Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2020 archive

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


Birthplace, nationality, and citizenship bio infobox parameters with matching values

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC on birthplace, nationality, and citizenship parameters with matching values, an RfC opened after initial discussion fizzled out with too few participants. It's likely that any emerging guideline line-item from this would be in MOS:BIO not MOS:INFOBOX.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Nationality of people from UK

I've raised a question on the talk page Nationality_of_people_from_the_United_Kingdom about whether it is correct to describe the UK as an "equal union" of four nations, because I believe this is a misleading statement which would need some external source to justify it as correct. FrankP (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a style matter, but probably a good RfC, or a WP:RSN or WP:NORN matter, depending on the nature of the dispute.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Good point, thanks. I don't think it's a dispute as such, there were a few comments in the Talk page mentioned then I made the change. Seems OK for now. FrankP (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Using "British" vs "English" to describe a person/company/work

New thread about this opened at the main MoS page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

“The late”

Should we remove uses of “the late” in articles? It seems to not be so neutral; one probably wouldn’t say “the late Stalin” or something—it implies respect.

Should uses of “the late” be removed for neutrality? DemonDays64 | Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P 03:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't add anything, in that example. If it's important to mention that someone was dead at the time under discussion, then (died 2012) or (1950-2012) after their name would be usually be better. I'm neutral between "late" and "deceased" in something like "She explained that the knife had belonged to her late husband", to invent an example. I don't think respect comes into it: it's just unnecessary verbiage unless we need to know that the person is dead. PamD 14:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove, if a death year exists it will be at the front of the biographic article, and in other cases 'the late' isn't encyclopedic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove. I concur with Randy Kryn.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The late" is polite introduction for someone we recently new to be alive, and some in the audience may not be aware of their recent death. On Wikipedia, "recent" is measured in hours, content is written as if to be timeless. Remove. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove (but not for neutrality) almost always. I can imagine situations where the phrase is useful: "He had inquired about the spirit of Dr H, but the ward sister, believing him to be referring to the late prof. H , replied 'Whether it is going up or down, sir I really couldn't say!'" - but even then there might be better phraseology. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC).

Including dead names

Trans people's dead names should not be referenced or included at all, unless the trans person in question has explicitly said it is okay. Imwahte (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

That is basically our style, expect in the case where the person was also notable under their "dead name" (eg the case of Caitlyn Jenner as Bruce Jenner) and the sourcing is clearly there to support it. --Masem (t) 01:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: That is still somewhat ambiguous in the MOS:DEADNAME. Some Wikipedians are insisting on digging up Trans people's dead names in the Personal Life section of their articles because the guideline only refers to the lead sentences of an article. I tried for instance removing Peppermint's deadname from her article and that quickly got reverted by a VERY active wikipedian citing this technicality. Also refer to the talk page of Kim Petras where a similar argument ensued. I think removing the "in the lead section" bit from the guideline is therefore a necessary development, since I believe wikipedia should be held to the same journalistic standard of contemporary publications who have collectively agreed that digging up trans people's dead names when they were never known under that name serves no value besides that of undermining their identity, and is therefore a form of disparagement not only against the individual, but against the entire LGBT community. cave (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I did review past discussions here, and there was an RFC to try to change the wording which did not successfully conclude anything, so I can't just strip "from the lede" here without more consensus. I will point out the draft MOS WP:GENDERID does have the specific advice to not include deadnames even if they can be sourced (as in the case of Peppermint), but that's only a draft. So unfortunately we can't offer stronger advice, but I would stress in arguments that WP editors are more aware of the troubles of deadnaming against the balance of verifyability. --Masem (t) 14:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I would strongly support a change to strip "from the lead", if it is (re)proposed. (Please feel free to ping me, as I might not notice otherwise.) It is clearly implied by the existing wording that we do not regard deadnames as having encyclopaedic value except when the subject was notable under the previous name. The ambiguity allows people, who are often acting in bad faith, to Wikilawyer the matter in a disruptive way as they attempt to introduce confidential private information into our articles with the intent to harass, humiliate or otherwise distress the subjects. It is not hard to find the alleged deadnames of trans people online. There are people who delight in doxxing people and publishing the results. Their screeds are not WP:RS, and they don't even get the names right all the time. As such, I feel that respect for Wikipedia's values of notability and verifiability push us in the same direction as more general values of basic decency and lawfulness to eschew information of no encyclopaedic value which serves only to harass and annoy people. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
We should not include anything based on non-WP:RS. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC).
I agree that the policy should be to not include deadnames in the article at all (not just omitting them from the lede) unless the subject clearly gained notability under that name. For the record I'm trans myself and have written and given talks on this and related subjects; see my user profile. Funcrunch (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Again,this is not the policy for other people born under names that they were never notable under...equality of inclusion is called for rather than bias toward a subject's preferences.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Also keep in mind, that applies to living persons (WP:BLP). For long-deceased people, if the dead name is known, there's no restrictions on it (ala this edit [1]) --Masem (t) 01:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I COULDN'T POSSIBLY DISAGREE MORE.I am deeply offended by attempts to suppress the original names of transgender persons from biographical articles...birth names should always be included in all biographical articles without exception as long as they can be verified.There is no special right to erase one's history attached to any class of person,be they actors,politicians (Robert C. Byrd was born Cornelius Calvin Sale,his article says so),authors (Anne Perry committed murder as a child when she was Juliet Hulme and her article says so)...you are not giving a proper or complete picture of anyone's life if you do not make sure to include the name the person was born with.To fetishize the preference of a particular population is a vicious attack on NPOV.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
You need to understand two things. Firstly, that we are not trying to offend you. Secondly, that whether or not we offend you is simply not a consideration for us. We are writing an encyclopaedia here and we can not allow you, or anybody else, to disrupt it or repurpose it as a vector to harass the people who are the subjects of our articles. You are, and you remain, on final warning for this very behaviour. You are venue shopping here after previously getting short shrift on Talk:Veronica Ivy and on your own Talk page (over a period of years). I have advised you to drop the stick and move on to other areas where you can contribute more constructively. I am disappointed that you have not done so. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. As to the basic issue, perhaps we should treat this as we do full dates of birth at WP:BLPPRIVACY except that the reason isn't identity theft but simply privacy. In fact maybe this discussion should move here. My position is that unless we are sure that the link has been made in multiple reliable sources so that we know it's well known, we shouldn't link the names. Oddly enough I've just run into this issue where an editor was using material written by the subject under their deadname as sources for making the link. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
My position is that you are fundamentally mischaracterizing the issue in order to allege an utterly unique form of "privacy" that for any other person would be regarded as collusion in hiding essential information.I have already cited counterexamples where people's birth names under which they attained no notability whatsoever have been duly included in their articles for good reason,and under which they incurred infamy they may want to avoid have been included in their article for good reason.But somehow,the subset of editors particularly concerned with the "trans" see the "trans" as entitled to a special special pass from having their articles be properly informative.We're not giving out people's phone numbers or street addresses...just their original names.Which is not "harrassment",even if they find it inconvenient (and it is blatant bias to prioritize their personal preferences over their articles telling their full stories.Bias most unbecoming people who want to "write an encyclopaedia").It is the advocates of suppression who need to "drop the stick",not go on a rampage to forbid any right to dissent from their interpretations in any venue.(I was in a discussion with Daniel on an article's talk page...this page seemed the best place to take the issue of moving policy in the direction of increasing disclosure.If this is not the best venue for engaging discussion on the need to move policy in the direction of increasing disclosure,could you please point me there?...and no,denying the right to advocate against your position is not satisfactory).--12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
IP, you should understand that the broad policy consensus at WP is in favor of MOS:GENDERID, which was developed through repeated RfCs with wide participation. So the "venue" that would be necessary for your idiosyncratic preferences and perceptions of ENC to become policy, would be one or more widely-participated RfCs. However, there is no reasonable likelihood that a new RfC would generate the result you are hoping for, given the prevailing direction of change for the last decade or more within the WP editing community. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I can't tell you how discrediting such a direction of change is.A biographical article is worthless if it conceals things because the subject wants them concealed...you might as well be writing an official biography of Phillip Musica as blameless F. Donald Coster and then pointing to his suicide when exposed as justification.A person's birth name is just about the very first thing a biography ought to include.Readers are entitled to expect warts-and-all portraits and writers and editors should do their best to provide them.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
The thing is, the WP consensus currently considers deadnaming to be simply in a different category from the inclusion of other birth names, and the reasons for this are discernable in repeated RfCs. You may disagree about this case being different, but there is a very clear body of policy and practice that disagrees with your preference, expressed over a decade and more. Newimpartial (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I doubt very much that I would buy into this exceptionalism but can you link me to any of these discussions?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is a fairly typical discussion of GENDERID, neither the first not the last. Newimpartial (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: - any chance you could link to the last RfC? If it's from a while back then it might be worth revisiting that 'on the lede' wording. Thanks, The Land (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Re 'you are fundamentally mischaracterizing the issue in order to allege an utterly unique form of "privacy" that for any other person would be regarded as collusion in hiding essential information': That really is the crux of the issue. And it has been the entire time. In more encyclopedia-pertinent terms, we are not here to either suppress basic and commonly-sought information that is encyclopedically relevant and is public knowledge (i.e., verifiable in reliable sources), nor are we here to rewrite history. Our super-massive RfC on this at VPPOL in 2015 came to the same conclusion, and the detailed close there [2] even quotes the GLAAD guidelines on this as relevant to the prevailing reasoning in that RfC: "Unless a former name is newsworthy or pertinent, use the name and pronouns preferred ...". So, a handful of extremist trans-issues activists on WP are promoting a new privacy right for a small sliver of GLBT+ people (in turn only about 10% of the population in total) that even the leading advocacy organization for GLBT+ people doesn't advocate. Our current practice is entirely sufficient and proper; it is: not using old names that pre-date the person's notability, i.e. which are not encyclopedically relevant; not using purported old names at all if they cannot be reliably sourced; and writing in the present-tense using the present name and gender, but not faking history by applying the old name to old facts that pre-date the use of that name. We're already consistent with GLAAD's advice. While it could itself have been regarded at one time as just an advocacy position, the GLAAD approach has been adopted by AP Stylebook, and various other style guides with longer publication cycles; WP has thus shifted to this usage itself, because it's become a norm of how to write about trans people in professional-grade English. This entire discussion is a combination of rehash and tendentiousness (and the same responses thereto as last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, and ...).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
GLAAD of course is an advocacy group dedicated to seeing that only its side of arguments is allowed respect.So an encyclopaedia seeking NPOV should depart from their recommendations on the side of less concessions to the transgendered,not more.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you regard the AP style guide as also an advocacy group, IP? It is encumbent on an Encyclopaedia to recognize when a formerly activist stance has become mainstream and effectively NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
When a change in a style guide is in specific response to the demands of an advocacy group I regard that as a departure from NPOV.(Is your username an allusion to the attitude you are advocating?)--12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, I think the essential in that quote is pulling a lot of weight. We do allow a deadname (even in the lead) in situations where it is clearly essential, as the Chelsea Manning exception shows. But you have to actually have the sources to demonstrate that they were previously notable under that name - if the name is comparatively unknown, it seems hard to explain how it could be 'essential information'. At that point our WP:BLP requirements that biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy and that the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment take precedence. --Aquillion (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

How can an encyclopedia be encyclopedic and NPOV if it doesn't include the name that a person was born with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.70.86.190 (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing requiring us to include every detail about a person. We are actually supposed to summarize what reliable sources say. So if a transgender person's original name is not commonly found in sources, we are not bound to include it. --Masem (t) 17:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We include the notable parts of people's biographies; as WP:BLP says, we still have to respect their privacy otherwise. In a case like Chelsea Manning, who was initially famous under her original name, we include the name in the lead because it's relevant information (and because the fact that it's already widely-known means there's little privacy risk.) But in the case of someone who transitioned before they were famous and whose birth name is therefore not important or widely-known, there isn't really any compelling reason to include it, and more potential harm to their privacy, so we should generally omit it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think "privacy" can legitimately extend to deliberately suppressing mention of a verifiable birth name.Actors and politicians who were never famous under their birth names have their birth names given in their articles.That Anne Perry murdered someone while she was Juliet Hulme,and kept that secret for decades,is duly mentioned in her article.Privacy concerns would apply to giving out things like someone's personal phone number,not a name that they are not now found under but wore (presumably blamelessly) for decades.There's no legitimate ground for a biographical article to omit it.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
It is not WP's place to dig to search for private info buried in limited sourcing such as the birth name of a trans individual. That's the essence of BLP, to respect the privacy of distributable individuals. --Masem (t) 01:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Changing one's name due to being trans and/or having gender dysphoria is not in any way equivalent to changing one's name to evade the law. When I changed my name and legal sex in 2014, I had to stand before a judge in open court and publish an announcement in the newspaper to assert that I was not changing my name for fraudulent purposes. Since that time, a number of U.S. states have eliminated the courtroom declaration and publication requirements for trans individuals, recognizing that such actions violate our privacy and can cause undue distress. As far as cisgender celebrities and politicians who have changed their names, their birth-assigned names are typically covered extensively in reliable sources, unlike trans people who did not gain notability before their transitions. And cisgender people do not suffer from gender dysphoria when they read or hear their birth-assigned names. Bottom line: Eliminating deadnames from bios of trans people who were not notable under these names is in line with WP:BLP policy, which necessitates avoiding unnecessary harm to living people. Funcrunch (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Allowing people to hide their former names rubs me the wrong way to an enormous degree.The claim that it makes the subject uncomfortable is open to endless abuse to conceal all sorts of things.Again,poor Phillip Musica shot himself after it was revealed he hadn't always been F. Donald Coster...would it have been respect for his feelings to keep that under wraps?If you want to learn about Gerald Ford,you learn that he was born Leslie Lynch King.All should be treated equally...I don't want to have to go to Kiwifarms in order to find out someone's birth name.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Kiwifarms is a forum whose members take delight in deadnaming, mocking and misgendering trans people, including myself. That you are suggesting that you use them as an alternative to deadnaming trans people on Wikipedia is hardly a good argument for your case. Funcrunch (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
If Wikipedia refuses to provide information about biographical subjects as absolutely essential as the person's birth name,one is forced to use what sources are available.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
We go by what sources give us. Even if a transgender person takes offense we include their dead name, if the bulk of RS report the deadname , we aren't going to hide that. E.g. The example of Phillip Musica, the birth name is essential to the topic once the connection was well reported. But when there is minimal sourcing on the dead name of rely on primary sources, we will take privacy over inclusion. --Masem (t) 03:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Anne Perry committed her crime under her original name, went to court under her original name, and most importantly (because of these things) was famous under her original name. That's comparable to the Chelsea Manning example I listed above - even if she had transitioned we would still list her birth name, because she was notable under that name, and that introduces a compelling reason we ought to include it even if she wouldn't want it there. (And, conversely, the fact that her name is already plastered everywhere means that there's little risk of harm from us mentioning it in passing.) For situations where we lack that sort of compelling reason to include it, such as the actors and politicians you referenced, the question is whether listing their name will harm them (per WP:BLP's requirement that the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment) and, in the balance, what purpose is served by including their original name. Trans people who were never famous under their original name can generally be presumed to want to discard it, and we have no compelling editorial reason to include it, so it is omitted; whereas actors who take stage names generally do so for professional reasons that are not harmed by mentioning it in the article even if it is relatively minor trivia. --Aquillion (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Again,Gerald R. Ford and Robert C. Byrd did nothing of note under their birth names but that's not used as an excuse for deleting those names from their articles and even the talk pages of those articles.They could be assumed to be as inclined to "discard" their birth names as the "trans" are,but that's not seen as reason to delete.The "harm" allegedly done by disclosure is nothing more than hurt feelings if it doesn't involve exposure of misdeeds under the original name (as noted in the article about her murder,Perry was not publicly identified with Juliet Hulme until 1994,long after she'd been publishing as an author).I would guess someone in a WITSEC situation might actually be imperiled by identification in a bio but I don't think any of them have ever become notable under their later identities.This boils down to a very exceptional privileging of the transgendered that I just don't think is appropriate.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
No special case is being made. A case like Ford is where by his importance, his original name is well documented through numerous RSes. On the other hand I do know we have a few articles on people that have legally changed their name since because they wanted a new identity, and which only things like court records document that. We are not going to dig up Blp's past through poor sourcing just to be "complete". --Masem (t)
WP:AN/I is that way. Conduct issues. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
By default,an impartial biographer's responsibility includes exposing those engaged in the intrinsically suspicious practice of "wanting a new identity".Not complicity,which is complete bias.Looking for good sources is responsible writing,avoiding whatever information can be found is not.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
First, there is nothing “intrinsically suspicious” about changing one’s name... second, I disagree that it is the responsibility of a biographer to “expose” anything. “Exposure” is what investigative journalists do. Wikipedia is not the right venue for investigative journalism. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
"Changing one's name" is one thing,"seeking a new identity" something else entirely.A newly married Mrs. Smith is not trying to pretend she was never Miss Jones,or keep that from being discovered.If shes does,that IS suspicious.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar, but I'd also like to note that this sort of "exposure" is not even legitimate investigative journalism when published elsewhere. We see a fair number of (mostly far-right) thugs trying to recast themselves as "journalists" when what they are really engaged in is doxing, intimidation and harassment. We can't even use such self-styled "journalism" as reference material when it is externally published.
I'd also like to ask our anonymous friend to examine their motives here. They seem strongly compelled to know not just who is trans, but also what each trans person's deadname is. That seems as weird and irrelevant as wanting to know people's blood types (which is a mostly, but not entirely, harmless craze in Japan). They have mentioned looking up the alleged deadnames of trans people on Kiwi Farms. That does not seem at all healthy. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I see the trans/deadname issue as no different than any other persons who have changed their names...I think that a biographical article ought as a rule to include all names the subject has ever used.You are the one with the compulsion of censor disused names if the person happens to be trans.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Looking at IP's edit history, it seems pretty cut and dry to me that these arguments are not being made in good faith. This is not a person simply concerned about "having the full picture" of a trans person, but rather, this is a person who doesn't believe trans women are women, who insisted on using incorrect pronouns to refer to trans women, who believes the fact that they disagree with their assigned at birth gender and names is "inherently suspicious", and who also by their own words also "vehemently oppose same-sex marriage". This person therefore is simply "hiding their power level" here and is just aiming to be disruptive on LGBT related articles, not seeking a NPOV but doggedly trying to impose a very clearly bigoted one that is at odds with modern day society, scientific consensus and with Wikipedia's policies. I believe discretionary measures should be taken against this continued behavior. cave (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
My disagreements with Wikipedia policies go far beyond this one.Differences on science and pronouns are just a small part of it.Silencing dissenting voices may seem fine and dandy to you but I think it's bad policy.Just like demanding specific source citations for information available in numerous places (e.g. box office data) when the selection of any one source is automatically bias...or demanding a source for one defined arithmetical quantity being larger than another (I have really seen that here).I don't think anything but original research can give an article independent value,yet Wikipedia cultivates a prejudice against it.I've been in arguments on here since my mentions of the absolutely unique nature of other nations' claiming a right to tell Israel what its capital is when they never do that to any other country were deleted from the article on Jerusalem in 2003."Bigoted" to one person is not so to another.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm... With all due respect, if you disagree with our core policies and basic philosophy to that extent, you probably should not be contributing to Wikipedia. You will be constantly frustrated. The things you want changed are simply not going to BE changed. Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I share your concerns but, given that our anonymous friend seems able to contribute constructively on some other topics, I would be perfectly happy if they could just step away from this subject and just concentrate on those topics where they are able to contribute constructively. I have suggested they they do that more than once already. Failing that, I feel that maybe a formal topic ban might be necessary. (Oh, and please, for the love of all and any deities as may exist, I advise them to stay off bloody Kiwi Farms! There is nothing good to be had there.) --DanielRigal (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Remember,I'm not asking Wikipedia to embrace my views of "LGBT" issues,just to back off unconditional acceptance of the preferences/attitudes of the "LGBT" activists (can you point to articles where this is not the case,and where you also prefer that it stay not the case?)--12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
We are not discussing "preferences/attitudes" here and, as a response to the largest olive branch I could offer you under these circumstances, your response is extremely disappointing. Putting quote marks around LGBT looks a lot like a deliberate act of provocation. Are you just playing games to see what you can get away with? Whether or not you are acting in good faith, I now think that the massive WP:IDHT issue here justifies an indefinite topic ban covering all gender and sexuality related topics including all biographies of LGBTQIA people, living or dead. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Quotation marks seem to me the best way to convey that I am describing terminology that others use but that I consider it important not to use.Each side sees the other's preferences as "provocation",I suppose.Policies protecting "LGBTQIA" articles from edits reducing bias toward blind indulgence of a particular viewpoint can never stop being bad policies.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I am in full support of such a topic ban. WP:IDHT is appropriate here. cave (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Birth names for transgender people shouldn't be used in the lead or the title of the article, but should be mentioned as part of their biography. It's a very significant part of their biography and we shouldn't presume that transgender people are harmed by mentioning previous names in their proper context. We absolutely should be generally referring to transgender people by their present names, and affirming that the subject of the article concerns their present identity rather than past identities. Of course, we should only be mentioning previous names at all if reliable sources mention them as well. We certainly should not be wasting our time arguing with those who seek to push an agenda here that is sceptical or antagonistic of transgender people or transgender rights. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

This assumption (that transgender people are harmed by mentioning previous names) is not unfounded. Here is an article by the Huffington Post that explains this very concept in a nuanced manner. [1] Wikipedia's policy in this regard is suposed to err on the side of non-disparagement and to consider the safety of the subjects of WP:BLP above all else, and I believe the best way to ensure that is to not include deadnames anywhere in BLP articles unless it is indeed deemed "essential information" because the subject obtained notoriety under that name. cave (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Harm is caused when their previous names are used to humiliate, defame or otherwise delegitimise them. Our articles legitimise the subject's present identity, even if that is not the intention. If the information is already there in reliable sources, there's no adverse impact on the subject by Wikipedia mentioning their previous names in their proper context. If they aren't notable people, then the articles shouldn't exist at all, but a person's birth name is biographical information that should exist in any biography. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing "nuanced" about the highly provocative claim that the use of words "is violence".A member of the class of persons under discussion (my identification of which in the "hatted" section recently got "redacted" with the claim that it was "harrassment") writing with personal perspective as such in a publication dependably partial to the position of activists is not an impartial evaluator of the claims of harm,but a maker of those claims.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
If your edits in this area are getting redacted, that might be a hint to WP:DROPTHESTICK, find another topic to edit, and avoid getting blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree that our Our current practice is entirely sufficient and proper.

Once I came across an article about a trans author that advertised her deadname in bold letters in the lead, even though the author was never notable under that name. Sources almost never mentioned the name, her published work didn't use it, etc, and the author had also said she wanted the deadname removed from the article. So what was the name doing there? Looking at the article history, I saw that attempts to remove her deadname had been blocked because she had "published work" under the name. I looked into that, and found out this "published work" was self-published, and long out of print. I successfully got her deadname removed from the article, but it was up there for years, against the author's wishes, in violation of both her privacy and her human dignity.

I'm concerned about the unintentional harm this kind of error can cause, especially to figures who are less well known. I think, therefore, our guidelines about transgender people ought to emphasize that it is better to err on the side of not including deadnames. Instead, though, earlier this year MOS:GENDERID was pushed somewhat in the other direction: a note was added emphasizing that sometimes deadnames need to be mentioned. In retrospect I don't understand what problem this addition was supposed to solve: I've never come across an article about a trans person with a well-known deadname where the deadname wasn't mentioned. Meanwhile, I have seen the reverse: cases, like the above, where a relatively obscure deadname was included for dubious reasons.

So I propose the following addition to MOS:GENDERID: WP:BLP calls for us to consider the privacy and human dignity of every living person, and former and legal names should generally not be mentioned in articles unless they are widely published. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@WanderingWanda: I have been privately workshopping a proposal for a full fledged separate guideline regarding this matter btw. Would you mind taking a look at it? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
"I came across an article about a trans author that advertised her deadname in bold letters in the lead, even though the author was never notable under that name" doesn't means that our current practice (i.e., our current guideline) is not sufficient and proper. It means someone didn't follow it. Your argument amounts to "our laws against burglary are a failure, because someone broke into my house."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • On dead people's earlier-life names, defer to what the sources do. In case of disagreement, look first to the highest quality sources. Obituaries are important sources. If not mentioned in the lede, other names present in reliable sources should probably be mention somewhere far below, probably in a "personal life" section. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    SmokeyJoe, not sure if there is some confusion or if it is on my part, a "deadname" in this sense is a trans person's former/birth name and not related to them being dead. Are you saying that once a person with a former name dies, there is a lower bar for including the former name? So the difference might be "widely published" vs. "published in reliable secondary sources" or something? —DIYeditor (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    User:DIYeditor, thanks. I do seem to have mentally strayed while answering this. I think I proceeded to think that we were talking specifically about a BLP's deadname that has to date not been included in the article due to a WP:BLPPRIVACY issue. It is not OK to add information sleuthed even from public sources, like court records. I then proceeded to assume that the issue arises when the subject ceases to be living. Is it OK to reveal a hidden deadname of an historical figure? Yes, subject to whether the source is reliable. For a living subject, or a recently deceased with living family, see BLPPRIVACY. Yes, as time passes, the BLPPRIVACY bar lowers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    We very rarely use court records because that (generally) violates WP:PRIMARY. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC).

Refs

References

  1. ^ "Deadnaming A Trans Person Is Violence-So Why Does The Media Do It Anyway?".

Applying MOS

I appreciate that @Mechanical Keyboarder: wants to decapitalize office titles in the bio intros, per MOS. However, I wish he'd do it via articles series. Instead he's only making such changes to the 'incumbent' officials & that's merely throwing off the series of articles. If you're going to make a change to (for examples) Boris Johnson? then make those changes to the articles of his predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles are improved one at a time. Having 1 correct article and 19 incorrect articles is better than having 20 incorrect articles. Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
And given that “mass-conforming” multiple articles (all at once) is something that has gotten other MOS editors in trouble... going slowly and taking it one article at a time makes a lot of sense. Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Yep. There is absolutely no principle on WP that every article that could be made to conform to some guideline must be made to do so all once! Absurd.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
If that was the approach for 'hard cover' encylopedias? an editor would be fired. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
It's simply not practical here. --Izno (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
At the moment MK's application of de-capitalisation isn't being universally accepted. That's a fact. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

There's one thing that's annoying me for sure. Mechanical Keyboarder's refusal to engage in discussion on this topic, while at the same time steamrolling ahead on multiple articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's a discussion open right here. What's your objection to MOS:JOBTITLES or MK's interpretation of it? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
His refusal to put on the breaks, when other editors have protested his changes. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
If his edits bring the article into compliance with the guidelines, I would think that the burden of proof is on you to show that they somehow don't apply to a particular case. Remember that WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to MK, we've now articles (even within groups) that are inconsistent. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES for "U.S. Secretary of Defense Penelope Penwinkle" and "U.S. Representative Felicia Filbert"

I have encountered an editor who seems to think these should be "U.S. secretary of defense Penelope Penwinkle" and "U.S. representative Felicia Filbert", based on the example of "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972." In my opinion, the reason "president" is lowercase in that phrase is because the proper form of the title is "President of the U.S." rather than "U.S. President". So I believe "U.S. Secretary of Defense Penelope Penwinkle" and "U.S. Representative Felicia Filbert" are correct. There does not seem to be an example in MOS:JOBTITLES that directly addresses this question. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

That should be US President Richard Nixon. Lowercase, if it were Richard Nixon, US president. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@GoodDay: that's expressly counter to MOS:JOBTITLES which lists the example "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972", with "president" modified by "US". —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 21:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Eyer on that one. The proper alternative would be "Mao met with President of the United States Richard Nixon in 1972." —BarrelProof (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@BarrelProof: we've already discussed my thoughts on this: "U.S." modifies "president", "secretary", "senator", and "representative". I'll wait for other editors to weigh in on your question. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 21:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, as you know; the titles here are "U.S. Secretary of Defense" and "U.S. Representative". The "U.S." is part of the title. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I am curious... Would the titles be "U.K. Member of Parliament" and "E.U. Member of Parliament"? Or would "U.K." and "E.U." describe the type of "member of parliament"? (Trying to extrapolate beyond just U.S. settings.) —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 22:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
A better use of our time might be to review the number of articles that link to Members of Parliament using an uppercase "M", but here we are. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Good point. No reason for plurals to be capitalized in that way. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 22:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the more proper form in the E.U. case would be "Member of the European Parliament Elwood Ellison". For the UK case, I'm not sure. Perhaps "Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom Priscilla Premington". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I would have thought that the normal way to refer to such people in the UK would be Elwood Ellison MEP and Priscilla Premington MP, with links from MEP and MP to the relevant articles. MP being treated the same in Australia, not sure about Canada. MEP and MP don't seem to have an equivalent in the US, but aren't they generally referred to as Representative James Bloggs and Senator Jimmy Diamond? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
That might be more a matter of whether the article is written in American English or UK English rather than whether it is referring to a person with a U.S. jobtitle or a non-U.S. jobtitle. Sometimes an article written in AmE may refer to someone who holds a non-U.S. title. Also, it is not uncommon to use "U.S. Representative" rather than just "Representative", e.g., in order to identify a member of the federal U.S. House of Representatives as contrasted with a member of the House of Representatives of a U.S. state. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Note that American officials are often referred to as Representative Smith or Secretary Jones (or indeed President Trump) as though they are ranks. The UK does not do this. We do not say Prime Minister Johnson (although the American media often does) or Member of Parliament Smith or Minister Jones or Secretary of State Bloggs. We would simply say Mr Johnson or Ms Smith or Dr Jones or Mrs Bloggs, depending on what their usual honorific was just like anyone else. So the cases are slightly different. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
To my mind, "US representative John Smith" would indicate that Smith is acting in some capacity to represent the US, perhaps on an international committee. "US Representative John Smith" indicates much more specifically that Smith is a member of the US Congress. So the capitalization carries important semantic information; it is not just an arbitrary style thing that we can change without changing the meaning. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is one reason why (per MOS:JOBTITLES, as in most other English-language style guides) such a title is capitalized when attached to a name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but another editor who participated in this thread has interpreted it differently, saying MOS:JOBTITLES prescribes lowercase for these instances. The editor invited me to start this thread after I disagreed with their changing such instances to lowercase (see here and here). I don't see an explicit example in MOS:JOBTITLES that covers these cases precisely enough to exactly counter that argument. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
This is all the more reason why, regardless of people's opinions on the broader merits of WP:JOBTITLES' stance, it clearly needs a rewrite for clarity because these issues keep arising in contexts where, when discussed, there's actually general agreement. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I would hesitate before substantial rewriting, because I think it is more clear than it used to be, and there seems to be more consistent support for it than there used to be. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

More input needed at RfC on infobox birthplace/nationality/citizenship

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC on birthplace, nationality, and citizenship parameters with matching values.

This RfC has been running for a while but input has dropped off, and right now it's about an even split between the guidelines a) saying nothing at all about the matter, or b) saying to avoid putting the same country in two or three infobox parameters (the other options in the RfC have attracted nearly no support). It's not going to be a useful outcome (just another RfC again some time later) if this closes with "no consensus", so this tie needs to be broken – with good reasoning, not with WP:JUSTAVOTE of course.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Should a subject be named in full after the lead?

Some confusion over the section on referring to subjects after the lead cropped up at the help desk. The section says to only use a subject’s surname after "the initial mention", but it is unclear whether this "initial mention" includes mentions in the lead or not.

I looked at some FAs and found a majority named subjects in full again in the article proper, typically in an "early life" section, although a significant minority dissented and only used the surname.

In my opinion, naming the subject in full post-lead generally conveys redundant information and should be avoided, but the important thing is that the intent of the guideline is cleared up. – Teratix ₵ 05:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  • The post-lede use of the full name is a "re-introduction". It may be appropriate for a "Personal life" section that jumps backward in time relative to the preceding sections, and would be especially appropriate if the names were given further context, namesakes and family. Generally though, I think "no". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As a general rule, no, after the lead you should just use the surname. In special cases, such as when the surname alone would be ambiguous, the full name is appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Completely unnecessary. Surnames are fine after the first mention in the article (that's the lede). Too many editors are rather fond of using the full name every other mention. As above, the only time it's necessary is where the surname alone would be ambiguous (e.g. if two members of the same family are mentioned in a paragraph). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • For someone who has changed their name since birth it is common to start the "early life" section with "Shula Mary Archer was born on 6 November 1952 in Ambridge ..." when the article title is "Shula Hebden-Lloyd", because they weren't born with the name which is the article title. But apart from that, surname only except where we need to distinguish them from someone else with same surname (commonly their spouse, but could be a parent or sibling). PamD 09:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The additional use of the fullname at the start of content after the lead as noted by SmokeyJoe above seems to have been something that has crept (back?) in over the last year or so and often seems not to be corrected to just the surname. Personally I've no objection to a fuller version of the name (first or given name and surname only) at the start of the bio section immediately after the lead but not the fullname as might be found as the 'boldname' – The enquiry at the HD was sparked by edits at William Hartnell. It is something that is seen often in drafts via AFC; particularly from newer editors. However, I would agree that it should really be surname only and that this needs to be made clearer somehow. Eagleash (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed with David Eppstein's generality as a default, and PamD's observation of an uncommon but obvious exception. I think SmokeyJoe's observation of a more common but less obviously useful exception is a judgement call; it doesn't make sense to do that in a short article, but it can in a long and complex one, especially if a short form of the name (Jim for James, etc.) is used as the title. Another exception is when someone else with the same surname also features heavily in the article/section, if the reader could be confused about whether the article subject or a parent is the subject of the present sentence/clause.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree, after looking at some articles where in the article the subject's parent with the same surname is discussed. The surname-only rule of referencing the subject makes it slightly hard to read. However, this is a question of disambiguation the reference, which might not require the whole full name, and which might be better solved by better writing, in that brief section. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Always repeat – It is important to start with full birth name because of WP:V. The lead section and infobox should not need any citations, therefore, it is important to have the full name at the beginning of the Early life section and to give a source for the first, middle, and last name at birth. Otherwise, any one can insert a fake middle name and there would be no way to challenge that. This issue I describe has happened at Nipsey Hussle and Doris Day. The full name needs a source for verification and the best place to that citation is just after the lead. For both Hussle and Day, hoax middle names were created and proliferated through RS because of our carelessness. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't the appropriate practice in those cases be to cite a source for the full name on its first mention (in the lead), rather than a needless repetition? – Teratix ₵ 08:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Teratix, no, it is common practice to have 0 citations in the lead. Everything in the lead and infobox should be repeated in the body and cited there. This is how FAs, our very best articles, are written. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
        • From MOS:LEADCITE (emphasis mine): The lead must conform to verifiability [and BLP] ... material that is ... likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation ... statements about living persons ... likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time ... including within the lead.
          ... [E]ditors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality ... and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is ... less likely to require a source; there is not ... an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis ... Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. – Teratix ₵ 22:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The full name should be given in the first section (Early life or similar), because there it is cited along with place and date of birth per WP:V. It is far better to do that than introduce a citation into the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Why should citations in the lead be avoided to the extent that the same text is unnecessarily repeated? – Teratix ₵ 08:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
      • See MOS:LEAD. Please don't ask questions or make statements that imply there is must be no WP:P&G principle at issue, if you have not actually read the applicable P&G material. Short version: If facts were "unnecessarily repeated" by being in the lead as well as the body, then leads could not exist at all. The entire purpose of the lead is to summarize the most important points in the article. We don't add citations to the lead material, and instead do it in the main-body material, unless the claims are likely to be (or have already proven to be) controversial and inspiring of dispute, in which case go ahead and add an otherwise-redundant citation in the lead, too, to forestall both editwarring and confused reactions from readers. If the claim is not controversial, then a redundant cite in the lead is simply visual clutter than impedes the speed at which the lead can be absorbed. Leads and bodycopy serve different purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Please don't imply I haven't actually read the guideline in question, and see the above reply to Coffeeandcrumbs. There is no requirement for leads to be free of citations, even for material less likely to be challenged. True, in many cases citing noncontroversial material in the lead would be redundant to the body and lead to the visual clutter that you mentioned. However, in this case avoiding a citation would, in fact, lead to more clutter, as identical text (not "facts") would be repeated with no benefit to the reader. – Teratix ₵ 23:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
          I have no idea what your point is in telling me that "There is no requirement for leads to be free of citations" immediately after I just explained reasons to have citations in leads. (And me personally providing an explanation is irrelevant, anyway; the P&G material already covers this. You seem miffed that you're being pointed to the P&G, but you keep making arguments that don't seem to consider that they're already there and already cover all this.) Just repeating your argument that what you object to is "more clutter ... with no benefit to the reader" does not make it so, especially when no one seems to be agreeing with you. Either you are presenting an argument that is not going to be accepted, or you're presenting a possibly valid argument too poorly for it be accepted at this time. Continuing in this vein isn't likely to be productive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Really don't know what to say here. I said "there is no requirement for leads to be free of citations" because you seem to be citing MOS:LEAD to advocate for avoiding naming subjects in full in the lead with a citation. Is that not true? In my reply to Coffeeandcrumbs, I pointed out that the guideline explicitly does not prescribe or prohibit citations. I am trying to show that a citation in the lead is not such a terrible thing, and would be beneficial if it meant avoiding redundant text.
            You seem to disagree with my point that repeating the name in full in both the lead and the body is redundant and a cited full name occurring once in the lead would be preferred if avoiding clutter is the prime concern, but don't seem to have explained any refutation.
            I agree that continued discussion is unlikely to be helpful if we can't figure out what the other is talking about. It is somewhat tangental to the reason I started the thread, which was to clarify a point from a different policy, so I'm happy to conclude it here. – Teratix ₵ 04:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hypocorisms that stem from the beginning of a name not permitted, but one from the end is?

There was a discussion at Talk:Al Capone#Hypocorism "Al" is unneeded where the consensus looks to be in favour of excluding the hypocorism "Al" for the full name Alphonse Gabriel Capone in the lead. In short, I was in favour of keeping it because although "Al" can be a "common English-language hypocorism" (MOS:HYPOCORISM), it is not one for "Alphonse" (not an English name). I seem to have been overruled (pending any last thoughts) by those who think it is not necessary because there will be no seemingly obvious (relative) confusion to a potential reader that the "Al" comes from the first two letters of his given name—I am still in disagreement—but if that's the way it goes, fine. My question comes to the example for that of Tina Fey (used in MOS:FULLNAME) permitting "Tina" in Elizabeth Stamatina "Tina" Fey. "Tina" is also a "common English-language hypocorism", and just as "obviously" comes from the last four letters of "Stamatina". Put it this way, if we put both of the names in front of the average reader and ask them to tell us where the hypocorism came from, they would likely be able to deduce where, but I think we should be leaning more towards covering our bases given that they are both non-English names, and any supposed "obviousness" on our part is just WP:OR. So is there a reason that the inclusion of a hypocorism that comes from the last few letters of a name be permitted, but not one from the first few? It was said that "Stamatina has no obvious nickname." According to who? You ask an English speaker, the only plausible one they'll probably come up with is "Tina" even though it is a name that is foreign to them. Although it has also been pointed out that the most common way to create a hypocorism in English is the first syllable, it is not uncommon to have names that go to the last syllable like Robert or Albert to Bert, etc. But again, if "Al" is deemed to be unnecessary here, fine, but by the same regard, "Tina" appears to also go against the MoS by being a "common English-language hypocorism" (regardless of where in the full name it is derived, and also does not specify the language of origin of the name in question). Courtesy ping to @JesseRafe:, @Bagumba:, @Muboshgu:, @Larry Hockett:. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Vaselineeeeeeee, this isn't about what is "permitted", it's that "Al" is a common English-language hypocorism, and "Stamatina" is not a common name and does not have a common hypocorism. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Did you even read what I wrote? Tina is a common English-language hypocorism, like Al. NEITHER of which, however, are common hypocorisms for their names because they are non English names and do not follow English hypocorism formation. Implying that Al is a common hypocorism for Alphonse is OR. The MOS says “a common English-language hypocorism” without mention of origin of names. As such, Tina should not be permitted based on the MOS wording being an English-language hypocorism if we are not taking into account name origin. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 05:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I suggest you bring up that very point at Talk:Tina Fey. CThomas3 (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
As I posted at the Capone discussion: A name shortened to its first syllable is the most common nickname. From Language and the Sexes, p. 22: The single most frequent device is: cut the first name to its first syllable ...—Bagumba (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I mentioned that. That still does not change the fact that Tina is still “a common English-language hypocorism”. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I have responded to that at Talk:Tina Fey, which seems like the better place to continue this conversation. I think there might be a more clear case for eliminating the explicit mention of the nickname if Elizabeth Stamatina Fey's nickname was "Beth" (which is another nickname derived from the end of a name). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The two cases are different circumstances. I was only responding to Capone. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The way Tina Fey's hypocorism is structured at her article was changed—but even without the change—should be removed from MOS:FULLNAME as two definitive examples will suffice. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with Muboshgu; this has nothing to do with starts/finishes of names, but about whether a hypocorism-to-name relationship is so common and/or obvious (in English) that it does not need a brow-beating explanation in the lead sentence. If the relationship between the hypocorism and the name it is short for is really, really obvious despite the longer name not being too common in English, we do not need to browbeat readers with that, either. (Thus we don't need to say Al is short for Alphonse at Al Capone. In an article on a Russian named Dmitri we should not refer to him as Dima without having already explained that is a hypocorism used in reference to him, e.g. "better known as Dima Popov", or whatever; the average English speaker/reader has no idea that Dima is a common Russian hypocorism for Dmitri, similar to Jimmy for James or Bob for Robert in English). WP:Common sense applies; line-items in MoS are not algorithms to apply robotically even if they reach reader-unhelpful results.

Tina is a very, very common hypocorism for Christina/Kristina. Stamatina isn't a common name and Tina isn't commonly a hypocorism for it, and it's her middle name, and nearly no one knows either of those names for her, only Tina. That not a situation where "obvious" applies, to much of anything. But the lead of that article doesn't follow MOS:NICKNAME anyway. The hypocorism should not be in quotation marks (it's not a nickname like "the Rock" or "Earl the Pearl"), and there is no cause to run-together everything into a big awkward mess like that. Try "Elizabeth Stamatina Fey, best known professionally as Tina Fey (/feɪ/; born May 18, 1970) is an American actress, comedian, writer, producer, and playwright." Better yet, just start with the common name and move the full name to a section on early life; it is not a name anyone is ever liable to encounter being used to refer to Tina Fey, only dug up in some article over-dwelling on her past/origins, like those that insist on telling us that Winona Ryder's original surname is Horowitz. These things can sometimes be wrong, too, and may be wrong for years. A good case in point is Demi Moore about whom numerous sources (including ones we used to mis-write our own article for a long time [3]) incorrectly claimed her birth name was Demetria; some of them had been doing this since the 1980s, which is when I first encountered the claim).

If there isn't a good reason (for that particular case) to clutter the lead with a birth name, then let's not do it. If an MoS passage seems to make it "mandatory", then maybe we should revise it. Various editors may want to front-load every bio with a birth/legal name, out of habit and out of a sense of a particular kind of "consistency" that WP and MoS do not actually care about or insist on, but that doesn't make it a good idea. There are sometimes good reasons cram name variants in the lead (MOS:BOLDSYN after all), such as when the name is pretty common knowledge (Samuel Clemens for Mark Twain), when the subject has used multiple aliases that are known to the public (many criminals, and some performers), when English-language sources have mostly preferred a particular spelling for a non-English-speaker subject while non-English sources have not and and even the English ones aren't consistent (Alfons Mucha, Alphonse Mucha), when someone's life work tends to be analyzed under their original name rather than a stage name, when the subject draws a whole lot of school-child research and may be confusing if it doesn't present the info right up front (e.g. Bill Clinton), when a historical personage is referred to in period sources differently from how English-language modern ones have conventionalized their name (lots of medieval rulers and ancient Romans and such), and so on. Use human judgement.

PS: Alphonse/Alfonse/Alfons/Alfonzo/Alphonso/Alfonso/etc. are not rare in English, they're just not terribly common (though verge on semi-common among certain populations with strong French, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. connections). "Stamatina" is almost unheard of in English (it seems to be Greek, a diminutive of Stamatia, which is also rare, though some of those unreliable baby naming websites counter-claim that it's Italian, and it could be Italian by way of Greek).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: The MoS may not take into account consistency, but it also does not take into account rarity of names—"Tina" is not "A short form that differs significantly from the name". Why don't you think "Tina" belongs in quotes in Elizabeth Stamatina "Tina" Fey? The only place it fits is "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", the "not a common hypocorism" being of particular note for those who insist that because "Tina" is not a common hypocorism for "Stamatina", it be permitted to use, in quotes (it does not appear to fall under the "alternative names" such as Alphonse Mucha or Tim Allen. Fey, however, certainly does not belong in the "First mention" section with quotes, as the examples of Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz and Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi, much more adequately show the use of "first mention" (unlike Fey due to the insertion of her nickname there does not follow the MoS "the article should start with the complete version"). Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in quotes (which in this kind of construction are "scare quotes" indicating something like "so-called", i.e. laced with a hint of dismissiveness) because it's not a nickname, like "Ballbuster" or "Fathead", it's a hypocorism like Liz or Robbie. Please just read the guideline in the spirit it's intended (as rules of thumb, not something to semantically wiki-lawyer to death), and just go along with what others are doing with it in the majority of cases. Please also keep in mind that MoS's purpose is to account for common, recurrent points of disruptive style disputation and defuse them. It does not exist to try to account for and "out-logic" every imaginable style question and quibble anyone could ever come up with (if you want that, try The Chicago Manual of Style and New Hart's Rules). It is not possible for MoS to precisely account for every conceivable style question that could ever come up even at our own articles, without being about 100× longer than it already is (and even then we'd fail; there is no end to the stylistic trivia people will battleground about). I've already provided you two better ways to write the lead. If you (or someone[s] you are arguing with over there) insist on cramming it all into one string in the lead, it would be Elizabeth Stamatina (Tina) Fey – no nickname scare-quoting. But that kind of cramming is not helpful to readers, so let's just not do it. In the overwhelming majority of cases where a subject is known to the public almost entirely by a short name that is not their birth name and which is not a stupendously obvious hypocorism for their first given name, we do this: "Alice Beatrice Ceedie, best known as Bea Ceedie ..." or something very similar, so just do it in this case and there is no longer any problem. While some of us would rather see the long birth name stuff moved to an "Early life" section in many cases, no one's head gonna asplode in the interim. :-) If there's some wording tweak in the guideline you think would improve it, then let's hear it (but beware the WP:Policy writing is hard fact; changes to wording of pages like this can easily have unintended effects if not thought through from every angle; the very reason this thread is open is the difficulty in crafting language everyone understands the same way and which no one can try to find a loophole in. It's hard work and no one's paying us as a litigation or lobbying team; we're all volunteers here!).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Interesting choice of nicknames. Your very comparison of "Tina" to "Liz" for why it should not belong in quotes shows, according to MoS, that it should not be stated at all. "Tina" is not an alternative name as shown in the MoS with examples like Tim Allen, it is a hypocorism, so the way of writing "professionally better know as Tina Fey" is not particularly helpful. I'm not sure why Tina Fey has been forced into the MoS, as her case does not fit well with "first mention" or "alternative names". As I said above, the closest fit it has is with "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", although when you compare it to the example of "Roland Bernard "Bunny" Berigan", it would seem ridiculous to include. An example of Tina Fey need not be used unless it is to show when not to use quotes. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by 'the way of writing "professionally better know as Tina Fey" is not particularly helpful'; it's what we do most of the time, specifically because it is helpful. If we want to include the full/original/legal name in the lead sentence, and we want to make it clear that readers are at the right article by providing the name they are overwhelmingly more familiar with, and which isn't painfully obvious the way it is with, say, "Rob" for "Robert", then the way we do it is this way. Whether to do it in Tina Fey's specific case is open to question; it is perhaps (as you suggest) not a good example to use here. I'm tired of arguing in circles with you about the other stuff, so will just leave it at that. However, I just realized (an apologize for not getting it sooner) that someone had edited the guideline itself to say to use 'Elizabeth Stamatina "Tina" Fey' (I thought were we discussing just changes people were squabbling about at the article), and somewhere along the line also changed it to suggest incorrectly that including the full birth name in the lead sentence is mandatory, which cannot actually be true, since there are various cases in which we do not do this, most obviously for MOS:GENDERID reasons (deadnaming), which we even say not far below that in the very same section of MOS:BIO. I've fixed both of these problems [4][5] and hopefully that is sufficient to resolve the extant issue. And added a way more obvious and common kind of case (Spanish names) [6]. Also did a bit of cleanup in the section on foreign names in general (patronymics, etc.); combined diff: [7].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: It initially started as what you call "squabbles", however, I also wanted to bring up how forcing an example with Fey into the MoS is not helpful. How is having either of Elizabeth Stamatina "Tina" Fey or Elizabeth Stamatina (Tina) Fey following "First mention" when the non-legal name of Tina is being inserted into her legal name on first mention? I propose that that example be removed or shifted to a more prudent section that would show when not to use quotes. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, we could massage that section to include it there instead, e.g.: If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name,[extant footnote here] it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses within or after their name. If a hypocorism (or name–hypocorism pair) is uncommon in English, and the hypocorism is inserted into the name, use parentheses not quotation marks, but consider presenting it separately with the surname, later in the lead, as we do with other alternative names (see above). I.e., add that last sentence. Then move the Fey example under the Hopper example. That would probably go a long way to clarifying, since people can (apparently, somehow) presently come away with the idea "hypocorisms don't go in quotation marks, except when they're uncommon", which is not what the material's trying to convey at all. I think the guideline is not saying something like this at present, with a Fey-like example, because it was thought more helpful to simply never inject hypocorisms into names. That might be okay as some kind of thought-experiment, but it's poor as an MoS rule, because it's being done frequently anyway, and the exact wording of the passage was unclear enough it didn't actually discourage it in uncommon cases. So, we may as well just clearly account for it instead of trying half-assedly to prevent it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Parentheses vs quotes: I'm opposed to recommending hypocorisms be in parentheses at this point. Per WP:PROPOSAL: Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do. Not only do I see quotes as the existing common practice in articles, MOS:HYPOCORISM also currently states: 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 ... There's no benefit to opening up a churn of minor edits now, as there is little confusion. Barring a major oversight, this is why we have an MOS to just be consistent and avoid widespread, minor tweaking.—Bagumba (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on the use of quotes or parentheses, but either way, Elizabeth Stamatina "Tina" Fey or Elizabeth Stamatina (Tina) Fey has been forced into the MoS at the "First mention" section (which it does not follow) given the insertion of her nickname within her legal name ("the article should start with the complete version")—and so, it will be removed or shifted to a more prudent section. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
And editwarring to force this to say to use quotation marks for hypocorisms needs to stop. There was never any consensus for such a idea, and trying to force it in is not going to work. It's directly counter to how we write articles (When's the last time you saw something like 'William Jefferson Clinton, best known as "Bill" Clinton'? It's not just against WP style, it's against mainstream English writing style in all genres.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"Saint" or "bishop" and honorifics?

Need 3rd opinion. user:FyzixFighter edited a few articles removing titles like "bishop", "saint", or "servant of god" citing MOS:HON. Examples: edit #1, edit #2, edit #3. The user has edited a lot articles that clearly violated MOS (ex.), but these couple examples I believe go a little too far. In the cited examples, the titles introduce the person and provide important context. Plus, none of them are listed in either MOS:HON or English honorifics. In example #1, it introduces a group of people that the subject "hung out with" not as some random people but similarly recognized Catholic saints/blessed/servants of god -- in historiography, the group is known as Faelix Saeculum Cracoviae. The intro is particularly important since some of the articles don't exist in English Wikipedia. In example #2, "bishop" is used as a job title and not a honorific. In example #3, again introduces the people and explains why they are significant in a very succinct manner. Particularly, compare the diff between "became the spiritual advisor of Blessed Jane of Orvieto" vs. "became the spiritual advisor of Jane of Orvieto". Thoughts? Renata (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

MOS:HON passes clergy on to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy), which includes a section on saints. Admittedly this is nearly all about articles titles, with not enough on running text. Johnbod (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
As the other party in this disagreement, here is my rationale. Examples #1 and #3 would fall under the guidance in WP:HON to not use (emphasis mine) "styles and honorifics related to royalty, clergy, and sainthood, such as Her Majesty, His Holiness, The Reverend, and The Venerable." The "such as" indicates that this is not an exhaustive list, and the field where these are usually inserted in the the Infobox saints template is called "honorific-prefix". The non-use of these honorifics aligns, imo, with the guidance in MOS:SAINTS that "the word "Saint" can lead to controversy (depending on who considers whom to be a saint) and possible non-neutrality." As another editor has already pointed to WP:NCCL and noted it mainly is about article titles, it does circularly say in the first paragraph that "For the use of names of clergy and saints in article text, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies." Personally, I agree with this comment from a similar current discussion over on WT:CATHOLIC for handling the honorific in the first sentence of the lede if needs be.
For example #2, I am also very interested to hear a third opinion. I am not sure of the right solution or of a consistent rule to follow in these situations. Admittedly I was trying to take the principles used in the last bullet of MOS:LDSJARGON, which advises against the use of ecclesiastical titles when referring to LDS Church leaders, and apply them to a broader range of religious articles. If we don't use "President", "Elder", or "Bishop" when referring to Russell M. Nelson, Jeffrey R. Holland, or Gérald Caussé, why is the same not true for Cardinals and Bishops, whose ecclesiastical roles are of similar level in the respective ecclesiastical hierarchies? Perhaps the solution is simply that when "cardinal" and "bishop" are used as job titles, they need to not be capitalized, similar to saying "LDS Church president Russell M. Nelson"? --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: First mention in the first sentence... (MOS:JOBTITLES)

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.
Consensus was reached to keep consistency in style between the first sentence and the remainder of the article. A fresh and more precise RFC about other issues that were raised during this discussion is recommendable. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
...of these numerous articles about the position itself

Should the first mention of a position in the first sentence of the article about the position be de-capitalized? See collapsed just above this line. Relisted by C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC), originally opened by Coffeeandcrumbs 22:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

!vote "yes" or "no"

  • Yes. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 22:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (moved from Discussion below) Yes. Where it appears in the article is irrelevant, and if it's capitalized early on in the lead, then people will capitalize it everywhere, per MOS:ARTCON.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    See clarification below; in the wake of polarized attention being drawn to this RfC (a month after its expiration), some of the responses to it seem to be misunderstand what it means.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: Can you clarify if that is a "yes" to my comment or a "yes" !vote to the RFC question of de-capitalizing first mention of the position?—Bagumba (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    It was a "yes" !vote to the RfC question; I didn't notice the intervening subhead. In response to your comment, part of the point of the wording of MOS:JOBTITLES is a compromise between "traditionalist" and "contemporary" styles. If the subject of the material is itself the title/position, then it can be capitalized, if it's a unique title that is often capitalized, and treating it that way makes some sense in the context. Thus, President of the United States should begin with "The President of the United States ..." (while Chief executive officer should not capitalize that title, being generic). In a genericized context, that same PotUS-related phrase would not be capitalized: "Tension levels between the president of the United States and the prime minister of the UK have varied considerably by who in particular has been in these offices. However, the two countries have been careful to maintain their alliance since the 19th century." It would be easier, "in a vacuum", to just never capitalize these things except when directly connected to a name. But it's not easy in practice; we're not going to get consensus to do that. Just getting consensus to not capitalize every f'ing occurrence has taken a decade+ and lots of proof that mainstream, off-site sources are no longer, in the main, rampantly capitalizing them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes per SMcCandlish reasoning. If this does go thru, MOS:JOBTITLE should distinguish it from the existing "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States" example, which is presumably not capitalized because "the" precedes "president" (?).—Bagumba (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Per SMcCandlish Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Many of these positions are never decapitalised in any form of usage, so it'd just be an attempt to use Wikipedia to push a position. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose we are not leaders of global change nor the standardisation of the english language we respect what the source say and the unique styles of every country. Now I really dont give a flyingfox about us-english, Australian English style guides say that where a title is used in relation to or conjunction with an individual the title is capitalised. Gnangarra 02:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    I don't know where you got the idea that this practice was more common in U.S. It is not any more common to decapitalize in the U.S. than it is in Australia. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    In this discussion about John Cain 41st Premier of Victoria because every example you posted was of US presidents. And this edit which said the chicago style guide Gnangarra 08:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It depends. As a rule, no. Often to usually, yes. If the term is treated as a proper name by most quality sources, like “39th President of the United States” or “34th Premier of Victoria”, then it should be treated as a proper name and capitalized, on every use. These wordy proper names are not much repeated after the lede, so the notion is setting a bad example is not compelling. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No Personally I think MOS:JOBTITLES should be removed from the MOS. It's unnecessary and obviously conflicts with real-world usage per Coffeandcrumbs and TDW below. Number 57 16:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. This is best practice and decapitalisation is consistent with many other sources, albeit not all. Deferring this element of style to source usage on a case-by-case basis would prolong rows that the manual of style can and should prevent. Ralbegen (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Rfc tag expired about a month ago. This Rfc should've been closed. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No... This is an extreme reading of MOS:JOBTITLES. When a governmental position is itself the subject of an article, we should capitalize the name of that position. ESPECIALLY when the position is held by one person (ie not generic). Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you capitalise in the intro or decapitalise, shouldn't this be done through out the entire article? GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes per SMcCandlish. CThomas3 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Specific positions are proper nouns and we shouldn't be forcing awkward decapitalisation onto every article. MOS:JOBTITLES is an unnecessary confused mess (particularly given different approaches in different countries). Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course. Oxford Style Guide, The Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, and Wikipedia's own style guide are all clear on this. I have yet to see a single academic style guide that prescribes capitalizing job titles in such a case. Surtsicna (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
1. Richard Nixon was the president of the United States.
2. Richard Nixon was a president of the United States.
3. Nixon was the 37th president of the United States.
Do the external style guides speak directly to 1 & 3? I think 1 & 3 should be capitalized, while 2 should not. I think the preponderance of sources supports this. I note that there is a trend over many decades to capitalize less, however, "37th President of the United States" can be read as a proper name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
As another point of reference, Britannica doesn't capitalise 3: here and 1: here. But that's about MOS:JOBTITLES more generally and not within the scope of this RfC. which is just about articles about positions. Ralbegen (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Considering that none of the style guides Surtsicna mentioned are freely available online, it'd be extremely helpful for clarifying this discussion if people could cite, specifically, the guidance they're relying on, as we're getting into the less obvious nuances of capitalisation principles and it's very hard to tell (considering how much it, in many if not most cases here, differs from common usage) if these takes are things that they're actually explicitly trying to prescribe or the interpretation of some Wikipedians. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
CMOS 17 says that when a title is "preceded by the or by a modifier", "it is considered not a title but rather a descriptive phrase and is therefore lowercased". Does this help? —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's really useful for these discussions to be able to refer to the actual text of these so we know we're not talking at cross-purposes: if I'm apparently disagreeing with the take of the CMOS in some situations, it's useful to know that I'm actually disagreeing with their take in some situations and not some Wikipedian's interpretation of it. Do you have the other ones Surtsicna referred to handy by any chance? Ultimately I'd like to get to understand the style guide differences that are causing the clashes with what's actually being used in real-life, for lack of a better word, sources - because this specific RfC is a big one for that - and I'm just not enough of a MOS nerd (meant in the nicest possible way) to have these things on hand. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I only subscribe to CMOS, since that's what my employer uses. I can see if the others are available at my local library. (Separately, if you are willing to WikiMail me, I'll send you more explicit examples from CMOS.) —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 01:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm about to run off for work, but that'd be fantastic. I'll see if I can dig up copies of the others myself. The other thing I meant to add about digging these up is that our guideline is not particularly clearly written regardless of one's take on the issue and I'm generally keen on greater clarity, so reference to the actual language of style guides might provide us guidance on tightening that up regardless of which stance our guide ultimately takes on some of the finer nuances of capitalisation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe:, @The Drover's Wife:: CMOS (16th edition) 8.21: "Much of the usage below is contradicted by the official literature typically generated by political offices, where capitalization of a title in any position is the norm (see 8.19). In formal academic prose, however, civil titles are capitalized only when used as part of the name (except as noted)."
AP Style Book: "In general, confine capitalization to formal titles used directly before an individual’s name."
Oxford Style Guide: "Use capitals for titles prefixing names, but not for job descriptions." (It might be relevant to note the example given by Oxford Style Guide: The 17th president of the United States was Andrew Johnson.)
In short, yes, these style guides do speak directly to 1 and 3 in that they all clearly state that titles should be capitalized only when preceding the holder's name (and are not set off by commas). This means that MOS:JOBTITLES is much more accepting of capitalization than the world's major academic style guides, and that any move towards more uppercasing on Wikipedia would set the project apart from mainstream academic prose. It would be a mistake. Surtsicna (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the quotes - as I said to Eyer, it's really useful to know what, specifically, they say as we start getting into quite nuanced areas. Am I reading you correctly that the CMOS acknowledges that they're contradicting normal layperson usage though? That seems surprising. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
You are welcome! No, the CMOS says that the usage in "formal academic prose" is contradicted by the "official literature typically generated by political offices". There is no mention of normal laypeople, whoever that may be. For example, while gov.uk capitalizes "prime minister" in every instance, David Cannadine and Stuart Ball do not. Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Just hoping we have this settled once & for all, so I can go forward with implementing the decision, throughout the bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, should be de-capitalized, for consistency and to avoid disputes in the future. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It depends — I think SmokeyJoe's evaluation is closest to my own. I also concur with the point that the current guideline is not as clear as it could be, so whatever the final decision is, I hope it's communicated more effectively. XOR'easter (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No, I am not convinced of the logic by which "the United States" amounts to a proper noun but "the President of the United States" does not. What if it were "the Grand Poobah of the United States" that should be "the grand poobah of the United States"? "the Unmitigated Holy Divine High-man of the United States" vs "the unmitigated holy divine high-man of the United States"? If it is in Wikipedia's voice, it is not a proper noun, if it is in the voice of the title-giver, it is a proper noun, right? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC) I must say I was confused about this RfC and what it implied, I did not see that it meant only this specific list (I feel the text of the RfC that was not collapsed should've read differently). I still have to give a strong oppose to that and think that we need to come up with adjustments to JOBTITLES if anything is not clear. Deciding by fiat from one list serves no good purpose. We need to know why things are being capitalized or not. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    Your comment does not make sense. "President of the United States" is not a noun at all, let alone a proper noun. Surtsicna (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    My whole comment does not make sense because you object to "amounts to"? What about the rest of it? Anyway, saying the "President of the United States" is not a proper noun seems to me about like saying the Apache HTTP Server is not a proper noun. Or the United States of America. Let's not quibble over the meaning of "proper noun" in English, let's talk about cases like "Supreme Leader" or whatever that I don't think we can say in Wiki's voice as "supreme leader". —DIYeditor (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    DIY’s post could be corrected by substituting proper name for proper noun. A common unimportant mistake. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It depends I mostly agree with what SmokeyJoe said. I would suspect that capitalization is not appropriate in a majority of cases, but not all jobs are created equal and we do not need a one-size-fits-all answer to the capitalization question. Lepricavark (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I completely agree with Number 57. There is no reason for this to be in the MOS at all. We need to be flexible and accept the norms that are specific to the preferences of each nation or dialect. This can all be determined through local consensus in each article, but we shouldn't invent an arbitrary and dubious common standard to impose on every article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErinRC (talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No. An attempted extension of already egregious instruction creep. I would also fully support a revisiting of MOS:JOBTITLES, which (as so often with MOS) has ceased to be reflective of actual general usage. Frickeg (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Our normal MOS rules should apply. We don't need special creepy first-time decapitalization rules. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No common usage is capitalisation, and this is yet more MOS-creep. Certainly capitalise in the case of usage as a proper name, such as "37th Premier of Victoria". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No - common usage is to capitalise. Wikipedia shouldn't take a position that suggests something different. Bookscale (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • To clarify my !vote-proper up top (about which SmokeyJoe asked): We should not do the lead sentence differently from the article title and the rest of the article. Now that this RfC is belatedly getting attention (much of it polarized by an ANI discussion), the vagueness of its wording is turning out to be a problem. The question wasn't about whether every title should always be de-capitalized in every lead sentence; it was about whether we should fix cases where people are over-capitalizing titles in the lead sentence just because it's in the lead sentence. Yes, we should fix those instances, per MOS:EMPHCAPS and MOS:ARTCON as well as MOS:JOBTITLES. That is, when the article itself is about a unique title like "President of the United States", or a sharply delimited one like "Member of the European Parliament", we're dealing with it as a proper name in that context, and the capitalization should be consistent in the article (except where used as a common-noun phrase, e.g. "seventeen presidents of the United States were ..."). When the article is about a generic title, like "chief executive officer", it is not a proper name at all, and should not be upper-cased in the lead sentence just to emphasize it because it's in the lead sentence (we boldface the term at first occurrence instead; see MOS:FIRST). This is the same capitalization pattern you'll find in the majority of modern-day reliable sources (in style guides in giving advice about how to do this, and in other kinds of works in their running-text usage: "two senators", "Senator Schubert", "when Schubert was elected as the senior senator from Ohio", "The office of United States Senator is held by two individuals at a time per US state, a senior and a junior senator", "this list of 20th-century Republican senators of Ohio", etc. Capitalize when attached to a name or when treated as a proper-name subject (the office itself, as such), but lower-case when used in a common-noun manner (descriptive, pluralized, generic, etc.) Source usage is not universal on these matters, but consistent enough (and getting more so every year) for us to apply them consistently here, and hopefully end all this move-warring and other strife. As someones else put it below, Oppose any MOS change, malformed request is perhaps the best interpretation. This should be reformulated more clearly in a later discussion, perhaps with an eye to also addressing the related thread further down this page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC); rev'd 11:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I note that I find you make much more sense when I find your writing to be easily understood. {{"Should the first mention of a position in the first sentence of the article about the position be de-capitalized"}} reads very easily as "Should positions de-capitalized". I think a better question is Should positions in lede sentences be capitalized any different to elsewhere in the article, including the title?, to which the answer is an easy "no". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
      • This seems entirely reasonable but this RfC explicitly asked to decapitalise the first sentence for a list of specific positions of which basically every one was a unique title, which on your logic as I understand it, shouldn't be decapitalised. It seems to me like there's a bit of cross-purposes going on here and that you and Coffeeandcrumbs are effectively arguing for completely different (and apparently contradictory) things in the same RfC. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Please stop trying to personalize style disputes, especially with me in particular, and double-especially when there's still an open ANI on it. I'm not inclined to get into a mutual interaction-ban with you just because you don't seem to know when to give it a rest. You've said your piece in this RfC and so have I (that's commenting on the content), which is sufficient, and we need no further comment on contributor. PS: The RfC is not "ask[ing] to" do anything; it's neutrally asking whether we should. My view is that we should by default use lower-case (in title, lead sentence, and general text), not deviate from this except for proper-name usage, and not be inconsistent at the same article whether we deviate from the default or not. I didn't make that clear enough at first, but I don't need you in particular to continue getting on my case about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
          • To be clear, I'm trying to understand your position because when you've gotten more specific about your views you've made some comments that make me wonder how much we actually disagree at all. You said above: "That is, when the article itself is about a unique title like "President of the United States", or a sharply delimited one like "Member of the European Parliament", we're dealing with it as a proper name in that context, and the capitalization should be consistent in the article (except where used as a common-noun phrase, e.g. "seventeen presidents of the United States were ...")." Wouldn't that mean that most, if not all, of the articles listed in the RfC should be capitalised in the article title and lead section (they're all functionally equivalent examples to "President of the United States")? If I'm reading you correctly, we basically agree; if I'm not, I'd like to understand what I'm not understanding. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No with rider: Use of a specific title which is in and of itself about a specific position|title|office should capitalise the usage. Where the article is about the position, it should be capitalised where it appears in the lead subject that the lead should be written in a way that complies with with the provisions of MOS:JOBTITLES. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Malformed: Per my comment immediately above. It should be possible to write the lead to capitalise the position in a way that is compliant with MOS:JOBTITLES. Given this, what is then being asked by the RfC? As the question is unclear, I would observe that the RfC is consequently malformed. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No These are formal positions which are unique hence they should be capitalised. I have yet to see any valid reasons to change this. Example:
  • Green tickY Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
  • Red XN prime minister of the united kingdom
  • Red XN prime minister of the United Kingdom
  •  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The third version, "prime minister of the United Kingdom", is recommended by the most reputable style guides in the world, including The Chicago Manual of Style, Oxford Style Guide, and AP Stylebook. A nay from you or me holds little weight. Surtsicna (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The UK Government offically states "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" among other sources. Furthermore, as shown above and below the usage tends towards the first option since it is a specific and proper role. Also please could I see the sources for those manual guides you mentioned.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
As noted by The Chicago Manual of Style, these style guides are followed in "formal academic prose" and are "contradicted by the official literature typically generated by political offices". As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should look up to academic prose rather than websites of political offices. In a comment below I explained how the job title is not capitalized in any of the biographies of Lord Salisbury (a random choice) cited in our article about him. Therefore I cannot confirm that tendency. I am not sure what you mean by "sources for those manual guides". Hopefully SMcCandlish can help me out with figuring this out. Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The Google Ngram suggests to me that these style guides are trying to be trend setters. Wikipedia should follow its sources, the sources for the material is the articles. Capitalisation conveys meaning, it is not just style. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm more interested in conforming to common style guides that I am conforming to sources. That said, New York Times [8] has it lowercase. So does Washington Post [9]. BBC has it lowercase in many instances [10]. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 22:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Having recently checked the biographies of Lord Salisbury cited in the article about him, I can tell you that such over-capitalization is very uncommon. To be more precise, I have not encountered it. It is not capitalized in the 2001 biography by Michael Bentley, or in the 1987 biography by Lord Blake, or in the 2002 biography by Paul R. Brumpton, or in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, or in the 1964 biography by John Ashley Soames Grenville, or in the 1978 biography by Peter T. Marsh, or in the 1996 biography by Richard Shannon, or in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, or in the 2002 biography by E. David Steele, etc. I do not know from which kind of books Google picks those results, but from what I can see, these style guides are not merely setting trends. Surtsicna (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: So I am still wondering, I assume these style guides you cited would have us capitalize "Supreme Leader" (of North Korea) but not "prime minister" (of the United Kingdom) even though both make sense literally not just as proper names or titles. Is there some logic on this we can take from the style guides? I think for Wikipedia's purposes we need a "because" that people can take to the bank. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll just point out that Kim Jong-un already uses "supreme leader" (lowercase), presumably because of WP:JOBTITLES, in spite of the obvious issues you've raised earlier that there is a clear difference in meaning. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why you assume so. Surtsicna (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: Because it doesn't sound quite right to say someone is the "supreme leader" as a factual statement in Wikipedia's voice versus a proper name (their job title) in capital letters. How about "brotherly leader and guide of the revolution" should that be lower case as well? By what possible standard should the editor's voice be used to parrot whatever conceivable title someone manages to come up with as if it will always make sense in plain English as a description of them? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
A supreme leader is a factual thing, so it sounds right to me to describe someone as such. I do not even understand how capitalizing it would diminish anything. Since brotherly leader and guide of the revolution is not a thing, it is pointless to discuss it. Surtsicna (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article existing is not a good citation for the use of "supreme leader" as a neutral, factual description. Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution has an article too, for whatever that means, except like other political titles it's all capitalized. What is your rule of thumb here? If political position titles should be lowercased by not Brotherly Leader? Why does the declaration of a government hold sway with what particular terms we must use in lower case to describe a leader when all we are doing is applying some factual description, not the factual description (title). —DIYeditor (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing biased or non-factual about describing someone as supreme leader when reliable sources refer to that person as supreme leader, e.g. when The New York Times, BBC, The Guardian, etc, refer to "Iran's supreme leader". Since we are never going to describe anyone as a brotherly leader, the point is moot. My rule of thumb is to write as reputable style guides advise. Surtsicna (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, where would Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution fall on this RFC - would it be a candidate for lower case in the same way as the articles listed? If not is there a reason we can include in the MOS that explains why that article must begin with "The Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution..." rather than lower case? —DIYeditor (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose any MOS change, malformed request Too many open interpretations of what the question really is. See #Motion to close and start a new clarifed RfC below.—Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • NO. I think I am supporting a clarification in the language and application of the MOS guideline, not a change in its intent. I've stumbled into this conversation, read some of the comments above and below, looked at the current guideline and one of the example articles in the collapsed section. The current version of President of East Timor begins with "The president of East Timor, officially the president of the Democratic Republic of Timor Leste (Portuguese: Presidente da República Democrática de Timor-Leste, Tetum: Prezidente Republika Demokratika Timor-Leste), ...". I think that violates the third bullet point of the guideline, but seems to be the current accepted form. I think it looks ridiculous to have "president" (lower-case 'p' - twice), but "Presidente" and "Prezidente", and note that it is talking about the position, consistent with the second example on the left "Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016. --Scott Davis Talk 04:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
No, Scott Davis, that wording is entirely in line with the third bullet point because the "formal title for a specific entity" is "preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article)". Thus, according to MOS:JOBTITLES, the job title may be capitalized in "President of East Timor" but not in "the president of East Timor". I do not agree that it looks ridiculous to have lower-case p in English and upper-case p in other languages because different languages have different capitalization standards. In German, for example, the first letter of every noun is capitalized. Surtsicna (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No. For all the reasons stated above for "no" and "oppose." --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No. For example, there is a position "the Archivist of the United States". I cannot find anywhere where it is written "the archivist of the United States." It does not make any sense to omit a preceding "the" from "the Archivist of the United States" in most English sentences, which means this official job title and position would almost always be found in Wikipedia sentences with a lowercase "a" archivist? NOTinman44 (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
See [11] and [12] for examples of "the archivist of the United States". —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 20:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I note several of your examples include those with a capital "A" following the word "the": "the Archivist of the United States". I also note that almost all of the examples that use a small "a" also state the archivist's name either before or after stating the title. Therefore, it seems to me that referring only to the title, and not using the name of the person, the "A" should be capitalized even if it follows the word "the."Tinman44 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I provided those examples because you said 'I cannot find anywhere where it is written "the archivist of the United States."' Regardless of how it appears in those sources, MOS:JOBTITLES states that "[o]ffices, titles, and positions [...] are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically" and that "a formal title for a specific entity" preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article) should be lowercase. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 22:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No/Oppose. I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia is better following how language is actually used, rather how select academic style dictate it should be used. It is abundantly clear that in most instances these academic style guides aren't describing common usage or even how most published works treat capitalisation of job titles. Editing with Eric (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

That's a yes in my book... Positions aren't capitalized... only titles are. I fear you've given me a to-do list. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 22:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Eyer, I have hundreds, perhaps 2000+ more, if the rough calculation I did in my head is correct. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I am going to cry. :). —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 22:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Here is a fun one Special:PrefixIndex/Secretary of. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
And Special:PrefixIndex/First Lad. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 22:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES is pretty clear about not capitalizing titles or positions when they are "preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article)". So President of the United States currently seems OK with "The president of the United States (POTUS) is the ..."—Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This becomes more complicated when you consider Vice Presidents and Prime Minister. By this logic, there is no reason why Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is not titled Prime minister of the United Kingdom. Titles on en.wiki should use sentence case. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
See above. It's because the article Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is about the title/position as such.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
This ngram shows that MOS:JOBTITLES is against common usage in corpus. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Our standard is to not apply a stylization, including capitals, unless current and actually reliable sources (in English and across genres, not just in specialist literature) apply that stylization to that specific case with near-uniformity. A simple majority isn't sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
This is has gotten to the point where you've got two or three Wikipedians attempting to make Wikipedia use an entirely interpretation of English grammar as distinct from the entire rest of the language. We've got a situation at John Cain (41st Premier of Victoria) where every single source on the internet that uses that phrase ("41st Premier of Victoria") capitalises Premier, the Cambridge Australian English style guide says it should be capitalised, and we've got one editor insisting that it must be decapitalised because WP:JOBTITLES says so. These changes are ungrammatical and they're not supported by reliable sources either in practical usage (in any sense) or in authoritative style guide usage and they've slipped in because a very small number of editors (I count three on this talk page) have changed a guideline on their own whim with outcomes that are increasingly ludicrous. What Wikipedia says is defined by definition by what is written in reliable sources and not the passionate if completely unique interpretation of English grammar of Wikipedia users Eyer and Coffeeandcrumbs. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I've been frustrated with this topic, for a long time. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be time for an RfC to whack WP:JOBTITLES on the head once and for all if this keeps up: the take of this handful of users is so grammatically unusual that I highly doubt it'd survive full-blown scrutiny extending beyond the usual suspects on this page. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
It already has, in multiple RfCs (and now this one, which is going WP:SNOW, and a proposed additional one below, the outcome of which is just as predictable). Your comment above is the kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND "campaign tirelessly against guidelines I hate until I get what I want" attitude I keep waving you away from. You don't seem to be clear on what grammatical means. What you're talking about is stylistic convention, not grammar. A subjective claim that something grammar-unrelated is "ungrammatical" is a very reliable indicator of that we are dealing with a linguistic prescriptivism PoV, which is the last thing WP needs, and is the last kind of viewpoint that is ever going to get satisfaction here, but the most likely to be long-term problematic and a drain on others' editorial time, fomenting WP:DRAMA over trivial matters. As I said in a related thread below, you've had many opportunities to prove that current reliable sources almost always capitalize titles like this when not directly attached to names, yet when we all look at the evidence, we find not only is it not true, there's an increase over time in use of lower case (especially in about the last 40 years, accelerating in the last 20). Every single time this debate re-re-re-surfaces, we get the same results (which mostly happens in WP:RM discussions, not on this talk page). At some point, we need to stop rehashing the perennial; it's tiresome and unproductive. Pretty much the most that can be said in favor of capitals is that some titles, like President of the United States, show in the sources a bit more capitalization than some other titles, but it's nothing like a consistent approach. Look, I understand where this urge comes from; I'm old enough that in my schoolboy days I, too, was taught to capitalize these things. Language changes, and we have to change with it. Well, WP does; no one can tell you how to write your own letters (do those still exist? :-) and e-mails and webpages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
It's telling that three people !voting is what passes for WP:SNOW around here on discussions that impact hundreds if not thousands of articles. @SmokeyJoe, Coolcaesar, GoodDay, and Gnangarra: - as people who've participated in this talk page discussion but not !voted, you may want to do so before three people wind up having all these articles changed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
When an RfC runs for over a month and it's unanimous, that's a SNOW result. It may be a small snowball, but it still is one. Coming along a month late and directly canvassing someone to go the other direction is transparent and silly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
As a gnome, I've got to know. Do we capitalise or de-capitalise. Give me sign, oh Wiki community. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Decapitalize, since the guideline has not changed. Or wait and see if the handful of people upset about this actually do bother with a fourth RfC; maybe consensus will magically change overnight.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I think I misread something somewhere. @SMcCandlish: You !voted above that it would be The President of the United States is the ..., but the proposal is Should the first mention of a position in the first sentence of the article about the position be de-capitalized (underlined for emphasis). Is your "yes" really a "depends" e.g. The chief executive officer is ...?—Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

As a matter of process, considering this RfC proposes specific changes to specific articles, it would generally be Wikipedia practice to notify users on those particular talk pages that it is proposed to change them. It is very telling that this hasn't been done (as it would inevitably drag in many times more responses to the RfC) and that the same four people are then inclined to claim that their views are a WP:SNOW consensus. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

BTW your RFC isn't tagged. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Who is that targeted at? I don't have an RfC? The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Wait the Rfc expired over a month ago, sorry. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The Rfc-tag expired over a month ago. This Rfc opened by @Coffeeandcrumbs:, should've been closed & reviewed, back then. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It is just now getting going. The holiday season was slow. I have restarted the RfC. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
It started early in November though, so at best very early in the holiday season. So probably a factor, but I think also a combination of the ANI effect and the realisation that this wasn't just obscure change in some obscure guideline that few read and wouldn't make any difference but instead something which could affect many articles. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A terrifying thought: what if the first sentence also refers to Star Trek [I/i]nto Darkness?? XOR'easter (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Then teh Pedia asplode.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we 'merge' the JOBTITLES discussion (which is lower down on this talkpage) with this Rfc? GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Motion to close and start a new clarifed RfC

I propose to close this RfC as people do not have a consistent understanding on what the RfC is asking (lead sentence only vs everywhere, de-captialize always, decapitalize sometimes, does "no" or "oppose" mean to capitalize always or no new rule is needed, etc.) Open a new RfC with a refined statement e.g. provide explicit examples on what would happens for a few representative examples like President of the United States and Chief executive officer.—Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment The "e.g." was meant purely as an example, not a mandate. Striking. The key point is to take feedback and tighten proposal.—Bagumba (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator.—Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. We need more clarity on what's going on. Heck even my home country has the Clarity Act, for future referendum questions. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    Aside: Clarity Act could use a sentence or two in the lead on what it was clarifying.—Bagumba (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Yes, this RfC is confused and is just a wash.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. There is strong evidenced based opposition sufficient for consensus in the RFC to stop the decapitalising of titles, there are few individuals running around decapitallising article titles where they can, which how we got here. If you want to restart then first close this as is with consensus for capitals. Then start a new RfC with reasons to change given that there are different style guides for different countries one size will not fit all either way. Wikipedia is not a driver of change. Gnangarra 08:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Gnangarra: The problem is this RfC is unclear if "no" means change nothing in MOS, or add something to say capitalize. And a lot of the "yes" votes are following someone whose later explanation is not really a "yes" to the original RFC proposal.—Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    I you read each statement a closing admin can draw a consensus, the issue I have is that because its not ever a vote its the reason why yes/no/oppose/delete or any other term you like is irrelevant to that issue. I cnat support closing and rehashing all of this again unless the closure clearly states that MOS:JOBTITLE is not to be used as guide(its not a policy), and no changes to existing usages are to be done. Gnangarra 10:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    It would be closed with no changes to MOS, with no prejudice against a new proposal. And the original proposal was never to remove MOS:JOBTITLE completely.—Bagumba (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    Gnangarra's summary simply isn't accurate. To the extent any sort of consensus can be gleaned from the above mess, there's evidence that some specific titles have a stronger tendency in RS to be capitalized even when not attached to names, and that some editors have been misapplying the guideline to try to de-capitalize such cases even then the title/position/role itself is the topic and is effectively a proper name, and that some editors are also misapplying it to try to do the title in the lead and body differently. So, there is basically a vague sense that the guideline needs clarification, but without a proposal for specific changes to get at that clarity. (Plus there's some out-of-band nonsense like the idea of deleting the entire guideline section.) None of that soup of concerns and observations and ideas can be distilled to Gnangarra's over-generalized claim of "consensus ... to stop the decapitalising of titles". Not even close.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Malformed

  1. Another malformed survey to which I object. This is not a simple proposal but a series of them and one doesn't logically follow from the other (even if it is just an example "e.g."). Should this train wreck RFC be closed? Absolutely. Should we start an RFC based on examples rather than new logical text/criteria for MOS:JOBTITLES negotiated after discussion? Absolutely not. That RFC would be just as bad as this one. We need more discussion first so things can be honed into a proper RFC. Let's just say Close RFC and start new discussion before starting another RFC. Do not include examples in any future RFC unless they are examples to be used in the MOS alongside logical rules. Stick to a simple neutral question of whether to adopt new rules. Don't ask questions that force someone to agree to something they disagree with to aggree with the other components. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    It's all well and good to say "stick to a simple neutral question of whether to adopt new rules", but when, as happened here, people are confused as heck about how those rules would apply in practice those examples get pretty crucial to a resolution - people need to clearly understand exactly what they're agreeing or disagreeing with. Though I agree with you beyond that, I think - we need things honed into a clear and logical proposal for what text/criteria would change and it's probably worth not rushing straight into a second RfC until that's been straightened out more. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    Examples are most of the problem with this RFC. RFCs are supposed to be clear, simple, neutral questions that someone can look at and understand the logic of. What good is an example without explaining why it is such, and where else would you explain the why except in a clear concise proposal for new rules? Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. e.g. "Should the following criteria be adopted for MOS:JOBTITLES?" not "Should we say: well because President of the United States is a proper name and usually capitalized and most people want that to be capitalized, should we capitalize that, and because "head janitor" is not a very important title and most people and sources wouldn't capitalize it and it would look silly we won't capitalize it?" —DIYeditor (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. We've got virtually the same kinda discussion taking place on this topic right now, lower down on this very page. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    Looks like at #Looking_at_JOBTITLES_from_the_other_direction. All the more reason to close this one here.—Bagumba (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2020 (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.

Room for some standardisation in family articles?

I formerly evaluated the way Template:Infobox family worked out, which brought about some merging and in the end simplication in its handling.

Now, evaluating family biography articles, there seems to be quite some diversity in how contents are presented. Not necessarly a big problem. However, would there be possible benefits in offering slightly more standardisation in terms of how certain recurrent, equivalent contents is presented? Similar to how the manual of style of biographies is offered? Perhaps even in some kind of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Family?

Commens off the cuff:

  1. Several articles present both "Family members" and "Family tree" in separate sections, such as Siemens family, Rausing family and Porsche-Piëch family
  2. Others, like Pritzker family and many others, present a combined, collected treelist family tree members list section. Is that the preferred solution?
  3. Yet others, such as Walton family, list members along with information of networth - some, like Ortega family, even with a table
  4. In general, do we have any articles, such as Rothschild family, which may be helpful to provide as more worked-though models for other less polished articles (to the extent encyclopedically relevant)?

PPEMES (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A good old tally

I've done the honours.

On de-capitalising
"The President of the United States"/
"The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom"/
"The Secretary-General of the United Nations"/
etc.
in the lead and elsewhere on political office articles
Those in favour of/not against de-capitalisation Those who commented a neutral, unclear or
conflicting stance
(+: in favour of de-capitalisation,
~: neutral or unclear, –: against de-capitalisation) 		Those not in favour of/against de-capitalisation

checkY Ralbegen [17]

checkY Cthomas3 [17]

checkY Eyer [12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19]

checkY K.e.coffman [17]

checkY SMcCandlish [2, 7, 17, 18] This is not accurate. See below.
The table is commingling two unrelated questions and editor
views about them, manufacturing pseudo-support for Proposal B
out of support for different Proposal A.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

checkY Gog the Mild [17]

checkY Surtsicna [14, 17]

checkY ChrisJBenson [9]

checkY Dicklyon [2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19]

checkY Yaksar [7]

checkY The Gnome [9]

checkY Jayron32 [9]

checkY UpdateNerd

checkY Anomalocaris [4]

checkY Collect [3]

checkY Nine Zulu queens [7, 8]

checkY Tony1 [2, 4, 8]

checkY Millionsandbillions [7, 8]

checkY GenQuest [8]

checkY WCCasey [8]

checkY ErikHaugen

checkY JFG [7, 11]

checkY Woko Sapien [16]

checkY Mitch Ames [8~]

checkY XOR'easter [17~]

checkY BarrelProof [8~]

checkY Coffeeandcrumbs [14–?, 15–?, 17+?]

checkY Bagumba [17+?]

checkY MelanieN [12~]

checkY GoodDay [7–, 8–, 9–, 10+, 15+, 17~, 18–?, 19+?]

checkY Cinderella157 [4–, 17–?, 18?, 19+?]

checkY Wehwalt [10]

checkY Station1 [7]

checkY RGloucester [4]

checkY Markbassett [10]

checkY Colonestarrice [19]

checkY Randy Kryn [7, 8]

checkY AvRand [7, 8]

checkY Semmendinger [8]

checkY Canuckian89 [8]

checkY Qballer82 [8]

checkY Davey2010 [8]

checkY SMP0328. [1]

checkY Jojalozzo [1, 2]

checkY Bbb23 [1]

checkY Coemgenus [3]

checkY Sundostund [2]

checkY LittleBenW [2]

checkY LtPowers [3]

checkY UnQuébécois [3]

checkY Moxy [3]

checkY Enric Naval [2]

checkY Golbez [2]

checkY Shearonink [5]

checkY Djflem [6]

checkY SnowFire [7, 8]

checkY TommyBoy [7]

checkY Magidin [13]

checkY White whirlwind [14]

checkY Gnangarra [17, 18]

checkY SmokeyJoe [17, 18]

checkY Doug butler [17]

checkY Number 57 [17]

checkY Timrollpickering [17]

checkY DIYeditor [17, 18]

checkY ErinRC [17]

checkY Frickeg [17]

checkY David Eppstein [17]

checkY Peacemaker67 [17]

checkY Bookscale [17]

checkY ScottDavis [17]

checkY Tinman44 [17]

checkY Editing with Eric [17]

checkY The Drover's Wife [17, 18]

checkY Seraphimblade [18]

checkY Spy-cicle [17, 18]

checkY Coolcaesar [11, 14, 17, 18]

checkY Blueboar [4, 7, 8, 17, 18]

checkY Thewolfchild [7]

checkY AmYisroelChai [8]

checkY Slywriter, [18, 19]

checkY SUM1 [me]

checkY Coffeeandcrumbs [14–?, 15–?, 17+?]

Total: 23 Total: 7 Total: 52
Percentage: 28.1% Percentage: 8.5% Percentage: 63.4%

One confirmed duplicate sockpuppet (10W40 [5], the same as Nine Zulu queens), was removed from the in-favour-of/not-against de-capitalisation column.

This is from discussions I could find, both from archive search terms and the ones from this page, in which the above specific issue is mentioned and the viewpoint of a user on the issue is explicitly stated, or the user states that the title/office should always or always not be capitalised. I did not include support or opposition of different issues or statements that could not confirm whether the user would've supported or opposed this issue (such as viewpoints on the plural form, in which it could be argued that that form is not an official/proper title, or viewpoints on the short form "the President"). I ignored discussions where only the exact same editors as other discussions participated in the discussion and had already given the same views elsewhere, like here or here. I collected 19 discussions in total. The oldest was from 2011, but most were from the last 2 years.

These were:

There were many more down the further pages, which you can view here, but I stopped here.

Of course, feel to correct my categorisation if I'm wrong and rearrange your place in the tally.

I picked the issue that was causing the most strife for the time being. Leave "U.S. president", "presidents of the United States" and other stuff like that (even simply "the President") for another tally. I think the only way we'll be able to solve guideline disputes is to actually assess consensus on a single, bitesize issue.

This is not to state that it should be one way or another, this is merely to provide and collate information on a very disorganised issue, and maybe explain why it's been persisting for so long. It would seem that in this case, the idea that there's consensus for the current MOS:JOBTITLES guideline is a myth, and in fact the viewpoint is almost exactly 2:1 in favour of capitalisation. This seems to be reflected in the ngram link provided by Dickloyd, who supported de-capitalisation, in 2012 [3] (here's a British one for reference) and is against what Mandruss and SMcCandlish have said about it being a minority of editors coming up repeatedly [9, 10]. It turns out that the minority of editors coming up repeatedly were in fact the users in favour of de-capitalisation. Mandruss stated in December 2018 [10], "If you feel that a majority of the community disagrees with the current guidance, you are free to prove it using well-established process. Until you do that, your claims are unfounded."

I may also point out that 99% of the time, the governmental agencies (US, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India – Prime Minister, India – President, or intergovernmental; the United Nations), capitalise the political office in this case, including in the abbreviated "the President" or "the Prime Minister". · • SUM1 • · (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps this issue will finally be laid to rest. Slywriter (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Proportional tags of users involved in current discussion (except Slywriter, who's already here):

Ralbegen Cthomas3 Eyer K.e.coffman SMcCandlish Surtsicna Gog the Mild Dicklyon Woko Sapien Mandruss

GoodDay Cinderella157

Magidin MelanieN Gnangarra SmokeyJoe Doug butler Number 57 Timrollpickering DIYeditor ErinRC Frickeg David Eppstein Peacemaker67 Bookscale ScottDavis Tinman44 Editing with Eric The Drover's Wife Spy-cicle Coolcaesar Blueboar

· • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Fallacious misuse of statistics, since all of these were different discussions, in which whether to capitalize or not had varying context-dependent rationales. You've manufactured a false dichotomy in which either every use must be capitalized or none of them may be, yet this has never been the actual discussion. You're pitting two extreme straw men against each other. See also WP:NOTAVOTE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Followup comment: As I've detailed in the RfC below, the primary problem with this table – the result of this commingling of threads that don't address the same issues – is the false conflation of capitalizing something like "President of the United States" at every occurrence, and capitalizing it in the lead sentence of its own article, where the office is being treated, in and of itself, as the subject in a proper-name fashion. They're completely different questions, with different rationales. Yes, even at the same article. I support the lead-capitalization, but not the everywhere-capitalization, and this is true of other participants in these discussions, so it is literally not possible for your table to accurately "box" us, even if a few individuals like Bookscale can be so categorized because they just happen to agree or disagree with both propositions simultaneously.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Pretty creative, aka desperate, way to spin the question, though! Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
It is extremely helpful to have a broad, cited review of past discussions and the various responses they've gotten from people who might not consistently hang out on this page over time, and it certainly contradicts some assertions made in the above discussions that it's a settled issue with support/that people with issues were deserving of scorn and abuse. Many people on the above list might be open to more nuanced positions in the hope of reaching the most broadly agreeable consensus, or may take slightly different positions depending on the context, but this certainly helps inform the way forward. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
All 83 people in those lists are tagged. If many of us are not comfortable with which list we have been placed in, there will be a mass of edits of users shifting their names to other columns (or removing the completely) I am comfortable with the column that contains my name. --Scott Davis Talk 06:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the table is too broken to do that, as I have pointed out elsewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@ScottDavis: Technically, the first round of tags did not go through because it was more than 50. I then tagged 32 people from the most recent discussions (including those on this page) in proportion with the table, since they were the most likely to have current interest in the results of the table. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Since I was named multiple times above, I'll clarify that I have been known to defend this decapitalization because it's what JOBTITLES says, period. I really don't care whether we capitalize the "preceded by a modifier" case, what I care about is quasi-professional site-wide consistency and low editor-time cost. Therefore it's a bit misleading to include my username in the leftmost list, and I'm removing it.
I took the word of a few editors who said JOBTITLES – all of it – had consensus. I certainly didn't have the time, or the energy, to verify their claims for myself. In the end, the guideline itself must be the final word since (1) many of us have not been involved in the entire history of this issue, and (2) few of us has the time to individually research all the discussions for ourselves. Those who allowed the "preceded by a modifier" clause to be added and to remain for 18 months have nobody but themselves to blame for the instability and strife that have occurred.
SMcC, you can't have it both ways. You say this has never been the actual discussion, and yet it's the actual guideline.
I continue to favor consensuses that are easily verifiable, and that means RfCs on clearly-defined questions and with clear uninvolved closes. I've yet to see such an RfC covering and providing a clear result for the "preceded by a modifier" clause. I find this remarkable considering how easy it would be to run one, and I don't understand the resistance to running one. This really doesn't have to be this difficult. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Except no, it is not the actual guideline. Just go read it. Nowhere in it ever does it say to capitalize every single case, nor to never capitalize any case. Why would you prevaricate in such a manner?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Thank you for correcting your representation. You say the guideline itself must be the final word. As I mention down below, the mere fact that this is not a "generally agreed-upon guideline" means it should not be in the Manual of Style and should be removed. Also, I provide an advanced search link in the original post to easily and quickly see all discussions on the issue. The fact that you do not have the time to research this issue is the exact reason I did. Someone had to do it, or else no one would. It doesn't have to be you. If someone else does want to meta-analyse the discussions, I would welcome it of course, but they'd reach similar results to mine.
Regarding (1), this table factors in the entire history of this issue in the form of 19 discussions. There are more, but 19 going back to 2011 is enough to establish a general trend. They were selected indiscriminately from the search results as sorted by most relevant. Every single result that mentioned an opinion on the issue in those first pages was included; none were omitted except where stated above. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment - you have me in the right box. Bookscale (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The tally ignores the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy, which is a policy. Wikipedia:Consensus says: "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." Three style guides most commonly used in academia were quoted in the latest discussion. All of them prescribe even more lowercasing than WP:JOBTITLES does. The users favouring more uppercasing were repeatedly asked to cite style guides which support their views. None were cited. What is then the issue with finding that there is a consensus for WP:JOBTITLES? Surtsicna (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is accurately describing the other side to the argument; if editors don't understand the other side of the argument this entire debate is pointless. Whether it's framed as overtly as this, editors such as myself see it as an issue of prescriptive vs descriptive language usage, therefore style guides shouldn't be the only guiding principle. For example, the style guide dictates that 'chancellor' is a common noun, so when talking about numerous people who have been 'Chancellor of the Exchequer' it should be written 'chancellors of the exchequer' or even 'chancellors of the Exchequer'. However, this doesn't reflect normal language usage, as can be seen in the (admittedly sometimes misleading) Ngram Viewer results. That's where the issue for many comes from.
I think the question of voting/democracy is problematic though. There are some strong arguments in favour of decapitalisation, but what happens when a majority of other editors aren't convinced by them? Are they weak arguments by virtue of failing to convince other editors and should be disregarded; or should some omnipotent Wiki-god deem those arguments powerful and rule in their favour? In my opinion this a weakness of the Wikipedia:Consensus policy. Because there isn't a right or wrong outcome here, instead being a matter of stylist choice I don't know how it can be resolved other than voting, which is effectively against policy. There is no end in sight and hundreds (if not thousands) of editor hours will go towards a capitalisation issue which doesn't actually matter much. Editing with Eric (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Acknowledeged consensus or an RfC would be great but absent that, I am happy to see a list that shows it's a minority of editors imposing a false consensus, based on an echo chamber conversation. Since they patrol this page, that same minority constantly swats the one or two editors who dare challenge the false consensus at any given time. Slywriter (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
But the list doesn't show that. Numbers have nothing to do with consensus building. You have been directed to a policy which explicitly says so. Coming up with more convincing arguments would do more good than whinging. Surtsicna (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
My point is the policy doesn't say that. The example is "Richard Nixon, president of the United States" a double proper noun. A different rule mentions non capitalization after "The". Neither of those is an MOS about article titles which by precedent always start with "The". And the false consensus is that "The President of the United States" is not a proper noun worthy of "president" being capitalized. It's a unique position. Only one person holds it as a time and they are not a generic "president". That's the false consensus I am whining about because it is not actually covered in the MOS document that the de-capitilizers point to. Additionally, I have already pointed to a study that shows the lowercase use is a political statement against the presidency that has infiltrated contemporary style guides. Slywriter (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I am talking about the WP:NOTDEM policy. "Richard Nixon, president of the United States" is not a noun at all. Neither is "The President of the United States". The study you cite says that "prominent presidential scholars ... led the nation's intellectual charge to make the lowercase 'president' the rule rather than exception" in the 1970s. It is not Wikipedia's job to reverse academic practice established 50 years ago, nor is it Wikipedia's job to restore or increase deference to the president of the United States. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd just that Surtsicna - the idea that your views have more "quality" than other views, while extremely common among people with views about something in any given Wikipedia discussion, is very questionable, and there are multiple reasonable given views on the issue for the reasons Editing with Eric noted above. I feel like these kinds of defensive responses tend to sway editors with a range of positions broadly unhappy with the present wording towards a position of WP:TNT, who might well be open to try to find some sort of compromise given a different and more collaborative attitude. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
But these are not my views. I do not consider myself an expert on this matter, so I do not presume to have views. I am citing those who are the experts - or at least are widely held to be experts. And I do believe that their views have more "quality" than the views of Wikipedia editors, myself included. Surtsicna (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
But it isn't "experts" versus "the views of Wikipedia editors", it's "prescriptive style guides" versus "actual language usage in reliable sources". That is something that reasonable people can disagree on, so "I'm right and everyone who disagrees with me should just be ignored" takes are profoundly unhelpful to finding any sort of resolution to this ongoing issue besides inclining people who disagree with you to just want to WP:TNT the thing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
But it evidently is experts versus Wikipedia editors. The usage in reliable sources has not been proven to contradict these style guides. I cited the example of Lord Salisbury, where all the cited biographies comply with the capitalization rules set by these style guides. So do all the major English-language media outlets I mentioned last month: The Independent, The Guardian, the BBC, The Australian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Toronto Star, the National Post, etc. If the academic usage contradicted these style guides, the style guides would not be as reputable as they are; and then the argument would have to be that reliable sources follow some other style guides (of which none have been cited) or none at all (which would make Wikipedia's entire manual of style unwarranted). It is really difficult to have a constructive discussion when one side cites while the other only repeats uncorroborated claims. Surtsicna (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The opposition occurs because it's extremely common in contexts where people start trying to apply the current guidance they wind up prescribing against absolutely overwhelming reliable-source usage elsewhere. There's essentially a pattern that keeps happening over time in this area: the "decapitalise" group swear up and down that this is just the way things are done, then people apply this guidance in specific context, editors in that area do a source review and find that the guidance is overwhelmingly prescribing against actual usage and go "what the heck is going on?", the controversy around this guidance pipes up again and again, and the same people seem shocked that they're meeting with yet more opposition and conclude it's just more people with strong, random feelpinions about capitalisation in general as opposed to people frustrated with prescribing against common usage and demand that their arguments be ignored. The just-closed RfC was an excellent example of this, as a source review of the articles proposed to be decapitalised turned up very different results in many cases from what might be imagined from the arguments of its supporters. You can cite newspapers who use your preferred style, but that doesn't change the lack of widespread adoption of this guidance. (It may well have been adopted in some places because I obviously can't speak globally, and I do note the case you often bring out of one English article where the main sources did use that style, but it is my experience that in just about any given context in my part of the world it wildly prescribes against common usage and I'm clearly not the only one finding this given that the opposition is coming from all over the place internationally.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, whatever the community decides (capitalise or don't), I'll proceed to implement. Has the community decided, yet? GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the ping. I am going to move myself from the "opposed" column to the "neutral" column. My opposition was only about the term First Lady, which I felt was basically a proper noun and should be either capitalized or replaced by "president's wife". I was neutral about words like president or prime minister when not used directly in front of the name, and I have been enforcing the lowercase rule since I heard about it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this is a complicated matter, where some titles should be capitalized, others shouldn't, and there is a continuum of cases in between. I had thought of trying to write a delineating rule. Eg. capitalise when the job is: (1) singular; (2) of generally long incumbency by a single person; (3) frequently used capitalised in reliable sources to refer personally to a single individual. However, these rules of thumb can lead to more complications than simplifications, and can have the unfortunate effect of turning into their own rigid rules. I oppose firm rules, and encourage looking to source use to guide and to justify exceptions. Wikipedia covers diverse cultures, and job title capitalisation varies with culture, and there is usually meaning in the capitalisation. MOS aficionados should take care that they are not trampling natural diversity of English by hypercorrecting variations. The MOS serves a marvelous role, but it needs to be prevented from overgrowing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think de-capitalization has been useful for lists of officeholders (i.e. List of governors of Michigan, List of prime ministers of Canada, List of vice presidents of the United States). I think we should at least stick with lower case when referring to the office in the plural ("There are four living former presidents of the United States") or when not referring to any one particular officeholder, as is the case with list articles. --Woko Sapien (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistencies is frustrating in this area. I first came across it in the bios of governors of Minnesota, where (at the time) all but two bios used capitalisation in their intros - Governor of Minnesota. The editors who opposed capitalising on those 'two' exceptions, wouldn't comment on the other bios & merely insisted 'de-capitalisation' on just those 'two' bios. In that example, coordination & refusal to comply with consistency across the board, is the most FRUSTRATING thing about this topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A tally can never clearly show whether there is a consensus. That is because it is against Wikipedia policy to determine consensus via a tally. Surtsicna (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
A tally does not tell us what consensus IS, but a tally CAN indicate that there ISN’T a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia policy explicitly denies that. But I agree that there isn't a consensus to change MOS:JOBTITLES to either capitalize more or capitalize less. Surtsicna (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • How helpful such an analysis is questionable. It does not convey the context of each discussion/comment. It assumes that context of usage does not alter whether or not capitalisation is applied. I would agree, therefore, that such an analysis represents a false dichotomy. My interest is in the interpretation and application of the guideline (as it stands) but also in possible improvement. It remains though, to clearly articulate what such changes might be.
    • I would also note some inconsistency within the guideline in consequence of an undiscussed good-faith edit.
    • If the assertion is that "President of the United States" or "the President of the United States" should be capitalised because it is a proper name then one should consider the defining properties of proper names. Typically, English proper nouns are not preceded by an article (the or a) or other determiners ... Because they are used to refer to an individual entity, proper names are, by their nature, definite; so a definite article would be redundant ... However, some proper names (especially certain geographical names) are usually used with the definite article. Where the definite article is part of the name, it cannot be omitted except when used attributively.
    • In previous discussions, I have reflected upon the application of the guideline.[13][14] By Cunningham's law, it would appear that I have got these right. Having said that, I have been researching the matter and might revise some of these.
    • Per previous, we might write an article about an office (eg President of the United States) and commence the lead: "The President of the United States is ...", with the expectation of capitalisation, since it is the formal title and, some would argue, a proper name. However, by using the definite article, the sentence is no longer about the office (with that name) but about the person holding the office. We might argue that using the definite article is semantically incorrect if it is about the office. Others have actually claimed omitting the article to be incorrect. However, we might acknowledge that such a construction is idiomatic and choose to accept both the construction and the capitalisation.
    • Per WP:CON, Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments, WP:NOTAVOTE, and per WP:CONSBUILD, The goal is to find a solution everyone can live with. These are not inconsistent. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Cinderella.
The president of the United States has the powers of a mediaeval monarch. Not a proper name. Does not refer to an individual.
The President of the United States is a celebrity politician. Proper name. Refers to a specific individual.
Context matters. Simple rules produce errors. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
And that is what MOS:JOBTITLES says now. That is the middle road. The Chicago Manual of Style, Oxford Style Manual, and AP Stylebook all call for less capitalization, i.e. recommend that job titles such as "president" be capitalized only when preceding a name. (This is practiced by the vast majority of English-language media outlets.) This whole debate is about people rejecting this middle road. Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The President of the United States is a celebrity politician has President capitalised without preceding a name. The President of the United States is a name, and is used as a proper name. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is capitalized even though it does not precede a name; that is in compliance with MOS:JOBTITLES rather than virtually every reputable style guide out there. That is what I call a middle road. No style guide cited in any of these discussions treats "the President of the United States" as a name, but Wikipedia does. Yet even that is apparently not enough. How much more do we need to turn our backs to academic and journalistic practice? Surtsicna (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I am not certain by what interpretation of JOBTITLES you assert that The President of the United States is a celebrity politician? Further, it is hardly a proper name a priori, since it relies on the definite article to be specific. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
In that sentence, "The President of the United States" is an alternative to "Donald Trump", him, and only him, and this makes it a proper name, the definite article notwithstanding. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Implementation is the 'big' problem. With thousands of bios articles, is it possible to impose capitalisation or non-capitalisation on all of them? GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Are we gonna have a Super Duper Rfc, that will settle this entire Capitalise -vs- de-capitalise dispute, once & for all? Where would be the correct place, WP:JOBTITLES or WP:VILLAGE PUMP? GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

What's a false dichotomy? GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I think he's saying that it's too nuanced an issue for an RfC that basic. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It is interesting to observe how the US government itself deals with some of the issues. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

See here Cinderella157 (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

We still have inconsistencies. Lower case is used in the bios of US presidents, US vice presidents, Canadian prime ministers, Australian prime ministers (for example), yet Upper case is used for bios of British prime ministers. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@SUM1: I have only defended de-capitalization because it is the current guideline. I disagree with it and would prefer to be in the "not in favour of/against de-capitalisation" lane. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: All users were invited to rearrange their placement as was appropriate, but I've done yours for you. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


I've seen basically the expected responses from those in favour of de-capitalisation, referencing Wikipedia is not a democracy. This was after I stated that the tally was purely informational and to dispel the repeated myth that consensus/majority was in favour of de-capitalising, which sounds kind of hypocritical the fact that that view was coming from that side but would not be allowed to be tested. All references to WP:NOTVOTE were irrelevant since I did not describe this as a "vote", nor did I even describe it as a "poll" or "survey" (which many Wikipedia users perform in many areas on Wikipedia). I described it as a tally of opinions on one specific issue. I also stated that it's not to make a case that the MOS section should be one way or another. In addition to all of this, this tally in fact served the fulfil the purposes described on "Straw poll guidelines", such as to "test the waters" for consensus. According to that, it was highly necessary after years of disorganised discussion on the same issue.

The argument that the tally is false because it agglomerates from many discussions is a hindrance at general statistic collecting. All opinions had to meet the statement in the title, and users were free to rearrange their position as they see fit (which a few did, which in fact tipped the view slightly more toward no de-capitalisation). It was also stated that the tally represented the idea that "every use must be capitalized or none of them may be", which was never mentioned anywhere. Those assuming a false dichotomy was being put forward were missing the point of the tally. It was to give a rough overview of opinions on de-capitalisation in a specific instance, that stated in the heading, which was the issue most disputed on this page as of now. It wasn't to put forward any sort of opinion on the issue or what the issue is; it was to provide information on the frequency of opinions on the main issue. That means opinions on any specific issue you can pick out related to this supposedly broad tally will not differ much in frequency from those listed here. You might find more support for de-capitalising plurals (that wasn't the tally). You might find less support for de-capitalising titles (that wasn't the tally). It's entirely besides what the tally is about. The tally indicates there is no consensus for MOS:JOBTITLES, and that's the point.

Even those who were against de-capitalisation had the expected responses. Basically, those who were for de-capitalisation were against the tally, while those who were against de-capitalisation were for it. This is purely down to the results it revealed. It's that simple at the end of the day.

If you ask me, my opinion given this information would be that the entire MOS:JOBTITLES section needs to go, and something needs to be rewritten and agreed upon before it gets put back. There should be no Manual of Style guideline if there is no "generally agreed guideline". (cf. Blueboar, The Drover's Wife) · • SUM1 • · (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the last three months of discussions have gone a considerable way to clarifying where opinions lie on the matter broadly, but what we still don't have is a solution that can find an acceptable consensus in an RfC. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: I think that means there's only one course of action left to take. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Should we consider a change to using patronymic vs. first name in the article text of some articles?

I noticed on the Kenenisa Bekele article (he's Ethiopian, where they use patronymics rather than family names) that there's a mix of referring to him as "Kenenisa" or "Bekele" throughout the article. The note at the top talks about the naming convention. However, in nearly every outside reliable source I looked at, he's referred to as "Bekele" in the text of such articles. I'm looking to open a discussion about which one to use throughout his Wikipedia article, as I think it should be consistent. On the one hand, I understand that in Ethiopia, he would be called Kenenisa, even in formal settings, I suppose. On the other hand, almost all of the English language sources use Bekele, so I think I'm leaning towards using Bekele, since this is the English-language Wikipedia.

I understand that the MOS says "Ethiopian and Eritrean people are almost always referred to by their given name as they do not have a family name." The problem is, where does this statement come from? The fact that Kenenisa Bekele is almost always referred to as "Bekele" in reliable sources seems to directly contradict this statement. It seems that, actually, "Ethiopian and Eritrean people are almost always referred to by their given name" in Ethiopia or Eritrea, but not in the English-speaking world. At the very least, it seems that this should not be a hard-and-fast rule in the MOS. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days, so I assume no one heavily involved in this project has an objection. It is time for me to Wikipedia:Be bold and make the changes to Kenenisa Bekele. Still looking to talk about the umbrella policy that governs this change. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The article is about Kenenisa, not about his father Bekele. Granted, he is called "Bekele" in many sources. No doubt he is used to it by now and probably just goes along with it but it seems to be a result of westerners lacking knowledge of Ethiopian names and mistakenly thinking that Bekele is a surname like their own. I don't think that's a good reason to call him by someone else's name. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the article that he is often called Bekele. If you want a decent source in English then Oxford University Press's Dictionary of African Biography has his article under K for Kenenisa and correctly refers to him as Kenenisa. Ejdguiseley (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
First off, his father is not a notable figure that has a Wikipedia article written about him, so there is zero chance of confusion. He's not being called by "someone else's name". He's being called by his name in English sources, and there is no doubt, in those sources, who is being referred to. Second, he isn't called "Bekele" in "many sources", as you say - he's called Bekele in pretty much 99% of the sources written in the English language. Isn't the convention on Wikipedia to respect the sources in the language of that part of Wikipedia? True, you found exactly one source that consistently refers to him as Kenenisa. A thousand other sources refer to him as Bekele. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
His father's degree of notability has no bearing on Kenenisa's name. Referring to Kenenisa simply as "Bekele" is absolutely calling him by someone else's name. It's like calling Elvis Presley "Vernon" or like referring to Margaret Thatcher as "Alfred". Not sure why you say I was wrong that he is called Bekele in many sources when you evidently agree that he is indeed. This is the English Wikipedia but that doesn't mean we need to twist things to fit with Western culture. If you think that the source I mentioned was the only one I could find that calls him Kenenisa then you are very much mistaken. It was just an example. If you cast your net a bit wider you'll be able to find plenty more. Here's one for you: https://www.thereporterethiopia.com/article/kenenisa-set-berlin-marathon Ejdguiseley (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I think you would agree that the vast majority of sources call him "Bekele", not just "many". You really have to search hard to find one that calls him "Kenenisa", as evidenced by the fact that the 2nd source you found is thereporterethiopia.com - another article on that very website has the headline "After marathon world record near-miss, Bekele signals there’s more to come". Even an Ethiopian news site is using Bekele. I'm saying that if the vast majority of reliable sources call him Bekele, shouldn't we be following reliable sources? JimKaatFan (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I think you're getting a distorted view through a Western lens. We should definitely be using reliable sources. The more reliable, the better. That's why it's good to have things like the profile from his running team who are obviously closely involved with him (https://www.nnrunningteam.com/team/kenenisa-bekele/). For something as basic as his name, people who know him, or at least know of him and are familiar with his culture, are likely to have a pretty good idea. That's why Ethiopian sources are useful in this case. The article you mention in The Reporter is a good example and it actually shows the opposite of what you suggest. It's a copy of an article produced by a westerner (Steve Landells for the IAAF, now World Athletics). The version in The Reporter has left the headline intact but in the body of the article, where the IAAF version refers to "Bekele", someone at The Reporter has taken the time to correct those occurrences to "Kenenisa". The original is here: https://www.worldathletics.org/news/feature/kenenisa-bekele-more-to-prove Ejdguiseley (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with "it seems to be a result of westerners lacking knowledge of Ethiopian names and mistakenly thinking that Bekele is a surname". Just because some Western sources do it doesn't make it right. This is really the same kind of case as diacritics. There were various old debates about stripping diacritics from names of tennis players, etc., because some sport governing body didn't use them, and thus a lot of sports journalism didn't use them. Between MOS:IDENTITY / WP:ABOUTSELF, and WP:ENC, we simply are not in a position to tell people and their entire culture that their own names are not what they think they are, just because some American or British businesses cannot be bothered to get it right. "WP is not a suicide pact" and WP:Common sense always applies. WP has a responsibility to not perpetuate an error simply because some usually reliable sources made the mistake. In other words, the WP:Common-style fallacy is an actual fallacy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:JOBTITLES

I think we urgently need to clarify WP:JOBTITLES, because it's suddenly being applied in ways that are ungrammatical and contradict all usage in reliable sources. The capitalisation of office titles in actual, real-world, usage, depends on the context: they can be common nouns, or they can be proper nouns, and the way the guideline is written currently has a couple of editors changing proper noun usages as if they were common nouns with religious fervour. It should go without saying that if literally 100% of sources agree that a word in a particular context is a proper noun, we should also treat it as a proper noun - but we've got editors claiming that Wikipedia should essentially rewrite the rules of English grammar and decapitalise proper nouns because of WP:JOBTITLES.

The table in particular should go - it's encouraging people to change the language in the first column (which is perfectly fine as it refers to proper nouns) to the language in the second column (i.e. changing it to common nouns for the sake of changing it to common nouns, and replacing fine prose with worse prose in the process), or to just refer to proper nouns in lower-case which generally looks ridiculous and is a usage that is entirely unique to Wikipedians interpreting this table in absurd ways.

I'm trying to find where exactly this started and every discussion on this page featuring this stuff seems to feature the same five or so people with strong opinions that are never grounded in any actual sources of any kind. I'm not sure this ever had consensus in the first place. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

There's an editor steam rolling through bios of heads of state & government, decapitalising offices & positions. As a result? we've now got inconsistency among those bio articles & it's frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
It's a problem being created without a solid reason, english is such a wonderful language we already have WP:ENGVAR with good reason, while we speak on common language we all use it differently. That goes with the way we write it, take the recent drama over ise vs ize or the ongoing discrimination/racism/colonialism of WLM in Australia. WP:MOS has a flaw that isnt being addressed its these variants one size has never fitted all, and it may never will. Wikipedia's role is not to lead changes but to reflect what is being said in sources WP:JOBTITLES and the current focus on it is. We kill sources when they are circular yet JOBTITLE is embracing a usage that isnt even in common use, nor has that usage even been explored appropriately by linguists to ensure that its an actual change to the title styling. This source shows a drop in the use but it still exceeds by 2:1 the JOBTITLE guide and it only applies the President/president of the US, according to policies firstly its not the primary usage or even close to it, secondly engvar would only mean it only applies to US english, more specifically article about the president. It would not any other versions of english, nor to other titles, but it doesnt apply until such time as there is clear accepted linguistic support for such usage. Gnangarra 06:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see a particular problem with it. It has them capitalized when they should be (part of the name, reference to an individual by referencing their office), when they are proper nouns, and uncapitalized otherwise. That's the correct way to use them. So, "the President of the United States", but "a president of the United States". Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that it's so vaguely written that it's not remotely being applied that way - there is an enormous gulf between what you said (which is logical and I agree with) and the interpretation being applied by a couple of the regulars on this page that virtually all references to offices should be decapitalised. The concept of office titles as proper nouns is completely lost on these people and WP:JOBTITLES doesn't clarify things for them. This is why we had a move discussion at John Cain (41st Premier of Victoria) where, despite every single source for "41st Premier of Victoria" on the internet capitalising Premier, the proposer insisted that WP:JOBTITLES mandated that it be moved anyway, and some other random user then unilaterally moved it this morning not noticing that there'd been a failed requested move with unanimous opposition. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
"Nixon was the 37th President of the United States"
"Nixon was the 37th president of the United States"
There is a style battle going on. Newer sources are tend to lowercase, older sources tend to uppercase. There is also variation around the world with similar jobs. Editors frequenting the MOS pages as a whole tend to prefer lowercasing a rule, and prefer one consistent style across the encyclopedia. Others prefer styles to follow the sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia generally acknowledges that linguistic uses in one country may not be appropriate for another, which is why, for example, we have the "use Australian English" template and respect that articles on Australian topics shouldn't use Americanised spelling even if some Americans might really really want to change it in the interests of a consistent style. I can't really speak to the finer quirks of American English, but our style guides and our sources in general usage are quite clear about when an office is a proper noun and the whims of a small handful of Wikipedians shouldn't override actual reliable sources on correct grammar in a country/subject area. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I've largely abandoned this issue because of the absence of a clear consensus. To me that means an uninvolved close of a single coherent community-level discussion, probably an RfC. I will defend any such clear consensus whether I agree with it or not, and I'd suggest that you set about pursuing one if you feel strongly about the issue. Until you have one, your arguments weigh no more than MOS:JOBTITLES, which at least has the advantage of having existed unchanged for eighteen months. In other words, this unstructured, low-participation discussion is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
There are a whole bunch of people frustrated about this who haven't seriously challenged it because of the hassle of going up against the hardcore RfC crowd, as this example demonstrated very well: unanimous consensus that the interpretation of someone who believed they were following WP:JOBTITLES was ridiculous. A fire always starts with a spark, and traction only comes from people discussing the issue. This is the first step, not the only one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
An RfC is people discussing the issue. The only differences are (1) wider participation and (2) (commonly, while not required) added structure to clarify editors' positions. If you feel it's constructive to do this first (I don't), knock yourself out. In the meantime, while I won't spend my time and energy actively resisting it, I will consider it disruptive and destabilizing for editors to edit articles based on their personal opinions, on the grounds that there is no clear consensus (not a reference to the actions of any specific editor(s)). ―Mandruss ☎ 07:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
An RfC is one way of people discussing the issue, but nowhere does it mandate it has to be the first step. I wasn't the one who tagged it as lacking consensus, but he was right: there are about as many editors who've commented in opposition to it in the last week with zero advertising that the discussion's come up as those who've enthused about it on this talk page for years. It patently lacks consensus as a starting point - and the reason you've got so many non-MOS-regulars popping up in the first place is because of the disruption and destabilisation of articles being edited based on the personal opinions of individual editors even where contradicted by literally 100% of sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Again, those editors (and I have been one of them in the recent past) are merely implementing a guideline that has existed unchanged for 18 months. If that's disruption and destabilisation of articles, I'd like to know what guidelines are for. I doubt there are many Wikipedia guidelines (particularly MoS guidelines) that aren't strongly opposed by quite a number of editors, so that argument is extremely weak AFAIC. It makes no sense that a dozen or so editors should be able to block implementation of a guideline because they disagree with it.
I grant you, this is merely another example of a seriously flawed system that neither of us created, a system that attempts to be simultaneously bottom-up and top-down, resulting in far more instability than stability. I'm retired from a successful career involving complex human-based systems, and I can assure you that is not what a reasonably orderly, efficient, and effective system looks like. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this kvetching is pointless. It's the same old rehash, along various tired lines which can be paraphrased thus: 'Me and my friend disagree with MoS, ergo MoS doesn't have consensus.' (Wishful thinking; WP:CONSENSUS does not require unanimity, or we would have no consensus on anything, ever.) 'I didn't get to participate in the earlier discussion, ergo it must be a false consensus.' (Ditto.) 'I'm not getting my way, thus there must be a nefarious conspiracy of terrible people oppressing me.' (Ditto; see also all our civility-related policies.) 'We are legion. But we are afraid.' (Uh ... yeah, whatever.) 'Some jerk misapplied the guideline in one case that pissed me off, ergo the guideline is wrong.' (Obviously fallacious.) 'WP does, stylistically, what the sources do.' (That's just patently false, as explained in detail at WP:CSF and WP:SSF, except when sources independent of the subject are pretty much overwhelmingly doing one specific something different, for a particular type of case, than what MoS advises. We already know for a proven fact that this condition is not met for the capitalization of job titles, including high offices. There's a really ridiculous subtext to this, that runs something like 'This marginally notable person has a job title of "Social Media Evangelist", and the grand total of three sources that mention this person, all of them newspapers that capitalize every job title at all occurrences, give her job title in this form, ergo 100% of sources do, ergo WP must also.' Doesn't work that way, sorry.) 'Since we have MOS:ENGVAR, this means any slight trend I think can be shown in some dialect must be implemented on WP.' (Nope. ENGVAR applies to firmly fixed features of English at a national dialect level, like the colour/color split. Any alleged dialectal trend that doesn't rise to that level falls to the razor of MOS:COMMONALITY. You cannot [without looking silly] cite the first of these guidelines without understanding the latter, how they interact, and the actual purposes of both of them.) 'Various articles don't comply, so there is no consensus.' (A really silly fallacy, given that we all know that any change to any policy or guideline can take many years to be implemented in the content, and none of them are 100% implemented.) 'Since the world's writers are not consistent on it, MoS can't have a rule about it.' (Nope. If this were true, MoS could not have a single thing in it, since there isn't anything in English that 100% of writers out there are consistent about. Our actual rule, throughout MoS, is that if writers out there are not remarkably consistent in applying some stylization, then WP will not use it.) 'A few characters changing case in "my" article is disruption.' (No, it's not, or editing could not happen at all.) 'Articles being brought into conformance with guidelines and policies is disruption.' (No, it's not, or we couldn't have any at all.) 'Actual disruption like editwarring at the article and flamewarring on its talk page, between people trying to implement MOS:JOBTITLES and regular editors at that article, is the fault of the guideline and people implementing it.' (No, it's not. It's the fault of tendentiously trying to sabotage other editors implementing our guidelines, and you can't keep doing that indefinitely.) To use an actual quotation, The Drover's Wife's "A fire always starts with a spark ..." screed is a clear demonstration that this is a WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:BATTLEGROUND matter for this person, who seems unaware that 'become an activist against guidelines I don't like' behavior routinely leads to topic bans. (Fortunately, most editors who arrive at MoS, AT, or other WP:P&G pages with this attitude are disabused of it before it gets to that level.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting that users who disagree with you are going to get banned is comical behaviour and you know better. This is how a tiny handful of users who frequent MOS pages are used to acting: try to shut down discussion, ludicrously aggressive personal attacks (branding a unanimous failed WP:RM as "flamewarring on its talk page") and intimidate people into thinking moving to change the thing is too hard or pre-emptively moving an RfC too early. And you've just got the wrong mark if you think that's going to work here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Open an Rfc on this matter, in whatever place you think will get the widest participation. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Or those in favor of capitalizing job titles at every occurrence could just WP:Drop the stick. It's a very lost cause. When RM after RM goes against one's position, it's time to stop advocating it, per WP:TE. The existence of a handful of 'I'm a bonehead who didn't really read the guideline' cases that result in move requests that don't happen or moves which get reverted, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the guideline or that it doesn't have consensus. It simply means that boneheads exist. See longer comment above for all the other fallacies detectable in this thread. If someone wants to RfC this, go right ahead. The outcome is firmly predictable from the stability of this guideline material; from it becoming less and less friendly to capitalization over time, following real-world shifts in English usage over the last ~20 years (actually starting around the 1980s); from lack of much opposition before, during, or after these shifts and discussions of them; from the few opponents being the same handful of people over and over again recycling the same already-refuted arguments endlessly as if they had not already been addressed and found lacking (a clumsy form of forum-shopping); from the actual RM results consistently applying the guideline as intended (and not just recently; much of the reason the guideline was tightened was to reflect the RM pattern – our guidelines codify best practices, and are not a means of trying to forcibly change them); from failure of move review to overturn those moves; and so on and so forth. There's just no evidence at all that consensus has changed to favor over-capitalizing these terms again. They're capitalized when they should be: when attached to and effectively part of a name, and when treated in proper-noun form as the subject itself (the President of Ireland as the role/office/title, versus "two presidents of Ireland in the 1980s", a common-noun-phrase usage).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
"When RM after RM goes against one's position". Where's the evidence? I saw some RMs, and they pointed to source usage. Now there's a JOBTITLES shortcut and that is being used as sufficient contrary to source usage. There is a logical flaw in there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC) NB. I am not in favor of capitalizing job titles at every occurrence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I went back at least a couple of years years in the talk pages of this page and couldn't find a discussion about WP:JOBTITLES involving more than a tiny handful of people, and none of those people cited a "RM pattern": if anything, as SmokeyJoe says, it's following the sources as long as anyone checks, does an analysis, and points out that the sources wildly contradict WP:JOBTITLES. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't generally look to sources for style. Content, yes. Style, no. Instead, Wikipedia looks to common (mostly academic) style guides for development of its own style manual. MOS:JOBTITLES is nearly identical to Chicago Manual of Style's guidance for handling job titles, positions, etc. I spot-checked a couple of Encyclopedia Britannica articles, too, and they seem to match the guidance found in MOS:JOBTITLES. I am strongly in favor of striving to consistently style Wikipedia as an academic, encyclopedic source. Our existing MOS lays the appropriate foundation for this. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't generally look to sources for style. No, it doesn't, not if it is just style. Capitalization is not just style. Capitalization conveys meaning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Except we do look to sources for style, in two ways. First, we look to mainstream, academic-leaning (not journalistic) style guides of high reputation in developing MoS (i.e., we use the sources that are reliable for English usage in an encyclopedic register, and try to merge their often-conflicting advice, with an eye to what is best for WP, for reasons like MOS:COMMONALITY, WP:CONCISE, MOS:JARGON, WP:Common sense, and various technical matters, starting with MOS:ACCESSIBILITY). Second, in various places throughout MoS is the provision that when reliable sources in the aggregate [across all genres, not just specialist literature] overwhelmingly favor a stylization for a particular subject and it is not what MoS would default to, then there can be an exception for that subject. As for "capitalization conveys meaning": it conveys meaning when the RS in the aggregate and/or the RS on English usage in particular overwhelmingly agree that it does; it doesn't convey meaning just because you say so (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). See also especially MOS:SIGCAPS; the primary impetus for over-capitalization of this sort is to signify that something is "important" or "special". Not doing that is the primary, foundational guideline of MOS:CAPS. While it's a style that remains common in marketing English, and some journalism (particular in headlines), it's been disfavored in regular English writing since the late Victorian era.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
User:SMcCandlish, you are confusing external MOS-es with sources. These external style guides would be sources for the article Style guide and similar, but Wikipedians do not use the term "source" the way you are using it here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not. I don't think you properly parsed what I wrote. I'm simply restating that internally, as a talk-page, consensus-formation process about MoS itself, we make heavy use of off-site style guides. That is, I'm echoing Eyer's main point and trying to thwart someone taking the statement "Wikipedia doesn't generally look to sources for style" out of context and spinning it to mean something unintended.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
If we're consistently finding that usage in reliable sources disagree with WP:JOBTITLES, then that strongly suggests that the Chicago Manual of Style - much as it might be preferred by a small handful of editors - is not the most appropriate style guide to be using. For example, in my part of the world, it certainly is not the guidance of the Cambridge style guide for Australian English, which probably explains why it's such a fail when it comes to source usage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
You and others have had every opportunity (over and over again) to demonstrate that "we're consistently finding that usage in reliable sources disagree [sic] with WP:JOBTITLES", but have failed. Every time we do mainstream source research on the kinds of phrases at issue here (mostly titles of elected office), the sources are provably not consistently doing anything, and they lean lower-case more and more over time. Even your "ally" in this, SmokeyJoe, himself said clearly: "Newer sources are [sic] tend to lowercase, older sources tend to uppercase." See if you can guess what that means.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Struck through above. I suspect a mental change of word mid-typing on a mobile device, where it is hard to review. I think I meant that styles change. Capitals used to be widely used to denote importance. Now, less so, but still some. This creates conflict between following sources for old topics, and the desire for consistency. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I can only speak to the U.S. (and even then, probably not very well). My company uses Chicago Manual of Style as its base style guide. The education program at my university uses APA. The languages program at my university uses MLA. The local newspaper uses AP. They are all appropriate for their materials/readers/etc. I'll say it differently: even if they all style things differently, they're all correct.
Wikipedia has MOS:JOBTITLES, which appears to be based on CMOS (though I don't know that for sure). Just because a newspaper, journal article, or primary source styles something differently doesn't make WP:MOS incorrect.
I assume that WP:MOS was drafted intentionally by editors before I got here. Just because other style guides don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 01:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
It just means that at some stage, someone with a strong preference for CMOS has managed to get that into the MOS. As you note that the alternatives are also correct in your view, it shouldn't be surprising, especially as it gets more aggressively rolled out in a global project (and in geographical places where the CMOS style is particularly alien), that people might revisit whether CMOS was indeed an appropriate choice for this particular project. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
You've not been involved in MoS discussions long enough to understand the history, I suppose. MoS is based primarily on 2000s–2010s editions of The Chicago Manual of Style, New Hart's Rules, Fowler's Modern English, Garner's Modern English Usage, and Scientific Style and Format. Your idea that it's basically a copy of CMoS is false.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation: it doesn't change the situation but it's useful to know where these ideas are stemming from. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

It's quite frustrating when you see lack of consistency in the intros of article groups. See all the British prime minister bios, from Winston Churchill to Boris Johnson, some are capitalised (like all Churchill's predecessors), while others are de-capitalised. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but I can only fix them so fast. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 01:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
A need to fast fix many things is evidence of the possibility of a false consensus in a guideline, and evidence that the wider community is not aware. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
This is hypercorrection. Forcing new rules only old language and pretending the rules always were. Dicklyon may lambaste people who want to capitalize important things, but that was English. The job, Premier of Victoria, is a singular job of great importance, and was properly capitalized, mostly was, and mostly still is. Unlike the Local Dog Catcher. Primary sources say "Nixon is the President of the United States". Indeed, he was the President of the United States. He was the 37th President of the United States, if you have an affection for counting them. JOBTITLES is an attempt to modify past English. Do it if the sources do it, but Wikipedia follows the sources, it doesn't lead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not even old language. Decapitalisation of offices is a preference, in some style guides, in some regions of the world, but not necessarily a widely used one in many contexts. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
And see also the first rule of MOS:CAPS: "Do not use for emphasis: Initial capitals or all capitals should not be used for emphasis. ... This includes over-capitalization for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something in a particular context." (MOS:EMPHCAPS So, "people who want to capitalize important things" can go do that on their own blog, not here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
SMcCandlish is doing such an obvious job of talking sense here that I feel no need to add anything. I shall merely watchlist the page in case anyone is daft enough to push it to an !vote. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
"It's quite frustrating when you see lack of consistency": Yes, it does take time to clean up, especially when a handful of editors go the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:GREATWRONGS route for a period of time. The same tendentiousness ran for over a year when implementing MOS:JR dropping the comma. It's a very similar case, actually: an optional stylization found decreasingly in contemporary, reputably published sources and the style guides they depend on, but considered "the correct form" in an emotionally laden way by a minority of editors who grew up with it and have latched onto it as important when it is trivial. What's important is that our material be consistent and that editors stop fighting over a bit of style nit-picking, which has/had (in both cases) been going on for years. It is not possible for any line-item in MoS or any other WP:P&G page to satisfy 100% of editors, and no editor is satisfied by 100% of our P&G. Fortunately, WP:Consensus does not require unanimity, just more community-persuasive arguments for one option over another.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll just say at this point that if you're yet another person who's frustrated with WP:JOBTITLES but you don't want to put yourself on the receiving end of the kinds of threats and personal attacks that are par for the course from its defenders here, feel free to contact me privately. This is something we'll be working on for a while. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
And now canvassing to conspire offsite for long-term battlegrounding against a guideline you don't like? I'm sure we'll see that diff come up again later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the second time you've directly threatened me for having a different opinion from you. Changing things on Wikipedia often takes time, especially when you know there's existing small-but-determined opposition, which is obvious to anyone who's been on Wikipedia for more than five minutes. You clearly see that moving to change the MOS is completely acceptable when you're doing it and "long-term battlegrounding" and cause for direct threats when someone disagrees with you. This is not appropriate and you are an experienced enough Wikipedian to absolutely know better, especially because you're already under one discretionary sanction for your talk page interactions over the MOS. Most of those who agree with you are capable of respectful disagreement, and I'm not going to reply to any more of your replies containing threats lest I get drawn into the mire. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, please. I'm trying to prevent you eventually ending up topic-banned, by pointing out what you're doing that's likely to lead there if it continues. Also, reminding you of our behavioral dispute resolution procedures like WP:ANI isn't a "threat" of any kind, from/to anyone; it's a description of process. Also, I am not individually under any such sanctions. See the top of this page. Everyone who edits MoS or its talk pages is subject to discretionary sanctions; that's kind of the point. If you continue railing and ranting indefinitely, there's only one way that ends.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Watchlisting it now too, Gog the Mild. Thank you, SMcCandlish, for taking the time to explain the matter in such detail. Wikipedia usage should be in line with modern academic style. That is why MOS:JOBTITLES is based on style guides such as The Oxford Style Manual, The Chicago Manual of Style, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully, the entire community will come to an agreement on whether to capitalise or not. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is not a single thing the whole community could agree on, but an agreement exists and has been codified as MOS:JOBTITLES. Surtsicna (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
but an agreement exists and has been codified as MOS:JOBTITLES.. Evidence? Link to the archived thread please. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:You can search, too. In particular, try the archive search box at the top of this page and at WT:MOS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. I did. No evidence of a formal agreement. JOBTITLES is a decade old. The early versions were much more softly written than the current. I suspect it "evolved". Somebody with a history of editing JOBTITLES may well have more sense of context that may tremendously help with searching for what has been implied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: - see the latest section at the bottom of the talk page. Someone else did the digging with predictable results. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. One of the troubles of catching on things in chronological order. However, I do like to reply personally to User:SMcCandlish, when he posts directly to me. I think mostly share most views, and we are probably friends, but sometimes small differences can be irritating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure. And of course it evolved, just like all our P&G material. As for the diff-digging below, incomplete as it is, they key point is that the major evolutions happened through RfCs. So, I'll go back to what I said above: feel free to RfC it yet again, but we already know what the answer is going to be. If the principal response the two of you are getting to this latest round of rehashing old decisions is more people defending the current wording and some also saying they're now watchlisting this to oppose if you do open it as an RfC, well, that's telling you which way the wind blows. :-) What's really irritating, community-irritating, is when someone's irritation at a small difference isn't put into perspective and becomes a fight-about-it-forever push. MoS's value is especially in its stability and its favoring of simplicity over complication in matters like this. It's really not hard: if the vast majority of current sources aren't doing something (the same something) stylistically for a specific case, then WP won't either. The exact results of this rubric cannot possibly please everyone all the time, but it's the best we've got, a hard-won compromise between having a fixed house style (like almost all publishers do) and "follow the sources" (a WP specialty). That is, everyone should be happy with the system, even if they don't like every tiny bit of output of that system. Analogy: odds are we each have a favorite restaurant, but do not love every single thing on the menu.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
If the principal response the two of you are getting to this latest round of rehashing old decisions. Please stop there. Please link the old decision. You are alluding to some RfCs? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
See thread below with links to RfCs, etc. I'll chalk this up to the threads being "out of phase". On second thought, it's probably best to refactor that into a subsection.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear on JOBTITLES, in particular "and is not a reworded description" because many of the examples are simply the title, or could be simply the title, and are not reworded. To me the following are true (not that the "correct" ones should be the house style just that they are valid):

  • Green tickY Donald Trump is President of the United States.
  • Green tickY Donald Trump is the President of the United States.
  • Green tickY Donald Trump is the president [or leader or whatever] of the United States.
  • Green tickY Kim Jong Un is Supreme Leader of North Korea.
  • Green tickY Kim Jong Un is the Supreme Leader of North Korea.
  • Red XN Kim Jong Un is the supreme leader of North Korea.
  • Green tickY Muammar al-Gaddafi was Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya.
  • Green tickY Muammar al-Gaddafi was the Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya.
  • Red XN Muammar al-Gaddafi was the brotherly leader and guide of the revolution of Libya.

I don't think we should say in lower case that Kim is the "supreme" leader of North Korea because that has loaded connotations in English and is not how we would phrase things. This is arguable though since it's not technically incorrect. The Gaddafi example is more unwieldy but it is also more clearly wrong to lowercase the title. Not every title of a leader is equal to how we would describe the position in plain English and I think that disqualifies it from "common noun". So coming up with a broad-brush rule doesn't work IMO, we need something slightly more nuanced. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes JOBTITLES is outdated or being misinterpreted in its current form. We have to got to the point where editors are the changing "Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" to "Boris Johnson is the prime minister of the United Kingdom" which does not makes sense. This is becuase "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" is the full name of the specific role hence it should be capitalised and is not generic form. However, if I were to say "A new prime minister is elected every five years" that would make sense since your refering to prime minister in its generic form. Even the UK government use "Prime Minister" over "prime minister" when referring to Boris Johnson.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, UK prime ministers are appointed, not elected :) GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Spy-cicle, it might make some sense if you consider the following. The problem lies with the sometimes idiomatic usage of the definite article.
  • Boris Johnson is the prime minister of the United Kingdom. Is referring to the office but is lc per JOBTITLES as it is preceded by "the". It is idiomatic to precede with "the" and subtlely different from omitting "the".
  • Boris Johnson is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. A reference to the office which is capitalised per JOBTITLES and arguably more correct.
  • Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, arrived at ... A phrase in apposition in which the title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office - in this case, by virtue of the definite article. This is consistent with dot-point two of JOBTITLES.
  • A new prime minister of the United Kingdom is elected appointed ... Preceded by an article and lc per JOBTITLES. Refers to the position of prime minister of the specific country and not to the specific title. A subtle but more obvious distinction.
Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Cinderella157, You make some valid points. I will think about this and come back to you later on this matter.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, UK prime ministers are not elected. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Tracing the history of MOS:JOBTITLES to lay a foundation for potential dispute resolution

To clarify who is responsible for this train wreck for anyone with the time to initiate dispute resolution on this, I just traced the history of MOS:JOBTITLES to figure out how we got from a MoS section that used to accurately reflect the way the vast majority of educated intellectuals learned how to write into something that has been completely mangled beyond all recognition.

It looks like MOS:JOBTITLES used to be over at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. That portion of the MoS used to have a section on "Titles of people." The last good version that most strongly resembles what I recall applying during the 2000s and early 2010s is 4 April 2014.

On 10 September 2017, User:Great scott initiated a RfC on the capitalization issue, which I was unaware of because I had just started a new job a few weeks earlier. User:Great scott was soon blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Kauffner. Earlier, User:The Clever Boy, another sockpuppet of User:Kauffner, had previously vandalized the relevant MoS section by lowercasing "President of the United States" on 9 March 2014. That text was then rephrased by User:Blueboar on 8 February 2015 and so the improper lowercasing of "President" disappeared.

In any event, after User:Great scott was blocked, the next time such improper lowercasing re-emerges is when User:SMcCandlish initiated a second RfC on 21 September 2017 on a specific proposal to revise MOS:JOBTITLES. As far as I can tell, this was never properly advertised on the village pump, and after a tiny minority of WP users concurred, User:SMcCandlish promptly implemented it on 22 October 2017.

On 26 June 2018, User:SMcCandlish then transferred MOS:JOBTITLES into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography. Notice how that version already contains most of the flaws of the current version.

It is entirely unpersuasive to call this issue a "a very lost cause" (I am referring to that editor's above comments at 15:01 on 2 January 2020) when the edits in favor of lowercasing after 21 September 2017 were mostly the work of a single editor whose individual views do not reflect the way that most educated people actually write. It is entirely unpersuasive to engage in begging the question by pretending a nonexistent consensus exists. It is entirely unpersuasive to do so on a wiki where every edit is publicly recorded and patterns can be easily discerned.

It takes only a casual glance at Google News to see that most well-trained American journalists (especially those working for famous newspapers and newsmagazines) still refer to "The President of the United States" and not "the president of the United States." The entire point of Wikipedia's core policies is that it follows. It never leads. Or as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not puts it: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Those who do not understand that need to find something else to edit on the Internet. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Coolcaesar. It seems that your position is very similar to my reading of this. However, I hope this doesn't have to be a "trainwreck". I would prefer to call this "moderate overreach". The notion of not capitalizing job titles where reliable sources are mixed, and of not being tied to specialist sources, is fair. Mandating lowercase regardless of mainstream reliable secondary sources is not fair. There has recently been a wave of decapitalizing "Governor of XXX" articles, which I opposed in one or two cases. It is, in my opinion, a boundary skirmish on rules preferring to not capitalize things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
About 2 years ago, when nearly all of the US state governor & lt governor bio intros used capitalisation, I came across '2' bios (Al Quie & Rudy Perpich) of Minnesota governors which didn't use them. Every time, I would capitalise? the same 2 editors would revert me & refuse to get into a discussion with me on the matter. This was the first time, I came across the 'de-capitalise per WP:JOBTITLES' push. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
There is clear evidence of style changing at these articles.
The "35th Governor of Minnesota", he "served as the 35th governor of Minnesota from January 4, 1979, to January 3, 1983.
"In 1970, Perpich was elected the 39th lieutenant governor of Minnesota." Are lieutenant governors important?
There's going to have to be an unnatural break somewhere between "Local Dog Catcher" and "President of the United States"
Related articles are in the crossfire. List of lieutenant governors of Minnesota. "This is a list of lieutenant governors of the U.S. state of Minnesota." "state of Minnesota"? The official name of the state is "State of Minnesota", and so it is a proper name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
There's still inconsistency within group articles to this day. As a gnome, it's difficult at times, when coming across opposition on both sides. Note: Recently I've been 'de-capitalising' on US political party national conventions. Already (months ago) implemented 'de-capitalisation' in the intros of all the US presidents & vice presidents, the Canadian prime ministers. There's potential confusion still at UK prime ministers, though. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The official name of the state is "Minnesota", per https://www.usa.gov/state-government/minnesota. CThomas3 (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't find that. I'll call that a style change. Long ago, it was the style to be wordy. In modern terms, we value the concise. However, there is also the fact that back then "Minnesota" was used for many things, and the concept of it being a state was relatively new. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, things like "the State of Minnesota" and "the City and County of San Francisco" are not names of places, but of legal entities. There's a distinction and it matters. No one lives in the City and County of San Francisco, unless they're illegally squatting in a municipal government office building. >;-) More seriously, consider the difference between "Oakland's best-kept secret" (a local hotspot the tourists haven't invaded yet) and "the City of Oakland's best-kept secret" (probably something scandalous and illegal on the part of someone[s] in the municipal government).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
User:SMcCandlish, why does it matter if a name is a legal entity? Does a legal entity not get a proper name? Why is The Great State of Minnesota not both a well-defined place and a proper name? Is Trinidad and Tobago a place? I’m pretty sure the City of San Francisco is a place with a name. I think counties engulfed in suburb and sprawl have lost their identity. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're going with this, SmokeyJoe - as unhelpful as SMcCandlish has been on this issue more broadly, he's not wrong about this issue regarding titles that are effectively legal entities for geographical places. It seems an odd tangent from the broader issue of offices. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Odd tangent? I’m asking questions. What does it matter if a name is a legal entity. Proper names are capitalized, no? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There has definitely been some creep here. A few years ago, we distinguished between “Louis XVI was the King of France in 1789” vs “Louis VII was a medieval French king”... that was a distinction most people could understand. Applied to presidents it would be: “George Washington was elected President of the United States in 1789” vs “The first American president was George Washington”.
Then came the question of what to do when there was an ordinal... and the decision to decapitalize in sentences like: “Thomas Jefferson was the 3rd president of the United States.” I opposed that, but accept that I was in the minority.
Now the argument seems to have morphed into the idea that we should decapitalize the position itself, even when there is no ordinal, as in: “The president of the United States is elected every four years”. That is a step too far, and an example of over-reach. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed; I think it's simply a misinterpretation of what the guideline is saying. It doesn't mean the guideline in general is "broken" or "wrong", but rather that it needs a wording tweak for clarity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Blueboar:, you may want to !vote on the RfC at the top of the page before it's closed, since it deals with that very topic and your opinion's going to be practically overlooked otherwise. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't. It's about whether the lead sentence should have different capitalization from the rest of the article, but this has become confused, and the RfC wasn't very clearly written to begin with. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Whether the lead sentence adopts that structure is part of the issue, at least. If you actually agree with Blueboar, I'm not sure we even disagree about that needed "wording tweak for clarity". The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I would hope so, but this isn't about you and me in particular. Disputation about MOS:JOBTITLES keeps arising, and it appears to be due to misinterpretation of its wording. The larger thread above this has multiple calls for a more general RfC than the one at the top of this page. While I've predicted that the actual advice in the section wouldn't substantively change, maybe such a process would result in clearer wording. (And is it the "rule" wording? Is it the examples? Both?). It's hard to say unless it's tried. I'm just really tired of arguing about this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know that we need to argue, and if I'm reading you correctly you might well be the solution. What I was trying to say above is that (unless I'm misunderstanding multiple posts) there seem to be some specific differences between the nuances of what people on the pro-decapitalisation "side" of the argument, if you will, actually support, and those differences in practice amount to the difference between what Blueboar articulated above - people accepting something that they mightn't entirely agree with - and people thinking that it's a step too far entirely. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I for one must say I was and still am confused both by the RfC's wording and the criteria being used for inclusion on the list or what this implied. To be honest I thought the list was just an example but I can see now it was intended to be inclusive. This makes the RfC even more questionable. I think some clarification of JOBTITLES is in order. Rather than decide by fiat which individual articles should be capitalized or not we need some clear rules. Or am I still missing the point here? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, both of the above comments get to unresolvable issue that some don't seem to understand isn't a resolvable problem but is an operating constraint: It is not possible for any rule or set of rules to please everyone or match every kind of usage in sources. Ultimately, all style matters really are fiat: they're editorial decisions to do X not Y or Z when attestable usage variation presents us with conflicting options (and, in a narrow stylebook like MoS versus a comprehensive one like Chicago Manual or New Hart's Rules, the question occurs often enough and with enough acrimony that the issue actually needs to be codified in the manual at all – much variation is left to editorial discretion, when it doesn't result in constant conflict). The principal purpose of a style guide is to produce consistent output to reduce the potential for reader confusion; WP's style guide, like those of other major publishers of many individuals' work, also has a secondary purpose of reducing time wasted speculating and fighting about style trivia. That is to say, it is virtually always on every style matter going to be the case that some individuals will just be going along with (possibly even wanting to resist) something they don't prefer, or which they think is even subjectively "wrong". That doesn't invalidate the style guide, nor any line-item in it (in our style guide or any other), or it would simply never be possible to have a style guide that anyone accepted and followed (on- or off-site). The real "job" of crafting and maintaining any manual of style is to be clear and sensible enough in whatever choice is made (always with readers in mind over editors) that random editors' urge to resist and squabble is reduced; otherwise, half of the purpose of the style guide is being thwarted. I think this can be accomplished here, on this particular point of usage, with some revision, but am disheartened by all the tooth-gnashing above (accusations and finger-pointing; vastly over-blown claims of what consensus is, what sources are doing, what is "right", etc.; hyperbolic nonsense like someone's proposal to just delete the entire guideline section; obvious confusion of "someone is applying the guideline wrong" with "the guideline is wrong"; etc.). That's not how to fix anything, it's just how to piss people off and cause a lot of unproductive noise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Just noticed your contribution to this portion of the discussion. That very last sentence is an accurate description of your contributions to the Manual of Style. I also note that you did not take ownership of own actions in wrecking the Manual of Style as I pointed out above. Your begging the question about "vastly over-blown [sic] claims of consensus" is not true and has zero persuasive force. Also, for someone who claims to know so much about style, you should know that "overblown" lost the hyphen a long time ago. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking at JOBTITLES from the other direction

We have had a lot of discussion and debate about decapitalization ... and at this point, most editors are thoroughly confused. So, perhaps it would help if we shifted focus, and discussed situations when we should capitalize. If we start there, perhaps we can write less confusing guidance. Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a great idea. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment and Question: In the first sentence of the lead about a particular position, we might write either:

The president of the United States is ...

or

President of the United States is ... - which would be capitalised in full, not just because it is the first word of the sentence. This was reverted with the claim that it was incorrect but without explanation when requested.

or perhaps

The office of President of the United States is ...

These examples capitalise IAW MOS:JOBTITLES, but the first is not capitalised even though it is refering in and of the position because it is preceded by "the": When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) 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. In text, we might write:

Richard Nixon, President of the United States, arrived at ...
Richard Nixon, President of the United States during ... , arrived at ...
Richard Nixon, the President of the United States, arrived at ... He was President of the United States when the event happen.
Donald Trump, President of the United States, arrived at ...
Donald Trump, the president of the United States, arrived at ... He is the current President of the United States.

Job titles are not unlike other titles where title-case is used (such as titles of works) but, while we might commonly write the President of the United States, we would not write the Anne of Green Gables ... but the book, Anne of Green Gables, ...

I think I have correctly followed the guidance of JOBTITLES in each case. I don't have an issue with the guidance except that I would querry how it apples to the definite article. In each of the examples (of presidents), the title for the office is used in and of itself. In each case, the phrase might equally be written with or without the definite article. In the former examples, it appears to be idiomatic to append the definite article to the title when referring to the position but not a particular person holding the position. The sense and meaning in either case is not substantially different - at least not for most readers. In the second set of examples, the titles are used in parenthetic clauses. It is telling us that the person held the position and the position is being referred to in its full and proper form. Where the definite article is used, it is an apposition and either the office or the name may be omitted without compromising the sense of sentence. Omitting the name in those examples, is to refer to the particular president by using the title (in its full form) as a substitute for the name of the person. This is touched upon by the second dot-point of the guideline: a substitute for their name during their time in office - not that they are the current incumbent. My question is substantially to my analysis.

I would observe that the rule at dot-point three in respect to the definite article is probably the source of some of the angst regarding the guideline. On the one hand, there is the idiomatic tendency to add the definite article when perhaps, it is not appropriate but does not alter the intended sense or meaning substantially; and, on the otherhand, what might be seen as being senselessly hyper-pedantic - applying a rule so subtle that has no apparent rhyme or reason to it. To my mind, there are then, two possible solutions: either make the distinction clearer or acknowledge and permit the idiomatic usage. If the former course were chosen, I would suggest a footnote might be appropriate. Doing so would not clutter the succinct nature of the guidance given but would serve to elucidate the subtle distinctions in a way that facilitates the application of the guidance. I might also recommend some further discussion and clarification in respect to dot-point two. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The president of the United States, the bishop of Rome, the sultan of Oman, the queen of United Kingdom/England, the emir of Kuwait, the secretary-general of the United Nations, the supreme leader of North Korea, and the duke and duchess of York met with the Supreme Court of the United States, the House of Representatives of the United States, and the Senate of the United States.
My problem with the MOS is that the lack of capitalization in the above sentence disregards the importance of the titles used in the first part. To even write that sentence I had to override the auto-correct on my phone. Those positions are not generic, they are proper nouns describing particular positions/institutions that are de-capitalized solely because they represent one person.
Specifically to the US, we have 3 co-equal branches of government and as a result they should be all written in the same style.
Slywriter (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no queen of England. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Corrected. Then uncorrected since numerous articles on the net use the Queen of England. Regardless, it does not change the substance of the example as numerous other Queens/Kings could be used. Slywriter (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Slywriter, under the present rule, all of the persons would be capped per dot point 2, as they are a reference for a particular person, using the full form - except perhaps, "the duke and duchess". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I would guess that in an article specifically named after a title like President of the United States, there would be consensus to write "The President of the United States ..." e.g. this post from above RfC, which should probably be closed with a reworded one started.—Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the MOS police are all over that exact article insisting it remains uncapitalized including a pointy hidden comment warning against such change. I look forward to a resolution that puts the 'P' back Slywriter (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba, The article for the position of President of the United States starts withe the sentence: The president of the United States is ... Going back to my long post, is this phrasing idiomatic, since I believe it would be equally valid to write: President of the United States is ... It is not impossible to write in a form that results in capitalisation under the guidance as written. However, if we want to write, for the office in and of itself, with the definite article and capitalisation, then we should amend dot-point three to exempt the definite article "the". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, CMOS specifically calls out "the" as requiring lowercase. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


OK... let’s refocus on situations when we agree to capitalize... My wording on this will be clunky, but I think we would all agree on the following:

  • Capitalize when the job title is used as an honorific or rank - in conjunction with the office holder’s name. Example: “During the ceremony Mayor Smith thanked Commisioner Gordon and Zoo Keeper Brown for their heroism in subduing the escaped tiger.”

Does anyone disagree with this? (and can those who agree suggest a better wording for a generalized rule?) Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES says lowercase "zoo keeper": ... capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles Generally, don't capitalize if the English words have the same meaning when lowercase. Aside for a few exceptions, don't capitalize just for added prominence e.g. Assistant Manager Wile E. Coyote of ACME.—Bagumba (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Bagumba, so, first two yes, third no. I think this is a case where the existing guidance is fairly clear though ("When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon"..."Even when used with a name, capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles: OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare; team co-captain Chan") and so it's one of the (only, perhaps) places where there's minimal confusion otherwise. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
hmmm... What if it was “Keeper Brown” instead of “Zoo Keeper Brown” (I was thinking of “Zoo Keeper” as a rank within a zoological service... like “Patrolman Brown” or “Constable Brown” if I were referring to a policeman. However, I can see how that might be confusing... because “zoo keeper” is ALSO a more generic job description). Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES already prescribes which job titles should be capitalized and when. If any change to MOS:JOBTITLES is warranted, it is to comply even more with the most reputable style guides out there (e.g. The Chicago Manual of Style or AP Stylebook). That would mean less capitalization than MOS:JOBTITLES currently prescribes, not more. Surtsicna (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the takeaway from this discussion is that changes are needed, not necessarily to change the stance on capitalisation either way so much as to clarify it because many users (on all sides) are completely confused about some of the finer points of its application. The examples of actual style guide language you provided are much clearer than the current language of WP:JOBTITLES, even if I don't agree with its substance. SMcCandlish has made a couple of takes in his last few posts on this page that most people don't seem to disagree with (apart from the WP:TNT advocates) that would seem to be a reasonable place to start. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I also want to note that in all these capitalization debates, I find surprisingly few references to publications which are generally held to be authorities on the matter. The idea that Wikipedia editors should decide what ought to be capitalized without reference to other manuals of style is very strange to me. That is not objective or productive. It is a recipe for a protracted discussion about personal preferences and lessons learned in schools in various places and in different times. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be surprising because it's a case of style guides (or at least the style guides being referred to here) clashing heavily with common usage, which is fairly high on the list of "MOS things that get the attention of people who don't otherwise generally care about MOS stuff". If it's a context where common usage is actually mixed, I could care less about what we use, but at least in my part of the world there's too many examples where a more hardline interpretation of WP:JOBTITLES conflicts with absolutely overwhelming real-world usage (i.e. basically 100% of the time). I am interested to know why that is, which is why I was asking about the specific style guidance before, because ultimately I think working that out would clarify a useful way forward. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I believe I now understand your position: MOS:JOBTITLES could indeed be simpler. I have to question the "basically 100% of the time", however. Not only is capitalization (other than in cases of titles preceding names) uncommon in academic biographies, it is uncommon in the most widely circulated newspapers and news websites in English-speaking countries. For example, The Independent, The Guardian, the BBC, The Australian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Toronto Star, and the National Post all capitalize job titles less than Wikipedia; The Globe and the Mail and The New Zealand Herald seem to capitalize as much as Wikipedia (though the latter is wildly inconsistent); and The Daily Telegraph capitalizes more than Wikipedia. Am I misunderstanding where your impression of real-world usage comes from? Surtsicna (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I can't really speak for anywhere outside of Australia because it's basically the only place I edit about and it's most of the media I consume, but it's certainly the case for a lot of Australian offices: "41st Premier of Victoria" (the one that sparked the attention of most of the Australians here) was 100%, "Chief Justice of Australia" (one of the targets of the RfC above) was very close to 100%, I'm struggling to find an Australian source that decapitalises "Prime Minister of Australia", etc. (Other usages: e.g. "chief justice" or "prime minister" when not used as part of a formal position title are not uncommonly decapitalised, but the office itself is very rare.) This conversation is making me wonder if it's actually a geographic/Australian English thing: one of the Australian editors in that WP:RM suggested the Cambridge Style Guide to Australian English was prescribing the other way, and I checked my local library's catalogue this morning and they've got it, so I'll have to pop over when I get a chance and record what it actually says (as with our conversation above, I like to have the actual text of these things so I can be sure it's not a case of a Wikipedian reading it wrong). Having said all of the above, after I'd written this post, I just noticed that the Australian Dictionary of Biography (a high-quality source we use all the time) decapitalises all offices, which I'm a bit surprised about given that it's quite unusual in more general use. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
(Ec)Paper on JSTOR about P vs p
Others can reach their own opinions, but this study succinctly states in its conclusion on page 21/179 'The decision in the post-watergate period to de-capitalize the "president" of the United States symbolically reduced the standing and respect directed towards the office.'
As Wikipedia should always be NPOV, the P should be restored. As should the S in speaker of the House of Representatives.
Slywriter (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I won't oppose re-capitalisation of those articles, if that's what folks here want. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It is not Wikipedia's place to restore or increase deference to anyone. Surtsicna (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

To me, both "the President of the United States" and "the president of the United States" are valid and should be permissible for some uses by the MOS (even if one should be preferred for the first sentence on an article about the position). They imply different things. "The President of the United States" means the person who officially holds the title, or the office itself. "The president of the United States" on the other hand means the person whom Wikipedia is saying is president of the United States, not as a title only but as a description of their actual position, and is equivalent to "the leader of the United States" or any other phrasing. It may seem like a very small difference in meaning but I think it is a useful distinction to draw. A proper noun (or "proper name" as some have insisted) can be preceded by the definite article and still capitalized as in "the United States" (and many, many other examples). When this becomes an issue is when Wikipedia cannot say, for some reason, that the person who holds an office title is factually, in lower case common nouns and noun phrases, the same thing as what the title says. The decrees of governments are not always reliable sources for what job someone actually fills, or might, for example, include adjectival qualifiers that we cannot repeat in lower case in Wikipedia's voice ("Brotherly Leader"). —DIYeditor (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

[[User:|]], you need sentences as examples of usage to give context to when capitalisation or lowercase is used and perhaps also explain why it is ether in caps or not. You might look at edit which does this. The problem is, that by placing "the" in front of it no longer refers to the office formally as a discrete noun phrase "President of the United States", which is the office. Adding "the", "of the United States" is then a prepositional phrase of "the president" and "the president" would be referring to the person holding that position and not the office, when the original intent was to refer to the office. Or that might be my take after a fair bit of thought. Perhaps someone might correct me if I am wrong. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that's the way they rationalise it, but we don't usually start sentences with a singular noun, so in practice "The President of the United States..." is how people would refer to the office; if you have to switch to tortured wording like "the office of President..." to be able to refer to it as a discrete noun phrase and fit it in an English-language sentence I think that it is less than ideal. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
One can write "The president of the United States is ..." or "President of the United States is ...", when referring to the office but not the person - though the former is idiomatic and the latter arguably more correct. Both are singular nouns though. By definition, there is only one "the president". We might choose to acknowledge the idiomatic usage and capitalise it when referring to the office - ie make an exception to the definite article at dot-point three of JOBTITLES. However, much of the preceding discussions have not grasped this as being the stumbling point in the guideline as it stands. Consequently, the RfC above is malformed. It proposes an exception but does not identify what precisely is being exempted, why it is being exempted and why it is in conflict with the current guideline except that they think it should be de-capitalised (in the first sentence of the lead) regardless of how that sentence is constructed. One needs to identify what the problem actually is otherwise one is just groping in the dark. It is always better to treat the cause and not the symptom. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
One can't write "President of the United States is..." because that's not a sentence in English, as it is not a language that starts sentences with nouns, therefore by this logic it's impossible to capitalise "President of the United States" when referring to it as an office in an actual sentence (unless one writes "...office of President of the United States" solely to avoid using "the"). As for the rest ...you do realise the RfC proposes to decapitalise lead sentences? I've never seen a one-sentence question cause so much intense confusion. How does one take away from that question that Coffeeandcrumbs wants to capitalise more things? The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Note my correction. It does not change the substance of my comment - ie, while there are many instances of article that are capitalised when they shouldn't be because they commence with the definite article, it is quite possible to construct an opening sentence that is capitalised IAW the guideline. The premise that all instances should be decapped regardless of and contrary to the guideline is wrong and I have said as much above. You are, however wrong to say that English is a language that does not start with nouns: "John went to the shop" or "Anne of Green Gables was written by ...". The latter example is a title but we are dealing with the title of offices. You are right though, that the RfC has caused confusion - because it is malformed. Much of the confusion is because people don't understand the guidance and not because the guidance is inherently wrong. The guidance produces a result that is idiomatically contrary to the semantics of the language. Some of the problem is that Englih is a very forgiving language. We therefore either need to make an exception for the idiomatic norm or give a better explanation of the rule. This does not mean that we need to rewrite the guideline. Such an explanation could be by way of a note or an essay. That a rule is poorly understood, does not mean the rule is wrong. It just means that it needs a better explanation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
On definite-article confusion: At President of the United States it could start with "The President of the United States is ...", because the office itself is the subject of the piece, treating the unique title as a proper name. The down-casing when the title is preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article) happens in predicate/object usage: "As a president of the United States, Nixon ...", "Nixon, while still the president of the United States, ...". The guideline is not mandating a lead of "The president of the United States is .... That said, The office of President of the United States is ... would be a better lead, anyway, and should be the model for how we treat such subjects. (Extra geekery points: "The Office of the President of the United States" (capital-O, and commonly just referred to as "the White House" by the press, and generally a bit more narrow than "the Administration") is something different, a multi-individual entity consisting of the president plus various aides and staff under the direction of the president. A position statement by that office may not have a single word in it written by or even directly reviewed by the president; the press secretary and chief of staff often speak officially as authorized voices of the presidency, though with the understanding that they'd better get it right and that the actual president is apt to contradict them if they don't.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
For the intro at the President of the United States article: "The President of the United states...", would be preferred to "The office of President of the United States...", as the latter is cumbersome. GoodDay (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Preferred by whom? It's actually far less precise, and readers have to parse a fair amount of the material (maybe even re-read some of it) to be certain that the article is about the office, not about whoever is presently the the in that role (or perhaps both). By being clearer in the lead sentence we establish the exact scope right off the bat. This is less obviously helpful in this particular case than at, say, various articles on titles of nobility and on lower offices, where we more often commingle coverage of the title and those who have held it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes But the caption for the columns should be changed to "Proper use as a capital" and "Proper use as lower case", which is what we're actually saying. The lowercase form is not "modified", but just capitalized differently. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Question about academic suffixes in info boxes.

Hello. A dispute has arisen about my removal of academic qualifications as suffixes in info boxes. It is my understanding, based on their frequent removal by other editors, that academic qualifications are not included as suffixes after names in info boxes, in the same way that they are not usually included after a person's name in the lead section or elsewhere in the body of articles as per MOS:CREDENTIAL which states that:

Post-nominal letters for academic degrees following the subject's name (such as Steve Jones, PhD; Margaret Doe, JD) may occasionally be used within an article where the person with the degree is not the subject, to clarify that person's qualifications with regard to some part of the article, though this is usually better explained in descriptive wording. Avoid this practice otherwise.

I would appreciate some clarification about this matter. Thanks, Yahboo (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

My reading of the section is that they should generally be avoided, but it stops short of saying they are explicitly forbidden. The fact that they are being removed almost everywhere else suggests to me there is a consensus to omit academic post-nominals, and this could probably be incorporated in the MOS to create consistency across infoboxes. However, it's probably not worth getting in an edit war over in individual articles for such a small detail. Editing with Eric (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The exception in the quoted part of MOS:CREDENTIAL does not apply to situations where the person with the credential is the subject of the article; it is only for situations where someone else is briefly mentioned and the credential is needed to establish their qualifications. So I think they should always be removed from infoboxes or article text about the person whose credentials they are. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Order of events

This page says bios should be in chronological order, but this is often ignored. Is there any reason for this? From my observation, people don't understand or don't like chronological order. I don't understand why?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Names confused with common words and well-known single names

"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)." I see only two given names here. And is there a guide as to when to use "Christ"? Doug Weller talk 11:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is referring to names such as Jack Lord, Carol T. Christ, Grandma Moses, Yusuf Islam or Anisa Mohammed. (I is an alternative romanization of Lee (Korean surname).) I don't agree with the advice, and fortunately it doesn't seem to be much followed. No one seeing "Moses" in the article about Grandma Moses is going to think that the biblical Moses won county fair prizes for baked goods and preserves. If any advice is necessary, I would limit it to avoiding constructions that might be confusing. Avoiding these surnames entirely is overkill.--Trystan (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I think this should be removed. No one reads Thomas Jane's article thinking he's a woman. No one reads Harrison Ford's article thinking it's about motor cars. What about Brian Blessed, Gabrielle Union, Lucy Punch, Jack London, Tom Holland, David Duke etc???--Jack Upland (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know, Alex And might be a little confusing if it referred to him more by surname-only instead of full name. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, I don't know. That is not a fully formed article. In any case, this issue can be covered by the requirement to write clearly. I can't see in a biographical article with the subject's name spelt out at the top, that it is likely that someone is going to be confused. Of course, it is possible that someone is going to confused by anything. I am able confused as to why most of the examples given are religious. Is this really a stalking horse for something else? Like not using Mohhammed's name in vain.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC MOS:LEADBIO death info clarity

There is a clear consensus that the current guidance in MOS:LEADBIO about death info in the lead is sufficient. The consensus is that how much coverage of the death in the lead is due weight should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Cunard (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2020 (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.

"Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient, and often none is included in the lead at all, just a death date."

Is this guideline clear enough to be useful to a user trying to determine whether somebody's cause of death should be included in the lead of their bio? What I see as a lack of clarity - especially with wording like often none is included - can lead to long animated discussions such as this recent one. Those discussions wouldn't be such a waste of time and effort if briefer, or if altogether unnecessary, given we had a clearer guideline.

Being rather a strong anti-sensationalist myself, hoping always that Wikipedia articles about people will not develop into tabloid-type material, perhaps I have misunderstood the guideline along those lines. If normal (statisticlly) suicides, car crashes, drug overdoses, for example are to be considered by Wikipedia as defining factors in what's notable about those people, then I am wrong in removing them from leads, whereas with a clearly notable death such as that of Christine Chubbuck I would not do that. If a celebrity's cause of death is widely reported in media, and that alone makes the cause of death in itself a reason for notability, then I am also wrong in feeling it should be removed from the lead as non-notable.

I am inviting other editors to chime in here, and to help write a clearer guideline in this detail. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I think the current guidance is sufficient and that this is one of the cases where trying to make more specific guidance across all kinds of situations right across the world causes way more disagreements than it helps resolve. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you! Do you think that every suicide, car crash & drug overdose belongs in the leads of those persons' articles? Some people interpret the current wording thus, and others quite the opposite. The lack of clarity has quite a vast effect on this project as a whole. I can't see how a clearer wording would lead to even more problems than the ones we're already having. Your answer to my question will be interesting. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The current wording seems sufficient. Leave it to consensus on a per case basis how much is due in the lead. It's likely that WP:RECENTISM will result in some mention in the lead. Try some time if you want to see if consensus changes.—Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The wording seems clear enough to me, given that it cannot be specific, and it matches generally with WP:WEIGHT. Unless the cause of death got so much coverage that it is the most (or close to it) covered item of their life, then it's just not suitable to give much article space to it nor any LEAD mention. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Is consensus here that every suicide, car crash & drug overdose belongs in the leads of those persons' articles? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  • That would be a silly take. The people who've responded have suggested that the current guidance is sufficient, and determining it on a case-by-case basis is the best way of going about it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Per the above, the current wording is fine. In the example given above (of Flack's article), the article sticks to the guidance: i.e., there is "a single sentence describing the death". This isn't "tabloid-type material" or anything of the like, but when you have a notably short life (Flack was 40) then a single mention of the cause is proportionate to the letter and spirit of the current guidance.
Per WP:RFCBRIEF, the opening statement to this RfC should be neutral and brief. This is one of the most un-neutral statements I've seen on an RfC and well short of "brief". - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No. The consensus is that our existing MOS is fine. A retired physicist dies in a car crash, or even takes their own life because they were old, ill and weary? Not lead-worthy. A young media personality under a lot of pressure from tabloid journalism takes her own life? That's very different. PamD 09:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The consensus at Talk:Caroline Flack has been very clear that we should be mentioning her death and suicide in the lead section, since the OP proposed removing it last week. Now we find ourselves here, with the same poster trying to change the guidelines. As per others above I think the current wording is fine, and the Flack case demonstrates why local consensus is best for determining these matters. Anecdotally, to answer the second question posed here, I would imagine that the majority of suicide, car crash and drug overdose deaths would be worth mentioning in their article's leads - see Adolf Hitler, Julia Lennon and Amy Winehouse for a WP:GA example of each of those things. But as I and others have said, there is no need to legislate for that here - it depends on the context and consensus in the article in question.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The wording is perfectly clear. The reason for the long discussion that you linked to was not a lack of clarity in the guidelines; it was that you misquoted the guideline in order to support your position. The fact that nobody agreed with your misinterpretation of the guideline, or even agreed that your interpretation was a reasonable one, suggests to me that it is perfectly clear; you just don't like it because it does not support your position. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It is my humble opinion that the guideline is clear enough. I think that making it more specific would be a case of regulation cruft. Even if occasional discussion might arise in specific cases, whether or not to include a certain reason of death in the lead, that would in my opinion be preferable to specifying types of cases in the guideline in a case of regulation cruft. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I am also of the opinion that the current guidance is rather clear, and ought not be changed without consensus here. After all, it's not sensationalist to follow the reliable sources, now, is it? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The current guidance is sufficient, no change needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    Sincere thanks to you all, except anyone whose main input was to make this personal as a bad reflection on me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Current guidance is sufficient. Yes, it will result in discussions sometimes, but the community wants discussions to happen in edge cases, rather than some bright-line rule being followed even when common sense would dictate otherwise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove per WP:CREEP. I've written numerous biographies without any regard to this supposed guideline. The extent to which one covers the death in the lead obviously depends on the specific details of each case. We don't need any rule for this or other phases of a person's life – their birth, education, marriage or whatever. People who want to do this in a systematic way should use an infobox. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:19, 13 March 2020 (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.

RfC on removal of MOS:JOBTITLES

No consensus. I find that there is broad dissatisfaction with the guideline, but not to the extent that removing it entirely is preferable to keeping it in its current state.

As there is also no consensus to endorse the guideline in its current form, I have taken on the task of studying the evolution of the section to ensure that every substantial change has been supported by prior consensus:

Hence MOS:JOBTITLES will be retained in its current form as the status quo. I recommend that another RfC be started to discuss how to reform this guideline. It may help to spend a few days planning out the structure of the RfC instead of jumping straight into discussion and/or !voting. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 19 April 2020 (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.

As seen above on this page, MOS:JOBTITLES has been disputed numerous times due to strong disagreements in whether the names of political offices should be capitalised in the lead sentences of political office articles and elsewhere following the article/modifier. A retrospective analysis of 19 of these discussions dating back to 2011 (above) showed that the overall view is against the guideline as it reads now by approximately 2:1, but no discussion has ever been able to come to a reasonable solution.

Should the Manual of Style section be removed entirely as a guideline that does not have "general" support? (A substitute can be added later if it does have general support.) · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Pings again (sorry): Ralbegen Cthomas3 Eyer K.e.coffman SMcCandlish Surtsicna Gog the Mild Dicklyon Woko Sapien Mandruss GoodDay Cinderella157 Magidin MelanieN Gnangarra SmokeyJoe Doug butler Number 57 Timrollpickering DIYeditor ErinRC Frickeg David Eppstein Peacemaker67 Bookscale ScottDavis Tinman44 Editing with Eric The Drover's Wife Spy-cicle Coolcaesar Blueboar

Ralbegen Cthomas3 Eyer K.e.coffman SMcCandlish Surtsicna Gog the Mild Dicklyon Woko Sapien Mandruss GoodDay Cinderella157 Magidin MelanieN Gnangarra SmokeyJoe Doug butler Number 57 Timrollpickering DIYeditor ErinRC Frickeg David Eppstein Peacemaker67 Bookscale ScottDavis Tinman44 Editing with Eric The Drover's Wife Spy-cicle Coolcaesar Blueboar As the ping still hasn't worked. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment While I think the current version of JOBTITLES is basically a mess, I also think it would be prudent to keep some form of it. Maybe it would be beneficial to rollback to a less contentious version, such as the 2014 version and build from there. Editing with Eric (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove as a matter of WP:TNT, then build something less issue-filled. (Alternatively, Eric's idea with SmokeyJoe's amendments is not terrible). The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove It's a mess that clearly doesn't have general support and a source of edit wars and frustration. Better to create anew. Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove JOBTITLES is quite a mess at the moment as seen for the plethora of discussions. Starting from afresh via WP:TNT I think would help. Restoring JOBTITILES to a less contentious version, as pointed out by Eric, from some years ago could also be another option. Either way, JOBTITLES in its current states cannot continue with the constant back and forth, disputes, unambiguity, and possible regional differences.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Side note SUM1 FWIW, Your pings above did not work since you did not sign within the same diff ([15]). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the six year rollback to this 2014 version per Editing with Eric, but deleting “only” from “They are capitalized only in the following cases”, and adding something about attending to source use, eg: For exceptions, don’t capitalise when most reliable sources don’t, do capitalise when virtually all sources do capitalise. That word “only” lends to wikilawyering for unintended consequences, and the MOS must always make allowance for the higher level guidance that Wikipedia follows the sources. Accept that there is a modern trend for less capitalisation, and where sources are mixed tend to de-capitalise. Forbid gnomes from gnoming to create a false consistency. English varies with place and time, and capitalisation often carries nuance of meaning beyond “capitalised words are important words”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The principle of adhering to the modern practice of not capitalising job titles is an important one to keep. Where MOS:JOBTITLES is applied, it puts Wikipedia's style in line with modern sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica. Removing it could create an inconsistent style across the encyclopedia, which in turn could lead to perverse outcomes, such as two officeholders from the same period having different styles applied to them because one is primarily covered by modern sources and one is primarily covered by older sources with a more conservative approach to capitalisation. Removing the section from the MOS wholesale would delegate arguments over style to thousands of articles across the encyclopedia, which is something the MOS should prevent. Guidance on capitalising job titles should remain on this page, as should the strong presumption against capitalising them except in very limited circumstance. That said, I agree that the section could benefit from being redrafted for clarity, just not removal. Ralbegen (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ralbegen's comments above. Not only is MOS:JOBTITLES in line with most modern encyclopedic sources, but it's also mostly aligned with The Washington Post, The New York Times, BBC, and other sources. Further, it's aligned with leading style guides like Chicago, Fowler's, Garner's, and New Hart's. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    • External style guides are not sources. They are external styles. Wikipedia does not copy external styles, but follows the best quality sources. The style guides you point to are relevant to modern rolling publication. Wikipedia is not a rolling publication, but an historiographical document, and sometimes it needs to reflect old styles and sources. Within reason. The recent versions of JOBTITLES had gone too far. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Styles used by the best quality sources follow their style guides (at least for newspapers), which are a condensed way of understanding how they use style. They are a relevant part of this conversation. It's also possible to look at dictionaries of national biography and other high-quality encyclopedias to see that MOS:JOBTITLES isn't avant-garde, it's entirely standard. The current version is more permissive to capitalisation than Britannica. Ralbegen (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Just as an aside, I would be cautious when following journalistic style guides and sources as they can vary significantly in quality and accuracy; from "this is quite helpful" (BBC News style guide and Telegraph style book), to "this is inaccurate trash" (Guardian and Observer style guide). Editing with Eric (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
      And more/worse than inaccurate. The Guardian's style guide is driven entirely by expediency. E.g., they are dropping punctuation that other British style guides say to use; they have abandoned italicizing the names of major published works; they will not capitalize any but the first letter in an acronym; and so on. Anything that impedes their ability to shove content out the door as fast as possible with a minimum of typing has been gutted. Even their sister publication, The Observer, bucks some of these changes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove for the reasons stated above. The British English style guides have gone off the rails on this issue and it is a shame that Chicago decided to follow them rather than take a stand for good, clear writing. The United States has always prioritized excellence in education (to the point that now we have crazy college admissions scandals). Yes, that elitism means American English style is conservative and evolves slowly. Fortunately, most American schools, colleges, and universities (especially at the graduate level) continue to teach people how to write properly. (The Ivy League and a handful of other top universities produce most American professors and then everything trickles down from there.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove The lack of nuance in the examples provided encourages over-eager editors to ruthlessly enforce the section rather than see if there is any nuance or exception, especially when the consensus discussion to add this was minimal. Slywriter (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Fallacious reasoning. The obvious solution to the alleged problem is to simply use more-nuanced examples. If your car needed to be washed, would you throw it away instead?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment from proposer. I appreciate everybody's concerns, including those who wish to keep the section. I understand that it's in line with more than one style guide. However, my argument, among other things, is to go in line with Wikipedia policy and to ensure that Manual of Style and other guideline sections have consensus. Believe it or not, there was a period before 2019 when most of these offices were capitalised, regardless of MOS:JOBTITLES. It seems the guideline didn't even have an effect (or even got reverted, sometimes I observed) when it was in place, and I think that speaks to its level of non-acceptance. This is the foundation for which I'm basing the proposal to remove it and try again later. It shouldn't therefore have much of an effect. If anything, it was the mass changes to de-capitalisation in late 2019 that introduced inconsistency. That of course is another argument from only one side of the story. But I think that very fact that there are this many sides to the story proves even more so that this section should be removed. (We can't ignore the side of the story of all the government websites around the world that favour capitalisation, for example.) · • SUM1 • · (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove & replace with something less confusing. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove per Timrollpickering. Number 57 01:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. MOS:JOBTITLES reflects the world's most reputable English language style guides. I have cited them ad nauseam, and I was never pointed to a style guide contradicting them. MOS:JOBTITLES also reflects the usage in academic works and the most renowned media outlets in virtually every English-speaking country. The idea that Wikipedia should prioritize the preferences of its pseudonymous editors over all this is very odd. And that's an understatement. Surtsicna (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Those style guides are usually well written. However, the Wikipedia style guide isn't, it's a badly written confusing mess that was constructed piecemeal and consequently leads to incorrect capitalisation and editor frustration. Additionally, it has been explained the issues with only following style guides, if one chooses to ignore these concerns in favour of restating the same argument ad nauseam then we'll never get any closer to finding consensus. I previously stated that I would be in favour of a 6 year rollback as a sort of compromise, but if editors are too entrenched in this half decade war then I would be happy to remove the whole section. It very obviously doesn't have consensus, if half a decade of arguments don't prove that then I don't know what will. Editing with Eric (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
      • This is obviously not about how well written MOS:JOBTITLES is. It is about editors insisting that Wikipedia deviate from mainstream academic and journalistic prose because the said editors just do not like the way this prose has been written in the past decades. That much has been plainly stated several times by multiple editors (e.g. [16], [17]). And there are no issues with following academic and journalistic style guides. There can only be issues with pseudonymous Wikipedia editors deciding that they somehow know better. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Yeah, and everything on Wikipedia is "constructed piecemeal", including every single policy and guideline. That's not any kind of objection. It's just how this site is built, because it's done by a continual process of consensus formation among thousands of individuals with very different backgrounds and expectations. A work like Chicago Manual of Style is hierarchically controlled by a tiny editorial board who can unilaterally force it to be worded a particular way. If you want that kind of style guide (or that kind of rule of any sort), you are in the wrong place, Editing_with_Eric.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Revert or remove - IF we can agree on a past version that had consensus, revert to that... if not, then nothing has consensus and we should remain silent on the issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. It's Wikipedia's "job" to use English as laid out in current and high-reputability style guides, on which our own MoS is based (except where we address something entirely WP-specific, like how to format infoboxes). WP (and MoS) do not exist to try to defend "traditionalism" regarding certain declining typographic practices simply because some editors prefer them (see WP:ILIKEIT, WP:IKNOWIT, WP:NOT#ADVOCACY, and WP:NOT#FORUM – WP is not a venue for either trying to change English or to forestall its evolving; that's an entirely off-site matter). A few people having completely different issues with the guideline simply means it needs to be copyedited better, and if there's actual dispute over a bit of guidance then discuss that specific thing until it is resolved. We have a WP:Consensus policy for a reason. Failure of a particular discussion to resolve an issue for someone doesn't mean the guideline is broken or that its existence lacks consensus. By way of analogy, if person A doesn't think the murder statutes should call for life imprisonment, and person B isn't clear on exactly what constitutes murder versus manslaughter, and person C thinks the statute of limitations should apply to murder charges, these confusions and objections do not relate to each other and in no way collectively indicate that the murder statutes are invalid and should simply be deleted from the law.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC); revised 19:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

    As just one example, see the bulk of this combined diff of a series of cleanup edits for why this guideline is necessary. Capitalization of titles/offices varies by whether it is a common-noun usage (e.g. a plural), attached directly to someone's name, etc. While we can't reasonably expect every editor to actually memorize this stuff (and as long as they cite reliable sources, we don't care whether they comply with style guidelines when adding new material), it is not possible to execute basic normalization cleanup if there is no guideline providing rules to follow when doing so. Without a guideline, the style would simply veer back and forth by individual whim, even from sentence to sentence in the same article, and we would have effectively no basis on which do anything about it. We can change what the rules specifically say, but they need to be there one way or another.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

    • It is Wikipedia's job to follow the sources, not about "traditionalism" or "evolution". This entire issue has arisen because Wikipedia is prescribing against overwhelming source usage in many instances and that makes people cranky. The same minority of editors who are content with the status quo have usually angrily opposed (or at best shown complete disinterest in working on) any suggestion of amendments to the guidelines, so the idea that "more discussion" is going to achieve anything beyond years more conflict due to a badly-written guideline is simply wrong, and that everyone who isn't "yay the status quo", even if they have differences in what they want, seems to be coalescing behind "we've reached the time to WP:TNT the thing and form something that actually has a clear consensus so we can end this once and for all" as a way to move forward should be instructive. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • "..use English as laid out in current and high-reputability style guides..." No, this is not totally correct. Wikipedia is meant to be written in a way that is accessible to as wide of an audience as possible using plain understandable English (see the lead of Wikipedia:Manual of Style). This means that sometimes capitalisation is preferred to avoid ambiguity, or convey meaning. For example, the UK Government style guide recommends that terms such as 'Secretary of State' should always be capitalised. It's not because the civil servants who wrote the style guide are stupid and ignorant to the rules of language, it's because they need communication to be as clear and understandable to the broadest base of readers (like Wikipedia). Editing with Eric (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Doing what the dominant style guides for English do is following the sources, and is how we make our prose accessible to the widest readership. It's why we have a style guide in the first place instead of letting our material remain in whatever random idiom or idiolect suited someone's personal whim. That, and it also exists to forestall re-re-re-debating the same style trivia over and over. Removing all our advice on handling of job/office titles would re-open feuding over about two dozen points relating to such matters. The fact that we have one point not as settled as we'd like isn't any kind of evidence that the entire section is "broken", nor even that the stand-out matter cannot be resolved with some further discussion just like everything else on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • PS: See #A good old tally just above; it's actually quite clear that consensus can and will emerge on this matter (and even probably toward the direction that the "delete a whole section of MoS because I'm not getting what I want" !voters here would have liked in the first place, rendering this attack on the guideline moot). That said, the tally is incorrectly conflating the proposal to capitalize something like "President of the United States" at first occurrence in own its lead section, with the proposal to capitalize it everywhere. These are completely separate questions, for reasons we have been over many times. Consequently the tallies are actually wrong. For example, I'm in favor of the former and against the latter, as are many other respondents in all these related threads. When we open an article about the office of President of the United States, we are addressing the office/title as such, in a proper-name manner. When we speak of how many of the last 100 years' presidents of the united states have been Republicans, we are using it as a common-noun phrase. That certain individual editors have difficulty understanding this is simply an educational gap; it doesn't mean that the guidelines are wrong to draw the distinction, since professional writers (from journalism to high-academia) draw it consistently, as is codified in their style guides, on which ours is based. The people who have trouble with it are amateur writers like the average blogger, and people who are perhaps very well educated in something like mathematics or accounting or detective work or plumbing or medicine, but who have a weak background in English and linguistics.

      The third reason we have a style guide is for English-nerd "gnomes" to use it as a cleanup manual in massaging the content, from a zillion editors with different backgrounds, into a consistent form. It is always going to be the case that some editors will prefer something different than whatever the MoS says on some particular point. (If we all universally agreed on the point in question, MoS would not need to ever mention it after all. Note that MoS doesn't have a rule that sentences need to end with terminal punctuation, or that our material in English is to be written left-to-right.) Someone disagreeing isn't evidence of a consensus failure. Consensus is not unanimity, and when it comes to any guideline like this, some disagreement is a guaranteed pre-condition of the guideline addressing the question in the first place. Shutting down cyclical, productivity-draining rehash of the disagreement is the goal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

      • The educational gap is between those who learned how to write in countries whose incompetent educational systems prioritize mediocrity over excellence -- as well as those who mistakenly believe those countries should be a model to follow -- and those fortunate enough to learn how to write proper English in the United States. I readily concede that the American style of education is perfectionist and frequently cruel, as vividly dramatized in the 2014 film Whiplash (if you've seen it, "Not my tempo!" will never sound the same again). But drilling young students in close reading and writing mechanics is why America still produces the best writers in the world. Sure, they don't win Nobel Prizes like they used to, but that doesn't matter when they're winning at the box office. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
        I'm not entirely sure what's that getting at, but attempting to nationalize this discussion (even in a tongue-in-cheek manner) is probably contraindicated. This debate really has to do primarily with two factors: 1: Frequent exposure to academic-style English (what WP is written in), and a broad array of other high-level writing in English, and a review of dominant style guides for the language, which together form a learned ability to notice things such as that the over-capitalizing style is a dead stick; versus having "echo chamber" reading habits like depending on a handful of low-end news sites written by and for people with about a high-school level or liberal-arts-college education (or a handful of extremely traditionalist publications on dead trees, like The New Yorker). 2: Probably a measure of age-related preservatism – if you had it drilled into you at age 13 in 1982 or whenever that "President", "Manager", "Judge", and "Baron" must be capitalized every single time, no matter what, by some schoolmarm with no actual linguistic background and just a general-education BA, you have an almost traumatized perception that not doing it the way you learned is a WP:GREATWRONG.

        When this intersects with things like WP:SSF and WP:CSF, we end up with handfuls of editors convinced that tearing down part of MoS that doesn't suit their writing habits is some kind of holy mission (meanwhile, 99.9% of the rest of the editorship just WP:DGAF and don't have an issue with it). I wouldn't mind these flare-ups of crusading pseudo-correctionism except that they're so damned counter-factual and tendentious. It just doesn't matter what the actual reliable sources on English usage actually say. They want what they want, and will not read the style guides even if you put them right in front of their faces. The hypocrisy is staggering. "Follow the sources!", except they absolutely will not do it; the phrase to them means "Cherry-pick the stuff I like to read and imitate the style of it (WP:NOT#NEWS be damned), and pretend all the the sources actually about how to write English don't exist."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep, common nouns should be capitalized as common nouns. That people misunderstand this, or insist on being wrong, is not an excuse to abdicate proper English. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ralbegen's clear reasoning. Removing it wouldn't prevent disagreement between editors; it'd make it worse. Improvements can be considered. DexDor (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove per WP:CREEP, WP:IAR; WP:NOTLAW, jobsworth, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep lowercase for common nouns including political job titles used generically. The great strength and value of WP's caps style as articlated in MOS:CAPS is that caps help convey meaning to the reader. This is different from other styles, where caps are used freely at the writer's whim. If we start by making exceptions for certain high office job titles, where will it end? The general rule that we cap things when evidence in sources shows that it's necessary to do so has served us very well. For things like "list of presidents of...", sources don't, so we don't. Removing the specific clear guidance in MOS:JOBTITLES wouldn't change that, but would likely lead to more arguments about how to interpret the general style guidance. If someone wants to "blow it up and start over", make a proposal about what a better one might look like, and maybe we can do something. Dicklyon (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • The problem is that it's frequently leading to areas where the sources do and this prescribes that we don't. No one here is opposed to the general rule of "we cap things when evidence in sources shows that it's necessary to do so"; the problem is that we're prescribing against source usage in too many cases. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I haven't seen such cases; not convinced they exist. Dicklyon (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
        • It's been my long experience that when someone makes the argument The Drover's Wife is making, it is virtually always the WP:Specialized style fallacy at work. Someone with particular reading habits gets habituated to a particular style, convinced that it is "right" or "proper" or "the dominant way to do it", without actually researching the question. We've already researched this and we know what most style guides no longer sanction capitalizing job/office titles except when attached to individuals' names. In this case, there's a particular subset of journalism that still tends to do it, and so someone who read a lot of a particular segment of news is going to get the impression that it's a rule or a norm when it is not; it's simply house style of some unusually traditionalist publishers.

          When even the dominant news style guides are no longer in favor of this, it is a lost cause. AP Stylebook covers something like 90% of professional American journalism, and their style is consistent with MoS's; see 2019 summary here. An influential British one, The Economist Style Guide is consistent with it on this, at § People, 1 Ranks and titles. MoS's take on this also closely follows that of The Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed. (2017) § 8.19 ff., and at least two editions before it; as well as New Hart's Rules: The Oxford Style Guide 2nd ed. (2014) § 5.10., and the previous edition, and Oxford Style Manual before that. (NHR observes that some writers like to capitalize "unique compound titles that have no non-specific meaning", like Prince of Wales, but does not actually recommend it. Their recommendation is essentially the same as that of CMoS, though more concise.)

          I'm strongly reminded of the "comma-Jr." thing. There's just a strong and largely American WP:GREATWRONGS feeling in the air around the pro-capitalization side of this, which defies actual evidence in reliable sources on English usage. It will probably be possible to find some style guide somewhere that still agrees with the "traditionalist" viewpoint, but it will either be old, obscure, or a single-publisher house organ that no one else uses (I would almost bet money on The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, because it's so quaintly "preservative" in so many other ways, though I'm disinclined to go dig it up and see.) MoS's main point of divergence from any of main reference works on English usage is actually in trying to accommodate capitalizers at all, by permitting capitalization when the title/office itself is the subject of the sentence. We could probably eliminate most of the fuss by eliminating that "exception", which is clearly being used as a wedge. For example, see #A good old tally above, in which this idea (which permits capital-P "The President of the United States is ..." in the lead sentence of President of the United States), is being wrongly conflated with the idea of capitalizing it at every single occurrence, and is falsely counting support for the one as support for the other.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

          • Your inexplicable fondness for style guides that reflect rapid linguistic drift resulting from educational systems that value mediocrity over excellence (go see my earlier comments above) speaks for itself. And yes, I am alluding to Hamilton on purpose---a musical that celebrates the American value of excellence at extreme personal cost.
          • The English Wikipedia is getting hit with widespread vandalism in nearly all non-pop-culture articles that's lingering from anywhere from 6 to 36 months, because the number of knowledgeable specialists monitoring them at least once a year is somewhere between one and zero. If you don't see that, you're not editing broadly enough. That situation is not going to get any better as long as people see appalling atrocities on Wikipedia like "president of the United States" or "the president said". Most people who intuitively understand why that's wrong (because they survived running the gauntlet of freshman English at a top-tier American research university) are way too busy trying to earn tenure, make partner, get promoted to C-level executive, launch their next startup, or write their next film to waste time messing around with Wikipedia when the project looks like it's totally overrun by those who weren't taught how to write properly. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep if salvageable (preferred), remove and start anew otherwise - I'm on the fence on this one; on one hand the capitalization is consistent with other encyclopedias and reliable sources (which has already been noted), but on the other hand there have been complaints that the policy has been corrupted to the point that recovering a policy with consensus would be difficult. I'm going to remain somewhat neutral and say while I would prefer we salvage this Manual of Style entry, we may need to start from a blank slate if nothing can be salvaged in a way to create consensus. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 20:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Please remember this is not about resolving the underlying issue. This RfC is about removing information. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: A difference of opinion about how may be frustrating. It is not justification to remove information. My opinion is this. Resolve the differences or seek an arbitrated answer on the subject and comply with the arbiter's decision. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • WP:TNT is a long-acknowledged way of resolving those differences: sometimes you're dealing with something that is such a mess that people with quite differing perspectives can agree that the best way forward is to mutually agree to blow the thing up and start again. The basis for this RfC is that the "information" is the problem and is blocking progress forward. People who stumbled into this discussion today without acknowledging any of the six years of conflict due to this badly-worded guideline going "resolve the differences" are just ensuring that there's another six years of issues (notably there is not here, either, any ideas for "resolving the differences" - Wikipedia does not do 'arbitration' on issues.)
I suspect some of these comments are due to SMcCandlish's highly misleading village pump canvassing that suggested that this RfC was effectively trying to short-circuit discussions to come up with a compromise (the notion of which he had fought tooth and nail and everyone unhappy with the status quo despite very different views among themselves had basically given up on; even Editing With Eric's latest compromise attempt here is being resolutely opposed by the minority of editors who like the status quo). The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
"Issues" will continue (whether JOBTITLES exists or not) until editors like you drop the stick. DexDor (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Modify around the edges, simplify, if there's support; but is consistent with English (aside from job ads and yearly reports that seem stuck in the days of typewriter boosterism). Tony (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep @SUM1: Incidentally, what do you consider the end of MOS:JOBTITLES? Does it run up to the next section heading at the same level (thus including MOS:CREDENTIALS) or up to the next shortcut (thus excluding MOS:CREDENTIALS)?
Either way, the proposal throws the baby out with the bathwater. The statement of the problem zeros in on "political offices ... in the lead sentences of political office articles and elsewhere following the article/modifier". That's just one part of MOS:JOBTITLES. I rarely encounter that scenario, but deal frequently with novices unaccustomed to formal writing, or whose command of English is poor, perhaps because it is not their first language. They tend to Capitalize Every Word They Can or mimic whatever they see on a random website. Perhaps MOS:JOBTITLES could be better, but I find it useful in those situations.
Many supporters of removal recommend replacement with something less of a mess, less confusing, or more nuanced. If this RfC were considering a specific replacement, I might be able to support replacement, but it does not, it simply moves that the section be removed entirely. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove and replace with something clearer that has consensus. I agree with replacing it with the prior version with modifications as suggested by SmokeyJoe above. The current version, especially the table, is confusing and unhelpful and doesn’t appear to accurately document current global consensus (per discussions above). Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. If passed, this could be en.Wikipedia's Brexit moment – all of the voters, who cast their votefor different reasons, vote on a simple binary (all or nothing) solution that doesn't address any of the underlying reasons, nor does it address the important or essential role that it plays, yet it unifies the fact that many people don't like it for their own reason. I think that the section in its current minimalist form fundamentally upsets many people – principally interest groups who tend capitalise nouns or concepts because it confirms – rightly or wrongly – their own world view, and want to defend each capitalisation as a noun or concept with elevated importance in those circles, whilst failing to recognise the lesser level of importance is warranted when employed in general use, or for example when using the plural form. Removing the section could, IMHO, be used to endorse the argument for the ubiquitous capitalisation of equally important universal concepts such as "Government", "Freedom", "Liberty", "Communism", "Human Rights". -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove, consider working towards replacement. I don't have a strong opinion on the correct guidance for capitalization of job titles but this discussion makes clear that what's there now does not have adequate consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    WP doesn't work that way. When consensus does not emerge in a discussion like this, we stick to the status quo ante, which in this case has been stable for a long time (which is itself strong evidence of consensus, in a site-wide guideline with this many watchlisters). We would have to have an overwhelming show of consensus to remove it, and that is clearly not going to emerge. At most we'll have a no consensus about the exact current wording and perhaps a weak and vague consensus that it needs adjustment/clarification, through some followup RfCs/proposals that are specific and practical, rather than "throw the baby out with the bathwater" hysteria.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment from proposer:
Although most of the keepers have been opposed due to the specific issue, I've seen a few understandable concerns of the lack of an immediate replacement. I consider this important but something that has next-to-no weight when it comes to its deletion, as the entire deletion is based on the fact of the section not having general support. Hence, an immediate replacement would need general support as well. Doesn't matter if there isn't one for a short period, as that's the point of a section not having enough support to exist.
Let me also clarify that practically the only statement in MOS:JOBTITLES not at some point involved in the disagreement is
"Even when used with a name, capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles: OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare; team co-captain Chan."
Even the statement right after it:
"The formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it."
was used in the justification of capitalising office titles.
The rest of it was entirely and fully immersed in the disagreement, including the entire table, all 3 bullet points and the first paragraph.
Fundamentally, what my posts showed is that people were largely ignoring what MOS:JOBTITLES said until a large wave of de-capitalisations in 2018 and late 2019 (probably stemming from the 2018 move of the section to MOS/Biography and table update with shaky support), which were met with some resistance and a lot of opened discussions on relevant pages like this one. This means a) a deletion will go largely unnoticed (according to the pre-2019 state of affairs) and b) the section was being used (2019 onwards) to justify a practice that doesn't have widespread support on Wikipedia, seemingly majority (or at least half) opposition in fact.
This is the basis for it going as it concerns now. Later can be decided later. Anyone is free to propose an RfC for a replacement in the time being, including those suggesting the 2014 version.
Currently, we're in an awful deadlock where MOS:JOBTITLES has no consensus but deleting MOS:JOBTITLES has no consensus. To me, this paints the clear picture that the logical action should default to the entire problem going away by deletion of the section as it is now. The burden shouldn't be on a policy or guideline to be deleted, it should be on it to exist. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't call this a deadlock; everything in there has been arrived at by consensus, and changes should have consensus, too. If you don't like that provision that "capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles", that might be easier to fix; did you try? Incremental changes are generally how WP works. Your theory that a lack of consensus on something means you get your way is a bit too radical here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Result count: there are currently 12 keeps and 11 removes. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Headbomb, User:Dicklyon, and User:Ralbegen and others above. Written style guides are an absolute necessity for manuals, journals, newspapers, technical pages, and encyclopedias — any professional printed text really. You can't write professionally without the cohesion of an over-riding style. We also don't have to re-invent a style, as we have several to choose from that have been quite effective for academia and business for many decades. Among others, the Chicago Manual of Style, Hart's Rules, the MLA Handbook, etc. are all viable guides we could largely follow. We can pick one and try to emulate it as much as possible while discussing the outliers as needed. A standardized JOBTITLES can easily be aligned with one of these.
Today's propensity for copy writers' headline hyperbole, self-important bureaucratic titles, and advertising-driven monikers are having a devastating effect on proper grammar and the written word. Arguments for Wikipedia's Ignore All Rules, Wikipedia's Not the Law, etc. are straw man arguments when applied to style. These rules re designed to govern content, not style. Style for a written work is of a higher law, if not the paramount law. You can't have 5 million users all ignoring the rules. The binding glue –STYLE– which holds our encyclopedia together won't work if we are using 5 million different styles of writing. Nor should our encyclopedia's writing style be beholden to sources, as mentioned above. Many sources have terrible written styles, with no underlying grammatical philosophy.
Per the RfC, we absolutely cannot blow-up our existing guide(s) without having something in the wings to replace it. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Let’s not over-react here... No one is talking about “blowing up” our entire manual of style. They are talking about removing ONE small section (one that does not enjoy a consensus) - AND then working on a replacement (which, hopefully, will have consensus). It will be a TEMPORARY omission at worst. Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is something the manual of style should comment on; thus, there is no cause to remove it. What it should or should not say can be resolved through consensus. If there is no consensus, that can be iterated in the section itself. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Godsy: - what would be the point of stating something for the point of stating that what we just said doesn't have consensus? (Not quibbling, it's not an outcome I disagree with if people could agree to do that instead.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: So that editors know that consensus is up in the air and do not continue searching for such advice on the matter in the manual of style to no avail. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that I am not sure if we have a consensus even on the “bare parts“. What would you consider the bare parts to be? Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
As pointed out above, the issue of decapitalising corporate, commercial, unofficial (ect.) job titles seems to be uncontroversial (if anything, this part could be elaborated on). However, consensus falls apart when dealing with higher rank political and judicial job titles. Editing with Eric (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: As I stated above, I think de-capitalization should be used when referring to the job title in the general sense and not to any particular officeholder (i.e. List of governors of Michigan, List of prime ministers of Canada, List of vice presidents of the United States), as well as when referring to the office in the plural ("There are four living former presidents of the United States", "All the former energy and HUD secretaries attended the conference."). --Woko Sapien (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Keep but remove some parts I want to modify my comment by saying that we should probably remove the most controversial part, which seems to be what to do when using the definite article. I suggest we change it to say capitalization is acceptable in such cases: Nixon was the 37th President of the United States or Theresa May was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, especially when being used as part of an introduction to the subject in question.--Woko Sapien (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep I am all for continuing discussion and modifying as necessary, but I don't believe the answer is removing an entire section from the MOS without anything to replace it. If the current version is such a mess, there's no reason that discussions/workshops can't be initiated that start from a blank sheet of paper. Once those workshops reach some state of acceptance by that working group, I would welcome an RFC to choose between the new wording and the current version. Until that time, however, we should keep the current guidance. CThomas3 (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove per David Eppstein mostly. Having a guideline as confusing as this one is worse for the cohesion of the encyclopedia than having none at all. XOR'easter (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I mean, having nothing is not good. That leaves things completely up in the air... it's not clear that there's not guidance because of a deliberate decision to forgo guidance (as proposed here) or because nobody thought it worthwhile to write any (the usual cause of lack of guidance). These are different. At least replace it with "We're don't provide guidance on this, you're on your own" rather than just flat deleting it altogether and leaving editors entirely at sea as to what they're supposed to do. Or something like

You can write "Mitterrand was the French president" or "Mitterrand was the French President". It doesn't matter, we don't care, and overly worrying about stuff like this detracts from what we are trying to do here. Write it as you think best, but leave alone what somebody else has decided to do.

Or keep it like it is, if you want to actually provide a rule. It's fine. Herostratus (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove. Utterly needless rule. The MOS generally has overgrown and would benefit from a thorough pruning. This particular rule is exceptionally bad. Let editors write articles in the way that makes sense to them at the time. Consistency of writing style on Wikipedia is a hobgoblin.—S Marshall T/C 16:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove per WP:CREEP (or vastly strip down to only the most uncontroversial essentials, at least. or explicitly state "there is no rule, follow your heart" per Herostratus if desired.). We don't need a rule for every situation. If we end up with inconsistent capitalization of Vizier vs. vizier in some articles - so what. MOS:RETAIN has been one of the most successful Wikipedia policies ever: just stay consistent within a single article, that's all we can ask for a global project with contributors with incompatible expected styles. What works for varieties of English should apply for varieties of "style" as well. The fact that JOBTITLES is one of the most discussed and "violated" rules is a warning sign - if all the common editors keep making the same "mistake", maybe it's not a mistake, from a descriptivist perspective. SnowFire (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    The "so what" is that people will fight and fight and fight about it, page after page, until there is a rule that discourages this from continuing. Removing this section would rekindle a whole slew of such disputes, and cause a very large number of trivial style-twiddling edits across tens of thousands to possibly 1mil+ pages, in turn leading to edit-wars and angry talk-page squabbles, and further escalation. So, we would just end up with similar rules again later, but not after a whole shitload of editorial time and goodwill was just lit on fire for no reason other than satisfying a few individuals' pet peeve. Shutting down unproductive disputes that do not actually help us improve the encyclopedia is how we end up with pretty much every WP:P&G line-item we have, and it's certainly how we ended up with the majority of MoS line items. If you actually watchlist these talk pages, you'll see that people come here all the time and want to add new MoS line-items but they are turned away if they can't demonstrate that there is recurrent, intractable dispute about that specific matter. This has been written up at WP:MOSBLOAT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Having a rule in the MOS saves me a lot of time having to look up what other style guides recommend. The fact that there is disagreement about this capitalisation issue is a strong reason to have it covered in the MOS. That saves a lot of day-to-day argument. I don't care so much what the rule is, just that there is a rule to follow that is accessible to find. Jmchutchinson (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The rule itself is generally correct. However, we must remember that the English language is never consistent and "rules" are broken all the time. --Enos733 (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove – MOS guidelines that don't have overwhelming consensus support aren't worth the pixels spent on them, and end up being used by a subset of MOS-fixated editors to "beat up" on an editors who don't agree with them. This one doesn't have overwhelming consensus support, as shown by multiple discussions, and thus should be stricken. This thinking should be applied across the MOS in my opinion, as it will reduce editor conflicts. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
    I'm actually in the opposite camp here. The fact that something is contentious, and continues to come up as an issue, means we probably do need a rule in the MOS so we resolve the issue for everyone rather than coming to different conclusions on every talk page. Conversely, anything with overwhelming consensus probably doesn't need a rule, since everybody most likely already does it anyway and any deviations would simply be fixed as an error without comment. CThomas3 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
    Right. As I noted above, we don't have MoS rules like "Write English in a left-to-right direction", because there's no dispute about this, thus no need for a rule (this is what WP:CREEP is getting at, and is also addressed by WP:MOSBLOAT and and WP:AJR in different terms). The entire purpose of all policies and guidelines to is to address things that are subject to dispute and resolve the disputes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
And it doesn't "resolve disputes" if many people disagree with it. Hence "guidelines without overwhelming support" are worthless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
More importantly... in this case, the guidance seems to be causing more disputes than it settles. That is the opposite of what is intended. Blueboar (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessarily true. While there has definitely been a lot of virtual ink spilled on this, without this guidance this same debate would very likely be happening on dozens of article talk pages where handfuls of editors would be disagreeing on how it all should be capitalized. In fact, that's usually how guidance winds up in the MOS at all: editors have a local dispute on a talk page and bring it here for a more central discussion. If it's something that tends to come up often, we try to codify it in the MOS so we can hopefully resolve the issue once, with a much larger number of contributors, rather than with handfuls of editors on dozens of individual talk pages. Issues simply don't come up unless someone disagrees, so it's rare if not nonexistent for anything in the MOS to be entirely unopposed. But that's okay, in my opinion, as overwhelming consensus has never been the measuring stick for policies and guidelines here on Wikipedia, in theory or in practice. CThomas3 (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Then you don't understand the purpose of the MOS and guidelines in general (and you likely aren't alone) – they are supposed to reflect common practice, not "impose a rule" on other editors. Doing the latter when there is insufficient consensus support accomplishes nothing, increases inter-editor conflicts, and will simply be widely ignored by editors. That achieves absolutely nothing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: A flawed rule is better than no rule at all. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep but modify I'm in general agreement that these should generally be lowercase, but what isn't included is when the title is referring to the position as a title rather than the officeholders generically. I'm sure people will disagree with me on this, but the capitalization should be retained when saying "The Governor of Delaware is the chief executive of the first state" rather than "The governor of Delaware lives in the governor's mansion", or "The Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs is a position held by a member of the foreign service" – namely the article title and first mention should generally be capitalized, referring to a specific position (which would affect the recently moved List of presidents of the United States, or least the first line).
  • It depends. Is the Mos supposed to be prescriptive, and tell editors how to format articles? In which case the current guidance is fine. Or is it supposed to be descriptive, and tell editors what the common practice is? In which case it completely fails. Personally, I think the preference should be to treat job titles as common nouns, but there's a lot of ambiguity, both in the guideline and in what we consider a job title, and I'm not sure how we can resolve that without being overly prescriptive (bear in mind that most people who write most of our article have never read the MoS, may not even know it exists, probably don't care, and will most likely fall back on their own education). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Rewrite I can see both sides on this. One one hand, I completely understand how the MOS can cause a fair deal of contention (the dispute over capitalizing president of the United States in the lead paragraph of its own article), but I also recognize the need for guidance on this manner. I honestly think the only real solution here is to have an intense discussion about specific (and I mean specific) sections that cause contention and try to slim the guide down to its most simple, and easily understandable, form possible. I think the idea of reverting back to its 2014 version holds a great deal of merit. Garuda28 (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: noting that the substantive proposition is to remove.
    • The "complaints" are that it is: confusing, unclear, too long, not nuianced (not long enough?), just wrong and not supported. They are largely unsubstantated opinion.
    • If this was a matter in which there was consistency of practice then there would be no need for guidance on the subject. This is a truism.
    • While not identified herein, the greatest point of contention is an insistance to capitalise "the president of the United States" (and similar) despite the definite article and a refusal to recast without the definite article, which would permit capitalisation.
    • Having made all of these broad criticisms, there has been no attempt to identify what is specifically confusing, unclear etc, let alone how it might be remedied - except perhaps, to wind it back to version that is silent on the matter. There is a tacit assertion that silence would be tantamount to permission. My forecast based on past observation is that silence will be taken as a matter unresolved that demands a solution.
    • English is an evolving language. A decrease in capitalisation is just one aspect that is evolving. Stalwarts of an older standard of capitalisation deny this fundamental nature of our language. They deny the authority of the most widely used generalist style guides that reflect the contemporary status quo because it is not consistent with the anachronistic standard they wish to preserve. This is cherrypicking. WP is guided by sources. More weight is generally afforded the most recent, independent and scholarly works. On cental issues of style, we would naturally draw on those works which consider the matter wholistically rather than researching the matter ourselves.
    • Searching WP articles for the terms "president", "prime minister", "governor" and "secretary", there is cumulatively over 1 million articles to which the guideline relates for just this small set of the terms to which JOBTITLES applies. Even allowing for the duplication of terms within articles, the guideline potentially relates to 10 - 20% of WP articles. By removing the guideline or removing the "contentious" elements of the guideline, the questions of capitalisation would be addressed within each article individually. Many of these would be similar cases with duplicated arguements. The assertion is that such a situation would be less disruptive than the present situation. I cannot see how this can be seen as a reasonable alternative. It will not just go away.
    • Some of the possible "confusion" is that JOBTITLES is more permissive of capitalisation than say CMOS, which only capitalises public offices when used as an honorific.
    • I acknowledge that JOBTITLES could be improved in a number of ways. It could be modified to accommodate the underpinning issue. I believe that this would be a much more productive course.
Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for revised guidelines

I'm going to BE BOLD and leave this as a suggestion for how to revise the current guidelines. It takes much of the old 2014 guidelines, while taking the less controversial parts of the current ones. Basically, stick to capitals when (1) there is no modifier, or (2) when the modifier is a definite article referring to a specific officeholder. But decapitalize when (1) the modifier is an indefinite article, or (2) when talking about the office in the plural. Clearly, there's a desire to change to current guidelines. It doesn't have to be this exactly, but hopefully this can be some food for thought. --Woko Sapien (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

When to capitalize (denoting a title) When to decapitalize (denoting an office)
Unmodified:
Richard Nixon was President of the United States.
The resignation of President Nixon was followed by his pardon from President Ford.
Modified:
Richard Nixon was the President of the United States.
Nixon was the 37th President of the United States.
Mao met with U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1972. 		Singular:
Richard Nixon was a president of the United States.
A controversial American president, Richard Nixon resigned in 1974.
In the United States, the president manages the executive branch.*
Plural:
Nixon was one of the more controversial American presidents.
Camp David is a mountain retreat for presidents of the United States.
Unmodified:
Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016.
Prime Minister Theresa May addressed the opening day of the conference.
Modified:
Theresa May was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. 		Singular:
Theresa May is a former prime minister of the United Kingdom.
The prime minister is the head of the British government.*
Plural:
Of all the prime ministers in British history, Theresa May is only the second female.
Unmodified:
Louis XVI became King of France and Navarre in 1774,
later styled King of the French (1791–1792).
Modified:
Louis XVI was the King of France when the French Revolution began. 		Singular:
Louis XVI was a king of France.
The French king, Louis XVI, was later beheaded.
Plural:
All the kings of France were crowned at the Notre-Dame de Reims.

(* These are the only I'm not really sure of. Honestly, I think the guideline could be "either upper case or lower case is acceptable".)--Woko Sapien (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Woko Sapien, Mao met with U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1972. is modified. U.S. is modifying President. Move that down to the modified section and you have my full support. As for the two marked with *, it should depend on situation. In those case, we should ask the question is the term being used as a substitute for a single real person holding the title at the time. Or is the position the subject of discourse. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Good catch! I've since updated it. Cheers! --Woko Sapien (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
It makes no sense to me that the capitalization should change between "Nixon was a president of the United States" to "Nixon was the 37th President of the United States". The first says he was a member of a group of presidents; the second indicates where he placed chronologically within that group, nothing more. Simply specifying the sequence should not change "president" from a job to a title. Chris the speller yack 16:21, 18 April 2020 (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.

Responding to personal attack and again reiterating what is wrong with User:SMcCandlish's edits to the Manual of Style

I am posting this separately because the RFC was closed above before I got around to responding. This is my response to User:SMcCandlish's personal attack above at 21:19, 20 March 2020.

I'm much younger than User:SMcCandlish seems to realize; I strongly suspect the same is true of most of the editors who have objected to User:SMcCandlish's revisions to the Manual of Style. I earned both my bachelor's and law degrees in the current century. I merely attended better schools with better teachers, nearly all of whom earned master's degrees from Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Harvard, Yale, and Cambridge (just to name a few). I scored in the 99th percentile on both the SAT and LSAT (specifically, a perfect 800 on the SAT verbal portion) and was also a National AP Scholar. As an attorney, I read graduate-level academic writing every day. I have regularly read magazines and newspapers online from all over the world for over 20 years. So yes, I do know a little bit about what I'm talking about.

Although I have repeatedly raised the point (e.g., my comments above at 20:13, 20 March 2020), User:SMcCandlish has not directly responded because there is no defense for the indefensible: anyone who actually cares about good writing and has the ability to write properly will not waste their time editing an encyclopedia written by those who do not understand what is wrong with writing "president of the United States." As a result, we are seeing vandals running amok and vandalism left unchecked for many months in hundreds (if not thousands) of articles because the few remaining active editors are stretched far too thin. Until appropriate sanctions are imposed and the Manual of Style is reverted back to something that makes sense, the damage will only get worse.

Also, User:SMcCandlish professes not to know what I'm getting at above about attempting to nationalize this discussion. It's simple: Americans actually fund their schools properly (at least in the suburbs) and drill on mechanics more ruthlessly, so American English evolves more slowly. The philosophy driving Wikipedia's core policies is that it never leads, it only follows. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe the correct place for this comment is at user talk:SMcCandlish. Would you care to cut and paste it there? --Izno (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Changed name usage

MOS:CHANGEDNAME says if a surname changed due to marriage (for example), mention the birth name in the lead. MOS:SURNAME says subsequent uses should normally use just the surname. What is not clear to me is which surname to use throughout the article. There are some bios that use the birth surname in sections covering the pre-marriage period (e.g. childhood), and then switch to the married name post-marriage. This doesn't seem right to me. MB 17:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Usual procedure is to use the final name throughout unless there is a very good reason for not doing so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
A LOT depends on the specific person who is the subject of the article. Certainly we would mention the pre-change name in the lead if the person was notable when using that name (example, a sports star who changes name mid carrier). And we would mention both names in the lead when someone becomes notable BECAUSE OF a name change (rare). That said, I would agree that when someone becomes notable only AFTER a name change, we can omit the pre-change name from the lead.
As for which name to use in the rest of the article... use the one that is historically appropriate to the section we are working on. We do the same for ANY name change (for example: cities that have change names, such as St. Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad... we use the appropriate historical name when discussing different historical eras). Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar, pretty much word-for-word.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar, except for the word "sports".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Previous names and surnames should only be publicized if there is relevance, i.e. the person is/was famous under that previous name or if multiple *contemporaneous* RS publish it as well. Onus should be to the person adding the name that it is important information, otherwise it can lead to doxxing of BLP's families who might not be public people. Special caution should be given to not publicize names that are of the incorrect gender, for people who have transitioned. cave (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The de facto standard is that one's birthname is mentioned in the lead sentence, and that practice is more or less how MOS:CHANGEDNAME reads.—Bagumba (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Any broad consensus, etc on inclusion of vital stats?

I can recall some past disputes about including measurements from PlayBoy that could use some revisiting, but I'm looking for any general guidance, and specific guidance for models like Bella Hadid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

My understanding is that there's broad consensus for including statistics in infoboxes related to aspects of notability, and exclusion of such information when it's far removed and distracting from notability. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The devil is in the details regarding when it is notable.—Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you know of any RfCs, style guides, etc that would help us determine if Bella Hadid's height belongs in the infobox? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Walled garden of "royalty"

I just accidentally stumbled on a mess of articles about people like Amedeo, Duke of Aosta (born 1943) a/k/a Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta (born 1943): pretenders to the Italian and other thrones. All of these have been titled thus: Prince Humperdinck, Duke of Farfaraway, rather than Humperdinck, Duke of Faraway or just Humperdinck. Is this gratuitious "Prince" in front of everybody who claims to be the rightful Prince of Farfaraway in accordance with the MOS? The real-life George IV of the United Kingdom is not titled King George IV of the United Kingdom. Comments? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Orangemike: I think this appears to be a misunderstanding of the naming conventions. I reverted your page move. I think according to WP:NCROY, under Royals with a substantive title, No. 3 applies to this individual. Interstellarity (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I think your moves are misjudged because Prince Amedeo was an actual prince before he became a private citizen, and moving his son to Aimone, Duke of Apulia, makes little sense because he's more of a pretend duke of Apulia than he is a pretend prince. His actual name is Aimone di Savoia-Aosta. The move elevates the pretend dukedom over the defunct princeship. DrKay (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, both of you. I just get so irritated with articles like this about posturing nonentities whose ancestors butchered somebody else's ancestors and terrified a bunch of unfortunate peasants, so I fear I just get impatient about the whole bunch of them. Sometimes I suspect that many if not most of them should have been hung up next to Mussolini when the Partisans had a chance. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Birth date and place

The section Birth date and place in these guidelines, doesn't actually have any content concerning birthplace. I was looking for info to answer a Helpdesk question. The guideline needs instructions about how to handle the birthplace when it no longer exists e.g. Yugoslavia, Sudan before it split, etc - X201 (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates. ... 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." DrKay (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe the consensus is to name the birthplace as it was at the time of the subject's birth. A lot of Wisconsin legislators (one of my specialties) were born in places which have changed name, province, and even country; but if a subject was born under the King of Prussia, we name the town, province and country as it was called back in 18xx, even if that town now has a Polish name and is in Poland. That's what redirects are for. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
This is covered by WP:HISTORICALNAMES - it's the historical name at the time of the subject's birth. Caesar wasn't born in Italy, for example. GiantSnowman 22:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Pronouns for males performing as females (aka drag queens)

I searched this page unsuccessfully for guidance about pronouns for people who identify as male and perform as female, commonly known as drag queens. The question came up when I was editing India Ferrah. In the article, the pronoun "she" is sometimes used to refer to the person as a performer, which seems reasonable to me but which made following the flow of the text a bit challenging.

I'll be happy to abide by whatever guidance is provided via consensus, but finding no guidance at all, I am uncomfortable making it up as I go along. Pinging Another Believer, who is the primary editor of the article in question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Drag queens are not women. Unlike trans women, who know themselves as actual women, drag queens know they are men and that they sometimes perform as women. A drag queen must be referred to with male pronouns. Georgia guy (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Is that the consensus view? Is it recorded in a discussion somewhere on Wikipedia? It does not appear to be the consensus usage in articles. FWIW, there are female pronouns in use at Tyra Sanchez, Sharon Needles, Bianca Del Rio, Violet Chachki, Sasha Velour, and Aquaria (drag queen), among others. I clicked on all of the names in the winners' list at RuPaul's Drag Race, and of the people who identify as male (according to Wikipedia), most of them have "she" pronouns describing their drag personas in the articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Jonesey95, We use "she" for the drag personas. We use he, she, or they for the individual outside their drag persona. You can find examples for each: India Ferrah identifies as a male drag performer, Peppermint identifies as a trans woman drag performer, and Valentina identifies as a non-binary drag performer. Hence we see uses of he, she, and they, respectively. Faux queens are cisgender female drag performers. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Georgia guy, Um, that's not true. Some drag queens are men, some drag queens are women, and some drag queens are non binary. We do NOT use male pronouns for drag queens by default. We use pronouns based on how people identify when referring to someone outside their drag persona, and we use 'she' when referring to the drag persona. Even the first sentence of Drag queen says "usually male". I'm not sure why you're speaking about this so assuredly when you're very clearly wrong. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I second both of the excellent remarks given here by Another Believer. I would also add that if you click through the sourcing used in articles on drag queens, you will note that WP:RS exclusively use feminine pronouns to refer to drag personas—except in rare cases like Aja, who has stated (according to RS) that both their in-drag and out-of-drag pronouns are non-binary (i.e. singular they). Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race, we try to always make an effort to source drag performers' preferred pronouns for both their in-drag and out-of-drag identities (the MOS says to give precedence to self-designation here). Armadillopteryxtalk 03:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree with Another Believer, and Armadillopteryx. Drags queens can be of any gender and gender identity, commonly they are all referred to in the feminine as that is their public identity, but if they make a pronoun preference statement then we refer to that. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

honorific titles

A discussion regarding honorific titles was initiated at Talk:Ghasidas. If interested, please participate. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 21:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Little Richard

FYI

There is discussion at Talk:Little Richard on this point, and it may be useful to have some input from editors here. The singer Little Richard was born Richard Penniman, and his real name was known throughout his career although it was never used as part of his performing name. The article currently refers to him throughout, except in quotes, as "Penniman". Some other editors have objected that "Richard" (or "Little Richard") should be used throughout, presumably even when his biography discusses matters unrelated to his recordings or performances. I think there's a general agreement that the article should be consistent throughout. Similar examples, I guess, might be Madonna, Lady Gaga, Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, etc. Do any editors on this page wish to express an opinion, or point to any clear guidance on the point? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC on post-nominals for Catholic bishops

With articles such as this in mind, can post-nominals be used in lists of bishops and other places? WT:CATHOLIC#Post-nominals RFC. Elizium23 (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The RfC is asking much more than this, and includes proposals to make topic-specific potential exceptions to MOS:POSTNOM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Gro Harlem is not Harlem

I'd like to suggest changing the following example in MOS:BIRTHDATE to something that does not use a person's name that sounds like a placename:

  • Gro Harlem Brundtland (... born Gro Harlem; 20 April 1939) is a Norwegian politician ...

At one point I went looking for whether placenames should be inside the birth/death range, and misinterpreted Gro Harlem as some version of that Harlem in New York. Then, based on MOS, I began inserting placenames into the birth and death date range on new articles (since corrected).

It might also be worth adding "places of birth and death do not belong in the birth-death date range parenteheses", and where they do belong, in a shortcut like MOS:BIRTHPLACE that is not a redirect, but actually tells you where to put the birth/death places. Just for confused editors like myself. Hopefully there are not too many of us.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It says "Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates." DrKay (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Well I must need new glasses. I still find Gro Harlem isn't helping.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Um... “Gro Harlem” is the subject’s actual NAME. It has nothing to do with his birthplace.Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
She was born in Oslo. Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Blueboar: yes, but the point is it sounds like a placename (Harlem or Haarlem).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't say "born in Gro Harlem". Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
"entertainment"? I don't think you are describing me. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
And you prove the point.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
But is there a place-name "Gro Harlem"? Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
suppose it read: “John Lincoln Smith (born John Lincoln; 16 May, 2020)”... would you be confused and think the article was discussing the place name Lincoln, Nebraska? I doubt it. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The home_town parameter of Template:Infobox_person

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Template talk:Infobox person#Proposal: Repurpose and redocument the home_town parameter.

As I know that changes to major infoboxes are often controversial (and many to that template in particular have been WP:VPPOL RfCs in their own right), it seemed pertinent to notify broadly of the proposal.

Summary: We removed |residence=, but kept this parameter for childhood non-birthplace residence, despite that being usually trivia. The proposal would repurpose this parameter for long-term residency places during the subject's period of notability.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Where to place a "Personal life" section?

Dear fellow editors,
I have looked in MOS:LAYOUT and here, in MOS:BIOGRAPHY, and found no guidance on where a Personal life section (distinct from Early life) ought to be located in a biographical article. I have seen that section quite close to the top (e.g. Nat King Cole), or about halfway down (e.g. John F. Kennedy), or closer to the back matter (e.g. Jane Fonda).
I have also seen that section called Personal relationships (e.g. Paul McCartney), even though there is often more than relationships in someone's personal life.
Question: Is that guidance documented somewhere else in the MOS, or nowhere at all? In the latter case, would it not be useful to have it documented in this article, with a shortcut of MOS:PERSLIFE, for example?
Personally, I would tend to locate that section close to the back matter of an article, essentially because notability is not primarily derived from someone's personal life, even though many notable people are also quite "notorious", shall we say.
In any case, thank you for any pointers to where that guidance is documented if it exists, as I can't find it.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 17:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it usually located as the very first section? PPEMES (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I prefer to place it close to last (not counting references and external links), because it is the section that is least likely to be important for the subject's notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
If a person has a list of accolades or the various bibliographies or -ologies, the personal life should be before those sections (Which should be seen as "reference material" to the body of the article - highlights of these should already be indicated in the body). But this is not a fixed rule. A case I know where it comes earlier is on Stan Lee where the personal life stuff is dealt with early so that the rest of the article deals with his comic book influence. --Masem (t) 01:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Should there be a separate section? Isn't all life personal? Shouldn't various events just be chronological?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Typically a person's adult personal life is not first, since Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Order_of_events says that events are usually listed chronologically. Their career or other claim to fame is typically in the middle of their life. If their personal life is unrelated to their career or notability, it makes sense to just list the major points towards the end of the page.16:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
That means it's a judgment call by an editor about how important someone's marriage or children is to their career or notability. I don't think editors are competent to make that call. Most biographies you read are chronological and will treat marriages etc as they occur. Not here. So-called "personal life" is bracketed at the start or end of the article. The article implies that the subject's friends are important for his career, but the woman he has married isn't. There is a strong cultural bias here towards a strong distinction between public and private life which is very old-fashioned, and in some cases sexist. It also defeats the purpose of a chronological order if you come to the end of the article and realise the subject got married way back in 1896 and that that coincided with the end of his seafaring career. It's telling the story of someone's life, but taking out the milestones.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Question about two people with the same surname in an article

Per MOS:SURNAME:

After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only

There are two brothers in the band Radiohead - Jonny Greenwood and Colin Greenwood. So we can't write "Greenwood". To avoid confusion, should the article always write out the names Jonny Greenwood and Colin Greenwood in full, or should we use their given names? Could this guidance be included in the MOS? Popcornfud (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It's in a follow-on section: MOS:SAMESURNAME. DrKay (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
DrKay, damn, clear as day. I can't read today, obviously. Thanks very much. Popcornfud (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
... So just to clarify, the following would be correct, from the Radiohead article lead?
Radiohead are an English rock band formed in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, in 1985. The band consists of Thom Yorke (vocals, guitar, piano, keyboards), brothers Jonny Greenwood (lead guitar, keyboards, other instruments) and Colin Greenwood (bass), Ed O'Brien (guitar, backing vocals) and Philip Selway (drums, percussion).
Then a couple of hundred words later:
Their eighth album, The King of Limbs (2011), an exploration of rhythm, was developed using extensive looping and sampling. A Moon Shaped Pool (2016) prominently featured Jonny's orchestral arrangements. Jonny, Yorke, Selway, and O'Brien have released solo albums.
I'm a little unsure because 1) it means mixing given and surnames in the same sentences and 2) the MOS:SAMESURNAME only gives examples where the names are mentioned in close proximity. In the Radiohead article, we could go for entire sections without mentioning either Greenwood brother. Is that OK? Just checking before I go ahead and make the change. Popcornfud (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, no. I've just skimmed the article and to me it reads fine as it is - except for one mention of an unqualified Greenwood in the section 1995–1998:_OK_Computer_and_critical_acclaim. The most important aspect is to retain clarity. Jonny G. gets far more mentions than his brother, and in the paragraphs where he is mentioned more than once, it's clear that subsequent references to 'Greenwood' refer to him, not Colin. It would seem odd to refer to him as 'Jonny' when other people are referred to by surname or full name.  —SMALLJIM  13:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on whether MOS:ETHNICITY should be ignored or not for Nikola Tesla

Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity#RfC:_Should_ethnicity_be_removed_from_the_lead? Notrium (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarification needed regarding the use of nationality in lead in case of Austria-Hungary

Currently it is recommended that nationality should be noted in the lead, but this makes for a conundrum in the case of Austria-Hungary.

The issue is this: there was no such thing as Austro-Hungarian citizenship, i.e. the "parts" had completely autonomous citizenship authority. Thus if we followed the MOS, we would never say "Austro-Hungarian" in the lead, but rather use either "Austrian" or "Hungarian", it seems.

Thus some clarification in MOS:ETHNICITY is needed. Notrium (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we be a little more specific what "relevant to notability" means in regards previous nationalities?

The article for Nina Dobrev has been frequently a site for edit warring over her nationality per MOS:ETHNICITY. She was born in Bulgaria but moved to Canada at age 2 and started her career in Canada (and Canada only). The consensus is that she should be listed as "Canadian actress and model," but edit warrer's in the past have tried to claim that it should be "Bulgarian-Canadian" just because she has fans in Bulgaria or is quoted to be "proud to be Bulgarian. (See past talk threads)

Should MOS:ETHNICITY define what "previous nationalities should not be listed unless they are relevant to notability" a little better? Maybe clarify that the countries/nationalities should only be listed if it's where the person started their career?

(I apologize if this is a dumb question, a lot of BLP are becoming more like this, and I wondered if a change in wording would help.) Kay girl 97 (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a section of MOS that has a range of interpretations, and comes up frequently in Balkans bios. There is currently a bit of a ding-dong going on at Talk:Ante Pavelić about it and there has been an interminable one at Talk:Nikola Tesla. If we could come up with a bit more clarity it might help. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Is the disagreement over the MOS? Or is it editors who don't know about the prior consensus or the MOS? Updating the MOS won't help those cases.—Bagumba (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The MOS says country of citizenship should be listed, but "previous nationalities or the place of birth should not." This is somewhat confusing because the place of birth is often a country of (continuing, not "previous") citizenship. Perhaps the second section can be amended to "...previous nationalities, dual nationalities, or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." GreatCaesarsGhost 00:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
In my experience, this is particularly problematic when the person was born in Austria-Hungary (where most bio articles state ethnic group rather than saying they were Austro-Hungarian) or Yugoslavia (where many bio articles also emphasise ethnicity), or any other empire or country that became defunct or changed during their lifetime. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
A note would help a lot, clarifying notable ethnicity, dual citizenships, cases of former countries, entities that are/were not independent (vassal kingdoms, autonomous duchies, tributary states...).
There's a similar guideline, MOS:IDENTITY, which gives preference to what the majority of sources say on someone's 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 recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses."
This is a clearer guideline than MOS:ETHNICITY, and such a wording could work better in cases where the majority of sources label a person in a way that is not in accordance to the contemporary citizenship/nationality or even the self-described ethnicity of a person. Tezwoo (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Generational suffixes - US / British English variants

It seems to me that the form of "generational suffixes" (or generational differentiations/disambiguations) is is more a matter of British English versus US English. It's quite usual in British English to refer to Thomas I Walsingham, Thomas II Walsingham, Thomas III Walsingham, etc., as ways of distinguishing generations. In the US they do it differently (as in the current Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Generational and regnal suffixes) as in "Henry Ford I", "Henry Ford II", etc., which are in substance quasi-peerage titles (they certainly are used as indicators of social importance), or as close as Americans can get to them. This latter style is alien to British English. I think if a Brit referred to his son as "John Smith II" there might be some ribaldry suffered by him down the boozer. It's not British usage and would be considered highly pompous and self-important, even by a wealthy and prominent, but untitled, Brit. The reason Americans get confused by mid-name nominal letters is that they are accustomed to see in that position an initial of a second fore-name, as in "George W. Bush" (or even "Donald J. Trump", where no disambiguation is required from his father's name). That form of mid-name initial is alien to British usage. I therefore propose a restating of the MOS section to allow what I have suggested above to be a British usage, where the article concerned has a "use British English" tag. I've done a WP:BOLD to kick off the discussion.→Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

British people don't use numerical generational suffixes in the middle of the name, or usually at the end. No change is needed. DrKay (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Amended DrKay (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
DrKay, British people don't, that's correct, but Americans do. You have emphasised my point - there is a difference in usage in this area, which needs to be addressed in the MOS.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I can find no reliable sources whatever for Thomas III Walsingham or Thomas I Walsingham, and only one for "Thomas [II] Walsingham" (brackets in the original) which is a book written by Amherst professor Arthur F. Kinney published in North Haven, Connecticut, in 1973. DrKay (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Amended 08:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
And the point of opening this discussion here is? The guidance is elsewhere, i.e. WP:JR (to be discussed at WT:MOS), and, for article titles, WP:JR/SR (which, in this respect, generally follows the decisions at WT:MOS). Might be a good idea to introduce a British English example with an ordinal number at WP:JR/SR, that is: if you have one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Francis Schonken, if it's a question of introducing a British English example with an ordinal number, I don't think we'll find many of the "Henry Ford I, Henry Ford II" variety in English historical works. I think the closest we'll come is "Henry I, Henry II", with the surname omitted entirely, which may be unclear in certain contexts.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Dr Kay, you have found a reference to "Thomas [II] Walsingham" in your source. That confirms my point, surely? Can you now find any reference to "Thomas Walsingham [II]" - or even without the brackets?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Neither Connecticut nor Amherst are in England. Your point is disproven. DrKay (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Amended 08:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
"Thomas Walsingham II": In search of Christopher Marlowe (1965) by A. D. Wraight, p. 249; The History of Chislehurst (1899) by Edward Alfred Webb (brother of Aston Webb), pp. 116–7; Archaeologia Cantiana (1986) volume 102, page 8: all British authors in British sources found literally within 5 minutes of searching. DrKay (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Dr Kay, "self-evident crap" and "deluded" are not examples of WP:Civility.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The text of my proposed amendment is as follows:
For Roman numeral generational disambiguations, usages may differ between US and British English. The usual US form is "Henry Ford I, Henry Ford II", etc, which is not used in British English, certainly not in the spoken form. The normal convention in British English when referring to historical people is to place the Roman numeral mid-name, as in "Thomas I Walsingham, Thomas II Walsingham, Thomas III Walsingham", etc. The British variant should be used where the article has a "use British English" tag. Where the US form is used do not place a comma before a Roman numeral name suffix, whether it is patronymic or regnal: use Otis D. Wright II, not Otis D. Wright, II.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I've proven without doubt that the proposed addition is garbage, but you persist in pushing it. In my view this is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. DrKay (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Amended 08:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Dr Kay, you have made your position clear, albeit in an uncivil way, you or I alone will not decide on the consensus on this issue, this talk process is supposed to invite a wider discussion, so let's wait and see if we can get elucidation and opinions from other users. Thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"It's quite usual in British English to refer to Thomas I Walsingham, Thomas II Walsingham, Thomas III Walsingham, etc." - err I am British and I have never seen that ever. GiantSnowman 12:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

1957: "it's pretty much cutting edge" - but we ain't talking radios!
GiantSnowman, are you familiar with the Victoria County History? It's how the Victoria County History series does it, a highly reputable and academic source. See for example the history of the manor of Nuneham: William acquired large estates in several counties and an important position in the feudal hierarchy: he held his honor of Stogursey by the service of 25¼ knights. (fn. 96) He was dead by 1130 and had been succeeded by his son William (II) de Courcy, who was probably dead by 1155, and by his grandson William (III) de Courcy, whose younger brother John conquered Ulster. (fn. 97). William (III) de Courcy's second wife, Gundreda de Warenne, had Nuneham as her dower... ('Parishes: Nuneham Courtenay', in A History of the County of Oxford: Volume 5, Bullingdon Hundred, ed. Mary D Lobel (London, 1957), pp. 234-249. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/oxon/vol5/pp234-249 [accessed 16 May 2020]). (The brackets are as printed in the text). It's in this context of descent of manors when the disambiguation is most necessary, as several generations of men with the same name is often talked about in the same paragraph. VCH clearly thought about how best to do it, and came up with mid-name numerals. I think that's a persuasive precedent. That text is from 1957, so it's pretty much cutting edge. Another point in its favour, it makes for less clumsy English, compare: William (III) de Courcy's second wife and William de Courcy III's second wife, the latter's a bit of a mouthful, but I can't second-guess the reasons for VCH's editorial decision. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
In Wikipedia,
However, Wikipedia also has an article on the father of William de Courcy (died before 1130): that father, unsurprisingly, was also called William de Courcy. His article is at William de Courcy (died c. 1114). Which illustrates the system with intermittent parenthetical ordinals ... is useless in Wikipedia. Or would that be William (0) de Courcy for that last one? Or give them all a different ordinal? Until a French ancestor with the same name is found, and they'd all be renumbered? No, doesn't work, should be kept out of guidance. If you'd like to test this new type of ordinal numbering then conduct WP:RMs on the Williams found at William de Courcy – I'd predict WP:SNOW fails for such attempts. So until if and when such RMs would be successful this should be kept out of guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Francis Schonken, you are possibly mixing up two areas, page naming and referring to people in the body of text within an article. Both seem to have different conventions in WP. We are here discussing the latter not the former. Furthermore, what you seem to be suggesting is that the whole system of using Roman numerals should be scrapped. We are talking here merely about whether they should go at the end or in the middle of a name, we are not (as far as I have understood it) discussing whether using Roman numerals is "useless in Wikipedia", as you suggest. The numeral system as used in VCH starts at "I" with the first of that name to hold/acquire the manor, thus if his father had the same first name but was seated elsewhere, he would not be referred to as either "I" - or as you suggest "0". Once a (mediaeval/pre-modern era) gentleman moves to a new seat, he effectively starts a new branch of a gentry family, the counter is reset to I, that's just British genealogical convention, see for example Burke's Landed Gentry, where families are listed by seat, not by common ancestor, it would just get too complex. For example "Howard of Glossop" is a different family to "Howard of Castle Howard", although both share common ancestry.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • To my way of thinking, the issue here is whether we want to adopt the “ordinal in the middle” convention for UK oriented articles. And the key to that is determining whether it is commonly used in the UK (as opposed to being something used by just one or two sources). I accept that at least one source uses it, but I don’t think it is common. I read a LOT of British history, and I have never come across it before. Thus, I don’t think we should adopt it. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Fully agreed. GiantSnowman 15:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) At John de Courcy article:

[John de Courcy's] grandfather, William de Courcy I, married Emma of Falaise. His father, William de Courcy II, married Avice de Meschines and died about 1155, leaving the family estates in Somerset and elsewhere in England to his son, William de Courcy III, John's elder brother.

For clarity, that is: "[[William de Courcy (died before 1130)|William de Courcy II]], married Avice de Meschines and died about 1155" (emphasis added) – had a second lease on life surely? At Stogursey article:

... William and Geva's daughter, Emma, was betrothed to William de Courcy, ...

At Nuneham Courtenay article:

..., Richard de Courcy. It remained in his family until the death of his great-grandson, William (III) de Courcy in 1176.

... which seems the least helpful (while "III" cannot refer to any person if it's not used in article titles, and there is no wikilink to an article – and the given death date apparently does not correspond to any known "William de Courcy"). As such, all of this seems to indicate that the I/II/III indications, whether given in the middle of the names of these persons or at the end, whether in brackets or not, are anyhow always confusing, at least to Wikipedia editors... leave alone to readers. Don't use. Use disambiguators corresponding to article titles, so that also in print or PDF versions it is always clear which one of these persons is meant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Blueboar, this is not a matter related to "British history" per se, where usually only one member of a family is under discussion within a wide context, and thus disambiguation is not necessary. It's not something a reader of general British history would expect to come across. I can think of the two William Pitts in this connection, but it's rare to come across it in broad subjects. It mainly becomes necessary when multi-generations of the same family, with the same first name, seated at the same manor, are being discussed. That is what manorial history is all about, and that's a huge topic about which thousands of books and articles have been written over the centuries. The VCH is by far the most authoritative and up-to-date source and they chose to use mid-name numerals, based on the deliberations of a (no doubt) huge editorial team. I'm not necessarily suggesting a rigid convention to be followed in all British history articles, rather just an option for use where the context seems to require it, for example in articles on multi-generational manorial histories. So in conclusion I'm saying, A: it's a British convention, and B: it should therefore be an option when writing British English wikipedia articles.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It has already been demonstrated that it is not a British convention. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
From John Hudson (historian)'s Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis: The History of the Church of Abingdon, Volume II, pp. 80–81 "William de Courcy I", "William de Courcy II", "William de Courcy III"
From Sussex Notes and Queries (1935), p. 160: "William de Courcy (III.)"
From Duffy's essay on John de Courcy in Colony and Frontier in Medieval Ireland, p. 4: "William de Courcy III was the son of William de Courcy II"
Also from Duffy in Medieval Ireland: An Encyclopedia, p. 181: "a brother of William de Courcy III (died 1171)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKay (talk • contribs)
DrKay, As to whether it's a British convention, yes it is according to Victoria County History. That's a decades long collaboration by probably hundreds of British academics, closely edited by highly regarded leaders in the field. Other sources, such as the ones quoted by you (possibly older than 1957, the date of VCH), follow a different convention. If you think VCH is wrong in their approach, that's a bold accusation, as VCH is the top standard source for such genealogical articles. One of your sources, Sussex Notes and Queries, is basically correspondence from readers asking advice from other readers, so possibly not a more authoritative source than VCH. What we have proved here is that authoritative sources deal with this issue in two different ways, so one might say that neither is definitively wrong or right. Why therefore does WP feel the need to lay down the law in this area and demand a rigid adherance to one of the two schools of thought? And how can it be right that a WP contributor writing an article on manorial history and following the precedent chosen by the leading, most up-to-date, source on manorial histories can get censured by WP for being incorrect? We are meant to be guided by authoritative outside influences, rather than deciding on our own whims. We need more flexibility in this area.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hudson and Duffy are expert medievalists writing in the 21st century. Even a mediocre scholar could find that out in seconds by simply clicking on the links or looking at the sources. Only delusional and ill-informed amateurs wouldn't even bother to do that. DrKay (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Amended 08:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Lobsterthermidor - it is not a standard British convention, it is the house style of one project. That is a major difference
DrKay - please keep it civil. GiantSnowman 07:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
A case could be made for using these mid-name Roman numerals (in brackets - not bare as suggested here) in articles that are based on the VCH descents where that work uses them. However, I think that Lobsterthermidor wants them to be allowed even when no reliable sources use them, in any format. The deficient Devon VCH contains no descents but he's already added I, II, III, etc to names in over 50 Devon-based articles. Examples: Newnham (Old); Little Fulford; Manor of Orleigh; Kingston, Staverton. As he's pointed out above these are not straightforward to allocate so I'm sure this is not an acceptable practice because it makes WP the primary source for these identifiers.  —SMALLJIM  09:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Edited 14:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
For clarity, Stogursey, Nuneham Courtenay, Newnham (Old), Little Fulford, Manor of Orleigh, Kingston, Staverton, ... are not biographical articles in the sense of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography. So, returning to the first question I asked: why is this on *this* talk page and not on the talk page of the WP:JR guidance?
Other than that, Lobsterthermidor's practice of using them where there's no broad support for them in reliable sources should be rejected – and reverted. Failing explicit guidance, Wikipedia's style, including using names as they appear in article titles in order to avoid ambiguity, should be used. Not some exceptional style for which there aren't even redirects to connect somewhat surprisingly spelled names with articles on these persons (which also don't explain these exceptional naming variants): It is quite unclear why someone would push for such somewhat deliberate confusions (see de Courcy examples I gave above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree that there is no consensus for this style and @Lobsterthermidor: needs to stop adding them. Continuing in the face of such opposition would be considered disruptive. GiantSnowman 16:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Not a usual style in the UK and no consensus to use it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
OK thanks, I can see my arguments have fallen on stony ground, I withdraw my suggested amendment and will desist from following the VCH style. Thanks to all for the (mostly) civil and productive input and best wishes to all.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixing outstanding cases

I withdraw my suggested amendment and will desist from following the VCH style. Thank you, Lobsterthermidor. Except that it's not really a "suggested amendment", it's a belated request for approval of something that you've been doing for years.

Now, in view of the OR aspect, what is the position regarding fixing the outstanding cases? Is the editor who added the content encouraged to fix, or is it just left for someone else to clean up (or more likely - because it will involve a lot of work - not)?  —SMALLJIM  13:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The editor in question should attempt to clean up their mess. Doing so will be looked upon far more favourably than leaving others to do it. GiantSnowman 16:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought that was the expectation - showing concern for the encyclopedia's accuracy and consideration for its community of editors. Pinging Lobsterthermidor in case he's already dropped this page.  —SMALLJIM  15:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know whether it should be a cause for celebration or mourning that the community is willing to expend so much time and effort on a proposal that so obviously has zero chance of adoption in any form. EEng 04:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

How to refer to popes, cardinals, and bishops in running text

How should popes, cardinals, and bishops be referred to in running text? Is "Pope" or "Cardinal" or "Bishop" more akin to a job title or an honorific? For example, should we say "Cardinal Soane Mafi," or "Soane Mafi, the bishop of Tonga?" --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Whatever makes the most sense in the context. These are different roles. Don't use "Cardinal" simply as an honorific. It's a relevant role in the context of Rome and the Pope and the College of Cardinals and duties/actions performed abroad that pertain directly to that role. But in the context of oversight of the bishopric of Tonga, the other title is more pertinent. It would probably be fine in his lead sentence to use Cardinal Soane Mafi, the bishop of Tonga". But thereafter "Mafi" for the most part (unless Tongans use reverse name order; I have not checked). [Small, weird world. Tonga is one of the most obscure nations to most people, yet around 1987 I wrote a letter to a priest there to ask about the status of his ongoing efforts to translate or better-translate the bible into the local language (my memory on this is a bit crusty). In 15-ish years of working on WP, I don't think I've made any edits whatsoever about Tonga until now, and it's about Catholic priests in Tonga again. What're the odds?]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    SMcCandlish, What an odd coincidence. To use your example, which do you think would be better form, assuming it was the first mention of his name in a non-biographical article: 1) Cardinal Soane Mafi spoke about the ongoing efforts to translate the Bible into the Tongan language, or 2) Soane Mafi, bishop of Tonga, spoke about the ongoing efforts to translate the Bible into the Tongan language? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • For first mention "Cardinal Soane Mafi, bishop of Tonga" explains who he is, where he's based, and suggests possible importance/responsibility in Curial congregations, all w/o having to click on a blue link. Manannan67 (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    Yep. To address Slugger's followup question about mid-article usage, using his hypothetical of reporting on Mafi's support of the translation effort: I still think it would be contextual. Was it a statement made in Tonga to the Tongan press (or a BBC journalist visiting Tonga or calling him in Tonga, or something to this effect)? Or was it instead made in/from Rome as a matter of cardinal or even papal concern? Was he focused on Tonga and its culture, and the importance of preserving the language and reducing lingering negative effects of European colonialism and cultural imperialism while retaining and strengthening Tongans' bond with the Good Book which also just happens to be from the Northern Hemisphere? Or was it about the Roman Catholic Church's millennia-running mission to bring the Bible and Jesus to the entire world, with him focusing on papal urging and church doctrine about bringing everyone possible to the Kingdom of God? [I'm probably using some of these phrases wrong; I'm not religious myself.]

    If this were in an article on Tonga or on Bible translations, it might be reasonable to ID him at first appearance as "Cardinal Soane Mafi, the bishop of Tonga", especially if his contextual positioning isn't perfectly clear from the sources; it is certainly relevant that the bishop of Tonga is [in our hypothetical, anyway] supportive of this (instead of forcing everyone to learn English or Latin or whatever), but it might also be relevant to readers that someone that high in the church hierarchy is taking a keen interest in this, in addition to it being about his home turf. I think what we don't want to see is a bunch of "Cardinal Mafi said ...", "Also, according to Cardinal Mafi ...", "... additional funding for the project sought by Cardinal Mafi ...", etc. That's like injecting gratuitous "Prof." or "Rev./Revd" or "Dr[.]" honorifics. Or "Bishop" ones. I guess the short version is treat "Cardinal" the same way we'd treat a prepended "Bishop" (something to use only when necessary to make it clear to the reader what the person's role and authority are, why the person matters for whatever we're writing about), and treat the postfixed "the bishop of Tonga" as simply descriptive.

    To re-generalize, consider a hip-hop star who is now also the CEO of a notable record company she founded. Two roles. We wouldn't write of her as the CEO in the context of her stage show; and also not as the hip-hop group's co-leader (with her sister) in the context of managing the label business. If a title pertains to a role it should generally stay there; she's CEO of the label, not the band. Real-world example: Christopher Guest is notable as an actor-director and has arguably also become notable as a British peer and [formerly] a member of the House of Lords. In his Hollywood life (the vast majority of his notability and our material on him and source coverage about him), his "Lord" honorific and his "baron" (specifically, 5th baron Haden-Guest) title do not pertain, and are not used. But they could be relevant in a list of members of the House of Lords, in recording him as Baron Haden-Guest in a summary of parliamentary votes on something, or conceivably with "Lord" in mid-sentence if it were necessary to distinguish him as an HoL member from someone else in the same sentence who was a House of Commons member, though of course it would be much better to just rewrite. I've seen British press in the relevant period refer to him as Baron or Lord Christopher Haden-Guest in the parliamentary context, and Christoper Guest in the film context (I think I might once have seen something like "Lord Christopher Guest", but it's not clear that would even be proper address, as it's confusing a legal name with a professional name, like referring to Sean Combs as "Puff Combs" or "Sean Diddy". Anyway, [Haden-]Guest's case is not a perfect comparison to the Cardinal...bishop situation, since "Lord" is a rather empty and generic title used for different ranks and types of peers, primarily intended as a respect marker, while a cardinal has a much more specific role (even a bishop does, though perhaps it's kinda-sorta comparable to being a parliamentarian in being a "job").
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I know AlmostFrancis has opinions about this, so he may wish to opine as well. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • My recommendation would be to follow a similar pattern used in MOS:LDS, which allows for ecclesiastical titles for leaders in running text only in the lede and last name thereafter, even for religious leaders that would be of similar hierarchical level to Cardinals. In the example given, the possibilities (outside of the lede) would be "...the bishop of Tonga, Soane Mafi,...", "Soan, Bishop of Mafi", or "the cardinal, Soane Mafi,...". The second I admit is an ambiguous case - without a definite or indefinite article it becomes a formal title of position, as opposed to simply a prepended honorific title, and IMO should be capitalized. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    FyzixFighter, Thanks for the link. I can't find any explanation on the talk page archives why it should only be in the lede, though. If Mafi only appears once or twice in the latter half of an article, he's not likely to appear in the lede. Might still be important to note that he's a cardinal, though. There's also the case of someone like Michael Czerny, who isn't even a bishop. We could use "Cardinal Michael Czerny," or his job title, "Michael Czerny, the under-secretary of the Migrants and Refugees Section of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development." One of them is a little more concise than the other. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm not sure where the lede only guidance came from. Even in the lede, most LDS-related titles get removed pretty quickly. In the case of Michael Czerny, my preference would be to use "...the cardinal Michael Czerny" or your latter example. I strongly dislike having one rule for LDS ecclesiastical leaders and another for Catholic ecclesiastical leaders. If we allow prepended clergy honorific titles, like "Cardinal" or "Bishop", for the Catholic Church, then we should allow similar titles for other religions IMO. I also think lower hierarchical titles like "Father", "Friar", "Brother", or "Monsignor" should be removed or replaced with "...the priest" or similar based on the same argument of equal treatment. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    The "lede only" caveat seems to have introduced here by SMcCandlish, so he might be able shed light on the rationale. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    FyzixFighter, I very much agree that it should be as standardized as possible across religions. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    Re 'I admit ["Bishop of Tonga Soane Mafi"] is an ambiguous case - without a definite or indefinite article it becomes a formal title of position, as opposed to simply a[n ap]pended honorific title, and IMO should be capitalized.' – Nope; it's a separate, parenthetical, optional descriptive clause separated from the name; it's of the same form as "J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter book series, is ...". The case for capitalizing that exact "[b|B]ishop of Tonga" title is when it is directly prefixed to the name: "According to Bishop of Tonga Soane Mafi, ...". But this is poor writing in an en.wp context, because the average reader can't parse it with certainty (doesn't know what Tonga is, doesn't recognize Soane in particular as a forename, nor Mafi as a surname). It's structurally but not interpretationally equivalent to "Prime Minister of Australia Scott Morris", every element of which is easily and correctly parseable by our typical reader. PS: I corrected the example to "Bishop of Tonga Soane Mafi"; your original post had some elements jumbled, misspelled, or missing ("Soan, Bishop of Mafi"). I don't mean that as a criticism (I am the typo emperor!), just being clear that I've altered the quoted material for clarity. However, I think it highlights what I'm saying here: for most of us at en.wp, the name elements "Soan[e]", "Tonga", and "Mafi" are opaque text strings, or verging on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Proposal: Taking my cue from MOS:LDS, I propose that we add a new subsection 3.1.2 titled "Ecclesiastical titles." The content would be as follows:
Do not use ecclesiastical titles such as "Elder," "Pope," "Sister," or "Bishop" when referring to leaders of a church, except at first occurrence of the name and when the context provided by the title is useful. After the first occurrence, the subject's surname is sufficient and conforms to general encyclopedic style. For example, write "Elder McConkie published a book entitled Mormon Doctrine..." at the first instance his name, but "McConkie published a book entitled Mormon Doctrine..." for subsequent appearances.
What do others think? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I reverted. Didn't even know this was an RfC. I'm not comfortable with this being added with no clear consensus reflected in this section. The RfC hasn't even run its course yet. The top of the guideline tells us, "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." I'll leave a note at WP:Village pump (policy) about this RfC for more opinions. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
It depends on each case and is similar to political titles. You need to provide specific examples. TFD (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In the case of popes, their papal name is rarely (never?) the same as their real name. For example the real name of Pope Francis is Jorge Mario Bergoglio. I think that calling him merely "Francis" after the first appearance would be weird and contrary to practice (we never call people by first names), and calling him "Bergoglio" would just have readers scratching their heads. This leaves only the possibility of calling him "Pope Francis" throughout, which I think is what we should do. Zerotalk 04:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    It also matters that Pope Francis is always described this way in WP:RS. So the standard for attaching the honorific to his name is already set: WP:HONORIFIC: Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa. Elizium23 (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    The problem is that that “Bishop” (and “Arch-Bishop”) is an ecclesiastical JOB (or RANK), while “Cardinal” is an ecclesiastical TITLE. They can overlap.
    At first mention we need to establish the person’s full credentials... so we should write: “This concern was addressed by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Arch-Bishop of New York, who stated that...”.
    For subsequent mentions we can be more flexible... we should use either “Cardinal Dolan said...” or “Arch-Bishop Dolan said...” (or alternatively, “the Cardinal said...” or “the Arch-Bishop said...”
    If we are referring to him a lot in a short space (say multiple times in one section), we can clip it even shorter and just use his surname: “Dolan also said...” (However, I would go back to the more formal styling at the start of the next section). Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Zero0000, That's a good point. I think the same is true of, say, Patriarch Bartholomew. In his article he is referred to as both "Patriarch Bartholomew" and just "Bartholomew," with more references to the latter. I think the press uses "Patriarch," however. Additionally, both within Wikipedia and in the press, you see references to the Dalai Lama, not Tenzin Gyatso or Lhamo Dhondup. Are there others? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Objection: This is not an actual RfC, or if it is, it is highly malformed. Either way, the RfC template should be removed. The "Brief, neutral statement", such as it is, is halfway through it and the discussion actually starts with an open-ended question. Soliciting possible options is a precursor step before proposing an actual option or options in an RfC. They can't be combined halfway through the discussion. I means that people following links to this are not all commenting on the same proposition. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Um... what is wrong with asking an open-ended question in an RFC? Sure, many RFC’s are structured as !votes on pre-packaged options... but that does not mean that all must be so. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    See WP:RFCBRIEF. "What should we do?" or "Suggest an option" type questions are not suitable as RfC's. They are regular talk page discussions. Also because it changed halfway through and any closer evaluating it won't be able to know what the actual result is that should be enshrined in a MOS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    I think Blueboar is correct. It is true that the page you cited provides recommendations on good kinds of questions to ask at RfCs, but from a purely procedural standpoint this RfC is not "highly malformed". These kinds of open-ended RfCs are more difficult to close and don't always result in a clear consensus, but they aren't invalid proceedings. Mz7 (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That would be an ecumenical matter. Nick (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Follow most sources Pope and Bishop (usually) are very clearly job titles, and Cardinal may be. It should be "Cardinal Wolsey", though just "Wolsey" may be appropriate in following mentions. Often lower clerical ranks like "Father", abbot and so on are appropriate to use. And so on. Don't like the draft. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

World leader bios

Just to note. WP:JOBTITLES isn't being applied evenly on such articles. See the biographies of Canadian, British, New Zealander & Australian prime ministers & deputy prime ministers (for example), aswell as American presidents & vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not news. It has been dragging out at RM and in article-by-article RfCs for a long time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Fellowship

Just read MOS:JOBTITLES but remain unsure about capitalisatoin. I am fairly sure we would say "X was a Fellow of the Royal Society" because that seems to align with the commonly used acronym FRS. But what about people who are fellows of, say, the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge Universities? "X was a Fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge" or "X was a fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge"? Certainly within the documentation of institutions, it is capitalised. Or at least all of the documentation I have ever seen. - Sitush (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how relevant it is here, but FRS is a title of recognition, while fellow of Pembroke is an actual job title. You can find both capitalizations of "Fellow of Pembroke" on the Cambridge web site, but I don't know how to tell which way is more official or more common. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
One can be a member of an Oxbridge fellowship (sic) and gain/bear the financial rewards and responsibilities without ever teaching or indeed even being an academic. For example, many college bursars are financial professionals but, certainly among the colleges I am particularly familiar with, they are all fellows/Fellows and they are paid through their fellowship. People are elected to college fellowships, if that helps at all. - Sitush (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
FRS indicates membership of a society. I don't see it as semantically different from a job title. Zerotalk 06:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the colleges I refer to are societies, the older ones initially being monastic institutions. I've just checked an annual publication from my own college - Peterhouse, Cambridge - and it seems to be capitalised. I could temporarily upload a scan/photo of a page if that would help (although technically a copyvio, we're not going to get sued for it). - Sitush (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Just some examples of how they do it. - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This is something that should probably be decided, but I personally don't really know which. It looks more normal to me (an uncultured American) as "fellow of XXXX college", perhaps because I'm used to decapitalizing military ranks in our articles. I agree with "Fellow of the Royal Society"-- that's definitely correct. Curious to see what the consensus is. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Most modern style guides say to not capitalize... however, based on modern source usage, it looks like most of the real world is ignoring the style guides on this one. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • We wouldn't capitalise just because the initialism is capitalised. We had a discussion (and move reviews that were closed) on much the same topic not that long ago. The advice of JOBTITLES applies per preceded by an article or otherwise modified. Hence, "X was a fellow of the Royal Society" etc. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, that - fellow of the Royal Society - seems ridiculous to me. Are you able to provide any links to those discussions, please? - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • To clarify, if it is a position to which someone is elected/is an awardee, it is not in itself a job title. We do not say commander of the Order of the British Empire, for example. (Or do we now? Please God ...) - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
JOBTITLES is an umbrella term that covers a range of positions - elected, appointed or otherwise conferred. The principle determining factor is whether a modifier (such as an article) is used in the construction or the phrase is otherwise modified. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but you will have to assume I am as thick as two short planks. I don't understand. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion was here. The distinction is between He was appointed Fellow of the Royal Society in ... v He was appointed a fellow of the Royal Society in ... - where "a" is a modifier (being an indefinite article). You would also have a list of commanders of the Order of the British Empire, since the formal title has been modified by pluralising "commander". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Read it. Still makes no sense. I understand what an article modifier is but I can't but help wonder if the rationale in that discussion is persuasive when it flies in the face of common usage by the learned institutions; and whether it even indicates a consensus. Easily fixed: I can just go round and change the wording in Oxbridge biographies so that in future it says "X was elected Fellow of Y college". Would that be acceptable or would a pedantic type then claim WP:POINT? - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Per MOS:CAPS, capitalisation is determined by being consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. Though it flies in the face of common usage by the learned institutions, these institutions are not "independent" of the subject matter. The guidance at MOS:JOBTITLES is the broad community consenses on this. There are two ways to conform to the guideline: omit the article or retain the article but down case "fellow". There may well be someone that objects but this is the prevailing guidance and your solution seems most satisfactory, since it satisfies the guidance and retains the capitalisation, where down-casing is likely to be seen as more objectionable by some. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
More objectionable by the majority, I would have thought, but I realise consensus is not a vote thing and note that there were not that many participants in the discussion. It is, however, a rather silly situation and a pedant's playground, as is most of MOS. I guess we can't have an RfC for everything MOS-related, much as though it sometimes seems one is needed. I'll dig around re: the "majority of independent reliable sources" because I suspect that is wrong in this instance. I'll not go around altering the bios for a day or two, so other people can have a say. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
To "the majority if independent sources", I was simply making the point that the sources you were suggesting weren't independent. This specific guidance is based on a number of major style guides and closely follows the Chicargo Manual of Style. However, the MOS is an horse designed by a committee and sometimes suffers in consequence - tweaking things they don't quite like. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Use "fellow[s]", not "Fellow[s]". It should be really obvious by now that capitalization of letters in an acronym has nothing to do with whether the words that make up the acronym are themselves capitalized, or AIDS would be "Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome", which it obviously is not. This is already covered at MOS:ABBR. When the word is coincidentally part of a proper name, e.g. of an organization, then capitalize it: Independent Order of Odd Fellows. Another proper name example would be when "Fellow" or "Fellowship" is part of the name of a unique endowment or award: "A. B. Ceedie was the Yojimbo X. Doodah Fellow of Telecommunications Security, from 2002 to 2014, at the University of Elbonia." Another is when it's in the title of a work that is rendered in title case: My Fellow Prisoners. But "Charles S. Thompson was a fellow of the Scottish Tartans Society" is a description of a relationship. The fact that becoming such a fellow can sometimes be a major honor doesn't change that. PS: "We do not [write] commander of the Order of the British Empire" – that's because damned near zero reliable sources do, either. That's a case where near-universal conformity in source material overrides what MoS's default would be (even for very similar, and actually military, constructions, like "attained the rank of commander in the Royal Navy").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Honorific prefixes

Re: Honorific prefixes

In articles about Commonwealth officials, "honourable" and similar honorifics typically are shown in the info-box above the subject's name. This is not typically done for U.S. officials. The difference in practice probably results from the greater frequency of use of the honorifics in reliable sources in Commonwealth nations than the U.S. Should we change the guideline to reflect this usage? TFD (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

We should just remove the honorifics. US judges are entitled, in their legal context among their peers and such, to the same sorts of titles, but we're not using them. It's not Wikipedia's role to declare someone "honorable" much like "right honorable", and we know that many people with such honorifics are not in fact very honorable at all. It's entirely sufficient if the article on the office/job/title/position/role/station indicates that persons in it are, when the writer is intending to be respectful, given such an honorific. WP's intent is not to be respectful, just studiously neutral.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this edit MOS-compliant?

Hi MOSsers,

In this edit, the full birth name of the subject of a biography is set in bold on its appearance in the second section; is this MOS-compliant? (There is no redirect from the birth name to the title of the article. The same editor makes a large number of similar edits with the same edit summary "Birth name underlined.")

Thanks, JBL (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Trying again to drum up some interest in this question, since the edits are continuing in bulk. --JBL (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, no, but the solution is the create to redirect, since it should exist.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on royal titles, especially in relation to pretenders and would-be holders of titles now abolished

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#RfC (archdukes)

It involves MOS:JOBTITLES and MOS:HONORIFICS (as well as the core content policies and WP:COMMONNAME). There are two similar proposals, developed out of several earlier discussions at that noticeboard and elsewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Chief of Naval Operations

As someone who is often confused by this MOS, I came across this recently where the page for the Chief of Naval Operations of the United States Navy has seen the official title changed to lowercase. I would think the CNO is not part of the subset of titles we refer to as a "common noun", as there are only two CNOs in the world (the other being South Korea). But that does beg the question - is this a correct decision? I am just curious. What about "Chief of Navy" which is more widespread? Would it be correct for a sentence to say: "Admiral Soandso was the former chief of navy", when grammatically it should be "Admiral Soandso was the former chief of the navy/Chief of Navy"? Seeking advice, thank you. Seloloving (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"chief" is a common noun, "naval" is a common adjective, and "operations" is a common noun. I would write "Chief of Naval Operations John Doe is a well respected officer," because (in this example) the phrase is used as a title. I would write "the chief of naval operations commands respect," because (in this example) the phrase is modified by "the" and isn't used as a title. In the "chief of Navy" example, by default, I'd make "chief" lowercase but "Navy" capitalized.
I hope this makes some sense. I haven't had enough coffee yet and this is a somewhat tricky topic to discuss. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 14:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I am impressed by the extremely quick reply. Thank you. I would say I agree with most of your clarification. "chief of Navy" is incredibly awkward though, as "Chief of Navy" is correct as a title, but "chief of Navy" implies that he's simply the current chief of the navy and makes no reference to his official title. What about "Admiral Soandso is the current Chief of Naval Operations/chief of naval operations of the United States Navy"? In this case, it's implying that he's current holder of an official title, so I would assume it would be the first option? Seloloving (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Since "current" modifies "chief of naval operations" in your example, it's not being used as an official title. I'd say "Admiral Soandso is the current chief of naval operations of the United States Navy." If we get rid of the adjective, then it would be "Admiral Soandso is Chief of Naval Operations of the United States Navy" or "Chief of Naval Operations Soandso holds the rank of admiral." —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 15:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense, thank you. Seloloving (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The rub is that even "Admiral Soandso is Chief of Naval Operations of the United States Navy" has detractors, who want to see "Admiral Soandso is chief of naval operations of the United States Navy", because the job title is not directly attached to the name – it isn't even in the same clause, but is in the predicate of the sentence while "Admiral Soandso" is in the subject), and lowercasing it in this case is how the actual guideline is written.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLE

A query, I'm reviewing an article and it currently says (after already introducing that we are talking about Charles I, "and after fleeing London, the King established himself at York in March. The King twice attempted to take Hull in 1642 without success," etc. Is this a case where king is lower-cased? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67, this is one the thing I think JOBTITLES should correct. It is something that originally comes from CMOS wrt capping "the Queen". CMOS states it is an ENGVAR thing (Britttish and presumably Commonwealth countries where the Queen is the monarch) and, giving only that example, it does not make it clear if it only extends to the current monarch. If it was about a duke, a general or even an emperor, the guidance would be clear to down-case. Replacing with the name (Charles) or a pronoun ('he') is the alternative. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I take it you are referring to "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II)"? So caps is correct under current guidance? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
When reading JOBTITLES as a whole, it is ambiguous - using "the Queen" only while Elizabeth II is the monarch as opposed to capitalising "the King" for a past-tense reference for a monarch no longer reigning. There is some contradiction between that particular dot point and, with the opening sentence and the tabulated examples. On the otherhand, if we were talking about a general, the answer would be clear and we would not write "the President" in a similar situation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
In fact, we absolutely would write "the President" in a similar situation, as is done on our Featured article on Richard Nixon, for example: "In late April, the President announced that Nixon would again be his running mate." As the bullet point says, a capital letter is used "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office". This is the case for Queen Elizabeth II at the moment, King Charles I in the article being discussed, and President Eisenhower in the Nixon article. This is unambiguous; neither the first sentence, nor the tabulated examples refer to cases where the title is being used as a substitute for their name. Harrias talk 19:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
We once had an illustrative example of this in the guideline, something like "at the April 2016 meeting between the Queen and the President", referring specifically and only to Elizabeth II and Obama, as stand-ins for their names. It would probably help to have that in there. Writing of Alfred the Great, we might say "The King then moved his entire household to ...", but "It is unclear why Alfred, as a younger son, was selected to become king" (a role that he did not yet have when he was considered for selection, i.e. a reference to the role in a generic sense, not a reference to his individual person). In a context in which the monarch (or whatever) has not even been mentioned by name and it doesn't particularly matter to that material who that crowned head was, use lower case: "These actions, though nominally performed under license from the king, drew sharp critique from many nobles, and were among the factors that led to civil war a generation later." (In something like that we don't even know which king when issued such license; if it were actions taken by the 13 earl of Whatsit, the crown (not "Crown") may have been a different king, who vested the [ab]used authority originally in the 11th earl of Whatsit, and without any action or even awareness since then by the king after him, or the one after that).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Something to think about: There's a 2008 academic article that analyzes the trend towards using "president" in lieu of "President"

The article is located here behind Wiley's paywall. For those lucky enough to have an active account at a library with an active ProQuest subscription, the article is also available on ProQuest Central (which is where I first found it).

I haven't fully digested the article, but it looks like the trend began in the American political science community during the early 1970s as part of a program of opposition to the idea of the Imperial Presidency during and after the Watergate scandal. The article explains that before 1970, "President" was always universally written as such. The chart in the article explains a lot: several magazines and newspapers with broad nationwide distribution (including the New York Times and Time magazine) did not switch to lowercase "president" until 2000 or later. That's why Americans who first learned how to write in the 1990s—like myself—strongly dislike a lowercase usage which in the 1990s was mostly found in arcane political science journals. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The "conventional" usage in English is to only capitalise such nouns when they are being used as an honorific title. Doctor Jones v. Jones is a doctor, or President Smith v. Smith was elected president. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Yep. And this source demonstrates that the lower-casing of "president" has been happening for much longer than people here sometimes suggest. Even if newspapers in particular (eager as they are to not offend advertisers or readers nor to receive a flood of nit-picking letters to the editor) did not adopt it until around 2000, that's still way more than enough time to disqualify the lower-casing trend from being labeled a "recentism". If anyone thinks newspapers and news magazines do not receive a flood of nit-picks, The New Yorker reports that the no. 1 type of complaint letter they receive is about their typographic practices (like various Briticisms, and preservation of the pronunciation diaeresis, as in "coöperate"). Newspapers in particular are prone to over-capitalization of anything they think someone will be offended by seeing in lower case. This is much of the reason for MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, WP:NCCAPS and the "WP is not written in news style" provision of WP:NOT#NEWS. If editors were left to auto-capitalize anything they ever see capitalized, then almost everything would be capitalized on Wikipedia, because someone somewhere will capitalize it to signify subjective importance (e.g. in specialized publications, quasi-literate blogs, low-end news reporting, political writing, marketing materials and other business writing, etc.).

PS: I don't agree with Coolcaesar's timeline, as any kind of universal one. I'm almost a generation older, and while I was in junior high [middle] school, I did have one teacher say that "president" in reference to the US president in particular must "always" be capitalized; she was in her 50s at least. But this "rule" was not in our actual textbook. I don't recall later instructors repeating this, either. One could definitely see the practice in much news reporting, but by the time I got into college around 1988, it was not expected in writing there (at that level, there's a good chance one's assignments will involve writing about a lot of presidents – of other countries, of institutions, of corporations, etc., making the American exceptionalism of "President" more glaring). So, I think what one was taught in what era probably had mostly to do with state-level textbook selection processes and the random results of the "who's my teacher this semester?" lottery. K–12 teachers are not exactly linguists. I had one around the same time try to tell me that spatial was pronounced /SPAT-ee-ul/, and that the word pronounced /SPAY-shul/ was spelled spacial. I had to get a dictionary out and prove otherwise to her. I had others tell me that not ending a sentence with a preposition and not splitting an infinitive were hard-and-fast rules of English, and we all know that's not true and never has been; it's a Victorian fantasy about how English should be more like Latin because the latter was romantically seen as the perfect language.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

At one time, important words were usually capitalized: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Today, capitalization of offices is sometimes done out of respect, but there is no reason why we should adopt that style. TFD (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hypocorisms

Most of Hypocorism, particularly lists of common nicknames, was recently removed per concerns at Talk:Hypocorism#Unsourced_/_original_research_moved about it being uncited. For those with resources, it would be particularly helpful to resurrect the English ones, which is also referenced by the MOS:HYPOCORISM guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's an article researching matter, not an MoS one. If MOS:HYPOCORISM is linking to specific sections of Hypocorism that have disappeared or been denuded, we should just link the main article rather than to the missing material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, specifically it's at the MOS's footnote d, which liberally refers and quotes Hypocorism to explain "common" hypocorisms.—Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I see. I rewrote the footnote to include some examples and general principles, without depending on the article content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

New subsection on Ecclesiastical titles

I propose a new subsection 3.1.2 titled "Ecclesiastical titles." The content would be as follows:

If reliable sources consistently use an ecclesiastical title (e.g. Pope, Elder, Patriarch, Sister, Cardinal), then it should be used on Wikipedia as well, at least on the first instance. It may be used on subsequent instances, if reliable sources typically use it (e.g. Patriarch Bartholomew) or if the context provided is useful. Otherwise, the subject's surname is sufficient and conforms to general encyclopedic style. In some cases, such as to avoid repetition, it may be acceptable to refer to the subject by their title alone in subsequent instances (e.g. "A non-union crew from NBC appeared at the cardinal's residence to cover one of O'Connor's press conferences.").

--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Honorific section indicates that titles of clergy should be handled (in articles) in the same manner as described for article titles at the naming conventions page. Also, if 'cardinal' is more akin to a job title, and 'cardinal' should be used on its own to refer to such a person, that would imply that a baker would similarly be referred to by his job title rather than using his name, which would seem a bit unusual. Though there may be situations where readability would be improved by using the title (e.g. the person's name has been used already in the same sentence), it seems unnecessary generally. (Exceptions for this, such as for Popes, are already handled at WP:HONORIFIC.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
In principle, your actual proposal seems okay. Perhaps a paraphrase of your wording could be added as a single bullet point in the honorific section (or moved to the Positions, offices, and occupational titles section if you think it's a better fit) to more clearly indicate that the usage for names of clergy apply in article text as they do for titles. Creating a new section seems unnecessary as both existing sections cover usage whether it's a title or an honorific.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure I get your point with regards to most clergy. The example you give is for hierarchs who go by one name. That makes sense for us moderns who are used to a two-word nomenclature. For the average cleric who has 2-3 names, it doesn't seem necessary. Am I missing something? Daniel the Monk (talk)
Daniel the Monk, This originally came from a discussion with AlmostFrancis. He would object to saying, for example, "Cardinal Michael Czerny." He believes "cardinal" is an honorific and should be excluded. What we ended up using in that article was a title instead, so "Michael Czerny, the under-secretary of the Migrants and Refugees Section of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development." That seems unnecessarily wordy if his exact title is not important, but it is relevant to indicate that he is a high ranking cleric. There is also the issue of WP:LDSJARGON, which proscribes a style for speaking about Mormon clergy. I believe it should be standardized across religions. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
It would ordinarily come down to context. If his roles as cardinal and under-secretary are both notable, both would be initially mentioned in the article. But if discussing his role as under-secretary, it would be unnecessary to refer to him as 'cardinal' (and vice versa), and for either he could simply be referred to by surname after his relevant role is initially stated. (Unless his role as under-secretary were not notable, it would be next to useless to instead identify him only as 'cardinal'.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Jeffro77, I agree with you, but there are others that do not. This proposal is an attempt to clear it up. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I understand. Yes, that specific example could be confusing, except that if it's in a Church context, the presumption would be that the specific ecceslesiastic title would be the one to note. The terms of secretary and undersectretary are never used by those for referring to an individual. Over the years of editing here, I've gotten used to using only a surname in referring to a cleric by his surname. It has come to seem a cleaner way of writing. As regards the one-name hierarchs I referred to, then I generally use just the title and name, no numbers, for simplicity and clarity, similar to the comment below. It might not be MOS but seems less awkward. Thoughts? I also notice another recent thread on here with a similar concern. It looks like the consensus on that one is pretty similar to what we are saying. Daniel the Monk (talk)
  • Comment: This had come up at Talk:Abune Mathias a few months ago. I found there's already a WP:NCCL guideline which says, for example, we should name Ethiopian patriarch articles as "Abune X". I think that some articles have gone back-and-forth regarding "Mar Thoma" (IIRC) without real consensus for changing it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I think some of these are more like an honorific than a job description (e.g. Elder, Cardinal), while others are more a job description than an honorific (e.g. Pope, Patriarch, Sister). Treating them as all the same is a mistake, since (for example) cardinals do many different things, and some do not even participate in electing a pope. tahc chat 19:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Usage of the person’s surname is generally sufficient, with exceptions as already indicated in the Honorifics section. A new section is not warranted. Standard can be briefly clarified under existing Honorifics or Positions, offices, and occupational titles sections if necessary.—Jeffro77 (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    Jeffro77, If it does become a bullet at Honorifics, how would you word it? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
On further consideration, the First mention subsection under Names (MOS:FULLNAME) already says to give the full commonly used name, and the Subsequent use subsection (MOS:SURNAME) already says that after a person's name is initially given in full, subsequent use should be by surname only. I am not convinced that sufficient reason exists for special elaboration beyond this general guideline to be made for ecclesiastical titles. (The section also notes to take care not to use a title when describing events prior to when that title was conferred.) The main Titles of people section says to "Use titles where they are necessary for clarity or identification in the context", which to me already conveys that it is otherwise not necessary to use a person's title rather than their name after it is initially given, unless it is especially important contextually or for readability.
It is unfortunate that there is currently a circular reference wherein WP:NCWC says to see this page for how to use names of clergy within article text, but the honorifics section at this page says to use names of clergy (in article text) as indicated at WP:NCWC. That said, I would simply remove the existing statement from the honorifics subsection about names of clergy (i.e. for roles rather than honorifics). The Positions, offices, and occupational titles subsection already notes that it includes popes and bishops, so to me it is clear that it also applies to other ecclesiastical roles discussed here, and I'm not sure an exhaustive list of roles is necessary (though I see no harm in adding 'cardinals').
(The intent of the Titles section is actually about how titles should be capitalised, not whether titles should be included with or instead of personal names.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on the whole. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am against the wording of the first part. First, it is too vague to be of much use and also has the expecation backwards. Some thing more definitive like "it should be used on Wikipedia only on the first instance unless sources typlically use it as a proper name e.g. "Mother Theresa". The context sentence will just lead to arguments on when "context" is useful, since it was added the first time readers shouldn't need reminding of the context anyway. The list is also has too many low ranking clergy so "Father" and "Sister" should be removed. We should never be reffering to a cardinal as "cardinal" in wikipedia's voice when not used as a title or honorific, so a strongest possible oppose to that section "A non-union crew from NBC appeared at O'Connor's residence to cover one of his press conferences." easy peasy.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
    AlmostFrancis, If you click on the "e.g.," in the readability section you will see I picked an example from an article that's been there since 2009. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll fix that sentence tommorow. Looks like that article needs a lot of work, thanks for pointing it out. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support for the concept, I pointed out in a similar discussion that names with such honorifics sometimes such honorifics are way more common than names without. To give a Western example, it would be weird to write an article on Pope Francis without calling him "Pope" at least once. I agree with others that this can be better explained in WP:HONORIFIC without necessarily creating a new section.VR talk 15:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment, tending to Oppose this would be very confusing in anything to do with the clergy in the history of Judaism. There were some eras where rabbis were known by their first names such as during the Talmudic era. And there is modern-day dispute between various sects not recognizing the rabbis of other sects or streams. So the most WP:NPOV way of doing things is the way it's been on WP the last 20 years and leave good enough alone, letting the articles explain the honorifics. Technically, to be a rabbi one needs formal and official ordination known as Semicha but the title Rabbi also means "teacher (of Torah)" and there are many Rabbis who teach Torah but who do not have formal Semicha. So it can get very confusing and with no way to track down who has real Semicha it becomes risky for Wikipedia to "grant them their de facto Wikipedia Semicha"! IZAK (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as too PoV-laden, vague, and unnecessary. We already use such titles in the first instance at the subject's own article. It can also be used in a context in which it is needed for clarity (e.g. to distinguish between people of similar names in the same passage, or to indicate why the person being mentioned is even relevant to the context). That is sufficient. This desire to keep tacking the title on, over and over again, to be "respectful" is never going to fly, for the very WP:NPOV reason that this is the motivation in the first place. WP is not written in news style as a matter of policy; it simply does not matter that lots of newspapers, etc., over-use titles. They do it because they have subscriber and advertiser bases that they bend over backward to avoid offending at nearly all costs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose at least in the form presented. The suggestion refers to "an ecclesiastical title (e.g. Pope, Elder, Patriarch, Sister, Cardinal)" but those titles are too diverse to be covered by one rule. At one extreme, Pope is almost always used as a prefix for the man's regnal name and number (Pope Tawadros II or Pope Francis), rather than prefixed to his birth name or surname (Pope Wojtyła or Pope Joseph Ratzinger). At the other extreme a Cardinal is referred to by his ordinary name (Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Cardinal Bernard Law). So the title Cardinal is functionally the same as Professor, President and many other prefixes. And Pope is in the same category as King or Kaiser.
From that we can deduce what the rule is. A pope loses his birth name and gains something like a royal title. We cannot usefully refer to him by his birth name. A cardinal keeps his name and acquires an honorific. An Elder probably keeps her/his birth name so is like a cardinal. A Patriarch in the orthodox churches is, as far as I know titled without a surname (Metropolitan Anthony), so is in the King/Pope category. A sister in the context of this proposal is, I suggest, the same (Mother Teresa as suggested above). A bishop, archbishop, imam, rabbi etc may be named in the style Bishop Eric within the religious group concerned; but in everyday secular usage, and therefore on Wikipedia, it is simply a job title and should be dealt with in the same way as Mayor, Governor and so on. (The historical rabbis known by first name only are an exception, but so are many historical names, Leonardo, Galileo, Bede, and we are guided defined by common usage.) Sussexonian (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not sure I understand the reason for the proposal even after reading the discussion you linked. Are there instances where using a title would be clearer and more NPOV? In my experience editing Wikipedia on LDS subjects, not using the honorifics is a helpful cue to readers that the prose is different from say, a church publication, which would refer to subjects by their title and last name. It is also clearer, because individuals may hold different titles over the course of their life. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC on capitalization of the word "Senator"/"senator" in Template:Infobox officeholder

Please see this RFC about capitalization of the word "Senator"/"senator" in {{Infobox officeholder}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of "the" in a stage name

Feel free to join the discussion regarding the capitalization of "the" in a solo musician's stage name: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Capitalization_of_"the"_in_a_stage_name. Permanent link: [18]. Some1 (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Pierre Gemayel

How should his lede be reworked? I'm assuming the wording "(last name also spelt Jmayyel, Jemayyel or al-Jumayyil; Sheikh is an honorific title in Arab countries)" isn't MOS-compliant. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? Nehme1499 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: "(last name also spelt ...)" is fine, assuming this article is using British English. "Sheikh is an honorific..." isn't typically included. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so the fact that there are two brackets one after the other is not an issue? Nehme1499 (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
​Ah, right. These would be better joined together, so "... 29 August 1984; last name also spelt ..." Dan Bloch (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to create an efn note next to Sheikh Pierre Gemayel (such as in Rabih Ataya)? Nehme1499 (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
​In the absence of guidelines, you're really free to do this any way you want (even adjacent parentheses). Natalia Gordienko is an example of my previous suggested style; Maria Yatrakis is yet another possibility. Having said that, efns in lead sentences seem distracting to me, and I wouldn't advise them. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. What about cases like Felix Michel Melki, should efns be used there? Nehme1499 (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Should MOS:ETHNICITY mention only one nationality?

A general question from Talk:Shing-Tung Yau#Exclusively one nationality in the lead sentence? with Skyerise:

  1. Should MOS:ETHNICITY discourage the "X-born Y" construction?
  2. Should MOS:ETHNICITY state that only one nationality should be mentioned in the first sentence of an article?

Currently, MOS:ETHNICITY only excludes mentioning nationalities that are not relevant to notability (previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability and if the person is notable mainly for past events). It doesn’t exclude mentioning two nationalities for people who have done notable work under two different nationalities at different points in time or simultaneously (dual nationalities). — MarkH21talk 19:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Historically it has been interpreted in precisely that way, that there should be one nationality in the lead sentence, and that that nationality should be the one that the subject held at the time they did the work for which they first became notable. There are many problems with the "X-born Y" construction: first, it frequently looks like an ethnicity rather than a nationality. Case in point, Yau was a citizen of British-governed Hong Kong when he did the work that resulted in his notability. Hong Kong did not become part of China until 1997. Second, being born in a country does not automatically determine one's nationality. Not all countries grant nationality based on place of birth, in many countries it depends on the citizenship status of the parents. Skyerise (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Note for this particular case: there was no such thing as Hong Kong citizenship (only Hong Kong permanent residency, cf. British nationality law and Hong Kong) and Shing-Tung Yau was born in Shantou in mainland China, not Hong Kong.
But back to the general questions: say someone becomes minorly WP-notable under one initial nationality (e.g. two GNG sources) and then becomes globally-renowned for their work under a second nationality (e.g. a Nobel Prize). Why should they only be listed under their initial notability? That doesn’t really make sense. MOS:ETHNICITY shouldn’t restrict the first sentence to the nationality under which a person first became WP-notable if they were notable for accomplishments under multiple nationalities. — MarkH21talk 20:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it is the country of citizenship or permanent residency. He became a permanent resident of the US prior to his work and the work was done in the US at American universities. Then he was naturalized. In particular, he was a permanent resident of the US while he was technically stateless, so American is probably the best choice. His place of birth is clearly visible at the top of the infobox and shouldn't be mentioned in the lead sentence for the same reason we don't put the place of birth in parentheses with the date of birth. Skyerise (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Can we focus on the guideline at MOS:ETHNICITY in this talk section, and keep the Shing-Tung Yau discussion at Talk:Shing-Tung Yau? Thanks. — MarkH21talk 20:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
To answer the original questions: no, and no. "One size fits all" approaches to this do not work, because there are always complicated cases. By default, we should specify the primary country of citizenship or permanent residency during the period of notability, but this won't cover every case. See debates at Talk:Nikola Tesla for example, or the lead of Alex Pagulayan. People change citizenship or have multi-citizenship, and some become known for an ethnicity or nationality that doesn't match legal technicalities (see also James Joyce, who was technically a British citizen for much of his life but is universally considered an Irish not British author). This part is in there for good reason: "previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." It various cases such details are so relevant. To the extent that "X-born Y" or other multi-nationality constructions are often not actually helpful to readers, the guideline already discourages them, via the material I just quoted from it. So, nothing is broken here and nothing needs to be fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No and no. There is nothing to be fixed here, the MOS allows flexibility, which is as it should be. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No to both. However, guidance on the special cases would be helpful. That can be captured in an essay, which itself could get integrated into the guideline if it becomes widely cited.—Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No to either, but I do think changing previous nationalities to other nationalities could address some of the issues brought up here. There are plenty of cases where the nationality that's not relevant to the subject's notability is a current one. Sometimes even the sole current nationality is irrelevant (e.g. if someone moved to another country in retirement, and years later gave up their original citizenship to naturalise there). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Sometimes even the sole current nationality is irrelevant ...: Perhaps, but it's likely that drive-by editors will constantly "fix" a lead sentence if they notice a one-off lead sentence missing the current nationality.—Bagumba (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

JOBTITLES gone wild

At first, I 'somewhat' went along with the de-capitalisation push. But now, WP:JOBTITLES has morphed into being used as a 'sledge hammer'. Even infoboxes are no longer immune. What's gonna be next? article titles? GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"Hypocorism"

I'm not entirely sure why, but I've had a request to discuss my recent change to this page] before submitting it. The change removes uses of the word "hypocorism". Per the edit summary, "hypocorism" is an obscure synonym for "pet name".[1][2][3] In this article it's being used under the misimpression that it means a diminutive or short form of a name. Since this isn't the case, the use here makes the article harder to read (and slightly misleading) without adding any clarity.

Unless someone points out something I'm missing, I'll resubmit the change in a day or two. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Hypocorism". merriam-webster.com.
  2. ^ "Hypocorism". dictionary.com.
  3. ^ "Hypocorism". Oxford English Dictionary (subscription required). Definition in its entirety is "rare – A pet-name".
Danbloch, our article at hypocorism says that it can be a diminutive form of a person's name, such as Izzy for Isobel or Bob for Robert. It is uncited, though. Are you saying that's not correct? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: It can be a diminutive form of a person's name, but it can also unrelated to the name, like "Snookums". Dan Bloch (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Danbloch, gotcha. We need to keep it in the MOS that simple diminutive forms (like "Mike" for "Michael") don't need to be spelled out. I don't see any problems with your edit. I wonder if the editor who reverted you, Necrothesp, has any specific objection? Maybe there's an issue with your edit that I'm not seeing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the term can have more than one meaning, and that we're using it in a narrow sense which is not the only possible sense. However, we're explicitly defining what we mean by it, so there is no confusion potential ("a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name"). Thus, this thread and the revision behind it are a solution in search of a problem for the most part. The fact that hypocorism can also refer to silly pet names like "Honeybunch" is simply irrelevant, since those would not be used in an encyclopedic context for any reason, and are a matter of private idiolect between individuals. Our in situ definition rules that interpretation out, anyway, since "Snookums" isn't a diminutive or abbreviation of a name, but a complete alternative to it. I would agree that the term hypocorism is a bit geeky, though, so we could reduce repetition of it. Since we mean "common diminutives and other shortenings of longer names", we could say exactly that in place of one of the uses of hypocorism, and otherwise tighten up the prose to not use the word so much. Some of the revisions in the reverted edit were okay, but some were explicitly unhelpful, like trying to use nickname as if synonymous, when much of the point of this material is distinguishing diminutives and other shortenings (Jennie, Rob, Xander when short for Alexander) from actual nicknames like "Buzz" or "Magic". Similarly, the removal of the early clarification that initials are not treated as hypocorisms but have their own style undermines the MoS distinction between them (since "diminutive or abbreviation" could otherwise be taken to include initials as a form of abbreviation). WP:Policy writing is hard; any time you make changes to a page like this, there are apt to be unintended negative consequences if you have not fully absorbed exactly how the altered sentence[s] interact with others in the same and other pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can see, this is a solution in need of a problem. The wording was already perfectly explicit and we are not misusing hypocorism, since it can indeed mean a diminutive as well as other forms of pet name or nickname. That's why I reverted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish and Necrothesp: The term has exactly one meaning; it's a synonym for "pet name". If you read the article with "pet name" substituted for "hypocorism" you can see how odd it sounds. To the extent that we're redefining it that would be antithetical to everything Wikipedia stands for.
@SMcCandlish: Your argument that "nickname" is not synonymous with diminutives and other shortenings is exactly the same as my argument that "hypocorism" is not synonymous with diminutives and other shortenings. The reason "nicknames" is preferable is that people already know what it means, so they can read the sentence easily. If you can suggest an alternate wording I'd be happy to use it, but I don't see a problem.
I didn't make any change related to initials. I think you must have misread that.
@Necrothesp: Even if we weren't redefining a word, the problem that this is the solution for is that a person shouldn't have to learn a new word in order to edit Wikipedia.
Dan Bloch (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Or is your objection that "nickname" doesn't include short forms? I thought it did, but that's not as clear as I would have liked. Dictionary.com says it is, but some other dictionaries are more vague. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
"But I don't see a problem": It's already been explained to you. Again: Some of the revisions in the reverted edit were okay, but some were explicitly unhelpful, like trying to use nickname as if synonymous, when much of the point of this material is distinguishing diminutives and other shortenings (Jennie, Rob, Xander when short for Alexander) from actual nicknames like "Buzz" or "Magic". "Your argument that 'nickname' is not synonymous with diminutives and other shortenings is exactly the same as my argument that 'hypocorism' is not synonymous". It is not the same argument at all. Again: we're using hypocorism in a narrow sense which is not the only possible sense. However, we're explicitly defining what we mean by it, so there is no confusion potential ("a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name"). We're also explicitly defining what we mean by nickname, as something distinct from this sense of hypocorism, so the same material cannot rationally use them as synonymous. What is unclear about this? To repeat a third thing: The fact that hypocorism can also refer to silly pet names like "Honeybunch" is simply irrelevant, since those would not be used in an encyclopedic context for any reason, and are a matter of private idiolect between individuals. Our in situ definition rules that interpretation out, anyway, since "Snookums" isn't a diminutive or abbreviation of a name, but a complete alternative to it. Let's try this again from a different angle, using another word that has multiple meanings, e.g. sanction, which in that case is potentially worse because the word is actually an outright autoantonym. At Wikipedia:Sanctions, we explicitly define what we mean by it: "Sanctions are restrictions on editing Wikipedia that are applied to users or topic areas by the Wikipedia community and the Arbitration Committee in order to resolve disputes and curtail disruptive behaviour." Thus, it is not feasible that anyone is going to think this refers to the opposite meaning of "formal approval or official imprimatur". Similarly, because we define "hypocorism" to mean something specific and limited, no one reasonable is going to assume it means the other thing, especially since the other thing (personal pet names) is something that has no relation to encyclopedic writing in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Again: This page defines hypocorism incorrectly. This is wrong. I may not get to it right away, but I'll be revisiting this. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the advantage of using an obscure term like hypocorism when we need to define it with a more common term (diminutive), especially when the more common term is also more precise.--Trystan (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree. It is stupid to use an obscure term like "hypocrism" - especially when it's being used wrongly.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Former and emeritus

@David Eppstein: Some articles call deceased professors "professor emeritus" in the lead. They might read, say, "John Kung was the Milton Perez Professor of Finance emeritus at the Fine Business School." But emeritus is a courtesy title given to retired professors, and generally isn't used after they've died. While they're still alive, it's common to say "John Kung is Professor emeritus", but after they've died, I think it's better style to say "John Kung was the Milton Perez Professor of Finance at the Fine Business School." Somewhere in the article, it will say something like "Kung became emeritus in 2005" which is academic jargon for "Kung retired in 2005". For those universities where emeritus is not automatic, it might read "Kung was named emeritus in 2005 by the Academic Senate".

Obituaries often say "John Kung was Milton Perez Professor of Finance emeritus" to indicate that at the time he died, he had already retired. But an encyclopedia article is not an obituary, and we don't list other honors in the lead.

This is similar to how we talk about other titles and positions. We don't say "Richard Nixon was the former President of the United States" after his death. We say "Richard Nixon was the President of the United States", even if he was no longer in office when he died. Comments? --Macrakis (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

If people are using it for professors who died while active as a professor, they are using the term mistakenly. Professor emeritus is a title given to retired professors, in many universities by default, in others as a special honor. Once they die, they are still someone who was a retired professor, so the professor emeritus title is still valid for them, especially in part of the article that describes their retirement. And especially in cases where it is a special honor rather than a default, it should be preserved. We should not add blanket rules like the one you tried to add saying that certain kinds of wording are forbidden for dead people. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I never suggested that anyone was using it for professors who died while active.
Let's say that Prof. Kung became emeritus in 2005 and died in 2010. The obituary in 2010 might well read "John Kung, emeritus professor of X, died yesterday after a long illness", because at the time he died, he had emeritus status. But in a biography written in 2020, it would be strange to say "John Kung, an emeritus professor of mathematics, contributed to multiple areas of topology", just as it would be strange to say "Jack Welch, the retired CEO of General Electric, rewarded shareholders generously". The natural thing to say is "John Kung, a professor of mathematics, contributed to multiple areas of topology." and mention his emeritus status at the chronological point in the article when he became emeritus. --Macrakis (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
That is a level of subtlety that cannot be achieved by adding rules to the MOS stating without qualification that the words "former" and "emeritus" are forbidden from articles about dead people. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Once they've died, the biographical note should talk about their career as a whole, not their status at the time of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macrakis (talk • contribs)
This non-response fails to address the issue that your change would forbid any discussion of the part of their career during which they were emeritus. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree, the word "emeritus" is perfectly reasonable in the right contexts, e.g., "while emeritus, Kung published his magnum opus" or "Kung became emeritus in 2010" or "even after he was emeritus, Kung continued to advise graduate students". Where it is inappropriate is "in the lead" (as I said above) where we summarize who the person was. Saying "John Kung was professor emeritus of basketweaving at Minor University" is just as in appropriate, to my ear, as saying "John Kung was the former president of the American Academy of Basketweaving" in the lead, where it suffices (for a deceased person) to say "John Kung was a president of the American Academy of Basketweaving". --Macrakis (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Take out "once they've died" from that sentence and it would still be true. But their career as a whole includes the time in which they are a professor emeritus. We should not forbid talking about emeritus status merely because they died. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree there's no reason to ban "emeritus".--Jack Upland (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Just because something is the correct or sensible thing to do, doesn't mean that it needs to be prescribed in the MOS. --JBL (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the Protocol School of Washington, which publishes Honor & Respect: The Official Guide to Names, Titles, & Forms of Address ISBN 0989188604 says quite clearly on their website: "Emeritus is only used with the names of the living". That said, I don't know how authoritative that organization is.
But I have been around academia all my life, and that's my sense as well (though that's WP:OR, of course). --Macrakis (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with the OP. The only time I can think of that "was a professor emeritus" might make some kind of sense would be if this was revoked by the institution, due to some scandal, during the person's lifetime. But that would be much better explained in long form in the article body than hinted at craftily in the lead with grammatical nuances that would be lost on many if not most readers. Anyway, someone alive is a professor emeritus, or was a professor; someone dead was a professor. But "was a professor emeritus" is almost always going to be redundant and illogical, and not very helpful even in the rare instances that it might conceptually have a semi-sensible implication. I think what's happening here is that some people who don't know what the phrase means are assuming it means "professor plus" and are using it as if it were an independent title that was a higher grade than "professor", as "professor" is above "associate professor".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Generally, but you do get "became emeritus" or "went emeritus" in past tense, as a euphemistic way of saying "retired". I agree it should not be used of the dead otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
My 2c: in general I think it's (more concise and) correct to say someone dead "was a professor" instead of "was a professor emerita", as SMcCandlish says. I'm not sure this needs to be an actual hard and fast MOS 'rule', and I can think of edge cases where "was a professor emerita" might be better, like if someone only became notable only as (or even: for being) a professor emerita, and then died (or if someone somehow got named "professor emerita" without being a professor at that institution first). -sche (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:UKNATIONALS

Is it possible to clean up and turn WP:UKNATIONALS, which is currently an essay due to a 2007-08 discussion, into a MOS guideline? Since that discussion, the ideas in that essay have been reiterated in multiple discussions since and have implicit consensus too. It'd be nice to formally have them as a MOS guideline, since edit warring and arbitrary change on the issue still seems to pop up from time to time (eg a current ANI discussion). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Only if it is stubbed down into an actual guideline and not a potted civics lesson. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
David Eppstein, yeah, it'd need some cleanup at minimum, probably rewriting a guideline from scratch using the ideas in that essay / other discussions would be easier. Just starting this discussion to get some thoughts on the issue. It does document already existing consensus, and it is a constantly disputed area, so I figured it might benefit from a formal guideline. Though, the case could be made that such a guideline isn't necessary since WP:UKNATIONALS is often taken to document consensus anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems 80% of WP:UKNATIONALS is completely useless to MOS. It would be good to have some guidelines on UK nationality if it were condensed further down. However, given the nature of the topic (and the recent discussion about how to format infoboxes for the UK with seemingly no consensus) and some editors believing that "There is no English *nationality*"[19][20] (despite the English people article) it may be difficult to get consensus. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Not to mention the racists who think only white people can properly be called English. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: It's not an issue of racism in many instances, but the fact that "English" can apply both to people from England and to that ethnicity of people the majority of whose ancestors lived in England hundreds or more years ago when being anything other than white was a rarity. Edward the Confessor is English in both senses, but more modern Englishmen might meet only one criterion (and still qualify as English). GPinkerton (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
It is often blatant racism, honestly. I'm not saying that ANI case was necessarily racism, but the issue with being told you can't use "English" is something that many people from foreign descent face. Again, English as a nationality is a thing, perhaps it's also a term that can be used ethnically, but per MOS:ETHNICITY we use the term in a nationality sense, so there's no reason to be discussing ethnicity here. As for the consistency on when to use English over British and vice versa, there should be no attempt to standardise this because it won't obtain consensus. We just need a guideline on how to figure out which to use. Aside from the odd person who tries to go around making mass-changes, the consensus from the previous discussions on the matter has been relatively stable, and, speaking from observation, it seems like we defer to English/Scottish/Welsh over British in most cases.
Some thought needs to go into how to write up the implicit consensus into a guideline, but it's not so much making policy as much as it is figuring out how to accurately and usefully document what Wikipedia has done on articles for over a decade. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
That's the thing; is it consensus? How is it measured? There is also the issue that ascribing nationality is quite like ascribing ethnicity, with people living or dead, with the same issue that neither has an official status and there is the nationalism that goes along with racism. Nation and ethnicity mean the same thing in some contexts, others not (they're the same thing etymologically). Then's the added complexity of citizenship vs nationality - which is more important? I'm not at all interesting in standardizing anything, but the page as it stands is not up to the task of representing any policy clearly. GPinkerton (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment there are a lot of issues with the page (I recently clarified some incorrect claims about the name "Britain" and "British Isles" and their antecedents in antiquity.) As it stands I don't actually see how this page is supposed to help identify which nationality with which to label someone; its more a disquisition on the pitfalls of trying to do so. It also presents some highly questionable examples: Adam Smith is identified as "Scottish" in the table, but his own preference was for the term "North Briton", being as he was a firm unionist. Walter Scott was also a passionate unionist, but is more reasonable to describe him as a Scot since it was he who did so much to revivify (or invent) the Scottish nationality of his own day. It also appears to relegate the term "Briton" to a time of hoary antiquity, rather than being the present-day demonym for "person from the UK/Great Britain". It is a mystery to me why we have an article on "British people" and not "Britons". It also leaves a conspicuous gap in the table for the crucial period between the Union of the Crowns and the Acts of Union, a century-long span during which there were no border controls or customs between England and Scotland and ships were required to use the Union Jack but the separate governments and parliaments of England and Scotland persisted as independent entities under the same (Scottish? British? what?) monarch who was also, separately, King of Ireland. Additionally, it makes no mention of what to do with the issue during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, which resulted in the unification of England, Scotland, and Ireland under a (short-lived) single state for the first time. It doesn't offer advice on what to call, for instance, the 1st Duke of Wellington (presently described as Anglo-Irish on is own page and born in what is now Ireland (Republic of)) who famously (and apocryphally) remarked "being born in a stable does not make one a horse", since the term "Anglo-Irish" appears, from this page, to refer exclusively to Ireland between 1169 and 1540, after which time it suddenly becomes acceptable for such people to be undiluted "English". That said, few would argue with the classification of the hero of the British Army as British in the first instance. It offers no explanation as to why Oscar Wilde should be described, in the post-1800 union, as "Irish", being as he was of Anglo-Irish descent and a resident Englishman (suppressing any suggestion of Irishness) his whole adult life. Conversely, there is no explanation for why someone like, say, Charles Darwin might be described on their page as "English" rather than simply "British". In short, the vexed questions addressed here would not be improved by ossification into policy without substantial and serious re-thinking. GPinkerton (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I needn't go into the reason why I think UKNATIONALS should be entirely deleted or at least disregarded. Since there's little chance of that happening. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Agreed with the above that this is nowhere near guideline-worthy. There is probably a place in MoS (maybe in MOS:IDENTITY, since it could encompass national/ethnic identities, and it used to, before material on Arab/Arabic/Arabian/Muslim/etc. was moved to MOS:WTW). But it need not be more than a few bullet points. PS: Not all of the details in the firehose of history and jurisdictional info are wrong, misleadingly worded, assumptive original research, or flawed by errors of omission. It is much better for such material to be in articles and properly sourced. Even as an essay, that piece should probably be compressed to about 1/5 its present size, and make use of links to articles that explore these topics properly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC); revised: 00:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • How about a note at MOS:ETHNICITY along the lines of: "There is no preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh. Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus. The label must not be changed arbitrarily. To come to a consensus, editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject, particularly UK reliable sources, and consider whether the subject has a preference on which nationality they identify by." – obviously cleaned up to read like a guideline (paging David Eppstein) . ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Context (Ethnicity)

The Context section here is a redirect target for MOS:ETHNICITY. Looking at that in connection with this discussion re the subject's multiple citizenships/nationalities. Some guidance jere regarding that might be useful -- even if only to say that complexities resulting from that should be handled by consensus. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

When do we translate names?

Ex. first hames, John vs Johann/Jan? What if there is inconsistent usage in English sources, so COMMONAME cannot be applied? Do we prefer the English name per USEENGLISH or the name of the subject used/grew up with? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  • The principle of “what is most recognizable” still applies... If no COMMONNAME can be determined looking at purely English language sources, broaden the search... see if one can be determined looking at ALL sources (English and non-English combined). If there is still no COMMONNAME, I would go with self-identification (ie the name the person uses/used when referring to himself). Blueboar (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Usually a COMMONNAME can be determined, but not always. For older cases, some sources still use the formal Latin version (eg Johannes) because that was often used in birth registers etc (even in England as late as the 18th century), so if in doubt prefer a vernacular version to that. For people who lived in different countries etc 2 or more different names may be needed right at the start. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I prefer to look at it on a case by case basis. We refer to Joseph Stalin but Mikhail Gorbachev, rather than Ioseb Stalin and Michael Gorbachev. It's likely because Western media loved Stalin as our ally in WW2, but hated Gorbachev in the Cold War, that they westernized Stalin's first name, but not Gorbachev's. Ironically, media perception later reversed. But I can't think of a rule that would explain this other than COMMONNAME. TFD (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
No Gorbachev was actually popular in the west early on and seen as a reformer the west could do business with. And Stalin wasn't adored at first - that only came when the Soviet Union were in the war. It's more to do with shifts in the media approach to non-English names over half a century and also some countries have put a bit of effort into establishing a clear "brand" for their leaders in foreign language media that gets the name sorted out early on. (Not all - the legion of different spellings for Muammar Gaddafi are an example of one who made no real effort.) Timrollpickering (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
On reflection, it seems that we are less likely to anglicize names than in the past. TFD (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:Surname and MOS:GENDERID with regard to drag queen articles

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#WP:Surname and MOS:GENDERID with regard to drag queen articles. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Relevant discussion about eliminating name-format templates

See Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Planning for the future of surname clarification and comment there if you have an opinion about those templates like {{Western name order}} that we use to indicate that a biography is of a person whose native naming conventions are not the western ones. Some people there think they should be removed for being formatted like hatnotes but not having the same function as hatnotes. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

When is a stage name a stage name?

There's a debate underway at Talk:Kim Seok-jin about the usage of stage names vs. surnames on subsequent references in articles. Basically, the aforementioned article is the only BTS member to use surnames on subsequent mentions. Consider this comparison:

Article title Kim Seok-jin Jungkook
Introductory sentences Kim Seok-jin (Korean: 김석진; born on December 4, 1992), also known by his stage name Jin, is a South Korean singer, songwriter, and member of the South Korean boy band BTS since June 2013. Kim was scouted for the group while in university and joined Big Hit Entertainment as an actor, eventually transitioning to a Korean idol. Jeon Jung-kook (Korean: 전정국; born September 1, 1997), better known mononymously as Jungkook (stylized as Jung Kook), is a South Korean singer and songwriter. He is a member of and vocalist in the South Korean boy band BTS.
Subsequent reference in solo activities section Kim collaborated with fellow BTS member V on the song "It's Definitely You", released as part of the Hwarang: The Poet Warrior Youth original soundtrack. He also joined BTS member Jungkook to sing and release an alternate version of "So Far Away", a song from BTS member Suga's self-titled mixtape Agust D. In September 2015, Jungkook participated in the "One Dream, One Korea" campaign, taking part in a song collaboration alongside numerous Korean artists in memory of the Korean War.

That later passage in the Kim Seok-jin article is particularly jarring. His other bandmates are referred to by stage names, yet he is referred to by a family name. One of the proposals in the discussion is to change all the BTS members' articles to use surnames, but that seems to be a dangerous opening of the floodgates. I'd like to get broader input about the issue from people concerned with consistency on the styling of names. How should we approach this situation? —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Typically I'd expect subsequent mentions to be consistent with the page title, which is presumably their WP:COMMONNAME. Why is BTS an exception, or is this a wider practice?—Bagumba (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The issue with Jin is disambiguation. It was felt that his given name is the natural disambiguator, since there are collisions at that title. —C.Fred (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
If there's agreement that he is commonly referred to as "Jin", then it's reasonable to use that in prose instead of his surname. On the other hand, I'm assuming that his full name is somewhat familiar to readers given that it was used as a natural disambiguator. If that were the case, it might be decided that it's less informal to use the surname.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarification on MOS:DEADNAME

The deadname section states birth names should be included in article space only when the person was notable under that name. When we say, "in article space", does this apply to infoboxes? Or are they exempt from this rule? As an example, see Nyla Rose. Her name is removed from the main article proper, but it's still in the infobox. I'm unsure whether to remove it. The source in the infobox with her birth name shows acting roles she had when she was male, but I'm not sure she would have been considered notable back then. If she wasn't notable at this point, should her birth name also be removed from the infobox? Thanks. — Czello 07:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes are part of article space. More strongly, the infobox is supposed to be a supplement to an article, not a replacement for it, so there should be nothing in an infobox that is not also included as part of the main text of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks. — Czello 08:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Should the Joey Soloway article include Soloway's birth name in the lead?

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Joey Soloway#MOS:GENDERID with regard to article titles. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Tense if we don't know whether someone's dead

A general question regarding WP:BLPTENSE stemming from discussions about the actor Talk:Reuben Greene: What do we do about the tense ("Reuben Greene is a former actor" versus "Reuben Greene was an actor") if (a) we don't know whether the subject is still alive or (b) indications that the actor is dead come only from unreliable sources, even a Wikipedia editor (WP:OR!)?

Perhaps one could posit a cutoff age A, maybe 120 or 150, beyond which we could establish a rebuttable presumption that a subject is dead. Then it would always be correct to write "X was a Y" if X was born more than A years ago. But even in that case, what assumption should be made, for example, for someone whose heyday was in their 20s and who would now, if they're alive, be less than A—80, 90, 100?

As long as I've raised this here, is it OK also to discuss here the related question of whether the person belongs in Category:Living people? Largoplazo (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

First see WP:BDP - Basically if we don't have RSes but the person would be otherwise younger than 115, we presume them living, and would use present tense. Otherwise we would presume them dead and use past tense. --Masem (t) 16:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, OK, thanks. Should that be mentioned here, at WP:BLPTENSE, as well? After all, it occurred to me to look for the answer to this under this general page about biographies rather than one specifically about people already understood to be alive. Largoplazo (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we could add the sentence: "If a person is younger than 115, and no reliable sources have reported that the person has died, then they should be presumed living." LK (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
If that is added (which seems fine) just make sure you mention that this is in-line with the BLP policy on presuming living/dead when that's otherwise unknown. --Masem (t) 15:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

How to address military rank honorifics

The Project:Military History section of the wiki has come across something rather perplexing; how to handle military ranks. A considerable portion of military officers (particularly German) have their military ranks inserted above their name in the infobox, meaning the honorific section. While certain high ranks like the British field marshal, American General of the Army and German Generalfeldmarschall are honorifics, other examples are ambiguous and may not be. Pages like Gottlob Berger present his rank of SS lieutenant general (SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen-SS) above the name as an acceptable use despite the rank not being an honorific. The military talk project has already discussed this at length [[21]].

What are the guidelines on this? I don't see military rank used for other countries and don't see why we should make an exception for Nazi officers. TFD (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I’m not clear on the issue here. Military ranks are not honorifics, they are ranks. Please clarify. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I had a related question about combining honorifics and ranks, as in the current revision of Erin O'Toole. The infobox currently reads "Captain the Honourable" above a pic of O'Toole, which reads very oddly to me. As ARandomRedditorWikipediist pointed out on the talk, few of the articles on former PMs who served in the military include military ranks in the infobox (see this list). Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I could be wrong... but it seems that the issue is that the template does not have “Military Rank” field ... so editors are USING the “honorifics” field for that purpose. That’s a problem with templates - the pre-set fields don’t always match the info we want to include, so we force the info into fields that are “close enough”. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense. On a second look, {{Infobox officeholder}} has some params for military service such as rank, branch, etc., so it looks as if his military title is already handled elsewhere in the infobox. If I'm reading this right, I think deleting "captain" from the top line is reasonable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the captain here would be the captain of a ship, not necessary as a rank, but, well, as a honorific. Lectonar (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for the lack of clarity, but due to the depth of the discussion we were undertaking, I was uncertain if I could summarize to a suitable level. To wit, the problem at hand involves the use of military ranks as honorifics. The highest military rank of esteemed officers (particularly with regard to those of five-star or six-star rank) are prominently displayed above the article image in the honorific-prefix section. This commonality is not exclusive to Third Reich or Nazi officers but the trend was first noticed in those sort of pages. Users Kierzek and Peacemaker67 (among others) have spoken about the necessity of these in length since a rank field already exists in the military-type infobox. Officers such as Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas Macarthur, and Gottlob Berger see this fashion of use. User Peacemaker67 in particular has noted that no attention has been raised on this matter leading to at least a local consensus on inserting military ranks in the honorific-prefix field. To quote from Kierzek in the forum: "While it is true a person can receive an honorary rank, that is often times granted to a civilian for something specific or upon retirement. So there are occasions where is it appropriate for use, however, that does not apply to the men of articles I reverted. An "honorific" as stated in the Wikipedia article, for example, "is to convey esteem, courtesy or respect for position", often in the academic world."" Hence, what we are looking for is:

  • The criteria needed for a rank to count as a honorific. While individual ranks have theur own criteria, users on the project concur that guidelines on the matter are hazy.
  • If rank honorifics bloat the honorific-prefix section (if a holder already has a sizeable number of honours to their name) and should be treated accordingly.
  • If rank honorifics (such as in the aforementioned articles) should be removed, and what should be the extent of the changes made.

The project community agrees that a general consensus should be made for the purposes of clarity. Someone here asked what the guidelines on this are, and it seems that specific rules on this are virtually non-existent. SuperWIKI (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment I asked that this be brought here for a community consensus after it was raised at Milhist talk, as some editors continue to claim "local consensus" on it, and guidance one way or another would be useful. The current guidelines for the usage of the honorifics field in Template:Infobox military person actually suggest putting the rank here, as explained above. However, there are several factors which have not been reflected above as yet. In many militaries, rank is used as an honorific even for retired officers, the Commonwealth standard being that it is used for officers of the rank of Major (equivalent) and above. This means that even though they have retired, they are addressed as "Major" etc, invitations are addressed to "Major Billy Bloggs" etc. On top of that, tertiary references in the field of military history such as the Oxford Companion to Military History include the rank of officers along with honorifics such as "Sir" in the title of the entry. For example, "Browne, Gen Sir Samuel" and "Gneisenau, FM Graf August Wilhelm Neihardt von" (FM meaning Field Marshal). I'll add that in Commonwealth countries, people are addressed as "General Sir Samuel Browne", or Colonel Doctor Billy Bloggs", meaning that the military rank is given priority over the knighthood. This is reflected in protocols in Debrett's A–Z of Modern Manners. So, why would we single out military ranks for exclusion as an honorific, but continue to include "Sir" per MOS:SIR? Perhaps we should adopt a guideline that specifies using the honorific field for ranks of Major and above, and the rank field for lower ranks? Finally, I have half-a-dozen military biography FAs of Australians and Germans that have included rank as an honorific, and it has never been raised in a review, which reflects a weak consensus that it is actually fine. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Order of appearance in a name string does not equate to a ranking of the titles/honors/etc. It has to be "General Sir Samuel Brown", because after a knightood, "Sir" is fused indivisibly the the forename; it becomes normal formal address to call the person "Sir David", where "Mr. Brown" or (for military person) "General Brown" would have been used pre-knighthood. "Sir General David Brown" is not possible in this system of address because of the nature of "Sir [Forename]", not because the knighthood is lower importance/priority/status than the military rank. That becomes really obvious when you consider low ranks, the lowest of which is assigned automatically simply by being in the military at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Another Comment I noticed the problem when some edits adding honorifics popped up on my watchlist (some SS-officers, and more are still listed with their SS-rank as a honorific now). I read through the manual of style (didn't find anything helpful for the question here), had a look at the German Wikipedia (same), reverted some additions of the rank as a honorific, and subsequently (together with Kierzek) pointed the OP to Milhist. While what has been said above may be true for the Commonwealth, you can be sure that at least in Germany no SS-rank would have been used as a honorific (even for a retired officer) after the end of WWII. As for consensus or not, the little discussion at Milhist at least seems to point to not using them as honorifics, but list them as ranks in the pertaining infobox. The whole topic hasn't been given much tought imho. Lectonar (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Again, while it is true a person can receive an honorary title/rank, that is often times granted to a civilian for something specific or upon retirement. I agree with Lectonar above, in relation to the SS bio articles I reverted on my watchlist. A rank is not the same as an honorific title by definition. And the info-box already has a section/box to add in a person's rank. Kierzek (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

On pathological interpretations of a nickname and a generational suffix presented together

  • From Magic Johnson: Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr. (born August 14, 1959) is ...

So I guarantee some knucklehead will, from this formulation, conclude that Earvin Johnson Sr. was also nicknamed "Magic" (which is demonstrably false). Can that be helped, or should we care? ―cobaltcigs 13:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  • We should not care. WP cannot account for every form of dain bramage. However, in Johnson's case, the lead should probably be presenting his entire birth name including middle name, followed by "better known as...". We could do with a cleaner example of nickname in mid-name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

People who are not the subject of the article

This at the end of MOS:NEE:

A person named in an article in which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article. For example, Pope John Paul I was known as Albino Luciani before he was elevated to the papacy, so a depiction of the time before he became pope should use the name Albino Luciani. See also MOS:IDENTITY.

I have seen multiple instances where the names of The Wachowskis have been changed retroactively. But the quoted rule seems to say that the director of The Matrix should have remained the Wachowski brothers Andy and Larry. I then looked at MOS:IDENTITY but couldn't immediately find anything to countersay this.

To me, it seems our MOS guideline needs to be rephrased to distinguish between

"After the cardinal electors assembled in Rome, they elected Cardinal Albino Luciani, Patriarch of Venice, as the new pope on the fourth ballot." (August 1978 papal conclave)

and

"She was created by The Wachowskis, and portrayed by Gloria Foster[4] in the first[1] and second film[5] and Mary Alice in the third film.[2]" (The Oracle (The Matrix))

The first sentence adheres to the guideline (it isn't changed); the second does not (it is changed despite being an article in which The Wachowskis are not the subject).

What would you suggest as an improved phrasing of MOS:NEE?

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This comes up a lot with various sorts of people, from women who later marry to British politicians etc who later become lords. At the very least editors should be encouraged to put both forms in the text - it is often confusing or unhelpful to the reader not to, even where the "final" name is visible if you hover over a link. But what is appropriate will vary, & we should not be too prescriptive - which we seem to be at present. However, I agree that "the name they used at the time being described in the article" should normally be included. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course, in the case of the second sentence, it if is possible to avoid a complex naming issue (eg instead of using the "Wachowski brothers" but the "Wachowskis") that seems to be fair. It would be wrong to use "Wachowskis siblings" (that's far too generic and seems degrading). But this appears to be a rather special case, as normally we are talking individuals and we need a first and last name at minimum to be specific, eg if we're talking Caitlyn Jenner prior to her transition (eg you have to refer to Jenner as Bruce Jenner over at CHiPs). --Masem (t) 16:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
In response to Capn Zapp, I don't see how using "the Wachowskis" represents a violation of "the name they used at the time" principle. They have always been "the Wachowskis", whatever else they have individually or collectively been called at various times. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
What Newimpartial said. Find a better example where this is an issue. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
A more common problem might be exemplified by Pamela Digby/Churchill/Hayward/Harriman who was a fairly well-known figure over many decades under each of her four successive names (birth & 3 husbands). Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Still seems to me to use the name at the time when associated with the topic. I would only add that if we're talking someone who became only famous under one of their latter names and their earlier names are more obscure when used in these other articles, this is where one might one use something like "Mr. Smith married Jane Doe in 19xx (who later was better known as "Famous Name") and divorced her in 19xx." (where "Famous Name" is where the wikilink would be) Hard to show without a good example but I think that idea may be clear). --Masem (t) 20:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Any article on 19th-century British politics will give plenty of examples. Usually, and I think correctly, the solution is to link the first, contemporary name, even if the title at the linked article is the later name, though there is much inconsistency. Examples of other ways:

Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I first ask editors such as Newimpartial to respond to the actual subject matter at hand rather than getting caught up on technicalities? Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Now then, seeing general agreement, the question remains: What would you suggest as an improved phrasing of MOS:NEE?

CapnZapp (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the wording is, it should only apply to an appropriate set of cases. Any wording that empowers editors to revert the Wachowskis references is not ok with me. -Newimpartial (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
That's my point exactly! I brought this up precisely because I detected the guideline might not be in line with our intentions! CapnZapp (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
We are discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, but the principle is by no means restricted to biographies. For example the Wachowskis will come up in many other types of articles. I think it would be better to discuss this at the main MOS, & add something there, plus of course here too. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, no need to self-link :-) With respect, I am bringing up a highly specific case. Do feel free to start a general discussion elsewhere, just don't forget about the originating question please: What would you suggest as an improved phrasing of MOS:NEE? CapnZapp (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
You called the section "People who are not the subject of the article" so taking it beyond the scope of MOS:NEE, which is all about how to start (etc) biographical articles. I think any changes to MOS:NEE on this should follow changes to the wider MOS. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2020 (ITC)
  • If my memory is correct, this provision was added to deal with disputes over how to refer to Bruce/Caitlin Jenner in articles about the 1976 Olympics. It was determined that since Jenner competed (and entered the record books) under the name “Bruce”, that “Bruce” was the appropriate “historical record” name to use in those articles. The concept would apply in similar “historical record” situations.
That said, the case of the Wachowskis is a bit different... because we have a third option: Since they usually worked as a duo, it would be appropriate to refer to the pair AS “the Wachowskis”, omitting first names completely. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
In terms of changing the wording, I would simply consider the case of the Wachowskis as an exceptional case, but an example that can be referenced, in that if it is possible to refer to them by a name that may not have been used at the time for the article in question but for all purposes is clear and obvious of the identity of the people involved, and avoids other naming issues like deadnaming, that should be used instead. But it seems such an IAR-type case that it may not need to be added for the one specific example. Unless there's several dozen other types of cases, we shouldn't worry about carving out MOS for just one problem situation. --Masem (t) 14:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So... doing nothing is the outcome in practice here? CapnZapp (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I've cleaned up this entire section, though I'm not sure the cleanup will address the concern raised here. I have to agree with Newimpartial, et al., that "the Wachowskis" was what the subjects were all along, regardless if some other word like "brothers" or "sisters" was appended after it, so that example isn't illustrative of any problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Muslim names

A change by an IP editor to the Khalik Allah article left this edit summary: "It's very offensive to All Muslims in the world to call someone Allah his name is Khalik Allah not Allah his name means Allah Creation don't call him Allah that's very offensive it like calling someone named Abdul Allah (God servant) Allah that's not how it goes." MOS:SURNAME and MOS:GIVENNAME appear to offer no guidance on this matter. How should I proceed? Thanks. Lopifalko (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Wakeel Allah refers to the subject as "Wakeel Allah" throughout, and Ikhlef Ahmed Hadj Allah, Abdel Hadj Khallaf Allah and Zahra Rahmat Allah are such short stubs that they don't mention the subject again. All have defaultsort of "Allah" - that's how I found them, at Category:Living_people. There may well be other biographies of (dead) people with the surname "Allah": it's not easy to find them, as there is no Allah (surname), and no mention of any of them at Allah (disambiguation). A rough scan through the first 500 hits for "Allah" shows a few people with it as a given name but nothing else which looks like a surname (except perhaps "Thérèse Allah, better known as Allah Thérèse". PamD 10:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
My inclination would be to simply use the first name (Khalik) for subsequent mentions. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Some early Puritans used compound religious phrases as names, like "Nicholas If-Jesus-Christ-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barbon". It's a middle name in this case, but we certainly wouldn't shorten it to "If" or "Damned". Similarly, for someone named "Pam" we wouldn't shorten the name to "Pa" or "am". It seems like this is likely something of the same thing, where the whole phrase is a single name rather than something separable into first and last names, and we should keep it intact rather than making up shortenings of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Should we steer this into being enshrined in MOS? -Lopifalko (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
No, that would be WP:MOSBLOAT. Even after PamD's digging around, this appears to apply to a single case, so we have no reason to write a rule about it. It would also be easy for someone to extrapolate from it about other similar names (Muhammad/Mohammed, Jesús, etc.) Whether such names are accepted as appropriate by someone will vary by language, religious denomination, and other cultural differences. Even the opening claim by the OP is false, since many Muslims do not consider anything from the Q'ran, including the name of God, to be other than a weak approximation if not written in Arabic (i.e. "Allah" is not the name of God, but a Western attempt at ١ّللَه‎, like "Jehovah" is of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, יהוה‎).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Some minor changes

I would like to propose these two changes to the page:

A. That this:

Beyond the first paragraph of the lead section, birth and death details are not included after a name except in a case of special contextual relevance.

Be changed to this:

Beyond the first paragraph of the lead section, birth and death details can be included after a name, but only if there is special contextual relevance.

To remove unnecessary (rather unsightly) bolding, and to shorten and make the prose more direct and readable.

B. And this:

Generally speaking, notability is not inherited, which means the fact that a person is the spouse of another notable person does not make that person notable.

Be changed to this:

Generally speaking, notability is not inherited; e.g. a person being the spouse or child of another notable person does not make that person notable.

To clarify that the rule "notability is not inherited" applies to more than just the spousal relationship, which the current sentence implies.

LK (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

With A, the formatting and wording is there for a reason, and saying "not included ... except" is clearer than "can be included ... but only if". With B, I suggest the wording is changed to "Generally speaking, notability is not inherited, which means the fact that a person is the spouse or relative of another notable person does not make that person notable". GiantSnowman 14:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
In A, I do not see how a statement stated in the negative can be "clearer". As for your suggestion for B, (apart from being ungrammatical) the sentence still implies that the rule "notability is not inherited" is only for spousal or blood relationships. Using the phrase "for example" or "e.g", would signal that the rule applies for other types of relationships as well. LK (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Your proposed wording for B is 'spouse or child', mine is 'spouse or relative' - so yours is actually narrower! So why are you complaining that my suggested wording "still implies that the rule "notability is not inherited" is only for spousal or blood relationships"? GiantSnowman 16:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
You are not reading correctly. I am suggesting to use the phrase "for example" or "e.g", which means that there are other cases unmentioned. Your wording implies that the list is complete. Also, do you not see that the sentence "..., notability is not inherited, which means the fact that a person is the spouse of another notable person does not make that person notable" is grammatically awkward? At the least, the sentence should be made more readable.  LK (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I am reading correctly. You suggested "spouse or child", did you not? Please ask yourself - why has nobody else suggested these changes before? Is it because the wording is fine as it is? GiantSnowman 17:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
You are the one not addressing the correct issue. Throw in spouse or child or blood relationship or whatever, that's totally fine with me. My issue is that the current phrasing implies an complete listing. My suggested phrasing, using "for example" or "e.g.", implies that there are other situations as well. And you still have not addressed the issue that the original sentence is ungrammatical. LK (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Coming back to Proposal A. Can we agree that a sentence stated in the positive is clearer than a sentence stated in the negative? Also, do we have consensus about the current bolded and italicized formatting of the current sentence. Or do people feel that this doubled emphasis is unnecessary for a relatively straightforward issue. LK (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support both. The excessive emphasis is not helpful, it is generally better to use a positive construction, and "which means the fact that a person is" is just poor writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Removing the bolding etc. is fine, but the wording should remain as it is. GiantSnowman 07:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder?

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder?
While framed in terms of article title policy, this is also a MOS:BIO and MOS:WTW matter, since the article text will have to agree with the title.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Former name of married person

I haven't found answer in the Manual of Style, but in first reference to a married person (e.g., female wife of a male) shouldn't we use prior name? e.g., say Mary Jones marries John Smith and thereafter goes by Mary Smith: Shouldn't we write John Smith married Mary Jones in 1988 rather than John Smith married Mary Smith in 1988? Subsequent mentions should use whatever the person is known by publicly, which might be Mary Jones Smith, although professionally she may continue to use a former name.

If they later divorce but she keeps former name, and then remarries, is she now referred to in Wikipedia as Mary Jones Smith Brown (as often seen in newspaper obituary headings)?

Same comment for the spouse's name in the right-sidebar infobox: How should spouse's name be listed? (I realize that the maiden name isn't always known.)

All this might be handled socially &/or legally in other means in various cultures (e.g., hyphenated Latin American surnames). Also, some same-gender couples combine the 2 prior surnames into one hyphenated name used by both partners. Casey (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I would use the same logic we apply to transgender names. If the person wasn't notable at all under their pre-married name, and that pre-married name is not something well documented, I simply wouldn't include it. On the other hand, the person may not have been notable under the pre-married name but because of the attention to their career after marriage we know of that name, readily repeated in bios and the like, so we can include it. Obviously if the person was notable under their pre-marriage name as well as after, both should be included. --Masem (t) 15:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, if the spouse (of any gender) isn't themself notable, the only mention here should be encyclopedic as the spouse of somebody who was notable enough to merit a Wiki page. However, no reason not to give the spouse's prior name (including maiden name) if known. But rather than write John Smith married Mary Smith in 1982 we should say something like John Smith married his wife, Mary, in 1982. Casey (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
And if John Smith's wife happens to have had maiden name Mary Smith, we should say John Smith married his wife, the former Mary Smith, in 1982.--Casey (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
No, better is John Smith married his wife, Mary (née Smith), in 1982. "The former Mary Smith" suggests she is no longer in existence as a separate person! It's a very odd form of words and should be discouraged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see that it suggests that at all, and that it's commonly understood and used to mean that that was a person's former name can be seen by searching for "the former hillary rodham" or "the former jacqueline bouvier" or "the former margaret roberts" (the last of these yielding results for Thatcher as well as for others). However "former Margaret Smith" implies that she used to be Margaret Smith and no longer is. So, if her name is still Smith (either because she kept her birth name or because her husband is also Smith), it's erroneous. The situation is unusual enough that I'd be inclined to write "John Smith married Mary, also Smith, in 1982." ("John Smith married his wife, Mary Thomas, ..." is redundant. "John Smith married Mary Thomas ..." suffices.) Largoplazo (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I think that this may well be an ENGVAR issue. It's almost never seen in the UK and I think most here would see it as a very odd form of words. What's wrong with "née" though? That's the standard word in all forms of English and on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Probably is an ENGVAR issue, as "the former" is absolutely normal American usage and "née" is often seen as pointlessly pretentious and may not be understood.--Khajidha (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Use "John Smith married his wife, Mary (née Jones), in 1982." Well-written articles (on Wikipedia and more broadly) already do this. When we write "John Smith married his wife, Mary Smith" we are strongly implying that both of them were surnamed Smith before marriage (and that happens often enough with common surnames; consider for example that about half of the Korean and Korean-diaspora population have family name of Kim, Lee, or Park). If the pre-marriage names really were the same, use "John Smith married his wife, Mary (also née Smith), in 1982." When we write "John Smith married his wife, Mary Jones, in 1982", we are fairly strongly implying both that this was her birth surname and that she still uses it despite the marriage. For subjects who use both names, we can probably do: "John Smith married his wife, Mary Jones-Smith" (or "Mary Smith Jones" or whatever she uses), without much confusion potential, but if you wanted to be really really clear about it: "John Smith married his wife, Mary (née Smith, now Jones-Smith), in 1982."

I cannot agree with Masem to "use the same logic we apply to transgender names". MOS:DEADNAME is a special exception we are making (largely because the real world is increasingly making it, after considerable research into things like mental health repercussions of deadnaming of TG/NB people, which do not apply to things like cis-gendered people's birthnames). Another way of putting this: MOS:DEADNAME is an application of the "do no harm" material in WP:BLP policy to a narrow style question, and that policy does not tell us, or even faintly hint, that we should suppress all pre-notability information about all biographical subjects or about non-notable persons mentioned. In essence, this is not a style question but a policy one. This is an "exception chain": BLP policy is making narrow exceptions to WP:V and WP:EDITING policies, and imposing a narrow matching exception on MoS. MoS, a guideline, cannot on its own carve out new exceptions to the policies. PS: In a case where the marriage situation actually overlaps with the TG/NB one, so that DEADNAMES applies (i.e. Mary is a notable transwoman but was not notable before the marriage, or is a transwoman and is simply not notable), use "John Smith married his wife, Mary, in 1982", same as we would do with a spouse whose birth surname is unknown.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be: 1) When a not-notable spouse's former name is known use "John Smith married his wife, Mary (née Jones), in 1982." 2) For a notable spouse, just spell out the name, of course Wikilinking it if possible, with no née. 3) If former name isn't known, say "John Smith married his wife Mary in 1982." (Commas optional?). 4) Whenever the spouse keeps former name, say "John Smith married Mary Thomas" or "John Smith married Robert Jones". 5) In a same-gender union (or an opposite-gender one) if the surnames are combined after the union and indeed elsewhere in the article, use the former names in the sentence describing the union. Somebody with authority to edit a Manual of Style please incorporate all this (perhaps in the "Changed Name" section). - Casey (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, now that I think of it, "John Smith married his wife, Mary" is crappy writing. You can't marry your wife. You marry someone who is not your wife, who then becomes you wife upon completion of the marriage. It might make more sense as "John Smith married Mary (original surname unknown) in 1832" or whatever. Maybe I'm nit-picking too much, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Page was full-protected over MOS:CHANGEDNAME dispute

As those watching this page know, it was recently full-protected due to edit warring over MOS:CHANGEDNAME. Before that, I had gone to an admin about getting it full-protected, but eventually felt that it was no longer needed.

The full protection that a different admin implemented is about to wear off. Let's not edit war as soon as that protection wears off. The long-standing version that has had consensus for years should remain unless a new consensus is formed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it still contains the text "If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article" from the recent RfC, so there is no need to change it. Crossroads -talk- 04:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
So wait, now we're going to ignore the results of the deadname RFC, and leave it as 'lead' instead of 'article'? This whole kerfuffle has been an absolute shambles of attempts to nullify the consensus of that discussion. Revert all of the bizarre "clarifications" that came after the RFC edit, and start one of your own if you want to try and muddy the waters more, this is ridiculous. Parabolist (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
It is ridiculous, which is why I asked RFPP to protect the page pending further work toward another RfC to settle this/these dispute[s]. Before that, I restored what I believed was an accurate description of the status quo ante the current kerfuffle, and when that resulted in counter-reverting, I went further back and restored the long-stable version (i.e., I'm invoking BRD, just on a longer scale than average). It has become clear that one or more camps of editors are unwilling to accept or even agree on an interpretation of the results of intervening discussions between that old wording and present re-drafting attempts. This is why I laid out (in almost tedious detail) every every question that seems to be floating around about this, in a numbered series of points that can be used to draft a broader RfC, which should probably be "advertised" at VPPOL and elsewhere for maximal community input when it's ready.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: To broaden MOS:Deadname

Consensus cautiously supports the proposal, with support for further refinement of the wording going forward. There's a very clear majority against gratuitous deadnaming, as is to be expected given Wikipedia's historical deference to strongly expressed preferences of WP:BLP subjects, but there are reasonable arguments that the policy should not be absolutist and you don't need to be as famous under the deadname as Walter Carlos to justify inclusion - this is unlikely to be the final version, and that's fine. My personal plea in closing this: please proceed with due caution, follow reliable sources, and default to exclude until consensus for inclusion is unambiguous per WP:ONUS. The core principle of WP:BLP may be summarised thus: don't be a dick. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Should MOS:Deadname be updated to say:
In the case of transgender and non-binary people, former names should be included in article space only if the person was notable under that name. If included they can be introduced with either "born" or "formerly”. [Examples: Caitlyn Jenner (included), and Laverne Cox (omitted).]

Per the dignity of the person, by default assume that the name is of concern in the absence of such evidence, and minimize deadnaming as not doing so has been evidenced to cause real world harm.[a] Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ Avoid using the name, even in an infobox, even if a birth name, even if it has appeared in a small fraction of reliable sources.

Q: Why is this needed?

A: MOS:Deadname currently only handles notable former names, of non-cisgender people, in the lead. This has left their non-notable former names a focus of contention across articles despite WP:BLPs “must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy”.

!votes

  • (Summoned by bot)Support if the second paragraph is, either, removed, or greatly clarified (see below). Llew Mawr (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    I didn't realise the first para remained unchanged. In light of that, in addition to my comments below, I somewhat support the proposer's avowed intent of reducing policy ambiguity and indirectly protecting less notable people from deadnaming via limited obscure sources, but fully oppose the proposed amendment which would only increase the ambiguity of our guidance. Llew Mawr (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    The first paragraph isn't unchanged. As explained in the Q&A above, the current MOS:DEADNAME only applies to mentioning non-notable birth names in the lead. The proposed text would expand that principle to all article space.--Trystan (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the first paragraph. Our current practice allows inclusion of non-notable birth names based on a few relatively obscure sources, making Wikipedia the primary means by which the name is "out there". Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, we can recognize that personal information not closely tied to notability shouldn't be included in an article unless already widely published, which will generally coincide with whether the person was notable under that name.--Trystan (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the first paragraph. If additional clarification is needed, maybe something like: "The birth name of a non-cisgender subject not notable under that name may only be included if the subject has stated in RS that they do not mind the name being known. In the absence of such evidence, assume that mention of the name can cause real-world harm, and do not include it." Armadillopteryx 15:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as written, but open to rewriting if the spirit of protecting trans people’s dignity is kept intact.
    We need to end the energy-draining squabbling across these articles. On Peppermint (entertainer), a massive amount of energy was spent when the two(!) names we had were both shown to be wrong. And Wikipedia was publishing these names worldwide. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Opposed to expansion. The current guidance is a sensible compromise between two extremes. It acknowledges that, when someone becomes notable under a specific name, prior names are little more than trivial background information and can be omitted. However, when someone was notable under a prior name, that information is more than trivia, and should be included.
The desires of the bio subject are irrelevant to this determination. We include all sorts of information that a bio subject might not want included (from criminal records, to embarrassing public statements) ... as long as that information is not trivial. We determine triviality by seeing whether it is covered by reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The reason we don't include non-notable names isn't merely because they are trivial but because including private information in an article can cause real-world harm. See WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME. Loki (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the (already existing) first paragraph, and the following rewording of the second paragraph: If the subject was not notable under their former name, it should usually not be included in the article even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. In the case of living persons, please bear in mind WP:BLPPRIVACY and treat the non-notable name as a separate (and usually much greater) privacy interest from the person's current name. Loki (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Note that this is simply re-stating existing policy in a convenient place. Loki (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Blueboar. We include all sorts of information that the subject might not like. Other examples include dates of birth and prior political or religious affiliations. We also include the prior names (or other names) of people like Tom Cruise, Katy Perry, Kirk Douglas, Sting, Shirley MacLaine, Michael Caine, Yul Brynner etc. It's not relevant whether the subject wants this information to be public. It's also not particularly relevant if this other name is "notable" or if it is "trivial". It was at some point that person's legal name.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This an obvious extension of BLP of "do no harm". In contrast to celebs that have changed named, or immigrants that came over and changed names, and which are usually well documented to that point because these are people that have drawn attention to their overall biography, most transgender people tend to become famous after the transition. Not all want to hide their past but it is well-documented that many consider their former identity "dead" after transition (in contrast to the celeb/immigrants), and thus this can become a touchy issue. We should assume by default that transgender persons want to keep their past names in the past, and thus this is a completely fair policy and in line with BLP in general. We are not the equivalent of a "411" for any notable person, which is what some of those opposing seem to suggest. --Masem (t) 19:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely. We do not exist to unfairly out folks or call attention to their identity, that would be undue weight. I think it perfectly in line with our BLP policies too, I quite like Masem's "do no harm" sentiment in this context. I also think this will reduce acrimony, as subject's dead names are often a point of contention. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the intention but reword the second paragraph for optimum clarity. When rewording bear in mind that we not only need to avoid genuine good faith misunderstandings but also deliberate bad faith wikilawyering masquerading as misunderstanding. Clarity is vital. Some people will kvetch whatever the wording but we need to leave as little room for argument as possible. I like Loki's suggested text. I think that would be a good addition to the first paragraph. I also think that we do need an improved version of the second paragraph because it sets out why we have this policy, thus foreclosing any kvetching about it being "arbitrary" or "special treatment" or some such nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Blueboar. If a former name is sourced then it should be included. If it isn't sourced then it shouldn't be. We do this with everybody; I see no good reason to make an exception for certain categories of people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
As I've been pointing out under other such comments, we do not in fact "do this with everybody". There is no Wikipedia policy to indiscriminately include information even if that information is reliably sourced. There is a specific Wikipedia policy to NOT include private information about living individuals even if that information is reliably sourced. Loki (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support applying "only include if notable under that name" guideline for transgender people to entire article space, and stating that the default should be to exclude it until a consensus is reached. Okay with proposed phrasing except for "assume that the name is of concern", which seems like it should read "assume that the name is not of concern" based on context. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, preferably Loki’s suggestion applying "only include if notable under that name" guideline for transgender people to entire article space. Is this not the default position already? I see no reason to go beyond this.Pincrete (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - including the deadname of individuals is potentially physically dangerous and can cause emotional harm. If there's no strong reason to include it (ie. notability under the deadname), it shouldn't be used. Gbear605 (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Loki's suggestion I think it is clearer and captures the right balance. --Enos733 (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Loki's suggestion as more clear and balanced, as well as explaninig why we have such a guideline. (t · c) buidhe 10:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support either as proposed or with Loki's amendment. This is an area where clearer guidance would be useful, and this is the kind of thing the guidance needs to be. Ralbegen (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Loki's amendment as being clearer to potential readers on why the guidance exists, particularly vis-a-vis BLPs. It's about time. Raymie (t • c) 21:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the first paragraph especially, and also (preferably) Loki's suggested second paragraph/part (although I am also OK with the OP's). As others have said, this is an area where clear guidance is needed (the current MOS:DEADNAME is, as Bilorv put it, "almost uniquely non-comprehensive out of everything in the MOS", and this is a good guideline and decent explanation of the rationale for it. -sche (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per points made by Blueboar, Jack Upland and Necrothesp. Birth names should not be completely banned from inclusion. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

The first paragraph is very clear, but, in the second, I don't understand what "of concern" means in context? Is it meant to just imply: if notability is in doubt, err toward avoiding deadnaming.
Also the referent of "not doing so" is unclear but I think it refers to the idea of not adding the name in the previous paragraph. In other words, it means "not not doing so" or "doing so". So, it would be better to be more explicit in a guideline.
Llew Mawr (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
It’s been argued that unless you can prove deadnaming causes distress in an individual case then it doesn’t matter. In fact IMO trans people don’t want to give the issue any energy so tend to not say anything about their dead names.
I trust the grammar can be cleaned up to still honor the spirit of respecting trans people. The second paragraph is largely to end edit-warring of finding ways to deadname. I see this happen often, from anons, drive-by edits, and even experienced editors. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean "not of concern", maybe? Or "should not be included"? Or maybe "is personal information under WP:BLPPRIVACY"? Since it's the point of this RfC I feel like cleaning it up so it means the thing you meant (currently it definitely doesn't) is pretty important. Loki (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn’t be included. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Gleeanon409: I think what people are trying to point out is that the phrasing in the proposal reads "assume that the name is of concern", which suggests that former names should be included by default, while your position seems to be that they shouldn't, so it should state "assume that the name is not of concern". ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
We should likely switch to something quite clear like “assume prior names are to be kept private unless the subject has indicated otherwise in reliable sources”. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I think this language is a strong improvement. This is also what I was getting at in my !vote. I would phrase it like: Assume that all former names should be omitted unless the subject has stated otherwise in reliable sources. Armadillopteryx 21:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As I stated above in my !Vote, I think this entire issue has been poorly framed. We routinely include other bits of information in BLPs that might cause the subject distress... so “it might cause distress” is to me not a valid reason to omit a former name.
Instead, I resolve the question of what names to mention by focusing on triviality. Former names are trivial background information unless the person is notable under that former name. Trivial background information may be interesting, but it isn’t necessary ... and so can freely be omitted. That is all that needs to be said. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
As I stated above, triviality is not the only reason we don't include people's names. Divulging personal information about someone can cause real world harm. I have personally asked Oversight multiple times to strike non-notable deadnames from articles and they've done it promptly every time. Loki (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
For transfolk they aren’t just trivial, they’re deadly. In a world that still preaches their existence is evil, immoral, etc., they are under continued threat of anguish and physical harm. Deadnaming is a main component in the cycle of abuse they face on a daily basis. Wikipedia shouldn’t contribute to it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Clearly WP:BLPPRIVACY already exists, as does the Oversight team. I don't see an argument that we need to expand existing guidelines.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • With regard to Masem's comment above — "In contrast to celebs that have changed named, or immigrants that came over and changed names, and which are usually well documented to that point because these are people that have drawn attention to their overall biography, most transgender people tend to become famous after the transition" — I don't think this is true. Take Kirk Douglas. According to our article he was born "Issur Danielovitch" (in the USA), grew up as "Izzy Demsky", and took the name "Kirk Douglas" at about age 25. He was only famous as Kirk Douglas. His earlier names are trivial, you could say. Are we going to end up saying that people's Jewish identity needs to be suppressed because they could be targeted by anti-Semites??? I think you have to look at genuine invasion of privacy and genuine harm.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    Am I the only person who didn't know Kirk Douglas was transgender? EEng 03:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • My comment there is that at least up until recently, the lives of celebrities have been usually been put until microscopes by nature of being celebrities, and so past names/etc. are well documented. Same with famous researchers and other creatives (eg Ralph H. Baer). Most of the time, these people have offered up their own old names in their autobios (as with Douglas) or interviews or long-form articles about the person (implying that the person provided that information freely to a RS at somepoint). What we want to avoid is people going to court reports, news briefs, and far less reliable sources to connect old to new names in the absolute definite case when the user has made efforts to make that disconnect (ur example in practice here until recently was the Star Wars Kid who we could have named via news sources but we knew wanted to keep out of the public, until a few years ago where he publicly stated he was ready to connect his name to that as to take steps to address bullying he got).
    • That leaves the situation when we have no indication to what the BLP/BIO wants with their old name, and that's where BLP's "do no harm" says we should use caution and avoid inclusion if we can, if we have no idea of the person's intent. We should assume such name connections are harmful (heck we assume this for editors per OUTING) regardless if they are trans or not.
    • It thus becomes a matter of common sense of evaluating sources. Notability is the factor here, but also, even if the person wasn't notable, in looking at long-form , in-depth articles about the person, how is their old name being thrown around? (and this is the in general question, should apply across the board, even though we're asking for transgender persons). If the person is clearly offering their old name up in response to questions in multiple sources and goes on about their past in conjunction with, its probably ok to include. But if its like something it looks like a reporter had to speed weeks looking to find and only to use to add that as the old name before moving on, and its only in one or two sources, its probably a reason to skip inclusion quickly. It's just the attitude of "it's just data, we should include it regardless" is not good, because BLP does say otherwise and to think a bit smarter here. --Masem (t) 21:04, 10 August 2020 (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.

Further refinement of wording

Per the close of this RfC, I've changed "in the lead sentence" to "article space" at MOS:DEADNAME. I did not add the new paragraph, since it's not clear to me what version of its wording has consensus. How should that part be done? Armadillopteryx 01:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I'm coming across this discussion after the close, but something that I see in the discussion above that hasn't yet been translated into the guideline is that this applies to BLPs, not BDPs, where the harm rationale and WP:BLPPRIVACY do not apply.
I recently made a few fixes to Virginia Prince, a pioneer who came out all the way back in the 1940s (and who I would love to see become a GA or FA eventually), and I did not hesitate much before adding her deadname—she's no longer alive, so it won't harm her, and it's a valid part of the encyclopedic historical record of her life. That decision seems aligned with consensus based on the sentiments above, but it's going against the letter of the guideline as currently written, so the guideline needs to be revised. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I see what you're saying. To be honest, it's not clear to me whether all who supported the change meant it only for BLPs or for biographies in general. Some explicitly referenced WP:BLPPRIVACY, but others presented a rationale that could be reasonably interpreted to cover dead subjects as well. The additional text proposed at the start of the RfC never gained consensus on its wording. In the original RfC text, that part refers to BLPs, but variations were presented in the comments (and here). If others want to chime in and clarify whether they were talking about only BLPs (and indicate their preferred wording), that would be helpful. Armadillopteryx 08:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Armadillopteryx, seeing no further comments, I'm going to adjust the guidance at MOS:DEADNAME to specify that it applies to BLPs, since it is not clear that there is consensus for it to apply to BDPs, and we should be cautious about adding anything to that effect until it is clear otherwise. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
So the change by Armadillopteryx is why mentioning the name in the lead even became an issue at the Joey Soloway article. I don't think that change is best, given that the section in question is entirely about leads. It should at least state "in the lead or other article space." But, really, "article space" is vague. And while I get that it was meant to be vague, we don't typically drop the name anywhere in the article, such as in the "Career" section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
To whoever, please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
That change was prescribed by the outcome of the RfC above. If your main concern is with the wording rather than with the change happening at all, there are other options. "In the article text or infobox", for example, would also work IMO. Armadillopteryx 05:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
That RfC is not focused on removing "in the lead." And there is no consensus against "in the lead" being there. Again, since the section is focused on the lead, "in the lead" should be there, like it was for years. The new wording was used to try to keep a notable name that belongs in the lead out of the lead. And if it's going to be used in that way, the current wording needs to be remedied. It's not like we are going to remove Chelsea Manning's birth name from the lead of that article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The RfC text says: Should MOS:Deadname be updated to say: In the case of transgender and non-binary people, former names should be included in article space only if the person was notable under that name. If included they can be introduced with either "born" or "formerly”. [Examples: Caitlyn Jenner (included), and Laverne Cox (omitted).
I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the RfC, which was formulated specifically to expand MOS:DEADNAME to apply to the whole article and not just the lead. Armadillopteryx 07:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
It was meant to keep non-notable deadnames out of the whole article, yes, but now it looks that it could be reversed and misapplied to argue that notable deadnames just have to be somewhere in the article, so we should bury it somewhere lower down. Meanwhile readers are wondering if the article they've arrived at is the person they are thinking of or not. Crossroads -talk- 19:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to further clarification, but I note that saying a notable deadname is permissible in "article space" or "in the article text" includes the lead, since the lead is part of both "article space" and "the article text" (i.e. I find this redundant). Neither of those options states anything about what part of the article the name must (or must not) be in. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue based on this policy that the name must be located outside the lead, as that's not what it says. I also think that the current wording ("the lead or article text") is not preferable to "article space", because the latter also includes the infobox and title, whereas the former does not. Armadillopteryx 21:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Stating "in the lead or in article text" at least shows that in the lead is acceptable, rather than allowing people to argue that we can put the old name anywhere (and some editors will misguidedly try to put it somewhere inconspicuous). Above was mentioned where confusion was developing on this point (only two weeks after the "article space" wording was implemented), specifically at this and this edit. At that latter comment we see the flawed argument, the policy MOS:MULTIPLENAMES only states name should be in the article space; I'm taking it at it's literal word. The policy is clear and able to distinguish between lead and article space when it necessary. As for "article text" vs. "article space", that was SMcCandlish who made that change, but I understand why because "article space" is jargony and confusing to new editors. (I can imagine them thinking "Article... space? Huh?")
Here's a possible way to re-write the sentence, taking the above into consideration, as well as the above RfC which forbade non-notable deadnames anywhere in the article: In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should only be included in the lead if the person was notable under that name; otherwise the birth name should not appear anywhere in the article. Crossroads -talk- 03:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
That almost sounds good to me, though drop "only" which serves no useful purpose here and makes it unclear whether inclusion of the name when it does qualify for inclusion is actually recommended (it is). More problematically, the lengthy sentence structure is ambiguous, because the "otherwise" has no certain referent, and can be read as excluding mention of former name that does qualify for the lead, anywhere else in the article, such as the early life section. That's clearly not the intent, and it's better to use multiple sentence. We have three goals here: say that names from the period of notability are usable appropriately, say that they should be in the lead, and say that old names that pre-date notability should not be used at all. So, try this: In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should only be included if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead, and may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate. A birth name that was not used when the subject was notable should not appear anywhere in the article. We might also consider trimming "used elsewhere in the article" down to "used elsewhere" because, as one example, Caitlyn Jenner should be referred to as "Bruce (now Caitlyn) Jenner" in articles on past Olympic games; we already have language saying it's appropriate to use "now [name]" or "later [name]" clarifications (because I added it during my cleanup, detailed below). PS: Yes, I changed it to "article text" (or just "article" above) because "article space" is jargony and confusing to new editors, but also because it was a loophole: templates that render text in articles are in the template namespace not the article namespace, but their output is part of the article and is meant to be covered. Just one of those WP:Writing policy is hard things; you have to game out in your mind every way someone may try to wikilawyer or system-game around something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Armadillopteryx, I haven't misunderstood anything. Like I Crossroads stated, that RfC was not about making it so that the notable name can alternatively go lower in the article. It was about keeping non-notable deadnames out of the whole article. The wording you implemented isn't about keeping non-notable deadnames out of the whole article and is being used to argue that the notable name need not go in the article's lead, which means that a lot of people, especially those who do not read beyond the lead (which has been reported to be most people in the past), will be confused when they land on the article. It's not about editors stating "must be located outside the lead." It's about editors personally not wanting it in the lead and making it seem like "lower in the article" is better. In the case of a notable name, a significantly notable name for a trans person, how is "lower in the article" better better for readers? There is already guidance in the section telling editors (to uusally) not to include non-notable deadnames in the article. So the "in article space" change earlier on isn't needed. Per the importance of having that notable name in the lead and what WP:Alternative name states, I changed the text to this.
Crossroads and SMcCandlish, I made that change before reading your latest above posts. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I like your proposed wording, SMcCandlish. We can wait and see what Armadillopteryx thinks of it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just to clarify: the change I made was the exact wording presented in the RfC; that wasn't something I personally came up with. Your argument above appears to say there was no consensus to eliminate "in the lead", but that's exactly what the text discussed in the RfC did. I'm not personally married to that wording and welcome changes that may make it clearer, but there certainly was consensus for the wording of the first paragraph.
With respect to the edit you just made, I think it's a semantic improvement, but now the sentence reads as emphatic about including a notable deadname, while the RfC's point of not including it otherwise is a small afterthought at the end of a long sentence. Above, Crossroads gave examples of people blatantly misrepresenting the guideline as written, but that's a flaw of those arguments, not the guideline: those editors tried to claim the guideline said something it blatantly did not say.
I support the wording that SMcCandlish proposed here. Armadillopteryx 04:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Again, you implemented a piece of wording that was not the focus. That RfC was not about loosening our guidance on including the notable name in the lead. And yet that is what your edit did. You speak of "emphatic", but the section was already like that before your edit. It stated "should." And SMcCandlish's proposed wording also states "should." And, yes, per my and Crossroads's arguments above, that new "in article space" wording was a flaw. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
It's unhelpful to "blame" Armadillopteryx for doing what closers usally do. :-) The fact that the RfC inadvertently produced a line-editing change that introduces a problem doesn't mean we can't fix it, though defaulting to the RfC's wording was a reasonable starting point. Any time material like this is edited in isolation, there's a good chance that such a problem will be introduced. We already have long-standing guidelines about alternative names going in the lead, and this RfC wouldn't undo those; it did not address them at all, so it's not possible that it's a consensus to change them. Flyer22 is correct that removing any mention of the lead was an error, though pinning this on the closer isn't useful. Now, it's just a matter of copyeding the language in this section to be compatible with other guidelines again. No biggie.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The RfC's wording is all I inserted into the guideline, and it was very much the focus: the point of the RfC was to expand MOS:DEADNAME to apply to the whole article and not just the lead. There had been a longstanding problem with people inserting non-notable deadnames in articles and gaming the system by showing that the guideline only prohibited them in the lead (see the discussion that prefaced this RfC, which I linked above). I think your (Flyer's) wording made the sentence more emphatic, as I said. The issue wasn't with the word "should".
Anyway, the important thing is that we all like SMcCandlish's wording, so I've added that text to the page. Armadillopteryx 04:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, I'm not blaming Armadillopteryx for simply implementing RfC wording. Armadillopteryx implemented a tiny piece of text that was not the focus of the RfC. And by "not the focus", Armadillopteryx, I mean that the text you altered is about notable previous names. Therefore, it had no effect on the "must keep non-notable deadnames out of the whole article" aspect. This is what Armadillopteryx should have focused on adding, but Armadillopteryx declined to add it. Crossroads already addressed what the point of the RfC was, and he is correct. A longstanding problem with people inserting non-notable deadnames in articles was not going to be solved by having the guideline allow for the notable name to be placed somewhere else other than the lead. And "in article space" allowed for that because it did not specify "in the lead." That is what happened at the Soloway article.
Armadillopteryx, at this point, I'm repeating myself. We disagree, including on the more emphatic thing since the wording without "especially" allowed for the notable name to be placed anywhere and all "especially" did was tell editors that it should be in the lead. This meant "it can go anywhere, but it should certainly go in the lead," which is no different than what the current wording is relaying. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Flyer, it was not me who selected "the text I altered"—that was the RfC itself. The wording of the first paragraph (i.e. the change I made) gained consensus in the RfC and was therefore a straightforward change; the wording of the second paragraph (which you commented I "should have focused on") did not gain consensus in the RfC, so I started this subsection to acquire that consensus instead of making a unilateral edit.
You've been very persistent in personalizing this matter, and I have tried to be patient with that. I would like to request that you stop now. Let's just keep our focus on the primary discussion topic, which is what the wording should ultimately be. As far as I can tell, we are all in agreement with SMcCandlish's proposal, which is now in the guideline. Armadillopteryx 07:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Again, per what I stated above, we disagree. I have not "been very persistent in personalizing this matter." I have noted that you added the piece, but I've clearly focused on what you added. I do not understand why you do not get what Crossroads and I have stated on the matter. So I appreciate that you removed this from your latest response. I apologize for making you feel that I was attacking you. I was not. My issue was with the text you added. Other than my reply to Izno below, I see nothing left to state on this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
undent: I reverted the second sentence from SMC's suggestion; the way it's phrased, even in the context it is in, would be wikilawyered by someone into meaning all people with non-notable former names. I'm fairly certain everyone here understands that wasn't the intent, nor that that case is an issue for cis-gendered (in general). I see a careful wording below the bullets like "such a subject", with which I wouldn't have an issue with the sentence being inserted, but I didn't see an elegant way to do so in this sentence's context. Moreover, it seems unnecessary with the 'only if' language in the primary sentence. We don't need to assert both positive 'do this' and negative 'not this' if we already exclude the 'not this' case with the 'only if' clause. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Izno, you removing this is fine since it's covered by this. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
That entire section has been getting more and more palimpsestuous over the last two years or so, making less and less sense to those not steeped in debating about it – a "Well, I know what I meant it to mean" problem. It's important to remember that guideline (and policy) pages are written primarily for new editors and as dispute-resolution reference works among more experienced ones. For both reasons, the material needs to be crystal-clear. So I did a cleanup pass on it, fixing all kinds of grammar errors, poor sentence structure, subtly contradictory instructions across different parts of it (and between it and other WP:P&G material), pointless rambling and linking of everyday words like "marriage", missing cross-references to relevant material, clumsy "just stick a shortcut in here" cross-refs., confusing material order, mis-placed shortcuts, shortcuts without anchors, etc., etc. I've endeavored to not change the meaning/implementation in any way, other than the addition of clarifications that are in the same spirit as the revision process above (i.e., make it say what consensus actually is and how various existing policies and guidelines apply to these matters). PS: I think all the relevant shortcut redirects have been updated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

First off, thank you to everyone for working to get this meaningfully updated!

One aspect that I think needs to be looked at again is that the deadname, if not notable, shouldn’t be used anywhere in WP:MAINSPACE (mistakenly focused on as Article Space, but explained). This is to specifically end such deadnaming in lists, disambiguation pages, redirects, other articles, etc. I feel this needs to get addressed even if fully explained in an extended footnote. Any ideas? Gleeanon 18:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I added a footnote [22], and clarified the sentence ("in this or any other article" instead of "in the article"). It also accounts for templates and categories. However, I did not specifically list redirects, because I think we've not had a discussion about that, and regulars at WP:RFD are apt to have strong views on the matter. E.g., that if someone comes here already knowing that name and they search for it, they should find the person's bio, perhaps because they might not even know about the name change, or they've read one of the few sources that did disclose it despite that disclosure maybe not having been a good idea. I'm not sure that reader-utility argument is a good argument, but utility arguments are the most common ones at RfD. And I wouldn't want to just assume, as if infallible, that my skepticism of that rationale equates to a consensus against it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration and edits! Gleeanon 01:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, just noting here that -sche removed this this part of your wording. It seems that -sche thinks it goes against the RfC. I don't see that. As for consensus, discussion obviously continued after the RfC and that part of your wording was added to make it clear that the notable name can be included beyond the lead. Also, once it's mentioned in the lead (and likely the infobox), what issue would there be with mentioning it in the Early life or Personal life section? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I set it back to this: "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead, and may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate." That is an accurate summary of actual practice (i.e., extant consensus).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The RFC found "a very clear majority against gratuitous deadnaming", so per WP:ONUS, you will need to demonstrate WP:CONSENSUS to add such an affirmative endorsement of it. (If it is actual consensus, as you say, this should not be difficult to do.) I'll notify the Wikiproject(s) where the RFC was first proposed that discussion is continuing. From my perspective, the affirmative endorsement will be misunderstood or misconstrued by editors overly broadly; I think the passive absence of prohibition which existed was sufficient, but I guess your own perspective is that that would be misunderstood by editors as allowing only overly narrow use? -sche (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I read In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead. as stating that it can only be used in the lead, but I can definitely seen it as being read either way. Gbear605 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Sche that the wording proposed seems like it can be read in a way that is too broad and counter to the RFC. The RFC did not state that the deadname had to appear in the lead and may appear in the article space. For example, the RFC includes the note to avoid using the name in the infobox but the current writing of DEADNAME implies doing so would be fine. The RFC and BLP would require instead that the deadname may be used in the lead but should be avoided in the rest of the article space. Rab V (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
No, the purpose of the RfC was to expand the ban on non-notable deadnames from the lead sentence to the whole article. It was never to ban notable deadnames from everywhere except the lead. If a deadname is notable and can be in the lead there is no basis for a blanket rule that it cannot be included anywhere else. That needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, not dictating every situation from on high. (For example, note how Caitlyn Jenner is handled at Athletics at the 1975 Pan American Games.) And regardless of one's opinion on this matter, the RfC did not find a consensus for any strict rule about notable deadnames. "No gratuitous deadnaming" is not the same as "banned outside the lead". Crossroads -talk- 23:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
AFAIK we're not discussing banning notable deadnames outside the lead. The wording someone boldly added was to actively, affirmatively encourage deadnames outside the lead. I think that wording will be interpreted too broadly (besides, procedurally, not being supported by previous discussion AFAICT). Unless there is consensus to add that wording, the next step (strictly speaking, the previous step which should already have happened) is to revert the addition. -sche (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
It does not encourage that. It says (emphasis added) it may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate, not "should" be so used. If it says the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead, and stops there, it does look like it is permitted only in the lead, which was not discussed at the RfC. Right above we can see that Gbear605 interpreted it in that way, as did Rab V, who outright claimed that The RFC and BLP would require instead that the deadname may be used in the lead but should be avoided in the rest of the article space. We need to avoid this sort of misunderstanding. Crossroads -talk- 01:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps then we need to have the extra sentence of and may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate but change it to emphasize that it is should not be emphasized broadly, perhaps adding if necessary, only, and bolding to create and, if necessary, may be used elsewhere in the article only where contextually appropriate. Gbear605 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I think that will lead to unanswerable disputes over what "necessary" means. I think "only" is covered by "may" - since "may" is saying when it can be done, the "only" is superfluous. A possibility is to change "when" to "if": may be used elsewhere in the article if contextually appropriate. Crossroads -talk- 05:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Here is the wording of the RFC for this case: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, former names should be included in article space only if the person was notable under that name. If included they can be introduced with either "born" or "formerly”." Why are we not using this wording? Multiple editors have complained that the wording that was used instead is confusing and could mean something different than the RFC intended. Rab V (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The part of the RFC telling editors to minimize use of the former name is also nowhere in the current version. Rab V (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The RFC also did not include the statement that was added that former names of transgender people are required to be in the lead and that was not in the prior version. Will remove that as it makes conflicts with statements in MOS:GENDERID that the manual of style does not state where in the article former names need to be mentioned. Rab V (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

This was all discussed earlier in this subsection starting on 17 October. Before the RfC it said that birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when...; so it required inclusion in the lead sentence, not just the lead: [23] The RfC was not about changing this so that the birth name could be stuffed away anywhere in the article; it was about extending the ban on non-notable birth names to the entire article. Otherwise, we get editors, such as yourself, arguing that the notable birth name can be put somewhere else: [24][25] Quoting the original proposal verbatim smuggles in a change that was never discussed or intended; as I said above, having the notable birth name in the lead makes the most sense for reader navigation. Note too that the RfC closure explicitly finds support for further refinement of the wording going forward, as has been done; it never mandates Gleeanon409's exact wording. As for MOS:GENDERID, I guess that has to be updated to read: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Changed names calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person in the lead if they were notable under that name. (The underlining is only to indicate the new words.) Again, the requirement to have it in the lead was always here; really, if the person was notable under the name, putting it anywhere else is nonsensical per WP:LEADALT, and if they were not notable, then everyone is agreed it should never have been there in the first place. Crossroads -talk- 04:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Aquillion, kindly revert to the WP:STATUSQUO. Consensus for it was reached in the earlier parts of this subsection. I will repeat, the RfC was (1) not for smuggling in permission to shunt notable birth names into lower parts of the article, (2) was not for saying that if in the lead it can never appear anywhere else, and (3) explicitly said that continuing discussion to refine the wording would occur. Crossroads -talk- 04:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely not; my edit was a revert to the STATUSQUO, as modified by the successful RFC above. "Only when" is prohibitive; it did not require it. Policy has never required it, while the "may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate" seems entirely new. SMcCandlish's proposed new addition plainly does not have consensus above, does not reflect any sort of policy or practice that we have ever had, and would therefore require unequivocal consensus for his proposed wording before it could be included. And I would strenuously disagree with this proposed addition - I think it is a very poorly-considered proposal indeed, one that fundamentally reverses the intent of the RFC (which, to my reading, was specifically about broadening WP:DEADNAME to cover the entire article, something that this proposal would essentially undermine, since anyone making any addition to any article will obviously feel it is "contextually appropriate") by simultaneously removing the leeway we have always had on including such names in the lead while encouraging editors to bicker over the vague meaning of "contextually appropriate." This is obviously a highly-contentious proposal and I'm honestly a bit shocked you reverted it back in once already after opposition was clear, let alone that you would try to argue that this new proposed rule represents any sort of status quo. --Aquillion (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm "honestly a bit shocked" a few editors are trying to make significant changes to the MOS that were not discussed at the RfC. Replying to most of this would just be repeating myself. The RfC expanded the ban on non-notable birth names from the lead sentence to the full article; it never changed or discussed anything about notable birth names, which have always been required in the lead (lead sentence, actually): [26] I'm more than happy to discuss refinements or changes to the wording, as the RfC closure specifically asked for, but if editors are going to WP:TAGTEAM to smuggle in changes that were never discussed, that is inappropriate. Guess we'll see what onlookers think of this. Crossroads -talk- 04:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Aquillon the edits that have been done only seem to undermine the RFC and the section should be reverted to either the statement accepted in the RFC or a version before the current set of edits. The October 1 version of the article did not include a requirement deadnames be in the lead: once again this fact is even mentioned in MOS:GENDERID with the reminder that the policy does not state where to include the former name.Rab V (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: Pinging the editor who closed the RFC for help on whether SMCCandlish's edits to DEADNAME go with the intent of the RFC and whether the RFC stated that deadnames need to be included in the lead. Thank you for any help. Rab V (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
At the risk of overdoing it, in case JzG may not read all the above, I have to emphasize here that your framing is wrong. JzG said in his closure that Consensus cautiously supports the proposal, with support for further refinement of the wording going forward. That is what happened right after the closure, and then yesterday a couple editors tried reversing that refinement. Sockpuppet Gleeanon409's exact wording was not mandated anywhere. The pre-RfC version did state that birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name [27], and removing this requirement for notable birth names was never even mentioned at the RfC. Crossroads -talk- 15:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The RFC states that deadnames should be used in the ARTICLE SPACE (not the lead necessarily.) On October 1 DEADNAME reflected this but SMC and you seem to be reverting this change without evidence for a new consensus and after editors have objected. The RFC also includes the portion about minimizing use of deadnames that is nowhere in your changes. Rab V (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
That change regarding notable names being in the lead was never discussed or hinted at in the RfC or its closure, so there could not possibly have been a consensus for it. I'm more than open to discussing how to reflect the "gratuitous deadnaming" aspect of the closure, but we need to establish the facts on this "in the lead" matter first. Crossroads -talk- 17:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

But where did the idea that deadnames, if notable should then appear in the lead come from? It wasn't in the RfC close, it wasn't in the status quo ante, so why was it added? The status quo ante simply stated that the only deadnames in the lede should be notable ones, and the RfC certainly didn't change this aspect - it is quiite different from the should appear language that was recently proposed and reverted. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Some editors appear to believe that the "should only appear" language in the status quo ante was equivalent to "should appear, but only", whereas I (and many others, it seems) understood it to mean "should not appear, unless". Perhaps this is a specific issue that should be discussed more calmly, under a new heading? Newimpartial (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this, this, and this? Since we have a certain group trying to make it so that the notable birth name doesn't go in the led and tag teaming to do so, another RfC should be started and it should focus on whether or not the notable name should be in the lead. It should also be well-advertised. I'll start the RfC if no one else does. I'll advertise it well if that's not done. Like I stated in that last edit summary of mine I just pointed to, "WP:Status quo is not a policy or guideline. And the RfC was not about moving the notable name out of the lead. That we include the notable name in the lead has been done for years and it will continue to be done. That is WP:Consensus." I've already made my arguments above in this section; so I won't be repeating any of that in this section. Arguing with Aquillon, Rab V, and Newimpartial on this will get editors nowhere. Best to start an RfC and see just how many uninvolved editors weigh in and how the strength of arguments like Crossroads's hold up against activist arguments. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Please note that the supposed "tag-team" status quo version contains the same should be included in the lede only if language that has been in this section for years. This language does not at all suggest that the deadname should not be included in the lede; it simply does not add additional encouragement to do so, which the tag-team Bold version did.
Also, activist arguments does not apply to me - though it seems to be directed at me - and also appears to be intended as a personal attack; please don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Uh-huh. And go study WP:No personal attacks. We are allowed to focus on the arguments. We are allowed to attack arguments. When I see any kind of activist arguments, like I'm seeing now, I will state so. And that's that. The "birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name" wording is not the status quo version. The status quo version that editors have used for years mentions the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, the tag-team version currently out there states the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name - nothing about the lead. Also, criticizing someone's arguments, whether calling them activist or otherwise, is not a PA. Wikipedia will never be an echo chamber and everyone's arguments will be criticized. Crossroads -talk- 20:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
It is in the section entitled Lead. It is about the lede.
And if you think I am being "activist" in my arguments, Crossroads, you should provide some evidence/diffs for that. Otherwise it is like using political labels for other editors, which is recognized as UNCIVIL behaviour. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
It's under "Names", not "Lead". Crossroads -talk- 20:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
You are right. However, your Bold proposal goes far beyond adding back "in the lead" in that sentence, so I don't think it answers the question posed here. We would probably benefit from a fresh RfC to determine whether: (1) there is an expectation to include or not to include notable deadnames in articles (or they are permitted but other considerations apply); and (2) when they are included, should this necessarily be in the lede? I don't see how the previous RfC answered either of those questions. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
You're still pushing the false narrative that me, SMcCandlish, etc. are the ones trying to put through a bold proposal. Your side's "notable birth names don't have to be in the lead" idea is the bold proposal here. It's reversing the burden of getting consensus, and what holds in a case of no consensus, by obfuscating what the status quo was. Crossroads -talk- 21:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what I in particular am saying, so you see a "narrative" that doesn't exist. I am not saying that "notable birth names don't have to be in the lede"; I am saying that the status quo ante language, that they should only be included in the lede if, was permissive rather than obligatory - that it was equivalent to "do not include them unless" rather than necessarily to "include them if". I think this is the real problem: we haven't agreed about what the old consensus actually was. It may be easier to find a new consensus than to figure that one out. Newimpartial (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I echo this comment. The pre-RfC wording was apparently interpreted differently by two groups of people: one group thinks its primary purpose was to require notable deadnames to be in the lead, while the other thinks its primary purpose was to ban non-notable deadnames from the lead (but not the rest of the article). The recent RfC expanded the ban on non-notable deadnames to the entire article but did not address notable deadnames at all. It does not appear that either "side" of this discussion opposes having the guideline do both. Newimpartial's observation here is important: the pre-RfC wording sounded permissive rather than obligatory to many people, which is why no participant of the RfC opposed simply changing the lead to article space in the sentence in question. The different interpretations of the pre-RfC wording appear to be the root of much of the disagreement in this section (and of the comments some users have made about others' intentions).

Above, I expressed dissatisfaction with how attempts to clarify treatment of notable deadnames ended up obscuring the point of the RfC to the point of making it an easily missed afterthought. I don't personally care whether or not we require notable deadnames to be in the lead, but that, like the non-notable deadname ban, should be determined via community consensus. And if consensus is to require notable deadnames in the lead, that point should be presented with equal weight to banning non-notable deadnames from the article so that anyone referring to the policy will clearly understand both points.

Personally, I would propose separating guidance on notable deadnames and on non-notable deadnames into two separate paragraphs so that there is no ambiguity about what to do in each case. The current structure of the guideline, which has sometimes treated these two cases implicitly in the same sentence (e.g. in this version) is clearly not helping anyone. Armadillopteryx 23:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I've not been following all of the above discussion in detail but I do agree that spliting it up sounds like a good idea. We need to have two readers in mind when we draft the policy. First is the reader who is consulting the policy in good faith in order to find out what they should, and should not, be putting in articles. We want to make it as easy as possible for them to understand and implement the policy correctly. The other is the reader looking to find any loopholes or amibguities that they can exploit to wikilawyer in support for adding bad content to articles in bad faith. We want to make it as difficult as possible for them to disruptively kvetch about the meaning of the policy. Considering both types of reader shows the need for clarity. I'd be inclined to suggest three parts:
  1. How to tell if a deadname really is notable.
  2. What to do if it isn't. (The default option.)
  3. What to do if it is.
We could even have a flowchart, if that helps. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
In any case, the fact that there was a (brief) revert-war on a significant policy page suggests that we are going to probably require another RFC, unless someone can come up with a magic compromise that satisfies almost everyone. So it would probably be useful to consider those questions, use them to come up with a set of possible options (stating proposals for the entire wording of the relevant section this time, so there's no surprises in how people interpret it and we can finally settle this); then, unless one is a clear favorite to the point where it's unnecessary, run another RFC between the various options. --Aquillion (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
There was a brief edit war because editors did not respect the long-standing wording of "should be included in the lead sentence"...which was clearly there for years before this edit. All one had to do was restore to that -- the actual status quo.
Armadillopteryx's description of both sides does not describe my feelings. And I don't think it accurately describes Crossroads's or SMcCandlish's either. Our point has been that the RfC wasn't at all about notable birth names and that the guideline should continue to make it clear that the notable birth name belongs in the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
To avoid a fork in this discussion, I will note that the meaning of the status quo ante language is itself in dispute, as I have noted (in the following section) here and here, links corrected here.Newimpartial (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not in the dispute for the reasons you mentioned, except maybe by you. There have always been certain editors who don't like that we include the notable birth name of trans people in the lead sentence. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Except for the two editors I provided diffs for, who say that they interpreted the prior language in the same way. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I must be blind then, because I only see you arguing about "when" and "if" stuff in a way that makes no sense. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe if you read for content the diff I provided above of my own prior comment, and those I provided for the other two editors, you would see that we are all agreeing on this matter. The other two editors seem to understand this and so does Crossroads, who chooses to assume bad faith of all of us equally. Newimpartial (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Three-part policy proposal

Per DanielRigal's suggestion above, here is an example of a different way to organize the main points of MOS:DEADNAME that may be clearer and less given to misunderstanding:

If the subject in question is a living transgender or nonbinary person, whether (and how) to include the birth name depends on whether any of the subject's notability is connected to that name. If the reliable, secondary sources that establish notability do so using the birth name (for example, if the person did notable work under that name), the birth name is notable. If the subject's notability has been established only under their current name, the birth name is not notable.

If the birth name is notable, it should be included in the lead and be prefaced with "born" or "formerly". It may also be mentioned elsewhere in the article if contextually appropriate, but such mentions should be kept to a minimum.

  • From Chelsea Manning, notable under prior name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning; December 17, 1987) ...

If the birth name is not notable, it should not be included in the subject's biography, nor anywhere else in the mainspace—even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. (See also: WP:Manual of Style § Identity and Deadnaming.)

  • From Laverne Cox, not notable under prior name: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...

This is just a rough idea, not meant to be a final draft. What do participants of this discussion think of an option like this? Armadillopteryx 10:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the best way to describe how a name is notable. The principle that Wikipedia users have agreed upon in past discussions is that if they're publicly out as using a new name during the entire time that they are notable, then their birth name is not notable, even if there are multiple reliable, secondary sources that deadname that person. For example, Margot has been using her preferred name for the entire time she has been notable, but conservative Polish news sources exclusively use her deadname (while liberal Polish news sources and all English news sources use her preferred name). The consensus among Wikipedia editors is that under the current definition of the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name, Margot has only been notable under the name of "Margot," while this proposed definition makes it more unclear (do all reliable sources need to use the birth name, or merely some?).
However, I do definitely prefer making it more explicit. I suggest a phrasing along the lines of If the subject's notability has been established only while publicly using their current name, the birth name is not notable.
Gbear605 (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gbear605: Fair enough—tbh that was the portion I was least sure of how to write. I'm fine with your suggestion and am open to hearing more. Armadillopteryx 15:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Query - I would like to hear arguments for or against including all notable deadnames in the lede of the subject's article. My knee-jerk reaction is that it is sometimes helpful to include the deadname in the lede - particularly in cases where readers are brought to the BLP by a redirect from the deadname - but I can also imagine cases where borderline-notable deadnames might be relevant only in the context of a specific section. For example, an author who published initially under a deadname without receiving much media attention, then became more famous with their gender-appropriate name - it might be more helpful in that case to include the deadname only in the section on said early writings, so that interested readers could find dead tree books published under the former name.
Anyway, what I would really like to know is where other editors come down on this question. Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
In the example you give, I would say that since the early writing did not receive much media attention, it does not count toward establishing notability of the subject, let alone of the deadname. This would make the deadname non-notable in principle. But to avert confusion in the section where the early writing is discussed, it would probably be appropriate to say something like: "So-and-so published XYZ early work under the name [deadname]." This sort of thing (critically, the use–mention distinction) is addressed in MOS:IDINFO#Recommendations, a page that appears to have been mostly abandoned despite the fact that it would be a useful addition to our guidelines. Armadillopteryx 15:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, such a name is non-notable. Maybe the early-writing matter can be mentioned in a footnote. But notable birth names should be required in the lead. Regardless of how what was previously said in the guideline is interpreted, the standard practice has always been to include such names in the lead, especially for navigation purposes. Without that requirement, many articles will have to combat people pushing to have that name become as inconspicuous as possible. This started happening only two weeks after the wording was changed from the original RfC above. We shouldn't have to waste time arguing each one on a case-by-case basis. Regarding It may also be mentioned elsewhere in the article if contextually appropriate, but such mentions should be kept to a minimum, I believe "in the article" should be deleted, as there are some cases where the birth name is contextually appropriate in other articles. See how Caitlyn Jenner is handled at Athletics at the 1975 Pan American Games. We don't need people trying to argue that the birth name is never allowed outside of the article on the person. Regarding "such mentions should be kept to a minimum", there could result unanswerable debates about whether the need to minimize its use overrules contextual appropriateness. This could be replaced with wording that more closely matches the RfC closure above, e.g. "but gratuitous mentions should be avoided." Crossroads -talk- 17:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I like your suggestions to remove "in the article" and to change "but such mentions should be kept to a minimum" to "but gratuitous mentions should be avoided". As for requiring notable deadnames to be in the lead, I see reasonable arguments both for and against it; apparently we're headed for an RfC that will clarify that point. Armadillopteryx 07:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The current and old version do not require prior names in the lead and there are cases where forcing an old name in the lead could conflict with BLP. I'll have to not support this version for that reason. Rab V (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Also will again note forcing old names in the lead will conflict with MOS:GENDERID's note that the MOS does not say where old names must be included. Rab V (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Why do you keep stating that? As seen before this edit, the guideline stated, "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name." The word should was already there. For years. As seen with this edit, SMcCandlish's version stated that "it should then appear in the lead." No difference as far as the lead goes. MOS:GENDERID does not conflict in any way. There was no reason for MOS:GENDERID to state "in the lead" since it relays, "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Changed names calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person if they were notable under that name. In other respects, the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first." It's pointing people to this guideline for further detail. And that further detail stated, in part, "should be included in the lead sentence." Arguing that because MOS:GENDERID doesn't state "in the lead" when it points to a section that has stated "in the lead" for years and that piece was added to MOS:GENDERED so that people could be taken here and see the appropriate "in the lead" guidance is silly. If I knew you would argue that, I would have added "in the lead" to MOS:GENDERID right after that piece was added there to MOS:GENDERID. And it is a more recent addition to MOS:GENDERID. The "in the lead" aspect at MOS:CHANGEDNAME has been there for much longer. Years. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I do not understand why some editors in this discussion continue to argue that the status quo ante language was unequivocal. It seems clear that we have good faith editors who interpreted "should only" as "should, but only" and other equally good faith editors who understood "should only" as "should not, unless". I don't see the key to this as uncovering the "originalist" interpretation of the status quo ante, but I see even less point in pretending that "should only" had one and only one meaning, when clearly several editors held each of the interpretations I just described. Newimpartial (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand those supposed different interpretations you speak of and have not seen them. And, regardless, reverting back to the long-standing wording in the meantime is easy enough, especially if WP:Status quo is going to be invoked. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
This provision says that the deadname "should appear". This longstanding version says that the deadname "should only appear ... if". The two do not mean the same thing, according to posts by me and other editors. Newimpartial (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
When it comes to the lead part (and only the lead part), there is no difference between what is the long-standing version and SMcCandlish's wording...other than SMcCandlish's wording using "lead" instead of "lead sentence." There is nothing vague or confusing about "should be included in the lead sentence." There is nothing vague or confusing about "it should then appear in the lead" unless one wants to argue that it doesn't state "lead sentence." But the examples given are about the lead sentence. So people would get the point in that regard. There is no difference between stating that the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name and stating that the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. How you are trying to differentiate "when" and "if" in this case is odd to me. Let's not create an issue where there is none so that people can justify not returning this page to the long-standing version that has been used for years. That doesn't work. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
And I do not see others arguing the semantic things you are arguing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Do you not see that this version states that In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name while this version baldly states that In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead? That is, the second version states that all notable deadnames should appear in the lede, but many editors (like me) read the first version as permissive rather than obligatory. I am perplexed at the difficulty some editors are having in seeing this difference, which seems obvious to me; I have shown that at least two other editors read the previous text the same way I did. Newimpartial (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
People now are claiming that it could have been read that way, as part of arguing that their preference is the status quo. But has anyone ever read it that way before this current push? Has there ever even been an article where the person was notable under their birth name and it was nevertheless not in the lead? Crossroads -talk- 22:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, except that I only see Newimpartial arguing all of that. And I already addressed Rab V on "should." It's always been there. It's not like the guideline ever stated "must" on this matter. I don't understand Newimpartial's "22:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)" post. To repeat, "Let's not create an issue where there is none so that people can justify not returning this page to the long-standing version that has been used for years. That doesn't work." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
To answer both of you, I have always read the policy the same way as Newimpartial, and I will tell you why.
"If" and "only if" (similarly, "when" and "only when") are logic operators with distinct meanings. This is explained reasonably well at If and only if#Distinction from "if" and "only if".
"A if B" (or "A when B") means that whenever B is true, A is automatically also true. B is a sufficient condition for A.
"A only if B" (or "A only when B") means that A cannot be true without B, but B does not by itself guarantee A. B is a necessary but not sufficient condition for A.
The pre-RfC wording was: [birth names should be included in the lead sentence] only when [the person was notable under that name].
The laws of logic described above clearly indicate that the person was notable under that name is a necessary but not sufficient condition for birth name should be included in the lead sentence. It meant that birth names can't be in the lead without being notable, but it doesn't mean they have to be there. This is objective.
Note that I obviously don't expect everyone to apply the same rigor as a logician to their words. I believe you if you say you interpreted the policy to mean notable deadnames had to go in the lead. However, strictly speaking, that interpretation holds for the logic operator "when", not "only when".
Flyer, your above analysis of the sentence was flawed because it focused on "should", which is merely an internal component of one of the two conditions separated by "only when". You have to look at the sentence in its entirety and parse it in the right order.
Crossroads, if you would like an example of a large group of people interpreting the pre-RfC wording the way I did, check out the planning stages of the RFC. There, not one person suggested that the policy had anything to do with requiring notable deadnames in the lead. Gleeanon's RfC wording above was actually somewhat bold, as the pre-RfC discussion showed a rough preference for making the whole RfC about simply changing "the lead" to "article space", omitting the second paragraph altogether. It simply didn't make sense to anyone why a policy apparently banning deadnames did so only from the lead.
Up in #Further refinement of wording, the three of us and SMcCandlish had a conversation rife with misunderstanding because it took probably a dozen comments before I understood that you all thought that the pre-RfC wording required notable deadnames in the lead, as I was operating on the premise that they were permitted both before and after the change. If you reread that discussion, you will notice there were a few times I tried to explain that notable deadnames were still allowed—precisely because changing the guideline's pre-RfC intention, from my perspective, would have required banning notable deadnames from the lead. I thought that's what you meant when you said people were misusing the guideline.
Anyway, none of this is to invalidate your interpretation, but since the alternate interpretation is actually more sound logically, it would be nice if you could stop making presumptive comments about everyone else. I didn't appreciate the bad-faith assumptions and borderline insults I sustained above, and I don't think the way you're talking about Newimpartial and others is civil or called for, either. Armadillopteryx 10:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I see no flaw in my argument regarding "should." And I clearly did not only consider "should" in my "21:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)" post. No, I don't see any difference between "when" and "if" in this case. And it's not about rigor. Considering that the "should" piece has focused on notable birth names of trans people for years, I don't see how anyone could have thought that it meant that non-notable birth names of trans people should go in the lead. Yes, there were debates about including non-notable birth names in the lead and lower in the article even with the guideline focusing on notable birth names, but the guideline never stated that non-notable births names belong in the lead. As for "required", I already brought up "must" vs. "should." The guideline has never stated "must", and SMcCandlish's wording didn't relay "must" or "required" either. But "should" is a strong word. It's one of the strongest words we use in our guidelines and should (no pun intended) typically be adhered to. If we wanted to state "may", we'd state "may." As for the rest, you were not the one very recently removing the piece about including notable birth names in the lead. My interaction with you over this topic came and went. I stand by what I've stated. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
My main point was just that a lot of people, myself included, read the pre-RfC guideline differently from you without any bad faith or "activist" intentions. My personal reading was based strictly in logic, as I described above.
My secondary point was that (if taking a rigorous approach to the pre-RfC wording) analysis of words like "should" is secondary at best, because the difference between requiring vs. allowing notable deadnames in the lead is determined by the difference between "when" and "only when", as I showed above. I'm not sure most people would agree that saying a name "should" go in the lead doesn't sound like a requirement.
I did not suggest a difference between "when" and "if" (in fact, I said they're logically the same), so I'm not sure what you mean by that. My comment about non-notable names in the lead was a typo; I meant to write "notable deadnames" and have fixed it now.
Anyway, I'm glad we'll have another RfC so we can simply decide what the policy ought to say from now on. If one thing has become obvious from this whole talk page discussion, it's that the guideline needs to be phrased more clearly. Armadillopteryx 06:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Just like you are free to have your opinion about whether arguments are activist arguments and what the intentions of others are, I am free to have mine. But as has been made clear before, I focused on how I feel about the arguments, not the editors (except for noting edit warring behavior that removed a key piece). Best to speak for yourself rather than try to get me to believe what others' intentions are. Regardless of whatever your points are, I disagree. I never stated or implied that most people would agree that saying a name "should" go in the lead doesn't sound like a requirement. I was simply stating that it's not the same as "must" and that whatever requirement you are going on about with regard to the use of "should" was already there. It was. You disagree? I know that. You've stated "Flyer, your above analysis of the sentence was flawed because it focused on 'should', which is merely an internal component of one of the two conditions separated by 'only when'."? I know that you've stated that. Your disagreement makes no sense to me since the guideline has stated "birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name" for years now. I know what SMcCandlish's wording was and how it's not exactly the same. I was there when we agreed on it. I already commented on the difference. I also already noted that "should" is a strong word and is supposed to typically be adhered to when in our guidelines (or policies), and that we would use "may" if that was intended. It's wasn't/it's not. My commentary on "when" and "if" has its origins in an earlier reply clearly seen above. In addition to that, you stated, "'If' and 'only if' (similarly, 'when' and 'only when') are logic operators with distinct meanings." So I went back to "when" and "if." I'm not sure what typo you are referring to. I disagree that anything regarding the "should" piece needs to be phrased more clearly. It and the piece about non-notable names are clear. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel like we're speaking two different languages, because many of your replies seem to indicate you've misunderstood virtually everything I said—and apparently the feeling is mutual. I'm kind of perplexed that you're still going on about the difference between "must" and "should" and "may"; that term could just as well have been "can't" or "may never" or "shall be determined by the roll of a die", and it still wouldn't have changed my point. From what I gather, the earlier "when"/"if" remark you're referring to was said by someone else, not me (and it doesn't reflect what I stated). You appear to acknowledge the parallel (not contrast) I drew between "when" and "if" using "similarly". The difference I described is between "when" and "only when". The same difference exists between "if" and "only if", and I only mentioned it because the concepts happen to be laid out at If and only if, not When and only when. I never disputed what the old wording of the policy was, so I don't understand why that came up. In the interest of not drawing this out, I'm not going to attempt to re-clarify my "disagreement [that] makes no sense to [you]". Armadillopteryx 19:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
So it doesn't seem like we're really getting anywhere with this. I commented in this thread because I thought I could clear something up in the beginning; apparently that's not the case. I'd rather just focus on the new RfC and whatever steps remain thereafter to make the policy adequately reflect both RfCs. Sorry for whatever frustration this conversation may have caused you. I've wearied of it by now and imagine you may have as well. Armadillopteryx 21:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You stated, "Many of your replies seem to indicate you've misunderstood virtually everything I said—and apparently the feeling is mutual." Yes, it is. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
If I may interject a clarifying point: every proposal (and they began very early on) for Wikipedia to adopt in its WP:P&G pages a strict may/should/must distinction borrowed from the world of technical standards, was shot down in flames. When MoS or any other guideline says "Editors should do X", or "Wikipedia does Y", or "Do[n't] do Z", these are all equivalent-force statements, because guidelines are just guidelines, and even policies can have exceptions (except the legal policies imposed on us by WMF). At most, someone working on guideline text might use "should" intentionally to imply that there's more likelihood of a contextual exception, but this distinction cannot be depended upon at all, because a zillion people edit these pages, and they're not all the same kind of thinker. If we want to do that, we usually add "usually" or "in most cases" or something that effect. If we need to be emphatic about something, we'll be clearly emphatic. And if we mean to say that there's not really a rule and it's left to editorial discretion at the article, then we'll say so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the policy should ever absolutely require a deadname to be in the lead, even if there are some cases where it would seem perverse to omit it, i.e. for people primarily or equally notable under their deadnames. We don't want editors arguing that only slightly notable deadnames are required to be in the lead and we need to foreclose that argument in the policy. I'm not sure how to phrase this in policy terms but my feeling is that the deadname should only be permissible in the lead when it is likely that a significant proportion of the readers interested in the subject might be unaware of the subject's current name and might search for the subject's deadname instead, get redirected to the article under the current name, skim the lead and then wonder whether they have been sent to the wrong article by mistake. In that situation it is helpful to the readers to put it in the lead. In most other cases it is unnecessary and it would seem more natural to mention it when talking about the things that the subject was notable for under that name. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
That's all basically a non sequitur, since MoS is not a policy, and doesn't "absolutely require" anything. Even policies cannot do that, per the WP:IAR principle (other than meta-policies like the legal parts of WP:COPYRIGHT and other matters imposed on us by WMF's lawyers as WP:OFFICE actions).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
My example above was more to see if people like this structural breakdown of the policy points, and I'm glad to see there have been a lot of suggestions to improve the wording so far. It seems like an RfC will be the way to decide the matter of requiring notable deadnames in the lead, and the outcome of that will go in the guideline. Armadillopteryx 07:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how we can determine "slightly notable deadnames", DanielRigal. It's similar to the Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#The piece about the subject's sexual orientation being relevant to their public life discussion about trying to determine how relevant sexual orientation is to a person's public life. The "or notability" thing has been easier to go by in that case because all we have to do is go by our WP:Notability guideline. And that guideline is not about slight notability. Either someone or something is notable or not. The "slightly notable deadnames" thing falls significantly into subjective territory and is prone to wikilawyering.
In any case, whether we are talking about a trans person or a non-trans person, I am against any notion that the notable birth name doesn't belong in the lead. That is...unless it can actually be proven to be "just a little notable." In that case, it should at least go in the infobox. The part about not including non-notable names in the lead or elsewhere in the article is already in the guideline. So, really, all that needed to be done was revert this change to the longstanding wording about including notable names in the lead. But it seems we are beyond that now. So, yes, I guess an RfC is next. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I doubt that there is any consensus to include "slightly notable deadnames" of Trans people in an infobox, either. That might be a good issue to assess at RfC, given how prone infobox contents can be to edit-warring. Newimpartial (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
One would first have to convincingly make a case for what "slightly notable deadnames" are. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Time to re-RfC this. We had clear language (long-standing) to not include old names of TG/NB people in the lead sentence unless they were notable under that name. People decided to wikilawyer about this, ignoring the obvious spirit in which it was intended, so we had another RfC to clarify that the previous name(s) of such a person should not be included in the article at all if the name(s) pre-date that person's period of notability (despite that being already the result of a huge RfC at WP:VPPOL several years ago). Meanwhile, actual operational consensus is that if the name does date to the notability period, it should be in the lead section if not lead sentence (usually in the lead sentence), and is also used elsewhere when contextually sensible, both within that article and elsewhere (e.g. lists of Olympic medal winners, etc.), and we even have rather standardized ways for indicating a name change. Now, days of editwarring have broken out to prevent any of this from being mentioned, and the clear intent of this activity is to simply ban all "deadnames", or as many of them as possible, without regard for actual consensus on the matter. This is not going to fly.
Below are the propositions to settle that I can think of, and I'll list them out in tedious but WP:NOTGETTINGIT-proof detail. Green entries represent current operational consensus (how our articles are actually written, after many discussions from the individual article level to WP:VPPRO). Red entries directly conflict with prior RfCs and other consensus discussions. Grey entries are basically redundant with extant (green) consensuses that are supersets of the grey options. Black options are untested variants.
1A: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject should be included in the lead sentence. [1A and 1B/1B2 are mutually exclusive, and 1A conflicts with 1D.]
1B: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject should be included in the lead section, with inclusion in the lead sentence being left to editorial discretion. [1B and 1A are mutually exclusive, and 1B conflicts with 1D.]
1B2: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject may be included in the lead section if it is a likely search term, with inclusion in the lead sentence being left to editorial discretion). [1B2, 1B and 1A are mutually exclusive, and 1B2 conflicts with 1D. This option and 2A2 were added to encapsulate the position of DanielRigal, above.]
1C: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject may be included in an infobox in an appropriate parameter, e.g. |birth_name=, though not all former names are necessarily infobox-worthy, which is left to editorial discretion. [1C conflicts with 1D.]
1D: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject should not be included in the subject's lead and infobox at all. [1D conflicts with 1A/1B/1B2 and 1C, and is a subset of 2B and of 3B.]
2A: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject may be included elsewhere in the article as contextually appropriate (e.g. "Early life" section). [2A conflicts with 2A2 and 2B.]
2A2: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject should be included elsewhere in the article as contextually appropriate, instead of in the lead, if it is not a likely search term. [2A2 conflicts with 2A and 2B. This option and 1B2 were added to encapsulate the position of DanielRigal, above.]
2B: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject should not be included in the subject's article at all. [2B conflicts with 2A/2A2, 1A/1B/1B2, and 1C, is a superset of 1D, and is a subset of 3B.]
3A: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject may be included elsewhere in Wikipedia as contextually appropriate (e.g. lists of winners of gendered awards), usually with a notice of name change ("Foo formerly Bar", "Bar later Foo"). [3A conflicts with 3B.]
3B: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject should not be included in Wikipedia content at all. [3B conflicts with 3A, 2A/2A2, 1A/1B/1B2, and 1C, and is a superset of 2B and of 1D.]
The rest of these are subject to much less dispute, so need not be broken down into as much detail:
4A: A former name that does not date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject (including birth name) should be included in the lead and infobox.
4B: A former name that does not date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject (including birth name) should not be included in the lead and infobox. [Subset of 6B.]
5A: A former name that does not date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject (including birth name) may be included elsewhere in the article as contextually appropriate.
5B: A former name that does not date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject (including birth name) should not be included in the subject's article at all. [Subset of 6B.]
6A: A former name that does not date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject (including birth name) may be included elsewhere in Wikipedia as contextually appropriate. [Not likely to arise, since if they need to be name-dropped in that context, then that name is pretty much by-definition within their period of notability.]
6B: A former name that does not date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject (including birth name) should not be included in Wikipedia content at all.

I'm not certain that an actual RfC needs to be written out in this level of detail, though doing so would not break anything (the community can handle quite complex RfCs). That said, winnowing this down just what actually needs to be reassessed by the community is probably a good idea. It needs to be done in a way that forestalls any more interpretational conflict.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I would like to thank SMcCandlish for the studious, systematic character of this taxonomy, though I hope we won't have to put include all of the categories at RfC.
I wanted to react to 6A first, since I think it might be the most likely to be gamed - I think there might be many occasions where some editors would name drop a deadname into an article that isn't about the subject, whether or not they are aware of the name change. And based on the discussion in passing about "slightly notable deadnames" above, I think there is a fair degree of dissensus about what deadnames are notable (for example, is a deadname that would be either a bare GNG pass or a bare SNG pass - or a bare pass of both - a "notable deadname", a "non-notable deadname" or somewhere in-between? Not all subjects are the Wachowskis).
If we don't as a community agree what deadnames are notable, then it is likely that at least some editors will knowingly include in articles deadnames that other editors regard as non-notable, which will produce disputes not only in articles about these subjects but most likely in other articles as well. Newimpartial (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, keep in mind that no editor has to read much less comply with MoS or any other page here before editing. It's up to more experienced editors to ensure material is compliant with policies and guidelines, and to help newer editors absorb more of the applicable WP:P&G rules and write more-compliant material in the future. Thus "occasions where some editors would name drop a deadname into an article that isn't about the subject" are not an actual problem. If consensus is and remains that a name of TG/NB person that pre-dates that subject's notability (or an old name of a TG/NB person who is not notable at all) should not be used in mainspace, such an old name can simply be replaced with the current one. If consensus is and remains that a name from within someone's notability period can be used as contextually sensible – typically with some kind of formula like "Jane (now John) Smith" or "Samantha Stein-O'Grady (then Samuel Stein)" – then there's nothing to fix but injecting that kind of clarification formula. This comes full circle to my point that part of the NOTGETTINGIT happening in this debate is that some participants seem to want to ban all use of all prior names of TG/NB people, whether they date to the notability period or not, yet every consensus discussion on this matter has concluded against that idea. We would do well correct any further attempts to confuse use of notability-period names of TG/NB people (in any article) with use of pre-notability-period names (or identifiably using old names of simply non-notable TG/NB people). Aside: If someone who has been informed of the relevant P&G rules goes around injecting inappropriate "dead names" into articles, that's a disruptive-behavior problem, not a lack-of-rules or lack-of-the-right-rules problem, and we have WP:ANI for a reason. (Plus WP:AE – that behavior would probably fall under the somewhat recently WP:ARCA-expanded scope of the {{Ds/alert|gg}} notice to cover "human sexuality and gender, broadly construed" if I recall the wording correctly.)

Important: I wrote the above questions/issues list with very precise language; while not all of the options (some of which have already been rejected by prior RfCs) need be listed in a new RfC, we need to be clear that there's no such thing as "a notable name". The primary source of confusion about TG/NB-related policy and guideline material is in turn the confusion that there is any such thing as a "notable deadname" or "non-notable deadname", leading to worse confusions like "slightly notable deadname" or "borderline-notable deadname". There simply isn't any such thing. A person is either notable or not (determined generally by us having an article on them and it surviving AfD or being nearly certain to do so; see also WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:NTEMP). Likewise, a name either was used during the person's period of notability or it was not (as determined by reliable secondary and primary sources that prove the name usage timeline). There is no "slightly" or "borderline" to any of this, but we're going to continue having pointless, heated, inconclusive discussions until people absorb this fact.

WP:Notability pertains to subjects of stand-alone articles (by whatever names they have/had), not to particular names for those subjects. While some of us have been casually using expressions like "notable names" as a shorthand in these discussions to avoid having to type out long things like "names by which subjects were known during their periods of notability", doing this has unmistakably confused various participants in these discussions and effectively trainwrecked the threads. In an RfC itself, we need to be very clear what we mean, using exact terminology that agrees with definitions of words like "notable" in the WP:P&G pages (especially WP:BLP, which cares about notability and privacy; whatever MoS has to say on TG/NB matters, it cannot run counter to actual policy). The importance of the distinction is paramount: if a subject is notable, their former name(s) during the period of notability are not a WP:BLP privacy concern. BLP cares about a) old names of notable TG/NB people that pre-date their notability, and b) old names, at all, of non-notable TG/NB people (if those names can be used to identify the person, anyway; I've yet to see anyone argue absurdities like hunting down reference citations to non-notable works by non-notable people and changing an author name based on their own WP:OR about who the author really is today!). It's even important to keep in mind the distinction between WP:Notability (stand-alone article on the subject) and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE / WP:NOTEWORTHY mention in an article on another topic or in a list: the fact that someone is contextually important enough to mention/list but not notable enough for their own article will generally rule out use of a "dead name" of such a person (if secondary sources tell us the name changed and we're certain of the identification), right along with a pre-notability "dead name" of a notable person.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I think that while options 4A through 6A were listed for logical completeness, they were already essentially rejected at the RfC above, with 6B being the mandated approach. So we probably won't need to RfC them, I'd imagine. To be clear, we wouldn't use "notable name" or similar in any RfC option, since we're really talking about names that were used when the person was notable, not the name itself being the subject of sourced discussion. I don't think defining notability in any sense is needed here, since it needs to be decided on a case by case basis, following the standard notability guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. I don't think we should introduce the concept of "slightly notable", as this creates a sort of two-tiered notability. I am not aware of any edge cases where it would be unclear if someone was notable prior to transition. Crossroads -talk- 02:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The case I mentioned earlier was a person who had authored (NBOOK-pass) books prior to their transition and name change. The person might easily be a marginal (or disputed) GNG pass but an NAUTHOR (thus NBIO) pass, for example. In that instance, the last RfC would suggest suppressing the deadname (if it were considered non-notable), but I think this is a case where the most helpful treatment for the reader would be to include the deadname in the section on the subject's writing (and in the articles on the books written under the deadname, if such articles exist). However, I don't necessarily see any reason except "logical consistency with policy" in favor of putting this borderline-notable deadname in the lead or lead sentence. Newimpartial (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Crossroads: Yes, 4A through 6A were listed for completeness and clarity. It has become apparent that various participants in these discussions do not know understand the underlying policy principles, do not know about the prior consensus decisions, do not accept them, do not understand them (i.e. do not interpret them the way almost everyone else does), or pretend not to understand them, or some mixture of two or more of those. As for confused use of "notable" in this discussion, see my reply to Newimpartial just above in the same thread (same timestamp as this one).

Newimpartial, to apply that just-mentioned other reply to your newer post: There's almost always the possibility of edge cases, for any rule about anything. That's not an argument against having a rule. (And see below for an even odder hypothetical example.) BLP policy with regard to TG/NB people is entirely grounded in privacy and notability, not other concerns. (To the extent WP is considering any other concerns in relation to TG/NB people, like shifting societal norms about pronouns, etc., these are in MoS material, and are more flexible guidelines, and are within, not counter to, the policy concerns.) A "marginally notable" (i.e. notable) author whose old name appears on a "marginally notable" (i.e. notable) book is a really hard – maybe impossible – sell when it comes to privacy arguments (especially if the book has not been reprinted under the new name). Policy doesn't recognize a subject as "marginally" notable; either it is notable enough for inclusion or it is not. The "marginal" notion is one of the closeness of an AfD pass/fail result. By way of comparison, Trump has been the US president for almost 4 years, not "marginally" the US president, despite the marginal nature of his "pass" in the 2016 election. So, we need to stop thinking or talking about "marginally notable" as if it's a thing. It's not, but belief in it is badly confusing these discussions.

If we have an article on the book and an article on the author, WP is not in a position to pretend there is no connection between them, nor to fake the facts about the name used on the book cover. To take a split scenario: If we end up with an article on the book but not the author, the proper thing to do varies by context. The default assumption is that we should prefer the current, preferred name of the person, so we'd need to explain that the author is now known by name B, while the book cover says name A. We're not in a position to pretend in the article on the book that the old name was not the name under which it was published. We might well have reliably sourceable information that the person prefers to identify by the newer name even in the context of their old writings, or that they don't care if others' material about their old writing uses their old name (random people, after all, can't really be presumed to know of the name change, especially for someone barely a public figure and a work barely notable enough for inclusion). If the book has been republished under the new name, we might need to mention the old name only in a footnote (just so readers do not get confused into thinking two books on the same subject by the same title from the same publisher were written by different people). This really isn't appreciably different from a pseudonym case, since there's not a legitimate privacy issue. The reverse split scenario: If we end up with an article on the author and not one on the book, we'll again need to mention the old name (unless the non-notable book has nothing to do with the person's notability and need not be mentioned in the article at all).

Privacy can cut both ways, though, especially for non-notable persons. Consider this scenario: the book is notable, the author is not, and we have undeniable sourcing that the author has completely distanced from the prior name and life and does not want to be associated in any way with the book and the name on it. As the person is not notable, they do in fact have a privacy interest in not being "outed" under their current name and having that name associated on Wikipedia with the book and the old name on it. If the person becomes notable (in association with the book or for any other reason), i.e. becomes a fully public figure, then they no longer have a privacy interest in their connection to the notable book and the name on it being ignored by Wikipedia. But an edge case like this is going to be rare at best. If it does arise, we have IAR for a reason and can just adapt for the unusual context. But IAR probably would not be necessary even in this hypothetical. I can actually think of a prior AfD case (which I won't name, since that would basically thwart the AfD's purpose!) that involved a scenario like this, except without the TG/NB component. While the work was arguably notable (or at least NOTINDISCRIMINATE enough to cover in some detail in a broader article on the overall topic), the pseudonymous author of it was not personally notable and did not want to be publicly and real-name associated with that work. AfD did in fact delete the bio article, on BLP privacy grounds and because the person was only supposedly-notable in connection to that particular work (and an award received for it, the only reliable non-pseudonymous identification of the author with the work). If BLP privacy concerns are strong in that kind of case, they are going to be even stronger when combined with additional TG/NB privacy concerns of a non-notable TG/NB person. PS, for anyone new to all this: a central principle is that notability does not "rub off" (e.g. from a book to its author or vice versa). An author must pass WP:GNG as a person to be considered notable, even if their book has already passed the GNG test as an inanimate work.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear: while I do not concur with the entirety of the analysis of WP:N here, I do agree about the role of the MoS in the cases discussed including the detailed considerations involved in deciding them, so for me the big picture basically trumps the details in this instance.
From my own experience at AfD, there is a set of cases where the GNG (or SNG) pass is more marginal, where the considerations of Notability get wrapped up in more general encyclopaedic principles than whether SIGCOV has been met two or three times - I imagine this would be even more true in any community attempt to determine whether a person would have been presumed notable based only on references from the period where they had preferred their former, now dead name, in instances were either no article was written under those conditions or where a stub article was never sent to AfD while those conditions pertained.
Those caveats aside, the actual MoS principles and potential decisions discussed here by SMcCandlish seem reasonable to me. Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
And those seem like good caveats. It was complex enough already I didn't want to get into SNGs sometimes (rarely, mostly with regard to academics) having non-GNG criteria.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

TL;DR. I think this is really the wrong place to be setting "rules" for when previous names can/should be mentioned. This is (supposed to be) the Manual of Style, the purpose of which is to provide "guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles", so all this page should be doing is advising how we mention someone's previous name, if it is to be mentioned. And that is exactly what MOS:DEADNAME did before the RfC; now it's creeping away from that narrow purview. The question of whether or not to include such names is a legitimate one, and maybe we are overdue for a formal policy or guideline about it, but fundamentally it's a question about content not style and thus should be handled elsewhere--probably at WP:BLP or a related policy/guideline page. Yilloslime (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The very widely participated RfC that set this direction initially was for MOS:GENDERID, as I recall. I don't know why we would suddenly move this discussion elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Other than the one reply directly above (which didn't actually address the point), my comment right above that([28]) seems have ended the debate. I will take this silence as tacit agreement that WP:MOS is the wrong place for content policy/guidence. Yilloslime (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
In this diff, Yilloslime, removed the second half of the guidelines
If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article,{{efn|A "deadname" from a pre-notability period of the subject's life should not appear in that person's bio, in other articles (including lists and disambiguation pages), category names, templates, etc.}} even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. (See also: WP:Manual of Style § Identity, and the article Deadnaming.)
I agree that MOS is likely the wrong spot for it, but achieving the purpose of it is definitely agreed upon, and until we have similar guidance elsewhere, such as at WP:BLP, we shouldn't remove it. I undid Yilloslime's change for now, but am very open to having it done in the future once there is actual consensus here, not silence. Gbear605 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Yilloslime, just because I was the only one foolish enough to respond to your "point" does not imply consensus to remove text from the MOS, including text that was added as a result of a recent MOS RfC. In the immortal words of the closer of that RfC, don't be a dick. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I assumed that since no one had even attempted to rebut the merits of my argument after several days, everyone must have agreed. (And since making my edit, Gbear605 has stated that they agree this is the wrong spot for this guideline.) Editors have to make good faith efforts to participate in talk page discussions; they can't just revert to their preferred versions without discussion. If editors want formal guidance on the inclusion of prior names, the onus is on them to make the proposal in the appropriate forum, which this is not. The forum matters: People who care about punctuation and formatting in BLPs are watching this page; people who care about privacy and content in BLPs are watching WP:BLP. And yes there's overlap in who's watching what, but the point is: if you want to make content policy/guidance, then you should solicit the participation of the folks who are interested and (presumably more experienced) in questions of content.Yilloslime (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear: this was a well-participated and properly closed RfC whose result you were reverting. You don't just get to assume IDONTHEARTHAT and do your own thing, no matter how right you feel deep within your heart.
The fact remains that the guidelines about gendered pronouns and deadnames have been extensively discussed and mostly resolved as MOS issues up to now, so it really isn't up to one or two editors to decide that this isn't the appropriate forum.
And the fact also remains that this particular forum has attracted more than its share of editors who are experienced in questions of content in this area. The idea that other, more experienced editors have been missing from these discussions seems pretty laughable to me, but by all means publicize the next RfC farther and widerer. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
If Yilloslime is going to refuse to even attempt to absorb the complexities of the policy/guideline interactions in this matter – the need to clarify them being the entire reason we're contemplating another RfC after we just closed one and it failed to get the job done – and is going to start edit-warring again, then we're probably going to have to ask RFPP to lock the MoS page again, and take the editwarring to a noticeboard. The locking of the page within the last week is a warning to stop editwarring.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Implementation of the Don't be a dick RfC close

In case anyone thinks that the closure of the last RfC actually resolved any issues regarding the inclusion of deadnames from prior to an article subject's period of Notability in BLPs, this issue is subject to anongoing RfC at Nicole Maines. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of formal titles

The MoS says not to capitalize job titles except in three cases, one of which is "a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier ...".

So, "As Archbishop of Canterbury, he is the primate of all England ...", but "... by Justin Welby, the current archbishop of Canterbury", where it is preceded by the modifier "current", if I am reading the MoS right. Also by the book, but perhaps a step further, is "the official London residence of the archbishop of Canterbury", because "the" is considered a modifier by the MoS. I'm good with what the MoS says, but a couple of editors are not, saying that "Archbishop of Canterbury" must always, always, always be capitalized. Do we need to improve the MoS, its examples, or some of its editors? Chris the speller yack 18:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

If the existing MoS language, which explicitly calls out situations where "archbishop" isn't capitalized in "archbishop of Canterbury", leaves some people still thinking that the "a" must "always, always, always" be capitalized in "archbishop of Canterbury", then it isn't because the language isn't already clear, and no amount of editing will change their minds. Either your statement of their position on the matter isn't spot on, or else they're failing to accept or failing to understand that the MoS is the prevailing style guide that, for Wikipedia articles, supersedes whatever they were taught elsewhere or have inferred from their own reading.
For our context, where are these discussions taking place? Largoplazo (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussions have been on my talk page and that of Koavf so far. Thanks for your post, which really reinforces what I thought and clarifies what should be done with such cases. I will return to those discussions now that I am certain that this is the right treatment. Chris the speller yack 19:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Now it's down to just my talk page. Chris the speller yack 20:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I was just drafting a post on the same question, but with the opposite preference.
It's always been my understanding that specific, unique titles of individuals get capitalised - "an archbishop" but "the Archbishop of Canterbury"; and that's what the Overview at Biography#Titles of people seems to me say: Titles should be capitalized ... where the position/office is a globally unique title that is the subject itself, and the term is the actual title or conventional translation thereof (not a description or rewording)
But this text in the overview does currently seem to be contradicted by the bullet points and examples at MOS:JOBTITLES.
I'm really unconvinced by the argument that, while if I say "Justin Welby is Archbishop of Canterbury" I'm using his title, if I say "Justin Welby is the Archbishop of Canterbury" or "Prince Charles is the Prince of Wales" I'm using a description that just happens to have the same words.
As far as I'm aware, when I say either, I am using their title - I'd certainly never substitute "Justin Welby is Canterbury's archbishop" or "Justin Welby is the archbishop of the Diocese of Canterbury"; or "Prince Charles is the Welsh prince". Is this a WP:ENGVAR thing? (Perhaps worth noting that "Welby is the Archbishop of Canterbury" gets 10 times as many Google hits as "Welby is Archbishop of Canterbury", suggesting the latter is a niche usage.)
The lede of Archbishop of Canterbury has, as far as I can see, been stable for almost 20 years as "The Archbishop of Canterbury is..." before being changed two days ago to "The archbishop of Canterbury is...."; every other Church of England bishop article I've checked is the same. I really think this change is counter to established Wikipedia practice, and if MOS currently requires it MOS should probably be changed.
I'd suggest the far simpler rule implied by the overview: actual titles of individuals are capitalised, with or without the definite article. TSP (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Thinking on this a bit further, "Prince of Wales" is a good illustration of why the proposed approach must be wrong.
According to that reading of the MOS, you could say Charles is Prince of Wales; but would have to say Charles is the current prince of Wales.
But that's wrong: Charles isn't the prince of Wales - the last Welsh prince died in 1282, Charles has almost nothing to do with Wales. He is the Prince of Wales, that is simply a dynastic title he holds. It can't be decapitalized and turned into a description, it is only a title.
So the argument that adding 'the' or 'the current' changes a title into a description, which therefore should not be capitalized, cannot be right; because 'prince of Wales' as a description does not apply to Charles; only 'Prince of Wales' as a title. I'd suggest the argument makes little more sense applied to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and would be best removed from the MOS. TSP (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
That's a specious argument, equating "[p|P]rince of Wales" with "prince from Wales" or "Welsh prince", a very false equivalence. (That's super-duper-extra-especially so in this case, if you know the legendary history of that dynastic title as a "gotcha!" wordplay in the first place! It has literally never means "Welsh prince".)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It is not specious. "Prince of Wales", with prince capitalized, is a title of royalty currently held by Charles. But "prince of Wales" with a lower case prince is something closer to a job title, a description of someone who reigns as prince over Wales. Charles does not reign over Wales, so the lower case prince is incorrect for him. He is a prince, and he is Prince of Wales, but he is not one of the (reigning) princes of Wales (or of Powys, or whatever distinction you think you're making when you say that Prince of Wales has never meant Welsh prince). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
There is no job/role title of "someone who reigns as prince over Wales" (except deep in history, when "Wales" had a different definition, and the title is usually translated as prince of the Welsh). And English capitalization was not standardized during most of the period during which that title has even existed (to the extent that it even is today). You're basically manufacturing anachronistic arguments to push for an exception that suits your personal preferences. From another angle: If there were actually a role or set of roles that consisted of princes from and ruling over Wales, and it were customary in English to refer to such a person with the exact phrase "a prince of Wales", then there would be a case to disambiguate from the dynastic (and non-automatic) title presently held by Charles. Even in that case, however, there is no particular reason that a single-letter capitalization change would actually serve to disambiguate properly; we know from long experience that the average reader's (and average editor's) use and understanding of capitalization is hazy at best and conflicting from person to person, and thus that attempts to distinguish topics on the basis of nothing but a capital letter tend to fail. Various RfCs and other referenda about WP:SMALLDETAILS have seen its wording change significantly, due to community realization that just a capital letter is often insufficient. But we need not even go there, because none of the "setup" conditions, to need to disambiguate in the first place, even exist.

There is no effective difference, style-wise, between [p|P]rince of Wales and [e|E]arl of Cromartie, for the same reason: There is no general class of "earls from/born in Cromartie" who in English are each referred to as "an earl of Cromartie" in distinction from persons bearing the exact title the earl of Cromartie; all "earls of Cromartie", in any sensible usage of English, are persons bearing that title, just as "a prince of Wales" is not used in English to refer to anyone other than a bearer of the title the prince of Wales. If you needed to refer to earls who happened to have been native to Cromartie but who were never the earl of Cromartie, you would write something like "several British earls who were born in Cromartie", just as you would write something like "Welsh princes" or "princes in Wales" in reference to pre-1301 principes in Wales. Even that would be poor writing, as it conflates unlike categories, all during different periods and with differing levels of autonomy and regional authority: princes of the Welsh, princes of various Welsh realms (princes of South Wales, princes of North Wales, princes of Aberffraw, princes of Powys, princes of Deheubarth, etc.), kings of the Britons, and rulers of various individual kingdoms and other realms in what was later Wales).

A third way of approaching this: There is no effective difference, style-wise, between [p|P]rince of Wales and [k|K]ing/[q|Q]ueen of England; we write "successive reigns of three kings of England", and "when John became the king of England", without a capital k. It simply doesn't matter that that what is now England was once multiple co-existing kingdoms with multiple kings; we just write more clearly: "kings of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms", or whatever. Likewise, we would never use "a prince of Wales" or "princes of Wales" to refer to rulers in/of Wales who were not the prince of Wales in the sense of that dynastic title, nor do we have any reason to capitalize the p in "when Charles became the prince of Wales" or "Charles has approached his role as the prince of Wales very differently than did Edward VIII, the last holder of the title." There's nothing unusually special about this title.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

But that's the argument that MOS currently makes, isn't it? That it's only if I say (lowercasing everything here to avoid the issue) charles is prince of wales that I am using his title, so should uppercase prince; whereas if I say charles is the current prince of wales, it asserts that I am actually using a generic position description, not a title, so should lowercase prince? But, as you correctly say, "prince of wales" does not exist as a description, only as a title; so I don't see why we would ever lowercase 'prince of Wales'.
Currently, and as far as I can see forever, Wikipedia has used the capitalisation "Prince of Wales" consistently, including in the sentence The current and longest-serving Prince of Wales is Prince Charles.
MOS, as far as I can see, decided in 2017 that this was wrong: that we should change that to The current and longest-serving prince of Wales is Prince Charles.
I don't think that is a usage you will find anywhere outside Wikipedia. I realise that Wikipedia style tends to be sparing with capitals - and I usually agree, for example in he is the president not he is the President - but I think inventing a usage which is found nowhere else is going too far; and as far as I can see has been rightly ignored by the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia since it was introduced.
Personally, I'm not pushing for an exception for 'Prince of Wales': I'm using it as an example for why I think the whole current approach is wrong.
I think the approach given in the overview is correct (my emphasis): Titles should be capitalized when attached to an individual's name, or where the position/office is a globally unique title that is the subject itself, and the term is the actual title or conventional translation thereof (not a description or rewording). Titles should not be capitalized when being used generically. And that approach leads me to the current Prince of Wales - that is the actual, globally-unique title.
I think the "only in the following cases" approach which gives the current prince of Wales is wrong, at odds with all forms of normal English and also with the approach actually currently used on the vast majority of Wikipedia, and should be changed. TSP (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Concur with TSP. Won't relitigate lost battles but when gnomes have to change thousands of pages to suit a style guide, one should wonder how much sense the style guide makes. MOS is a niche realm of wikipedia dominated by over enthusiastic editors that are at odds with how everyday wikipedians write articles.
For example, 20 days ago List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom got re-titled List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom solely based on the MOS without even making the same correction to the first line of the page, which shows even the gnomes aren't consistent in application and that no one cared for 15 years about the capitilization. Slywriter (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
That's the problem. I do appreciate the MOS editors, and largely appreciate what they do (and have been one myself in the past). But in this case, a decision got made by a handful of editors on an obscure MOS sub-page in 2017. I - even as an active editor who has actually edited the relevant section of the MOS before - had no way of knowing the debate was even happening (because the section had been spun out to a sub-page not on my watchlist). Once it was done, I was completely unaware of it for three years, as an active Wikipedia editor with 2000 pages on my watchlist, which all remained in line with the previous consensus.
Now my alerts seem to be full of editors changing "the Archbishop of Canterbury" to "the archbishop of Canterbury" - a usage that I suspect could be found almost nowhere on Wikipedia, or in the real world, until this change - on pages that have been stable for years, and telling longstanding article editors who object that they are wrong based on this MOS change.
Wikipedia is almost 20 years old and has thousands of articles written, according to the MOS guidance of the time. Please can we have consideration from MOS editors, to at least attempt to make advice in line with actual Wikipedia practice, and with normal real-world English?
I think after 20 years, MOS editing should be considered largely a maintenance task, clarifying inclarities and dealing with unanticipated situations; not trying to mandate huge usage changes across the whole of Wikipedia based on the decision of a few editors. TSP (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Finished MOS:DIACRITICS merge from MOS:CAPS to WP:MOS

FYI

For details, please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Finished MOS:DIACRITICS merge.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity/nationality/citizenship/etc. in lists

This is not directly about biography articles, but is related to MOS:ETHNICITY. See Talk:Tel Aviv University#Adding and linking nationalities/citizenship in list entries: shouldn't list entries of notable alumni/faculty/etc. avoid mentioning ethnicity/nationality/citizenship/past nationality/etc. unless it is directly related to their notability?

My understanding is that this is the case as it's even less significant for lists than for leads of the main articles and that this is the existing consensus for such articles (e.g. List of Harvard University people, List of Princeton University people, List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty, List of Stanford University people, List of University of Cambridge people, List of École normale supérieure people). — MarkH21talk 02:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, when it comes to ethnic designation and "nationality" in that kind of sense. This appears to evade (by intent or by unawareness) the "overwhelming negative response" of the community to the idea of pegging encyclopedia subjects with WP:Race and ethnicity labels. Depending on the exact type of list, "nationality" in the sense of citizenship might make sense (e.g. for competitors in an international event). @MarkH21: I revised that a bit for clarity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Clarify Ethnicity to not have consensus regarding UK nationals

See this archive for a recent past discussion about this and WP:UKNATIONALS for a 2007 essay about this.

Currently MOS:ETHNICITY states

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 ... Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

Without context and for those who are not perfectly acquainted (such as myself), this seems to imply that articles should simply say "British," but there is in fact no consensus and the currently policy is to preserve the WP:STATUSQUO. As ProcrastinatingReader stated in the 2020 discussion linked above, and suggested as an addition to MOS:ETHNICITY, There is no preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh. Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus. The label must not be changed arbitrarily. To come to a consensus, editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject, particularly UK reliable sources, and consider whether the subject has a preference on which nationality they identify by.

As I've discovered myself over the last few hours, it's difficult to discover this existing preference. Since it is only in an essay and not in any guidelines, a well-meaning editor might come along and see what appear to be numerous violations of the MOS. I propose that we add the text above to MOS:ETHNICITY in a footnote since it is explanatory for both the history of the issue and for what editors should do on current pages (namely, maintain the STATUSQUO without first reaching talk page consensus).

Gbear605 (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

If an article describes someone in the lead as Scottish, Welsh, English, etc., it should only do so as a nationality. As far as I can tell, a significant fraction of the people who insist both on using English as an ethnicity rather than as a nationality for people of modern times, and on using English instead of British, are doing so out of racist impulses, as a way of not counting all those other people in England as being properly English. That's not an attitude we should provide any leeway for. I think the current text is ok in this regard, without needing clarifications for the fact that some nationalities are subsets of other nationalities (English ⊂ British). But I think that if we are to add a footnote about this special case, your proposed footnote is too vague about the distinction between ethnicity and nationality. If it's in MOS:ETHNICITY, and editors see text saying that it's ok to call some British people English, they could easily skip past that word "nationality" much later in the footnote and think (incorrectly) that this is an exceptional case where ethnicity is allowed. I'd prefer wording like "There is no preference between describing a person's nationality as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh", making clear much earlier on that we're only talking about nationality here, not ethnicity. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, a significant fraction of the people who insist both on using English as an ethnicity rather than as a nationality for people of modern times, and on using English instead of British, are doing so out of racist impulses, as a way of not counting all those other people in England as being properly English. As long as Scottish and Welsh editors insist on classifying anyone who was born or lives in Scotland or Wales as Scottish or Welsh then I don't think it's fair to suggest that English editors are classifying people as English for racist reasons. In fact, that's tantamount to a racist suggestion in itself, as it implies that calling someone Scottish or Welsh is fine but calling them English is not. Personally, as an Englishman who is happy to describe himself as both British and English (and who considers anyone who was born or grew up in England to be English, no matter what their ethnicity, and has so categorised people on Wikipedia many times), I'd be fine with using British for everyone from the UK unless there are good reasons not to, but sadly not everyone concurs. And unless and until they do, there's absolutely no problem with describing someone as English. Of course, our passports all say "British", so in fact that is legally our only nationality (unless we happen to have dual nationality with another sovereign state). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Try reading my comment again. Particularly the part where I wrote "insist ... on using English as an ethnicity rather than as a nationality". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
You actually said ...a significant fraction of the people who insist both on using English as an ethnicity rather than as a nationality for people of modern times, and on using English instead of British, are doing so out of racist impulses... Which implied you disliked the usage of English instead of British as a general rule, not just as an ethnicity. I would also point out that if Scottish, Welsh or Irish (or French, German, Italian, etc) are ethnicities, as they are generally regarded as being, then so is English. Terms are very often used both for nationality and ethnicity. Nothing racist about that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
You are still responding to an imaginary comment that is different from what I actually wrote. I am fine with people using English as a nationality, as in the example of Paul McCartney mentioned below. It's the people who insist on calling ethnically-English people English and on calling other-British-people-in-England British that I want to head off. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The MOS says that exceptions might apply and people should use common sense. Generally we should use the description most commonly used in reliable sources. So the Beatles were an "English rock band," while Boris Johnson is a "British politician." But McCartney is not ethnically English. TFD (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the MOS states that exceptions apply, but I think it’s worth calling out this specific exception because it’s a frequent edit change, especially by IPs and new editors, it’s an example where there are strong feelings on both sides with decent arguments behind both sides, and it’s an example that applies to thousands of articles (just do a search for “is an English”). Otherwise it’s simply too easy for a naive editor (such as myself) to come in and think that they see a big problem when there is not one. Gbear605 (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the key point here is that people (and editors) are situated differently in relation to the concept of 'UK nationality' vs. especially the Scottish, Welsh and now English 'nations' (Ireland was always its own set of issues). To me, the current pandemic has done more than any single event in the last 200 years - even Brexit - to bring on the realisation that England has its own 'national' policy issues apart from those of the devolved governments. And so English 'nationhood' - quite part from English ethnicity - becomes a meaningful issue. But as I say, people are situated differently in relation to this development. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Whatever reason for reliable sources to determine how someone should be described, our determination should be based on common usage in reliable sources. Also, the issue affects other countries as well, especially historically when residents of the British dominions and colonies all had British nationality. So while the article refers to Gandhi as "Indian lawyer," etc., there was no Indian citizenship and he was a British subject. TFD (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I have to say, that an editor that works mostly in the countries of the former Yugoslavia, the current ethnicity guidance is a square peg trying to fit a round hole. In order to understand how a person fits into one of the Yugoslavia's, you almost always need to know their ethnicity up front. Many of my FAs have "Yugoslav and Bosnian Serb/Croat" etc in the first sentence, and for good reason, it is central to their biography. In the British case, if the ethnicity, Scottish, Irish etc is relevant to why the person is notable (ie a member of the Scottish parliament, an MP for a Scottish constituency, a Scottish rugby player etc), it should be in the first sentence along with British (which is their nationality). I fail to see how this would be in any way controversial or unencyclopaedic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I fail to see how Scottish ethnicity is central enough to be lead-worthy for most Scottish MPs, any more than Irish ethnicity is central enough to be lead-worthy in comparison to Paul McCartney's Liverpudlian identity. And the Balkan ethnicity/nationality edit-wars, most of which are based on zero reliable sources, are not exactly a model for best practices here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
This whole discussion illustrates nicely the difficulty English-speakers currently have with the concepts of "nationality" or "nation". MOS:ETHNICITY skirts around this, but it is clear that one widely held POV is that "nationality" should in all cases mean "legal citizenship at the time a person became Notable". However, contemporary usage in the UK is rapidly evolving away from this, so that the Scottish and Welsh "nations" are increasingly recognized as the relevant "national" units in spite of their common citizenship with England, which means "English" becomes the "nationality" of people who live in the territory of Great Britain without devolved government. This usage has nothing to so with English or Welsh or Scottish ethnicity, so there is no doubt that Paul McCartney for example is "English" in that sense. Newimpartial (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2020(UTC)
It's standard in the UK to think of oneself as Scottish, English, Welsh or Irish. If someone is a poet from Scotland, she's a Scottish poet, not a British one. SarahSV (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Or maybe a makar, in that case. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, good word. SarahSV (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no disagreement, I've made the change in [29]. Gbear605 (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Consistency

Concerning MOS:JOBTITLES, we're having problems at Chrystia Freeland, concerning deputy prime minister of Canada. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to better address "The"/"the" in names of performers (etc.) and groups thereof

Over at MOS:MUSIC, we have the following:

Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names).

This is obviously meant to apply to performers and other notables more generally. The "giant test case of doom" for this was [t|T]he Beatles, which was flamewarred about for years, and the RfC that settled that (in favor of the Beatles) is why the line quoted above was added to (but only to) MOS:MUSIC.

We have frequent flare-ups about whether it applies to wrestlers, actors, sports and gaming teams, comedians, dance troupes, yadda yadda yadda. People are wikilawyering that it doesn't apply to their pet case because it's not a musician, not a trademark, or whatever, ignoring the community intent of adding that to the guideline.

I propose that this be integrated into MOS:BIO directly, as something like:

Standard English-language text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of individuals and groups, such as bands, troupes, teams/squads, and families. (See also: WP:Manual of Style/Trademarks; WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Institutions; WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Proper names).

We can add a footnote about cases when reliable sources near-unanimously agree in favor of an exception, e.g. k.d. lang, CCH Pounder (without dots). The cross-reference to WP:Manual of Style/Proper names is updated, as that page has been merged away into relevant other MoS pages. MOS:BIO#Families should get a cross-reference to this new item, as it does not address things like "[t|T]he". If we need to inject examples, that will be easy enough, even for things like teams; e.g., our article is Miami Heat, and they are the Miami Heat, in short form the Heat, not "The Miami Heat" or "The Heat".

Doing this would forestall a never-ending stream of perennial (and often excessively heated, WP:SSF- or WP:CSF-driven) arguments. Given that MoS's secondary purpose (after providing consistent, encyclopedic writing for the reader) is prevention and resolution of time- and goodwill-wasting editorial disputation over style trivia, we generally should not skip opportunities to do so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC); updated 01:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

PS: A series of merge proposals from 2016–2018 to consolidate biographical advice into MOS:BIO all concluded in favor, and I merged in material from MOS:LEAD, MOS:ABBREV, MOS:CAPS, etc. in a long series of back-to-back edits [30], resulting in today's MOS:BIO. This particular nit-pick is just one that was lost in the shuffle, and should have been done years ago. In essence, I'm just checking consensus to finish the job properly (I finished the MOS:DIACRITICS part of that merge yesterday).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC); updated 01:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Lately I've spent about 99% of my time on Wikipedia arguing about this, so I support the change. It's not just a rule for musicians. Popcornfud (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sensible and overdue measure. Tony (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this would be helpful because I have looked for this information in the past and it was difficult to find. As this now seems to be fairly standard practice, I think it would be helpful to have it clearly stated in the MOS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea in terms of presenting things clearly in an easy-to-find place. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but it doesn't go far enough. It would be useful also to clarify that we don't say things like "a The Beatles song" or "a the Beatles song", not do we use disambiguators "(The Beatles song)" nor "(the Beatles song)". Sadly, for most of the "The" bands other than the Beatles, we still do those odd things. Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Dicklyon: I don't see it very often (and fix it when I do). I'd've thought this was one of those "no brainer" things, but I guess it could be added. Are you really seeing this a lot? Is is mostly or entirely confined to bands?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    We almost resolved this, but then got overturned to "no consensus"; see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music/Archive_8#RfC:_using_"The"_in_song/album_article_titles. All my fixes got reverted. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Dicklyon: Oh, right, that disambiguation stuff. Yeah, since it's article titles, that might be better handled again at RM or in another RfC. "No consensus" back when doesn't mean consensus cannot be arrived at. WP:CONCISE appears to militate against doing things like "Foo Bar (The BazzQuuxians album)" when "Foo Bar (BazzQuuxians album)" will suffice. I do in fact see plenty of such articles at the latter format, so clearly there are just some people squabbling to keep an article they especially favor at a "(The Something album)" disambiguation. But general usage, even in the music press, is to drop the "the" any time it's awkward ("...worked at the label during the recording of the final three Beatles albums", etc.). I think people confuse this with a "The" at the beginning of the title of a published work, which is usually retained no matter how unnatural it sounds ("Stephen King's The Shining"). PS: I can see making a case for rare exceptions like "(The Who album)" or "(The The album)", when confusion could result due to natural ambiguity. As I often say, a disambiguation that introduces another ambiguity is a failure. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    Agree to wait and work on that later. It's related to the idea that the "The" is not an "inherent" part of the proper name, and some people don't see how awkward it can be to keep treating it as such, but yes the disambiguator is a narrow special case. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    Yeps. That inherent part was what I was getting at in mentioning The The. They're never referred to as just "The". Some cases like The Hague (outside of music) are borderline: it's possible to write something like "a conflict between Hague jurisdiction and federal Elbonian court jurisdiction arose in 2018", but "The Hague" clearly dominates, even with that silly capital-T. I think "the Who" is fairly close to that; one can write "her favorite Who album", but we're more often going write around potential ambiguity (especially for screen readers) and use a "the Who" construction even if it requires a very different sentence ("her favorite album by the Who"). Weird cases like this are no excuse to jam a "the" in everywhere "Beatles" occurs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Full support...for reasons already mentioned. Especially User:Dicklyon's "...a The Beatles..." example. Primergrey (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Given the unanimous support, I've added it as MOS:NAMEFMT, and stuck most of the examples, exceptions, cross-references to the guidelines that make those exceptions, and other such stuff into a footnote (even worked in Dicklyon's a the Beatles thing). Also updated cross-references at MOS:MUSICCAPS and MOS:BIO#Families.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2020_archive&oldid=1137419739"