results when "do capitalize in this circumstance" is applied as a rule rather than an option.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that it should not be mandatory to always capitalize... nor should it be mandatory to always de-capitalize. We should follow overall usage in sources, determined on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
    The proposed wording doesn't say anything about mandatorily de-capitalizing them (something someone above suggested, though). The entire point is that RS aren't consistent, and that the formerly dominant practice of capitalizing every job title when used in front of a name has noticeably slipped in professional writing over the last two generations., specifically with regard to commercial job titles vs. titles of public office. E.g., it is common in contemporary journalism to use XYZCo senior vice president Pat Foobar said ..., and that wasn't true in the 1980s (though the style was already well-attested then [19], [20], [21]). Just using that one job title (one that some people would be more inclined to capitalize because it has "senior" in it and sounds more important than average), there is an endless river of examples in non-self-published sources: New York Post, ESPN, Fortune, Skilled Nursing News, Accounting Today, PC World, Travel Weekly, etc., etc.; modern nonfiction books like Arranging Gershwin, Securing the Future of U.S. Air Transportation, and so on; and in academic journals: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] (full text of most of these require JSTOR or similar journal archive access). It's not a field-specific shift, but a change in general English usage patterns.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
    The ngram plot of "vice president,Vice President" is pretty interesting.[28] Capitalized was far more prevalent until 1910 when they changed places. Then in 1930 they changed places again and capitalized was once again favored until 1998. Since then lower case has prevailed. In British English neither term was much used until 1960, and capitalized has always been preferred. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    I used "senior vice president" on purpose, because it doesn't coincide with national-level government titles, which have a non-normal capitalization pattern. This proposal excludes titles of government office, and is only about commercial and informal (e.g. volunteer, amateur sports, etc.) titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks like common sense - I don't have a problem with it. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:24, 11 July 2018 (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.

MOS:POSTNOM limit proposal

Clearly no consensus for a numerical limit. Some followup discussion below this has been more productive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:01, 25 July 2018 (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.

This section presently says:

When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters ... [they] should be omitted from the lead, and the titles described in the main body of the article.

This is very vague, and seems to cause disputes. As with whether to capitalize a preposition in a proper name, we should consider providing an arbitrary cut-off.

Someone did so, with this:

When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters (usually more than five) ... [they] should be omitted from the lead, and the titles described in the main body of the article.

But someone else reverted it, on the simple basis "no consensus". So, let's have the discussion.

  1. Should we specify a default numerical limit? (clarified: limit to the number of post-nominal acronyms after someone's name in the lead section of their bio)
  2. If so, what should it be?
  3. Should we recommend moving all to the body, or permitting up to the limit in the lead? (clarified: all honours would be given in long form and with sources, in the article body, as always; the question means: if there are lots of / too many acronyms to add in the lead, do we allow a few select ones there, or none?)

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments on POSTNOM proposal

  • A. Yes; the current wording it's a too-vague recipe for dispute. B. Three is sufficient. C. Permit some in the lead, we'll want significant ones like knighthoods and national-level fellowships, even if there are a lot of honors to cover in detail in the body. But we should limit this for the same reason we limit other "lead junk". See especially MOS:NICKCRUFT and MOS:LEADCLUTTER, plus semi-recent trimming of unnecessary pronunciation markup. Since all honours would be covered in the body, redundant ones (lower knighthoods, for example) should not be listed in the lead, just the highest grade/class.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC); revised: 13:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • A. Would be clearer to do so. B. The fewer the better, to avoid distracting clutter. C. Retain existing guideline: omit all from the lead if too many. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I was the one who reverted, but I'm very busy at the moment. A. Yes but make it clear that this is flexible so that rule sticklers don't start edit wars against local consensus. B. Post-nominal letters aren't clutter; not least because they establish notability for academics and military figures who are most likely to have multiple post-noms. I'd say, a limit of four if 100% and between 6-8 if 85%: some post-noms are longer than others (eg two letters VC vs seven FRHistS). C. All post-noms should be explained and cited in the main text, but not all of those in the main text need to be in the introduction. Post-nominal letters need citations as will any other honour in a BLP. If they aren't cited or explained they should be removed completely.
Other notes. "Significant" is very difficult and often personal: if a national level honour comes with post-nominal letters that should make the post-noms notable enough. At the moment MOS allows post-noms if issued "by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated" but not academic degrees. Its easy to expand the ban on degrees to exclude professional qualifications as well (eg, MRCGP or MRICS). All other state honours (from MBE's through to GBE's) and national level learned society post-noms should be included, unless the total number is too great and so none should then be included. The specificity of country level fellowships would stop lesser learned societies/academies being added: for example, the Society of Antiquaries of London is the national learned society for archaeology and related subjects in the UK, but the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle is a localised organisation and much less prestigious: such a distinction might need personal knowledge, or at least someone who is going to look them up before removing them both. There are also other post-noms than awards such as for religious societies, things such as MP, and those denoting military "allegiance" (eg officers of the Royal Navu having RN after theier names, which would not be necessary if the opening sentence was "Captain John Smith, GC (1911-1976) was a decorated Royal Navy officer"). An example, Archibald Montgomery-Massingberd; he has two top knighthoods, one lesser one, and a royal appointment in his post-noms: which post-noms would be chopped with a lower limit? There is also the issue that knighthoods/damehoods (except for Knight Bachelor) are intrinsic linked to their post-nominal letters, they come as a pair: it would be wrong to change "Sir Steven Jones KBE CB DSO DL FREng (born 1953)" to "Sir Steven Jones (born 1953)". Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I have some bullet-point responses to some of this, in the extended discussion section below. The important bits are: "usually" already provides flexibility, without making it so wishy-washy as to inspire editwarring; and, this is only about acronyms in the lead sentence, not what is sourced in the body, thus has no effect on notability questions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Question one: yes. Question two: four at maximum. Three: up to the limit in the lead—honours systems have orders and grades: the highest three or so only.
    I'll expand my statement, if I may. First, when I mention post-nominal letters, of course, I mean the honours systems of the Commonwealth nations (and former Commonwealth nations). Second, all post-nominal letters should be explained, of course, in the article: for example, if, say, The Duke of Wellington is a Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Military Order of the Bath (which he was), such a thing should be noted and explained in the body of the article, rather than in the introduction (which, I might add, it isn't).
    Tertius, using Sir Winston Churchill's page as an example, I have no objections whatsoever to putting all the post-noms into an infobox, so long as each is explained in the accompanying article, in lieu of a limit here. (Think of it this way, as a ranked voting system: my first vote is the above, the second, removal of all post-noms from the lead sentence, putting them all into infoboxes, and explaining each and every last one in the body of the biography.) One last thing: foreign honours don't count. Put them in an "Honours and awards" section. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
    I take this to mean you're only considering the particulars of the British system at the moment, not that you think that, e.g., German post-noms shouldn't appear on the articles of German subjects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
And you'd be correct: indeed, I was only considering the British honours system. Sorry, SMcCandlish, my ability to sound lucid degrades significantly at night. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • My vote. A. No so rule sticklers cannot start edit wars against local consensus. B. Post-nominal letters are not clutter; they establish notability for academics and military figures who are most likely to have multiple post-noms. The most that anyone has had is ten; the most that any non-royal has amassed is eight. Therefore, there aren't enough to produce clutter. Either they should all be present, or none at all. There is no basis for deciding to skip some. Awards are a different matter; I only mention them in the lead of they are part of the subject's claim to notability (like a Nobel Prize). C. All post-noms must be cited and referenced in the main text, but none need to be in the lead. Post-nominal letters need references just like any honour. If they aren't properly cited they should be removed completely. Uncited text can be removed. There is no need to explain what a honour is, how it is conferred etc. This is all explained in the honour's own article. NB: We are not currently putting post-nominals in the infoboxes; see Edmund Herring for example. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
    @Hawkeye7: Please see "Responding to Gaia Octavia Agrippa's detailed !vote" below; you are raising some of the same off-topic ideas (e.g. that this has any effect on notability when it cannot). You seem to be mistaking this for whether honours that provide postnominal letters can be included in the articles; it's about the actual letters (acronyms) appearing in series after the name in the lead. MoS has nothing to do with whether sourced facts can be included in the article body.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
    I never said that what we say in an article affects the notability of the subject. All I am saying is that the first sentence of the lead is an assertion of why a subject is notable. Post-nominal letters, other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included in the lead section. Nor am I disputing whether honours that provide post-nominal letters can be included in the articles; but, for example, Edmund Herring's article says that he "became a King's Counsel on 25 February 1936"; that this gave him a post-nominal may not be apparent to the reader. Your proposal merely talks about limiting the number of post-nominals, and my vote would be to limit it to ten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you for clarifying. To address some of this, for later arrivals who may read these comments: The only time an "assertion of notability" applies to bios is WP:CSD#A7 (it's actually an "indicat[ion] why [the] subject is important or significant", which is actually a lower standard, though people often use the shorthand "assertion of notability"). It does not have to be in the lead sentence, and can be anywhere in the article. Since acronyms after the name in the lead should be in the body in long form with citations, the whole matter is unrelated to this proposal. As for the King's Counsel case, a way to resolve that, if the subject had a large pile-up of honours and we didn't want all 20 of them as acronyms in the lead, and we wanted to indicate that it includes post-nominal letters (which is dubious - the article is about Herring, not British honours and forms of address), would be "became a King's Counsel (KC) on ...".  :-) Easy-peasy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Question one: no. Question two: N/A. Question three: All explained in main text, not all need be in the lead. This is unnecessary instruction creep. The present text is more than adequate and there is no need for some arbitrary limit that we come up with here. As Hawkeye7 points out above, there are not very many people where this will be a serious issue anyway, and local consensus is more than enough to decide what to do in those cases. Additionally, I agree with Hawkeye7 above - this proposal is really the worst of both worlds. Either all postnominals should be listed, or none should - there is no basis for us to arbitrarily decide to omit some (to be clear - if the local consensus indicates that the postnominals are too excessive and are cluttering the lead, they should all be removed, not just some). Frickeg (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
    @Frickeg: As with several of the above comments, you're mis-reading the proposal. Your "no" on questions 1 and 2 is incompatible with your answer to question 3. It's not possible for them to not all be in the lead if you deny that there should be a limit on how many are in the lead and won't set a cut-off.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see - I thought the third point was about requiring explanation for postnoms in the lead (i.e. "John Smith CBE" and then naming when the honour was received later in the lead). If I am now understanding correctly, then question three would also be N/A since I am opposed to the initial premise. Frickeg (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, recommend limiting to 3 or 4, and main article body should reference and discuss them in more detail. The rule should be a "recommendation" or "best practice" and not a hard-and-fast requirement. Renata (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    All guidelines are recommendations of best practice, not hard-and-fast requirements (even many policies are not the latter).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • A - We dont need a limit, if the individual has any number of official post-noms then they should be presented per reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
    @MilborneOne: Really? You think it would be okay, for some highly "postnommed" royal, to have a lead that started "Corky II of Elbonia, ABC, DEFG, HI, JKL, MNOPQ, RST, UV, WXYZ, AB, CDEF, GHI, JKL, MNOP, QRS, TUV, WX, YZ, AB, CDE, FGH, JKLM, OPQ, RS, TUVW, XYZ, is the 37th king of Elbonia, and ...."? Even though there'd be a section in the body already covering all this stuff in substantive detail (if it's even all encyclopedically relevant)? Noswall59, same questions to you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    User:SMcCandlish. You're not addressing my concern: any preconceived numerical limit is arbitrary, which is problematic for reasons I outlined below. Limiting postnoms to only state honours from the recipient's state and high-level fellowships is a far more sensible solution. Perhaps another one is to say that monarchs should not have postnoms because they are automatically head of all state honours so it is redundant. That does away with your example. And if you can find someone with 25 postnoms under my criteria, I'll be ready to address more than this bizarre hypothetical (the current guidelines already say that when postnoms get rediculously long, they probably need moving so I'm not sure what your hypothetical demonstrates towards your point anyway). BTW, Mountbatten, who was probably the most decorated British subject of his generation, has 9 postnoms. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC).
    Thanks Noswall59 - I think that would be my reply as well, we appear to be trying to resolve a problem that doesnt really exist. MilborneOne (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • A. no; B. N/A; C. (see what follows). My reason for opposing here is that restricting the number of post-nominals to a "default numerical limit" is arbitrary. I am in favour of retaining post-noms only for (a) state honours, and (b) fellowships of major, national or international learned or professional societies. There may be a few other occasions (e.g. privy councillors in the UK), but those are the big two which come to mind. This would rule out all academic degrees and memberships of professional organisations along with any other miscellany, leaving only what indicates notability. It would be rare for people to have more than 4 state honours and fellowships anyway, but on the occasion that it does occur, it seems odd to fix the number.
The purpose of the lead is to summarise the key facts of the person in question, and major honours need to be mentioned. The post-noms provide a succinct way to do that. This has the added benefit of highlighting the subject's claim to notability; as MOS:LEAD states, the lead should "explain why the topic is notable... usually established in the first few sentences". Below, someone said "Post-nom letters in the lead do nothing to establish notability; only reliable sources do that". That are correct, but the editor is confusing the issue of establishing and indicating the subject's claim to notability; RSs do the former, the lead does the latter. Without their significant honours (a key criterion for indicating notability at WP:BIO), outlining a subject's notability cannot be achieved without cluttering the lead with long names of the awards they've received.
Finally, on a more practical note, it doesn't really seem intrusive to have post-noms in the lead. A reader will see (a) the emboldened full name; (b) the blue-linked honours; and (c) the dates of birth and death in parentheses followed by (d) the key description of the person. There's nothing difficult about that, and the nature of the wikimarkup actually makes it easy to scan to the relevant part of the opening sentence. Even Lord Mountbatten's lead, full of honours and replete with his lengthy name, is easy enough to scan. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC).
Most style/layout matters are arbitrary at some level. Implicit in the fact that the lead is a tightly compressed summary is the fact that things will be elided. If someone has a whole boat-load of state honours and major fellowships, shotgunning a dozen acronyms at our readers is not the way to convey that. I agree with you that we should limit post-nom abbreviations in the lead to such major honours, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't also limit the total number of them. It's very similar to the limiting the profusion of boldfaced alternative names in the lead. E.g., many plants with medicinal and other human uses have dozens of common (vernacular) names in English alone, and we do not include all of them in the lead. The average famous pop singer or movie star is notable for their connection to many notable works, but we only list a few in the lead. Just enough to ensure readers know they are at the right notable, and get a sense, not a totally complete picture, of why the subject of the article is notable and what they're "about". The complete picture is provided by the a article body. And for the umpteenth time: having a bunch of acronyms in the lead has no connection to establishing notability at all. The sources in the article body where the honours are discussed in detail, not as just cryptic letter jumbles, are what establish notability.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I do see your rationale for wanting to do something about post-noms; they can be intrusive and appear to be clutter in some instances/to some readers. But nothing you've said here convinces me that your proposal – to impose a numerical limit on the number of post-nums – is a good thing to do. It seems arbitrary; if someone receives the KG, GCB, GCVO, GCMG and the OM, which are we to drop? And why should it be that the substantial honours this person has received are not mentioned in the summary of their career? (Indeed, your suggestion implies that the more remarkable one's awards are, the less remarked upon they will be in the lead at least.) More practical responses to this problem, as I have outlined, include limiting the types of honours and fellowships which are suitable for inclusion, and also limiting some exceptional cases, such as royalty and monarchs, who receive very large numbers of honours or who are head of their nation's honours system, etc. You mention this issue of notability, and I agree that some people are misconstruing things, but I stand by the notion that the lead should explain and summarise the reasons for a person's notability; that is not the same things as establishing notability, which can only be done in the body using RS. To properly summarise a person's claim to notability for the reader, it is usually helpful to briefly outline the major awards they have received, and post-noms provide a good and succinct way to do that. This is why I believe my suggestion to limit postnoms by their type and importance (and thus not set an arbitrary number) is more inline with Wikipedia's core policies, because it is rooted in verified notability and the lead's role in explaining and summarising a subject's claims to notability (but, of course, the lead does not establish that notability). I can see that we probably won't agree on this, but hopefully you can at least understand my angle here. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC).
@Noswall59: Could you draft a cogent alternative proposal? I twiddled with drafting one and wasn't able to put it into usable language, and that was even when just focusing on UK honours; we'd have to cover way more than that (German, Soviet, etc. – even the US has some fellowships that are used this way). It probably requires someone who knows the proper terminology very well and the relationships and relative level of different types of honours as well as different classes of within them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion of POSTNOM proposal

This is unrelated to whether we should have an explicit numeric limit, but see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bueller 007 for a recent case of a sockpuppet adding inappropriate postnominals. I think it could help to change the current wording in a different way: where it says "seldom uses their post-nominal letters (for instance because they hold a much "higher" style, like Charles, Prince of Wales)", one might also add something about the postnominals consisting only of foreign honors. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, honors foreign to the subject. The "Prince Charles" stuff is why the "..." is in the text above, and it needs probably to be moved out to a separate note. What you suggest could be another ones. The main instruction should be kept lean.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Poor Charles. "Once he shone on his own / now he sits home alone / and waits for the phone / to ring." EEng 02:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Foreign post-noms should be excluded because the subject would rarely use them. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Are we sure? If I, as a visiting American, incidentally saved the life of a British royal then received the George Cross, I'd be inclined to not hide the fact. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Might depend on the royal.EEng 21:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Responding to Gaia Octavia Agrippa's detailed !vote:

  • "Usually" being in there is already enough flexibility. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't just invalidate site-wide guidelines for the heck of it. Rather, WP:IAR might be invoked at an article for a very solid, case-specific reason (and that even works against most policies, except the legal ones); it wouldn't matter what wording the guideline had in such a case. We get editwars, rather, when our guidelines are wishy-washy and non-committal.
  • Post-nom letters in the lead do nothing to establish notability; only reliable sources do that. As you agree, the honors those letters refer to also go, in long form and with sources, in the article body somewhere. So, this proposal has no connection to any notability issue; its about the abbreviations, not the underlying information.
  • A rule based on counting up all the letters wouldn't be practical.
  • "Significant" is a word MoS and other guidelines and policies use frequently. It's a cue that we're leaving that part up to local consensus on the talk page, and it's ultimately a matter of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy application. It won't be any more problematic here than anywhere else.
  • Ah, yes: professional certifications are routinely removed as the same claptrap as academic degrees, but this guideline should probably mention them specifically or someone's apt to wikilawyer about it. The RN point is point is very, and we don't seem to be covering it, but it's clearly something we'd replace with clearer wording in most cases, as you suggest. Another similar one is doing stuff like "Sen. Jimmy McTavish D-MO", a style which only means anything to Americans. But, that's a separate clarification; it's not what this proposal is about.
  • Sure, some distinctions may need knowledge/research to know if they qualify; that's true about just about anything and any rule. We wouldn't make the guideline wording longer to go into that idea.
  • "he has two top knighthoods, one lesser one, and a royal appointment in his post-noms: which post-noms would be chopped?" – As initials after the name, we would show the senior knighthoods at least, I would think; if he had a bunch more, and trimming was necessary, there's already another sentence in the guideline about trimming out lower honors and just covering them in the article body if important enough to include at all. About the DL for Deputy Lieutenant, that seems to wander in the same direction as RN for Royal Navy or USA for United States Army, and occupational certifications and memberships like MRICS, CISSP, and RN for registered nurse – it's occupational. Maybe there are hairs to split, like whether some are more honorary that others, and more like a fellowship than a position or a qualification.
  • Your last point isn't borne out by an even cursory examination of real-world writing. E.g., Google for "Sir John Gielgud", and you'll find it's downright difficult to find the post-nom being used. Formal address and how to write about someone are not the same thing.

I hope you'll revise your !vote a bit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like another WP:CREEP. We don't need or want this sort of thing in the MOS. There are people who do nothing but go around extending the MOS (ie who are WP:NOTHERE), and all they give us is more reason to junk the MOS entirely. It's true that some people rarely use their post-nominals. It's also true that some use them all the time. People see the post-nominals in inscriptions, documents etc, and it is a reason to look up the person on the Wikipedia. To be useful, the lists of post-nominals need to be comprehensive and correct. Arbitrarily limiting them serves no useful purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: This isn't about limiting coverage of the honors in the article, only about limiting the chain of post-nominal abbreviations given immediately after the name in the lead sentence, per MOS:LEADCLUTTER. It doesn't seem you've looked at the proposal carefully. (Some commenters are also adding views about infobox treatment as well, though that isn't encompassed in the proposal).
PS: I have yet to ever find a NOTHERE WP:SPA "who do[es] nothing but go around extending the MOS". I think we would have detected such by now and dealt with it. There was an editor who spent an inordinate amount of time trying to change MoS to suit nationalistic prejudices, who got T-banned, but even that editor was productive in other areas; and there has been an editor who was overtly focused on WP:RM (more of a WP:AT than MoS matter), who also got T-banned from it. That seems to be the extent of the problem, already resolved. All the regulars at the MoS pages are actively involved in mainspace editing, and rarely make substantive (versus copyediting) changes to the guidelines. So it's rather odd that you'd suggest something like a conspiracy, with no evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I was not suggesting any conspiracy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
So who are the "people who do nothing but go around extending the MOS (ie who are WP:NOTHERE), and all they give us is more reason to junk the MOS entirely"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

From the left field, prenominals and postnominals for living people in particular should be as they would be formally addressed in state correspondence of the country of which they are a citizen (however long this is) - be this in the infobox or in the lead. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Determining that is apt to involve WP:OR, especially if (as in most countries, I would think) there isn't any law mandating a particular exact construction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:10, 20 July 2018 (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.

Alternative proposal

The easiest way of limiting post-noms is to restrict which ones can be included rather than an arbitrary numerical limit. So, the initial paragraph needs changing. This discussion has stalled because there is a clear split between "there needs to be a low maximum number" and "any limit would be arbitrary". Academic degrees are already banned, so expanding this to professional qualifications and honours below national level would instantly shrink the number of post-noms. I'd say this was an easy way to compromise. I'd also suggesting including examples of what would vs would not be acceptable would help clarify things: something like "Jane Smith GM MP BSc RGN vs Jane Smith GM MP", but I don't know how to word that.

Current wording of first paragraph:

Post-nominal letters, other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated. Honors issued by other entities may be mentioned in the article, but should generally be omitted from the lead.

Proposed new wording of first paragraph:

Post-nominal letters should be included in the lead section when they are state (ie country) honours and appointments, national and international-level honours, and religious societies. Foreign honours should only be included if the subject has been closely associated with that country. Academic degrees (including honorary ones) and professional qualifications should be omitted from the lede.

Current wording of third paragraph:

When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters, or seldom uses their post-nominal letters (for instance because they hold a much "higher" style, like Charles, Prince of Wales), post-nominal letters should be omitted from the lead, and the titles described in the main body of the article.

Proposed new wording of third paragraph:

When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters or seldom uses their post-nominal letters (such as heads of state or members of royal families), post-nominal letters should be omitted from the lead, and the titles described in the main body of the article.

I'm putting this in a new section so its easier to read. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 20:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa:
  • I implemented the second part, since no one has objected; copyedited it a bit after the fact.
  • In the first part, we lost or at least muddied the idea that they don't have to be governmental honors.
  • I though it clarified things: State honours and appointments (ie its not just honours that give post-nominal letters), and also honours from non-state organisations (so specifically honours and not other things). Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "are state (ie country)" is redundant, both with itself and with "national" later.
  • Its not redundant, its two separate things: "state (ie country) honours and appointments" - so not just honours but things like QC for Queen's Counsel, and "national[-level] and international-level honours" - such as national academy fellowships or honours from international organisations. I added the latter distinction to stop minor, sub-national organisational honours (eg fellowships) being added to keep the numbers down. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The "Foreign honours" stuff is also made redundant if the original's construction about "closely associated" (with country or organization) is kept.
  • I separated them out because there has been confusion about what "closely associated" means. Its clear when someone is closely associated with a country (domicile/citizenship/area of research or service) but not when it comes to organisations. If you take the Royal Society as a example, the only people who could be said to have be "closely associated" are those who run it (eg the President) but many more are elected to the fellowship (including non-Brits) which is one of the highest honours in the sciences. So "closely associated" means next to nothing when it comes to organisational honours. There is clear consensus for keeping foreign honours out of the lede unless they have a strong link (eg Angelina Jolie and her honorary damehood). Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not clear if or why we should treat religious societies any different from professional and academic qualifications; they are essentially the same thing. It's not an honor, award, or ennoblement to be OFM, it's a job. There are 16,000 of them (down from 26,000), just in that one branch of the Franciscans; 20,000 more OSC, 5,000 OSF Conv., 17,000 SFO, etc. Well over 100K total.
  • Nothing to do with being "pro-clergy". Yes, the religious post-noms aren't honours but they are not qualifications either; I suppose its about membership? They are something different, and there's only going to be one of them. They needed mentioning specifically because they didn't fall under the previous two, and if I hadn't, they would all be deleted by enthusiastic individuals. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • WP doesn't use "lede"; see 3rd sentence of WP:LEAD (after the nutshell), and footnote 15. And this particular MoS page is in American English.
  • Aside from the "lede" glitch, the final sentence in your first section is clearly better than the original, but takes some massaging to merge into extant material.
It took some juggling around, but I massaged the key aspects of your version and the original together (minus anti-foreign and pro-clergy stuff). Also included the point from earlier discussion about redundant grades in the same order. It's probably a viable version. I guess we'll see if anyone reverts it.
Post-nominal letters should be included in the lead section when they are national or international honours or appointments issued by a state, or a widely recognized organization, with which the subject has been closely associated.

The lead sentence should be concise: Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article, along with the above, but should be omitted from the lead, as should superseded honors (e.g. the lesser of two grades in an order), and those issued by other entities (e.g. sub-national organizations).

Out-standing questions:

  1. Should we say anything specific about "foreign" honors? I seems to be covered in the merged version without using that word.
  2. What should we say, if anything, about religious societies? For now they're presumptively covered by "professional qualifications".
  3. What about infoboxes? Should we advise to put the same ones in the infobox? Use more? Fewer? None? All?

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Religious titles

Not sure if this is the right place, but I will tell my story. I have recently modified a few school articles where editors (I am guessing respectful students) have entered the names of school staff (e.g. the principal) with the title Mr in front. I have removed various instances of Mr, Ms, Mrs, and Miss. Today I encountered a Catholic School where early principals were nuns. They had their names in the article preceded by "Sr", short for Sister. For example, see Mount Lilydale Mercy College#Principal History. Do we leave the "Sr" titles? HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Makes me wonder if the "Mr" in this is really meant to be "Mister" or perhaps "Monsignor". Anyway, I could see it being kept in cases of nuns using no surname ("Sr. Mary Katharine"), for clarity, but it's completely unnecessary at that article, and it's not exempt from the guideline. The one incomplete-name case, "Mr Goodfello", needs to be fixed to have the forename. The problem with this sort of thing is that all sorts of religious titles exist (Deacon Jimmy McDougal, Rev. Buster St. James, Rt Rev Joseph Middleton, etc., and that's just scratching the "familiar to Brits and Yanks" surface). Roman Catholicism isn't in its own "our titles are special" reality tunnel.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
It can be useful to keep "Sr." in cases where it clarifies gender issues, as in "Sr. Michael" or "Sr. Gabriel"; nuns often take a quite masculine-sounding name. "Mr." should be changed to "Msgr." or "Mgr." when referring to a monsignor. Other than that, I applaud the removal of Mr, Ms, Mrs, and Miss. Chris the speller yack 16:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I find this comment most interesting. Why is it that gender, of all things, is so important to clarify? If someone's name was Carroll Smith, we wouldn't write "Carroll Smith (female)" to clarify that. EEng 16:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I had a similar reaction. We do not write things like "Chris [male] Simmons" or "Pat Rodriguez (a woman)".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
"Sr." is short for Señor. So, there's no clarification. If anything, it's more confusing. The full word should be used. DrKay (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Or maybe Strontium. Nuns do get these weird names, you know. EEng 16:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
LOL. The canonical fix for this, if an abbreviation is wanted, would be Sr. – or Sr. (with link) at first occurrence. Almost every short abbreviation is ambiguous.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I've never seen Monsignor abbreviated as Mr. In English, it's typically Mgr or Msgr. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I attended a speech by Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, and he recounted filling in an online form, and the drop-down menu for styles offered "Mr" and "Dr" but not "His Royal Highness". I believe the web site has since been corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Imagine how many form submissions pick that option!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Names confused with common words and well-known single names

The manual currently states: Some names look like common words that are usually capitalized, or like well-known historical figures. Subsequent mentions of these individuals should use their given names or full names. Examples include: I, Lord, Christ, Moses, Islam, and Mohammed (the last with various spellings).

To what extent does this actually apply? I notice that later references throughout the articles on actor Jack Lord and athlete Edwin Moses repeatedly refer to them as "Lord" and "Moses", with no significant chance of them being confused with the similarly named religious figures. Hence, this rule requiring given names or full names to be used on subsequent mention may not be needed, or at least could be eased. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Christ? Surely we don't use Christ normally, we use Jesus normally? Doug Weller talk 15:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
In lots of the US, Jesus (hay-SOOS) is very common, though in proper Spanish spelling it's Jesús (many American Hispanics drop the diacritics).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this wording's always seemed weird to me. Should be something more like advising to use a given or full name, or other clarification, in cases where the name may be ambiguous in the context.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to wording in context section

The current wording of the context section currently reads: 

...or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable

The problem is with the phrase "when the person became notable" and it was identified by RexxS as part of a broader discussion over the application of the guideline. The example he presented was George Washington. Before becoming the first American president, for which the subject is clearly most notable, he became notable as a British commander in the French and Indian War. A literal interpretation of that phrase could justify using British instead of American for the country of citizenship used in the introduction part of the lead, which in my opinion would go completely against the spirit of the guideline.

The proposed suggestion would be to change "when the person became notable" for "when the person was most notable". Alternative wordings or comments would be welcomed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I'll add my support to Crystallizedcarbon's suggestion. Although George Washington is an extreme example, there will certainly be many more people who are notable for more than one event, and in the lead we should be concentrating on delivering to the reader the most relevant facts as an introduction. There is a danger in over-reliance on the guidance here, and IAR is always available as a remedy, of course. However, where it is clear that wording can be improved, it makes sense to do so. --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, this makes good sense. Closing off wikilawyering and misinterpretation loopholes is good practice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Caution, this is an open invitation to another round of wikilawyering for some pages. Consider Charlie Chaplin. He was, and remained, a British citizen. He became notable in England, then became a US resident where he was more notable, before moving to Switzerland where he remained notable. The whole English/British/US business has been discussed ad nauseum! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I personally don't think that the small change proposed could or should affect that particular BLP, as the issue there seems to be more related to whether country of residence or country of citizenship should be used (both possibilities are included in the guideline) and issues related to WP:UKNATIONALS since England is also a country. The proposed change relates only to time, and clarifies that the preference should be given to the most notable period over an the period the BLP first became notable. Which I think is the intended meaning of the guideline. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Possibly, assuming good will on all parts (found under flying pigs). There has been a long running argument whether the lead should be "was an English comic actor, filmmaker, and composer" as it is at present, or should describe him as American. All I'm saying is be careful, half an acre of ink could depend upon such "small" changes. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
If it comes down to it, we could add a footnote that citizenship trumps residency, and use Chaplin as an example.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Driving into work this morning I was thinking about this. There are a number of similar thespians: Dame Julie Andrews or Sir Anthony Hopkins for example. Both have had their widest public notability thanks to Hollywood, yet retain their roots back in "the old country". The Washington case on the other hand is a little different. He only ever commanded American forces and only ever lived in America. At first it was British North America, then of course an independent USA. Of course he probably thought of himself as a Virginian, but lets not start that hare running! So if he rose to notability as a (British) American and continued as an (US) American, where's the problem? The point that I'm trying to make is that there is no problem with the original wording in any of these four cases: Chaplin, Andrews, Hopkins and Washington but the proposed changes open the way for a lot of disputation for some of them. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Chaplin is a case where some judicious rewriting could resolve the problem. What country he came from is actually irrelevant to his notability. So why mention it at all? Just say: “Charlie Chaplin was a silent film actor.” If we need to mention nationality at all, I would focus on the films... “Charlie Chaplin was an actor in American silent films.” Blueboar (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Martin of Sheffield: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context uses the country of citizenship as a criteria, which was British until America became independent and his citizenship became American. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I still think you are trying to impose a modern interpretation onto a historical situation. Washington may have been a British subject but I'm not convinced about citizenship. The American colonies were to varying extents self governing under charters from the crown, much as the Channel Isles or the Isle of Mann are today. As you go further back you'll find yourself deeper in the mire; was Boudica Roman, English or Iceni for example? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Even if it is not 100% clear in this case, I think the example is still valid, I think that the spirit of the guideline is that the country of citizenship when the person was most notable could be used, instead of being limited to the first chronological time that the person became notable even if it was for a less relevant reason. The proposed change would clarify that. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone want to recommend an alternative to the originally drafted wording above? Or oppose any change? Or something else?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC on use of Spanish regional identity in biography leads

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.

There is a consensus that in cases of dispute about what identity the lead sentence should use in Spanish biographies, that if sources generally use a certain identity when referring to someone, and it is clear that the person self-identifies with that identity, to use that identity. However, there isn't a particular consensus on:

  • When exactly to use a compromise, of which two main ones were proposed: something like "Spanish Basque", or something like "politician from Basque, Spain". Many suggestions were given on when to use a compromise, and many argued to often use a compromise, but the overall discussion was too diverse for any meaningful consensus to be drawn. Noting that in these cases the guideline of MOS:IDENTITY may be helpful in resolving matters.
  • The addition of wording to the Manual of Style. Not enough discussion on adding something specifically to the MoS was there for a consensus.

I would suggest a follow up RfC with a more specific question to try to resolve things, perhaps in a broader manner to be applicable to all similar disputes and preferably with specific proposed wording for addition to the MoS, which would facilitate gaining a consensus and resolving the dispute.

As a final note, arguments based on Spanish law, the historical status of a region, and similar were weighed low due to not being based on policies - according to our core content policies sourcing matters, not legalities. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Based on your interpretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context should the lead sentence of Spanish biographies provide the person's legal citizenship, Spanish, or their regional identity (e.g. Catalan, Basque) if there are sources to infer that the person places more importance on their regional identity?

The interpretation of the above policy is causing disputes on numerous articles. A recent Rfc at Talk:Carles Puigdemont dealt with this issue but as it related specifically to that article there is general consensus here that we need a broad Rfc so that we can settle the issue. Please indicate your preference below.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Alternative proposed statement (see RfC wording/scope section bellow):

Based on your interpretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context when applied to subjects of biographies that strive for the independence of their region from their current country or those who place more importance on their regional identity, at the place right after the date of birth and "is a" should those articles include the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident or their regional identity (e.g. Catalan, Basque, Bavarian, Alaskan etc.)?

Neither choice would exclude including the regional identity or the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident right after the roles or elsewhere in the lead. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: Notifications made to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basque. Are there any other relevant places? --RexxS (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments on the RfC wording/scope

  • Comment The wording of this RfC (as written by Obi2canibe) is extremely biased towards the Spanish unionists' pov. Please change the heading to a more neutral: RfC on use of Basque, Catalan or Spanish identity in biography leads (alphabetical order). Legality does not come into it (!) and 'regional' in reference to identity is an attempt to sway the reader. Please re-write in neutral speak. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
A resolved side discussion:
This issue does not restrict itself to only two regions. All distinct regions conforming the Spanish state deserve to be treated equally regardless of the independentist sentiment that is currently perceived in the news now. I'd like to remind you that in virtually all spanish regions (and within those regions too) there are political views seeking for a separate national identity and or the creation of independent states. Arcillaroja (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000, I'm sorry that you view the title as biased. The scope of this Rfc is all of Spain and we cannot include all seventeen regions in the title. Catalan and Basque were just examples used to assist editors unfamiliar with the subject.--Obi2canibe (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the point being made is that there are also French Catalans and French Basques; they are not all Spanish citizens. --RexxS (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, this Rfc is about individuals from Spain, nowhere else.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Why? don't you think that the results would have repercussions on similar articles from other nationalities. What is the criteria for restricting the scope of the possible change or interpretation of the guideline only to people from Spanish regions? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The criterion for restricting the scope of an RfC is "what is the scope of the question posed by the RfC". It's as simple as that. The OP decides and the instruction on trying to change that are at WP:RfC. That's not to say that the results of a limited consensus like the one sought by this RfC can't be used in arguing the case in analogous situations. However WP:CONLIMITED explains what the limits of a particular consensus are. --RexxS (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Obi2canibe: @RexxS: According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Suggestions_for_responding: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template" and WP:CONLIMITED also states that "For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a wikiproject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." That is exactly the case here, we can not change the guideline or its interpretation only within the scope of the wikiproject Spain. and since no objective reason has been given on why the guideline should be changed only for Spanish regions excluding other regions with the same issues I disagree with the current wording.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
A revised wording to solve that problem and also clarify that both country and regional identity can be included in the lead could be:
(moved bellow the RfC question)
The proposed revision makes clear that what we would like to clarify is not whether the regional identity or the country can or should be included in the lead as I think no one is questioning that, but the current wording of the RfC might be misleading as it might be interpreted as prompting to choose between either one of the two options, when is just a matter of format and whether we give more importance to consistency or allow for a special treatment in case of people who do not identify themselves with their current country, It also widens the scope and does not limit it to just Spain according to WP:CONLIMITED. Comments and improvements to the proposed wording would be welcomed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:LISTGAP. Yes I know what WP:RFC says; I pointed you to it. So ask the OP, don't moan at me about the scope. It is what it is. I can see you're having some problems understanding CONLIMITED, so I'll try to explain it to you. It says that Wikiproject Spain can't create a consensus that applies to anything beyond their Wikiproject pages, so they can't create a consensus that applies to Spanish articles (or any others). That should be obvious when you consider that you don't have have to be a member of Wikiproject Spain to edit Spanish articles; and that an article can be within the scope of multiple Wikiprojects, and there would be no means of reconciling different requirements from different Wikiprojects. I hope you're with me so far. Now, this is not Wikiproject Spain; this venue is "Manual of Style (Biographies)". This is where an RfC can establish a consensus for what the Manual of Style should say about a particular set of biographies, or all biographies. So when you say "That is exactly the case here", you are 100% wrong. It is absolutely the case that we can have this debate here and agree on what the guidance should say about Spanish biographies or about all biographies or about any subset of biographies. But Wikiproject Spain can't do that. That's what CONLIMITED tells you and you have it completely back-to-front. Now please stop clutching at straws in an attempt to derail this RfC and please try to focus on the question asked above. --RexxS (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
More to the point, a wikiproject can't create a "local consensus" that does apply across articles within their scope, either, because articles are not within the scope of a single wikiproject. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in mainspace applies at the article level: what is best for this article and its readers (not this category, this cluster or articles grouped by a navbox, this broad topic a wikiproject tries to assert WP:OWNership over, etc.). Local consensus at an article is determined by all editors who care to weigh in, not just by wikiproject participants or editors who feel they should have more control based on how much time they've put in at the page (see WP:OWN again, and WP:VESTED). This is why we have CONLEVEL policy (itself derived from WP:EDITING policy), and why ArbCom has repeatedly struck down the idea that a wikiproject and tell other editors what to do just because an article is claimed with the wikiproject's scope (this came up at WP:ARBINFOBOX and at least two other ArbCom cases).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I used a bad example, I agree that the decision here is not taken by the wikiproject, my apologies for that. What I was trying to say is that since we are proposing changes to a guideline or its interpretation, unless there is an objective criteria to justify why Spanish regions should be a special case I see no difference as far as the guideline is concerned between Spanish regions like Catalonia or the other 16 Spanish autonomous communities and other regional divisions like Corsica, Martinique, Quebec, Sicilly, Flander etc. If we don't justify why the proposed changes should apply only within regions of Spain we would be creating an arbitrary rule within a guideline. That does not make any sense to me. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
One of the stated purposes of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is to "resolve conflicts". As there is an area of conflict sited on Spanish–Basque–Catalan issues, we can record what consensus says our best practices concerning them are by documenting them in MOSBIO. That is an important step in resolving those conflicts, and by definition, not at all arbitrary. There are no current similar on-wiki conflicts that I am presently aware of related to other regional divisions like Corsica, Martinique, Quebec, Sicily, Flanders etc. Therefore per WP:CREEP we don't make guidelines where none are needed. I hope that now makes sense to you. --RexxS (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Use Spanish

Use regional identity

  • Yes if the person has self-declared their identity = Basque or Catalan by word or action (eg member of a pro-Catalan party). This precident was set in another RfC on Talk:Carles Puigdemont a few days ago. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Contex allows the use of ethnicity where it is relevant to the subject's notability. When it comes to nationalist politicians, or individuals advocating secession, this is clearly the case. But there may also others who don't advocate secession but have shown that they favour their regional identity over their citizenship and if WP:RS can be provided to verify this we should use the regional identity. In all other cases we should continue to use Spanish. There are all sorts of combinations involving citizenship/ethnicity/country/region that could be used in the lead and if an article-specific consensus is achieved to use one of these combinations it can over-ride any consensus we achieve here.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Obi2canibe: The guideline discourages the use of Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality unless as you say it is relevant to the subject of notability, but in case it is relevant it just states that it can be included in the lead and does not imply that it should substitute the country of citizenship which is independent from Ethnicity, religion or sexuality. An example would be Barrak Obama. his Ethnicity as the first African American president is notable and is included elsewhere in the lead, but he is still introduced as an American attorney and politician. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    The policy discourages it but they don't prohibit it. That is why there are thousands of biographies that deviate from this. Previous discussions have shown that both sides of this dispute can find examples to support their position. Obama's notability is due him being president, not of being an African American president. I'm not aware that he favours his African-American identity over his American identity.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    MOS:OPENPARABIO specifies "nationality", not "citizenship". MOS:BIO#Context SAYS "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident ..." It doesn't say Regardless of notability, provide the country of citizenship. That kind of inflexible interpretation to suit one set of views is what is causing most of the misunderstandings here. There is no question of having to "substitute the country of citizenship", because it's not a compulsory element. --RexxS (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • In cases where the overwhelming majority of sources describe the subject as "Basque", "Catalan", etc. - with extra weight being given to sources that are independent of the dispute. --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    @RexxS: If an overwhelming majority of sources describe a subject as Alaskan/from Alaska/of Alaska should we use Alaskan instead of American to introduce their biography? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Crystallizedcarbon: The threaded discussion below is for debate, but if you insist on doing it here, okay. If an overwhelming majority of sources describe a subject as Alaskan/from Alaska/of Alaska why shouldn't we use Alaskan instead of American to introduce their biography? It's natural, more precise, and follows the sources. Would you have the same concerns with "Hawaiian"? --RexxS (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    Hawaiian would be exactly the same case. My point is that I think it does not follow our current guideline and what we do for almost all regional leaders like Alaskan governor Bill Walker or Asturian President Javier Fernández Fernández which are introduced as American and Spanish. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    Which then seems to me that the guideline is providing poor advice. If it is resulting in less information and not favouring the sources, then it's clearly time to change it. --RexxS (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    Javier Fernández Fernández doesn't claim to be Asturian and not Spanish and doesn't represent a movement asking for the independence of Asturias. As a matter of fact, he is member of a party claming the unity of Spain. -Theklan (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Where there is good evidence of self-identifying as the regional identity, and outside sources use it. Per RexxS above. Typically places of birth/residence etc should be described as "Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain" or similar. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Use identity (the word regional is misleading). Per Llywelyn2000. Two good examples would be Arnaldo Otegi and Joseba Sarrionandia -Theklan (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, as noted by Llywelyn2000. (Regional is misleading, we are talking about national background, which refers to a people that lives in one administrative unit or more, like the Kurds, the Sami, etc.) Always in a historic person's definition if living before the early- and mid-19th century when referring to Basque Autonomous Community and Navarre and Catalonia, unless they are known to come from non-Basque speaking areas for the case of Navarre. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support to the use of national identity. Regional identity is not the same as national identity. I am using the national identity stance. Filiprino (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Use a compromise where possible

  • RexxS (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Arcillaroja (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • If the person has not made a self decleration of identity, then yes; also when there is doubt, or there are mixed signals (as mentioned by Johnbod and Theklan). Catalan poets, linguists, singers etc as well as Catalan politicians should be identified as Catalan only (id through their action / work).Llywelyn2000 (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. This would be consistent with our treatment of other complex situations, e.g. in the UK. The first "Threaded discussion" section post indicates why; the first example provided is extremist and reader-confusing, while the second is clear and sensible, while also not hiding the subject's Basqueness.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • When in doubt, or there are mixed signals - eg a Catalan Spanish diplomat. Especially for places of birth/residence etc, which should be described as "Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain" or similar. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Should use both Spanish and the region, Spanish Baasque, Spanish Catalan, where sources allow, including for notable independence-seeking politicians. Not choosing this option where sources is breaking our neutrality policy. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Only if there is no evidence of the subject being a proponent of an identity: nationalist/pro-independence political parties and movements members, culture-related personalities... should by excluded by default. A good example would be Miguel de Unamuno, who clamied that being Basque was being twice Spanish -Theklan (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • When no clear position is known over its own identity. Other than this, when it comes to culture I agree that Basque or Catalan should be used, unless the author shows a Spanish identity by word or in its work. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • I'm afraid that where problems exist, you won't find that relying on interpreting the current guidance solves the problems, as is already evident. If you consider only two options, for example:
    "Arnaldo Otegi Mondragón (born 6 July 1958) is a Basque politician from Spain"; or
    "Arnaldo Otegi Mondragón (born 6 July 1958) is a Spanish politician from the Basque Autonomous Community"
    then you produce a situation where one side wins and the other loses – and let's be honest, we have editors who wish to emphasise the Catalan or Basque connections, and other editors who wish to emphasise the Spanish connections. The guidance we currently have, MOS:OPENPARABIO, contains the elements that will usually be present, but makes clear that it is key to explain to the reader why the subject is notable, and so I contend that single most important factor is that we should follow the sources. If the sources overwhelmingly talk about a subject as a "Catalan politician", then it is reasonable for Wikipedia to do so as well. Of course, if the sources describe a Spanish personality who happens to have been born in the Basque Country, but their notability is not related to their birthplace, then "Spanish celebrity" or whatever would be just as reasonable. There will naturally be cases where the sources show that notability depends on both their Spanish citizenship and their Catalan nationality (or whatever word you can agree to describe the status of belonging to the Catalan people). When that happens, and perhaps by default, why can't we use a compromise formula such as :
    "Arnaldo Otegi Mondragón (born 6 July 1958) is a Spanish Basque politician"?
    Incidentally, that has the advantage of differentiating him from a "French Basque politician", that the "Basque politician" alone does not do. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
My first option would be following the guideline as is currently written and using the country of citizenship. If there is consensus to make an exception for politicians or advocates of independence, I would suggest using the formula that I outlined bellow "... is a politician from (region),(Country)". RexxS proposal is also not fully in line with the guideline, but at least the first word is the country of citizenship which falls in line with the guideline and since it seems clear that for separatists ethnicity is relevant, including it should be justified. It sounds a little artificial in some cases like German Bavarian, French Martinican or American Texan, so even if I don't think is the best option, If the first two are rejected that would be my third choice as long as it is limited to subjects that clearly reject their current country of citizenship.
Comment if the scope is not limited to biographies of independentist politicians or subjects that have clearly advocated independence of their region, thousands of articles could be changed and a lot of additional time would probably be wasted in discussions.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The guideline as currently written is clearly inadequate to prevent the current strife, so sticking with the present wording seems pointless. The current guidance contradicts itself as it stands:
  1. "The opening paragraph should usually state: ... Context (location or nationality);"
  2. "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability"
Note that the first piece guidance makes no mention at all of "citizenship" - and quite rightly: it is rarely an important factor in a person's notability. It is clear than anyone supportive of a Basque or Catalan nation will regard "Basque" or "Catalan" as nationalities. Anyone opposed to that will deny that they are nationalities. A guideline that is capable of two completely conflicting interpretations is no help in resolving disputes. It needs to be changed. The useful part is the guidance that nationality, residency, citizenship or ethnicity may be used where it is relevant to the subject's notability. Although that may have to be determined on a per-article basis if no consensus can be found here (as it already is at Talk:Carles Puigdemont). The key is that whatever is most relevant to a person's notability should be what the lead mentions, and that requires looking at what the sources say. We cannot entrust the determination of what is relevant merely to the opinions of two diametrically opposed groups of editors unless each group is prepared to give way to some extent and seek a compromise. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with how the problem is summarized by RexxS's analysis. In my experience, extreme nationalist from any side tend to feel that national identity is mutually exclusive.
I think we should be very careful with ethnicity matters. It is very complicated to ethnically define what is an ethnic group or who is a member of that group. And that is the first problem I see: when we define the subject as Catalan politician, What is it exactly meant by that? Is it a politician that was born in Catalonia, or a politician born somewhere else but with, say four forefathers with catalan surnames?, or perhaps a politician that thinks that he is catalan?
I also agree that we should follow the sources. But follow the proper relevant sources that overtly deal with the person's identity as viewed by himself and by others. I don't think it's relevant to count down how many articles describe, for example, Puigdemont as the Catalan president. It doesn't mean that there is an overtly statement by the media on the subject's national identity. I see it more as a circunstancial aspect of the article based on present political state of affairs.
And if we base the national identity definition on solely the perceived personal sentiment of the subject, What do we do if that sentiment changes? Because people change their views all the time. Keeping track of these sentiments is a sustainable wikipedia?
As I see it, Puigdemont is relevant because he is a president or a politician or whatever and not because he is catalan or spanish... In my opinion, if consensus cannot be reached, I would go for stating the subject reason for notability and citing the place where the subject was born. Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó is a politician born 29 December 1962 in Amer. Arcillaroja (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Arcillaroja: I think that the less that we deviate from the guideline the better, so if we don't use the country of citizenship at the placed outlined in MOS:OPENPARABIO we should at least follow the rest of the guidelines. Examples:
  • Joaquim Torra i Pla (born 28 December 1962), known as Quim Torra, is a lawyer and journalist from Catalonia, Spain
  • Frantz Fanon (French pronunciation: [fʁɑ̃ts fanɔ̃]; 20 July 1925 – 6 December 1961) was a psychiatrist, philosopher, revolutionary, and writer from Martinique, France
First name and title, followed by date of birth and death in parenthisis, then would be the place for context (which this option would change), then roles and then why the person is notable. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Crystallizedcarbon, I see your point. Maybe that could work too. Perhaps it is a better option! Arcillaroja (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Arcillaroja: as I see it, nobody is disputing that Puigdemont is a politician. However consensus exists that his notability depends on his being a Catalan politician, not a Spanish politician.
@Crystallizedcarbon: George Washington (1732–1799) was a military commander, politician and revolutionary born in the British colony of North America if yourthe "where the subject was born" formula were accepted. It's nonsensical.
I suggest you both seriously consider whether you want a pendulum RfC on the page of every Catalan/Basque personality which will almost certainly decide that the Catalan/Basque description is most relative to the subject's notability in the majority of cases (it wasn't even close on Puigdemont's page); or whether you are willing to look for a compromise - perhaps along the lines of "Spanish Catalan" or "Spanish Basque" where sources indicate that as an option and use that as the default guidance. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: Washington country of citizenship when he was most notable was America, so there is no issue with applying the policy to introduce him as "an American military commander, politician..." (other than the "when he became" wording discussed in the section above, but we both seem to agree that that is a technicality). As far as your other comment The notability of Jean-Claude Juncker comes for being a European, and notability of almost all regional leaders in the world comes from their region which is what references will reflect specially in news, same goes for the town level or the supranational level. The advantage of the current guideline is that there is no need to argue which level to use, it cites the country as the criteria. The first items listed in MOS:OPENPARABIO are objective and not subject to notability. That is the case with the date of birth and with the country of citizenship. what the person is notable for is listed after the roles. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: Apologies, that should have been part of my reply to Arcillaroja who proposed a formula "if consensus cannot be reached, I would go for stating the subject reason for notability and citing the place where the subject was born", which leads to such nonsense with Washington. Please accept my sincere regrets for associating you with that piece of textual hogwash.
I firmly disagree that any part of OPENPARABIO is divorced from notability; the introductory sentence of the section makes clear that "the opening paragraph should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context". I feel that Jean-Claude Juncker, as Prime Minister of Luxembourg from 1995 to 2013 was notable far before he became to be President of the European Commission. The majority of the sources in his biography seem to describe him as PM of Luxembourg, so I don't agree that his notability comes from being a European. That's why he is properly described as a "Luxembourgish politician". I think you'll find that OPENPARABIO actually states "Context (location or nationality)", not country, not citizenship. If the guidance was doing a good job, how do you explain all the different interpretations and exceptions? not to mention the outright battles taking place in this topic area. --RexxS (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: Perhaps I did not express myself correctly. What I proposed was to avoid the conflict altogether. Now I see that this formula would not work in many cases. It was just an idea. It wasn't my intention to bring pieces of textual hogwash to our discussion. I trust you did not lose your concentration by having to read my hogwash. My apologies if you did. In any case, your proposed compromise i.e. "Spanish Catalan" has been tested before. It has been changed many times, by other editors that were not me and were not in any way related to me. Trust me. I remember that it sounded artificial to me the first time I saw it. Perhaps because I had never heard such wording before neither in Spanish nor in English. My main objection is that by using such an umbrella term it could be wrongly implied that the formula spanish catalan refers to a supposed dual citizenship. I read your opinions regarding the fact that context is not equal to citizenship. But the reality is that in the huge majority of BIO's this is actually what is done. I trust you can see my point of view.Arcillaroja (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Arcillaroja: look, there's no problem in suggesting ideas in order to reach a compromise. If it turns out that the ideas are completely unrealistic, there's no harm done; we only wasted a few electrons. It's nothing personal, so please don't get upset when it happens. I'm not sure what you find problematical with my suggestions: "Spanish Basque" = 302,000 Google hits, and "Spanish Catalan" = 723,000 Google hits, so I'm clearly not the only person to use the phrase. I can't see how Spanish Catalan could imply dual citizenship, as "Catalan" can't be a citizenship since – as I understand it – Catalonia is not a sovereign country, which is the legal entity to which citizens belong. We would wikilink Catalan anyway, which would help clarify that "Spanish" is the citizenship and "Catalan" is the nationality. Wouldn't that be better than warring over using just one or the other word? --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi @RexxS:, first of all thank you for your friendly tone above. Indeed, you are right about "Spanish Basque" being used although I see it's often used as "Spanish Basque Country". At least, that is what I see from the top google hits (most relevant). Not sure if it is applied very often to people, but I could not find a very definitive answer. Regarding "Spanish Catalan", I see that in most of the top 20 google hits, the formula is "Spanish (some simbol) Catalan". I think that if we look at google relevance index, those numbers could be somehow deceiving. In any case I think a wikilink will help a lot. I really don't want to warring. I'm not very good at it. And I also see that your aim is to be as informative as possible. Arcillaroja (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: No problem. I know we both agree that Wahington's bio follows the guideline. You misunderstood me. I never claimed that OPENPARABIO is divorced form notability, that is obviously wrong. I just pointed out that the first points are objective and not necesarily related to what made the subject notable only at the end is what made the person notable listed. I will comment each individual item in the list to clarify what I meant:
  1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)); (This is an objective fact)
  2. Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources (do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them). (Also objective regardless of whether the subject was notable for being born on a particular date)
  3. Context (location or nationality); (this is explained at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context and should also be objective "the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident" regardless of whether the subject was notable for his particular country of citizenship)
  4. The notable position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played; (this is the first that part that introduces notability. According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Positions_and_roles to choose which ones to list we can use how the subject is commonly described by sources)
  5. Why the person is notable. (After those four things that should be common to all biographies then what made the person notable should be included: Catalan president, first African American President, etc)
For the example of Jean-Claude Junker, if he would have been notable only as President of the European Commission would you introduce his biography as a European politician?. And how about people whose notability is only as regional politicians or city mayors or any other subdivisions? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: It seems to me that OPENPARABIO#Context is contradicted, not explained, by the later section. It's a huge mistake to confuse nationality with citizenship, especially given the differing views on whether any particular group of people constitute a nation or not. You may remember my examples at another place where I argued that Dylan Thomas was Welsh, Patrick Pearse was Irish, Washington was American, and while their nationality was beyond dispute, their citizenship belonged to another entity for all or most of their lives. One cannot simply assume that citizenship = nationality, and much of the current dispute hinges on that fact. I don't agree that we should only mention what makes a person notable after stating four other things. The essence of a lead is conciseness and prescriptive interpretations of guidance are often counter-productive. No, we should not have to state citizenship in the opening sentence of every biography, and very many articles do not follow that pattern. When citizenship is irrelevant to a person's notability, it has no place in the opening sentence.
Junker is an interesting case. If he continues in the role as President of the European Commission for some time, we may reach the point where the preponderance of sources describe him as that. In that case, I'd be very much in favour of starting with "Jean-Claude Junker ... is a European politician who ...". We shouldn't be making those determinations based on our own preconceptions: as with all content problems, we should be guided by the sources.
As for smaller subdivisions than nations, I still think we just have to look to the sources. I wouldn't see any problem in describing Harvey Milk as a "Californian politician" in preference to an "American politician" if the sources agreed, but it's not really an issue in my view because he was notable for being gay and being assassinated, not for being Californian or American; although if the purpose of that description is to set the context, i.e. location, then "Californian" would clearly be more informative than "American". Bringing that analogy back to Spain, wouldn't Javier Fernández Fernández ... is the Asturian President be far more informative than Javier Fernández Fernández ... is a Spanish politician? --RexxS (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: I don´t see any contradiction between MOS:OPENPARABIO and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context location or nationaliy seems to fits with country of citizenship or country of nationality or country of permanent residence as outlined in the section. As we also discussed before England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland are Countries of the United Kingdom and are covered by the guideline according to WP:UKNATIONALS and we also agreed that Washington does follow the spirit of the guideline.
My interpretation of the current guideline is that we should not open the article of Jean-Claude Junker as a European politician or Javier Fernandez as an Asturian politician or Harvey Milk as a Californian politician even if true and relevant it would go against our current guideline. for keeping a common style across articles and to avoid thousands of changes I would advise against modifying it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: The only way for there not to be a contradiction between (1) "location or nationality" and (2) "country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident", is if you don't make any distinction between location and country, and between citizenship, nationality and residency. Yet they are very distinct concepts. How would describing Javier Fernandez as the Asturian President or Harvey Milk as a Californian politician go against the guideline which indicates that location and residency are possible descriptions. What value is there in rigidly following a particular interpretation of part of a guideline that produces less information for the reader? --RexxS (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: It so happens that I myself am from Asturias and I am proud to be an Asturian, we have our own dialect and culture. I am also Spanish and as all Spanish people both my national identity card and my passport explicitly state that my nationality (nacionalidad) is Spanish. In the passport is written in three languages (Nacionalidad/Nationality/Nationalité): Española (which means Spanish). This is the same for all Spanish nationals regardless of the Autonomous community they are from. To source this you can check this interview to Oriol Junqueras where he stated: In my ID it says I'm Spanish, At this time I'm a Spanish citizen from a legal point of view
Describing Javier Fernandez as Asturian right after the date of birth goes against the section where context is explained and the country is cited as the criteria to be used. of course the very relevant fact that he is the Asturian president should be mentioned elsewhere in the lead. so I am by no means proposing that we give less information to the reader. The country adds context and so does the region and ethnicity when relevant, I think it's just a matter of following a consistent format across all biographies. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: Well, I'm an Englishman living in the Black Country, part of Great Britain and I'm a citizen of the United Kingdom and of the European Union (for now). My passport says "Nationality/Nationalité: BRITISH CITIZEN" which obviously confuses nationality with citizenship. So you really shouldn't be putting much store on what it says in your passport. I'm a Francophile and support the French national sports teams (allez les bleus!), but that doesn't explain why half of my passport is in French.
Describing Javier Fernandez as Asturian seems to me to fit with OPENPARABIO#3: "Context (location or nationality);" Surely the reader gets more information from "Asturian President" (location - role) than from "Spanish politician"? What's more important: one interpretation of a guideline (that hedges with the word "usually"), or giving the reader more information? Why would we follow a false consistency across all biographies when both circumstances and sources differ? There's no consistency between the Spanish regions: Asturias is a principality, but Catalonia is designated as a nationality. How can we consistently follow a guideline that recognises nationality as a recommended description when some regions are nationalities and others are not? That's a false consistency that serves no purpose, and certainly does not serve the reader. --RexxS (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The UK is a very special case covered by WP:UKNATIONALS the nationality of all Spanish people is Spanish. There might be some confusion because the Spanish constitution introduced the term "nacionalities" which currently applies to 8 regions but it clarifies "The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards" our nationality is Spanish as stated by Oriol Junqueras himself. My interpretation of the manual of style is that it strives to provide consistency through all articles. If Asturias been a principality is for some reason a problem you can substitute Javier Fernandez for Ximo Puig instead. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The UK is no more a special case than anywhere else. There certainly seems to be some confusion on your part. Catalan is a nationality, so according to the guideline, there's absolutely no reason to exclude it from the opening sentence. This is the English Wikipedia and we use English words with English meanings, regardless of whether your usage in Spanish differs. Your interpretation of the MOS is completely mistaken. It is not a mechanism for producing uniformity across articles - where on earth did you get that idea from? As with all WP:Policies and guidelines, its purpose is "to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia."

Although Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia's policy and guideline pages describe its principles and agreed-upon best practices. Policies are standards that all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense.

The WP:Manual of Style is bluntly clear about its requirement that an "article should be internally consistent"; but nowhere is there any requirement to create consistency between articles, and if you claim otherwise, I'm going to have to ask you to cite the policy or guideline that says so. When you've checked and can find no support for your assertion, I hope that convinces you that your line of reasoning is flawed and that you will now reconsider your over-reliance on a guideline that simply does not support the line that you are arguing. --RexxS (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you in this point. I interpret that "consistent" in "The MoS presents Wikipedia's house style, to help editors write articles with consistent and precise language" means to strive towards having a format that is consistent across all articles, not that each article should be consistent with itself. Starting biographies with the name followed by the date, country of citizenship/nationality/residence, roles and then notable facts is a consistent format for our biographical articles. And on your other point, Catalonia is not a country but England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland are.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
RexxS, yes, there are all sorts of combinations involving citizenship/ethnicity/country/region that could be used in the lead. Article-specific consensus would be ideal but given the level of hostility between editors I can't see this happening, particularity in respect of nationalist politicians. Unless we come up with a specific but broad consensus I fear the disputes will continue.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The principal purpose of MoS is cross-article consistency. It's not "required like a law", but needs to be a really good reason, not just WP:ILIKEIT, to diverge. We've codified a handful of them, like WP:ENGVAR, as a really good reason. Where the selection is just arbitrary (i.e., simply doesn't matter), MoS doesn't have and shouldn't have a line-item about it, like whether to prefer "fowl" over "poultry". Otherwise, just follow the guideline. It exists to followed not to be battlegrounded about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
No that's a completely unsupported assertion. Where does it state anywhere that the purpose – let alone the principal purpose – of MoS is "cross-article consistency"? Answer: nowhere. You only have to read my comment above to see where I've quoted PAG: "to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia." Nothing about "cross-article consistency". In the MoS, there is plenty of guidance on producing "consistency within articles", which could be reasonably asserted to be a principal purpose, but that's as far as it goes.
Of course, common sense dictates that we should try to be consistent between articles, where possible, but not to the extent that that editors insist on applying a guideline to articles where it is clearly inappropriate. We all know that "wikt:a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds and attempting to use just one part of these guidelines to exclude the descriptions of "Basque" or "Catalan", for example, from the introduction to a subject does a disservice to our readers. We should follow the sources. --RexxS (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course MoS doesn't state something like that. Go count up how many guidelines or policies on Wikipedia say anything even vaguely like "this is intended to apply across all of our articles". Our editors do not have dain brammage and we don't browbeat them with the obvious. It's implicit in the entire nature of what a policy or guideline is. We don't need to spell out for our editors that BLP applies to all bios not to just all of them except people in Chile, or that NPOV doesn't have an exception for articles you write at midnight, or that NPA applies to everyone on all pages, without a free pass for attacking people at WikiProject Underwater Basketweaving.

If MoS were not intended for cross-article consistency it would not exist. There would be literally no purpose whatsoever for it. Our entire Manual of Style could simply be the single sentence "Write any way you want, as long as it's consistent in the same article; the end." The only possible reason for any of our style guidelines and any item in them is that they are to be applied regardless what article you're working on, unless there's a compelling reason that it'll objectively improve the encyclopedia if you diverge in a particular case.

Let's not be silly. There is literally no one else on Wikipedia I've ever encountered who doesn't understand this. I can't actually believe that you don't either; it looks like you're playing some kind of arguing-just-to-argue game.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You make a statement that you can't support, so you decide to call me silly. That's very mature and does a lot to advance your case. How about you retract that? The rest of your diatribe has now descended into argumentum ad extremum: if it doesn't say exactly what you believe it should say, then there's no other possibility. "If MoS were not intended for cross-article consistency it would not exist". Utter codswallop and you know it. There are lots of purposes for our PAG, as I've quoted above, but "cross-article consistency" isn't one of them. You seem to be the one who's arguing for the sake of arguing, along with a large dose of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --RexxS (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't call you silly, I suggested that we not continue a silly discussion. I didn't make the statement you're reacting to. And I did support it; just because it's not a rule you can thump like a bible doesn't mean the principle doesn't exist. This has already been explained to you. Reacting angrily is not an argument, and since you've not provided an actual rebuttal of anything substantive or meaningful, I decline to re-repeat; circular argument isn't conducive to resolving anything, and it doesn't look like anyone else cares about this diversion anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish - our present "style guidelines and any item in them is that they are to be applied regardless what article you're working on" don't work. They are not inclusive. They are taken by some users to delete the Basques and the Catalans from our encyclopaedia, an encyclopaedia which should be a record of the sum of all human knowledge, including the Basques and the Catalans. At present, the style guidelines are ethnically cleansing both nationalities out of history. Things need to change, and I agree 100% with what Doug is saying. He has shown "compelling reasons" that "objectively improve the encyclopedia". Take a few days to seagull-view what's been happening, please. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000, your comments accusing wikipedia of ethnic cleansing are bang out of order and I suggest you strike them. We all have the right to work here without being accused of ethnic cleansing. And our notability policy is regardless of race or ethnicity. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's a WP:Systemic bias point. The problem here isn't that MoS is wrong, it's that people aren't following the sources. If someone is identified in RS and self-identifies as a Basque or Galician and happens to be a Spanish citizen, they shouldn't be identified as "Spanish" in our article; that's original research/PoV. Their citizenship could be identified as Spanish. Anyway, I'm not terribly opposed to adjusting MoS bio to make this clear, but exactly how to do that well is an open question. Why doesn't someone propose some exact wording?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have gotten off the rails a while ago, but the best advice I can glean from it just to follow what the reliable sources do. Something like this?

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident unless most reliable sources identify the subject with a different, i.e. subnational, identity. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

I removed the present/past distinction because I don't think sources behave so differently on that. I'm sure I made a mistake in wording somewhere there that needs to be corrected, but I hope the gist is something most people can agree with—basically there should be no preference over country or subentity; just use whatever the sources use. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 00:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Problem with the scope and alternative proposal

The current scope mentioning only Catalonia and the Basque region does not make sense, in Spain alone there are 15 other Autonomous communities of Spain many of which have nationalist aspirations. Criteria should be uniform for biographies of other independentists from Galicia, Andalusia, the Canary Islands etc... I also don't see a reason to make a distinction with other regions around the world where part of their population strives for independence, like Flanders, Bavaria, Corsica, Martinique, California, Texas etc. This and many more regions were also mentioned in the debate that sparked this RfC.

The current wording of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context uses as a criteria the "country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident". The proposed RfC relates to how we interpret, of if we change, that wording for subjects of biographies that want independence from their current countries and therefore have a strong regional identity. An independentist from Bavaria would feel more Bavarian than German as an independentist from Catalonia would feel more Catalan than Spanish.

My proposed "third way" is based on a solution proposed by only in death. The idea would be to sidestep the nationality issue by deviating a bit from MoS for subjects that are politicians or advocates of independence and instead of "is a Spanish politician" write "is a politician from Catalonia, Spain" (change Spain and Catalonia for any of the other countries and regions). The subject could also be described as Catalan, Bavarian, Corsican, etc. elsewhere in the lead. It is not fully in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context but it would requiere no change to the guideline and avoids the posibility of misinterpretation of substituting the country of citizenship for regional identity which happens to be their political objective and could be considered WP:ADVOCACY of that goal. It also avoids for independentists to be presented at the beginning of their biographies as something that they do not identify with and strive to change. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Crystallizedcarbon and the proposed solution presented by only in death. Arcillaroja (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon, Catalan and Basque were just examples used to assist editors unfamiliar with the subject. The scope of this Rfc is all Spanish biographies. We are not trying to re-write this policy, we are trying to achieve local consensus in respect of Spanish biographies in order to limit the disruption caused by repetitive disputes.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I understand and agree but I don't think it should be limited to Spanish biographies as the arguments would be just as valid for other regions where part of the population strives for independence and the result of this RfC could also affect them. I see no reason to treat Spain different than other countries and make a specific interpretation valid only for Spain. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Please don't derail this RfC which is specific to "Spanish regional identities". You are free to open another RfC on wider issues, but discussing non-Spanish groups is off-topic for this RfC as it stands. --RexxS (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no intention on derailing the RfC, on the contrary, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context applies to all biographies, Spain is not the only country with nationalist regional aspirations. Above I cited some examples but there are many more. I don't see a reason why a Catalan or an Andalusian should be treated differently than a Quebecois or a Corsican to name two examples. We can propose and discuss changes to the guideline, but they should not be arbitrary.
Limiting the debate just to Spain based only on the current disputes is arbitrary. I think it would be reasonable to widen the scope to people that have a clear preference of their regional identity and want independence from their current country. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
And I disagree that you can widen the scope of an RfC after it has been open for days, nor is keeping a clearly defined scope "arbitrary". The disadvantage of bringing up subjects not covered by the RfC is that you dramatically reduce the chance of reaching a consensus on the original issue. There is a clear need to establish consensus on how to describe Spanish Basque and Spanish Catalan personalities in the lead of their biographies because of the editing conflicts going on in that precise area. RfCs are part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution system, and are not needed to resolve issues where there is no dispute. --RexxS (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon, there are numerous cases of local consensus without affecting project-wide consensus. This Rfc is about Spanish biographies. If you want widen the scope please start a separate Rfc. Let this one run its course.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
There should be a well defined criteria for that division. It would make no sense to have to open another RfC for each of the many countries that have regions where part of the population also want independence. I think it would also make no sense to open another one in parallel with the exact information but just for all countries. The arguments in this RfC so far can be applied to the biography of any person that wants their region to be independent form its current country. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
But we don't rely solely on individual self-description (although that is an important factor to be considered). We rely on summarising what the best independent sources say. If sources uniformly describe Nestor Basterretxea as a Basque artist, born in the Basque Country, and notable for his works related to that region, it is singularly unhelpful to our readers to change his opening sentence to read "Nestor Basterretxea Arzadun ... was a Spanish artist". The formulation "Nestor Basterretxea Arzadun ... was a Spanish Basque artist" would be a far better reflection of the sources, a much better indication of the reasons for notability, and equally reasonable under our guidelines. --RexxS (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree, let us not level the encyclopedic landscape as a some kind of Spanish "café para todos" (or "coffee for everyone"), where those who are starving and those who are bloated are treated the same, to bring a simile. The case was brought up because there is a conflict specifically with these two cases, Catalans and Basques, so let us fix that. Claiming aggravation autonomous communities may feel when there have never been identity issues or invariably consider themselves Spanish is not helpful here. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not a simile, it's a metaphor. EEng 19:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I feel that changes to a guideline should not be arbitrary in scope based just on the current level controversy of a set of articles. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep, refinements of a guideline should be just enough to serve a purpose – in this case, resolving conflicts – and no more. That is not arbitrary, and unless you can show a need to change the guideline to resolve conflicts outside of the Spanish–Basque–Catalan area, then there is no need to waste editors' time in this RfC pondering the matter. --RexxS (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
My point is that making rules for an arbitrary subset of articles makes no sense. I support the current version of the guideline, I think there is no need to change it or to make exceptions, but if there is consensus to change it, those changes should not affect just the proposed subset without any other reason than resolving a "conflict". That to me would be in line with Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep, making different rules for every country or region in which there are editing conflicts does not make sense at all. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
We know what your point is, and I've explained to you numerous times that there's nothing arbitrary about establishing guidance for a particular set of articles, in order to resolve conflicts in that particular set of articles. That makes eminent sense. Do you deny there has been chronic edit-warring over many articles about Catalan and Basque subjects?
The consensus to change the current guidelines will impact only the area covered by this RfC. That is the purpose of the RfC. The changes should just affect the proposed subset because conflict resolution is a perfectly adequate reason. Have you bothered to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal ..."? Do you deny that resolving conflicts is one of the reasons why we have guidelines?
Have you read Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep? Here's what it says about this very point: "Substantive additions to policy should generally be rejected unless: ... There is a real problem that needs solving, not just a hypothetical or perceived problem. Do you deny that there is a "real problem" around the descriptions of numerous Catalan and Basque subjects, where one group of editors have changed a Catalan or Basque description to read "Spanish", resulting in edit-warring at many articles and an RfC at Talk:Carles Puigdemont/Archive 5 #RFC on nationality to resolve the issue. The intransigence of the editors changing "Catalan" or "Basque" to "Spanish", and their refusal to accept the outcome of that RfC as establishing a precedent for similar articles is the reason why a satisfactory outcome of this RfC is essential. Those conditions do not presently exist in other similar articles, and your "hypothetical or perceived problem[s]" elsewhere are properly rejected by WP:CREEP. --RexxS (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The eight nationalities in Spain, as stated by the Spanish law

I see that nobody here has taken into account that in Spain, legally, there are three "historical nationalities" (Basque Country, Catalonia, and Galicia) from the very approval of the 1978 Spanish Constitution, and five other (Andalusia, Aragon, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, and the Valencian Community) which acquired that status afterwards. You can read "Nationalities and regions of Spain" if you do not trust me. So my proposal is: the same that UK citizens from England, Scotland, Wales are not depicted according to their citizenship ("British" or "UK citizen"), we should not depict those people as merely Spanish. If those nationalities have an special legal status, that should be reflected in the lead: "a(n) Andalusian/Basque/Catalan... Spanish."

And if somebody is secessionist, only the nationality that person wants to be independent should be mentioned. That would reflect better the notability of the biographied person, I think. Of course, besides nationality, the country of citizenship should also be mentioned (for example: "Arnaldo Otegi Mondragón (born 6 July 1958) is a Basque politician from the Basque Autonomous Community in Spain"). --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 23:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Xabier Armendaritz: I just commented on that above. the term nationalities was introduced by the Spanish constitution, but as you can read in the article you cited
the second article was passed along with the term "nationalities" but firmly stressing the indivisible unity of the Spanish nation.[8] It reads:

The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all
the UK is the union of four countries, Spanish regions are not countries we are divided into 17 autonomous communities. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Semantic hair-splitting; many of them were subsumed under the Spanish crown through a similar royal union process. Several have strong nationalist movements, and many remain nations in the cultural sense.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: The royal union process that I think you are referring to involved the kingdom of Castile and the kingdom of Aragon please see: Habsburg_Spain#Beginnings_of_the_empire_(1504–1521). Catalonia for example, was part of the kingdom of Aragon and has never been a country. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
That is independent from the fact that 47.5% of voters in the last regional election of Catalonia chose political parties in favor of making Catalonia an independent country so yes, there is a strong nationalistic movement. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Those eight nationalities in Spain have been recognized "historical and cultural identity" by laws of the highest rank in Spain, the statutes of autonomy ("a law hierarchically located under the constitution of [the] country, and over any other form of legislation"). So those eight nationalities should be mentioned besides citizenship. I am not proposing to delete any piece of information, but to add valuable information that reflects better nationalities in Spain as per the Spanish law. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 08:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
You're not going back far enough. Many of these were independent kingdoms and principalities at one point. Please just stop arguing about this trivia as if you can WP:WIN, and just absorb the actual point. Gaaahhh ...  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
From the legal point of view, all autonomous communities are equivalent in their subordination to the constitutional order, regardless of the terminology used in their definition. This is a well known fact. Nationalities != Nations. That is also a well known fact. Therefore the stated solution is not applicable in my opinion. Arcillaroja (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
This is not about legalisms, it's about whether readers will be mislead and subjects misrepresented.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
On the English Wikipedia, we use English words to convey an English meaning. When our descriptions of best practice use the word nationality, we mean that to refer to the status of belonging to a particular nation. As the English definition of a nation is commonly understood to be "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory"], there can be no doubt that Catalonia and the Basque Country (greater region) are to be regarded as "nations" for the purpose of understanding our guideline. The English Wikipedia is not beholden to Spanish Law to interpret our guidelines. --RexxS (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
That might be overstating the case a little (different fluent English speakers have different understandings of nation, often in different contexts), but that's the gist of the case I'm making as well. A large subset of readers will think of the concept that way. Another will treat it as synonymous with nation-state; some right now on this page are doing so, and this seems to be why this tedious sub-debate is happening.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I have seen this claim suggested by Arcillaroja("are there 41 nations in Spain?" and the like, sic) being made in some articles, as it happens, by short-lived accounts and banned editors. Just a false premise amounting to a fallacy. The provinces and autonomous communities are an administrative arrangement inspired in the French départéments, so it has very little to do with nationality. We are talking of Basques and Catalans, the Basques have never lived under a single polity since the Middle Ages.
From a legal point of view, Spanish citizenship did not exist up to the early-/late-19th century. With regards to "nation", as pointed out by Antonio Alcala Galiano in 1835 in the Cortes del Estatuto Real "we need to build the Spanish nation, since it is not so now, and it has not been so far".See here) So we talk up to the 19th century of a crown ruling over different kingdoms and nations, one of which has always been the Basques (to the south of the Pyrenees). I should think the same applies to the Catalans. As stated by Pascual Madoz, "The Basques have always been a nation, their hallmarks being independence, isolation, and courage. They have always spoken their ancient language, and have constituted a confederation of small republics, related by their common ancestry and language." (Diccionario geográfico-estadístico-histórico de España, 1850). Also [Cameron Watson. Modern Basque History, p. 10 https://basquebooks.com/products/modern-basque-history-eighteenth-century-to-the-present-paperback], "the Basque Country [greater region] has been a nation without state".
Let us focus on serving and accommodating the knowledge of the editing community, reflecting all its diversity, not on rules to curtail it. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Please @Iñaki LL: provide divs where I state such a thing as "("are there 41 nations in Spain?" and the like, sic)". Denying the very existence of Spain as a nation? Nonsense. There are plenty of examples of spanish regions that were somewhere in history, states, vasal states, ect, ect... The catalan or basque example is no exception.Providing factual information in a unequivocal manner is not against diversity. Arcillaroja (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
O no, sorry, I was not careful enough in my wording, I mean the underlying idea, not that you said that. As for the second part, I doubt Spain was a nation whatsoever before the 19th century, it was a crown of different kingdoms and nations, as noted by Alcala Galiano above, with an ever centralizing drive of the absolutist regime (1714, Nueva planta decrees, etc.). However, what the Spaniards were is not my main focus here, Basques and Catalans are. The Basque (Biscayne) nation is often cited though, no doubt of that. Granted, no citizenship existed. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The 1995 National Geographic issue also considers the Basque Country a nation.[30]. Wilhelm von Humboldt calls the Basques a nation ("The Basque nation, when considered as a whole, doubt erupts, it is in vain to look for a common name the Spanish, the French and the Germans will agree upon [to designate them]" 1805). The enlightenment society Basque Friends of the Country instilled its students with "love for the king, the nation and homeland", the latter two referring to the Basques.pages 106-107 Victor-Joseph_Étienne_de_Jouy (L'hermite en province... 1817) comments that "the Basques live at either side of the Pyrenees; the majority of (edited according to source) that nation, living under Spanish rule, inhabits Navarre, Álava, Biscay and Gipuzkoa. The French Basques live in a small territory to the north of the Pyrenees, divided into three regions they name Labourd, Lower Navarre and Soule". Many more evidence can be found here anyway [31], so feel free. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Rules do not curtail accommodation or serving of knowledge, but curtail behavior/actions. Rules reduce the frequency of us mis-serving the alleged knowledge, by reducing how often we mislead or confuse readers with idiosyncratic edits. You're making a quantity argument when this is a quality matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you in that rules cannot curtail knowledge, now I should be concerned if they are used to circumvent the main principles of WP of open knowledge based on participation and dynamism. Nothing is written in stone.
I do not think gender, geographic origin or national background is idiosyncratic if you refer to that, it is part of the identity and a driving force behind individuals and groups, it is common memories, present experiences and expectations/projects, that is why it is so relevant to specify it at the very beginning, especially since we are talking about the knowledge of a person. Take for instance, Elcano, he was a Basque (euskalduna, vascongado) from (Getaria) the polity Gipuzkoa (by the way, cited as a "regnum" in a 16th century map), subject of the Crown of Castile, and that is all. He is not "Spanish" strictu sensu. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Mis-parsing of the subject again. "Idiosyncratic edits" does not map onto "idiosyncratic gender, geographic origin, or national background". That's confusing the subject with writing about the subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Depending on people custom one can use birthplace (as in Castilian custom) or the social status given by the ethnic group, as in Catalan custom The Sardana: Catalan Dance and Catalan National Identity. This can result in conflicts, for example Pep Ventura. For Castilians he is Spanish (see this article in El Español which negates his Catalan national identity: Pepe Ventura, el andaluz que inventó la Sardana: regreso a su pueblo, Alcalá la Real), but Catalan custom gives him the status of Catalan, not Spaniard (refer to the previous article about Sardana and Catalan Nationalism) (nature versus nurture). So, depending on who you ask, Pep Ventura will be either Spanish or Catalan. It is clear that Catalan prevails, because for Spaniards Catalans are also Spanish. Using Spanish alone excludes Catalan identity, with wikipedia editors adding "Spanish from Catalonia" which is absurd when you could just put "Catalan", as can be seen in this diff: [32]. Now, people talk about Catalonia belonging to the Kingdom of Aragon. That is wrong. Catalonia formed the Crown of Aragon and Catalonia. And the Principality of Catalonia was the entity having power in that Crown, not Kingdom. SMcCandlish is right when he says that Spain is formed by multiple countries and nations, because all of them were subsumed. The Crown of Aragon in itself was a confederation, with distinct laws for each member of the Crown. Castile was centralistic, with the same law applied to the whole territory, forming a single State. Xabier Armendaritz is also right when he acknowledges the different nationalitites and there is a need of stating them. Nationality and citizenship are distinct things. Citizenship is a legal status, nationality is an ethnic matter, which can be stated in a legal article, as in the statute of autonomy of Catalonia. Catalonia is a land (country), and a nationality, established as an autonomous community (constituent country) as per the Spanish Constitution. Filiprino (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Solution proposal

The debate on the scope does not seem to be making progress, the discussion was opened out of necessity for a solution that avoids litigation, provides an honest approach to the individual's main biographical features, specifically its nationality, and satisfies the editing community. Here is my draft/approach:

"If needed, the opening paragraph will define Catalan and Basque born individuals’ national background according to their notability in relation to their activity, primarily Basque or Catalan when speaking of political figures self-defined as such, or cultural agents known for their activity in connection with that culture. In sports, science and unclear cases, Spanish Basque (Navarrese) / Spanish Catalan represents the preferred option.

For historical figures up to the 19th century, in the cases related to the Basque Country (greater region) and Catalonia, the individuals will be defined since 1512 (1529), Navarre’s conquest year, according to their known national community as defined historically, namely their natural linguistic affiliation and/or self-defined collective identity, and Spanish Basque/Catalan when they are known for the services provided to the Crown of Castile/Spain(s) or institutions located in Spain, such as expeditions, conquests, royal chronicles, universities, etc. Sources should aim at further clarifying and/or confirming the points defined above." Iñaki LL (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote above (see § Hameltion-identity), the way to handle someone's identity in the lead is to follow what reliable sources say – Spain isn't really special. I've started to convince myself that this would mean that "American" is sometimes an unsatisfactory descriptor, making this a somewhat radical position advocating change to the constructions The Velvet Underground was a New York City rock band formed in 1964 by ... and Kate Brown is an Oregon politician who is her state's 38th and current Governor. I think that the following people, and many others, have already been given the descriptors that the sources use:
All these examples look better than just "American" or whatnot when that name is imprecise. What use is it associating someone with a whole country if the identity that sources ascribe is more local? What are your thoughts about the rule "follow the sources"? Hameltion (talk, contribs) 00:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Added DYK examples Hameltion (talk, contribs) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Hameltion for your lavish explanation and level of detail. It is tricky, my approach provides more editing certainty and provides a more concrete approach, but as pointed by an editor above there seem to be no case-specific definitions so far? Sorry if I missed something, that is what I understood. Other than that, your approach should work for me as a principle, and decrease the level of litigation, although there may be contrasting sources and then Spanish Basque or Spanish Catalan should apply. This in fact would come as no surprise, given the degree of litigation. I think we can accommodate that double identity for WP purposes anyway. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
For me, it seems clear that the proposed change on our guideline or its application should not be limited to articles from just two regions without a valid criteria, doing so just on recent news or level of controversy on some articles does not seem reasonable.
Many of the examples provided by Hameltion do not follow the guideline as currently written, these are the exception and not the norm. Currently, the begining of the lead of biographies introduces de subject with the name, date of birth,(death) the country, roles and notable information. This provides a uniform format that gives context to the reader. Citing first the country to provide that context to readers that may be familiar or not with other regional subdivisions is complementary to including any relevant regional local or ehtnical information elswhere on the lead and the body to describe the subject. Charles R. Perricone Could be introduced as an American politician from Michigan or Michigan politician could be mentioned elsewhere in the lead, but American provides context at the country level regardless of whether the subject may be notable at a regional or city level. If we change our current guideline, to base choosing the region, town or ethnic group over the country based on sources we would have to change thousands of articles and it would be very hard to establish an objective criteria, would just the number of sources be the determining factor? In that case 99% of biographies for local or regional politicians would need to be changed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know that most of the examples I cited are going against the MOS currently, and that people may not know, for instance, where Michigan is. The wording could be moved around (as in, Charles R. Perricone is a politician from Michigan, in the United States, who ...) or your suggestion of "American politician from Michigan" (even "from Kalamazoo, Michigan") also would work. It just seems quite unnatural to write "American author" for someone who has lived in South Carolina all their life (opt for "writer from South Carolina, in the United States" or "from the U.S. state of South Carolina"?). Anyway – we can work out a standardized way for each type of case, I'm sure. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 14:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is perfectly reasonable to have an RfC to establish guidance for specific instances where the amount of controversy requires better guidance. WP:PAG begins "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia." (my emphasis). Continually denying that policy is starting to become tendentious.
If you are prepared to develop the case for a broader guideline in MOS:BIO, then please create your own RfC for that purpose. It is disingenuous to attempt to thwart the conflict resolution that this RfC will bring, simply because you are opposed to mentioning "Catalan" or "Basque" as the nationalities of notable Catalan or Basque subjects.
Your formula ("name, date of birth,(death) the country, roles", etc.) represents neither current practice nor current guidelines. By attempting to rigidly enforce "country" to supply geographic or cultural context, rather that the equally acceptable – and often preferable when related to the subject's notability – alternates of location or nationality, you do a disservice to our readers by pretending that the most appropriate context for someone like Carles Puigdemont is as a Spanish politician, rather than the much more informative and relevant description as a Catalan politician.
The same considerations need to be applied to every subject where there is a choice between describing them as "Spanish" and "Basque" or "Catalan" :
Where a subject is described in the sources as Catalan or Basque, and their entire notability is bound up in their Catalan or Basque identity, they need to described unambiguously as such in the opening few words.
Where a subject is described in the sources as Catalan or Basque, but their notability is a step removed from their nationality (a Catalan artist may be most notable for being an artist, for example), then the compromise of describing them as "Spanish Basque" or "Spanish Catalan" is the best formulation.
Where a subject, born in the Spanish part of Catalonia or the Basque region, has notability completely unrelated to their birthplace, and the majority of sources simply refer to them as Spanish, then describing them as Spanish will provide the clearest information for our readers.
That is what our guidelines should say, and the support for those principles in this RfC should be abundantly clear to the closer. --RexxS (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: Please remember WP:AGF. We both agree on resolving conflicts, but I believe that what you propose rather than achieving that goal would generate new ones. If we decide that the country can't be used for Catalans and Basques described in sources as such and notable for it (most regional and local politicians would fit that description) any editor could argue that the same should also apply to Galicians that fit that same criteria and It would also seem possible to apply it to Californians, Texans, Bavarians, Corsicans, etc etc. If "conflict" is deemed a valid reason to allow the change for those two, an editor or small group of editors in favour of the independence of a region could generate the needed amount of conflict to meet that criteria and change country of nationality for regional identity to further their political agendas.
I do not propose to change the guideline, as you know I am against changing it. If the scope of the proposed change does not make sense I feel I also have to point it out.
Let me make one thing very clear. I am not against mentioning Catalan or Basque in the lead or in the body of the article. That is false. I am only against removing the country of citizenship to give context. I myself added Catalan President in the lead of Puigdemont. Including the country of citizenship of the subject following Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context is 100% compatible with mentioning Catalan or Basque elswhere in the lead as many times as needed. Some people in favour of independence feel that they are not compatible, but sources will of course state both as both are true and both should be included. Junqueras himself who is at present remanded in custody pending trial for sedition stated in an interview the obvious that he felt Catalan but was Spanish. In biographies mentioning the country first provides context and is fully compatible with mentioning other identities like Catalan and Basque right after. Example: Oriol Junqueras is a Spanish politician, historian and academic from Catalonia. Elswhere in the lead it could be mentioned that he was the "Catalan Vice-president" for example. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: Please remember WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. You are judged on what your actions actually are, not how you choose to describe them. Here's what you wrote at Talk:Quim Torra: "Using the RfC to change the nationality of this and other BLPs from Spanish to Catalan in the lead is in my opinion a political use of Wikipedia to support a political objective of independence from Spain, and goes against WP:NOTADVOCACY" and here's where you changed "Catalan lawyer and journalist from Spain" to "lawyer and journalist from Catalonia, Spain". Here's where you changed "Catalan politician" to "Spanish politician" in Carles Puigdemont. It's pretty obvious from your actions that you don't want Catalan subjects described as Catalan, but as Spanish. That is clear. And pointing out your actions to you has nothing to do with assuming good faith.
You need to focus on the effect of changing the guideline on the present disputes, to which you are contributor. The effect would be to quash attempts by editors like yourself in replacing "Catalan" or "Basque" with "Spanish" in cases where the subject's notability relies, at least in part, on their regional identity. That would bring an end to the current disputes and would be very much worthwhile, despite it not pleasing you.
If Gallicians and Kurds, Tibetans and Rohingyas all find themselves marginalised by editors removing mention of their identity as part of those groups, then I expect that they will also raise arguments to include that, as we would all expect. But that is off-topic for this debate. In the meantime, we need to take steps to stop the edit-warring in Catalan/Basque articles, and this RfC can accomplish that.
You'll also find that including the nationality or regional identity of the subject following Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context is 100% compatible with mentioning Spanish elsewhere in the lead. So there's nothing sacred about citizenship. It is only one of several possibilities to establish context and is not even mentioned in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography #Opening paragraph.
If you truly believe that both Catalan/Basque and Spanish should be included where the sources indicate, then why haven't you supported "Oriol Junqueras is a Spanish Catalan politician, historian and academic ..."? This is a politician who was born and educated in Catalonia, speaks Catalan, writes books in Catalan about Catalonia, served as Vice President of Catalonia, and has consistently been a supporter of Catalan independence. The sources overwhelmingly refer to him as "Catalan". Does his notability depend on his being a Spanish citizen? Not even slightly. The opening sentence of that article is a disgrace to Wikipedia, where a group of anti-Catalan editors have gone against sourcing and common sense to pursue an agenda. I've set out three principles in my previous post above. What principles do you bring to the table, besides "hang on to any pretext that might keep the word Catalan away from the initial description"? --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
A gret compromise by RexxS, which should be acceptable by all rationally minded Wikipedians! Thanks for sorting this out! To ensure that we don't need to count every source in point 3, I suggest we add vast majority, so that an overall outlook is taken, rather than a detailed poll of all the sources. Sian EJ (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
What suicide pact? When your arguments don't convince the other party the alternative should not be making personal attacks or putting other editors on trial. The motivation behind my edits is to protect articles from editors that in my view have an obvious political agenda. Again I have no problem with including Catalan in the bio for Oriol Junqueras both in the lead or in the article, It should be included after name, date of birth, country of citizenship and roles as that is the part of the lead reserved for including what makes the subject notable. That is the place for mentioning that was the Catalan Vice president or even that he advocates the independence of Catalonia etc. Name, date of birth, country and roles just provide context, notability comes just after that. Only some people that advocate independence think that being Spanish is not compatible with being Catalan. Oriol Junqueras himself admited in an interview that he is Spanish. The controversy is introduced by editors that promote independence and want to change the current reality. Currently there is no edit-warring at those articles, but changing an objective concept like country of citizenship/nationality/residence for a choice to use other regional levels ethnicity or identity based on number of sources (media will always adress local politicians as such) will clearly make something that is now simple and objective into a very hard to manage source of conflicts for thousands of articles. When I restored Spanish as the status quo version during the debate that sparked the RfC I also added the term "Catalan President" in the lead. The edit warring you reffered to was made by an editor in favour of independence that added Catalan claiming a non existant consensus to change the status quo and was blocked various times for it. Other editors restored that edit and when the RfC was oppened to stop the edit warring the previous status quo was not restored. So no, I am not in any way against using Catalan elshere in the lead, but it seems clear that what motivated the edit warring on the article was the desire of some editors with very strong POV to remove the the fact that he is Spanish. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
When you claim one thing and do another you may expect your actions to be subject to criticism. It's no use trying to play the victim, and the motivation for your edits is abundantly clear. It's pretty ironic to hear you say you're trying to "protect articles from editors that ... have an obvious political agenda", considering that your edits fall squarely in that category. It appears you're just trying to protect articles from edits that you disagree with.
You do have a problem with including Catalan in the bio for Oriol Junqueras, because you refuse to accept that an article about a person whose notability is inextricably linked with his Catalan identity should introduce him as such in the opening sentence. Any mention of Spanish citizenship (irrelevant to his notability) should be after name, date of birth, location/nationality, role. There is no "reservation" for citizenship because that does not contribute to his notability – had he been a French Catalan by birth, that would have had no more effect on his notability than the accident that he was born a Spanish citizen.
The context used in the introduction to a biographical subject is clearly stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography #Opening paragraph as "location or nationality" and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography #Context states "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable." That gives the lie to your unsupported assertions that "Name, date of birth, country and roles just provide context, notability comes just after that", which is clearly contradicted by our current Manual of Style. You really ought to read the guidelines, not make up things just to suit your agenda.
Nobody doubts that Junqueras is Spanish. He is also Catalan. The question is, which of those is more relevant to his notability? He writes, works, and publishes in Catalan, and was Vice President of Catalonia. It's obvious that he should be introduced as a Catalan politician and academic, and that follows the sources as well as common sense. If you're willing to accept compromise, then try "Oriol Junqueras is a Spanish Catalan politician ..."
There is currently no edit-warring at the articles because editors are sensibly waiting for this RfC to conclude. However the edit-warring has been chronic. It seems that you are part of the opposite group of editors who think that being Catalan is incompatible with being Spanish, so we see this edit from November 2017 where you reject the compromise of "Spanish (Catalan)" and insist on "Spanish", and here's one from October 2017 where you change "Spanish historian and politician of Catalan nationality" to "Spanish historian and politician". there are many more examples just in the page history of Oriol Junqueras where you have rejected Catalan descriptions for Junqueras; you don't even accept the Catalans as an ethnic group. The dispute is chronic and needs resolution. That resolution needs to acknowledge the three principles I outlined above, or something similar. We cannot resolve the conflict by allowing you to make up rules any longer.
Contrary to your assertion, having an inflexible rule actually promotes conflict, especially when that rule runs contrary to sourcing and the spirit of our guidance, which is to introduce the subject by reference to what makes them notable.
There was no "status quo" about Carles Puigdemont's introduction because it had been the subject of continuous edit-warring until the RfC at Talk:Carles Puigdemont/Archive 5 #RFC on nationality settled the issue, and rejected the unbending line you had taken. I expect this RfC to do the same.
It's very easy to blame edit-warring on a group of editors who take the opposite view to you, but you fail to admit that you took part in the edit-warring yourself, as a means of forcing your preferred version into an article. I'll return your own words to you: It seems clear that what motivated the edit warring on the article was the desire of some editors with very strong POV to remove the the fact that he is Catalan.
Your position is just as far from NPOV as the extreme opposite position. That's not compatible with editing on Wikipedia and you are going to have to accept that compromise is the only sustainable way forward. A formula like "Spanish Catalan" would be a reasonable introduction for many articles where sources regularly describe both aspects, and you ought to be supporting that. --RexxS (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I do not appreciate your continuing attacks or your tone and I am tired of this debate that seems to be leading nowhere, so this will be my last reply to you on this topic. I am sorry but I disagree with you. Name, date of birth, and the country of the subject have nothing to do with notability. They are objective facts. I feel that the controversy is created by editors that contest that fact. Country of citizenship/nationality/residence as well as name, date of birth and roles is included in most of our modern day biographies regardless of what they are notable for, which is listed right after. Again there is no problem in saying that he is a Spanish politician from Catalonia or mentioning the word Catalan elswhere in the lead. that is 100% accurate can obviously be sourced and follows the format of our MoS. I can undertand that people who want their region to become a country will have a very vested interest in presenting Catalan,Basque,Quebecois,etc. in a way that could be confused by a reader for a country, but I think that doing so is WP:ADVOCACY and I don´t see a need for changing our guidelines to allow changing thousands of articles when the regional or ehtnical identity can be included as many times as needed if relevant elswhere in the lead or the body of the article. I have nothing more to add to this discussion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't appreciate you once again trying to attack me simply because I point out how your edits don't jibe with your description of them . Those are a matter of record and there is no "tone" in that. You surely cannot imagine that nobody will look at your contributions to the current problems in the Spanish–Basque–Catalan area.
I agree that name, date of birth, and the country of the subject's citizenship often have very little to do with notability. However, this RfC is focused upon what Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography describes as Context, which is the third element, immediately after date of birth. Context, according to MOSBIO, should be provided for the activities that made the person notable. You are completely wrong to ignore what the guidance actually says and substitute your own view that the third element has to be "citizenship", when it could be many other things. That misinterpretation is used as your excuse to regularly remove the word "Catalan" from the introduction of subjects whose notability depends on their Catalan identity. The fact that you have been able to do so for so long already shows that the guidance will benefit from clarification of the sort that the three principles that I suggested above would provide.
Can you also understand that people who don't want a particular region to become a country will have a very vested interest in downplaying the importance of that identity in a subject's biography? They will insist that the subject has to be introduced primarily as "Spanish", as if it were the paramount qualifier, despite what the sources say in many cases. They will remove the word "Catalan"; they will deny the definition of "nation", a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory; they will refuse to accept that Catalan people constitute an "ethnic group": a community or population made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent; and so on. Does that behaviour fit any that you've observed in the current conflicts? --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
As a last comment and just to clarify, I am not accusing you of anything (other than using personal attacks against me) my comments on editors with clear POVs do not include you. for everything else please refer to my previous comment. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Giving diffs to illustrate that your edits don't match your rhetoric is not a personal attack. If you think differently, then ANI is thataway. Was that your "last" last comment or just the penultimate one like your previous "last" comment? --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

As things stand, I think RexxS' proposal can help solve conflicts, although I have expressed before strong objections on the problematic definition of WP:RS in the EN Wikipedia, especially as regards Spain and its clientelist system directly affecting the editorial line (at least on national issues) of most of its Spain-wide media and many of its universities; needless to say EN language media echo them more often that not.

That said, how would the conclusions of this discussion be accommodated in the MoS:Biography? Regards! --Iñaki LL (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: I would expect that if the closer agrees that there is consensus for the principles proposed – reliance on sourcing and notability – then something like

Choosing between describing a subject as "Spanish" and "Basque" or "Catalan":

Where a subject is described in the sources as Catalan or Basque, and their notability is bound up in their Catalan or Basque identity, they should be described unambiguously as such in the opening few words.

Where a subject is described in the sources as Catalan or Basque, but their notability is a step removed from their nationality (a Catalan artist may be most notable for being an artist, for example), then the compromise of describing them as "Spanish Basque" or "Spanish Catalan" should be preferred.

Where a subject, born in the Spanish part of Catalonia or the Basque region, has notability completely unrelated to their birthplace, and the majority of sources simply refer to them as Spanish, then describing them as Spanish should provide the clearest information.

could be added to WP:Manual of Style/Biography. Probably the Context section would be the most suitable place to add it. --RexxS (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
What would be valid sources? Most sources used tend to be press articles. They are not taking a position on the identity of the subject. They just use it for simplicity in a given context. What would be a clear definition of Catalan notability for artists? What are we going to do with all other nationalists editors that want to claim a certain personality for their cause? I don't think it will work very wellArcillaroja (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The terms above by RexxS state it clearly. The sources would be reliable sources, there are some that are clearly not. However, that is a pandora box we are not dealing with here. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Arcillaroja: Valid sources are the sources we use to write content - see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. It's not necessary for a source to take a position. We are only interested in how sources describe a person for the purpose of meeting the WP:MOSBIO #Context section, which is what this RfC is all about. If you look at Category:Catalan artists, you'll see it's not so difficult for most neutral editors to identify them. Or you could just look at an article like Josep Royo where the sources refer to his birth, education and work in Catalonia. If you mean "artist" in the broader sense, then apply the same common sense algorithm: what do the sources in the article say? what do other sources say (if you can find others)? If there's disagreement, take it to WP:RSN, the same as any other sourcing issue. My proposal would turn an intractable problem into a simple problem that we already have the tools to deal with, and of course it will work far better in producing good content for our readers than the current disputes do.
As for "all other nationalists editors that want to claim a certain personality for their cause" and all the opposing nationalists editors that want to deny that certain personality, I say we let them hold their own RfC if and when that problem arises. This RfC can set a good precedent for similar issues in the future, but there is no need to oppose sensible solutions here in order to address non-existent problems: see WP:CREEP #Prevention for a fuller explanation of our policy. --RexxS (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: Thank you for your patience. I thought the following WP policy claim might help us more than stating yet another list of rules. It simply states: "Wikipedia is a bad place to engage in labelling that isn't absolutely integral to international public perception of the subject". I couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact, this is already being done in bios of prominent independentist figures such as Jordi Cuixart. And I think it works perfectly.
Another objection I have is the following: Consider, for example, journalist Vicent Partal. This particular person is almost solely known for his hard line catalan independentist editorial articles and books. In fact, his notability is only related to this topic. Hence, we would label him as a Catalan journalist. But the guy is Valencian. So we would be giving wrong information to the readers if we state that he is catalan. Because he is not. Not everybody that say, writes in catalan is catalan. There are lots of other examples like this one. And it is not restricted to only catalan or basque persons. And in my view, most neutral readers are probably not interested in this particular labeling exercise. Arcillaroja (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Arcillaroja: Those are interesting examples, but I feel that they support my contention that we have to have flexibility in how we describe biographical subjects, depending on how the sources describe them.
In the case of Jordi Cuixart, it looks like the article is much more a description of the events surrounding his imprisonment than a biography. It contains almost no biographical information and could just as easily be titled Imprisonment of Jordi Cuixart, as the sources show that WP:BLP1E would appropriately apply. The sources do seem to describe Cuixart as a "Catalan independence leader"; and in a substantial biography of Cuixart, I would expect him to be introduced as that. Surely that is the key information that gives the reader location context for the subject?
As for Vicent Partal, having done a Google search, I don't see any sources describing him as Catalan, so I wouldn't expect him to be introduced as anything other than a "Spanish journalist". His biography is a stub, but I would expect an expanded biography to give far more detail of his work and his support for Catalan separatism in the body of the article, and a sentence to that effect in the lead. But I agree completely with his introduction, given the sourcing. I don't think we are far apart in what we see as the best end-product there.
For Wikipedia, our readers are not interested in "how the sausage is made", but only in "how the sausage tastes" – in other words, the final product. Nevertheless, we owe it to them to use our best endeavours to present them with the clearest, most appropriate information that we can gather. That is where I insist that we have to be ruled by the sources. Having the flexibility to describe subjects as "Spanish", "Spanish Catalan", or simply "Catalan" (and similarly for "Basque") is vital to our ability to properly reflect what the sources say. I really hope that you can agree that this approach will always yield the best outcome for our readers. --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I stumbled upon this Rfc because I saw it in the talk page of Ada Colau. I would like to come up with an additional example:
This politician is a great example. Who can say she is a Catalan politician when she has not made any demonstration of her integration into Catalan custom to date? She dances "sevillanas" in Barcelona's feria de Abril [33], she speaks Castilian in the Parliament of Catalonia and in her speech in the 21-D elections she did not use Catalan neither [34]. She has not sung any single time the Segadors (Catalonia's anthem) (she even crossed her arms as rejection). What I want to convey is that this politician has not made any Catalan symbol as her own. She has not demonstrated an adoption of Catalan culture as part of her. Other politicans might not dance Sardana nor participate in Castellers events, but at least they are neutral in that respect and speak Catalan and even sing the Segadors anthem. Her party is also against the linguistic immersion,[35] and supports the rethoric of indoctrination into Catalan Nationalism even though there are studies disproving causal relation between Catalan education and national identification.[36]. Politicians are easy to classify. Artists are not so easy. Albert Boadella gives support to bullfighting, something we know is not a Catalan symbol at all. But Pep Ventura (main contributor of sardana llarga) is considered Catalan even tough he was born in Andalusia and when he was 2 years old moved to Catalonia. He was raised and educated in Catalonia. He adopted Catalan symbols as his own and even contributed to them. However, some newspapers [37] pretend he is not Catalan but Spanish/Andalusian. Because Catalan nationality is not a legal status, we have to ascribe Catalan status based on cultural considerations. People who wants more "Spanish" in Catalonia should not be considered Catalan. Only people who has contributed to Catalan culture and has made the effort to integrate into Catalan culture should be considered Catalan. A good read is this peer reviewed article: [38].

Filiprino (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL! Hey RexxS, I swear this account is not in any way related to me! Arcillaroja (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
This is real, not a troll. If a reader considers that Catalans are Spanish that's at his discretion. But I think encyclopaedias bring in precise descriptions and different points of view to give a broad picture of a topic. The so called flexibility mentioned above by RexxS is a good framework. But using Castilian custom as defined in [39] (nationality defined by person's birthplace) to say that Vicent Partal is a Spanish journalist and not Catalan or Valencian journalist is an error. It should be written he is Catalan or Valencian. Spanish status is an addition at reader discretion. It's the same type of conflict which occurs with Pep Ventura. Also, Catalonia is a Country, but without sovereignty,[40] (país, land in the english version, synonym of Country, although the spanish version is the legal one) hence stablished as an autonomous comunity inside Spain, but a country after all. The same goes for Valencian Country and Basque Country. I mean, if we go by Castilian custom many people who is not Catalan can be considered Catalan and the reverse is also true. That is why the flexibility talked before is the way to go. Filiprino (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2018 (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.

Actors in plot summaries

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed MoS change: actors' names (not) in plot sections

Gist: MOS:FILM and MOS:TV are in conflict about whether to give actors' names in plot summaries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hindu Swami title in WP article titles

FYI
 – Pointers to relevant discussions elsewhere.

Please see:

At issue is whether there's something different about this Hindu term that makes it immune to MOS:HONORIFICS and MOS:JOBTITLES. The cases are distinguishable from each other in that in the era of Vivekananda, swami was primarily an occupational label (like "Dr." and "Professor"), while in the modern case of Nithyananda, the term is applied as an honorific (like Western "Master" and "Sir"). In the former case, the usage is common for the subject (though COMMONNAME has not historically been applied to retention of either honorifics or occupational prefixes), while in the more recent case it is rare in RS for that subject.

So, there may or may not be a WP:UNDUE issue. Parallels without occupational or honorific titles in our article titles are cited, including Ram Charan, Ram Kishor, and Muktananda, and comparable Western cases like modern Roman Catholic Saints, British nobility and peerage, etc. Mother Teresa has been offered as a counter-argument.

I think broader-than-usual input is needed, because of long-term and intense PoV editwarring at the Nithyananda article in particular, plus much lower attention paid at English Wikipedia to Hindu figures, compared to Westerners with honorifics and occupational titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Question re capitalization of titles when pluralized

I am trying to understand the capitalization guidance we currently give regarding people with titles, and I have several questions. I will take them one at a time. First question... Please consider the following sentences:

  1. The Duke of Norfolk attended the conference.
  2. Both the Duke of Norfolk and the Duke of Wellington attended the conference.
  3. Two dukes attended the conference.

I think (hope) that I capitalized the word "duke" correctly in all three sentences. My question is whether we would capitalize if we re-wrote the second sentence as:

  • Both the <Dukes/dukes> of Norfolk and Wellington attended the conference.

Please explain why or why not. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You should use:
  • Both the Duke of Norfolk and of Wellington .
The second 'of' is becoming optional in English, although required in most of our neighbouring languages. The Duke is capitalised as it is still part of the title of a particular named person. You really don't want to be writing Both the Dukes of Norfolk and Wellington ... as that can be read ambiguously as two Dukes of Norfolk and somebody else called Wellington. --RexxS (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Or, "two dukes, Norfolk and Wellington, attended the conference". Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
OK... that is actually a helpful answer. thanks. I will ask my next question in a new sub-section (others can opine here if they have anything else to add to this one) Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree those three examples are correct, and also concur with Johnbod. Side note: RexxS's "both the Duke of Norfolk and of Wellington" is ungrammatical in this particular construction (it's mixing plural and singular constructions), and as a phrase in general "Duke of Norfolk and of Wellington" it is ambiguous: For a single person, use "He was both Duke of Norfolk and of Wellington" (drop the caps if you insert a "the" before "duke"); for two people, use "Both the dukes of Norfolk and of Wellington", or Johnbod's version.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Question 2

This also relates to capitalization when writing a title in the plural... consider the way the name Smith is capitalized in:

  1. Joe Smith lives at 123 Oak Street and...
  2. The Smiths have lived at 123 Oak Street for six generations.

Now... consider the capitalization of "Duke" in:

  1. The Duke of Norfolk lives in Arundel Castle and...
  2. The <Dukes/dukes> of Norfolk have lived in Arundel Castle for six generations.

Would "Duke" maintain its capitalization the way "Smith" does? Why or why not? Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Names like Smith are always going to be capitalised; the variations only concern titles/positions/offices.
Use: The Dukes of Norfolk have lived in Arundel Castle for six generations. Our guidance states "Avoid capitalization of titles except when one is attached to an individual's name, or the position/office is the subject itself, and the term is the actual title ...". In the case you give, the position "Duke of Norfolk" is the subject itself (even in the plural) and the term is the actual title. Compare with The Duke of Norfolk has lived in Arundel Castle for all of his life, for which there should be no uncertainty. I'd be interested in what others think about A Duke of Norfolk has lived in Arundel Castle since 1787 . --RexxS (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd say that's correct, and "three Dukes of Norfolk have been executed", but once you mix titles it's "two dukes, Norfolk and Wellington" as above. Johnbod (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree with the latter, John. My analysis of that is we would definitely write Two dukes attended the conference. So adding "Norfolk and Wellington" in apposition should not disturb that capitalisation. We might even write Two dukes, The Duke of Norfolk and The Duke of Wellington, attended the conference. --RexxS (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
No, in answer to Question 2. This is already answered by the second bullet, third bullet, and first table rows 1 at MOS:JOBTITLES. "The Duke of Norfolk lives in Arundel Castle" is using a title stand-in for someone specific. If you pluralize a title, drop the caps. This is another confusion between Proper name (linguistics) and Proper name (philosophy); the latter has nothing to do with capitalization. "The Smiths" is a stand in for "the members of that particular Smith family"; "the Canadians" is a short way of saying "the people of Canada" (or "those particular people of Canada", depending on context, like "the Canadians did well in ice sports in the last Winter Olympics"). It's serving as a stand-in proper noun for a coexisting group of people. "The dukes of Norfolk have lived in Arundel Castle for six generations" just involves pluralization; it's the same case as "no two successive presidents of the United States have been impeached or assassinated".

Basically, stop over-thinking it, and just default to lower case. Capitalize only if the title is attached in canonical form to someone's name; it is standing in a substitute for the name of someone specific; or it is the subject itself in a words-as-words manner.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

But wouldn’t “the Dukes of Norfolk” be a stand in for “Those particular people who have been Duke of Norfolk”? I am now confused. Why would you recapitalize? Blueboar (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what "Why would you recapitalize?" refers to. The dukes of Norfolk, as a lineage, isn't someone in particular, it's just a plural. "The Queen" in reference to the Elizabeth II is someone specific. Maybe there's another way to put it, but I can't think of any meaning of "specific" or "particular" that expands to the entire class. Otherwise I could say that "human" is very specific as it identifies every Homo sapiens ever born. Just not what we mean by specific.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Third question

Does the above apply to people with elected titles such as “Lord Mayor of London” or President of the United States”? from what you have said, I would think that since we would write:

  • ”The President of the United States lives in the White House”

Then we would also write:

  • ”The Presidents of the United States have lived in the White House since 1790”

Is that correct? Why or why not? Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, once you make a clear reference to a specific person/title/office/position (as described in the guidance), you are using a proper noun, and it should be capitalised. So, yes, I'd capitalise the full title of the position "President of the United States", just as I'd capitalise the abbreviated title when used with a personal name. Thus:
  • The Presidents of the United States have lived in the White House since 1790, but President Trump lives on another planet.
Contrast that with the use of common nouns here:
  • The Queen of England lives in Buckingham Palace. Normally, kings and queens live in palaces.
I hope that difference makes sense to you. --RexxS (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it does... so... to generalize: if a) a title is a proper noun (hence capitalized) when written in the singular, then b) it is still a proper noun (hence capitalized) when written in the plural. would that be accurate?
So... for example, "During the reign of Henry VIII, England had six queens" (because the singular "queen" is not a proper noun in this context)... BUT... "During the reign of Henry VIII, there were six Queens of England" (because the singluar "Queen of England" is a proper noun in this context). Yes? Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I think so, but I can't guarantee that others would agree with me. There's a thin line between a common noun like "queen" and a proper noun like "Queen of England", especially in cases when the former is clearly being used as shorthand for the latter. In addition, you may find some constructions just don't look right. What do you think of During the reign of Henry VIII, England had six queens, one king, and three Archbishops of Canterbury? Should the last list items instead use "archbishops" (i.e. as a common noun)? Johnbod, any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I hear these queens could go either way as well.
As you wrote on the last, I think. "six queens of England" could go either way without bothering me. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
It's great you're able to be so nonjudgmental. EEng 03:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Should be "queens". If we were in a parallel universe, and Henry VIII had six queens at once because he was a polygamist and all his wives were co-queens, you might have a case for "Queens", but even then it's dubious. This Henry VIII's queens digression is more over-thinking and more confusion of the linguistics and philosophy notions of proper names; "because the singular 'Queen of England' is a proper noun in this context" does not apply; it's only operating as a proper name when standing in grammatically for the name of someone "understood" in the context: "The Queen and President will have a teleconference in August".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Question 3 is the same as no. 2. There's nothing magically different about titles by country or by commerciality versus electoral versus peerage/noble. So, ”The presidents of the United States have lived in the White House since 1790”.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Please explain the difference between a linguistic proper name and a philosophical proper name. Blueboar (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, God, don't get him started please. Last time an emergency budget override was needed for more server space. EEng 16:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, we'd need a whole page on that. Better just read the articles (or, really, the kinds of sources they cite; our articles aren't all that great). A recent-ish academic volume (ISBN 978-3110190861) is basically a cross-disciplinary review (and expensive). Some people are trying to merge the approaches; I don't get the sense they're making much progress, and even if they did, it'd be decades or generations before they had any real impact on how we write, if ever.

PS: This sort of stuff is why I and various others advocate simple (sometimes arbitrary) "rules" – or whatever you want to call them – in MoS, and why other style guides have them. The more variations and interpretations you permit in the ruleset, and the more exceptions or special cases, the more likely it is someone won't understand, agree, or comply (or comply correctly). We'd be better off MoS saying "do not capitalize titles except when directly attached to a name" and stop at that. But people would throw fits about it. Fit-throwing is why we have a complicated rule; any time you try to get people to stop capitalizing something they feel like capitalizing, some subset of them get unreasonably angry.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Transgender person's birth name, if known, in section other than lead

I was reverted by User:Marie Paradox using the justification MOS:MULTIPLENAMES for which this appears to be the appropriate discussion page. However, it does not appear that this guideline or policy applies to any section other than the lead, which I did not edit given that it would be there if it was not controversial. The only issue I see is whether my source is truly reliable, and I admit there could be some doubt. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe that MULTIPLENAMES does only apply to the lead, and does not prohibit including full birth name elsewhere in the article. However in this case it looks like there may be consensus on the article talk page to not include the birth name in this particular article. If you want to confirm that this is the case, or change the consensus, my guess is you'll need an RfC, just based on how much this has been discussed already. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Yep. Last I looked we don't include TG birth names unless the person was notable before their public transition, or something to that effect, but this may have been a moving target. A few years ago there here a whole slew of competing RfCs on such matters at WP:VPPOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The section of MULTIPLENAMES which deals with trans people's names only talks about the lead, yes. In the article body, other guidelines and policies come into consideration, such as MOS:IDENTITY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of non-notable information). There was a thread about this topic in one of the village pumps within the last two months or so. -sche (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The problem here is less about the Manual of Style and more about this being an article about a living person. Policy outweighs MOS. Also, the source is not that strong as it is a passing mention on entertainment news on a lesser known news website. This basically falls within the scope of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy. This is contentious material that was only referenced through one source. Multiple strong sources are required. Also more specifically is Privacy of Names which states; "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." Since Lavern Cox herself is a public figure some might argue this does not apply but since we are technically discussing two different subjects in some manner as the prior name represents the subject as a private person before she became the person she is now, we can assume the name was not necessarily meant to be made public. The section on Public Figures states; "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." This does not apear to be widely published. Privacy of Names also states (in regards to the sourcing used here); "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories".
At them moment I don't believe that the inclusion of the name meets required policy standards for Biographies of living Persons and that this particular issue is not an MOS issue. Aloha!--Mark Miller (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Sounds about right to me. If it was commonly found in numerous publications, it'd be different.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Good argument. I don't know that the source is "lesser known" but the type of article certainly doesn't meet the standard and I was too quick to assume it would be all right because it was in a respected newspaper. But I knew I was reluctant because of the type article it was. I didn't get reverted until I started discussing it with User:Marie Paradox because I was trying to understand something she posted on my talk page. But it wasn't an objection to the specific edit.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Tilda Swinton and MOS:NICKNAME

So... Tilda Swinton's full name is Katherine Matilda Swinton. Based on how I read MOS:NICKNAME, because she's known professional by a diminutive of her middle name, we should list her as:

Katherine Matilda Swinton (born 5 November 1960), known professionally as Tilda Swinton, is a British actress ...

as per my edit here and the example of Tim Allen, born "Timothy Allen Dick" as per the example.

JesseRafe disagrees and believes this is a John Edwards case (born Johnny Reid Edwards); that is, his rationale is that "Tilda" is a common diminutive of "Matilda" and so her professional moniker shouldn't be listed.

My understanding of MOS:NICKNAME is that if someone goes by anything other than their "first_name last_name" or "common_version_of_their_first_name last_name", we explain that in the lead. So my response to JesseRafe was that if she was known as "Kate" or "Kathy" Swinton, then he'd be right, but because she's known by the alternate version of her middle name, we should keep the "known professionally as ..." bit. He disagrees.

I'm also not convinced that "Tilda" is a common variation of Matilda, but even if it were, it's her middle name, not her first.

Thoughts? —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I did a similar edit for a common variation of Bradley but it was reverted with this edit. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The MOS seems unambiguous here, it does not have to be the first given name to not need the hypocorism explained for those in the back. To wit, "If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial" -- emphasis added to note the plural in "names". It seems to the plain reading that any of their given names, if they have a common hypocorism, such as Bradley --> Brad, do not need to be spelled out. Nowhere does the MOS say this interpretation is limited to first names. Tilda, it is said on its own page, is a common hypocorism from Matilda (or its variants). JesseRafe (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that a common middle hypocorism does not need to be spelt out. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
"Those in the back:" classy. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Katherine Matilda Swinton (born 5 November 1960) is a British actress ... is fine, without "known professionally as Tilda Swinton". Tim Allen has a clause like that because his birth surname is different.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to give a different perspective... since she is better know as “Tilda”, I would start with that... and then explain how her birth name was actually Katherine... ie: Tilda Swindon (born Katherine Matilda Swindon ) is a British actress...” Blueboar (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
It's a valid point... I think MOS:BIO specifies legal first... yep, from MOS:FULLNAME:
While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name, if known, should be given in the lead sentence (including middle names, if known, or middle initials)
which is weird given that per MOS:BOLDLEAD, you go with article title (often common name) first. Anyway, seems like it's generally agreed that it's only if someone's last name is different/absent that you specify if they are otherwise going by one of their given names or a variation on one of their given names. Which I will make my peace with, even though it seems to me that that people not going by their first names is still relatively non-standard and that it couldn't hurt to clarify those cases. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't care about Swinton, but there are times when the nickname (I refuse to say hypocorism -- too many syllables) is so much more identified with the person than is their formal name, that to not give the nickname just sounds wrong. For example, I read Herb Caen's column every day for twenty years, but if you mentioned "Herbert Caen" to me, I'm not sure I'd even realize who you were talking about. EEng 02:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Tilda Swindon (born Katherine Matilda Swindon ) is a British actress... - for clarity, as we normally do with actresses (well, often anyway: "Marilyn Monroe (born Norma Jeane Mortenson;...") otherwise we do Ruth Elizabeth "Bette" Davis. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick and Blueboar: Don't make the assumption that a person's first name is their "true" name ("first_name last_name", "her birth name was actually Katherine"). Plenty of people are known by their second forename which is equally valid. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Agree with SMcCandlish's suggestion - no need for "known professionally as..." GiantSnowman 13:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
    I will say that the "Tilda Swinton (born Katherine Matilda Swinton ) is ..." approach is bit less annoying than "known professionally as...", though I again don't think it's necessary in a case this obvious. It makes better sense for a case like Davis since "Bette" isn't a common abbreviation of "Elizabeth" in English.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this is another opportunity to further declutter opening sentence. I'd say simply
Tilda Swinton (born 5 November 1960) is a British actress...
because down below it already says
Katherine Matilda Swinton was born on 5 November 1960 in London, the daughter of...
EEng 17:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
That would work for me as well. The point here is that a cookie cutter approach is not necessarily the best approach. We ARE free to play around with the wording of an opening sentence, and what works for one article may not work in others. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
No, the full name should be in the first sentence of the lead paragraph, not the opening of the main biographical section. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, lots and lots of people will object to not including the full name in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
MOS:FULLNAME indicates that best practice is to put the full name in the opening sentence, but it doesn't prescribe that it has to be the name used first. The principle of least surprise ought to tell us that the reader is expecting the article to begin "Tilda Swindon". My preference would therefore be to go with Johnbod's suggestion of following that with "(born Katherine Matilda Swinton ) ...". It sounds natural, fits expectations and doesn't seem to contravene the spirit or letter of our guidelines. BTW, "Bette" really is a common abbreviation of "Elizabeth" in England, although as an abbreviation, it is most often found among ladies of an older generation. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
FULLNAME notwithstanding, the principle purpose of the opening sentence is to help the reader confirm that he's reached the right article and to orient him. If the subject uses a stage name or whathaveyou, then the birth name doesn't help with that and is quite appropriately deferred to the usual bio section that opens the article in chief. But people seem very married to rigid formulas. EEng 23:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah... well this is an MOS page... so what do you expect. Rigid formulas are what style editors do best. 😉 Blueboar (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
MOS says you should say a MOS page. Geesh! EEng 02:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't make me post another cabal banner.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Health and Appearance of Michael Jackson

Disregard
 – Off-topic; this is a WP:RS question to discuss at the article talk page.

Hi, I'd like to know if yuo think this biographical article should state Jackson first spoke about bein physically abused in 1993 although he already did in his autobiography published in 1988. Thanks! http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson#Taraborrelli_on_physical_abuse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's been dead for quite some time so I'm assuming his health and appearance aren't the best at this point. EEng 03:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
EEng A perfect example to show how "great" Wikipedia is. If you want a qualiied answer this is the place to go. You sucked off a clown? Quaffel (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
In an abundance of generosity I'm attributing that comment to your tenuous grasp of English. EEng 17:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
That article actually exists? Why? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kendall-K1: Because the spin-off from Michael Jackson survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael Jackson. À chacun son goût, I guess. --RexxS (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Michael Jackson had gout? EEng 21:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
No, but he had great taste. --RexxS (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Less filling! EEng 22:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Nationality and place of birth

I see what looks like a budding edit war about norms concerning place of birth and the lede. I don't have an opinion on that directly, except to point out that place of birth, citizenship, ancestry and nationality are each distinct concepts and cannot be reduced to one another. For example, Franz Liszt was born in then-Hungary, held Hungarian citizenship, was of German ancestry (and language) but adopted Hungarian nationality in his personal brand. Meanwhile Josef Haydn was born only a short distance away but in Austria, earned Viennese citizenship, was of German ancestry and language but is credited with Austrian nationality in spite of his long period of residence in Hungary. In neither case is "nationality" a simple matter of either birthplace or ancestry.Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

My edit summary was cut-off. It should read "stating that it is no longer acceptable to say things like "American-born", "German-born", etc., in the lead sentence is a considerable change to the guideline, and should be discussed before implementation". DrKay (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I think we have far too many biographies that say "So-and-so is a Nationality something" with zero sourcing for the nationality (noting in particular that nationality, birthplace, and most recent dwelling are not always the same thing). I think that this is a MOS issue to the extent that the MOS encourages including this badly-sourced material. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
A lot of the disputes in this area are due to editors wanting to identify famous people as “one of us” (or infamous people as “one of them”). Demanding high quality sources is how we resolve the disputes. Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to engage in any edit-wars, so I'm glad this discussion is taking place. The latest version of the guidance that DrKay has added seems fairly reasonable to me. It does seem to suffer from the requirement that mentioning place of birth and death in the lead are subject to their relevance to notability. I'm quite sympathetic to keeping the lead concise, and requiring information to focus on explaining why a subject is notable is one way of helping that conciseness. However, I'm also aware that many readers will come to our articles just to find a single piece of information about a person. If the biography has no infobox (to give the information "at-a-glance"), we ought to at least consider supplying that in the lead, otherwise the reader has to find it somewhere else in the body of the article. Sometimes that's difficult; sometimes it's not. Take Hattie Jacques, for example, where did she die? That's not immediately obvious, and I think that it really should be, despite not being relevant to her notability.
Have a think about what we might consider best practice. When there's an infobox to hold simple facts, I can't see any problem in just putting of year of birth (and death where applicable) in the lead. But where there's no infobox, ought we not to mention place of birth and death in the lead? Is there a case for giving full dates of birth and death in those circumstances? I'm not tied to any particular formula, but I do think our guidance ought to offer sufficient flexibility to deal with these sort of issues, rather than a more rigid "one-size-fits-all" orthodoxy. --RexxS (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Nationality in the lede is notable and has always been present - it should stay. If it's unclear/complex then move it elsewhere in the lede. Simple example - "John Smith is an American astronaut". Complex example - "John Smith is an astronaut. Born in France, he moved to Germany at the age of 5" or "Born in France, he acquired German citizenship" etc. We have done that for soccer players ("Born in France, he represented Germany at international level") for years and it works well. GiantSnowman 19:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure that nationality is always notable or should be included in the lede, especially in complex cases. I happened to see Meyer Lansky today, for example, where the issue is left to the body of the article (in the current version). Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Except, of course, that Lansky is described as American by a number of sources, including Britannica. He's also already in a number of 'American X' categories... GiantSnowman 09:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, he was about 9 when he emigrated. Calling him American in the lead sentence may be confusing. He was ethnic Polish, left formerly Polish territory controlled by Russia and now part of Belarus, and spend the rest of this life in the US. With some massaging, that's what the lead should say.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Why in the lead? How much of this is actually relevant for his later life? How can we even state any nationality in the lead when we have no source that states his citizenship as a citizenship? We currently source it to Brittanica's short description "American gangster" but to me that indicates only that he operated primarily in the US rather than saying anything about his citizenship. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: You say "latest version of the guidance that DrKay has added". I've added nothing. I am restoring the last uncontested version added by User:SMcCandlish: [41]. DrKay (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
When you make an edit, you take full responsibility for the content you add. It makes not a jot of difference if someone else made the same or similar edits earlier, it's still your edit. I happen to agree with it, but that's not relevant to the authorship of the edit. --RexxS (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that. I think we're talking at cross-purposes. Your statement and revert[42] made it appear to me that you thought I was adding something entirely new to the guideline not reverting to an earlier version. I am not adding anything new. DrKay (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
That's fair enough. My objection to your edit that I reverted was partly the loss of the phrase "may appear in the lead" (because I think it's important to explicitly state that) and partly because of the assumption around jus soli you made in the edit summary as justification. --RexxS (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

BLPLEAD says nothing about excluding relevant places of birth from the lead sentence. The change that Lawrence is trying to force through (without any discussion or even once posting to any talk page) excludes ALL birth places from the lead sentence, even when relevant. So, Tina Turner will no longer be described as "an American-born Swiss singer" and will instead be "a Swiss singer". Such a change is absurd and clearly damaging to readers' understanding. DrKay (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You are introducing a strawman argument. Tina Turner should be described as an American singer, as BLPLEAD states "if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." We are trying to provide context, i.e. identify the place and social and cultural milieu in which the person became notable. We are not trying to label people. Lead sentences labeling people by their birthplaces or ethnicity (e.g. "Jewish American physicist", Egyptian-born French singer, etc ...) should be changed to remove those labels, unless integral to their notability; this is exactly like how we don't label people as Catholic, black, or gay, in the lead sentence. LK (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Once again, people are trying to formulate "one-size-fits-all "rules" for an issue that needs to be determined on a case by case basis. For some bio subjects, the best place to mention their nationality/ethnicity/place of origin is in the lead ... for others, however, the best place to mention these things is in the body of the text... for yet others, the best approach is to NOT MENTION IT at all. Policywise, we should allow all three scenarios... and leave it up to consensus at the local article level to determine which scenario fits the specific subject best. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Will you please stop trying to inject common sense, as if editors' mental faculties might be adequate for making choices like that? EEng 13:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. It's fine to outlay an average case, but it does need to be clear that there's no requirement to "lead-ify" this info if it's not actually encyclopedically useful in a particular case to have it there. For modern subjects, never mentioning their birth place or place of citizenship or any other indicator of national connection probably isn't going to fly, but going back more than a couple of centuries and that nation-state basis for approaching bio (or other) subjects rapidly falls apart.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


Depending on people custom one can use birthplace (as in Castilian custom) or the social status given by the ethnic group, as in Catalan custom The Sardana: Catalan Dance and Catalan National Identity. This can result in conflicts, for example Pep Ventura. For Castilians he is Spanish (see this article in El Español which negates his Catalan national identity: Pepe Ventura, el andaluz que inventó la Sardana: regreso a su pueblo, Alcalá la Real), but Catalan custom gives him the status of Catalan, not Spaniard (refer to the previous article about Sardana and Catalan Nationalism) (nature versus nurture). So, depending on who you ask, Pep Ventura will be either Spanish or Catalan. It is clear that Catalan prevails, because for Spaniards Catalans are also Spanish. Using Spanish alone excludes Catalan identity, with wikipedia editors adding "Spanish from Catalonia" which is absurd when you could just put "Catalan", as can be seen in this diff: [43]. Filiprino (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

No; it's one thing using nationality (fine), it's another using regional/ethnic (not fine). GiantSnowman 13:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The political definition of nationality is a legal construct. We are talking about people, not laws. Anthropology, not politics. Filiprino (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
As with infoboxes, every sufficiently long discussion eventually leads to Catalan something or other. EEng 20:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This project page and even this and previous discussions in the archives don't give any simple, short advice on how to decide on what to indicate as a person's nationality. Almost no editors have time to read such long discussions, which means that we are encouraging total chaos throughout WP.

IMO the simplest solution would be to provide a definition of what we mean with "nationality" in the infobox and to provide a link to that definition and to then demand sources (and include a warning that nationality may well be conceived of differently in the sources). What do you think about my edit on Lord Kelvin? --Espoo (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree - “nationality” needs a clear definition, at least a working definition, in order to have a productive discussion. This issue is very significant because if it isn’t resolved clearly, then it will be a powerful, subtle, force in perpetuating nationalism throughout Wikipedia’s reach. Nationality can refer to so many things, perhaps it shouldn’t be a term used at all in MOS:BIO Juanmantoya (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is not to dictate how subjects should be represented; its job is to accurately and neutrally reflect what the best sources say about the subject. It doesn't matter how editors choose to categorise concepts of nationality, citizenship, ethnicity or regionality; what matters is what the sources say. The clearest possible example is Carles Puigdemont who is introduced as "a Catalan politician and journalist from Spain". It's of no consequence what labels we attribute to "Catalan" or "from Spain"; all we need do is reflect how the best sources describe him. --RexxS (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

...Nevermind, nationality has a pretty clear definition within this context - basically it is meant in the legal sense, opposed to any cultural sense. I doubt that it’s interepreted that way by most readers, but it is established. Juanmantoya (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarifying a categorization-of-people point on English/anglosphere surname sorting, left vague for years

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see this thread at WT:COP.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Examples

Why exactly are we using two B-C class articles as examples when we have 1,338 features biographies to choose from? GMGtalk 16:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Change the examples then - don't remove them. GiantSnowman 13:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Best propose new ones here first though. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Why? Every BLP should be an example. And don't forget that this page isn't just about BLPs anymore, it's about biography in general. I see no need to point people anywhere in this document. --Izno (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Because it allows editors to see the MOS fully & truly in action. What harm does it do? GiantSnowman 15:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
"MOS in action"? That's not the point of MOS. --Izno (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that there izno need to point our fellow editors to any particular articles. EEng 15:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
"Do as I say but not as I do"...?! GiantSnowman 15:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Examples are helpful when they illustrate something inline right in the guideline (e.g. about an article title or about wording we've quoted from one, or just made up as a constructed example). They tend not to be helpful if someone has to go to the article and look at it (which they probably won't, and it could change at any time). Not sure what kind of examples are under discussion here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Suitability of the “Sexuality” section

There are multiple problems with the “sexuality” section:

  1. MOS:ID, cited as the main article for this section, hasn’t a word on leads—or explicitly on sexuality, for that matter. It fails as authority for the dubious recommendation of this section.
  2. The guidelines of the LGBT project, cited as “see also,” also hasn’t a word about leads. It too fails as authority for the dubious recommendation of this section.
  3. “Sexual preference” is typically the disfavored equivalent of sexual orientation, which is the term that should be used if that is what is meant. As the sentence speaks in terms of a “person,” the singular form must be used. If something else is meant, another term or phrase should be used to avoid confusion.
  4. Lastly and most crucially, the recommendation of the second sentence with regard to the problematic “sexual preferences” is wildly inappropriate, assuming the term is a stand-in for sexual orientation. It represents a heteronormative double standard, being as no other aspects of identity seem to be subjected to such treatment. Why should a person’s sexual orientation not be mentioned as a matter of course in the lead when any other aspect of his or her identity (like race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin) could be so mentioned casually and matter-of-factly, especially if he or she has discussed and revealed his or her sexual orientation in reliable sources? The recommendation makes no conceivable sense. It merely acts to conceal sexual orientation. To what end? Why should, say, a Cuban American child be able to find a role model simply by glancing at an article lead, whereas a gay American child is forced to scrutinize a whole and potentially very long article in search of his (taking gay as a primarily male term) role model? The effect here is to minimize the usefulness of articles for those readers most in need of them. How does such a guideline befit an encyclopedia and its readership, especially in the age of the It Gets Better Project? This portion of the guideline must either be deleted or very substantially changed. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography #Context. It is quite wrong to claim that "any other aspect of his or her identity (like race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin) could be so mentioned casually and matter-of-factly". You'll find that sexuality, like any other aspect of a biography, should only be mentioned in the lead if relevant to their notability. The Sexuality section is saying nothing new; it's already covered earlier in the guidance. --RexxS (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
A few points:
  1. You ignore my points 1 through 3. I don’t see what objection anyone could have to my point 3. Some rewriting, at the very least, is clearly in order in that regard.
  2. You are incorrect to say, “You'll find that sexuality, like any other aspect of a biography, should only be mentioned in the lead if relevant to their notability.” Biographical leads must still adhere to guidelines regarding leads generally. MOS:LEAD, linked to in this guideline, clearly states, “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.” So a biographical lead is not limited to establishing notability. It must also summarize the article, among other things. The confusing problem with this biographical lead guideline is that it’s poorly written almost entirely in terms of the opening paragraph that, like opening paragraphs in all leads, is supposed to establish notability. We appear to be expected to read the guideline in light of the more general one (MOS:LEAD). In fact, aspects of the general guideline do on occasion break into this one, as when we are directed in a specific context to “make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article.” Also note that I didn’t speak in terms of “any other aspect of a biography” but of “other aspects of identity.”
  3. Relatedly, you are also wrong to suggest all identities are being addressed, let alone equally. The context guideline doesn’t speak in terms of all identities but only very particularly named ones. Race, gender, nationality, and in some cases national origin are not treated in the exclusionary manner that ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation are. Why? This is improper. With regard to sexuality, this is clearly heteronormative.
  4. And let’s talk about this guideline’s broad acceptance of nationality. When I stop to think of the most salient aspect of a biographical subject’s identity, nationality does not quickly come to mind. Beethoven, after all, isn’t notable specifically for his German nationality, in and of itself. He is notable for his music, in and of itself. Yet the very first sentence of his article calls him a “German composer.” The obsession with nationality seems a bit nationalistic where “notability” is concerned.
So what would I suggest? I suggest changing all relevant guidelines (just the two, sexuality and context?) to allow all properly sourced aspects of a biographical subject’s identity (as that subject actually identifies) to be included in the lead, even if not in that first paragraph charged with establishing notability. That first paragraph can be reserved for those aspects of the subject’s identity for which the subject is notable. I am assuming here that any personal characteristics for which a historical subject has become notable, regardless of personal identification, would under current guidelines already be fair game for the lead, including that first paragraph. Antinoos69 (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
A few rebuttals:
  1. Yes I ignored your points 1 to 3. I agree with much of what you wrote, and didn't think it worth making an issue over your incorrect characterisation of the guidance of "dubious". If you insist on a further comment on those points, it's "so what?" Guidance is documentation of practice on the wiki and doesn't need another part of the guidance for "authority".
  2. I do agree that sexual orientation should be the preferred term.
  3. I am actually perfectly correct when I tell you that “You'll find that sexuality, like any other aspect of a biography, should only be mentioned in the lead if relevant to their notability.” If you'd followed the link I gave you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography #Context, you would have found the following guidance:

    The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. ... Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

  4. You were the one who first raised those aspects when you incorrectly claimed "any other aspect of his or her identity (like race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin) could be so mentioned casually and matter-of-factly". I quoted the guideline that gave the lie to your claim, and now you want to pretend that I was suggesting something about all identities? Really? A classic straw-man argument. With regard to sexuality, it is to be treated in exactly the same way as ethnicity, religion or any other aspect that is not related to notability. The reason that three are mentioned specifically is because they are the most problematical, as a glance through the archives will confirm.
  5. Beethoven was born in the Electorate of Cologne, within the area geographically known as Germany, but when he was born there was no German nation, and you are quite wrong to ascribe that as his nationality. Please actually read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography #Lead section and see what it has to say about providing context in terms of location. Carles Puigdemont is notable for being a Catalan politician, but he's a Spanish citizen. So that's what the lead of his BLP says. There's no obsession with nationality.
  6. The opening paragraph is concerned with introducing the subject and establishing what makes them notable (which will be summarised from the body of the article). The rest of the lead allows a summary of the rest of the article. This is common practice in our most developed articles, and is what our guidance documents.
  7. Your suggestion would have the effect of overloading the lead paragraph of most biographies. Including every piece of "properly sourced" trivia simply won't gain consensus here. Do you think that Bernie Sanders should be described as a "Jewish politician"? or that Sammy Davis Jr. should be described as a "short one-eyed Jewish negro" (as he famously quipped)?
There's no "fair game" in BLPs particularly. Our guidelines here reflect WP:DUE, which is a bastion against the free-for-alls that you seem to assume are the norm. --RexxS (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I must insist you check your insulting and abusive tone. You are absolutely nobody to be insulting me. A few corrections and clarifications:
  1. As for the text of the “Sexuality” section, then, let’s work on changing “sexual preferences” to “sexual orientation.” We should also change “it is related” to “related,” as the possible subjects differ in number. Let’s get that much done ASAP.
  2. Actually, you were indeed incorrect to claim, “You'll find that sexuality, like any other aspect of a biography, should only be mentioned in the lead if relevant to their notability.” Your point 6 means as much. Matters of identity do not fully constitute “any other aspect of a biography,” with respect to which your “in the lead” would have to be changed to “in the first paragraph of the lead.” Reread my previous point 2. Clear?
  3. You know perfectly well I read your linked page, as I both referred to and quoted from it. So drop the routine.
  4. Your claim, “With regard to sexuality, it is to be treated in exactly the same way as ethnicity, religion or any other aspect that is not related to notability,” is also not supported by the actual text of the guidelines. Your statement would be true only with regard to the first paragraph of the lead, not to the lead generally. In that regard, the guidelines do not speak in general terms but only in terms of specifically enumerated identities. Not all identities are treated equally, as explained in my previous point 3. This is improper and should be changed, as I previously suggested. You are reading things into the text of the guidelines that simply are not there.
  5. As for my point 4, feel free to replace Beethoven with Philip Glass, described as “an American composer” in the first sentence of his article, and my original “nationality” with “nationality and location,” if you were tripped up by the original version.
  6. I have no idea why you included your point 6, as I had already stated as much.
  7. Your point seven is simply absurd and insulting to minorities and oppressed groups. An LGB person or Cuban American is not comparable to a “short one-eyed Jewish negro,” nor is an identity comparable to a “quip” or “trivia.” You know better, so start showing it. (Should you really be this ignorant, then spend some time working through a serious bibliography on identity studies. You’d soon learn the differences.) As for Bernie Sanders, he could be “described” as a “Jewish politician” or “Jewish” only if reliable sources do so, and depending on what you mean by “described.” I’ve been discussing identity, so the reliable sources would have to claim Sanders identifies as one or both of those. Under my proposal, as opposed to your straw-man argument, the first paragraph of the lead would be subject to all the current strictures. The difference would be that subsequent paragraphs of the lead could include other identities of the subject as explicitly established by reliable sources—not hobbies, pass times, quips, trivia, occupations, or any such other matters, but actually professed, deep-seated, foundational, and pervasive identities otherwise suitable for inclusion in the article. There would be no “free-for-alls” here, just the usual editing process. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's concentrate on the issues on hand, and not your fragile ego, shall we?
Are you still trying to claim that "any other aspect of his or her identity (like race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin) could be so mentioned casually and matter-of-factly"? Can ethnicity be mentioned casually and matter-of-factly in the lead? Can national origin, for that matter? The answer is "no, the lead is for key information only", and I have given a direct quote that disproves the assertion for ethnicity specifically. I'll come to other aspects shortly.
I really am correct to clam "You'll find that sexuality, like any other aspect of a biography, should only be mentioned in the lead if relevant to their notability.” The guidance I've quoted twice now is clear about sexuality, religion and ethnicity. Now you seem to be proposing that the list would have to be expanded to a laundry list of every possible aspect of a subject's identity in order to have effect. There's no need. The guidance at MOS:INTRO (linked from MOS:BIO) already requires us to "avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article". We just don't cram every aspect of a person's identity into the lead section, and the inclusion criterion is generally "what makes the subject notable". Matters of identity are, by definition, a subset of aspects of a person's biography, and are subject to exactly the same considerations: just the key points in the lead; greater detail in the body.
My statement, “With regard to sexuality, it is to be treated in exactly the same way as ethnicity, religion or any other aspect that is not related to notability,” is not only supported by the actual text of the guidelines, but by common practice in biographies. The mistake is in thinking that the given list of identities must necessarily be an exhaustive list. That's both logically and factually incorrect. Those three are merely the ones that have caused the greatest problems. Fortunately, editors already accept that conciseness is a fundamental tenet when writing a lead, so we don't need to spell out every possible identity for MOS:BIO; it's sufficient to document the general principle in MOS:LEAD. The reason not all identities are treated equally is that not all of of them have given rise to drawn-out arguments among editors. A look at the talk page and archives of Talk:Carles Puigdemont will give a flavour of the issues surrounding national origin, while Talk:Chelsea Manning and its 18 archives show why sexual orientation is singled out for special mention in MOS:BIO. There's nothing improper about that.
Our documentation here and at MOS:LEAD is already sufficient to cover how we decide what aspects of a subject's identity to include in the lead, and it would not be appropriate to give free rein to fans who would otherwise take the opportunity to shove every piece of minutiae into the lead of their favourite pop-star. Neither should be be giving licence to spin-doctors opposed to a politician to use our encyclopedia as a vehicle to undermine the subject. The reason I gave the example of Bernie Saunders is that there was a concerted attempt to label him as "Jewish", despite the fact that his reliably sourced cultural background is of no relevance to the reason why we have an article on him. I don't want to see that door opened again. Because it is unrelated to his notability, Bernie Saunders cannot be described as "Jewish" in the lead, despite references that document his family's background. That is adequately covered in the body of the article, but would be UNDUE in the lead.
Similarly, the example I gave of Sammy Davis Jr. joking "I'm a short, one-eyed Jewish negro - and you think you have problems?" is to illustrate that not every reliably sourced self-identification should be included in a subject's lead.
To give another example, for a basketball player, their height may indeed be a key item in describing them; for most subjects it certainly will not be.
I therefore reject your proposal to include in the lead any-and-all sourceable identities that a subject may have. It is both unworkable and unwelcome. --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Yet again, you will have to check your tedious tone. I direct you to WP:CIVIL. Perhaps you’ll manage to read that correctly. A few points:
  1. You’re plainly incorrect to claim, “You'll find that sexuality, like any other aspect of a biography, should only be mentioned in the lead if relevant to their notability.” The context guideline reserves the “notability” criterion for “[t]he opening paragraph” of the lead and for very specifically enumerated aspects of identity, not for the whole lead and anything in it. The rest of the lead goes well beyond matters of “notability,” per MOS:LEAD. See, also, MOS:OPENPARABIO. Current guidelines improperly single out only certain enumerated aspects of identity.
  2. Your attempts to circumvent or hand-wave away the plain text of the guidelines are truly pathetic. It is absurd to believe that “the list [i.e., of enumerated identities] would have to be expanded to a laundry list of every possible aspect of a subject's identity,” or that it would be a mistake to believe “the given list of identities must necessarily be an exhaustive list.” Really? Is that the brand of crazy you wish to promote? The guidelines could very easily, economically, and clearly have been written in terms of things like “all identities of a subject” or “all personal characteristics of a subject” or some other such thing, but they weren’t. Deal with it. The fact is that your claim, “With regard to sexuality, it is to be treated in exactly the same way as ethnicity, religion or any other aspect that is not related to notability,” simply is not supported by the actual text of the guidelines, though the guidelines could very easily have been written differently and briefly.
  3. Again, some of your arguments are deeply offensive to minorities and oppressed groups. You must learn to check yourself—you know, like a human being. Identity is not an “overly specific description[]” or “detail” (per MOS:INTRO), a “piece of minutiae” to be “shoved” by “fans” of a “favourite pop-star,” “licence to spin-doctors” “undermining” a subject, a matter of mere “joking” (as though mere joking could be some reliable indicator of something like identity), or a matter of simple variation in “height.” Really? You do consistently amaze, just not for the good. Identity concerns who one consistently, deeply, and pervasively considers oneself to be. People don’t tend to have a million-and-one identities. At most, one tends to have a very few. Like anything else around here, identity would be dealt with through the usual editing process, based on reliable sources’ explicit presentation oh how biographical subjects actually identify. The process would be no messier than anything else around here. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Re #1, I agree, "main page" is being used incorrectly. The Sexuality passage doesn't even mention gender identity, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity doesn't mention sexual orientation. It looks like it should be a "see also" but, even so, gender identity should just as well be covered on this page. I suspect the main reason that there's special treatment for gender identity there is that, when discussing people in English, we can't avoid gender because of the language, such as our use of pronouns. That's just a guess, and I'm not even justifying it, nor criticizing it, just commenting. Well, we've got several issues going on here, but the most easily disposed of is to remove the "main page" designation.
Re #2, unlike "main page", which implies that what you're currently reading summarizes a more detailed consideration at the other location, "see also" doesn't imply that the referenced page has any authority over the current page, any more than Kolache has authority over what's written about doughnuts at Doughnut, just because it's listed in that article's "see also" section. This is the basis for my suggestion in my previous paragraph.
Re #3, yes, and I see you made proper edits.
Re #4: The core of your complaint appears to be "Why should a person’s sexual orientation not be mentioned as a matter of course in the lead when any other aspect of his or her identity (like race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin) could be so mentioned casually and matter-of-factly, especially if he or she has discussed and revealed his or her sexual orientation in reliable sources?" Your premise here is that "any other aspect of his or her identity (like race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin) could be so mentioned casually and matter-of-factly". But it says further up the same page, at WP:Manual of Style/Biography#Context, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Your premise is wrong, except for gender. (As I noted above, gender simply can't be avoided in English—a lead section is going to have third-person pronouns in it.) Therefore, your complaint was based on a mistake of fact, and is null, unless you're going to start moving the goalposts, which it looks like you may be doing in your discussion above, but TL;DR and I could be wrong. Largoplazo (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with your points 1 and 2. It was just that, with there being a “main page,” one is lead to wonder whether the “see also” page might also be intended to offer some sort of authority. I think we should just list both pages as “see also.”
Point 3 certainly is now irrelevant.
Point 4, however, is indeed now out of date. We are now discussing changing all relevant guidelines (two specific sections at last count?) so that a biographical subject’s fundamental identity or identities can be included in the lead, just not in its first paragraph. You’ll have to wade through the details above. (Current cited guidelines do not even mention all identities, nor do they provide any reference to identities in general. Cited guidelines therefore treat the identities specifically enumerated for disfavored treatment differently from all other identities, whether mentioned or not. Gender isn’t the only identity I mentioned that escapes censure; race does as well. And the essential point isn’t the reason why gender escapes censure. The point is that it does, with real-world impact on members of other groups.)
The mere fact that sexuality is singled out in a separate section, despite being mentioned in the context section, already raises all sorts of red flags. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
If some cross-references are no longer pertinent then remove them. If they're not pertinent as {{Main}} but as something else ({{See also}}) then change them. Hatnotes not being quite right doesn't cast any magical doubt on the advice in the section. Anyway, I don't see a concrete proposal here, just complaining and editorializing, then back-and-forth about the content of that opinion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Honorific in infobox

When a reader ticket:2018102110001899 requested that an honorific prefix be added to Rodrigo Duterte, I pointed them to our manual of style, specifically, the section on Honorifics.

They then noted that in the case of Leni Robredo, the honorific is included in the INFOBOX. the template has a specific field for honorific_suffix.

I don't see this discussed in the manual of style. while it does state that an honorific prefix should not be used in running text, while acceptable in the lead sentence or in a section about the person's titles and styles, I don't see an exception for the INFOBOX.

Is this an omission that should be corrected, or is it the case that the honorific suffix should be removed from the INFOBOX?

One thing is clear — it can't possibly be the case that an honorific is appropriate for the vice president of the Philippines and not for the president.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I have been bold and removed the honorific. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The Manual of Style is a guideline and they are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. MOS guidance should surely document our accepted practices, not become tablets of stone that dictate how we should edit. With over 1,000 articles using the parameter (search insource:/\| *honorific-suffix *= *[A-Z]/), I think it's pretty clear that our practice is to include honorific suffixes in infoboxes. If MOS doesn't document that, then I suggest that the proper course is to update the MOS to do so. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
No update is necessary. Suffixes are covered by the Post-nominals section. Prefixes are deprecated in wikipedia's own voice, which doesn't include the infobox. It refers to running text. DrKay (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, DrKay, although the explicit guidance was hiding away in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Formatting post-nominals section. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Except our infoboxes are in WP's own voice, by definition. Who else's could it possibly be? While we wouldn't have this parameter, and have it used occasionally (1000 bios is not many, in the grand scheme) without some expressed reasons for it, that doesn't necessarily mean it has consensus. Lots of people thought they had consensus to apply ethnic and religious labeling with infobox parameters, and they were wrong, as some long RfCs at WP:VPPOL determined. This is the sort of thing that is worth RfCing in such a venue (not at the talk page of the infobox, which no one pays attention to other than infobox coders). Or at very least, advertise the RfC at that page (or this one, or whatever) at VPPOL. Personally, I don't think we should at all be doing "His Excellency" in an infobox, because it definitely is in WP's voice, because the article body is where to describe honorifics and their applicability, and (related from that last point) because various people have far too many pre-nominal honorifics, styles, and titles (which aren't really the same thing, though easily confused) to list in an infobox.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

I just came across our article on Operation Red Dawn when patrolling new changes, and went from there to our article on Saddam Hussein. Both articles (and possibly others - I haven't checked) use Saddam rather than Hussein throughout to refer to him. This contravenes MOS:SURNAME, but I wondered whether this was a widely accepted exception, so thought best to check here before changing. I searched the archives but didn't find any mentions - apologies if this has been discussed before. GirthSummit (blether) 20:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

[44]. EEng 20:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - an interesting read, I guess I've learned something. This isn't commonly observed elsewhere though for notable Arab figures - quick check, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi, Nouri Abusahmain, Abdelilah Benkirane, Bashar al-Assad, Beji Caid Essebsi and the inestimable Boutros Boutros-Ghali all use the last name per MOS:SURNAME - the only other exceptions I found were royals like the Saud family (and there's a specific exception in the guideline for royalty). Do we need to amend MOS:SURNAME to take better note of alternative customs, or is there a reason why Saddam Hussein abdal-Majid (as I now know he's actually called) is treated differently? GirthSummit (blether) 21:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I suspect if we wait a bit editors knowledgeable in this area will comment. EEng 21:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I edited my comments above to take account of EEng's change to the shortcut (which I agree is probably a good thing). I think that my question still stands however - either our usage is wrong for the Arab figures that I've checked, and we need to update MOS:GIVENNAME to take account of the treatment of names in Arab countries; or, we are treating Saddam Hussein as an exception for a reason I'm not clear on. GirthSummit (blether) 22:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I think you're right, and I'll bet someone will volunteer to propose some text along the lines you suggest if we just wait a few days; otherwise we can ping some usual suspects. I note there's also WP:Naming_conventions_(people), which then lists a lot of really specific sub-guidelines like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) and, separately, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) (!), so I wonder if there's not a need for integration of all these far-flung pages. I certainly can't believe we need sportspeople AND baseball players. EEng 23:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Blimey - I'm surprised I've never seen 'Per WP:NC-BASE' in an edit summary reverting an IP before. Agree with you that it would be good to collate all this in one place; hope we get some expert eyes on the question in hand, happy to wait for them to come along. GirthSummit (blether) 23:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
My solution to things like this is to insert an HTML comment right after first occurrence of the name that some editors might want to change, e.g. <!--Do not change this to "Hussein"; Iraqi naming conventions do not work that way.-->, with a cross-reference to an article, source, or consensus discussion if that seems helpful. This technique seems to work well. E.g., I've been using it for 10+ years to get people to stop over-capitalizing titles of works, names of animal breeds, and various other things in French, Spanish, and other languages that use different capitalization rules than English (e.g., many do not capitalize "proper adjectives" like "Spanish" and "American", only the proper noun forms).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Transgender names

The manual says include the birth name in all cases, except for transgenders and "non-binary people". This is clearly censoring information on political grounds. Isn't that against Wikipedia's principles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.143.118.18 (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It's just an aspect of WP:BLPPRIVACY: personal information that we have reason to believe the subject would want to avoid repeating. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
This is just for the first sentence. The information isn't suppressed, it's just left out of the first sentence. I disagree with this guideline, but I don't see it as a big problem. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The information is suppressed, it's put in a place where a reader is less likely to find it.
If privacy is the reason it should be the same for non-trans people too. If it's about not hurting the feelings of the person then I'm afraid that really shouldn't be a concern for an encyclopedia.
It is a big problem because it is an extreme viewpoint forced on a supposedly neutral site, for no good reason. 188.143.118.18 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The information is not suppressed, it's available, but not always in the first sentence. It is the same for non-trans people who change their name in the same way, or when we don't know the birth name. It's not an extreme viewpoint and it's not forced because it's a consensus decision made by editors. That's a good enough reason. --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
An analog person with his analog computer.
The first sentence is more about letting the reader know they've got the right article than about telling the reader everything there is to know about the subject. Putting a non-notable extra name there does not serve that purpose. I have a problem with limiting this rule to just "non-binary people" but I have no problem with the general principle. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
These nonbinary people, would they be sexadecimal? EEng 03:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you about the blatant carve-out created only for those who changed their names for gender identity reasons. In my opinion the privacy argument should apply only when a transgender person wishes to remain "stealth" (not have their transgender status known) to the general public (in which case unless there is an overriding reason to have them in the article any other references that would indicate their transgender status should be redacted as well, which falls in line with putting up other medical information about a person). However, if one is voluntarily "out" about their status as a transgender person to the public (e.g. the example given of Laverne Cox), then I think their birth name should be held to the same standards as those who changed their name for other reasons where one would similarly prefer their former name not be prominently displayed (regardless of which way you think the guidelines should change).
If it were up to me I'd have a three-tier set of guidelines on how to handle birth or other former legal names (regardless of the reason for the change) using the analogy of how laws in the U.S. that treat people differently based on various characteristics are reviewed when challenged in court. In cases where the subject is unlikely to object to the former name being shown (or would want it to be shown, as would usually be the case for maiden names), then we should put in the lead and where applicable in the article as long as it's properly sourced (this being the "rational basis" case). In cases where the subject would likely prefer the former name not be prominent due to associations with it, but there are neither any tangible privacy issues nor would the name communicate anything that isn't otherwise specified on their page, then an "intermediate scrutiny" strategy where the former name isn't mentioned in the lead unless they were notable under it but (assuming proper sourcing) the name can be mentioned in the infobox or in the section(s) of their article covering the phase(s) of life in which they were known by that name (trans-related name changes where one is "out" by choice would apply here). In cases like a transgender person who wishes to remain "stealth", or where putting the name up could compromise their privacy in violation of BLP, then a "strict scrutiny" strategy would apply where the former name is not mentioned anywhere on their page unless there is a strong overriding reason to have it there (provided that such privacy protections would realistically be possible in that person's case).
The only "special treatment" that I would give to trans-related name changes would be that if the only reason the birth name was known was due to others causing harm (and that source would not likewise advertise a non-transgender person's birth name in the same matter if it had been changed), then such would not be considered a valid source.Okieditor (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Alright, do we vote to change it? 188.143.56.37 (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not willing to relax this. There are too many right-wing trolls who wish only for a license to deliberately disrespect transgender people. Wiggle room in this part of the MOS plays into their hands. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I second David Eppstein on this. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I would be in favor of removing "In the case of transgender and non-binary people,". Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Removing from the lead maiden names of women who changed their names on marriage, unless they were notable under the earlier name? That's a pretty big change. I assume you would at least keep the name later in the article (just as we typically list birthplaces later rather than in the lead). If we removed them altogether, some sources would become much harder to find. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
It would be a pretty big change from our normal convention, but it would make sense. The opening sentence should be presenting really key information, and I just don't see how a woman's maiden name falls into that category unless they were notable under that name. Of course it would always be appropriate in the Early life section, so the information would remain, but then we wouldn't be offering what would then effectively be a piece of trivia in such a prominent place as we do now. --RexxS (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd change the phrasing to something like "In cases where posting one's birth name would likely cause harm in violation of BLP, including but not limited to transgender and non-binary people..." which would cover all cases falling under my "intermediate scrutiny" analogy. I just think it's unfair that for example someone who wants to distance themselves from their birth name for other reasons (e.g. they dislike what their parents named them, their birth family was abusive and they were adopted, their paternity was incorrectly assumed at birth, etc.) can't get their birth name de-emphasized in the same way as a transgender person who is open to the public about their status (and thus no concerns about the birth name outing them) can. Cases like most maiden names (and other "rational basis" name changes) would be unaffected. I am not transphobic, I just dislike how transgender people are getting special treatment that others who may not want their birth name prominent don't.Okieditor (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • There's nowhere near enough of a rationale offered above to remove or change this material (I see a bunch of socio-politicized WP:ILIKEIT, basically). The trolling and disruption potential is too high. Much of what MoS does (like 100+ points of it, on various pages) is explain how actual policy applies to certain style matters. This is one of those cases. If a change is desired about WP's approach to transgender people, that should be taken up at WP:BLP, or WP:VPPOL maybe (since some TG people are, of course, no longer living, though the privacy and WP:UNDUE dwelling concerns are about the ones who are). It's not like this hasn't already been hashed over again and again and again at extreme length. I think the last major RfC about TG people at VPPOL was one of the longest in WP history (both as to how long it ran and to what byte-size).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hungarian names

I came here after reading the article on George Soros, which says he was born György Schwartz, which is not true as he was born Schwartz György. I see that this problem has actually came up here earlier, with Soros exactly, but now it's wrong again. Shouldn't we add a guideline for Hungarian names specifically, to avoid such issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.143.118.18 (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

There's a discussion open here about tweaking the sorting rules at WP:Categorization of people to do double-duty for MoS. Our material in MOS:BIO about specific cultures' name orders appears to have come from that page or vice versa and is redundant. We should consolidate in one place. What we don't want to do is add one entry per every culture in the world, certainly not in MoS. A general rule to follow the sources on what the original name order was is probably all we need in MOS:BIO.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Stage name that just drops the surnames

This bit doesn't seem to ring true:

"Use formulations like the following (as applicable) for any kind of alternative name: Timothy Allen Dick (born June 13, 1953), known professionally as Tim Allen"

It's in virtually no article I can see like this (Kevin Spacey/Tommy Lee/etc). Was the rule on this hashed out elsewhere? Thanks Nohomersryan (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Many articles record a stage name that is different from the actual name, whether that involves dropping a name or adopting a completely different name. In this instance it is probably pretty obvious where the name comes from, but it's still often worth specifying it. I can't see a problem with the MOS. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The difference here is the spelling of "Alan". Readers can tell when someone goes by their middle name or uses the just first of multiple surnames. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 14:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
It says "like" for a reason. It's not meant to be interpreted as "copy-paste this example, then insert the names that pertain to your article". It means to use some way to indicate that the end of the name has been dropped (or added; see Gro Harlem Brundtland example elsewhere on this page). It's just as common to do something like Tim Allen (born Timothy Allen Dick, June 13, 1953) (and sometimes without the bold around the birth name if it's rarely used in sources). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

PS: There's already a duplicate thread about this above, at #Tilda Swinton and MOS:NICKNAME.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistencies continue

Howdy folks. We're still not getting this capitalization/non-capitalizaton thing applied consistently to US governors & lieutenant governors bios. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've opened up an Rfc on this matter, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-English name/birth name in lead

The article Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha has the following lead sentence:

Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha (Thai: วิชัย ศรีวัฒนประภา; RTGS: Wichai Siwatthanaprapha), born Vichai Raksriaksorn (Thai: วิชัย รักศรีอักษร; RTGS: Wichai Raksi-akson) (born 4 April 1958)...

Which to me is:

Common name in English (common name in Thai) born birth name in English (birth name in Thai) (born date of birth)...

Could someone suggest something a little more concise and readable—particularly to avoid the duplication of two "born"s? For readability I would suggest moving the birth name (and translation) out of the lead and into the first paragraph of the biography, but MOS:MULTIPLENAMES dissuades this. MIDI (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Though, in this case the second "born" will disappear as soon as we have confirmation of his death, in favour of (4 April 1958 - 27 October 2018). It's a good point for still-living people, though. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • How about this, not much better but eliminates one "born":
Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha (Thai: วิชัย ศรีวัฒนประภา; RTGS: Wichai Siwatthanaprapha), born 4 April 1958 as Vichai Raksriaksorn (Thai: วิชัย รักศรีอักษร; RTGS: Wichai Raksi-akson)...
Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
That works for me. However, as Black Kite said (albeit before the news confirmation was made) it is a redundant query with this particular article although may be relevant to others. MIDI (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Usually, when multiple instances of native script and pronunciation guides begin to clutter the lead, I move them off into footnotes. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC) I've edited the article in question accordingly. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made a couple of changes which I hope retain information but at the same time improve readability. I am aware that various services that reuse Wikipedia content strip out bracketed content from the lead, so (although that's not really our problem), all pronunciation keys and translations are included within the same single bracket pair. MIDI (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
The current version is indeed how we would usually do it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Input requested at Talk:Peter Gabriel#Humanitarian

Community input is requested at Talk:Peter Gabriel § Humanitarian. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Middle-name redundancy

This may be an issue that has been brought up before but I can't find it specifically in the MOS: Some people are known publicly and to friends by their middle name instead of their first name, such as Woodrow Wilson, Grover Cleveland, and Jackson Pollock. Something to this effect could be added to WP:Manual of Style/Biography § First mention or WP:Manual of Style/Biography § Pseudonyms, stage names, nicknames, hypocorisms, and common names with an example:

There is no need to repeat a person's common name if it is part of the person's full name.

This has some overlap with WP:NICKNAME. I bring this up specifically concerning the article Keiko Agena. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 18:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, given this is a fairly common occurence. No need to put 'John James Smith, known as James Smith' or similar in the article. Our readers are not idiots. GiantSnowman 18:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Name change in living person

I think we should change

Gro Harlem Brundtland (... born Gro Harlem; 20 April 1939)

to

Gro Harlem Brundtland (... born Gro Harlem on 20 April 1939)

because the latter seems more natural to me. Hddty. (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Just use a comma. I see that the article is presently doing so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Many article use this inconsistently, Caitlyn Jenner for example use "on". Hddty. (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
So, just use a comma in them. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Royal surnames

DrKay removed "except for monarchs" from the convention. I think this should be discussed as there may be a good reason why royal surnames are excluded.--Thinker78 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

They're not excluded (e.g. John III Sobieski, Anna Jagiellon, Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, Matthias Corvinus). Guidelines should describe actual practice. DrKay (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
They are excluded (e.g. Elizabeth I of England, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV of France, Frederick III, German Emperor). I wonder which articles did editors bother to check established guidelines and which didn't. I have no preference if they are included or not but I think we should find out if there is a compelling reason why monarchs' surnames were specifically excluded from the guideline before simply changing it. --Thinker78 (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I see no inconsistency between DrKay's above-referenced edit to the guideline (bringing this page into line with WP:NCROY, which goes into far more detail as to reasons) and actual practice. For absolute clarity, how about "(full name – including surname if known and commonly used)" in this article. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
To be pedantic, you might want to tweak that slightly since monarchs may not have a surname at all. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Fine by me. DrKay (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Rosbif73, actually WP:NCROY, under WP:SOVEREIGN, states, "No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them." So I don't understand why you say "it brings this page into line with WP:NCROY". Can you clarify? --Thinker78 (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
To summarise the situation: Most of the main European royal families don't even have surnames, so the question is moot. There are, however, cases where they do have a surname or adopt one for certain uses (e.g. Prince William uses Wales for military purposes), but this shouldn't be in the article titlelead sentence, hence the "normally used" qualifier. And there are cases (such as the examples listed above by DrKay) where the surname is commonly used and should be included. And, crucially for the edit in question, we don't want an exception for monarchs otherwise the guideline would effectively tell us to add William's surname to his article title once he becomes king, for example. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Reading that again, I realise I have the exception totally backwards, and that I have also confused article title guidelines with lead guidelines. An actual example where the edit in question makes a difference would be Albert II, Prince of Monaco, for which the guideline with the "except for monarchs" clause would have had "Grimaldi" included prior to his accession, but removed afterwards. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
"No family names, except where English speakers normally use them." is the same as "Only incorporate surnames if they are in normal use." Either way, we do not list surnames unless they are used, in which case we do. DrKay (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
DrKay, but your edit stated, "including surname if known", not if they are in normal use. In addition, normal use by whom? As determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources? --Thinker78 (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I think you missed my comment at 17:19, 14 November 2018. I see no other good faith reason why you would continue an expired argument after I've agreed with the proposed amendment. DrKay (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
DrKay, if you think this is an expired argument you are free to ignore it or to request a WP:CLOSE. Your comment at 17:19 November 2018 doesn't tell me much, except that you agree with an unexplained tweak. I really dislike when people try to thwart discussions with baseless accusations. --Thinker78 (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Edited 21:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I guess that's what you're doing. DrKay (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I attempted to change this from "including surname if known, except for monarchs" to "including surname if known and commonly used", which appears to me to be the consensus here, but have been reverted by an admin. Does anyone actually object to this change or have anything further to contribute? Rosbif73 (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
As stated, a brief discussion is not sufficient and there is no consensus to change the status quo, given @Thinker78:'s opposition. GiantSnowman 12:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Rosbif73, I was hoping for an answer from DrKay but for some reason they went into a tangent instead of answering my question posted at 22:09, 15 November 2018. Feel free to shed light on it, as there could be normal use in the vernacular language if other than English as many editors are in other countries whose main language is not English and their normal use may be different than that in English. --Thinker78 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Can we at least agree on the original edit, removing the exception for monarchs which, if it were to be applied, would result in unwanted changes when an heir succedes to a throne, and which does not reflect actual practice? We can then go on to discuss the normal use angle if necessary. Obviously I can't speak for DrKay, but I don't see any reason to read anything into "normal use" other than its typical wiki implications of normal (primarily English-language) use supported by reliable sources (which can be presumed to reflect normal use in the wider world). Rosbif73 (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Normal angle is attached to the monarch exception. As you can see in the first comments in this thread, actual practice is split, and the guideline probably should have been followed unless the editor thought for some good reason it shouldn't be used. Maybe in the articles where the guideline is not used is because editors simply failed to look what was the established guideline. So we have to find out what was the original reason to put the monarch exception. In addition, heirs becoming monarchs is not a very frequent occurrence for us to be troubled to have to make an edit in their bios. Thinker78 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The editor who inserted the exception, claimed it came from the naming convention[45] even though there was no such rule at that page at the time[46] and still isn't[47]. Furthermore, that page was at that time in dispute[48]. DrKay (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't find actual practice to be split. The examples given above (John III Sobieski, Anna Jagiellon, Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, Matthias Corvinus) are historical, for members of dynasties that ceased to exist or reign centuries ago. Since the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1815, it has been prevalent usage for monarchs themselves, their courts and others to refer to them by regnal name, regnal number and title only, without a last name. The exceptions were a few of the Balkan monarchies in which the ruling dynasty was either new to the throne or had monarchs of different families succeeding to/usurping the crown (Montenegro, Romania, Serbia), but the last of those exceptions (Aleksandar Obrenović) died in 1903. This is also true for non-reigning members of Europe's dynasties: they don't use surnames (the exceptions being Italy's House of Savoy and France's House of Orléans in which the custom has been for royal dynasts to use a territorial designation rather than the name of the country, along with the princely prefix and their given name, e.g., Princess Maria Beatrice of Savoy, Princess Marie of Orléans). FactStraight (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Timeline:
  • The phrase "to except for monarchs" was changed from "but not for monarchs" on 13:21, 8 December 2014.
  • "but not for monarchs" was added on 08:42, 14 April 2010, moved from WP:NCROY.
  • In WP:NCROY "but not for monarchs" was added on 15:43, 8 January 2005 amid more changes, referred to in the thread Extensive changes, in the archive, where the editor says that the edits were done to reflect current practice at the time.
The question is whether said practice has changed and what is the best practice to follow. Is it better to include the surname of a monarch or not? I am leaning to think that is best to include the surname because that provides more information. Thinker78 (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
What is the evidence that the practice has changed of omitting monarchs' surnames? That practice remains usual, has long been prevalent and, as I noted, has been exclusively the norm since 1903. The cases in which rulers' surnames were ever used in Europe were exceptional, either Italian ducal dynasties (Sforza, Medici, Borgia, Gonzaga, Farnese, etc.) arisen from condottieres or those who obtained their thrones as individuals rather than as heirs of a ruling dynasty (viz. Stanislaw Poniatowski, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joachim Murat, Alexandru Ioan Cuza, Alexander Karađorđević). For articles on medieval and early modern monarchs known to history predominantly by their surnames, we should continue to call them as history does. To suffix surnames to the vast majority of other hereditary rulers would be an ahistorical Wikipedia innovation that is unnecessary: why not simply do what encyclopedias have usually done in such cases, i.e. not "Elizabeth II Windsor" but "Elizabeth II of the House of Windsor"? Otherwise we needlessly open a can of worms: The surname of Belgium's kings is officially in three languages (none of them English), all of which must be given if any is given. Norway's kings acknowledge no surname. In Sweden only members of the King's family who have forfeited their royal rights are referred to by the dynasty's surname (Bernadotte). Moreover, dynastic surnames, when they exist, follow unique rules: Elizabeth II and Charles, Prince of Wales, have the surname "Windsor" (although they have never used it) but that is by virtue of letters patent which specifies a different surname (Mountbatten-Windsor) for their junior, non-princely descendants, yet which is silent about the surname of Charles's own children, Princes William and Harry. Every member of the King or Queen of the Netherlands' family gets a different surname and title, legislated by the Dutch Parliament sometime during the course of their lives. When royalty's surnames exist they should certainly be mentioned in their bios, but should not be appended to their given names, as that would incorrectly imply that they are actually used in the way that non-royals typically make use of their last names. Let's not create confusion where none exists. FactStraight (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. There doesn't seem to be any serious dispute about the historical cases – either the majority that did not have surnames, or the minority known to history predominantly by their surnames. The only issue, as I see it, is whether we should mention the surname as part of the full name in the lead sentence for those (very few) more recent royal families that do have surnames - and in particular whether we should treat the monarchs amongst them any differently from other non-reigning members of the same family. In the few articles concerned, the surname does seem to be given both for monarchs and for other family members. I've only found one example of a current royal family that uses a surname: "Grimaldi", which is stated in the full names given in in the leads of Albert II, Prince of Monaco and those of his immediate family. There are a few more examples of recently-deposed royal families, and again the surnames are given (e.g. "di Savoia" in Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples and his relatives). Rosbif73 (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Edited my comment to acknowledge that the "di Savoia" example is actually territorial designation rather than a surname per se, which leaves us with Grimaldi as the only current-day example potentially affected by the guideline. Does anyone know of any others? Rosbif73 (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
If "The question is whether said practice has changed and what is the best practice to follow", then is "No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them" actually the proper answer? That was written for titles and may not actually apply properly to leads. I tend to think it does not. And there's some confusion above. Dynastic names are not exactly surnames in the usual sense. "Family name" is probably broad enough, since dynasties are familial. But some royals in the same family do use surnames (like Mountbatten, a British modern surname constructed in the early 20th century from the German dynastic name Battenberg); such usage seems to increase the further they are from the throne, but there may be exceptions (I'm not a "royal-chaser", so I'm not sure), and it seems not to have operated as a surname at first but also as a dynastic name.

To construct something from the above discussion en toto, I would offer: full name – including any middle and family names commonly used in English-language sources. Apply this to the lead sentence only (i.e., if you mention a Mountbatten not normally called one in mid-sentence in someone else's article, don't inject it as a surname or do so over and over again in the subject's own article). I think this would work. E.g., Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh does not not have (and would continue to not have) Mountbatten in his lead sentence, because RS do not apply it to him with any frequency as part of his name, though of course there is no doubt from RS that he is part of the Mountbatten family. Hopefully that merged wording will suffice.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

That is a poor example - Mountbatten was a name invented by the maternal grandfather of Philip, and which Philip then chose, or tried, to use himself, and for his children and other descendents - the subject of a big storm in the court in the 1950s, where he was essentially unsuccessful. His own natural surname, from his father, is something complicated involving Glücksburg, which of course is never used either. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't like the Prince Phillip article as the example. The name in the lede is, "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (born Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark...). This doesn't comply with the guideline as it is and has a diferent formula altogether: {royal title} {name} {ordinal if appropriate}{alternate title} (born {royal title} {name} {localities} )". Besides, most importantly, he is not a monarch. In addition, injecting "commonly used" would prevent writing their full names, even middle names, because they are not commonly used by reliable sources. Welcome back! Thinker78 (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. So, has anyone got a better example, and a further revision?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

People with the same paternal surname, under Spanish naming customs

I am working on the article for La Luz del Mundo, a Mexican religious group which has been lead by three generations of men whose paternal surname is Joaquín. It has had three successive leaders: Aarón Joaquín González, Samuel Joaquín Flores, and Naasón Joaquín García. The article talks about all three leaders and awkwardly differentiates between them by using their maternal surnames (eg González, Flores, García) which is inconsistent with Spanish naming customs. I have been unable to find a single Spanish source that follows this method of using maternal surname. The sources I have found either use first name and paternal surname (eg Aarón Joaquín, Samuel Joaquín, Naasón Joaquín) or first name alone (eg Aarón, Samuel, Naasón). Is there a consensus for referring to Mexican individuals with the same paternal surname? I was leaning toward using both surnames (eg Joaquín González, Joaquín Flores, Joaquín García) but even this feels a bit awkward because Joaquín is a common first name as mentioned in the talk page. BadHombres (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Both surnames sounds like the right choice to me, but I have only peripheral familiarity with Spanish naming. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Use both surnames in such a case, like we would for any other compound surname. Put it this way: we never have any confusion about this for Spanish/Latino people who use the longer form, Aarón Joaquín y González, any more than we do with Claude Levi-Strauss, or American and British women with two surnames and no hyphen, like Jada Pinkett Smith. The "Spanish difference" (and it's hardly unique to Spanish – see in particular the IFLA source cited here) is to default to just the father's surname in absence of a reason to use both; here we have a reason to use both.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Two MOSBIO discussions at WT:MOSCAPS

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see:

Not sure why those were posted over there rather than here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposing addition to guideline re: life years

For the first time since I began editing WP in 2006, I have encountered resistance here to having the life years of a subject's parents included in the article. For consistency, I think we need a guideline on this issue so as to know what to add, sourced of course, or remove in hundreds of biographies. My attitude has long been that if & when (please note! if & when) it is relevant to mention the names of the parents, children or spouses of subjects, when those people themselves are not otherwise notable, then the life years of those persons are as relevant as their names and are an integral part of expected, interesting and relevant biographic information for our readers. Before I continue to edit any more such items, it would be interesting to see what consensus might arrive at, and I've chosen this forum to bring up the question.

Proposal (addition to guideline:) If & when it is relevant to mention the names of the parents, children or spouses of subjects, though those people in themselves are not notable, their well-sourced life years are also relevant in parentheses after their names. This also would pertain to non-notable people mentioned in other types of articles, if the life years add clarity to their relevance.

I invite everyone interested to opine constructively. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

MOSBLOAT. If this is the first time in 12 years it's been a problem, we don't need a guideline on it. Editors on some articles might decide to include it, some might omit it. There might be different considerations in different cases. That's normal. EEng 03:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
It can take tears of experience here to be able to identify an inherent problem at all. I strongly believe in consistency, and I've tried to word this proposal carefully enough to cover different considerations, unless those considerations are purely personal POV (which we have too much of) rather than encyclopedic relevance (which should be all that matters). In any case I do not think my proposal deserves to be dismissed out of hand as if it isn't even worth discussing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Looking at your essay WP:MOSBLOAT I find "There is a manifest a priori need for project-wide consistency e.g. "professional look" issues such as consistent typography, layout, etc. – things which, if inconsistent, would be noticeably annoying, or confusing, to many readers" - exactly what I mean here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
(Gosh, I'd forgotten I'd written that -- thanks for reminding me.) Sorry, I cannot agree that relatives consistently having or not having birth-death years given falls under "things which, if inconsistent, would be noticeably annoying, or confusing, to many readers". For one thing, such information isn't always available, so even if we somehow decided it ought to always be included, it frequently wouldn't anyway. I suggest we wait to see what others think. EEng 05:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose First of all, in biographical articles, we try to include the names of parents and children, where known, for prosopographic purposes. Second, with regard to the use of dates in parentheses, my opinion is that (1) It looks terrible; (2) the information is not always available for every person mentioned in the article; (3) the inclusion of birth dates, even when I know them, is problematic for living people. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
Prosopographic sounds dirty. EEng 06:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a big word to masticate on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per EEng and Hawkeye, basically. I would add that including such trivia is a journalistic style not an encyclopedic one (pandering to "human-interest" urges), and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy will militate against the inclusion in the average case. It's sometimes relevant when the individuals are notable, but it's meaningless most of the time when they are not. No one cares when the father and mother of, say, William A. Spinks were born and died, unless RS tell us there's something significant to it (e.g. that Spinks suffered a great depression upon the death of his mother or whatever; didn't happen that we know of in his case). There are numerous cases where the death of a parent results in a life-change for our article's actual subject, e.g. taking over a family business or ascension to a throne. If that didn't happen, the details aren't useful to include. Including these dates for spouses seems generally relevant, though often not for divorcees, especially if the ex-spousal relationship pre-dated the subject's notability.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes of presidents

An editor (starting yesterday) has begun fiddling around the infoboxes of presidents, by altering information of vice presidential vacancies. Also alternating how we show multiple vice presidents in an infobox (i.e. FDR) & multiple presidents in an infobox (i.e G. Clinton & Calhoun). GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES

So am I correct in interpreting the guideline properly in believing it calls for --

In this case the vice president becomes President.

but also

In this case the vice president acts in place of the president.

-- ? EEng 15:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It should read "In this case the vice president becomes president" & "In this case the vice president acts in place of the president". GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
My question is framed in terms of what the cited guideline calls for, not what you personally think it ought to be. I'm basing the capital P in my examples above on the guideline's statement that When a formal title for a specific entity... is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description. I guess the question is whether President is a "formal title" -- or is President of the United States the only formal title for that position? EEng 16:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Yoo hoo! Over here! EEng 03:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd just like to know what to do at Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. Following the guideline makes things look really weird. EEng 07:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Your case is clearly an exception that isn't well covered by the guideline. In the words of WP:PG, Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
So I'm with GoodDay in thinking lowercase across the board would look best. (Obviously we leave the quoted text of the amendment alone.) I suppose we should wait a while to see what others think; maybe Tony1 has an opinion? EEng 14:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It's an entirely reasonable application of our MOSCAPS, and major styleguides like Chicago and New Hart's Rules (Oxford): minimise unnecessary capping. We can safely rely on organisations to over-cap job-names for some time, for PR purposes. We should not be fooled by this. Formal text, both academic and news outlets, now avoid capping wherever they can: even "prime minister Bombhead". Tony (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! EEng 03:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with "I'm with GoodDay in thinking lowercase across the board would look best." But it's about more than looks. The phrase the vice president becomes president isn't using president as title/role "as-such" (like in "President Trump", or "Trump is President of the United States"); it's playing the exact same role as "the vice president" (or as "president" in "Trump is a controversial president"). The wording is simply a grammatical compression of the vice president becomes the president, to save space. English does this frequently, e.g. "The dormitories for men are to the south; for women, the east."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Just follow the cites, or in this case the source. Where the 25th uses capitals, use capitals. (It would also seem to have more authority than a WP guide. ;-) ). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully this is not locked in a Trump Derangement Syndrome, and we can get good wording corrections. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Fun fact: An anagram of Trump derangement syndrome is Grumpy demented man errs not. EEng 20:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
mmm wonder if saying that would be viewed as an indicator of Trump Derangement Syndrome ? In any case, so long as examples/discussions are vastly about Trump and not “11th President of Ghana” or “Queen of the United Kingdom” seem a bit improperly fixated. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
What? EEng 05:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Offices and ordinals

What is the point of emphasizing that Trump is the "45th President of the United States"? Or that Robert Gates was the "22nd United States Secretary of Defense"? Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics #‎Ordinals and offices. Surtsicna (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the US presidents & vice presidents, numbering have usually been in the reliable sources. I'm less certain about cabinet officials. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a traditional thing with the president, but I don't think RS are regularly doing this with vice-presidents and other officials. Looks like a case of "monkey see, monkey do". I.e., someone saw it in a president article and started applying it more broadly. If RS are not doing this, then it's a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

A suggestion for the transgender/birth name debate

I thought of an idea for those who think the current Wikipedia "carve out" policy regarding birth names and transgender people is unfair (including me): If one has legally changed their name for a personal(a) and non-marriage-related(b) reason, was never notable under their original name, and requests to have their birth name redacted from the lead, then we would honor their request.

(a)This means that their name change was motivated primarily by reasons relating to their personal lives and not for example due to taking on a pseudonym like a stage name for professional purposes and later making that their legal name.

(b)In general the treatment of maiden (or the male equivalent) names would not change, except in cases such as where one is trying to disown their birth family.

For example, if Bill Clinton were to contact Wikipedia asking that "William Jefferson Blythe III" not be shown in the lead of his article (for example in an alternate universe he was trying to distance himself from the Blythes), we would remove that from the lead since all of his fame was under the Clinton name.

In short, the only "special treatment" that transgender people would get is an "opt-in" for them but an "opt-out" for others.Okieditor (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

How about no? We should by default treat people with respect, including respecting their choice of name, rather than requiring them to jump over hurdles to get the respect that everyone else gets. Also, you've been doing nothing on Wikipedia other than pushing your ideas of how to handle names since you started editing in 2016. How about you find some other more constructive thing to do here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
"Respect" would be not putting up one's birth name against their will regardless of the reason for the name change - not creating an exception for one group.Okieditor (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Transgender bios deserve 'no' special treatment. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with David Eppstein and GoodDay. And if Bill Clinton asked us to suppress "William Jefferson Blythe III" we would not do so, since this isn't CensorToMakeTheSubjectHappyPedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Some exceptions apply; see storeBLP for details. (And also WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, in an entirely different section.) --Izno (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: [49][50]

This may be another thing where we should wait and see if it's really a problem; I could accept that WP:CREEP argument having recently made it myself pertaining to a different MoS issue. That said, the case I have in mind is:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States.

I think the second wikilink may change how some editors parse the text. It may cause them to see "president of the United States" as a discrete unit, exempting it from the modifier rule.

I can't think of any situation where a wikilink should affect the capitalization, and I would probably question the cost-benefit of such added complication. My sense is that that would become another contentious can of worms that probably doesn't need opening, and my intent was to prevent that with a BOLD edit that I hoped would be accepted. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The link you mention was very recently changed from "President of the United States", which many editors see as proper use and others have edited to lower-case, and should be reverted for all of the U.S. president pages that now contain it. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
What does that have to do with the topic of this discussion? It's just an example. If you're saying that the JOBTITLES consensus is meaningless because some editors disagree with it and have no respect for consensus, that completely wrong philosophical argument has no place on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Mandruss He and others in larger consensus discussion are saying that “President of the United States” was/should be capitalised, as should “Queen of the United Kingdom”, “Prime Minister of Canada”, etcetera. JOBTITLES text says to capitalise titles, but it seems the examples just got confused on the theory that a “the” before makes it non-capitalised. They show “was President of the United States”, and “was the president of the United States”. But those are equivalent so there should make no difference. It isn’t what goes before that decides whether to have capitals, it’s the “of the United States” that makes it need to be capitalised. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not a "theory", it's a Wikipedia consensus. You may feel that "those are equivalent", but the community consensus is that they are not equivalent. That's the reason for part of bullet 3 at JOBTITLES ("the" is a definite article), and the reason for those examples. And I reiterate this. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Mandruss There is clearly a number of confused questions and diverse readings on what the language means at affected articles plus objections on contradictions and just wrong results so... needs further discussion and phrasing work. Bulletin 3 apparent contradictions and example table lack of explanation seems to me the area most needing revision, but I would not be surprised to see other text altered as well or instead. The language is causing confusion, objections, and mistakes so Denial a bit less already. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Mandruss's interpretation is correct. I would know, since I constructed most of the examples and did most of the overhauling of that section, which was discussed (repeatedly) in detail. The examples were constructed with rather exacting care. And even the "was President of the United States" case is one that would not be capitalized by more and more RS these days; MoS still saying to capitalize that much is probably a compromise position that is probably just temporary. I expect in a few years for the entire section to be much simpler and to not capitalize titles except when used as part of a name string, as in "President Donald Trump", and when the title is itself the subject, in a words-as-words manner, as in "The title President of the United States ...". This would actually be more consistent with more current off-site style guides.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Well that suggests only rephrasing work to lessen the confusions ... However I believe that the example itself is not only unexplained by text but is incorrect and the phrase "President of the United States" (or "Queen of the United Kingdom") should always be capitalised and not just sometimes. per RS including WEIGHT of government and media usage and references such as the GPO style manual which specifies this and the occasional grammar guide such as Elements of Grammar (companion volume for Elements of Style) which happens to illustrate their grammar rules with an example of Ronald Reagan was the 40th President of the United States. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2018_archive&oldid=1255166975"