Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2022 archive

Office titles

@Yakme: & I appear to be in disagreement as to whether or not the prefix "the" is required to lowercase the office "president of Italy". If I'm understanding JOBTITLES correctly? it is required. He argues that it isn't. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no super strong opinion on this, actually. It sounded more natural to me to write "Einaudi served as (P/p)resident" than "Einaudi served as the president". However I agree that "Einaudi was the president" sounds better than "Einaudi was (P/p)resident". Is your point that if there is no article "the", then the word "president" should be capitalized? In that case I do not have anything against it. Yakme (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The British prime ministers aren't lower-cased in their bios, as it appears they don't use the prefix "the". GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I see, so should we go with "Einaudi served as President" consistently with the British PM articles, or "Einaudi served as the president"? Yakme (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, both versiosn are correct. Lowercase with prefix or Uppercase without prefix. Examples: "...served as the president of Italy" or "...served as President of Italy". GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't discussed it with the President, the Queen or even the Speaker, but I think it varies more than that. NebY (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"Notable people" lists

There are "Notable people" lists all over the world, and I do quite a bit of work on them. What I would like to try and determine, is some consensus on some small format for how best to display the birth year when preceding the names in a list of persons. There are essentially two camps of thought on this from what I can tell, and I would very much like to narrow this down to a single recommendation that we can insert into the MOS official guideline. I am okay with either, my only aim is consistency across these lists. Students, and people working on projects from all around the world might use these lists, and it would be handy in my view, if the format were the same, or highly standardized:

Option A:

• John Smith (born 1950)
• Sally Smith (born 1990)

Option B:

• John Smith (b. 1950)
• Sally Smith (b. 1990)

It would seem to me that this is the only consistency that I'd like to seek consensus for at this time. There are other aspects to these lists that could use some guidance from the MOS, but I find that if we strive to tackle too much at once, it can prove difficult to build consensus. So for right now, I am only asking about the format as it relates to birth years and "Notable people" lists (or I suppose lists generally, but not if that proves too contentious, let us limit the scope of this current ask). Right now there is simply some guidance on what one can do that reads, "Beyond the first paragraph of the lead section, birth and death details should only be included after a name if there is special contextual relevance. Abbreviations like b. and d. can be used, if needed, when space is limited (e.g., in a table) and when used repetitively (e.g., in a list of people)." The key word, "b. and d." can be used "if needed", "e.g., in a table." I recently had an editor ask me about this and some hundreds of edits I had done in Germany to try and build out some consistency on this matter (@FromCzech:), I do not care which "format" is chosen, but would prefer that we "vote" and choose one or the other to add as the "recommended" or "ought to use" so that there is less confusion. Thank you all! ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 14:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Born/Option A. That's what we always use in biographical articles and on disambiguation pages. I don't see any reason to use an abbreviation to save all of two characters. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Born/Option A. While I must admit I was using the abbreviation in the lists of "b.", I actually will throw my hat in for "born" as well. It seems to make more sense now that I've heard other people's points, and it is used more frequently apparently as well. ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 17:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we need a rule. We shouldn't mix them in an article but I don't see a powerful case for imposing a rule across the encyclopedia. If we must, then Option B: b. "b." and "d." are far less distracting. In a list where we're interested in the name and the date, repeating "born" isn't helpful. "b." and "d," are normal usage outside Wikipedia too, and not only in tables. Abbreviations aren't mere space-saving devices; they're aids to reading and understanding (cf m, lb, $, etc). NebY (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @NebY:, thanks for your input, and I must admit that that was my thinking originally which is what kick started this whole thing, but I was stopped from editing "borns" to "b." on the basis that "born" is apparently more commonly used. I thought about it a bit more, and while I am still open to go with either the community "chooses", I do see a case for using "born" now perhaps slightly more than just "b.". All of "Born", "died", "b." and "d." by the way are all commonly already omitted when BOTH birthdate AND death date are known—such that it looks like John Smith (1900–1990), but when a person is still living, the "born" text seems to commonly be used over "b." Additionally, it clearly calls out what the date in question means (maybe the "b." is a graduation date or something else, we don't want to confuse the more casual reader I would think. My eyes also are somewhat bad, so just a "b." could perhaps be confused with a "d." since both are just a single letter and small enough that this has happened to me before to be sure. For these reasons it might be advisable to spell out "born" or "died 1989" etc. when JUST a death date, but no birth date is known. That last part is not what I want to discuss though at this time, in order to at least leave the scope of this conversation limited to just the question at hand. Thank you so very much for commenting! ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 18:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Born/Option A. Per reasons given by Necrothesp, sounds more natural this way. Although I was not entirely convinced that a rule is necessary, I certainly welcome at least regional (pages of cities of the same country) and thematic (disambiguation pages, etc.) consistency. FromCzech (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Born/Option A. Absolutely no need for an abbreviation. WWGB (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Born/Option A. Avoid abbreviations except when space is tight. This only saves two characters and sacrifices readability. "born" is also specified by WP:SDDATES for WP:short descriptions. MB 16:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• B./Option B - Takes up less space. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Born/Option A. We are not short of space and is clear what it means. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Born/Option A. MOS:DATE says "b." can be used only where "space is limited", but I don't think that is an issue here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Born/Option A. I spend a lot of times editing lists and there are definitely times where I believe repeated words in lists looks bad and reduces readability. However, I do not see this as one of those cases. Because it is not in the prose it feels more like structure and form than bad repetitive writing. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Option A I know this is English Wikipedia, but perhaps we can’t assume people know b means born. Trillfendi (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

When would everyone say is fair for this to be "closed" and for us to add a tiny bit to the MOS that states—as it relates to birthdate information—that born is to be used over b. (if in fact that seems to continue to "win" the consensus as it is now)? ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 21:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Born/Option A per MOS:DOB: use b. only where space is limited e.g. tables and infoboxes—Bagumba (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello all! I just added the edit per the above consensus reached around option A to the MOS, see here. I think it looks good, but please feel free to help me if you have further suggestions. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Birth date and place. ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 05:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME

this is a little confusing. How is some-one’s “deadname” considered private if they do not have notoriety pre-name change, when their parents and occupation of parents (likely at time of becoming parents) count as wiki facts even if the subjects parents are not considered notable at any time? 62.30.155.52 (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you asking whether parents can ever be considered “private” information and omitted?

If so, I would say yes - in some situations. Let’s take an example where the subject was adopted, but a biological parent is known. If the subject has publicly stated that they disavow the biological parent (“she is dead to me”), I would consider that statement akin to declaring a pre-transition name “Dead”. We should respect the wishes of the subject and not mention the biological parent. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You're talking about a specific situation, so allow me to be even more specific (and thus maybe bring it closer to the issue of a deadname when applied to someone who was notable under their former name). What if the parents are notable? For instance, let's suppose Toby Stephens disavowed his parents (I know it's a very unrealistic example, but we're probably fine since we're talking hypothetically). Shouldn't it be noted on the encyclopedia, regardless, that his parents happened to be greatly renowned actors? And wouldn't it make sense to name them, in that case? 2001:8A0:7C19:2801:DC86:588A:9D57:4499 (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the is confusion here ...Deadname only relates to the gendered part of the name, not the family name. If a parent of the transperson is notable we would only mention their child's current gendered name in the parents article, if the trans child was previously notable under their former name we would briefly mention their deadname in their own article however were the child was not notable under the deadname then the would be no useful need to mention their previous gendered deadname of the child in either child's or parent's articles. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:SAMESURNAME at Ronnie Spector

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Ronnie Spector over the application of the MOS:SAMESURNAME guideline in relation to the singer and her ex-husband Phil (who remained significant in her life after their divorce). The guidance states that "When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing.." (my emphasis). The difference between myself and one other editor, in particular, seems to relate to what is "confusing". My view is that confusion can be minimised by using a mixture of her full name and "she" in this particular case. Any advice that editors here can bring to the discussion would be welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:SIR

Is "Sir" or "Dame" etc, part of someone's name, or not? This section contains no examples to show which is the preferred contruction e.g. Sir Chris Whitty or Sir Chris Whitty. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely part of their name but I don't think anything has gotten all prescriptive on how to write it. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Martinevans123 and Timrollpickering yes it's definately part of their name, and the MOS needs to be updated to reflect this. User:Ivar the Boneful and User:Robin S. Taylor I tagged you both because I know you both have an opinion on this topic too.

Knighthoods & Damehoods along with peerages are name altering titles, as has been cited in by the UK's Public Administration - Fifth Report published on 7 July 2004 [[1]]. I've come across editiors that are unwilling to have any discussion about this and only throw quotes from the outdated MOS, even going against the agreed consensus. So I think we need to have the relevant discussion to update the MOS. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

User:MilborneOne You may also be interested in this discussion. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Omnipaedista FYI. My opinion is that Sir/Dame are part of the name, this is what I see in the vast majorities of articles and is the best aesthetic outcome. I wonder if the MOS was deliberately left ambiguous to reflect that different Wikiprojects/subject areas had different preferences? I'm aware that e.g. musicians with knighthoods typically did not have the title as part of the name, as part of a stylistic preference - but they make up a pretty small percentage overall. I do think the MOS should be changed to explicitly state whether Sir/Dame should be included with the name in bold in the infobox, so we can avoid the edit wars that seem to break out occasionally. This is better than coming to a consensus here on an "interpretation" of the existing wording and then constantly having to link it if editors go against the consensus. Maybe worth opening a formal RfC? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This topic was last discussed between User:SMcCandlish and me in November 2020: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2021 archive#MOS:SIR. User:Robin S. Taylor's objections to the MOS were addressed there and I was under the impression that community consensus on a wider scale exists since no altering of the MOS followed. It seems to me that only articles about Australian politicians do not follow MOS:SIR. I call that "local consensus." (Please note that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.") In any case, opening a formal RfC seems highly appropriate. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Omnipaedista well that's a blatant lie. If "only articles about Australian politicians do not follow MOS:SIR", why have you made literally hundreds of edits changing the infobox across multiple subject areas and nationalities? You're arguing that a "discussion" between two people on this talkpage constitutes a "community consensus", but when multiple people revert you in the main article space, it's a "local consensus" which doesn't count? What a joke. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said, no altering of the MOS followed after Robin S. Taylor's objections. This is community consensus. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope you understand that MOS:SIR (as it stands now) preexisted my edits and most Wikipedia articles were already compliant with it before I even started making my edits. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I maintain the view that "Sir" and "Dame" should be treated as part of the name in the infobox and in the opening sentence (though not in page titles), for the same reasons others have stated above. I recall that that until late 2019 all politicians' articles were this way, though non-politicians' always had the title separated above. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

no, it's a honorific prefix and goes in that field in the infobox, not the name. GiantSnowman 11:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that a good option would be to amend the MOS to explicitly state that Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the name field of the infobox. That would leave the pre-nominal field for more seldom used and longer pre-nominals like The Right Honourable. Including Sir and others in the name field would not mean saying that those were part of the name as the text name is not visible in the infobox header. --Editor FIN (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

No, this needs RFC for clarity. it is a pre-nominal. GiantSnowman 12:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC would be a good process. I think that it is quite unimportant, if Sir is a pre-nominal or not, because the text 'pre-nominal' is not visible for reader in the infobox header. --Editor FIN (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Still not clear to me if it's Sir Chris Whitty or Sir Chris Whitty, or if it doesn't matter, or if it should at least be consistent in any single article. I wasn't actually asking about article titles or format at the top of the infobox. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s an honorific prefix and there is an infobox field for that purpose. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly! GiantSnowman 09:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it Sir Chris Whitty or Sir Chris Whitty? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are concerned about how it should be wikilinked, the answer is Chris Whitty. The title is used in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that. (my emph) . If you are wikilinking then whatever article it is, the individual is not the article subject, by definition. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am concerned about that. That's why I asked my question here? So the answer is that I need to use "Sir" only once, the first time, in the article, but after that, if I do choose to use it, I should not include it in the link? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

An RfC about the infobox, great. But my original question remains. I had thought that the correct style of linking, if there is one, should be described here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Joining in the chorus of "it is part of the name". It is a prefix, yes, but then "Jr." is a suffix and can be a formal part of the name. No one ever suggests that Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Jr." should be on a separate line below the rest of his name in his infobox. And "honorific" doesn't mean "informal" or "not real". Moreover, from a British perspective, having "Sir" above the name in an infobox in the same way as "The Right Honourable" or a military rank looks extremely odd. I'd be in favour of this being settled formally in some manner, as the current practice is a mess. Proteus (Talk) 12:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

An RfC has been started below. Timrollpickering, Ivar the Boneful, Omnipaedista, Robin S. Taylor, Giant, Editor FIN, Cambial , Proteus. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

As a side note, I found where the confusing wording was added without consensus [2]. So the conversation that Omnipaedista had with User:SMcCandlish could be considered a WP:OWN. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the consensus regarding the RfC below is clear and we may close the discussion as per WP:RFCEND. Please note that consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity as per WP:CONS. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Nominally they run for 30 days. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:BIRTHPLACE

There is no clear guidelines for how to list a person's place of birth. I recommend the style of {city, sovereign state}. e.g.

• London, United Kingdom
• Tokyo, Japan
• Munich, Germany

If the city or sovereign state no longer exists it should still be listed as at the person's time of birth: e.g.

• Berlin, West Germany
• Belgrade, Yugoslavia

NOT

• Kobe, Hyōgo Prefecture, Honshu Island, Kansai region, Japan

Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If needed, it seems more relevant generically to MOS:PLACE, and not treated as a birthplace specific case.—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It's unclear why you reverted back your preferred version to the guideline without establishing consensus here.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been there & done that. Therefore I'll prepare you for what to expect. "Tokyo, Japan" & "Munich, Germany"? you'll get very little resistance. "London, United Kingdom"? you'll likely get quite a bit of resistance. PS - I know that "Edinburgh, United Kingdom", "Cardiff, United Kingdom" & "Belfast, United Kingdom", won't be received warmly. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The whole point of my proposed guideline is that it makes it easier to find places on a map or to recognize where a place is quicker. If someone's birthplace is listed as {district/borough, city/town, county/prefecture/parish, province/state, region/country, sovereign state} it just adds more to read and adds confusion. Although people may not like the way it sounds or looks, it is not incorrect/wrong, and more importantly it is concise, to the point, and understandable, which is how it should be. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I note you wrote that it is a PROPOSED guideline, so it is polite and correct to not vary the MOS until consensus is achieved. WWGB (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with you, on adopting "city, sovereign state". Just pointing out, you're gonna get resistance in the post-1707 British bios. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If it becomes MOS then their resistance is futile because that's how it should be. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Good luck, you'll need it. GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you but I think it'll be fine. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It's not clear, however, that Mechanical Keyboarder is proposing "city, sovereign state". In their edit at Warren Buffett, they changed "Omaha, Nebraska" to pipe to "Omaha" (w/o Nebraska) and expanded "U.S."—which the MOS does not require expansion—to the verbose "United States", under the guise of edit summary "MOS:BIRTHPLACE", a guideline whose contents they are edit warring.—Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I've no problems with "Omaha, US", "Omaha, United States" or "Toronto, Canada". But, there's likely going to be some resistance at those American & Canadian bios, too. Less so, then at the British bios, but still resistance. GoodDay (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it makes much more sense to use the place name as it is styled in the main article about that place name, without additional qualification. On the one hand, it is overly pedantic, redundant, and unhelpful to write that, say, "Yuto Horigome is a Japanese professional skateboarder" and then have to tell readers later that "Horigame was born in Tokyo, Japan". The readers can reasonably be expected to know that Tokyo is in Japan; that is why Tokyo is at the title Tokyo and not at the title Tokyo, Japan. On the other hand, the proposed <city name, country> style is ambiguous. If we write "Franklin, United States" or "Arlington, United States", which of the 31 or 28 places with that name (respectively) is intended? There's no way to know from that text. On the other hand, if we write Arlington, Upshur County, West Virginia, then we can tell not only which state it's in but which of the two Arlingtons within that state is intended. Why hide that information from readers? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If a city has an identical name to another city in the same sovereign state then a subdivision should be denoted in between the city and sovereign state as well. e.g.

• Springfield, Illinois, United States
• Springfield, Oregon, United States

Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You'll likely find 'some' support on that, for American & Canadian bios. But very little at British bios. GoodDay (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

So your "Omaha, United States" edit would now be "Omaha, Nebraska, U.S"?—Bagumba (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mechanical Keyboarder: I think you'll find that your simple mechanical rules are, well, too mechanical. Your new modification that If a city has an identical name to another city in the same sovereign state then a subdivision should be denoted would now mean that, because of the existence of the Berlin subdivision of Klein Bennebek in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, we would now also need to disambiguate that other more famous Berlin as Berlin, Berlin, Germany. Or that, because of the London on Eday, Orkney, we would have to disambiguate London, UK as London, England, UK. Etc. Is that what you want? We already have a working set of place naming rules in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Why reinvent the wheel? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This proposal seems way too rigid and procrustean. As the guideline currently states, whether to even include place of birth in the intro is a judgement that needs to be made on a case by case basis. In some cases, it may be appropriate to simply note the country or state in which they were born, rather than the specific city. When the city of birth is mentioned (whether that's in the intro or the body), I can think of lots of reasons an editor might not want to use the "City, country" format. For example, a prose treatment like "Foo was born in Barville, a small farming village in the south of France." might flow better. In other cases, the country need not be mentioned because it's already obvious to the vast majority of readers (through some combination of prior context or the city being a well-known one, such as London or New York City). Colin M (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Colin’s comments. We need to give editors the flexibility to write well crafted prose. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, making it more rigid is not a good idea. Leave it as it is. GiantSnowman 19:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Prose? I thought this was about the entry in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The intent was never clear. In any event, place names are not unique to biography infoboxes, and any guidance specific to that is out of place here.—Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Either place (article intro or infobox), the majority of British editors aren't going to accept (for example) "Cardiff, United Kingdom" or "Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom". GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The place where Mechanical Keyboarder added their proposed text (MOS:BIRTHPLACE) is part of the "Opening paragraph" subsection. Colin M (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Human geography and history are far too varied for such rules. I've seen Julius Caesar listed as born in Rome, Roman Republic; I hope not to see Laurence Andrewe b. Calais, England or George Washington b. Popes Creek, Great Britain. As alluded to above, descriptions of people from Northern Ireland are often problematic and affirming that Edinburgh is in the United Kingdom rather than Scotland can be gratuitously political. Likewise describing the 14th Dalai Lama as born in Taktser, Amdo, Tibet is currently unobjectionable but this rule would make it contentious. Yet in the age of mice and touchscreens we don't need to "make it easier to find places on a map or to recognize where a place is"; our digital hyperlinked encyclopedia has wikilinks. NebY (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

We have already had a discussion about this with no consensus to mandate soverign states for UK birthplaces [3]. I would oppose this proposal for the reasons I outlined here and the fact it is far too rigid and would live to very odd results for overseas terriotries. For example using this in the context of a British Overseas Territories like the Falklands Islands would lead to "Stanley, United Kingdom" which would be pretty misleading for those not realizing that that Stanley is over 8000 miles from the mainland UK. Another would in the context of the Kingdom of the Netherlands would be "Philipsburg, Kingdom of the Netherlands" which would not give the detail that Philipsburg is actually in the Caribean on consistuent country of Sint Maarten, not in Western Europe.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 06:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I also oppose this inappropriate suggestion, as per the analysis of Colin M and Spy-cicle. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry. It'll never pass the UK barrier. GoodDay (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it will be tested against the “UK barrier” having disintegrated upon the barrier of common sense. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No longer existing

What is the consensus on "If the city or sovereign state no longer exists it should still be listed as at the person's time of birth"? For example, this edit changed the country name to the its name at the time the person was born. I think this is the norm, but I wasn't sure. If there is agreement, could we at least add that portion to the MOS? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I certainly never doubted that this was the norm. If Laszlo Schnudnik was born in Brxz in the Triple Kingdom of Scythia-Pannonia-Transbalkania in 1837, that's where he was born. It doesn't matter that nowadays that town is known as Brazxa, Pannonine Republic; he was born in a different part of space-time, and his biography was shaped by living in the Triple Kingdom, not in one of its successor states. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

And in fact, WP:MODERNPLACENAME says historical place names should be used in appropriate historical context. As I said before, what's relevant for a biography is what the place was when they were born, not what it became. (Although obviously if they were involved in the events that led to the change, that could become part of the article; i.e., "Schnudnik fled what was now the Falangist State of Greater Pannonia after the fall of the Brxzzan People's Soviet."--Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, we should use the birth country & death country. The only places where there is resistances to this (AFAIK) are at the British, Irish & the Baltic bios. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Dates in short descriptions

Many biographical articles include the born/died dates in the short description. For example, from Syd Barrett:

English musician (1946–2006), co-founder of Pink Floyd

I think we need some MOS guidance for this, as I think different articles are including or excluding them more or less at random, and it's leading to disagreements. (Also, manuals of style for some other areas of Wikipedia offer guidance on how to write shortdescs for their topics.)

I know for sure there was a discussion about this somewhere within the last few months... but for the life of me I can't find it. IIRC, the general feeling at the time was that they were mostly unnecessary, except for a handful of narrow circumstances, but I can't verify that now.

I personally think we should omit dates, as 1) short descriptions are meant to be short 2) they don't go a long way to helping achieve the primary purpose of short descriptions, which is to help users identify the article they want. For example, in the Syd Barrett example above, giving the reader his lifetime dates is not nearly so useful as saying he was an English musician or co-founder of Pink Floyd. Popcornfud (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The best guidance we already have is that it should be no more than about 40 characters. Syd Barrett's as it is is 54, taking out the dates would make it 42. That "about" should be taken out. I agree that the dates aren't necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This was discussed at the SD project which lead to WP:SDDATES that says to generally include them. MB 00:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This is somewhat relevant to the discussion above if you want to "vote" on that too. Personally, I think the dates (birth, death, or both) is incredibly useful. It lets one, at a glance, see exactly what sort of birth and death years you might be interested in learning about. Maybe I am just researching the 1700's, or 1800's, or 1850's, or 1950's for example? I can scan a "Notable people" list, and quickly see whom was born, and died, and when. Then also a very brief blurb on what they did for a living etc. I love these lists, and they are very nearly ubiquitous on towns and cities all across the globe. It is what I spend 90+% of my time on the encyclopedia. Fixing typos, alphabetizing them, and now hopefully creating more of a standardized format! I agree, that there are too many disagreements on basic formatting for such things, and a clear cut MOS guideline would be enormously helpful to me at least, and would alleviate a lot of stress and headache. ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 03:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I put the full dates in & places, if available. GoodDay (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Does "characters" include character spaces? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The limit is about the total length on the display of a device with a small screen — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So maybe "This page in a nutshell" should read: "Each Wikipedia article should include a concise explanation of its scope in the form of a short description of no more than about 40 characters, including spaces"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I would omit the dates in the Barrett case. As Popcornfud points out, the dates wouldn't be nearly as useful as the musician/Floyd info. If we consider those users who see only the first 40 characters (and yes, Martin, that includes spaces), they would see "English musician (1946–2006), co-founder", which IMO is not as helpful as "English musician, co-founder of Pink Floyd" or the 39-character "English musician, Pink Floyd co-founder". MB says "this was discussed", without providing any discussion links, so I take it to mean MB wants us to follow WP:SDDATES, which besides generally include them, also says, inclusion of a date or date range is encouraged where it would improve the short description as a disambiguation... (emphasis mine) and Editor discretion is always needed, and in some cases there will be more important information than dating to be included within the available 40 or so characters, but if space is available such dates are encouraged. The conclusion to draw, for me, at least, is that we should exclude them in the Barrett example (the only other Sid Barrett currently in the corpus is a zombie anime/manga character) and also exclude them where they do not enhance the 40-character SD. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

JohnFromPinckney, the discussion, in August 2020, that lead to WP:SDDATES is here MB 21:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

MB's claim that the guidance and sense of the linked discussion is to "generally include them" is false. The guidance is to include them only where it would improve the short description as a disambiguation. If it is not needed for disambiguation it should not be included. Examples where it would be useful for disambiguation are situations like Jesús González (rower, born 1959) and Jesús González (rower, born 1974) (both of whose current shortdescs are just "Spanish rower", not useful for disambiguating between them). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The full sentence in the guidance says "The inclusion of a date or date range is encouraged where it would improve the short description as a disambiguation, or enhance it as a descriptive annotation. Do you not see the second clause? Adding the dates improves the descriptive annotation even when not necessary for disambiguation. This is especially helpful when the SD is used in {{annotated link}} which is less bound by the "roughly" 40 character limit. MB 00:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The SD is (always?) displayed with the article title (see File:Presentation of short descriptions in Vector skin.png and File:Presentation of short descriptions within Visual Editor.png), so a SD adds to the title. In the case of the Spanish rowers, the title already has dates so there is no need to duplicate them in the SD — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

For Syd Barrett, I agree that both his dates and his affiliation with Pink Floyd are helpful context, but the fact that he was co-founder doesn't seem to add context, so how about:

English musician with Pink Floyd (1946–2006)

That's 45 chars. --Macrakis (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

45 does not hurt too much. English member of Pink Floyd (1946–2006) is 40 characters. Trouble is, you then ask which non-English members were there? Member of band Pink Floyd (1946–2006) is 37. Co-founder of Pink Floyd (1946–2006) is 36 — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I wound up at this discussion after noticing that User:Red Director was adding a whole bunch of birth dates to bios of living persons. I thought I'd better check whether there was guidance to do this somewhere, and it seems there is, sort of, although it talks about birth and death dates, so it's not of clear relevance to BLPs.
To me, doing this for living persons seems to have extremely minimal value. What is the purpose of this? If there are seven notable historical painters named John Smith, then sure, it's useful to see that the one I'm looking for is from the seventeenth century. But is the first thing I want to know about Vlade Divac, after his career, that he was born in 1968???? Whatever for?
Even for historical figures, I'm not so convinced that it's usually worth putting in the SD, but I can buy that it is often. But for BLPs I don't see any point in it at all. --Trovatore (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Trovatore, thank you for bringing this conversation to my attention. I have seen it both ways in my years of adding and modifying some short descriptions and have conversations with editors that are for it and against it. I have no problem in leaving them alone if that is what should be considered the norm. I have seen the following as a reference point: Wikipedia:Short_description#Inclusion_of_dates. I feel it does help disambiguate between players that share a name but a different birth year. Most edits do not go over the suggested 40-character limit. It just seems disorganized for some to have it and some not. Any advice is appreciated. Red Director (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess I think shorter is better in short descriptions, even below 40 chars, and only the most key context should be included. The longer they are, the more time it takes for users to find what they're looking for. I would include dates only when they would actually help real users contextualize the bio, which I think is rarely. (David Eppstein's example above of two identically-named rowers with birth years 15 years apart is plausible, I think, but if say they were born 2 years apart, how does it help you? Are you really going to know that the one you're looking for was born in '76 instead of '74?) --Trovatore (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Trovatore. Your bottom point there is valid in my opinion. At that point, it is only there for it to match the style of others instead of leaving it blank. I had a user a while back start adding them when I was doing just the basic description and I was pointed out that suggestion by that same user that I just linked you. What prompted this recent string of edits was that I noticed a lot of articles having them and a lot of them not. Unless there is a community consensus on this, my recommendation is to use the set out guideline for BLP on that link but maybe not en masse so watchlists are not flooded. If someone searching out an article sees the title and short description with the years, it will provide them with some identifying information to aide in their search, and that is one of my defending points of it. If you come across anything that I have edited and you feel that does not belong there, feel free to modify/revert and that can be what stays. I have no problem with multiple ideas being correct, that is what makes Wikipedia what it is. A bunch of opinions attempting to come together for the greater good is better than no action at all in my opinion. Red Director (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I added a link to the Gender identity page

I have added a link to the Gender identity page in order to make the Wikipedia style guidelines on deadnames more clear, since they’re somewhat different than the guidelines on names, e.g. standard Wikipedia style is to frequently give someone’s birth name, but with transgender people, because of the greater need for privacy, we do not use deadnames as often. Samboy (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

'Transliterations'

Not sure if this is the best place to get input into this issue, but Glide08 has been adding 'Transliterations' of Hebrew names to articles like this or this. I cannot see how these are useful, particularly as some of the characters being used are not actually English letters – for instance using "ð" to represent a hard d, and "ṣ" to represent a "tz" sound (it seems to be some weird cross between IPA and transliteration). Some input would be useful as my removal of them has been reverted. Cheers, Number 57 20:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Transliterations are supposed to reflect how a text is written, not how it is pronounced, and doesn't need to follow the spelling conventions of a given language - showing a speaker of one language how a word or name from another language is pronounced is called a Transcription. For example, the current vice president of Bulgaria's name is transcripted as Iliana Iotova (as this is how the Bulgarian pronounciation would look to an english speaking eye), but transliterated Ilijana Jotova (as this reflects the Cyrillic spelling Илияна Йотова in Latin form). Glide08 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

As for the use of letters, ṣ is the conventional way to transliterate tzadi/sad in academia. ð is supposed to represent a dagesh-less daled. Glide08 (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, articles having both transcriptions and transliterations of names and terms in languages not written in the Latin Alphabet are not something new and unprecedented; for example, Saddam Hussein and Yerik Asanbayev show the names both transcripted in bold and transliterated after their original forms, while Sheikh Mujibur Rahman has the Bengali title "Bangabandhu" also shown in a transliterated form (Bôngobondhu). Glide08 (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Overuse of "best known for"

Discussion of appropriate use of the phrase "best known for" has been ongoing at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Biography for a couple days. This page was edited based on suggestions there. Please share ideas there. Blainster (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Celebrity mononym listed in addition to legal name?

MOS:STAGENAME says to list a person's professional name shortly after their legal name in the lead. Is this also the rule when the stage name is a shortened version of the person's legal name, such as with mononymous people? This seems like the best practice to avoid conflict with MOS:SURNAME, especially when the person is referred to by their stage name in the rest of the article. Several articles (Aaliyah, Brandy Norwood, Morrissey, Tiffany Darwish, Usher, Yanni) already do this, while others (Adele, Beyoncé, Elvis, Madonna, Prince, Selena, Shakira) do not. This recently came up at Lisa Ann, where an editor felt it was redundant to list the professional name separately. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It is important to mention BOTH the legal name and the stage name in the lead sentence… so that readers will know that they have reached the correct article, no matter which name they used to get there. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I wasnt aware of this inconsistency for a given name as a stage name. However, one could argue the stage names is obvious from the page title and doesnt need to be repeated, similar to MOS:INITIALS.—Bagumba (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point about the page title, but it doesn't address how the mononym might be used in the article as a whole. For example, Madonna says things like: "Madonna is noted for her continual reinvention and versatility in music production ... Madonna moved to New York City in 1978 ... Madonna has amassed many number-one singles throughout her career". For situations like this I think we should be clear that we're not just casually using the person's given name instead of their surname. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Nobody thinks Lisa Ann's last name is "just Ann", one of the top 10 most common middle names for American women for the past 120+ years and no known person’s last name. Her last name is reliably sourced with The Guardian. Ron Jeremy’s article leads as Ronald Jeremy Hyatt and needs no further explanation because one can see that his name isn’t different; that’s a male example of the same case. To say say Lisa Ann is known as Lisa Ann is just silly. Trillfendi (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Ann", like "Jane", can be a person's surname or family name, as in the case of Ann Tse-kai. Multiple sources do use "Ann" in place of Lisa Ann's surname, such as the very same Guardian article, as well as Cosmopolitan, The Independent, and The Daily Beast, among others. I'm sure a similar situation exists with Ron Jeremy. The fact that the article title is the same as the stage name doesn't affect the wording of the lead sentence per MOS:STAGENAME, and article titles can change. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Age for presumption of death?

It seems a bit strange to see the present tense used in articles that describe people who were born more than 100 or so years ago. Is there an agreed way to deal with this? If we have no indication that someone lived to an extreme age, is it OK to use the past tense for such people? Is there an agreement about how old someone would need to be in order to be presumed dead? I don't want to write people off prematurely, but using present tense and phrases like "is a former footballer" or "is a retired businesswoman" start to sound pretty questionable for someone born in the 1910s or earlier. MOS:BLPTENSE and MOS:TENSE don't seem to discuss what to do when we don't know whether someone is dead or alive. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

What documentation we have appears to be on the category page for Category:Possibly living people, as well as here at WP:BDP. It says that if they would be older than 90 and the most recent sighting was over ten years ago, then they can go in that category, and if they would be older than 115, they may be presumed dead. There's no guidance on what tense to use for possibly living people. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to those places. I edited the MOS:BLPTENSE section to add "See WP:BDP for when people should be presumed dead in the absence of definitive information." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

There's (old) discussion at Category talk:Possibly living people. I'm fairly sure our figures for gender bias in biogs are somewhat affected by all these aged men (mostly) who have in fact been dead for years. Then there's the issue of what to do when we don't have a birth date..... Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

How do other reliable sources treat the person when they discuss them? If a source is using them in the past tense, we should do so as well. If the sources treat them as if they are still alive, then we should to. --Jayron32 18:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this question is aimed at people that are not discussed in RSed for numerous years at their end of their life, and as such, we can't tell if they are still living or not. --Masem (t) 19:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Somewhere in the Commons archives there was a discussion about how long a person could possibly live. I am unable to find it. Here is a discussion which includes some of that talk - commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template. The discussion that I am imagining came after this one. This was a more practical discussion for Commons, because age of a person can determine copyright of media. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment: MOS:SIR, Knighthoods & Damehoods are name changing titles, much the same as peerages, should the MOS be updated to reflect this?

Should MOS:SIR be updated to explicitly state that Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the name field of the infobox? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Knighthoods and Damehoods are naming changing titles as cited in by the UK's Public Administration - Fifth Report published on 7 July 2004 [[4]]. It should also be noted that all 54 countries within the Commonwealth at one point or another actively used them and they are still actively awarded (in the British style) in 15 countries where Queen Elizabeth II is the Sovereign, so by virtue, these countries recognise knighthoods and Damehoods as name-changing titles. Knighthoods and Damehoods are already partially accepted as name-changing honours in that articles where the subject has received the honour in question has it listed as part of their name in the leade of the article, for example "General Sir Peter John Cosgrove, AK, CVO, MC", where as the infobox according to the current policy has the following parameters;

• honorific-prefix = General the Honourable Sir
• name = Peter Cosgrove
• honorific-suffix = AK, CVO, MC

This can cause confusion for any readers, and is factually incorrect as I've shown above. A standard peers infobox currently has the following layout;

• honorific_prefix = Field Marshal His Grace and Serene Highness
• name = The Duke of Wellington
• honorific_suffix = KG GCB GCH PC FRS

This recognises the subjects peerage title in the correct field (as its a name-changing honour). Some titles, pre-nominals and suffix's are already accapted within the Name field, Sir and Dame should also be included.

• honorific-prefix = General the Honourable
• name = Sir Peter Cosgrove
• honorific-suffix = AK, CVO, MC

So What I'm proposing is, that MOS:SIR be updated to explicitly state that Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the name field of the infobox. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you formulate a brief and neutral statement for the RfC? The orignial formulation above is neither, and Legobot can't handle the legth to advertize it properly (e.g., at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming. I suggest you take your last sentence, use a "Should ... ?" form, add your sig, and put that at the top of the RfC. Next time Legobot comes around, it should update the adverts accordingly. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 05:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

JohnFromPinckney Done. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Votes

• I support this proposal for the reasons articulated above. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - 'Sir' or 'Dame' are honorific prefixes and infobox fields exist specifically for them. They should not be included as part of the 'name' field. GiantSnowman 12:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per User:GiantSnowman's argument. Additionally, I am not convinced by the arguments that it looks "nicer" to have the "Sir" or "Dame" put in bold on the name line or that there is some kind of inconsistency in the current version just because the same honorifics are boldfaced in the lead section (as per MOS:BOLDTITLE or MOS:BOLDSYN). (1) Arguing on purely aesthetic grounds is somewhat pointless, (2) this discrepancy is not unique in Wikipedia: e.g., in Augustine of Hippo, the lead section has Saint Augustine but 'Infobox saint' has "Saint" as a non-boldfaced pre-nominal (as per Template:Infobox saint/testcases). --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I understand the argument that those titles are name-changing, but no reasonable person would argue that "Dame" is actually part of Maggie Smith's name. And that's what the name field is for. Names. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The flimsy argument rests on two consecutive faulty premises. The first is that a report by a Parliamentary Select Committee has legal standing or force in the UK. It does not. The second, more absurd, premise is that UK law or convention governs Wikipedia style policy. In addition, the notion that these [commonwealth] countries recognise knighthoods and Damehoods as name-changing titles does not follow in any logical way from the preceding observation. Given the faulty premises, either of which alone would neuter the argument for this proposal, we can properly discount it. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Argument not strong enough, Don't see a reason to change.Tepkunset (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose(Summoned by bot) Name is what name field is for … per PraiseVivec. Pincrete (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. (Summoned by bot) The non-neutral opening statements make a good case for opposition. Rather than presenting sources to support the change to MOS, it presents the editor's own "logic". That's WP:OR. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support the proposal, but I don't see the issue as a question on whether Sir, Dame, Lord or Lady is a part of name or not, because texts 'honorific-prefix' and 'name' are not visible for readers in the infobox header. Those are just parameters making the layout of infobox, not information provided for readers. I see the issue as a matter of layout: whether to have Sir on a line above the person's name or in front of the name. I think that it looks a little peculiar to have Sir above the name as we are used to see it in front of a person's name in other connections. Sir on the upper line looks odd especially, if a knight is also a Privy Counsellor and the much longer style The Right Honourable pushes Sir quite far right, possibly even right of the person's name (see for example John Major). It would additionally be slightly in favour of having Sir in front of the name and on a different row than The Right Honourable that Sir is often used without using The Right Honourable. It has been the general practice in Wikipedia for years at least on articles on politicians to have Sir in front of the name in infobox header and continuing to put Sir in the name field would be a harmless exception affecting the layout, not a factual claim on whether Sir is a part of the name. --Editor FIN (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - No change to MOS. Infobox specific labels and rules override general MOS and the label “name” is not universal, plus there are too many nationalities and degrees of knighthood for this simple a rule. If a title is hereditary, then birth-name does and must include the title because it is part of them from birth e.g. infobox royalty and birth-name Princess Elizabeth of York, or infobox Peer and name The Duke of Argyll. But if knighthood is awarded due to their life career, then infobox selection reflects that and respects that calling, and it follows whatever infobox labels are part of it and any rules there are - plus the MOS:SIR guidance is enough. e.g. infobox officeholder for birth_name Anthony Charles Lynton Blair or Dame Mary Cook with name Mary Cook, infobox scientist for Jane Goodall, infobox Military Person for name Sir Henry Wilson. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Only British and British-derived knighthoods carry "Sir". In most other countries knighthood is a hereditary title of nobility, and naming rules would be different in any case. But even in those cases, the knightly title would be typically incorporated into the name, e.g. Franz Ritter [Knight] von Bayern or whatever. Atchom (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per PraiseVivec. The name section should be for names only. OccultSlolem (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see why a UK Parliament's select committee report saying that knighthoods are confusing and different people have different preferences about what to be called should bear on Wikipedia style. Sir and Dame are words that honour a person by going in front of their name: they're honorific prefixes, which we have infobox fields specifically for. I would support a change to MOS:SIR to explicitly not include these titles in name fields, which I think the weight of argument made by other contributors above would also support. Ralbegen (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Contrary to what's claimed above substantive knighthoods and damehoods are titles that become part of the full name whether others like it or not and are not mere "honorific prefixes". Timrollpickering (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I see two people arguing that these are "name changing", to the best of my knowledge the majority mainstream view (outside Wikipedia) is that these are "honorific prefixes", not someone's "base name". The extensive oppose votes above affirm that general editors concur with my understanding of the mainstream public view on this. Furthermore I assert a general skepticism regarding anything that is even debatably an honorific. Any nationality or group that asserts honorifics is going to be inclined towards advocacy and special favor for their own group's honorifics. Alsee (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"to the best of my knowledge the majority mainstream view (outside Wikipedia)"..."the mainstream public view on this" This is a highly subjective assertion as I don't know of any polls or surveys on this specific question. Plenty of mainstream publications use "Dame" and "Sir" to refer to people in a way that they don't use "The Honourable" or similar terms. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you give us some evidence as to this "majority mainstream view"? Atchom (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: On pages for wives of knights (e.g. Charlotte Campbell-Bannerman, Osla Benning, Marian Montagu Douglas Scott) we often have Lady -SURNAME- in the name field. To have "Lady" in the prefix field would require the name field to contain only the surname, since to have firstname as well would then make the whole inaccurate. Sons and daughters of higher peers (e.g. Lord Frederick Windsor, Lady Flora Hastings, Lady Elizabeth Cavendish) have those courtesy titles in the name field as well, and even in their page names. Then there are the Ladies of the Garter and Thistle (Marion Fraser, Mary Fagan and Mary Peters) who acquire the title "Lady" on the same basis as their male co-companions have "Sir" and that Sally Davies has "Dame", yet mostly use it in the same way as the aforementioned daughters of peers. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Same thing for peerages. As things stand the documentation would require us to have "Right Hon Lord" on one line and "title" on a second line. Atchom (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - these are high-grade honorifics, not actual names, and have no place in the "Names" part of the infobox. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support The current infobox rules don't make any sense and should be changed to reflect the proposal. The documentation makes no sense at all: for instance, if we followed the documentation, "Lord" should be in the "honorary prefix" section, which would lead to "The Right Honourable Lord" on one line and "[one-word title]" on the name line. Similarly, "Sir" has been written with the name for as long as I can remember until the documentation was changed for whatever reason. WP:MOS also makes it clear that "Sir" should be bolded with the rest of the person's name, which is evidence of longstanding WP practice. Atchom (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support in line with the strong arguments above. Frickeg (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (II)

Wasn't there already an RFC on this, months ago? Maybe I just dreaming that. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay Theres no record of one being done since May 2006, and that only saw a consensus to include the titles in the name field in the lead of the articles. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

style guide on gender identity

Came here to post a comment because your style guide was just cited to support changes made to article on Jamie Wallis, British MP. He has just made a statement saying he is trans, and on the back of that someone used the guide to support changing pronouns in the article. Arguably the style guide does indeed say to do exactly that because he just said he was trans, and your guide says to use words such as 'they' if the most recent informations suggests they are trans.

Thats absolutely unacceptable, and I don't think it is what was intended. The MP has not said he wants to be referred to by alternative pronouns and for career reasons he might well not wish to be, and this could be considered a personal attack upon him to do so. To deliberately use such pronouns is essentially to take a certain campaigning stance which he may not wish to do, and which wikipedia cannot impose upon him. Wikipedia is not a campaigning organisation for militant trans people.

I suggest someone rewrites this guide to make clear someone should only be referred to in non standard ways after clearly expressing that they wish so to be referred to.

I also have to say it is questionable whether this encyclopedia should adopt a way of referring to trans people which is intended to mark them as different at all. An objective description should use mainstream descriptors, which will be he or she unless there is very clear reason not to. Most people simply do not refer to any singular person as 'they'Sandpiper (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

For those without a clear gender or pronoun preference, gender-neutral language is used, i.e. the singular 'they'. In this specific case, that's incorrect because, even though trans, per the article Wallis Wallis has stated that he will continue to use he/him pronouns "for the time being", so we follow the subject's explicit current preference. —El Millo (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Sandpiper, when you say Most people simply do not refer to any singular person as 'they', that is what we politely refer to on Wikipedia as original research. As a native English-speaker from Canada, I doubt very much that I have ever met another English speaker who has not referred to another individual as "they" - and as someone with they/them pronouns myself, I have reason to pay attention. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It really doesnt matter whether that is 'original research' or not, this is not a wikipedia article but a discussion about how to manage wiki. You should know that. As such it must take into account how real people out there behave. There used to be other style guides saying that language used in articles must reflect language used in real life.

There are milions of people who would regard use of 'their' in this context as very peculiar terminology. And most who would do so out of politeness would regard it as peculiar phrasing seeking to be politically correct, which ultimately fails and marks the person concerned as abnormal. It defeats the objective of using it. In the context of a UK MP in particular, to write a wiki biography in that way might be regarded as a political attack. Sure, the fact it is used at all is a consequence of public campains by a monority group seeking recognition, but thats a factional war and wiki cannot automatically lump subjects into one faction or another. My original point was that the policy as worded implies subjects can and should be described as 'their' even without either any wish by them or general usage to support this. Sandpiper (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

To clarify the situation on Wallis, 'they' pronouns were used in parts of the article after he announced he was trans but before he clarified his pronouns; because the correct pronouns to refer to him were unclear at that point. It is of course undisputed that now he has expressed a wish to use 'he' pronouns, those should be used.

Singular they is older than modern English, was used by Shakespeare, and is in perfectly routine use to refer to anyone whose gender is unknown (e.g. "someone knocked on my door, I don't know who they were") - as was the case with Wallis between his two announcements. I don't see any reasonable interpretation that referring to someone in this perfectly normal way could be considered a "political attack". I'm afraid your position that only some pronouns are "normal" seems like the political one here. TSP (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page per WP:ARBGENSEX and WP:ARBBLP for 1 month. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Birthdate in body

I'm noticing more repeating of birthdates in the body, presumably because some don't find a footnote next to the birthdate in the lead to be aesthetically pleasing. Per MOS:BIRTHDATE:

The opening paragraph should usually have dates of birth and (when applicable) death. These dates (specific day–month–year) are important information about the subject, but if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context.

Frankly, I've not noticed cases where the lead paragraph only lists the year, and not the full date, when available.—Bagumba (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that it doesn't seem to reflect standard practice, I propose the text about the year range be removed:

The opening paragraph should usually have dates of birth and (when applicable) death. These dates (specific day–month–year) are important information about the subject, but if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context.

—Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree. The full dates should always be in the lede if known. There is also sometimes a tendency to remove full dates from the lede if they appear in the infobox. This too should be stopped. The infobox is merely a ready reference. It is not intended to replace anything in the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Also fully agree. GiantSnowman 14:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. MOS:LEADCLUTTER. Years are generally important enough for understanding the context of a biography, and therefore are lead-worthy. The date and month of a birth or death are generally much less relevant, and can appropriately be relegated to later in the article. In the lead, they are purely a pointless distraction, making it harder to find the important information. Also, there is no good reason for this to be an exception to the general rule that lead content should be a summary of more-detailed later material rather than introducing facts that are not expanded later. (I do agree with Necrothesp about infoboxes, though: all information in an infobox should also be somewhere in the text of the article.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Years of birth and death provide vital context. The specific dates should be in the body of the article when known, but there is no reason they would be among the first and most important pieces of information to convey about someone.--Trystan (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

How on earth is writing (1 May 1910 – 25 December 1990) a "pointless distraction", or how does it make "it harder to find the important information", compared with (1910–1990)? I am unsure why providing more information is seen as a bad thing. GiantSnowman 14:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Because the first form is longer. It includes additional information which the reader needs to sift through when reading the lead. Adding more information (to the intro) can absolutely be a bad thing. For example, even if it's verifiably true that Oscar Wilde hated pickled herring, it would not be helpful to add that fact to the intro of Oscar Wilde, because it's wildly undue. It does not have a place in a summary of the article's most important contents. (In case it's not clear, I should say that I agree entirely with what David wrote above.) Colin M (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Barely longer! A handful of numbers and letters! Good info - not pointless, not a distraction, does not make it harder to find info. GiantSnowman 16:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen the listing of dates in the body instead of the lead sentence as a standard practice. Guidelines should reflect standard practices, not what a few think is a better convention.—Bagumba (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It is certainly standard practice in many of the biographies I write including at least one Good Article. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Geographic specification of the birthplace in lead

Hi, I tried to edit the lead in Karl Max, Prince Lichnowsky because the specification of the place of birth was too detailed and imhzo does not comply with MOS. The user:Peter NYC reverted it to me with a reason on my talk page, but ignores my arguments. Can you please look at the article and add an unbiased opinion on whether it is really okay? Since the user also reverted my other changes on the page and then began to revert my changes on other pages for no reason, I would also welcome some warning from the user about vandalism. Thanks. FromCzech (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I added a comment on the article TP. MB 16:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: Birth places in lead

This is intended to be a talk and a personal question on why English Wikipedia has decided to avoid mentioning birth places in the lead section unless notable enough.

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.

Many editions of Wikipedia in major languages (usually European ones) do the last one almost always. I will use articles on Joe Biden as examples:
Please see es:Joe Biden; ru:Байден, Джо; de:Joe Biden; pt:Joe Biden.

I will admit that many other major languages don't do said last option. Chinese Wikipedia doesn't (zh:乔·拜登), Japanese Wikipedia doesn't (ja:ジョー・バイデン, Arabic Wikipedia doesn't (ar:جو بايدن). French Wikipedia (fr:Joe Biden) doesn't technically do said last option, instead mentioning it as a clause.

*an example of a Spanish Wikipedia article not mentioning the birth place in the first sentence would be es:Cixí

Thanks, Caehlla2357 (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

If it's not "notable enough", there's no need to clutter the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

While I did do some readings of the archives, which do mention clutter, I still am curious as to why we would set these standards when other languages do this anyway. This is simply a curiosity and I don't intend to overturn these standards for the time being. Caehlla2357 (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

There are many "local" peculiarities in Wikipedia. Personally, I don't understand MM/DD/YY as a date format. Surely it makes more sense to progress from the smallest unit of time to the largest: DD/MM/YY? WWGB (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

What "makes sense" is determined by where a person grew up. Respect for that fact is why MOS:DATETIES exists. MarnetteD|Talk 06:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, you have reinforced my point very nicely, there are local differences everywhere. WWGB (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's much concerted effort to have styles be consistent across languages. If there's an objective rationale for a practice from another language, one is always welcome to propose it here at en.wp.—Bagumba (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCLUTTER is relevant here, I think. People want to put this first in the lead, because it comes first chronologically, but it's very rare for it to be the main thing you want to know about the subject and it buries that main thing under other distractions making it harder to find. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

No need. Dates of birth and death are significant pieces of information. Places of birth and death generally are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Fully agreed - also there is no suitable or standard way of displaying the places of birth in the opening brackets alongside the dates. GiantSnowman 14:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I do understand these arguments.

(Additional things, mostly for myself to process): The place of birth usually is most useful in determining a person's nationality. However, nationality can and does change. Plus, sometimes, the place of birth becomes almost irrelevant altogether. (I don't feel comfortable giving examples).

I still don't get how come English Wikipedia in particular decided against the whole place of birth thing when other languages maintained it (but then again: many others, such as East Asian languages, also don't do this). "Differences" and "local peculiarities" (for me at least) just states the obvious, and doesn't really capture much.

Anyway, thanks for understanding, and have a good day. Caehlla2357 (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

30% of Australians were born in another country. In most cases, that country will not be a significant factor in why they would end up with a Wikipedia article. It really would be silly listing a place of birth for all of them. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I usually add in the birth/death places. But, I wouldn't object if it's decided to use only the dates in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Word order when former/retired

Jane Doe is a former American model -or- Jane Doe is an American former model

There is currently an edit war going on in Bruce Willis on this issue. I've seen it both ways on biographies, most commonly the latter, and cannot find anything in the MOS that addresses Wikipedia style. Is there a Wikipedia consensus for either approach? Schazjmd (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

the latter is correct - one retires from a profession, not a nationality... GiantSnowman 16:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The latter is perhaps more common on Wikipedia, but I don't know why. Typically, published descriptions of adjective sequence (see Adjective#Order for examples) state that 'origin' (such as nationality) comes late in the sequence. The closest thing for 'retired' is the category 'age' (no, it's not necessarily age-based, but we're talking generalities), which is earlier. The only things after 'origin' are 'material' (not applicable here) and 'qualifier' (normally part of a compound noun). The adjectives don't modify each other (they modify the noun), so 'retired American' doesn't mean that the person has retired from a nationality (that's not possible anyway)... the confusion here is probably reading 'American' as a noun, where 'retired American' is possible, but add a noun and 'American' becomes an adjective, as in 'retired American man'. So, it should be 'Jane Doe is a former American model'. EddieHugh (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

no, it should not. Does Jane Doe, when retired from being a model, lose her citizenship? No, she remains American. GiantSnowman 18:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Nobody was talking about losing citizen ship. They are retired AND American. Retired American model CreecregofLife (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Former American implies that someone renounced their citizenship… Citizenship should always go before career in a sentence. Trillfendi (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, you're confusing word types. 'American' is an adjective, not a noun, in the phrase 'former American model'. 'American' isn't modified by 'retired': each of those words modifies 'model'. Think of it like a sum... there's a model who is:

.. a retired model

+ an American model

= a retired American model

It's not:

.. a retired American

+ an American model

= a retired American model

Manuals of style (and normal English usage) have word orders for adjectives. That word order places words such as 'retired' before words such as 'American'. (I'm happy to be corrected if style guides advocating the opposite can be found.) EddieHugh (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No, American is modified by retired... GiantSnowman 19:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

'American' isn't modified in 'tall American model', 'dead American model', 'young American model', etc. Why do you think that it is modified in 'retired American model'? EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Because 'retired American X' indicates that they are both no longer American and no longer X. Save it for people who have given up citizenship. saying 'American retired X' is much clearer. GiantSnowman 20:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No it doesn’t, and you’ve been shown that. CreecregofLife (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Then described them as an 'American retired model' to make that clear. GiantSnowman 20:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

They weren’t retired by Americans though. The only person it’s unclear to is you, CreecregofLife (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That makes...no sense. GiantSnowman 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. So “American retired” makes no sense CreecregofLife (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense - see below from Bagumba. GiantSnowman 21:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Google Books ngrams show a higher prevalence of "former American" compared to "American former"[5], but the latter construction is used in some writing.[6]

• The Best American Sports Writing 2017, African American former Tar Heels basketball player...
• The Racialized Experiences of Asian American Teachers in the U.S., We come to this book as Asian American former secondary teachers...
• Study of former prisoners of war, U.S. Veterans Admin., ...there are nearly 100,000 American former POWs...
• Poverty in the United States, ...on behalf of African American former slaves...
• The International Who's Who of Women 2002, ...American former diplomatist and banking executive...
• American Manufactures Export News (1921), ...to interest American former representatives...

So the nationality former/retired profession construct isn't incorrect, just not as common. Bruce Willis isn't the first time I've seen editors going back and forth on this word order. It seems like this might be a frequent enough issue that it would be helpful to get a consensus for one-way-or-the-other and add it to the MOS for biography leads? Schazjmd (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I know I'm in the minority here, but I've always thought it would be better to simply avoid using former/retired here in any case. Both available options are clunky and imperfect, and it seems better to just describe people as they are known. Frickeg (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be that "retired American actor" is a more natural word order. It's generally understood that "retired" refers to a person's career, and not nationality or any other trait. You may even talk more generally of "retired Americans" and it will be understood that you mean "Americans who have retired" and not "people who have retired from being American." TornadoLGS (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes! Another person who understands! And also, who retires their citizenship more than renouncing it? CreecregofLife (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Also agree with Tornado on which is more natural. Retire means to stop working, or less commonly to move location. I also agree with Frickeg, it's better to not use such constructs. Saying retired/former would have to be changed after the person dies. Better just to avoid it and say something like "is an American actor active from 1950 until 1988". MB 00:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Though, adding to what I said above, "former" may be more likely to create ambiguity since it's a bit broader than "retired." TornadoLGS (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous discussion, only perpetuated by people who don't know the differences between nouns and adjectives, and the rules on order of adjectives. "Retired" and "american" are both independent adjectives. Neither modifies the other. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "retired American model". Have a look at Adjective#Order. It tells us to put qualities (e.g. retired) ahead of origins (American). Can we stop now please? HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Per HiLo48, and several others, the correct word order, based on most common usage is "retired American <whatever>". Wikipedia is almost the only place I've seen it used, and the tiny cadre of very passionate editors who insist on the opposite order are really standing in the way of writing in the most common English. In the exact same way that we can understand "A large red apple" means that the apple is both large and red, and NOT that the red is large, people fully understand that a retired American actor is an actor whor is both retired and American, not that an American that is retired. Literally no one is confused by putting retired before American, and the opposite order is marked as non-standard phrasing. --Jayron32 11:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is the only place that uses that word order, why is it the correct one? GiantSnowman 19:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Use "American former model" Slate has a relevant article that says former is a unique operator that changes the meaning of whatever follows it:

Such terms—“former,” “alleged,” “fake”—fundamentally change the meaning of whatever follows...Therefore, when dealing with operators, the precise idea you want to express determines the order of adjectives, and a furniture dealer is not at liberty to oscillate between “fake Malaysian ivory”—a material masquerading as Malaysian ivory—and “Malaysian fake ivory”—a not-ivory material from Malaysia.

If one is still an American, it's misleading to say "former American model".—Bagumba (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

NO IT'S NOT!!!!!!! The two adjectives are in the correct order, and are completely independent of one another. What is it about the rules of grammar that you don't understand? HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, but whereas "fake Malaysian ivory" can be contrasted with "Malaysian fake ivory", I don't see why anyone (in the opening sentence of a Wikipedia article) would be described as a "former American X", trying to say that the person used to be American. As "former American X" and "American former X" are extremely unlikely to be contrasted, we fall back to adjective sequence for 'former', or rephrase, as others have suggested. However, going back to the original question, I don't think the same analysis can be applied to "retired" (retiring from a nationality definitely isn't possible), so it's still 'retired American actor'. EddieHugh (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Someone who played an international sport for nation X, and then later played for nation Y, could be described as a former X player of whatever sport. This is not uncommon when nations change their identities. The phrase "former Soviet" appears in some 8000 of our articles, for instance, and "former Yugoslav[ian]" in nearly 2000 more. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think 'former X' is acceptable only in the cases you have cited, where somebody's citizenship has changed. GiantSnowman 21:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

...I don't think the same analysis can be applied to 'retired'... Retired does not have the same modifying effect as former, so they are different. My peave with the case of retired is that most athletes retire from their sport, but are still working in some capacity. So former would be more suitable in those cases, but that point doesn't preclude retired in Willis' situation.—Bagumba (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Personally, I dislike the use of either "former" or "retired". In the case of Bruce Willis, I would prefer Bruce Willis is an American actor who was active from 1978 to 2022 or something like that. Otherwise, "American former" or "American retired" is correct, not "former American" or "retired American". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Seeing discussions of other adjectives, it becomes apparent that "retired" differs from them, since it specifically means a person who has left their career. "Bruce Willis is retired," is a complete sentence with a clear meaning. "Bruce Willis is former," is not. If I speak of "my retired friends" it is clear that I mean friends who are retired, not people who are no longer my friends. In the latter case I would say "former friends." In short, a word order that is appropriate for "retired" might not be appropriate for "former." But, if we are operating under the assumption that adjectives modify those that follow them, wouldn't "Bruce Willis is an American retired actor" suggest that there is something American about his retirement? TornadoLGS (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you advocating for "an American who is retired"?—Bagumba (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying "retired American X" clearly refers to an American X who is retired, rather than an X who is retired from being American. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Maria Sharapova is a Russian who used to play tennis. I would describe her as a "Russian former tennis player". Daria Gavrilova is a current tennis player who used to play for Russia but now plays for Australia. I would describe her as a "former Russian tennis player". To describe them both as former Russian tennis player completely overlooks the significant difference in their situations. WWGB (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

(Partly stirring up trouble...) What happens when Gavrilova stops playing? Will she be a "former Russian former tennis player"? Better to rephrase, which is what has been done in her article ("is an Australian professional tennis player. She represented Russia until 2015, before emigrating to Australia"). EddieHugh (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A real former American Wayne Brabender is a former American who relinquished his citizenship to join the Spanish national team. People keep saying that it's understood that former doesn't apply to nationality for such-in-such case, until the time that it does. However, if we bastardize the common cases with "former American", we won't be able to distinguish from the real instances where they really are not an American anymore. Editors need to respect that some readers are not already familiar with the page topic and will therefore read it literally. Succinctness matters. Or we just become numb to inaccurate writing.—Bagumba (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Given that the range of reactions here demonstrates that there's confusion, potential or real, over the use of 'former [nationality] [role]' and '[nationality] former [role]', I believe we should avoid using either combination. Succinctness without clarity isn't beneficial. 'retired [nationality] [role]' still looks like a separate case, where that construction (or rephrasing) is preferred. EddieHugh (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have to agree with those who are saying that we need a third option. Personally, I would go with something like: Doe is an American foosball player who retired in 2019.” I think that conveys the information clearly and without any confusion. However, there are other ways to phrase it that would be just as clear. Don’t write like robots… be creative. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Is a retired pelican hunter a retired pelican?--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

no, and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. GiantSnowman 09:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

A real-life case - "ex-British jihadist", showing that putting the 'former' or 'retired' in front of the nationality ends that, not the profession. This is a jihadist who has had their British citizenship revoked. GiantSnowman 06:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bruce Willis example seems to have settled on "is an American retired actor".[7]—Bagumba (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The sensible outcome. GiantSnowman 19:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ROLEBIO and philanthropy

There has been a long-running dispute across multiple articles about whether to mention someone's philanthropy in the lead paragraph (often the first sentence), when it is not their primary source of notability. Does ROLEBIO functionally discourage that? My feeling is that when someone is famous and has a lot of money, their donations tend to be large and attract coverage; but per ROLEBIO it shouldn't be in the lead paragraph unless there's reason to believe it is the source of their notability rather than just having coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's generically covered by MOS:ROLEBIO:

Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph.

It's really based on consensus on a per-topic basis.—Bagumba (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

ip spamming honorifics - assistance requested

141.157.226.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been spamming honorifics across many BLPs. I'm not clear where and how such honorifics should be presented, and could use clarification which, if any, of the honorifics the ip has been spamming are appropriately presented. --Hipal (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

17 years of MOS:HON, few questions

This 17 years old discussion seems to be one of initial discussions related to MOS:HON There may be more other related discussion which Idk. @ One ongoing discussion WT:MOS/Islam-related articles#Using an unqualified "Prophet" in place of Muhammad user Vice regent asked ".. But out of curiosity, were these guidelines established via RfC or some consensus mechanism? Can someone point me to that? .."; the similar following curiosity is in my mind for MOS:HON

a) Exactly which first discussion connected MOS:HON with WP:NPOV?

b) Is/ was there any direct or indirect statement purpose or objective connecting MOS:HON with WP:NPOV?

c) Was there any RfC or some consensus mechanism which accepted connection between MOS:HON with WP:NPOV?

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project; is there a good reason why volunteers should resurrect and examine such an old discussion, and what is the importance of these questions to you? Mathglot (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The same thing you ask for, wish to understand rational. Why we wish to understand rational? To make difficult things simple in the (encyclopedic) life and simple things need not be difficult. To form opinions on rational basis and express oneself in other related discussions rationally. Idk any reasons for being afraid to share information, if available, let me know if any genuine reasons exists for being afraid, then I can take back my request back without further discussion. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

In order for me to respond to your question, I would first have to understand it, and I'm not sure I do. Perhaps you could write your question in your native language and I can try automatic translation or get someone to translate it. Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully I leave @ that Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Birth place & death place, in the article intros

I've seen inconsistency across many bios, concerning this topic. Either the MOS in this area, needs updating or should be abolished. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

MOS:BIRTHPLACE seems reasonable:

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.

I think a lot of older articles that have not since been edited list the birthplace with the birthdate. But those should be considered the exception. Some editors cram eveything to the lead out of convenience. —Bagumba (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. If anything needs updating it's articles that aren't in fitting with BIRTHPLACE. I think fixing broken articles to conform to the MOS is a better use of time, than breaking the MOS to conform to misuse in articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

We should keep in mind, that Manuals of Style aren't policies & be careful that we don't push them as though they are. Anyways, good to know which way the wind's blowing, so one doesn't have to face occasional 'reverts'. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The MOS is however guidelines, the other half of WP:PAG. As such editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. If a page isn't compliant with the guideline, and this isn't one of the exceptions, then making it compliant with the guideline is the correct action. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Even guidelines shouldn't be fully enforced. But, concerning this topic, I doubt that would be a factor, as very few editors get overly upset about this topic. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The MOS is 'correct', so articles need to be brought in-line with it. GiantSnowman 20:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Especially the part that says occasional exceptions may be made! Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Fictional characters

Seeking clarification. Does Deadnames cover fictional characters? Will those characters' names require being retro changed, if their creators/writers decide to 'change' their names? If so? does this include the character's bio & shows/movies it's been in. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

My sense is that because MOS:DEADNAME is a BLP policy, it does not cover fictional characters. However, there is a broader underlying principle here, namely WP:V: if the recent, reliable sources apply DEADNAME-like principles to a particular fictional character, presumably we should follow the up to date, high quality sources. (A related discussion is currently ongoing at Talk:The Umbrella Academy). Newimpartial (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Should wording be added linking REVDEL as a possible remedy for DEADNAMING?

Should we add some wording to MOS:DEADNAME (MOS:BIO#Gender identity) suggesting revision deletion as a possible remedy for WP:DEADNAME violations, especially in the case of BLPs of trans individuals who were non-notable pre-transition? Perhaps something like this:

For cases where someone was not notable pre-transition, after removing the deadname from the article, consider making a revision deletion request in order to protect their privacy. Policy regarding removal of non-public personal information may also apply.

This is inspired by an actual case that arose in a BLP article of a trans individual, where the article was experiencing repetitive deadnaming and edit warring by two IPs. A discussion at an IRC channel was inconclusive about whether policy supported REVDEL in this case, but an overture to raise this discussion here to clarify the point met with approval. Mathglot (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Listed at: WT:BIO, WT:OVERSIGHT, WT:REVDEL, WT:LGBT, and WT:BLPN. Mathglot (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes Revdel should be added to the policy. Gusfriend (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, per WP:BLPPRIVACY, and WP:OSPOL point 1 regarding Removal of non-public personal information. It should be on a case-by-case basis, as individuals have different preferences, and because the possible damage or risk varies, and sometimes a normal revert is enough. But sometimes it isn't, thus not a rule, but an option, and a link to lead users to the right place for cases where it applies. Mathglot (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Question - can someone point me to the RFC where there was consensus for this language in WP:DEADNAME:

  If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.

  I am having trouble finding it (among the many at MOS:IDINFO#Discussion timeline). Thanks, Levivich^[block] 16:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The current language resulted from two RfCs, this one and this one. The subsequent implementation / wordsmithing discussion (not an RfC) is here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I participated in both those RFCs, but realize now that I never actually went back and read the close of the second RFC. I disagree that that RFC resulted in consensus for "Non-notable deadnames of living people notable under a chosen name must not be included as this would create a BLP privacy violation", but I guess that ship sailed. Levivich^[block] 19:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Just so we are clear: your paraphrase excerpt here doesn't reflect the actual decision (nor its implementation) as implemented. If a person *was* notable under a former name, and *is* now notable under a chosen name, we still include the former name - but we do so only to a limited extent, typically through a parenthetical in the main biographical article's lead (noting "born as" or "formerly"), and using footnotes in other articles where the person is mentioned concerning their activity while using their former name. The consensus reached, however, does not mandate the alternative approach of using the former name in the main text for mentions that relate to an earlier period while presenting the current name in a footnote. As to whether any of this has to do with the BLPPRIVACY provisions, that is currently in the eye of the beholder - the only case where there are currently invoked in the guideline is that of non-notable former names. Newimpartial (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC) corrected by Newimpartial (talk)
        • What paraphrase? I'm directly quoting the second bullet point of the close of the second RFC you linked to. And it seems like that part of the close was, indeed, implemented in the part of WP:DEADNAME that I quoted above. Levivich^[block] 20:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
          • My bad, but as it would create a BLP privacy violation is not part of the bolded part of the close and was not, to the best of my knowledge, implemented in the subsequent guideline text. I think the closer should have said "could" rather than "would", or have referred to other BLP provisions besides privacy, but anyway I don't see any impact of that error on subsequent guideline development. I have amended my comments above, accordingly Newimpartial (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
            • "Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name." reads to me like it's talking about BLPPRIVACY even though it doesn't explicitly say that. What I'm getting it is that I think there are some conceivable cases where a non-notable deadname would be WP:DUE for inclusion; I don't really have an example of one; but I think DEADNAME (and the RFC) go too far in saying "should not be included in any page...even if reliable sourcing exists". This is a total blanket prohibition: never state it anywhere, no matter the state of sourcing... and even going so far as to revdel it possibly. It strikes me as possible that there exists a person who was not notable under their deadname, but for whom their deadname is, per RSes, a significant and thus DUE part of their biography. I can imagine a person who was not notable under their deadname, but nevertheless, for whom their transition and their coming out are significant parts of their biographies, even public parts. So, for example, there might be a person who was not notable under their deadname, but their deadname nonetheless is not a privacy issue, because perhaps they themselves publicized it, perhaps as part of talking about their transition. So it seems like we should, in fact, be looking at the state of sourcing, on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether to include a deadname or not, and not have a blanket prohibition. (I recognize that in most cases, a person's deadname will not be a significant or DUE detail in their biography.) Levivich^[block] 20:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
              • Yeah, but the language you are quoting now (and that was quoted by the OP) is specific to non-notable deadnames, and so it isn't what we were just talking about which was the exclusion of previously notable deadnames from quotes, etc. (which was the main issue in the second RfC).
              • And I think the point of the RfCs and their close was precisely to prevent the situation you are taking about, where would have to be looking at the state of sourcing, on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether to include a deadname or not. This would involve overturning the principle drawn up almost a decade ago, where the community decided that RSs mentioning the deadname after the person is notable under their current name do not count towards the appropriateness of using that name to refer to them. If the community wanted to reverse part of those RfCs, and permit inclusion of non-notable deadnames for living people based on WP:V rather than WP:N requirements, what that would actually do is create bushfires (or wildfires) at every BLP where there is reliable sourcing for a non-notable deadname - it is to avoid this kind of thing that we have these guidelines in the first place.
              • If a person prefers to use their former name when discussing phases of their life, then it seems clear to me that no privacy interest would exist in that instance, but I haven't yet seen even one biography where a person who was not notable using their former name actually has that preference. It doesn't seem to be more than a hypothetical. Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
                • Can you point me to that RFC? I see this one from 2020, but it wasn't a decade ago, and it still suggests at that point in time that consensus wasn't quite for an absolute prohibition ("There's a very clear majority against gratuitous deadnaming ... but there are reasonable arguments that the policy should not be absolutist ... this is unlikely to be the final version, and that's fine"). From where I'm sitting, the "Fourth proposal" discussion that led to the above-quoted WP:DEADNAME is local consensus, not global consensus, but idk, there are a lot of RFCs listed at MOS:IDINFO, I know I haven't read most of them. Levivich^[block] 21:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
                  • (e-c) It wasn't done all at once. The application of Notability whle using the former name as a basis for inclusion in the lead was ratified in this Village Pump discussion; the same principle was extended to the rest of article space later (but prior to the RfCs I linked above). The two most recent RfCs firmly entrenched the principle that Notability determines inclusion for the former names of living Trans people. I don't know what you mean about "local consensus" in this instance, since many, many editors contributed to two most recent RfCs I linked above and there wasn't any real doubt about the consensus - nor was there contention worth noting in the implementation discussion, which I also linked above, that resulted in the current language. What element of the language quoted by the OP do you feel the community has not ratified? I am fairly picky about these things, and haven't seen anything over the skis of the actual consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
                  • To be clear, there was already a consensus before the two RfCs I linked that it was only appropriate to include notable deadnames in Wikipedia articles, not non-notable ones. The two more recent RfCs reaffirmed this, while curtailing some ways that certain editors had wanted to include deadnames in articles (in quotes, and away from the main BLP article) which the guideline had not explicitly addressed until then. I don't see anything in the current version of MOS:GENDERID that can reasonably be interpreted as "local consensus", given the wide scope and participation in the discussions that have resulted in the current language. Newimpartial (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
                    • Just so folks are aware, I've now corrected the link at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity#Discussion timeline to the 2007 guidance. Seems at some point between when it was added to that list and now the revision ID of the edit changed. The corresponding talk page discussion leading up to that is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 93#Identity. I believe this is what Newimpartial was referring to when they referred to a principle drawn up almost a decade ago. That principle was reduced in scope in September 2015, and reinstated in February 2021. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

    I have added links to those three discussions as a footnote to the paragraph on deadnaming for ease of future reference Masem (t) 01:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  It's here. I know because I'm the one who suggested that wording. Loki (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Not yet Even within the LGBT+ community, it too often happens that there are disputes about what the deadname guidelines should be. Before having procedure for enforcing a guideline, we should have the guideline itself. Right now WP:DEADNAME redirects to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity, which is a section covering several topics in addition to deadname. First deadname should have its own full wiki space for long discussion. That could be a subsection of gender identity, or it could be its own section here in MOS/biography, or it could be a section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity, or it could be its own stand-alone guideline on its own page. If someone wanted to make it a stand alone wiki guideline then I support that because I think there is enough discussion and interest to do so. There are lots of unexplored directions for developing this. I think this issue merits more than the limited space it currently has as a mention within a section of this general biographical guide.
• If there were a new guideline drafted out somewhere, then there could be an entire section of proposed remedies for different situations. I think revdel is a remedy for certain situations, but I doubt that it is the first choice blanket remedy for all situations. We need to talk this through more. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with this - LGBT+ communities obviously want what they want, but the consensus embodied in MOS:DEADNAME is that, where names of living people are concerned, Wikipedia only includes them in article space where the person was notable while using the name in question. The question of deadnames of dead people hasn't been settled on-wiki, and the question of deadnames in edit summaries and on Talk pages hasn't been settled either (one reason to have this discussion), but I don't think anyone should be under the impression that the question of deadnames *in*articles* hasn't been settled with broad consensus, concerning both when to include and exclude them.
  • That said, I think it would be *preferable* to create a section within WP:BLP that would more clearly set out the BLP principles underlying our "rules" agsinst deadnaming and misgendering living people, and those might be helpful in determining when revdel would be appropriate... Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• This has of course come up on the oversight mailing list a few times. The feeling among the team seems to be that it is something we will deal with on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific context, so there is not any kind of bright-line rule here. Generally, I feel it's better to just ask the team for a revdel than to not do so. Someone will look it over and take appropriate action, if it falls in a grey area generally it gets discussed among the team until a consensus develops. In the interest of clarity I would add that whether it is explicitly mentioned as an option at DEADNAME or not will not impact the way the team deals with such requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  • As someone who has not to date made such a request, I would hope that the team would distinguish between the case where an editor might be construed as "innocently" proposing to include a former name prior to a rigorous examination of the status of the prior name at the article Talk page, and the case where there has been such a discussion, it has reached a clear conclusion, and an editor has (non-innocently) insisted on re-introducing the name in question, whether in Article or Talk space. Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

    This is exactly why it is probably better to contact the oversight team than to just ask any passing admin to handle it. If the adding of the dead name is clearly done with malicious intent there are further steps that can be taken, including suppressing the edits so not even admins can see them, and issuing an oversight block if necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

    I have made such requests several times and every time but once they have been pure and unambiguous vandalism. (Which is to say, I don't think working this out is as big a deal as you think.) Loki (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I quite agree that there's no bright-line rule, and very much "yes" to case-by-case. So that's not really the reason for the proposal in the first place, but rather, many users either never heard of revdel, or don't quite know what it is, or sorta know what it is, but not where to find it. The additional wording provides a way to inform, advise of an option, and provide a link to the relevant policy page; no bright line, no forcing. Putting it another way: with respect to "it's better to just ask the team for a revdel than to not do so": absolutely agree—but they can't do that, if they don't know what it is or where to find it.

  The other part of the proposal is about whether revdel is *ever* the right response to deadnaming, and if it is, then maybe we should say something about it (and link it) so users can alert the appropriate team in the appropriate way. Mathglot (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• At risk of splitting the discussion—but doing it this way because one is concerete and the other abstract—please see WP:XRV#Tamzin's revdels at Hari Nef. My statements there about that specific case (that it falls squarely under RD2) may be relevant to the general case as well. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, with emphasis that it's discretionary. I can think of three articles off the top of my head: one on an Olympic athlete who became notable well before she transitioned; one on a collegiate swimmer who achieved notability after transitioning, but her transition may be part of what led to her notability, and she did compete collegiately under her deadname; and one on an actress and model who became notable only after transitioning. In the first case, her deadname is obviously a mentioned in the article. In the second, including the deadname is reasonably subject to debate, and I would likely not revdel edits with it—but I wouldn't wheel war with an admin who did revdel, because it's borderline. In the third, there's no need to include the deadname per our current policies, and I would revdel any edits to add it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes per both Mathglot and C.Fred. While there are uses of deadnames that are acceptable per guidelines, and so would not be subject to a revdel, there are definitely circumstances where one or more editors will try and insert a trans or non-binary person's deadname into an article. Where this is disruptive revdel should be an allowed and suggested option to resolve the underlying privacy issues. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - deadnaming is an important privacy interest for trans folks, and the proposed wording allows for admin discretion. Funcrunch (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• No Not unless there was vandalism or harassment involved, which is what RevDel is for. Beware the Streisand effect... Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  WP:CRD lists the criteria for revdel. The section on § How to request Revision Deletion specifically calls out the Streisand effect and how to avoid it by proper notification. Mathglot (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes if there is currently uncertainty as to whether this is an option, although the wording should make it clear that (like most REVDELs) it is an option based on context, and especially the risk of harm to the individual in question, rather than a requirement. --Aquillion (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, exactly per Mathglot. Revdel (and indeed oversight) is appropriate in some, but not all, circumstances so it should be permitted as an option. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes in general, particularly if the person was not a PUBLICFIGURE before, but care should be taken for possible edge cases. There can be cases of where there does exist prior sourcing from reasonably reliable sources of the pre-transition name, but the post-transition name is far far more recognizable. (eg I'm familiar with Dana Simpson's "deadname" due to being on the Internet long enough, prior to Simpson's transition period, but I would never include it in full on the article. That said, if the deadname snuck into the article backed by one of the RSes I am pretty sure that exist that include it, REVDEL to remove it would not really be appropriate.) --Masem (t) 01:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral - That DEADNAME allows the usage of the former name in bios (even if limited), is a positive. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Revision deletion is both a fairly obscure feature of Wikipedia procedure and an appropriate response when the deadnaming attempt is clearly malicious, and so noting that it can be requested is helpful. The proposed phrasing is already clear that it's up to the editor's discretion to ask. XOR'easter (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion of "Justice" as an honorific prefix

This is a reiteration of my discussion at WikiProject United States courts and judges, I believe that Justice should be included as an honorific prefix. This is a relatively new discussion, and I currently have the support of @BD2412.

Under MOS:HONORIFIC, MOS:PREFIX states that:

(a) "styles and honorifics [are] derived from a title, position or activity, including The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable"

(b) "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it..."

Under WP:Manual of Style:, I believe that the inclusion of justice as an honorific prefix would be appropriate for all current and former Supreme Court justices. In regards to (a), jurists who serve or have served on the Supreme Court are called justices—the term judge is generally seen as an insult when referred to a SCOTUS justices, and hardly any RS refer to a justice as "judge" for this reason (at the very least, the overwhelming—and I mean overwhelming—majority of RS). I believe it also appropriate given the difference which exists between the terms justice and judge. This is not something limited simply to the United States, but also something clearly apparent in other countries throughout the world (see Chief justice and Associate justice, where the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of Philippines are among some examples). It is orthodoxy to refer to those who serve on the Supreme Court as justices, and no source to my knowledge brazenly titles them differently, hence (b). GuardianH (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

...Justice is an honorific, though the understanding of it is sometimes confused. Justice is primarily used to distinguish members of a higher court from a lower court, and thus it doesn't seem that the application of The Honorable is appropriate as it applies to any judge (judge and justice should not be confused). Robert Hickey, the author of Honor & Respect: The Official Guide to Names, Titles, and Forms of Address, states that:

"Justice is a title and honorific for a judge of an appellate court.  The given name of an associate justice is not used unless there are two justices with the same surname.  Judges of lower courts are addressed as The Honorable (full name), but current justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are not.  However a retired associate justice is addressed as the Honorable (full name) and in a salutation or conversation as Justice (surname)."

(Note that a retired Supreme Court justice is referred to as The Honorable because the person is no longer a member of the Supreme Court and that it seems Hickey speaks from an American perspective.)

In Australia, The University of Technology Sydney's "guide to addressing judicial officers" further notes that Chief Justices should be addressed as "Chief Justice" whereas other judges of the court are addressed as "Your Honour" (the abbreviation of The Honorable). The university's guide goes on to combine both justice and judge, stating "If you’re introducing a superior court judge to somebody outside of court you should introduce them as “Justice …” and you should refer to them in conversation as 'judge.'"

Concerning members of the Supreme Court in the United States, however, I think that the honorific prefix of justice is appropriate given the greater emphasis it has in the country—as I mentioned before, referring to SCOTUS justices as anything different has the appliance of being insulting. This is noted in Professor Bryan Garner's Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, on page 480, where he states that:

" [Speaking about judges and justices concerning mistakes in the address] Chief Justice Rehnquist, during oral argument, has corrected counsel who have addressed him as 'Judge.' .... [Quoting Glanville Williams' Learning the Law ] What are the proper forms? Williams recommends "'Mr. Justice Smith' (or Mrs. Justice Smith, as the case may be)...when speaking of him in public.'"

For these reasons, I continue the contention that we include "justice" as an honorific prefix to members of a Supreme Court, especially members of the Supreme Court of the United States, where it seems a greater emphasis is placed on it than in other countries. GuardianH (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Certainly this would be the case in running text about an opinion of the court. We would say that, e.g., "Justice Jackson wrote a dissent" rather that just "Jackson wrote a dissent". BD2412 T 17:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, (b) materially misquotes the guideline. Also, it isn’t clear what you mean to accomplish by including it as an honorific prefix. Can you please give some concrete examples of how existing usage would change? Wallnot (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by asking what I "mean to accomplish". An honorific is an honorific, a title is a title, a prefix is a prefix, etc. Labeling it differently or not counting an honorific as one is, at its best, poor writing or, at its worst, crude and insulting. As I mentioned previously, justices of the Supreme Court of the United States take seriously their addresses—this includes justice, which is the defining term for those who sit on the Supreme Court (e.g., it is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, NOT Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg). We should also consider these forms of address when it comes to an institution such as the U.S. Supreme Court, or any other Supreme Court for that matter, as we already do with members of government with The Most Honourable or The Honourable.

To address your question regarding how existing usage would change, it isn't a matter of how existing usage would change necessarily, it's about why has the usage remained unchanged? To take @BD2412's example, just look at examples of some SCOTUS cases: Heffernan v. City of Paterson, Ex parte Crow Dog, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, United States v. Kagama, I can go on; all these articles reference a member of the Supreme Court as Justice (name), and never necessarily simply [name]. Here are some excerpts from those articles:

"The decision recognized two distinct concepts in addition to those related to criminal law. First, Justice Matthews had noted that..." (Ex parte Crow Dog)

"In the opinion issued by Justice Stanley Matthews for the Supreme Court in Ex parte Crow Dog in 1883" (United States v. Kagama)

"Writing for a majority of the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer stated that the department's belief..." (Heffernan v. City of Paterson)

These references to members of the Supreme Court as Justice [name] is not simply limited to these articles, but rather it is pretty much standard that when citing or quoting a justice, you refer to them as justice. I don't think what I'm proposing is a ground-changing or otherwise sweeping biographical change, it's simply formalizing what already is orthodoxy. GuardianH (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by asking what I "mean to accomplish". I meant, as I subsequently explained, how you believe this guideline change will affect actual usage. Your answer was that it won’t. So it’s still not clear why you’re pushing for it.

Labeling it differently or not counting an honorific as one is, at its best, poor writing or, at its worst, crude and insulting. What a strange claim. You’ve indicated that you don’t think this guideline change would affect existing usage at all, so I’m not sure how you believe the current state of things leads to poor writing, much less is crude and insulting.

Since you’ve refused to provide concrete examples of how your proposed change would affect usage in articles, I took a look at your edit history and saw your attempts to add an “honorific_prefix” parameter to the Infobox officeholders of various justices. Considering that the lede sentence of all these articles indicates that they were justices of the Supreme Court, I’m not sure what this redundant piece of information is doing there. Info boxes are meant to contain only essential information.

Also, despite the wall of text you offered at the wiki project and reproduced here, you have not explained why justice is an honorific where judge, president, senator, etc., are not. You seem to think that the fact that a justice would take umbrage at being called a judge is enough on its own to justify the inclusion of justice in the honorific category. In fact, MOS:HONORIFIC says nothing that would support that contention, and I suspect that the average district court judge would not appreciate being called a magistrate, either.

Finally, your proposed guideline change would lead to at least one conflict between MOS rules: justice, as a title, is not capitalized under MOS:JOBTITLES. If it were an honorific, which it is not, it would be required to be capitalized under MOS:HONORIFIC. Again, you’ve provided no reason that justice should receive this treatment where other titles are not. Wallnot (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

“unless they prefer their former name be used for past events” - MOS:DEADNAME

MOS:DEADNAME mentions that deadnames should not be used to refer to someone “unless they prefer their former name be used for past events” which strikes me as odd. It just doesn’t feel encyclopedic. Maybe I’m just ignorant, and apologies if that’s the case, but not only does it strike me as a clause that won’t be used, but also as something that’ll cause unneeded confusion. I think that, in the scenario that this is actually relevant, the deadname should be used once, with a footnote, and then it (and probably a pronouns too because if one wants their deadname too be used they’d probably want their dead-pronouns used too right?) avoided for the remainder of the article, to prevent well meaning people from changing it to their actual name or going to the subjects article and changing it to their deadname.

But this is way out of my field of knowledge, I’m just posting it because I think a discussion by people who actually know about this stuff could be fruitful. MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an old provision, and my sense is that there was an expectation last decade that a lot of trans people would have this preference, perhaps based on a couple of outliers back then. However, I am not aware of any public figures who are actually of this preference at present, so the provision may be a dead letter. Newimpartial (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The subject's preference should be documented since it is useful information but should not be applied in articles, since they would effectively be writing their own articles. Darmot and gilad (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME

There are no reasons to use the deadname of a trans person, using a trans person deadname is violent and should never be permitted, the current guidelines are transphobic and should be changed to not allow any use of deadnames in any case, Wikipedia should not be a place that supports transphobia. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for participating on the talk page as I suggested (assuming you made the previous IP edits on this page). Speaking as a trans editor, I have watched the guidelines regarding the deadnames of trans people evolve to where they stand currently. I don't agree that it is necessarily transphobic to include a formerly notable deadname once (and once only) in a biographical article. Yes, it would be best not to include any deadnames at all. But the current compromise allows readers who are genuinely not aware of the person's pre- and post-transition names to find the biographical article. Again, this is only in the case of trans people who gained notability under their deadnames. Funcrunch (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's good that the guidelines have evolved but they shouldn't stop now, they are still not right as it is, there's no reason to ever deadname someone even if previously they were notable, that's still misgendering and deadnaming and therefore violence, Wikipedia should not enable violence against a marginalized group, it's wrong there's no discussion around that, there are no excuses for that. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You believe this, but the Wikipedia community (including most trans members of the wikipedia community) do not agree with you. WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, but at this point it pretty clearly hasn't. Newimpartial (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

All trans people that I know agrees that deadnaming someone is transphobic 179.35.13.220 (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Also speaking as a trans editor, the current guidance on deadnames represents a necessary compromise required by both the editors of this wiki, and also the sources we use. When writing a biography of a notable trans or non-binary person, who was notable pre-transition, it is sadly inevitable that we will come across sources that were written months and years prior to their transition and which have not been updated since. However those sources are still valid and useful for writing about that person, during that time period. While in an ideal world I would like to excise all deadnames from the site, in our current world unfortunately it would cause confusion for both reader and editor alike for why we're citing an article about Jane Doe, in a biography about John Doe (or vice versa). Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Then those sources are also wrong and should be changed to not include the deadname, change has to start somewhere. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, however Wikipedia is not a venue to right great wrongs. Such change has to come from offwiki, from organisations like Stonewall and GLAAD, targeted towards politicians and media sources to effect such a change on a societal level first. Wikipedia does not lead change, it follows change as laid out based on the sources we use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems like most people who responded agreed that there shouldn't be any misgendering happening but just aren't willing to fight for what is right, you are just letting transphobia win. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Erasing single mentions of the deadnames of people like Wendy Carlos and Elliot Page - where readers are constantly becoming aware of them through work created while using deadnames and only belatedly learn about their transition and actual gender - would not serve to fight...transphobia in any meaningful way. Newimpartial (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It actually would, it would show people that it's not right to use someone's deadname, by including it in the article it shows people that it's right to use, which is not. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually believe that it is more useful to explain for a general audience that yes, this is the person referred to by the deadname but no, that's not how they should be referred to. That's what the footnotes effectively do. Newimpartial (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The way it's used now it gives margin to the people interpret that it is ok to refer to them as the deadname, most people don't read the footnotes, the least it can de done is make it more apparent that is not ok to use deadnames 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

When an article constantly refers to the person's pre-transition life by their actual, current name and pronouns, how is that giving margin to the people interpret that it is ok to refer to them as the deadname? Newimpartial (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Because it is often used in the first paragraph on the test, therefore people think that's ok to use. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If you can think of articles where it doesn't seem clear why we use the correct name, please point them out. I think Elliot Page, for example, is pretty clear about this. Newimpartial (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If it is really that important to mention someone's deadname then do it in the footnotes. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

For that matter, I don't understand why you think there is misgendering happening on Wikipedia? The community consensus on that is actually pretty strict. Newimpartial (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Deadnaming is an act of misgendering. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No, not in this context it isn't. Newimpartial (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Deadnaming is always and act of misgendering no matter the context. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

That is just your opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

And it's also just your opinion that it isn't. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No, there are many many sources that define deadnaming and misgendering as two distinct things. For example, a trans person saying "my name used to be [deadname]" is not misgendering themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes they are different things but deadnaming is a sub aspect of misgendering. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Addressing a person by a deadname may be misgendering, but explaining that a person used to be known by a deadname isn't, necessarily, depending on how it is done. Newimpartial (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but the way it is done now it is. That's what I'm asking to change. There is no reason to make the deadname of someone so evident as it is now. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

How do you suggest we handle the pre-transition period of a person like Elliot Page and Caitlyn Jenner, where their deadname dominated the media about them?

Our deadnaming principles are to default to not including the deadname unless from a purpose of notability (what's in the sources) it is nearly impossible to not include the deadname. It puts the onus on those that want to show the deadname should be given, which is the way it should be. Masem (t) 00:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Simply redirect to the page when someone searches for the deadname, you don't have to include it anywhere in the actual, if they are actually notable they people know what their current name is, if they don't know then the person is not notable and it shouldn't include the deadname at all. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

That would violate the WP:ASTONISH principle. People who follow the redirect need to know they have found the right person, especially for creatives IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If they've been redirect that should be evidence enough that they found the right person 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

How do you handle citations to reliable sources written pre-transition, that have not been updated post-transition and so use that person's deadname? Both in the title of the source, and in the body of text of it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, how do you explain, for example, how Caitlyn won the men's marathon at the Olympics without mentioning transition or the deadname? The policy is very sound as it is. Masem (t) 00:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If the articles mentions the person is trans it can be deducted from it, no need to mention the deadname. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't rely on sources that refer to another name and then deduct thwt they are about the same person. Until the sources change names retroactively - which most of them don't, at this point- no such option exists. Newimpartial (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If it is really that important to mention someone's deadname then do it in the footnotes, no need to do it in the main article. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

That is what we generally do except for the main article about a person. In the latter case, if the name is a frequent search term and redirect, our style guide tells us to include the name in the main text in brackets. The issue of gender, however, will be in a footnote as needed. Newimpartial (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Then change the style guide to not include the deadname in the main text and restrict it to the footnotes therefore reducing the transphobia present in many articles of trans people. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Calling something transphobia because that is what it feels like to you is not an effective way to promote change on-wiki, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If something is transphobia then I will call it transphobia, I'm not going to sugarcoat it, deadnaming a trans person is always transphobia. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you will generally find that stating your personal beliefs as absolute, when they are things that even those who agree with you 90-95% of the time do not agree with, is not a way to build WP:CONSENSUS. Newimpartial (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

You should follow your own advice, you're stating your personal believes saying that deadnaming is not transphobia. 179.35.13.220 (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that calling things "transphobia" isn't a useful way to make change. I haven't made any statement here about what I think is or is not transphobia. Newimpartial (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: OP is evading a block for personal attacks and edit-warring. Slywriter (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

What? Do you have proof? 179.35.13.220 (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on nationality descriptions in lead?

What is the consensus on using female descriptions of nationality in the lead like "Filipina" instead of the generic "Filipino"? I have seen many articles using "X is a Filipina actress ...", and am pondering on replacing them with the generic/gender-neutral term "Filipino". Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Deadnames and film credits

• Dee McLachlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The bulk of McLachlan's work is post-transition. However, she has credits under her assigned name, and at least one of those films is notable. This raises two questions:

1. Should the pre-transition credit be adjusted in name (which is the current situation at The Second Jungle Book: Mowgli & Baloo)?
2. Does this rise to the level of enough output under the assigned name that it should be mentioned in the article, or should it be squelched?

I'd like some broader input on how to handle this. She seems like an edge case; it's hard to be sure whether she'd have been notable pre-transition. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m an originalist for lack of a better term in that I believe people should be listed as how they were credited when the movie was made. And if people want to explain in a note that gender identity is the reason their former name is there then that’s our job. Trillfendi (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Per the list of discussions at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity#Discussion timeline, this situation looks like it would be covered by the principles in the closure of the 2019 RfC for crediting The Wachowskis, and more specifically in the closure of the 2021 RfC on how to credit individuals on previously released works.

Per the more recent of the two RfCs, Dee's pre-transition work should be credited to her current name, with either a parenthetical or footnote reference on the first instance of her name appearing in the article. The choice between parenthetical or footnote is up to editorial judgement on how it will flow in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking specifically at that article, given that the only time McLachlan's name appears is in the infobox, I'd be tempted to say that a footnote would be the least intrusive way of respecting the 2021 RfC's closure, however I would have an absolute preference for not mentioning her deadname at all in contradiction to that RfC. Of course that later choice would no doubt require another RfC to gain such a consensus, given how long and well attended the 2021 RfC was. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Jobtitles

At Monarchy of Canada. How should it be written? "...the Royal Family" or "...the royal family"? GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Lower case. DrKay (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Wanted to be sure, as I'm getting resistance there. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You mean you're giving resistance. Again.

All the official sources capitalize the term:

"Sovereign and Royal Family..."

"The Royal Family..."

"The governor general plays an important role in maintaining Canada’s long-standing relationship with the Royal Family...."

"How do I write to the Royal Family?"

"All enquiries pertaining to the Royal Family..."

"This sense of service has been transmitted to all members of the Royal Family."

"This sense of service has been transmitted to all members of the Royal Family."

"Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is supported in her official duties by other working Members of the Royal Family..."

"Meeting the Royal Family"

"Tours by The Queen and other members of the Royal Family..."

"Members of the Royal Family..."

""Members of the Royal Family"

"Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is supported in her official duties by other working members of the Royal Family..."

"First member of the Royal Family..."

"Other members of the Royal Family..."

"Royal visits lend the prestige of the Royal Family to worthy causes..."

"Members of the Royal Family..."

"Visits from members of the Royal Family..."

"Members of the Royal Family..."

"Evening Telegram souvenir portrait of the Royal Family..."

"Members of the Royal Family..."

WP:VERIFY and WP:RS are more important than a part of the manual of style. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Official sources also capitalise Presidents & Vice Presidents of the US, Prime Ministers of Canada, etc etc. But we still lower-case them when the prefix "the" comes before them, in the content. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No we don't:

"Within minutes of the President's announcement..."

"Obama's Peace Prize did not have the desired effect of encouraging the President..."

""The Justice Department determined that the President's order was legal..."

"...subsequently re-authorized by the President..."

"...would not be reauthorized by the President..."

"...infringement of the President's authority..."

"A huge image of the President..."

"The President focused on his adminis...tration's accomplishments..."

"...the travels of the President..."

"...asking whether the President felt..."

"...the Prime Minister and provincial premiers..."

"...a prerogative of the Prime Minister..."

"...unilateral decision from the Prime Minister."

"...agreed to by the Prime Minister..."

"...met individually with the Prime Minister..."

"...crowded the Prime Minister's schedule."

--₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Those should be lower-cased. But, if you can get the folks here to change the MOS? That would be cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be, as they are referring to a specific person. Regardless, how does WP:JOBTITLES even apply here? WP:JOBTITLES is about individuals and their jobs. "Royal Family" is neither a person's title nor their job. It is a group, like the Group of Seven, the Famous Five, the Bloomsbury Group, or even the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as the Royal Family has quasi-official status. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I've raised the question over at MOS:CAPS. Here or there, more input will help us out. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You mean help you out. Most of us understand the rules. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Please don't start with the personal attacks. "Us", includes more then you & me. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The best place for this back-and-forth is nowhere, and the second best place is not here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You're qiute right. It just gets frustrating when the guy hasn't left me alone for even one day over the past couple of weeks. Time to breathe deeply...--₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not at all related to JOBTITLES. The relevant guideline is MOS:CAPS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers. If the decision at MOS:CAPS is to uppercase? then I'll revert my changes to the Canadian monarchy page. I want to make sure this MoS debate is clarified, as I was planning on 'lower-casing' the other related monarchy pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Upper case Royal Family. This represents a recognized group of people. Lower case "royal family" looks odd and appears to refer to some family that is royal for some reason. It is exactly the same distinction of "Queen" versus "queen". Historylikeyou (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You're too late. We've already agreed on "royal family" GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Well you're wrong and should revise this decision. Historylikeyou (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Do we capitalise or not, in the infobox. Example - The "Monarch of Canada"? or The "monarch of Canada". See Order of Military Merit (Canada) page, for an example. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That is not the issue; in an infobox or out of an infobox is irrelevant. The matter is, is "monarch of Canada" either a proper noun or an actual title and the answer is, no. "Queen of Canada" is the title; "the monarch of Canada" is just a description. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We'll let other decide on that. Though I wouldn't object to changing it to the "Queen of Canada", as it would easily be updated to "King of Canada" when the time comes. Not to mention, removing the possible repetition within the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I have decided for myself, thank you.

The monarch is the Sovereign of the orders, regardless of whether it is a queen or a king. Same for who awards the honour of appointment into the orders. You could have "Elizabeth II" as the orders' Sovereign. But, then you'd have to change "Chancellor" in each article infobox to "Mary Simon" and update every infobox on every article about every Canadian order every time there's a new governor general. That also would not convey the fact that the Sovereign is always the monarch and the Chancellor is always the governor general. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Well we'll wait for the input from others. I'll abide by whatever the consensus turns out to be on this. I'm more interested in whether we uppercase or lowercase, in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Then we're not having the same discussion. As I just stated above, in the infobox or in the article body is irrelevant; location is not a rule of capitalization. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We're going in circles here. Best to wait for input from others. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No. You have been presented with arguments. If you cannot rebut them, but continue to dispute, then we are at an impasse, not going in any circle. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

If an impasse? Then we'll wait for others input/views to break that impasse. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Or, you know, you could admit you can't argue my arguments wrong and thus accept the fact that "the monarch of Canada" isn't a title and, hence, "monarch" shouldn't be capitalized, as this MoS clearly explains. But, hey. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I'll wait for the input from others. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That's very revealing. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's stick to the content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

If only. I have explained to you why "monarch" isn't capitalized; it's explained right in this MoS why "monarch" shouldn't be capitalized; and your retort--your defence of your position--has been... Well, nothing. I trust, then, you won't object to me putting the infoboxes back to "the monarch of Canada". Yes? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Lower-casing them would highlight the content dispute-in-question. Note: This covers more then the Canadian orders, decorations & medals pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Other editors can come up with rebuttals, there's no need for GoodDay specifically to come up with one. Give it a day or two. I for one agree with you on this, and it's true that whether it's in the infobox or in the body of an article makes no difference to whether it should be uppercase or lowercase. —El Millo (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a full week would be best, to establish a local consensus. I'll abide by whatever that consensus is, on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

In the meantime, there is a compromise solution. "The Canadian monarch" style, for example. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course other editors can come up with their rebuttals; no one said otherwise. That doesn't, though, absolve an original party to the dispute of the responsibility to defend his own actions and/or opinions, interpretations, or beliefs. If disputes keep breaking out again and again because of that, it will again and again necessitate the involvement of other editors, which gets disruptive.

If it's just clarification of the MoS that GoodDay wants, and not a dispute, there's obvioulsy nothing wrong with that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Seeking local consensus (like here) or (if necessary) going the RFC route, is not disruptive. As long as editors aren't edit-warring or throwing personal attacks at each other? The content dispute process will work its way out. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I very clearly wrote about not defending one's own actions and/or opinions, interpretations, or beliefs, and doing so "again and again". Please pay attention to the context.

Also this. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I chose to abort that RFC-in-question. I don't believe we'll need an RFC for this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The point is obviously about people necessitating the involvement of other editors again and again and how that can be disruptive. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Options

I'm using 'Canada' as an example. But this issue covers all the monarchial orders, decorations & medals pages.

• the Monarch of Canada
  
• the monarch of Canada
  
• the Canadian monarch

GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• It's clearly the monarch of Canada; "the Monarch of Canada" does not exist as a title; the title is "King/Queen of Canada". Even if "Monarch of Canada" were a title, since the reference in the infoboxes is not to a specific individual, it would still be written as "the monarch of Canada", in the same manner as "the president of France". Canadian monarch is aslo grammatically sound, but the appropriateness of its use would depend where in the infobox it's going: membership in an order can be awarded by the monarch of Canada or the Canadian monarch, but if the Sovereign of the orders were said to be the Canadian monarch, the Chancellor of the orders would have to be, for consistency, put as the Canadian governor general, which is odd. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• I would accept the Canadian monarch option, as it's a compromise which removes any uppercase/lowercase dispute. As for governor general? that can be shown as "Governor General" with the proper page linked. After all, the name of the page itself would likely signify 'which' offices/positions we're alluding to. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It would be "Governor general". It would be inconsistent to have "Canadian monarch" in one field and simply "Governor general" in the field directly below. "Sovereign: Canadian monarch", without the definitive article "the" is also grammatically weird; ditto for "Chancellor: Governor general". You could be better with "Sovereign: the monarch" and "Chancellor: the governor general", except, in Canada, there are different Crowns; the Queen in Right of Canada is not the same as the Queen in Right of Alberta or New Brunswick and each province has its own orders. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We can have "the Canadian monarch" in the heading of the infobox (no need to repeat it, in the body) & have "Governor General" in the infobox body. Anyways, we've an entire week to see how it unfolds. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There's a problem in the cited infobox, {{Infobox order}}. In the first heading of the infobox, it says Awarded by the Monarch of Canada, a full sentence where monarch should be lowercase. The problem is that the full sentence is interrupted by a coat of arms shield, which makes it look as if Awarded by the and Monarch of Canada are different sentences, in which case Monarch should be uppercase as the start of a new sentence. What I propose in order for it not to "look weird" is to move the coat of arms to below the sentence, having the sentence displayed all together in two consecutive lines, with the coat of arms below it. —El Millo (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's how it would look like. —El Millo (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I would still say use "the Monarch of Canada", in that situation. But, "the Canadian monarch" option would fit, though. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Face-el Millo on both the design and the capitalization. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I too agree with Face-el Millo's idea of changing the design. But still think we should use either Monarch of Canada or as a compromise Canadian monarch. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"the monarch of Canada" is correct per a straightforward application of JOBTITLES. The title is "preceded by a modifier", the definite article "the". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Monarch of Canada isn't a formal title, and Canadian monarch is ambiguous, not clear whether the modifier refers to the place they rule or the place they come from. The monarch of Canada isn't a Canadian monarch, she's English. The Queen of the Netherlands isn't a Dutch monarch, she's Argentinian. —El Millo (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Will have to disagree with you both, when it concerns the infobox. Anyways, I'll abide by the consensus (whatever it is), after a week's discussion here. PS - The current Queen of the Netherlands, isn't a monarch. She's a consort. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The monarch of Canada is a Canadian monarch. The monarch of Canada is a Scots-Englishwoman. Marie Antoinette was from Austria. But, no one would say she wasn't the French queen. Anyway, I think we're getting off track and I'm only making it worse. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, let's not go there. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Moving the CoA is an easy fix and could help. However, it's a no to GoodDay's "no need to repeat it" argument. There is no repetition of "Awarded by" and awarding the honour and being sovereign of the order are not necessarily the same thing. You don't pretend a role doesn't exist just to not have "monarch of Canada" written twice. And it's "Governor general of Canada" in the Chancellor field. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo:, How does one relocate the symbol so that it's above the phrase "Awarded by the..."? GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It's all done manually in that infobox, there's nothing to change in the code of the infobox itself. Here's the code of the version I did, compared to the current version. —El Millo (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

We appear to 'at least' all agree on it. So, I'm guessing it's alright if I do the changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I've implemented it, on the Canadian federal/provincial & territorial award pages. Will later, do the same for non-Canadian awards pages. Will take time, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Well unless something drastically changes in the next few days. I guess I'm the 'only one' who says to upper-case on this particular infobox topic. Must admit though, it does look better now, with the emblems moved below the Monarch's title. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to see any reason to capitalize Monarch if the word is not at the start of a sentence or heading, and the old layout made it almost look like the start of a heading or sentence, so that fixing that should resolve the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The relocation of the emblems, has solved my concerns. Look much better, now :) GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Since monarch isn't a title, it should not be capitalized except where it begins a sentence or is in a book title. Its similar to head of state, which is only capitalized in countries where it is used as a title. Similarly, Queen is only capitalized when it refers to the person's title, rather than merely their position. TFD (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Sovereign or Monarch

Don't know if this belongs here. But @Esrever: insists that we use Sovereign. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

A monarch is "a person who reigns over a kingdom or empire, while a sovereign is "one possessing or held to possess supreme political power." (Merriam-Webster) I think the connotation of the first is someone who serves as head of state while the second is someone who holds supreme power. In practice however, these terms are often used interchangeably. I would avoid it for states such as Sweden whose constitution vests sovereignty in the people. TFD (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I’m suggesting it be used in a particular infobox for a particular national order (a UK order, where the monarch is described on national websites as, you guessed it, the sovereign). I don’t think they are terms that necessarily need to be preferred one over the other on the whole of Wikipedia. Esrever ^(klaT) 06:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Would have to disagree with that. The United Kingdom shouldn't be singled out, in this manner. There's also Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc. A total of 15 countries, with the same person as their monarch. GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Best we have this discussion, which is taking place at WP:OMD. -- GoodDay (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

British royal birthplaces & death places, in infoboxes

I think (perhaps soon) an RFC may be required, to establish whether or not to use Kingdom of Great Britain (shown as "Great Britain"), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (shown as "United Kingdom"), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (shown as "United Kingdom"), as birth and death places, in the infoboxes of royal bios, in addition to or in place of "England", "Scotland", "Wales", "Northern Ireland". GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

An example: Elizabeth II's infobox (currently) has her being born in "England" & died in "Scotland". To readers less familiar, it would appear as though she had been born in one sovereign state & died in another. Even though she was born in the "United Kingdom" & died in the "United Kingdom", which is a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this could be confusing to the reader. I'm hesitant to comment as an American since I'm not familiar with official British governmental structures, but would listing City, Subnational entity, Sovereign state (so City, England, United Kingdom for birth in your example) solve the issue? Or would this create different ambiguity I'm not predicting? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"Great Britain" where necessary & "United Kingdom" where necessary, should be included. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it might be unwise to go straight for the Democratic Centralist approach and try to have a Universal Rule for this. However, I think as a very general exercise in contextual logic, if an infobox has already established that a person was the "monarch of <X>", and their birthplace is listed in a way that includes both a major, well-known subdivision of that entity (so we're fairly sure the general reader will already realize we're still in <X>), and a wikilink to a portion of that location (so that the general reader who didn't realize and is slightly lost can remedy that fairly readily), then restating ", <X>" is beating them over head head with the obvious, and potentially bordering on semantic satiety is the infobox ends up endlessly repeating said "<X>".

It seems to me far more likely that the moderately confused reader will be left wondering where Somewhereshire is, if the constituent country isn't given, than people will find themselves mystified that the United Kingdom consists of different component parts in the first place. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

England and Scotland are fine, just as they'd be fine for any other people. Royals don't need to have their own rules when the MOS clearly states that England, Scotland are fine, or just UK would also be fine, but people shouldn't edit war over them. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

For my own actual clarity, which part of "the MOS clearly states that England, Scotland are fine"? Clearly people shouldn't edit war at all, on this matter or any other. But unless this is an argument for an extreme first-dibs version of WP:RETAIN, it does nothing to help us decide which of those should be used in any given case. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there any value in having incomplete names in bio leads?

With the rise of streaming, some YouTubers and Twitch stars have had their Wikipedia leads read as below:

Clay (born August 12, 1999), better known online as Dream, is an American YouTuber and Twitch streamer who is known primarily for creating Minecraft content.

I have seen this happen at many pages where the last name of the internet personality is unknown: Sykkuno, QTCinderella, Asmongold, Technoblade, etc. The absence of a last name is not explicitly covered by MOS:NAME, so I'd be interested in hearing opinions about having these in the lead.

More often than not, these first names are usually the combination of a) The streamer revealing their first name to their audiences and b) The streamer not revealing their last name for privacy reasons c) Overly-invested fans trying to make their Wikipedia articles as exhaustive as possible. The end result is someone exclusively known by their online handle having their first name before their handle. And every time I read "Michael, better known as Gamer123", in my mind it reads "Michael ???, better known as Gamer123 (we should really work on getting that last name)". I also think, "does this person have exclusive rights over the name Michael alone if no reliable source has every covered him with that name?"

This makes lead pages incomplete by default and overall stalkerish (WP:BLPPRIVACY). I'm bringing this up because novice editors seem naturally attracted to adding the first names back to the lead over time (I first encountered these in 2021, but there was significant proliferation in 2022), and it certainly deserves some attention from the broader community. Thoughts? Pilaz (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• When we don’t know a streamer’s full name, I would not mention the real name in the first sentence (it can be mentioned in a subsequent sentence in the first paragraph): “Gamer123 is a prominent YouTube presenter. He has revealed that his real first name is Michael, and that he was born on 13 August, 1994.”

If we do know their full name, I would still put their “online name” first and the real name second, in parentheses … ie:“Gamer123 (real name Michael Smith - born 13 August, 1994) is a YouTube and Twitch presenter who…”.

The online name is likely how readers will search for this person, and so it is helpful to mention that first, so the reader is sure that they have landed on the right article. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You could say that about any nickname/stage name/pen name/whatever, but we just don't do it. We put their real name first for everybody if we know it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Except where MOS:GENDERID specified not to. Newimpartial (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That's more of a matter of a former name than a "real" one. Certainly in any case where's privacy or sensitivity concerns we should also consider varying from an insistence on name-on-their-gas-bill-first. Ultimately in extreme cases, if a name is 'known' but fails WP:V due to weak sourcing, or indeed WP:UNDUE due to very marginal notability of that name, we should definitely consider skipping it, or mentioning it less prominently (respectively, more or less). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That's all fair comment, but I was alluding to cases where a trans person might have a legal name, a pretransition former name, and a current name. The legal name might or might not be officially changed, but that doesn't matter - if the trans person wasn't notable using it and it doesn't align with their most recently expressed gender identity, then we don't include the legal name. We do mention the pretransition stage name ("former name") if the person was notable using that. Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes indeed, and I wasn't disagreeing at all on the trans person case at all, just trying to draw a line between that and broader best practice. Note that in common law countries classically, the name you used day-to-day (gas bills, etc) was your legal name. That's still notionally the general principle, but it's likely to be a little more pragmatically to change your Government Name in administrative practice. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Should biographies include the dates of birth of parents in the Early life section?

An editor is adding DOBs for parents into biographies in the early life section. Does this seem appropriate/necessary? I would say it adds nothing to our understanding of the article subject unless there is some special reason? What do others think and is this talked about anywhere in the MOS? Thank you, Malerooster (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course not. If they are deceased, then Mary Murphy (1950–2018) or Joe Jones (1947–2012) or whatever is fine but their entire date of birth is totally unnecessary. Trillfendi (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Should even the year, as you did in your example above be given, or it doesn't matter? Even if there are deceased, I would say leave it out. If the parents are notable, provide a link and readers can click through. Thoughts on that? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The guideline is "Beyond the first paragraph of the lead section, birth and death details should only be included after a name if there is special contextual relevance." DrKay (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That is referring to the subject of the biography. This question is about the subject's parents. I agree that even years should be left out unless there is some special relevance (that would have to be explained). If they are notable, that information would be in the linked article. If they are not notable, then it's probably not important/necessary. MB 21:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it refers to any person. DrKay (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is really a question of relevance. I would generally omit parents’ birth/death dates as being irrelevant… but there are exceptions (for example: I could see the argument for saying that a parental death date is relevant when the parent died before the subject’s was born). So not an always/never situation. Blueboar (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed (as I said, only with some special relevance). This has nothing to do with the location within an article. MB 21:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Blueboar. I'd never include it unless relevant, and to add to that, I'd do it via prose rather than dates in parenthesis. – Meena • 22:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

If important? include. If not important? exclude. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This sounds virally invasive. Where would it end.

Do quality secondary sources report this data on associated persons? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Years of birth/death fine, full DOB is too much. GiantSnowman 15:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I could see how including birth and death years for a parent who has a wikipage could be useful. It may help readers determine if they want to click the article since they may be researching a specific timeframe. I don't think inclusion of birth and death year in a parenthetical is bad if 1)the parent has a wikipage or 2)other specific circumstances warrant it, but generally the info is not needed especially if the parents aren't meeting notability requirements. I think the core of my argument is that if the parent is notable, it is more likely their birth and death date might be relevant to the reader and worth including. I do think narrowing it the birth and death years though is important; an 11 character parenthetical is small and not distracting much from the text.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TulsaPoliticsFan (talk • contribs)

I agree with MB: "even years should be left out unless there is some special relevance". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd say full DOB only if it's needed for disambiguation or is somehow particularly relevant. A birth year for a living parent should probably be avoided unless needed for disambiguation. A parenthetical birth-death range for deceased parents is okay, but not a necessity (again, unless needed for disambiguation). Gecko G (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree the guideline is only to add them if they have any relevance. I assume in most cases, the parents were born no more than a few generations before the subject, so it's not providing any information readers could not already have estimated, if they cared. TFD (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Linking JD institution to law school

The standard method of listing a person's legal education is usually placing the title of the university and its corresponding link. For example, if a person was educated at Yale Law School, the infobox would say "Yale University (JD)". I think it would be better we change the link to the corresponding law school rather than to the university itself. So instead of "Yale University (JD)", it would be Yale University (JD). GuardianH (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The latter is surely entirely unnecessary and confusing Easter-egg. But "Yale Law School (JD)" would be fine. Which of the first and the third should likely be determined by prevalence of use. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Fellowships by subscription, e.g. FRSA

MOS:POSTNOM. The article gives FRSA as an honorific of Stephen Hawking but this is a meaningless honour, as it can be purchased by a wide variety of people. This has been discussed previously:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2011_archive#Postnominal_initials:_FRSA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2014_archive#Small_caps_for_post-nominal_initials

According to ettiquette experts Debrett's:

Fellowships fall into two categories:

(a) Honorific, ie nomination by election

(b) Nomination by subscription

Normally only honorific fellowships are used in social correspondence, such as FRS or FBA.

Fellowships by subscription are generally restricted to correspondence concerning the same field of interest, for example a writer to a Fellow of Zoological Society on the subject of zoology will include FZS after the name.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160328115145/http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/hierarchies/letters-after-name/fellowships-learned-societies

I propose that the FRSA should be removed from the example on this page as well as throughout the rest of Wikipedia. Historylikeyou (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Support removal There should probably be a community-wide RfC on the topic of post-nominals in general. I've always thought post-nominals in lead sentences were ridiculous and clunky looking (e.g. (and emphasis mine) Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman[8]...), and would support the removal of post-nominals from the lead sentences of biographies altogether. They're not so important and significant that they need to be mentioned right away in the lead sentence; not to mention, those abbreviations are meaningless to readers who live outside of certain countries who use them. But post-nominals can stay in the infobox though. Some1 (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

There may be certain usages that are common in particular countries. One question to answer is whether these usages can be clearly described and understood as part of Wikipedia policy. My understanding of the list of Winston Churchill's postnominals you gave is that they are all valid, and occur roughly in the correct order - but how is a Wikipedia editor going to tell this? Should the Wikipedia article get into more detail about what the officially recognized (by the UK government or monarchy, I suppose) postnominals are? If postnominals are going to be used, then there should be some way to check if they are being used correctly. If that's not feasible, then it would be sensible to remove them entirely, as you suggest. Historylikeyou (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

They don't "occur roughly in the correct order". They are in the correct order. "how is a Wikipedia editor going to tell this?" Just because you don't understand their use doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of other people who do. We do not need to justify every word we write on Wikipedia. That would be patently ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

They're not so important and significant that they need to be mentioned right away in the lead sentence. Yes they are, in the countries that use them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

We do not need to justify every word we write on Wikipedia Well, whatever is written on Wikipedia should at least be WP:VERIFIABLE. Could you point me to the reference # in the Winston Churchill article which supports the TD (Territorial Decoration) post-nominal? Some1 (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's citation #14 in Honours of Winston Churchill. Though verifiability for some of the citations in that article is difficult due to a lack of identifiers like ISBNs. It, along with most of the other post-nominals seems to be uncited in the main Churchill article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I don't really understand why the one type of fellowship post-nominal should be allowed and not the other. This isn't social correspondence, it's an encyclopedia. They are well entrenched, and it would be a Herculean effort to remove them from every single biographical article in which they're used. And as per Some1's comment, most people would not be able to make that distinction accurately, creating headaches for other editors. If the article subject is notable, and the article itself stable, then the post-nominals in those articles should stay, and the policy should remain unchanged. Matuko (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose the difference between the two is already taken into account when it comes to notability under WP:PROF and other guides. They are legitimate post-nominals that can be added to the name so it is reasonable to include them.Gusfriend (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:PROF doesn't touch the issue of postnominals explicitly, but does refer to "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or associations" with the Royal Society as an example, and "reserving fellow status as a highly selective honor". According to this, being an FRS (Fellow of the Royal Sociery) would make a subject notable, but being an FRSA wouldn't. I'd suggest the same difference could be reflected in the usage of postnominals.

There is also some discussion at Talk:Fellow_of_the_Royal_Society_of_Arts as to the eminence of the FRSA category. Historylikeyou (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Titles and Forms of Address (one of our three main sources for List of post-nominal letters (United Kingdom)) states that "Those fellowships, etc., election to which is a distinction should be used on all correspondence" but that the kind of fellowship used to declare an interest in a subject rather than as a mark of distinction should only be used for correspondence on that specific subject. I think the "used on all correspondence" level is the one we should be aiming for in our leads, and therefore that interest-declaring fellowships should not be listed. Confusingly, though, TFA lists "RSA" as one of the distinction-fellowships, which doesn't match our article's description of FRSA. Do they mean something different by RSA, or is this something that has changed over the years? If it has changed, then we should determine which FRSAs indicate a genuine distinction and which ones are the modern interest-declaring kind. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

RSA likely refers to Royal Scottish Academy. Historylikeyou (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes much more sense. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Support removal of FRSA. Having looked into this, FRSA now is open to almost anyone who is prepared to pay the subscription: their website responds to the fellowship application quesion "How likely is it that I will be accepted?" with "It is very likely that you will be accepted to the Fellowship..." The membership criteria are: "Be over 18. Support our vision and share our values. Share our commitment to social change." I agree that removing existing uses from Wikipedia would be time-consuming, but we shouldn't be promoting the addition of "FRSA" in article opening sentences when it appears to be something that almost anyone may purchase. EddieHugh (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

There are two types of FRSA, the first as you say, but the second by election, with far fewer people. Only the 2nd should be mentioned in articles, & I think it is worth doing so. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see an obvious way through the RSA's website to distinguish between the two types, nor do they appear to have a list of fellows online. I also don't see anything on their website about elected members. And the only distinction I can see in the application process between people who are nominated and those who nominate themselves are the referee requirements. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see where this specific post-nominal needs singling out. Whether we should use post-nominals at all is a different discussion, but insofar as we use them, this is as good as any. --Jayron32 12:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

See above: it's available by subscription. That makes it the same as a club membership. EddieHugh (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• It should be clear that this is a recognised distinction, mentioned in both Debrett's and A & C Black's Titles and Forms of Address as stated above. Whether to follow it or not is a different question. Historylikeyou (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia category of FRSA members was recently deleted. There are several previous discussions. 1 2 3 4 Historylikeyou (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose See further discussion on this topic on the Charles Dickens talk page. Based on that discussion, it appears there is a desire by a couple of editors to remove this honor from articles across Wikipedia. However, I have not seen any reliable sources stating that this is a "meaningless honour" or merely a "fellowship by subscription." On the Dickens talk page I repeatedly asked for reliable sources to back up what the editors pushing this are advocating but none were shared; instead, a ton of original research on all this was stated. Despite the fact that a consensus to remove the FRSA postnominal was not achieved in this discussion (there were equal numbers of editors supporting doing this as opposed), Historylikeyou has been removing these postnominals from articles across Wikipedia and referencing this discussion. Until a consensus is actually achieved to remove these postnominals, they should not be removed.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As added information on this, Historylikeyou was warned on the Administrator's Noticeboard not to remove these postnominals until consensus was achieved to do so. That resulted in Historylikeyou starting this discussion. Despite this discussion not yet achieving a clear consensus, Historylikeyou went ahead and edited this project's main page to remove the FRSA postnominal and started removing them from articles yet again. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Note that I did not remove postnominals en masse but only on pages where they were blatantly incorrect due to being anachronistic or unsourced, and in each case only after discussion on the relevant talk pages. It appeared that Wikipedia:Consensus had been reached to the lack of good counterarguments and lack of further discussion on this talk page.

I really don't get your objection to removing unsourced postnominals from the Charles Dickens page. As I showed with several references to reliable sources (not "original research"), he could not possibly have had this postnominal. The burden of proof is on you to show he had it, not on me to show that he didn't. Historylikeyou (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Information According to reliable sources (I quoted some at the Charles Dickens talk page), the RSA did not get its current name (with "Royal" in the title) until 1908, and its members did not become known as "Fellows" until 1914. Therefore any use of the FRSA postnominal (leaving aside any question of whether is notable or worth mentioning) prior to 1914 is anachronistic, rewriting history. Removing those should be uncontroversial even if some believe that the FRSA postnominal is worth stating for more modern recipients. Historylikeyou (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said on the Dickens talk page, there are sources for the FRSA postnominal and they are provided. And yes, you provided links to information but that information is being used by you for original research. As the original research policy states, "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support[b] the material being presented." The links you provided are being used to to reach a conclusion not stated by the sources and do not directly support the statements you are making. As such, those sources are not considered reliable.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Query: Isn't there a WP:ENGVAR component to this? If I was writing about, say someone British, I wouldn't know if a particular fellowship is "by election" or "by subscription" without having to try to research it. Is there a list somewhere of which one's are and aren't? Gecko G (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not British and only know what I've read about all this. Some sources I've read make it sound like you can't just join and have to be elected, which might be what is meant by subscription. I'm also not certain on how hard it is these days to become a FRSA. Does anyone have a good source not from the RSA on how big a deal it is to be a fellow? Some of the press releases I've seen make it sound like a big deal, but honestly I can't say.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The RSA website states, in response to the question "How likely is it that I will be accepted?": "It is very likely that you will be accepted to the Fellowship, you do not need to be a leader in your industry or a CEO of an NGO. Our ethos is inclusive, and we welcome all who are aligned with the RSA's vision and share in our values." In a section that I don't remember being there the last time I looked, they advertise 'Life Fellowship', stating "Our Life Fellowship option lets you become a Fellow for life with a one-time subscription. The standard price is £3900". They even describe it as a "price"! FRSA is therefore unambiguously something that can be bought. Perhaps some people who genuinely have attained something in their field haven't realised this yet, so are delighted to be contacted about it. EddieHugh (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, the more I learn about the RSA the more I think they are a BS art organization. Is there any definitive source to indicate if the RSA basically admits anyone who applies? I'm open to changing my mind on keeping the FRSA postnominal. That said, to remove them from across Wikipedia will still require this discussion achieving consensus, which it hasn't yet achieved.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

They more or less state themselves that they accept almost anyone. I suppose they'd reject obviously inappropriate people, but the rejection rate is almost certainly not made public. Also from their website: "Everyone completes the same online form whether they have been nominated or not. All applications are treated in the same way, with the same criteria followed." So, it appears that there is no distinction between 'elected' and 'by subscription'. Also note that (unless the 'life fellowship' is purchased) people have to pay an annual subscription to remain a member. Their "Impact Report 2021–2022" (page 22) states that, in that period, 91.3% of people continued their payments; in their terminology, this is "Fellows retained". EddieHugh (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The more I researched this issue the more convinced I became that the FRSA postnominal shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. But the problem is this discussion didn't reach a consensus. Perhaps we should do a community-wide RfC on this, as suggested earlier by Some1?--SouthernNights (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If consensus means that everyone who opposed it posts to say they changed their mind then it may never happen. Historylikeyou (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal: A fellowship one can simply buy into is encyclopedically meaningless clutter to be adding in our articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal: consistent with consensus in the 2011 discussion. Such post-nominals are inappropriate and unusual for a general encyclopedia, as indicated by the quote from Debrett's. The first sentence should be kept simple and avoid clutter where possible. DrKay (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

pseudonym versus deadname

i am working on an article on a prize-winning novelist who uses the name "Kim de l'Horizon", and have a question about the guidelines on pseudonyms and deadnames. at the time i created the article, "Kim de l'Horizon" (hereinafter "commonname") was the name being used in the reliable sources i had encountered, so it was the clear wp:commonname. as i have read more about de l'horizon, i have come to realize that de l'horizon is also associated with another name (hereinafter "othername"), but i cannot tell whether commonname is a pseudonym and othername is de l'horizon's current name (hereinafter "pseudocase"), or if commonname is de l'horizon's current name and othername is a deadname (hereinafter "deadcase").

my current interpretation of the situation is that pseudocase is true because it seems that sources in the world of art have publicly connected the two names for years, with one recently prominently stating that de l'horizon won the prize while using commonname as a pseudonym. also, in a biographical blurb of de l'horizon released by their publisher, it states that de l'horizon was born in the year 2666 in gethen, a reference to the left hand of darkness, which makes me believe that de l'horizon may not be treating their kim de l'horizon persona as their legal identity. in addition, (1) i do not believe i have seen de l'horizon attempting to remove any trace of othername, (2) i have not seen a reliable source referring to othername as a deadname, and (3) i have found an instance of what appears to be de l'horizon deliberately connecting the two names publicly (although that was back in 2015). however, because most reliable news sources at the time i created the article had not been using othername in their reporting, i am currently being conservative and editing as if deadcase is true.

in any case, now that i believe that pseudocase is true, i am worried that the article may be misleading as it presents commonname as de l'horizon's current name. however, because i don't want to make any stupid edits that would end up getting revdelled or oversighted, i wanted to get additional opinions on this matter. (i believe othername is not difficult to find if one knows it exists.) if i were to further develop the article, which of the following would be the most appropriate way to do so?

1. treat commonname as a pseudonym, as in the articles for george sand and conchita wurst
2. treat othername as a deadname, but mention that commonname is a pseudonym in the lead sentence, citing a source that mentions this but not othername
3. treat othername as a deadname
4. something else more appropriate that i had not considered

dying (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC) [note: i have since learned that "2666" is likely a reference to the roberto bolaño novel 2666, published by editorial anagrama. dying (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)]

Assuming we're talking something not as strong as pen names where the author and pen name are routine reported, pseudonyms are often selected to protect the anonymity of the author, so under BLP, there would have to be strong reliable source that 1) the names are associate with each other and 2) that the person has generally agreed to allow the association between the names. If either condition is not met, then we should treat the situation comparable to deadnames, only reporting the widely known pseudonym and not make any statement to the actual name. A good case is how Banksy is handled. There are a handful that know who is he is but its clear Bansky does not want the association to be widely known, so the best that is done on Bansky' page is a list of speculative connections that RSes have made without confirming any are truthful. Masem (t) 14:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

sources that have explicitly mentioned both names and identified commonname as a pseudonym include an austrian and a swiss newspaper (both notable enough to have en wikipedia pages), and a swiss literary magazine (whose parent magazine has an en wikipedia page) in which de l'horizon previously published under othername. here is a source that identifies commonname as a pseudonym without explicitly mentioning othername. i have yet to see a source, reliable or not, describing commonname as a pen name. however, wikipedia's article on pen names states that "[t]he author's real identity may be known only to the publisher", so i am not sure if it would be dispositive if commonname was identified as a pen name.

banksy appears to have consistently desired to hide behind the pseudonym, while i do not think this is the case with de l'horizon. a social media account that uses commonname has deliberately connected commonname with othername in 2015 (though i have not verified that the account actually belongs to de l'horizon). also, i don't think including a speculative list makes sense in de l'horizon's case because othername is easy enough to find if one is looking for it, and de l'horizon made a public appearance at the award ceremony for the prize, so no one is really speculating who de l'horizon is.

would option 2 fall under "only reporting the widely known pseudonym and not make any statement to the actual name", or only option 3? i believe some articles on people with deadnames omit referencing the deadname entirely, while the banksy article clearly states that "Banksy" is a pseudonym. dying (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Does this relate to someone who is trans? I ask because the concept of “deadnaming” trans people is an issue that has its own set of policies and guidelines - that don’t apply to others. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  here is a solid source that states that de l'horizon identifies as non-binary. i do not think i have seen a source referring to de l'horizon as trans. does the specific set of policies and guidelines apply only to deadnaming trans people? dying (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, the guidelines apply to nonbinary people as well. Newimpartial (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  are the guidelines for deadnaming either trans or non-binary people different from deadnaming in general? i admittedly cannot immediately recall any notable people with deadnames that are neither trans nor non-binary, though i assume the concept of a deadname similarly applies to cis people who have previously identified as trans or non-binary (and may have two or more deadnames), and possibly applies to people who have started a new identity to separate themselves from a previous identity for a reason other than gender identity (such as witnesses relocated due to death threats). dying (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• note: since my last comment here,
  • one editor has created a redirect from othername to the de l'horizon article,
  • one has referenced othername as de l'horizon's birth name, and
  • one has added othername to the lead.

i had been hoping for a more definitive answer here to better understand how to proceed in such a situation, as i believe all of these actions would be violations of en wikipedia's policies and guidelines for deadnames, but am not reverting these edits because i do not know if othername is actually a deadname. (one of the edits states that de l'horizon stopped using othername in 2017, but i could not find this stated in the cited source, and the statement also seems to conflict with a program for a literary event in 2020 in which de l'horizon appears to have used both names.) i am quietly pinging the first two editors, Matthiaspaul and ZemanZorg, and will leave a message on the talk page of the third editor (who edited under an ip address) so that they may be made aware of this conversation.

do others here find the current state of the article acceptable?

by the way, i recently realized that there is quite a bit of discussion over de l'horizon on this issue occurring on another wikipedia (which i will not link, but it should not be difficult to find). obviously, a consensus on another wikipedia is not binding on this one, but the views expressed there may help guide the discussion here. interestingly, the discussion references atze schröder, who clearly does not want his real name mentioned on wikipedia, even though it remains in the en wikipedia article. dying (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

What does "preferred" mean for having no comma before "Jr"?

The rule says "Omission of the comma before Jr. or Sr. (or variations such as Jnr) is preferred." If "John F. Kennedy Jr.", not "John F. Kennedy, Jr." is the way to write his name, then we should say that - we should not just call it a "preference". (I noticed a boatload of changes in my watchlist where someone was removing the commas. I came here to check to see what the MOS said and was surprised that the MOS just calls it a preference.) --B (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think there used to be wording about how prevalent a comma is used in sources. Seems it now just says it's preferred not to use it. Sometimes I think it's easier to just have a house rule and not worry if other sources sometimes differ. —Bagumba (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

We can not make a unified house rule because there are bio subjects who have explicitly stated that their names should be written with the comma (and others who have explicitly stated that their names be written without one). Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Then perhaps say so: "Comma before Jr. or Sr. (or variations such as Jnr) is omitted unless the subject prefers it" or something similar? 151.177.56.148 (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

But we don't actually have any rule to follow subject preference in this regard. IF we did, virtually every "old bio" would move back to using commas, because commas were the common usage from the 1980s and earlier, so would have been the preferred usage of the now-dead subjects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I've boldly revised the section to remove the wishy-washy wording, and the bracketing-commas instruction creep after it. [9]. May get reverted, but I believe this is the direction we should go.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Of interest, I have proposed this exact style change at Wikiquote, where it is currently being soundly rejected. BD2412 T 05:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's of interest, actually. All the projects handle style matters independently, even the different-language Wikipedias. En.Wiktionary, for example, does all kinds of things en.Wikipedia would not and vice versa.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It is of interest to the degree that projects have interrelated templates, so that a template on this project calling an article on that one will not function correctly where the same subject has different punctuation from one place to the other. BD2412 T 04:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

That was probably me you noticed removing commas. I did most of them a few years ago, but recently did a cleanup of new articles since then. See Talk:Arthur Joseph Lewis Jr.#Requested move 6 October 2022. Basically, all grammar/style guides since the 1978 Strunk & White recommend dropping the comma, if I recall correctly, since it never made any logical sense and it reads easier without it. If there are people who have specifically said their name needs a comma, I'd like to hear about that. I've not heard of it so far (though lots of people do write their names that way, as my Dad did; it was the standard back in the mid 20th century). Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The comma style, should be implemented. But, I suppose it's too late now. GoodDay (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Subsequent use

@Orangemike: added a section into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Subsequent use stating that:

When more than one person of the same surname is being discussed in an article, then both given and surname may be used to avoid ambiguity; i.e., a discussion of the activities of members of a single family may require full name use (not given-name) for clarity's sake.

I do not fully agree - I think the relationships or first name on their own could be sufficient when talking about family members, so would instead suggest something like:

When more than one person of the same surname is being discussed in an article, we should avoid ambiguity, such as by using full names, just the given name, or their relationship.

Constantly saying 'John Smith and Jane Smith' throughout an article is clunky to me - saying 'John and Jane' or 'John and his wife' etc. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 17:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

To me, this diminishes the formal tone we usually strive for here. Take the leadership of the Tories in the Welsh Senedd, which has been passed around and/or struggled over between Suzy Davies, Paul Davies and Andrew RT Davies. Do we just say, "Suzy ran against Paul to succeed Andrew, and afterwards Paul said nice things about her in a press release?"

The question arose due to a situation where an editor was saying "Hillary Clinton" (to distinguish her from her husband) in an article about a third party, and another editor keeps saying, Oh, oh, MOS:SURNAME says you can't do that, you have to just say 'Clinton'."--Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Which is why my suggested wording includes full names as an option, but also allows other options depending on the context. Talking about politicians is different to talking about family - you wouldn't say "John Smith and his children Jane Smith, John Smith Jr and Joseph Smith travelled to Australia in 2020 to..." would you? GiantSnowman 18:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Then go ahead and enter language which you think will address the concern. I've got no delusions of ownership here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion already. GiantSnowman 18:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur with it. This is a situation that calls for options not some iron-clad rule.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting birthdates

Is there any guidance on how best to handle an article that cites reliable sources with two different/conflicting birthdates? Miriam Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) cites her obituary in the New York Times, but also has a link to her United States Library of Congress authorities page which lists a different date of birth (they both agree on date of death). I made a judgement call and went with the LoC source for the infobox as the obituary (at least the one linked) is a point-in-time historical reference that, if it were to have been updated, would be in a different issue of the newspaper than the original obituary (as a "correction"), where the LoC authorities appears to be a database that can be updated by the maintainers and is likely more "current". Thoughts? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I would move the conflicting info into a footnote and explicitly address the nature of the conflict there. (You can refer to references even within notes using {{r}}.)

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the birthplace of individuals born within occupied and illegally annexed territory

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a general consensus to not have birthplaces in annexed territory be anchored to either the legitimate controller or the occupier by default. Many participants, picking option C, preferred to defer to how reliable sources refer to the birthplace instead of making the call ourselves. Some others preferred using the historically correct labels that were used at the time of the subject's birth. Yet many others also wanted no special guideline on this matter to be in place. Overall, it seems that the entire premise of the RfC has been rejected, but no apparent consensus on what else to do. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

---

How should we list the birthplace of individuals born in occupied and illegally annexed territory, such as Iraqi-annexed Kuwait?

• A: List the legitimate controller (eg, Kuwait)
• B: List the occupier (eg, Iraq)
• C: List the name most commonly used by reliable sources to describe where the individual was born

04:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• C. It's not our place to decide whether someone was born in Iraq or Kuwait, in Latvia or the USSR, in Poland, the Byelorussian SSR, or the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, or in East Timor or Indonesia, as to do so requires us to engage in WP:OR. Instead, we should simply reflect how the majority of reliable sources describe the individual; if they say they were born in Kuwait, we say Kuwait, if they say they were born in Iraq, we say Iraq, and if they say they were born in Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, we say Iraqi-occupied Kuwait. This also matches WP:MPN, which tells us that Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same, emphasis mine. BilledMammal (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• None of the above - The suggestion that Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR & Lithuanian SSR (for examples) didn't exist or should not be used as birth or death places? is the wrong direction for Wikipedia to go into. We shouldn't be trying to 'right what we see as great wrongs', on this project. Shall we next deny that the USSR existed? GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  That appears to align with option B? However, I think your argument rebuts both A and B; WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS says that we are not here to explain (what you perceive to be) the truth or reality of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue.

  If reliable sources say that Efrem Marianus Almeida Santos Jeronimo was born in East Timor, then we put East Timor; if they say Indonesia, we put Indonesia. We shouldn't be trying to 'right what we see as great wrongs', regardless of whether the occupation or the rejection of the occupation is seen as the great wrong. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Attempting to claim that Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania were never a part of the USSR, is the wrong route to take. We shouldn't be attempting to re-write history. GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  If you're "listing the occupier", then that would imply listing the USSR for people born in Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR & Lithuanian SSR. Which is wrong in my opinion, as it should be listed as Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian SSR. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  They were not occupied. They were fully incorporated republics along with the other 12 republics of the Soviet Union. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying. Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania are the countries that seem to generate the most edit-warring over birth places, so if they aren't covered in this RFC, then I don't see the point of the RFC at all. My understanding was that as they were occupied by the USSR in the 1940s (and the USSR maintained a presence there until 1990), and were therefore being considered occupied for the purposes of this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  TulsaPoliticsFan linked a relevant article in the discussion section; State continuity of the Baltic states. BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  I would support the deletion of the State continuity of the Baltic states page, as it appears to be a PoV piece, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• C: Happily, we have guidance on the issue: it's WP:COMMONNAME. Ravenswing 08:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• C There are many considerations in which to use and we should avoid any rule that requires original research or synthesis to apply. TFD (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Note: for situations where the sources are mixed… there is also the option of using “Debated” in the infobox and lead sentence, and then explaining the debate in the main body of the text. Adapt the template to fit the situation, don’t try to force the situation into the template. Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Don't have a guideline specifically for this. Nor do we need a guideline for determining Is the glass half empty or half full? Too many rules can be a bad thing. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Don't have a guideline specifically for this as it depends on the circumstances for the occupation, and how well recognised the occupying force is internationally. For example, I would think Latvian SSR would be sensible, as that was what the country was accepted as (even if it wasn't formally recognised by some countries), whereas saying someone was born in the Luhansk People's Republic or Northern Cyprus would be ridiculous in my opinion (as almost 0 countries recognise these occupiers). The only reason we're having this RFC is because a small number of editors want to try and expunge Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian SSR from Wikipedia, which is not the purpose of this encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Statements like I would think and ridiculous in my opinion is the issue; we shouldn't be basing article content on editors opinions, we should be basing it on reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that if someone is described as Latvian, that could mean the source is saying they were born in Latvia SSR or Latvia- most sources don't explicitly distinguish the two. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• C is the best choice for my response – we should use the WP:COMMONNAME of the place at the time of birth. For example, a person born in Namibia on 21 March 1990 would have been born in South West Africa the day before. Alexander Ovechkin is listed as having been born in the Soviet Union because that was the extant nation at the time, though his infobox does further specify the Russian SFSR. When Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1990, the nation was still known as "Kuwait," not "Iraqi-occupied Kuwait." This shouldn't be that difficult. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Use the historically accurate name - so whether that's Mandatory Palestine or later Israel; Estonian SSR or later Estonia etc. etc. GiantSnowman 18:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• C Reliable sources is the best, neutral way to go in my view. Trillfendi (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Except when reliable sources are lazy and/or wrong... GiantSnowman 18:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Example - I am currently reading The Shortest History of Germany by James Hawes, it's very interesting, but (e.g. page 16 of my edition) it refers to 'Germany' during the BC/AD millennium turn - even though, by the book's own admission, Germany was not actually a thing until much later, and it was certainly not called that at that time! GiantSnowman 13:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Use the historically accurate name, any other choice is too contentious for me. Not sure if a hard policy is the best way forward with this anyways.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• C most of the time, although for individuals in the far past it might alternatively make sense to use the commonly-accepted modern name if there is one. Usually I'd expect modern sources about them to use that anyway, though. Also in case it needs to be said we should try to find neutral sources, although this gets tricky when it comes to nationalist disputes (it's not really proper to declare every source from an entire region biased.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Don't have a guideline specifically for this. The fact of the matter is that historical claims of what was "legally" a part of one realm and was "illegally" occupied by another can frankly turn into rubbish quite quickly when we go back in time even as recently as the early modern period. Even in modern times, there are several active conflicts in which there are real border disputes as to who legally owns what land or sea. Creating a hard-and-set guideline for this specific case is unneeded WP:CREEP. Rather than making a sweeping guideline, a case-by-case approach seems superior and allowing editor discretion at local articles will likely produce a better encyclopedia. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• None of the above or Don't have a guideline for this: After watching this RfC for a few days, I don't think either proposal is a good solution. There does not appear to be consensus specifically with the Baltic states. I lean towards listing the de facto controller (occupier) in most instances, but there may be good reasons for exceptions and therefore I'm hesitant to support a new guideline that will be strictly enforced. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• C Geographic naming convention (as per WP guidelines) directs us to rely on what the "substantial majority of reliable modern sources"are doing/saying. WP:MODERNPLACENAMEWritethisway (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• C Using either A or B implies some kind of political bias one way or another. The most accepted, cited name aids in the purpose of neutral communication of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeant Curious (talk • contribs)
• Don't have a guideline specifically for this. I don't see the purpose per WP:CREEP. We already have WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and other policies. A guideline cannot subvert a policy in case there's a conflict. Politrukki (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• C - follow the sources. This is already policy, so no need to amend anything. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a difference between occupation or annexation and incorporation into the invading country. The U.S. for example invaded and occupied Iraq, but it did not become part of the U.S. and we would not say that people born there during the occupation were born in the U.S. It's not clear however when a territory is incorporated into the occupying power which country should be listed as the birthplace. The only guide we have is common usage.

There is a lot of difficulty in describing the nationality of people in the UK, described in the essay Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. Hence Nicola Sturgeon is described as a Scottish politician while Gordon Brown is described as a British politician, despite both having been born in Scotland.

TFD (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania were for decades a part of the USSR. I will oppose any attempt to deny that fact. We're not here to re-write history. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the "legitimate" vs. "occupier" framing of this RFC is a bit untechnical given the subject matter. Wouldn't de facto and de jure be better framing since we're talking about folks born in territories with a different de facto controller and de jure owner? In historical biographies it can shed light on the individual that they were born and grew up in an occupied territory and might be helpful to readers researching the topic. I'm guessing that this is more controversial for people born recently since the territorial controversy is ongoing. Is it possible to list both? For the Iraq occupied Kuwait example, list someone as born in say de facto Iraqi Kuwait and de jure Kuwait? This is assuming of course that there are WP:RS that label both ways.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I considered that terminology originally, but decided that "legitimate" vs. "occupier" was simpler without losing accuracy, though that might have been a mistake. I also haven't seen examples of sources that label someone in that way - the closest I have come is sources that say "Iraqi-occupied Kuwait" or similar. BilledMammal (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the fact other sources don't normally list both de facto and de jure ownership of territory as a sign that we automatically shouldn't. We are an encyclopedia after all and most of what we cite isn't an encyclopedia and not written in that style. Also, I agree that "legitimate" vs. "occupier" is simpler and easily understood, but it's not the most WP:NPOV framing (not super concerned with this, I don't think it ruins the RfC, but do think it worth noting in discussion). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point; it also addresses Blueboars point about "debated". The de jure and de facto owners are verifiable and due, as well as being important information for the reader. Unless someone can find an issue with your proposal I might need to switch my position to support it, with C as a second choice. BilledMammal (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be a distinction between people born in the Baltic states and people born in other Soviet republics, just because the Soviet annexation was not internationally recognized and the others were. Why not bow to the expertise of authors of standard biographical textbooks instead of reinventing the wheel? TFD (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems reasonable and not out of line to mention in the infobox which Soviet republic someone was born in. We might need to decide on how to format (City, Soviet Republic, USSR vs. City, Soviet Republic), but I don't see a problem in including the information of which Soviet republic someone was born in if that information is known. However, it does seem wrong to list someone born in a Baltic Soviet republic as having been born in de facto the USSR, but de jure the Independent state (since the independent state with the de jure claim basically no longer was able to function as a state since states require 1.territory 2.permanent population and 3. the ability to do foreign relations), but at the same time State continuity of the Baltic states seems to indicate its a pretty controversial issue with competing interpretations under international law. Whatever we decide we shouldn't brush aside the nuance of the literature for an easy policy answer. It's easy now to say just follow what biographers say, but what do we do when one biographer says they're born in Latvia and one the Soviet Republic of Latvia? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Look at more biographies. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No closure, yet? :( GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2022 (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.

Gender identity policy violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy by aligning with gender ideology

The idea that a person's preferred pronouns must be enforced on everyone for fear of offending isn't one that is shared by most people on earth. Wikipedia is taking a political stance by enforcing this policy, thereby taking part in a political and ideological debate that runs counter to its presumed neutrality. This is something that should be discussed. Nicolasconnault (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

right, the "political and ideological debate" of whether trans people deserve to live and exist like anyone else Myfbusters (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Terminology

For a transwoman whose gender is a notable fact about them, not sure how to describe them, e.g., "woman", "transwoman", "transgender person" or something else? TIA Lfstevens (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Just "woman" if they are a woman; "trans" is an adjective and should be separated by a space. Myfbusters (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Scope of WP:HON

PohranicniStraze (talk · contribs) and I have recently been discussing the scope of WP:HON. My recollection from the original discussions that initiated the addition of this language is that it was intended to curb the use of prefixes like "The Most Noble", "The Right Honourable", etc., in the first line of the article. My general practice over the years has been to include certain prefixes, particularly "Hon.", in what I would consider relevant contexts (e.g., a section on family/genealogy) but not in running text in general. He's been reading the policy somewhat more tightly and removing them from everything except infoboxes and sections specifically listing a person's titles.

There are two questions I'd like some community input on:

1. How broadly or narrowly do we read the guideline? I think he makes some good points about my practice being a bit Brito-centric.
2. Is any use of these titles a statement in Wikipedia's voice that the person in question noble, honourable, etc. in character?

My answer is a pretty resounding "No" on the second point—I feel that's like insisting we can't call a person a "knight" unless they wear armor and fight as mounted cavalry. On the other hand, I would say that overuse of these titles invites readers to *mis*interpret them as statements of character in Wikipedia's voice, etc., and so I agree it's necessary to have some limits on our use of them in articles. @Mackensen: you originally added the language in question; what do you think, and where else should we solicit input on this in a neutral fashion? Choess (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That was a long time ago and I haven't revisited this question in a while. I suppose that's good--the compromise brought some stability in what had been a very contentious area. Broadly, yes, editors were concerned that the inline use of styles amounted to endorsement in Wikipedia's voice. To the extent that the guideline is British-centric that reflects why it was written and where you intend to encounter styles in the English-speaking world. I agree that the answer to the second question is "no", though it depends on context. Mackensen (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, as I recall, a lot of that was proxying for ideological warfare between Tory monarchists and Irish republicans. That's why I'm mostly exercised about question 2; from seeing AfDs on some related topics, I think some editors who are ideologically opposed to monarchy, hereditary titles, etc. would like to muddle the distinction between Wikipedia describing those systems and Wikipedia endorsing those systems, so as to prevent the former. (To be clear, that's not aimed at PohranicniStraze, whose editing has been beyond reproach.)

I do agree that it's mostly inappropriate to be using styles like these in most running text; referring to Robert Surname, younger son of an earl, as "Hon. Robert" throughout his article would be puffery, in my opinion, and at best overly formal. The specific example that triggered this, though, was lists in, say, the "Family" section of a person's biography. My intuitive feeling is that writing ...had three sons: *Hon. Richard Surname (d. 1673)... would be OK, this guideline notwithstanding, insofar as a) those titles are expected to be mentioned in a genealogical context in a way that they are not in running biographical text and b) anyone who can parse "Hon." understands that it isn't a statement of character. However, it's possible that my interest in the subject has me out of step with other editors here. Choess (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Choess, especially at 'referring to Robert Surname, younger son of an earl, as "Hon. Robert" throughout his article would be puffery'. This guideline absolutely was intended to cover honorifics in abbreviated form like "Hon.", not just the lengthy versions, or it would have an explicit exception for abbreviated forms. I really wish people would stop looking for "magical loopholes"; there are none.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:HON is a guideline: "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I think it should be treated on a case by case basis, with the person adding it explaining why it should be included. TFD (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"May apply" != "do apply". No good case for an exception has been made here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Honorific suffixes

Currently, Honorific prefixes and suffixes is almost exclusively about prefixes - see the first sentence for example. The only mention of suffix is to allow the Turkish Pasha. I suggest that either the text should be expanded to state (for example) "prefixes and suffixes ... should not be included". Expanding the first sentence would be excessively wordy because it includes the explanatory "in front of". But do we really need to explain what "prefix and suffix" are? Should we change it to "In general, honorific prefixes and suffixes in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included", and for the last sentence "The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and suffixes is controversial"? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is clearly an accidental loophole and should be closed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done: [10].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Deadname and lede/body agreement

See also: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section/Archive_22 § Alt._names_and_transgender/deadnaming

This is over at Talk:Maddy Thorson but there's an issue on deadname use. Obviously, when the deadname is notable, it should be included in the lede (since that can be a possible search term and per redirects, it should be given in the lede to help the reader). But that leaves the question if it should also be included in the body, since the lede is supposed to summarize the points made in the body, and thus if we don't mention the deadname in the body, the use in the lede is a problem. Checking the "usual" articles I use to see how deadname applies, we're not consistent, but I read this in two ways: first, the "information in lede should already be in body" is often broken by elements like infoboxes that include information that is not included in the body; and second, the wording of DEADNAME suggests to minimize mention of it as much as possible. Masem (t) 00:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We minimize mention of a deadname as much as possible, within the confines of writing a proper encyclopedia article. So, yes, it should be in the body somewhere if it's going to be in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree with SMcCandlish. A mention in the lead and once in the body is appropriate, if it's a name they were notable under. I don't believe two mentions to be a problem, but more than that is perhaps superfluous. — Czello 11:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding examples to WP:CONTEXTBIO

Back when this section's guidance was at WP:OPENPARA, there were examples of how to do nationality. At some point they were removed. I am going to be bold and add new ones. If you object to how I do it, feel free to move the examples here for discussion. Skyerise (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Military rank prefixes

Is there any guidance on whether military rank should prefix the subject name in the first sentence? There doesn't seem to be a consistent rule, particularly for living people. Scanning through previews of medal winners, I'm guessing roughly 1/4 have the rank prefix. Almost everyone in Category:British Army generals of World War II but none in Category:Major generals of the German Army (Wehrmacht). Qzd (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

They used to use them as prefixes in the bios of American generals & admirals. But, I think it's been phased out now. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military_history/Content_guide#Biographies. Choess (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Also if only "roughly 1/4 have the rank prefix" that means it's not normal practice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

As it says, it's normal practice for those holding the rank of major (or equivalent) or above. But not generally for those below that rank. This has always been the case in the real world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY and citizenship

The Context section needs a bit of clarification. Right now ethnicity and citizenship are mixed together in the same paragraph, as well as partially separate. I think this is basically OK, but want to add an additional shortcut, probably MOS:CITIZEN.

Right now we only have a footnote about Native American identity issues. Native American and Indigenous Canadian status are based in citizenship, not race or even ethnicity, per se. This is often a point of confusion for non-Native editors on the 'pedia, and those of us in the Indigenous Wikiproject have been working to help clarify. I propose adding this bit at the bottom of "Nationality examples", and moving the footnote accordingly:

Proposed addition/change to body text, after Peter Lorre:

Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not race. Indigenous people's citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names.

• Wilma Pearl Mankiller (Cherokee: ᎠᏥᎳᏍᎩ ᎠᏍᎦᏯᏗᎯ, romanized: Atsilasgi Asgayadihi; November 18, 1945 – April 6, 2010) was a Native American (Cherokee Nation) activist, social worker, community developer and the first woman elected to serve as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation.

- CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I should have thought of that myself. Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Neopronouns RfC (moved)

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.

---

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity

 – -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed some discussions about neopronouns, but mostly on a case-by-case basis and mainly focusing on noun-self pronouns, so I am starting this RfC for a more comphrensive discussion. The current policy on neopronouns states:

When the subject of the article identifies with neopronouns, the pronouns should default to singular they.

Based on previous discussions, I identify some options:

• Option A: Allow all neopronouns
• Option B: Don't use noun-self pronouns, use other neopronouns (e, xe, xir, zir etc; see this table of English third-person singular pronouns for more)
• Option C: Retain status quo (use singular they)
• Option D: Refer to subjects only by name
• Option E: Mention the neopronouns once in the article lead, default to singular they otherwise
• Option H: Use the pronouns most common in recent reliable and independent sources

Other possible options are welcome.

MSG17 (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot)Soft C, as ideally we could just take our cues from RS coverage. However, in the absence of a clear consensus from RS as to how someone is referred to, defaulting to singular they seems like an appropriate fallback. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E Name the neopronouns once, then use singular they. Readability lowers significantly by using neopronouns for Wikipedia's international, multilingual audience. Using singular they demostrates sufficient respect when the pronouns are also mentioned. Options for going further include developing a pronoun field for the infobox or entering neopronouns in Wikidata. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option C with Option E as second choice (I'd prefer mention in lead to be on a case-by-case basis), as singular they can be used for people regardless of gender. This Wikipedia is written in the English language and as such must use recognized English words and grammar. Neopronouns either are not generally recognized as words or consist of nouns being used in an unrecognized fashion. GENDERID is about using the pronouns that align with a person's gender, and for this English has "he/him/his" for male, "she/her/hers" for female, and "they/them/theirs" for non-binary gender(s). Crossroads ^-talk- 22:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Note notified WikiProject LGBT Studies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option B or A I don't like the status quo of referring to folks who genuinely use neopronouns with they/them pronouns. It feels disrespectful to ignore their choice of pronoun usage by defaulting to they/them in that circumstance. While I agree that in genuine cases, following the pronouns that RS use would be ideal, I think that for most cases of neopronoun use, taking them from the article subject's social media is acceptable per WP:ABOUTSELF. For the small number of people who use neopronouns as a joke, eg Blaire White who states that/bitch on her social media profiles, we should handle this in the same way we handle anyone who uses non-neopronouns as a joke (eg Tucker Carlson's Twitter states she/her) and default to whatever current reliable sources use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  So what are the limits to self-preference, then?

  Are emoji pronouns acceptable?

  Are words like "tree" a gender?

  If not, why does it fall under GENDERID? If so, are there reliable sources supporting this claim?

  How is identifying as a tree, a bug, a star, etc. any different from trivializing gender identity by identifying as an attack helicopter?

  Was that a case of "genuinely using" neopronouns, or a joke, when he had never said anything about being trans or non-binary and his justification was based on the erroneous claim that "we all come from trees...everyone's a tree"? How would we tell? (Obviously for this thought experiment I meant to assume that the later uses of "he" had not happened.)

  What about if they identify their name as something very unconventional like a symbol? (Incidentally part of the reasoning for that particular symbol was that it combined the male and female symbols; imagine the discussions that would erupt if that had happened today!) Crossroads ^-talk- 23:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Emoji pronouns could be acceptable, though I don't think I've seen them used in practice outside of Tumblr. Are there any BLP subjects you're aware of that use them? If not, then that seems somewhat of a straw-man argument.

  Use of noun-self pronouns like tree/trees is perfectly valid. Off-wiki I know of a person who uses bee/bees to refer to beeselves. I wouldn't use noun-self pronouns for myself, as I'm perfectly happy with she/her, though I have experimented with they/them in the past. But I also have absolutely no problems using them if a person choses them. As I said before, I think that correct use of pronouns in genuine cases, no matter what they are, is basic self respect.

  As for Keiynan Lonsdale specifically, based on a skim of then contemporary RS (circa 2018), Lonsdale's use of tree/trees seems to have been genuine. I'm not 100% sure what pronouns Lonsdale uses now, but Instagram lists he/him so I'll use that for now. As for how we can tell genuine use from mocking use, well there's a rule of thumb you could apply. What is the subject's stance on LGBT+ issues, and how are they seen by that community as a whole? In the case of Lonsdale, it seems that Lonsdale is supportive of the community and the community is supportive of Lonsdale. Conversely for someone like Tucker Carlson, who regularly publishes anti-LGBT+ viewpoints, it's pretty easy to see that Carlson's use of pronouns are mocking. As for Lonsdale's lack of prior statements on being trans or non-binary, why does that matter? From what I recall of the sources at the time, Lonsdale had recently come out as not heterosexual, and was experimenting with how to describe himself. In an ideal world, he would have the privacy to do that with friends and family, but alas celebrity culture prevents that. In the modern world, pronouns should be things you can try out at will. And when you're undergoing a journey of self-discovery, it takes that sort of experimentation to figure out how best to describe yourself. Even to this day, I don't know if Lonsdale has publicly made any statements about his sexuality beyond not hetero, or any further statements about pronoun use or exploration with gender identity. Images on him over the last couple of years however do suggest, if not confirm, that Lonsdale is at the very least gender nonconforming, and the butterfly dress from a 2019 GQ looks pretty awesome on him. Even if somewhat unpractical.

  Now what that means for us as Wikipedia editors in edge cases where a BLP subject has made an unexpected statement is probably best summarised in WP:NORUSH. There's no significant harm in waiting a short time period, say weeks or a couple of months, to see how things develop over time. If Lonsdale was still using tree/trees today, then I'd say that 4 years is more than enough time to assume that it's genuine.

  As for the old transphobic attack helicopter thing, the difference there is context. One is a short story, based on a transphobic meme that originated as a copypasta. The other is neopronoun. The former was written to attack and disparage trans and non-binary people, and to belittle the concept of gender identity. The later is mostly, but not always, trans and non-binary individuals finding the words that they feel best fit for themselves.

  The artist-formerly-known-as-the-artist-formerly-known-as-Prince is an odd yet interesting choice to bring up. My understanding is that the symbol was a stage name adopted due to issues with his record label, and that we have guidance for this on both article naming and within article text. Both of those bits of guidance are somewhat far outside the scope of this RfC. I do not believe that Prince ever changed his legal name during that time. Your choice of language though is interesting What about if they identify their name and quite possibly revealing. A person can change their name, for any reason, at any time. They aren't identifying with a new name, they are just changing it. I think you are right though, if Prince or any other celebrity were to do something similar today, it sadly would very likely become weaponised within the current anti-trans culture war. I think that is more endemic of how much airtime we actually give to the very vocal minority of transphobes and other anti-trans agitators within the Anglosphere. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding emoji pronouns, while notable BLPs don't do this yet as far as I know, this can happen at any point. "Fae" or "tree" pronouns would have not have been around a few years ago, yet here we are.

  You state, Use of noun-self pronouns like tree/trees is perfectly valid. But are there authoritative sources on the English language that support this?

  The reason that calling a woman "he" (cis or trans, and the reverse for men, etc.) is widely considered wrong is because it is considered a rejection of their real, lived gender. I don't see how this rationale applies to "tree" and the like. One could respond that they want it, so we should call them that, end of story, but where does gender and hence GENDERID come in to that? If, say, someone wanted to be referred to with their full first and last name, and never one or the other alone, would we have to honor this?

  With Lonsdale, it's pretty easy to use this as a springboard to think of realistic scenarios where a person was pro-LGBT+, but never said much about trans issues specifically, nor identified as LGBT+, and then does something like that. You mention how are they seen by that community as a whole, but who represents the community? People on Twitter? It was that latter group that pushed us to use "tree" for Lonsdale, but how many LGBT people who don't spend much or any time on Twitter agree that someone calling themselves something like "tree" is a good thing for the community rather than belittling?

  Back to chosen names, it's easy to imagine a scenario like that where it is not a stage name but what they actually say they want their name to be. Legal names aren't really relevant since we do change trans peoples' names regardless of legal changes, per the same guideline now being applied to neopronouns. Ultimately, there must be some limits. Names can be arbitrarily difficult, long, or otherwise unwieldy, so there must be a line in the sand as to what is reasonable. And with pronouns, it's the same - which side of neopronouns does one draw the line?

  I don't mean to single you out personally with many questions, but my main points are that (1) this would be a huge change of nontrivial justification, and (2) regardless of the decision there must be limits to chosen names and pronouns. These issues will come up in any such RfC in the guideline itself - all the GENDERID RfCs have been long and complex. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  My understanding is that fae/faer pronouns have been in use for at least a decade now. I'm not sure when the first recorded use of tree/trees was.

  Could you please clarify, when you ask about authoritative sources, are you referring to linguistic descriptivism? Or linguistic prescription? Or do you just mean reliable academic sources?

  I think GENDERID is only truly in play here because with the exception of ship pronouns Islamic honorifics nowhere else in the manual of style provides guidance on pronoun use. We could move it out into its own subsection under MOS:BIO if you prefer.

  who represents the community? We could be here for a decade on that question. But for our purposes, we're best sticking with policy and so LGBT+ focused reliable sources; PinkNews, Gay Times, GCN, The Advocate, etc, would seem like the logical starting place for assessing the community's opinion on a person.

  Ultimately, there must be some limits. Unless we're somehow responsible for processing legal name changes, I have to ask why must there be limits? In terms of decency, we don't really need to litigate the Scunthorpe problem, especially as we have articles like Anal Cunt without controversy. In terms of technical limits, the MediaWiki software limits us to a maximum article title length 255 bytes, and if someone wanted to name themselves after Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch then fair play to them. The MediaWiki software already supports emoji in article titles, for example 🙂 has been a valid redirect since 2014, so there's no technical reasons to prevent use of UTF emoji in article titles.

  my main points are that (1) this would be a huge change of nontrivial justification I would argue that it's only non-trivial because people are making it non-trivial. If you run the thought experiment on this RfC finding consensus for B or A, then all you need to do is update the articles for BLPs who use neoprouns. In almost all cases this will mean swapping they/them/themself for whatever neopronoun equivalent they use (eg ze/hir/hirself, fae/faer/faeself, etc). If you're unfamiliar with how to use them, then you can do what any editor is supposed to do when they run into content that is unfamiliar to them, let someone else handle it.

  (2) regardless of the decision there must be limits to chosen names and pronouns. Why? Why must there be limits? Outside of technical limitations of the MediaWiki software this site runs on, why must there be limits? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Why must there be limits? Why mustn't there be limits? All language has limits because it is a communal thing used to communicate; hence self-expression using it must necessarily be within certain bounds - at minimum I can't speak to people in a personal conlang and expect to be understood.

  By 'sources on the English language' I mean either set, really. Academic is to be preferred, as always on Wikipedia. I expect that prescriptive sources would say a resounding "no" to neopronouns in the rare cases they are even acknowledged, and that descriptive sources generally don't mention them, but if they do, describe them as 'used' (in the original sense of 'spoken at all', not the colloquial 'my pronouns are' sense of 'want others to use for them') only by a small subset of trans and non-binary people - in other words, akin to an ethnolect, and therefore on our end not suitable for general style any more than AAVE.

  As for GENDERID, if it doesn't have to do with gender, then why does a person have a right to expect people to call them "tree" (again, just an example of many possibilities)? What if they said not just their pronouns, but their very being, was a tree, and hence they should not be categorized or referred to as human? And if anyone reading this is thinking 'that sounds like the attack helicopter transphobic meme' - yes, that's exactly the point I'm making - I'm disputing the very point that being trans has anything at all to do with being or wanting to be a tree or being called a tree. I am very much inclined that the latter is improper appropriation from the former. Gender identity is a deep-seated psychological characteristic with empirically-proven importance in life outcomes and behavior - and identity as a tree (etc.) is not. I am obviously aware that some trans people do not agree with me that it is appropriation, but many do, and I know of no reliably-sampled survey showing wide acceptance of such behavior.

  I am of course aware that the last paragraph refers to nounself 'pronouns', and doesn't apply to attempts to coin a new word for a singular non-binary pronoun to replace the occasional ambiguity of singular they. Best of luck to them, but it's pretty clear that those haven't caught on yet, if ever, and the earlier part of my comment still applies in those cases regarding use in Wikipedia. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  All language has limits because it is a communal thing used to communicate; hence self-expression using it must necessarily be within certain bounds Were that true, language would be a static thing that never evolves. New words would never be created, old words would never fall out of practice. Borrowing words from other languages would be absolutely verboten.

  Descriptive sources do mention neopronouns. As the history section of our neopronoun article states, the OED has entries for ze, hir, and zir. Collins has an entry for ze. Dictionary.com has an entry for ze, and also mentions ze/hir/hirs, e/em/eirs, and xe/xem/xyrs at its entry for [11]. With regards to academic sources, this paper from 2022 on Natural Language Processing seems to have a rather thorough citation list of relevant linguistic sources, though I've yet to be able to read through them all. This includes gendered, gender neutral, neo-, nounself, emojiself, numberself, and nameself pronouns, though little to no research has been carried out on the last three.

  I expect that prescriptive sources would say a resounding "no"...and that descriptive sources generally don't mention them, but if they do, describe them as 'used' Expect is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. I have to ask, is your opinion on neopronoun use based on actual sources or just what you think the sources say?

  then why does a person have a right to expect people to call them "tree" For the same reason why a person has a right to expect people to call them by their name. Because it's basic civility and politeness. What if they said not just their pronouns, but their very being, was a tree, and hence they should not be categorized or referred to as human? Leaving aside Kanye West or Jaden Smith streams of consciousness, this seems like a strawman. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  Language can change, but does so communally and socially. Something has to be part of it before we can use it and be understood. The 2022 NLP preprint complains that neopronouns are 'ignored'; the authors dislike that, but the way we work, that adds to the evidence that doing so is undue for our purposes.

  Because it's basic civility and politeness. What is civil and polite is in large part a social construct and can differ between cultures. In almost every culture, including my own, it is the height of impoliteness to add to others' cognitive load by expecting them to remember, use, and conjugate nouns like "tree" or even emoji as pronouns rather than the standard pronouns we already have for referring to, but not naming, people. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  JFC people, write shorter. We're looking at 700+ words here in some of these responses. I don't care how important you think your opinion is, no one is going to read it and we don't expect them to. Valereee (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Crossroads: your comments about evaluating comments as jokes apply to any fact that we consider generally WP:ABOUTSELF acceptable. For instance, whether we take somebody at their word for their stated age/birthday or where they grew up. We are already required to evaluate whether the fact meets these criteria (and others): the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. — Bilorv (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment / Move RfC to WT:MOSBIO. – The "status quo policy" referred to above does not reflect a vetted community consensus, only the isolated outcome of a previous discussion about neopronouns. That text seems to have been added for the first time and subsequently removed in the past 24 hours. My understanding is that the stable version of the MOS simply includes no guidance regarding neopronouns. Option C should be updated accordingly, and we should presumably have another (Option F, I guess?) representing the addition of no new text regarding neopronouns (and thus, per-article consensus). Finally, this RfC concerns the text of MOS:GENDERID (which is transcluded here), so AFAICT the appropriate venue is Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography rather than this here. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed that this is the wrong venue for an RfC (though a fine venue for an exploratory discussion, IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also agree this is the wrong venue, though I'd add I'm not sure we even need an RfC at all at this time. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies, I mistook the transclusion as being the other way around. If we can move it, that would be great. MSG17 (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Options E, C (and H, which resolves to C in actual practice), D in that order of preference. Trey Maturin, below, puts it well: "stating the chosen neopronoun and then gently using the singular they is a good compromise that offends nobody rational". Options A and B are way out. Agree this is not a proper venue for this RfC. (It has since been moved to a better venue.) PS: I think I can support E.1 below, specifically. I don't see any issues with the wording, though it might be compressable a bit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC); revised 02:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option C, with inclusion of preferred pronouns to be either a footnote if not a singificant issue, or documented in the body if that has drawn attention. We absolutely should not go as far as using non-standard pronouns in an encyclopedia in regular prose. --Masem (t) 02:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option A, with a second preference for Option B, in accordance with representing nonbinary people's sincere identities and per Sideswipe9th's solid reasoning above. Thatbox (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option C It is not the remit of this encyclopedia to re-write the English language. Wikipedia must necessarily be behind the times when it comes to changes to the English language. When scholarly and other high quality reliable sources consistently use neopronouns, we can match their style. Slywriter (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Question: what do other sources do? What do e.g. newspapers do when the subjects they report on uses "zir", and what do they do when the subject they report on uses "kittenself"? Is there something in e.g. the AP Stylebook on neopronouns? I'd prefer that Wikipedia follows, not leads, how other sources deal with it. Endwise (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  To partially answer my own question, the AP Stylebook apparently says In general, do not use neopronouns such as xe or zim; they are rarely used and are unrecognizable as words to general audiences. Endwise (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  It would seem that the vast majority of neopronoun users also accept at least one other set of pronouns (though not always they/them). At the moment, I'm only aware of 4 Wikipedia biography subjects who explicitly prefer a single set of non-standard pronouns, so prescribing a strict guideline in this case is probably WP:CREEP. Of those, it seems most common for sources to either respect their pronouns, or refer to them by surname only.

  • Justin Vivian Bond (v/v's/vself) – Wikipedia uses they. A 2014 HuffPo article uses v's surname only.
  • Maia Kobabe (e/em/eir) – Wikipedia uses surname only e/em pronouns corrected 18:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC). In August 2022, Time published an article and subsequent tweet, which described em using Spivak pronouns. Other coverage from around the same time (and currently, Wikipedia's article) refers to em by eir name only.
  • Genesis P-Orridge ("s/he"/"h/er"/"h/erself") – Wikipedia uses they. A. Various publications during h/er hayday [12][13][14] use h/er pronouns, including the New Yorker. Articles in The Guardian and New York Times used she/her.
  • Sassafras Lowrey (ze/hir) – Wikipedia uses they. Most sources I could find [15][16][17] seem to respect hir pronouns, including Vice.

  –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Genesis P-Orridge seems to be the most famous of the bunch, and has pronouns that are the most "recognisable" to a general audience, so I think that's a good example to look at. Here's an entirely unscientific list of the "mainstream" publications (which really means "things I'm familiar with") I can find with a google search:

  • Uses "s/he"/"h/er": New Yorker, Rolling Stone, BBC The Independent, Vulture, NME, Variety, Vice 1
  • Uses they/them: LA Times, NPR, A. V. Club, Vice 2
  • Uses she/her: The Guardian, NYT, Irish Times,
  • Avoids pronouns all together: None that I saw

  These are mostly arts/culture/music-focused publications, which is probably different than sources are in general, and they probably have a narrower (and younger) audience than Wikipedia. But still, it did surprise me how common it was to go with P-Orridge's neopronouns. I think all we can learn from my 20 minutes of wasted time is that Wikipedia wouldn't at all be out of lockstep with modern, mainstream publications if we decided to use neopronouns on some articles. I think there are two competing interests here. To quote from the AP stylebook (who were actually talking about the singular they, but the same applies), it's that neopronouns may be confusing to some readers and amount to a roadblock that stops them from reading further. At the same time, though, efforts to write without pronouns to avoid confusion may make people feel censored or invisible. I'm not sure where I fall on it. Endwise (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option E per Bluerasberry: Name the neo-pronouns once, then use singular they. Speaking as a non-binary person, I consider this to be a reasonable compromise for accessibility. Funcrunch (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E per Bluerasberry/Funcrunch (or C, which seems compatible with E). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E, with some modifications to allow mentioning them in a footnote when first using the singular they. Using neopronouns (especially those other than xe/xem) in articles would significantly compromise readability. For example, let's take the first sentences of Justin Vivian Bond (a singer who uses "h/h'm" neopronouns) and rewrite them with Bond's preferred neopronouns:

  Justin Vivian Bond (born May 9, 1963) is an American singer-songwriter and actor. Described as "the best cabaret artist of [h'r] generation" and a "tornado of art and activism", h first achieved prominence under the pseudonym of Kiki DuRane in the stage duo Kiki and Herb, an act born out of a collaboration with long-time co-star Kenny Mellman.

It would be very difficult to follow the article without getting distracted by these words. Moreover, in cases where a person has two or more preferred neopronouns, we would have to arbitrarily choose which one to use in their article.

Just to be clear, I don't oppose the concept of neopronouns per se, it's just that they don't look "natural", for lack of a better word. Neopronouns are contentious even among transgender and non-binary people, who may think that their widespread use would lead to mockery or a backlash against the LGBT+ community, or that the concept itself has been discredited by those who use it in a sarcastic fashion, like the Blaire White example above. And of course, I wouldn't oppose using neopronouns in Wikipedia's voice once/if their use in reliable sources becomes sufficiently popular. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

In the sentences quoted above, one could say, for example, "the best cabaret artist of [a] generation" (there's really no ambiguity about which generation is meant, since it can't be anyone else's); likewise, one could say, "Bond first achieved prominence", using the same number of letters as "they". I'd argue that that would be an improvement over the status quo, which is "they" with a footnote — footnotes in the middle of sentences are inevitably awkward.

I'm all for simplification in the pursuit of understanding, but to coin a phrase, we should simplify as far as possible and no further. XOR'easter (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Rewording the sentences in order to always avoid pronouns would lead to an outcome very similar to Option D, and this option is in my opinion the less preferable, because it would lead to an endless repetition of the person's name. Having a single footnote after they at least would have the benefit of showing some courtesy to non-binary subjects, while at the same time maintaining readability and accessibility. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Note: Since four editors (including myself) have already expressed a preference for Bluerasberry's option, I have added it to this RFC. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option F: Only use neopronouns if the subject does not also use one of the common sets of pronouns. To avoid potential reader confusion, the usage of neopronouns should be noted with an appropriate hatnote/footnote/in-text note before or at the first usage. This option balances the desire to ensure the greatest readability with the need to respect the subject's pronouns.
  With regards to options C, D and E, while singular they or the subject's name can be used for anyone in a generic context, using them when the subject's pronouns are known is still unacceptable. This would be the same as only using they/them pronouns for a trans man who uses he/him pronouns, and for living subjects would violate WP:BLP. Option B has similar issues when applied to those who use noun-self pronouns. In addition to option F, I would support option A, which uses neopronouns in a superset of the situations option F does.
  Potential confusion from readers unfamiliar with neopronouns can be avoided by using hatnotes/footnotes/in-text notes as appropiate; I notice that in a previous discussion on this talk page Tamzin prototyped a hatnote at User:Tamzin/Pronoun hatnote which could be used. If desired, a footnote could also be used if a more detailed explanation is required (for instance, it could give a brief example of how the neopronouns are used, similar to the way examples are used by Pronoun Island). Another possibility is an in-text mention (e.g. at the start of a biography: "Name is a Jamaican scientist [...]. Name, who uses ze/hir pronouns, was first interested in science when ze was 8."). Any hatnote/footnote/in-text mention could link to the Neopronoun article (or a more specific article such as Spivak pronoun if such an article exists for the neopronouns in use). GreenComputer (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option F, per GreenComputer, RoxySaunders and Endwise: Wikipedia wouldn't at all be out of lockstep with modern, mainstream publications if we decided to use neopronouns on some articles. There's a subtle irony in quoting the AP Stylebook's opinion on singular they here, given that construct is regularly used by Wikipedia. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• I've moved this to WT:MOSBIO since there seems to be no objection. Courtesy pings at @MSG17, Rosguill, Bluerasberry, Crossroads, Sideswipe9th, RoxySaunders, Newimpartial, SMcCandlish, Masem, Thatbox, Slywriter, Endwise, Funcrunch, Rhododendrites, Dsuke1998AEOS, GreenComputer, and Maddy from Celeste. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E.1. I'd like to propose some actual wording here. This incorporates the consensus forming above, and would also acknowledge current best practices regarding they/them and no-pronouns cases:

  Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress" "brother/sister") that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.

  The above is also true if a person exclusively or primarily goes by they/them pronouns or asks to only be referred to without pronouns (e.g. Sophie (musician)). If a person exclusively goes by neopronouns such as ze/hir, use they/them pronouns unless they have a stated objection to that, in which case refer to them without pronouns; explain this in prose or in a footnote on first instance. In all cases where someone uses pronouns other than she/her or he/him, use gender-neutral terms (e.g. "person", "sibling") unless they have expressed a preference otherwise.

  (Changed "waiter/waitress" just because "server" would be a less obvious call-back.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E - mention the preferred pronouns, and use 'they'. GiantSnowman 19:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option H - Use whichever pronoun is most common in recent reliable and independent sources. WP:OR and WP:DUE do not permit us to decide that sources are wrong; these core content policies may not be superseded by other concerns such as readability. BilledMammal (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hope you don't mind, I've re-lettered this since we already have an F and a G. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option E sounds good. I also like Tamzin's edit and option C. Neopronouns create an accessibility issues for non-native and older English speakers as well as readers without a higher education due to their irregular conjugations and the proliferation of choices. Due to our global audience, it is important that we follow trends in the English Language rather than spearheading them. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E sounds like a good way to acknowledge the genuine sensibilities of gender nonbinary, etc., without going so far as to endorse, use, and promulgate changes to the language that are still unfamiliar to most readers. We should be open to changing this later if modern neopronouns become more widely standardized and understood. Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• C The 'pedia by necessity puts the reader first. Gendered pronouns are understood by all users, and in cases where they wouldn't be accurate we use the singular they, also understood by all readers. I don't think its something to strip out entirely, but the bulk of the article and definitely the lead should use the standard they, and if the use of neopronouns is notable it should probably be mentioned in the personal life section. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option D, similarly how ptwiki deals with neopronouns. MikutoH (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option B or H - I understand why people might be apprehensive about using neopronouns, particularly nounself pronouns. However, I think that the above comments by Endwise and RoxySaunders demonstrate that, for notable people who use neopronouns as their primary pronouns, reliable sources also use them. I would also like to point out that ze, zir and hir are currently recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary; while I didn't see any neopronouns recorded in Cambridge, Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com after a brief perusal, I think this shows that there is some recognition of neopronouns in linguistic reference materials. With an explanatory note, I think neopronouns would be less confusing than many other aspects of the English language for our audiences. MSG17 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E, also fine with D and C. We shouldn't use neopronouns in wikivoice as they will make articles unnecessarily confusing to our readers, many of whom are unfamiliar with neopronouns, for little benefit. There is no need to ever refer to someone by only neopronouns; they/them is fine for most people and using the person's name is acceptable if they have expressed a dislike of they/them pronouns in particular. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E, with the slight caveat that if it is to be mentioned in the lead, it also needs to be mentioned (once, with reliable sourcing) in the body of the article. I would also not mind options C or D. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E, with option C also ok. If the subject expresses an explicit dislike of all standard pronouns (he, she, they), we can fall back to option D, referring to the subject by the name of the subject. But we should not be using unfamiliar neologisms in our actual text. And in cases where no preference against singular they has been expressed, we should use it rather than othering nonbinary people by avoiding pronoun use for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option H Ultimately, I can't argue against the core-content-policies argument posed above. Recapitulating what the sources say is, necessarily, not spearheading a new trend. I think that talk of "accessibility" or "putting the reader first" is, well, kind of empty in this context. We wouldn't "put the reader first" in a molecular biology article by oversimplifying it to the point of inaccuracy in the name of "accessibility". Some topics are just complicated, and that includes people too. XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well said about the accessibility matter! In my opinion, owing to a combination of WP:ABOUTSELF and MOS:GENDERID, the most reliable source to use to decide what pronouns to use about someone is that person. Also, further up in this thread we see a good number of RS using neopronouns fine. Thoughts? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  This assumes the very thing in dispute, which is the idea that pronouns are unique identifiers that individuals being referred to have absolute control over in ways completely separate from gender (covered by he for male, she for female, they for non-binary).

  XOR'easter, I'm not seeing the logical connection from 'people are complicated' to 'we must refer to people however they wish with no limits'. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  We refer to people in the way that RS indicate they should be referred to. That will inevitably reflect people being complicated. XOR'easter (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is not always the case. There are BLPs I'm aware of, like Elisa Rae Shupe, where the most recently published RS on her use he/him pronouns, as those were published during her detransition. Because of the circumstances surrounding her detransition and subsequent retransition, the sources that were citing her are no longer doing so. I would strenuously disagree with any proposed change that states we should only use the pronouns present in the most recent RS without allowing for an ABOUTSELF exception. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• E. I’m personally not keen on neologisms in general as they are always startling to the reader and the principle of least astonishment is always of benefit to our readers. The singular they is well established and inoffensive (except to irrational people, and we’re not going to please them either way), so stating the chosen neopronoun and then gently using the singular they is a good compromise that offends nobody rational. It also helps with the very small number of people who have adopted “it” as a pronoun, often for bedevilment but sometimes for genuine reasons, where the resulting article would just be painfully horrible to read: note that they prefer “it” at first mention, use the singular they from then on and everyone will be happy. Or at least equally unhappy and that’s fine too. — Trey Maturin has spoken 21:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E: While BLPs' pronouns should be mentioned, the use of neopronouns in articles instead of the singular they would create confusion, especially to those who do not speak English as a first language. If the person has specifically requested to not be referred to with they, said person should be referred to using their name. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat) ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option C for the sake of the reader. I would support including neopronouns in a footnote if the subject is identified as using them in reliable sources, but we shouldn't be relying on social media for that. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option H: Neopronouns can be be understood & we're seeing more of it in use; for example, Time used 'e/em/eir' pronouns for Maia Kobabe. I think it is important to respect the subject on their preference (especially, if the subject has talked about why they prefer a neopronoun over singular they). A note in the lead (as suggested with Option E) is enough to clarify for readers. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Worth noting that Time faced criticism for using neopronouns, and notably that article I just cited just uses the name Kobabe. Likely many others do as well; another editor stated above that Other coverage from around the same time refers to Kobabe by name only. At the very least if a minority of sources use neopronouns and the rest do not, then choosing such a minority viewpoint as our own is WP:UNDUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have anything more substantial than a bunch of people getting angry on Twitter over Spivak pronouns? Cause this looks like a manufactured outrage, which are notoriously common on Twitter (it's a very angry site), over a pronoun that was only used 4 times in the original article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  On its face, I agree with the lessor assertion in this comment, believe that it is consistent with policy (letter and spirit) and, tentatively (allowing that a convincing rebuttal may come to light) see no reason to carve out an exception at this time. --John Cline (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been listed on the Maia Kobabe talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option E, per "having a style guide", and keeping it more-or-less in line with some feasible range of other such in the sort of publication we prefer as sources, and seek to follow the tone of. Sympathetic to B, but it's too much of a neologism treadmill at present. As soon as a particular set achieve some degree of 'sober mainstream publication' breakthrough, I'd be in favour of revisiting this on a case-by-case basis. We needn't be the most linguistic-conservative tertiary pub going, but we shouldn't be ten miles out in front of the bleeding edge either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option A - other options do not seem to follow the intended spirit of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity; we should use the subject's expressed pronoun preference, with some sort of explanation on first use.  Tewdar  13:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option C or Option E, like what Masem said, with the pronoun use being put in the personal life section instead of the lead. SWinxy (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option E allows us to inform readers what RS are saying the person's preference is, but doesn't require us to write in a way that is confusing to readers. Totally support trying to write so as to limit the use to what can't be simply recast, but not to the point we're using the person's name three times in a single sentence because the person doesn't take pronouns or uses noun-self pronouns. (Note to closer trying to determine consensus with six choices: In order of preference the rest: H>B>C>A>D.) Valereee (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option H (and effectively A when the sources justify it.) Failing that, effectively E. This isn't a difficult question; we follow what the preponderence of sources do in the article voice. Note that in most cases sources do not use neopronouns, which means we won't; but it's important that our decision in that regard be based on the sources in each case. Trying to override the sources with a blanket rule is inappropriate. I think the divide between E and C seems awkward - is E a statement that we must always mention neopronouns in the lead provided the sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:V? Is C a statement that we should never mention neopronouns in the lead regardless of sourcing? I think that most of the time someone's current self-identification is a central enough detail to be worth a two or three-word parenthetical note in the lead. The difference between A and H is likewise poorly-defined - "allowing" something means it would be decided according to our current editorial standards, right? I feel like these options need to be more clear about which are "never / always do this, regardless of sourcing or provided sourcing passes WP:V" and which are "we can do this based on what the sources say" or "we default to this, but sufficient sourcing or context-specific situations can justify alternatives." It's baffling that only H makes any reference to sourcing at all. --Aquillion (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E makes the most sense - use of neopronouns throughout the entire article (H) would harm readability far too much, particularly for non-native readers and less used neopronouns, but making sure it is mentioned in the lead (i.e. the difference between E and C) ensures that it isn't buried by wikipedians who disagree with neopronouns for their own personal reasons! Hentheden (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option MOS:GENDERID: Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. This current policy was not changed by a February 2022 discussion between five editors over two days, and there are sources in the List of gender identities article and other related articles that validate the existence of corresponding pronouns. A hatnote can assist readers, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Beccaynr (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option H: I would be reluctant to enforce a rigid rule when use in professional sources is not so clear or consistent. AP is quoted above as recommending avoidance of neopronouns, but plenty of mainstream news articles diverge on treatment of the same figure. Option H is how everything on Wikipedia works by default. — Bilorv (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E, E.1, C. Per all the arguments on readability, subjective assessments of "sincerity", etc. JoelleJay (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• C/H/E depending. To me this is about the use–mention distinction: Wikipedia shouldn't use neopronouns because by definition, readers won't be familiar with them, and because English already has gendered and gender-neutral pronouns that are familiar to readers, have been around for centuries, and are perfectly suitable to any situation. "By definition" because as soon as a neopronoun gains widespread acceptance and usage, it becomes just a regular pronoun (like singular they). Whether Wikipedia should mention someone's neopronouns depends on the subject and how much significance the WP:RS give to their neopronoun: it may merit inclusion in the lead, or in the body, or not at all; it's a WP:DUE analysis. Levivich (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E with Option C as second choice. Others have already said all there is to be said, really. This can always be revisited in 10 years or so if neopronouns become more common in mainstream English usage. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option C per Masem. Some1 (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option E. Obviously. An encyclopaedia shouldn't be falling over itself to take its subject's wishes into consideration, otherwise we'll soon start to remove well-sourced information simply because a subject doesn't like it. Just because some spoilt, entitled minor celebrity makes up a pronoun and then insists everyone uses it doesn't mean an encyclopaedia should follow their wishes. We can report their ludicrousness, but not follow it thereafter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option C. - As our MoS already addresses this subject; in prose derived of reason and careful deliberation: I've seen nothing to indicate that it ought to be changed.--John Cline (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option E seems quite fine, if not possible then C. Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option E/E.1 seems the most workable, although the neopronoun reference should be where it logically fits the article. Depending on the article/person, this might be in the lede, in a Personal life section, or in a footnote the first time their pronouns are used. Regardless, the pronoun preference should be cited, even if it's to a primary source. If it can't be cited, then the fall back should be to singular they (per status quo/Option C). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option E because it's the least confusing for readers, unless the subject has explicitly stated their discomfort with they, in which case Option D is the best compromise. small jars tc 09:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Option B or H — though they may jar readers at first, “neo”pronouns are hardly a new phenomenon (thon was invented all the way back in 1858), and it seems fair to respect people’s preferences. (“Nounself” pronouns seem to me to function more as nicknames than pronouns in the traditional sense, and i wouldn’t be opposed to just using the singular they in that case.) MarijnFlorence (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (neopronouns)

Please allow some "general discussion", tangentel to the Neopronoun RfC. I am interested in participating in this RfC but frankly am not sufficiently informed to comment. Perhaps I (and others) can become so informed through such general discussion. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for starting this subsection, John. There's only been one comment so far on my suggestion for wording to implement option E (or "E.1" as I put it), so I'd appreciate any thoughts down here on how to improve that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• I mostly agree with Tamzin's proposed wording, but I have a preference for mentioning the choice of neopronouns on a footnote rather than on the lead prose. Assuming we choose for Option E, there would be a need to explain to the reader that the article uses singular they for simplicity, accessibility, etc. Putting this information directly in the lead would make it fall into WP:SELFREF territory. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think a footnote would be preferable in most cases, but I don't think MoS should foreclose the possibility of clarifying it in the body at the discretion of an article's contributors. SELFREF does allow "this article..."-type constructions in the body of an article, and we have an analogous case with deadnames, where footnoting a deadname is more common but use of parentheticals is also allowed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned about writing awkward enough to make readers trip over it. If we don't use pronouns at all, that means every time the person is referred to, it's by name. Sophie (musician) suffers from this, I think. 8% of the article is repetition of "Sophie". Sophie's dad took Sophie to raves where Sophie loved the music. By contrast repetition of "Cher" constitutes 3% of that bio (and that's even without discounting dozens of mentions of "Sonny and Cher" there).

I also think we have to take into account that for some aspiring famous people (or people who are clinging to their former fame), name repetition is good for business. I don't doubt there are people out there who sincerely don't feel comfortable with any pronoun, but should Wikipedia adhere to every stated preference that could be just a publicity stunt for an entertainer? I mean, Sophie also stylized Sophie's name as SOPHIE. That's at minimum a bid for attention. Look at me: I'm different. Check out my music and you can be different, too, just like me. :D Valereee (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure referring to (neo)pronouns as a bid for attention is entirely appropriate Valereee, regardless of your opinion on them... (comment from involved editor) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think neo rejecting pronouns is by any means always/necessarily/even usually a bid for attention, usually they probably aren't. And I don't actually have an opinion on them neopronouns. I'm happy to use them IRL when requested, as long as they aren't changing daily and someone's being shirty about my not having kept up. What I said was a bid for attention is stylizing one's name in all caps, and saying I said requesting neopronouns was a bid for attention is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. The point is that Wikipedia, whether we like it or not, is used for publicity purposes by people who want to be famous. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Quite difficult for us to be the arbiter of if someone's use of (neo)pronouns is "legitimate" or "for marketing reasons"... quite a nasty side of history to be on to be honest! (comment from involved editor) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

TNT, I do not care if someone uses neopronouns. I use them when requested, as you'll see I have here, and as you'll see I recently did at Maia Kobabe. I also corrected a misuse I made at a recent RfA as soon as it was called to my attention. I have zero problems with neopronouns. But if Sophie was refusing all pronouns only in Sophie's artistic presentation and not in Sophie's private life, where Sophie apparently used feminine pronouns, then Sophie was doing it for marketing reasons, to market we're dealing with two different entities: SOPHIE the artistic persona, and Sophie the person. Valereee (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

And to reiterate: this isn't about neopronouns being legitimate. This concerns is specifically about refusing all pronouns. And I object to the misrepresentation you're making of what I said. Valereee (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think it's appropriate in any way to speculate on Sophie's use of pronouns, and whether or not it was as you are suggesting done for marketing reasons. From what I know of Sophie, and from reading the article, Sophie appears to have been a very private individual with respect to their personal life with respect to personal life Sophie appears to have been a very private individual. There are trans and non-binary people who will equally accept use of any pronoun when referring to them, and at the same time ask that no pronouns should be used. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC) edited Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, I get that this is a very emotional subject. But if an entertainer is presenting themself one way in public and another way in private, then the public persona is for marketing purposes. Period. for whatever reason, we may need to treat the two separately. Neopronouns or rejection of pronouns completely is just what is happening in this case and it has nothing to do with any given pronoun or lack of it. This could be about the person in private life being a homebody who barely stays up after 9pm but their public personal is a wild partier. It could be an actor whose persona involves expertise in firearms and horses when the actor actually has neither. It could be a singer who grew up in the burbs but is presenting herself as having grown up in the back of a pickup truck or on a stoop. If an entertainer is presenting themselves differently in public than in private, it's about marketing. for whatever reason, then we may have to in some ways treat the two as separate entities. Valereee (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Valereee that's a really inappropriate thing to say, and I would ask that you strike this reply. We simply do not know how Sophie used pronouns in their personal life. We simply do not know how pronouns were used in Sophie's personal life. Speculating on whether or not it is was for marketing purposes is straight up WP:CRYSTALBALL territory. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)edited Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, what's inappropriate, that many entertainers present themselves differently in public life than in private life, and that it's about marketing? I mean, I'm open to arguments that there's another explanation. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I've said twice now that you are speculating on the pronouns of a person who was intensely protective of their (possessive determiner) personal life. We simply do not know what pronouns were used in Sophie's personal life. We do not know if in private Sophie used a single set of pronouns, multiple pronouns, all pronouns, or no pronouns. We do not know if it was a stylistic choice to separate the performance from the performer. We do not know if Sophie presented differently in public versus in private.

To bring this to specific words that you have written: When you asked but should Wikipedia adhere to every stated preference that could be just a publicity stunt for an entertainer? you were asking us to speculate on Sophie's private life. That is inappropriate per policy. When you said I mean, Sophie also stylized Sophie's name as SOPHIE. That's at minimum a bid for attention. you are speculating on why Sophie chose that stage name, again inappropriate per policy, and also offensive because it insinuates that the choice was insincere. When you said But if Sophie was refusing all pronouns only in Sophie's artistic presentation and not in Sophie's private life, where Sophie apparently used feminine pronouns, then Sophie was doing it for marketing reasons, to market SOPHIE the artistic persona, you are speculating that there was a difference between Sophie's personal and private lives, again inappropriate per policy. When you said But if an entertainer is presenting themself one way in public and another way in private, then the public persona is for marketing purposes. that is again speculation so inappropriate per policy, and it is not a definitive. There are several other common reasons why a person may present differently in public than in private; it can also be for privacy reasons, self-protective reasons, or for societal pressures, abuse, harassment, or neurodivergent reasons, amongst others. And finally, when you say If an entertainer is presenting themselves differently in public than in private, it's about marketing. in a conversation whose context has largely focused on one person (Sophie), you are assigning a reason by allusion that you have no factual basis to assign, something that is inappropriate per a different policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, people have complex reasons for doing things.

I've been using Sophie because Sophie was brought up above as an example by someone else, which made me go look at that article. Valereee (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and with respect to their personal life is using the wrong pronoun for Sophie. Sophie didn't use pronouns, according to "a representative" after Sophie's death. Just FYI. I know, it's hard sometimes. :) Valereee (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Valeree the use of "their" in that sentence is as a possessive determiner, not as a possessive pronoun. However I will reword that if that is confusing to you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You might want to go ce Sophie (musician), then. It uses Sophie/Sophie's like 173 times in a 2200-word article, and if we can get rid of some of them it would be good. :D Valereee (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I'm very glad to hear that you don't care (in a positive and inclusive way) if someone uses (neo)pronouns. I still find it inappropriate for us to make judgements based on how another human being decides to identify — and that is, at its core, what we're doing here. A remark (Look at me: I'm different. Check out my music and you can be different, too, just like me. :D) to you may seem harmless and logical. To someone else, it's fairly insulting. We don't know if this person is choosing to use (neo)pronouns for legitimate or marketing reasons, and passing remarks here in absence of reliable sources confirming or denying that suggestion feels a little "on the nose". I am confident that your comments are well-meaning though (comment from involved editor) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: Again that was about the stylization SOPHIE, not about neopronouns. I have now said this at least three times and you keep saying I've said something I didn't say. I am starting to feel like this is intentional misrepresentation. Valereee (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

And Sophie wasn't using neopronouns. Sophie was rejecting all pronouns. There's a major difference. Also apparently we didn't know this until after Sophie had died, when "a representative" said it. Valereee (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification — clearly I misunderstood where your concern was coming from. My apologies, and fwiw even if I hadn't misunderstood, I'd certainly not deliberately misrepresent the words of any editor, let alone one for whom I have a lot of respect. (comment from involved editor) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries, this entire subject can throw people off, and of course communicating via text is fraught. I know I've had multiple edit conflicts when trying to tweak what I've written because I've realized I misstated my intent. Valereee (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

And in fact, Sophie's girlfriend referred to Sophie constantly as 'she' and 'her'. The final line of the personal section is that "After Sophie's death, one representative informed Pitchfork that Sophie 'preferred not to use gendered or non-binary pronouns' as an artist." So, yeah, this was probably about marketing. Valereee (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

There's also a language issue that can be involved here. Kim de l'Horizon, for example, notes that they use either dey/dem or no pronoun. Articles in German-language press tend to simply use Kim instead of a pronoun, because that's common practice for non-binary people in that language, but it might leave someone leaning towards repeating the name instead of using a pronoun. There's also the issue of how to translate a neo-pronoun from another language; generally, I would think unless it's clear that the pronoun translates to something else, the standard would be to use singular they in English. For example, dey/dem is a German neo-pronoun built to mimic the English they/them, so using they with Kim makes more sense than dey in English. The same with Spanish elle, Swedish hen, or French iel. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option C (don't use them). The only place where it might be relevant is somewhere in the private life section in the sentence like "XYZ is non-binary and uses the "xe" pronoun to refer to themselves," (pipelink neopronouns) if that is ever a good idea to put the sentence in the article. Otherwise, we will see tons of unnecessary reverts correcting the quirky pronouns to him/her/them, and then tons of unnecessary talk page entries, which means that these neopronouns have not gained enough acceptance. (Also, in the non-English-speaking world, people do not normally know anything about these pronouns at all even if they know English well, which is further evidence we shouldn't use them for now). Dudhhr said it well.

Also, introducing them will be fodder for "anti-woke warriors" railing against the woke cabal supposedly imposing rules on Wikipedia (well, "mind your pronouns" and that stuff). This is going to create some really bad press/ANI quarrels while the benefit for readers and the subjects in question will be at most marginal, if any.

We can always use their name or surname, refer to them by their occupation, or use other synonyms that make it clear we are still referring to the article subject. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment on visibility some of these options (namely A, B and D) if chosen will have significant implications on the MOS and a very large number of pages. Even though looking at the discussion now these options are not likely to be chosen, is this discussion not worthy of a shoutout at MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages for broader consensus? Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option C/E. To improve readability and not to discuss it on every page. Alaexis_¿question? 08:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• As I noted above, this RFC appears to have begun by incorrectly describing the current policy, by relying on a non-binding discussion to suggest the "status quo" is to use "they" when the actual current policy is MOS:GENDERID. Beccaynr (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option E to improve readability of articles. But it makes sense to use the neopronouns once to explain the person's preferred pronouns, but using it throughout makes the article less comprehensible to a general reader (particularly non-native English speakers) who may not understand neopronouns. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2022 (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: 'Titles and Styles' sections

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.

Ok, so I've read over this, and the previous RfC (and even the one started and stopped at the WikiProject).

The discussions would seem to boil down to a few things, so to try to take each:

a.) Multiple sections (or not) - No Consensus.

b.) bullets/table, descriptive text, or both as needed - Bullets by themselves was Opposed, in particular in the more complicated situations. And descriptive text by itself, was also Opposed, due to possible confusion as well. However, Both as needed, has Consensus - in particular the discussion noted that descriptive text better explains some of the more complicated situations, while bulleted text (or a table) can be clearer to the reader to support what is being said in the descriptive text. - jc37 14:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Many articles related to British royalty (and possiby others) contain a section on their titles and styles, for example those at Charles III, Anne, Princess Royal, and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Within them titles and styles are usually presented in a single subsection, with a bulleted list of titles and styles and the dates when they were used.

An RfC recently occured at William, Prince of Wales about how to organise these sections. The broad consensus was that titles and styles are different things and should therefore not be combined into a single subsection, as this is confusing.

I am requesting comment on whether 'Titles and Styles' sections should contain separate 'Titles' and 'Styles' subsections, and any other relevant comments on how these sections might be organised. Thank you! A.D.Hope (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey2

• Separate into two subsections - as it will avoid the confusion & inconsistencies, across the affected bios. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per my reasoning on the prior RfC on Prince William's article's talk page. On a related note, I'd suggest having the title subsection before the style subsection since a lot of the confusion seemed to be people going to the page looking for his titles and first encountering the style listing and thus getting confused. People who are only looking for the person's titles, would be unlikely to keep reading on into the next subsection, or at least be less confused if they do. Gecko G (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's probably worth noting that when I edited Prince William's article a short while ago to reflect the RfC discussion I did just that, so the 'Titles' subsection is now first. You can take that as agreement! A.D.Hope (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  In agreement with listing the Titles subsection first. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. There was no consensus at the previous RfC. It's bad enough having these dreadful sections polluting wikipedia as it is, without having to double down on them. DrKay (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  The previous RfC had, at the very least, a broad consensus against the current arrangement. This comment reads as a suggestion to remove the sections entirely, is that right? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)I do think the previous RfC was closed a bit prematurely (In particular I wished @Celia Homeford: had had an opportunity to reply to my query), but how and why are they 'Dreadful' and 'polluting'? Gecko G (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut anyone off! My intention here was only to keep things moving forward, but I don't think there's any reason why that RfC couldn't be re-opened or the discussions there continued? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

You can 'transfer' all the info from that RFC, over to this RFC. Put'em in a "Discussion" subsection, below. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Amazing, I'll do that ASAP. Thanks, GoodDay! A.D.Hope (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose It may well be clearest for the reader to separate them out on more complex cases, but in simpler cases I think it is fine to deal with them in the same section. I oppose adopting separate sections as a general rule; it should be decided case by case.--Trystan (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Making this change case-by-case could be a very laborious process. I would rather form a consensus here that subsections can be used where necessary. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that this is not needed, and shouldn't be applied, in simple cases where someone only ever has one title that matches their style. But we've seen lots of confusion on the more complex cases that change over time. Gecko G (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This doesn't correct the underlying problems with these sections. Often they contain unnecessary fluff, telling readers that the article subject can be called Ma'am (which appies to every woman in the world) or was called Miss Maidenname before she was married (which applies to every married woman in the world). Such statements are pointless. Nor does the suggested change correct the problem regarding the bullet points. The bullet points are confusing because they're an over-simplistic way of presenting sometimes complex information and don't explain why a change occurred. The problems are the formatting within the section and the inclusion of trivia, not with the section headings. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for exactly this reason. In fact, I believe an RfC on the very existence or at least the content of these sections might be necessary. Surtsicna (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  I slightly agree with you on the first part about Miss and Ma'am type of situations being perhaps superfluous (maybe rename it to "Noble Titles and Styles" and drop that part?), but I disagree with the second part. The bullet points presents & summarizes the info, then the prose explains it, how is that anymore confusing than say using a ton of footnotes (as some have suggested doing)? PS Glad you were able to follow the discussion over to here. Gecko G (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Royal and noble styles are closely related in nature and common use, so belong together in articles. If you need discussion, do it in the one section - it seems an incorrect assumption this requires sectioning. Dividing them would be making sections into too much detail, and giving too much WEIGHT to each group. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  They are closely related, but also distinct things and liable to confusion. Placing them into separate subsections helps mitigate this confusion by clearly demarcating the two as separate topics, in a way that paragraphs within a 'Styles and Titles' section would not. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think confusion is a big issue, nor that separation would not make its own confusion and having to go scrolling back and forth to see both. If one is going to address confusion, that is better addressed by giving narrative explanation or link to Royal and noble styles - with it all in one section. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

There did seem to be some confusion in the original RfC at William, Prince of Wales, which does make me think confusion is generally an issue. Separation would allow each topic to be addressed individually and clearly without needing to explain the difference between titles and styles in each article. The subsections will likely be short in each case, so having to scroll probably won't be much of an issue. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. The two concepts are very closely related, and it would be better to sum it up without bullet points, in a prose section, which details the changes over time and gives the different styles alongside the titles when there's a change. I'd also suggest this model apply to William. His situation isn't that complicated, and as Celia notes, readers need to understand why a change in style occurred.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  But when using a reference material (like an encyclopedia, which wikipedia claims to be), and you want to be able to look up what a persons style was at a given date, it's easier to look at the date range you're interested in on the bullet points than to read through a whole prose section and try to follow along and derive it from that. Gecko G (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It's starting to look like which ever way it is done, it confuses some groups of people. So which way would confuse the fewest number of people? And which way would minimize the number of well meaning, but incorrect, "drive-by-edits" by those who are confused? Gecko G (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Should have one section not just because they are closely linked but would help page navigation too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Generally oppose In many of these cases it feels we are trying to make something appear simpler than it is. In cases that are truly simple (e.g. Alan Sugar's honours) bullet points aren't needed, and in cases that are complicated the bullet points aren't accurate. Even seemingly simple lists (like David Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl of Snowdon's) could lead to all sorts of potential controversy if we ended up bogged down in the issue of whether he actually inherited the title Viscount Linley on the day he stopped using it. If we must have bullet-pointed lists then, given that the titles are generally for life, I would suggest just using the dates honours were granted or inherited to avoid potentially confusing and contentious end dates. Reserve end dates for people whose titles are taken from them or who become monarch. --Mgp28 (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, David Armstrong-Jones's page you linked to as an example is just wrong. In the subsection labeled "Titles and Styles" it only gives his Style's overtime not his titles despite the subsection being labeled "Titles AND Styles" (and it omits his style used professionally). Either A) information on his titles should be added, or B) The subsection should be retitled something like "Noble Styles" AND "Titles" removed from the section header, or C) information on his professional style should be added PLUS the subsection and section should both remove "Titles" from their names, or D) Some satisfactory combination of parts of those options (such as, for example, the above proposal of separating out into different subsections plus adding info on his titles).

  Whichever one of those corrective options is taken, how can it be done without causing confusion - or at least causing the least confusion? Deciding that as a guideline, I believe, is the question at hand. And then having that established guideline to refer to when gently correcting well-meaning, but erroneous, drive-by edits. Gecko G (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think each of your suggestions would make these lists more accurate. I don't have strong opinions on this, I just wonder whether we will end up with lists more complicated than we could have described in prose (returning to David Armstrong-Jones for a final time, the first sentence of the article already tells me more than the list is a smaller space). --Mgp28 (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, as mentioned (above? below? in the previous discussion? - I've lost track of where) in simpler cases it perhaps is questionable if it's needed at all, though still useful. In David Armstrong-Jone's straightforward case, his can indeed be summed up adequately in just one compound sentence, but there's also no harm in having both. In his 60 years he has only had one change involving 2* different styles over his life and only 2 titles. (*=3, if you include his "professional" style).

  Compare that with the individual's article who started this- William. In his just 40 years of life he has already had 6 different styles at different times, and added 10 or 11 titles at 3 different points in time, and he is quite likely to undergo at least one more big set of changes in the future. The amount of prose needed to explain all that is lengthy, so without both the prose and a list someone wanting to know their style at a given point in time has to try to read through and workout what his style was when, whereas if both are given, and someone has a source referring to someone by a given style a researcher can quickly cross check the date of the source with the given styles list for the individual to see if it is referring to this 'Title x of place y' person or another person who's style is referencing a different (earlier/later) holder of style "z" derived from "Title x of place y".

  If you look at other members of Royal or Imperial families, it can be even more complex (especially some of the East Asian one's with the addition of reign and posthumous reference styles).

  For a reference material, like an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, Style is more useful to know than some obscure subsidiary title, but yet many editors seem to want to throw away the style information. The format could absolutely, definitely, do a better job of distinguishing between changing styles vs changing titles, and debate on HOW to relay such info is quite welcome and appropriate, as is debate on setting a complexity threshold where it becomes necessary to include or not (i.e. as pointed out elsewhere, a simple change from "Ms." to "Mrs.", or similar obvious cases, isn't worth the bytes needed to mention it), but I don't understand the argument some seem to be making here that Wikipedia should just ignore Styles. It seems such arguments derive from two starting positions: Either A) some folks not understanding the difference between Style and Title, or B) that a bulleted list is somehow more complex or inferior to prose. It only seems more complex because it's currently mislabeled, and people are thinking it's a bulleted list of titles over time when it's actually a bulleted list of styles over time. Likewise, the prose is needed as well for explanation and background reasons, so both should be present. But I'm also starting to feel like perhaps I'm the only one, and am just repeating myself, and I don't want to be that kind of disruptive Wikipedia editor. Am I failing to adequately explain my case and I should just stop? Gecko G (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion2

Copy of RfC discussion at Talk:William,_Prince_of_Wales#RfC_on_Titles_and_Styles A.D.Hope (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

'Titles and Styles' is a section in the articles of many royal figures, including British ones. Most include a bulleted list of titles and styles with a date range showing when the titles and styles were used. There are inconsistencies with these date ranges. For example, recent versions of this article have used:

• 8 September 2022 – present: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge

and

• 8 – 9 September: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge

I believe the root of the issue is that titles and styles are different things with incompatible dating conventions.

I would appreciate comment on how the 'Titles and Styles' section of this article should be formatted or changed. Thank you.

Note: a similar RfC has been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 10#RFC: Titles & Styles by @GoodDay. I am opening this RfC on the advice given there that this is a more appropriate place to request comment. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the closest similar case, a royal duke subsequently becoming heir apparent, is with George V and this is what his article has:

• 3 June 1865 – 24 May 1892: His Royal Highness Prince George of Wales
• 24 May 1892 – 22 January 1901: His Royal Highness The Duke of York
• 22 January – 9 November 1901: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall and York
• 9 November 1901 – 6 May 1910: His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales
• 6 May 1910 – 20 January 1936: His Majesty The King-Emperor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:7517:234B:5B15:378A (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The "Duke of Cornwall and York" dates should've been changed to "22 January 1901 – 6 May 1910", at the George V page. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Top example, is what I prefer. Charles III's section, should have his "Duke of Cornwall" dates as 1952 to 2022; not 1952 to 1958. Therefore, IMHO, we should show the dates for when they've held such titles. Not just the dates for when those titles were their most senior & publicly used. William is still Duke of Cornwall & Cambridge, even though he's now Prince of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that it's unclear whether these lists are of titles or styles. Your preference would make sense for a list of titles but not a list of styles, since as a rule only one style is used by a person at any one time (Scottish styles for British royals notwithstanding).

The easiest way to resolve this would be to split all 'Titles and Styles' sections into a 'Titles' section and a 'Styles' section, which avoids all ambiguity. The currentl format of this page is a good example. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

As others have said, Style & Titles are 2 separate (though related) things. Style is the reference, tied to the highest held or courtesy title. I.e. It's how the person is referred to in official short form- such as the court circular or other media. Titles are the (usually accumulated) titles held by that person, ie Duke of "x", "y", & "z", Earl of "a", Baron of "b" & "c", etc. The subsidiary titles are still held by the person, but only referenced when locally important or when a full very formal listing is used. Gecko G (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with A.D.Hope and Gecko G.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• In complicated situations, avoid misleading and over-simplistic tables. Explain the situation in prose. DrKay (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  The situation wouldn't be complicated if 'Styles' and 'Titles' were separate sections, I feel. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  It is split, and people are still changing it and confused. So, it hasn't helped. DrKay (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not surprised people are still confused, as at the moment this page is just one of several which all seem to be operating different policies with regard to styles and titles.

  If we can establish a consistent standard then I'm sure the confusion will die down, and part of that standard should be to separate the sections. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Either separate the sections or move the content to separate pages about each individuals styles, titles. There'd be more room to make such changes, on separate pages. All we'd need is a page link from those pages to bios. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  So should the Prince of Wales's other titles (Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge) be [date] – present or [date] – [date he became PoW]? cookie monster 755 03:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I look at it from this angle. He's the Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall & Duke of Cambridge, until he becomes King. Which is why I favour the usage of titles, rather then the usage of styles. GoodDay (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  How do you feel about the format used in this article, where the styles are given in a bulleted list (using [date]—[date he became PoW]) and titles are given in a prose paragraph in a different section? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  The way it is currently in the page (as of Sept 18), works best. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, though I do really think we should change

  • 8 September 2022 – present: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge

  to

  • 8 – 9 September 2022: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge

  To make clear that that section is about styles, not titles. William is explicitly called Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Cambridge in the following section, so the information is still there. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't, as he's still Duke of Cornwall & Duke of Cambridge. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Absolutely, but he's not going to be addressed as that any more, and that's what styles are about. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't oppose the titles & styles section being split into two sections 'or' entirely moved to their own page, with a link to the bio. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm glad we agree on that. What about the styles section showing an end date for 'Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge', since that style isn't used any more? A.D.Hope (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  If it helps with clarity, might I also suggest adding a footnote to the "Cornwall and Cambridge" line that says William continues to hold those two titles but generally isn't styled as such? (I suspect he will still be referred to as the "Duke of Cornwall" in circumstances that directly relate to the Duchy of Cornwall, as Charles was). Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm alright with that, if it's applied consistently across the pages. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Wouldn't that just lead to people then getting confused about what happened to the Earl of Strathearn bit?

  Could perhaps the whole entire thing be mollified by putting the "Title" subsection before the "Style" subsection? Of course, if so, then that should be done to ALL of the pages and thus this RFC should go back to a centralized location. Gecko G (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Not to be disruptive, but could we not just be WP:BOLD? Is splitting a subsection into two and slightly rearranging it going to cause that much of a problem? A.D.Hope (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  This format is used on a lot of other pages too. If you change it only here, someone down the road will think they are helping to standardize and revert it back. If you instead change it everywhere without discussing it first somewhere central, that would quite likely be viewed as being disruptive. Gecko G (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Disruptive to whom, though? It's a fairly minor change which does not involve changing any facts of the article A.D.Hope (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  replied on your talk page, since this part of the discussion was no longer about this page specifically. Gecko G (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agree on this, the current setup with overlapping styles is confusing IlkkaP (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Make sure you understand the difference between titles and styles. William's style is simply His Royal Highness; his primary title (except in Scotland) is Prince of Wales and his secondary titles include Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Cambridge and a host of lesser titles. The current split incorrectly mixes the two. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  HRH is just a part of his style, not his full style by itself. The Prince of Wales is both part of his style AND one of his titles. His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales. Compare it to "Mr. Joe Shmoe". After the initial introduction you might refer to him as "Mr.", "Mr. Shmoe", or just "Joe" depending on various factors (are you talking about him in the third person or to him in the second person, what's your relationship with Joe, how formal is the setting, etc., etc.). Likewise, once it's established that we are talking about HRH The Prince of Wales (and from the date we know it's 'Prince William'), you may then drop one or the other in subsequent mentions to save syllables and refer to him as either just "His Royal Highness" or just "The Prince of Wales" (unless you're a family member or a very close friend in a non-public setting you would never use just "William"). At least that's how I understand it, I imagine there's lots of Brits who would know better than American me. Gecko G (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• The current layout with both HRH Duke and HRH Prince overlapping as present styles is very confusing IlkkaP (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Agree with the reasoning of A.D.Hope and Gecko G. above. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Remove the table. As others have said, it's unhelpful and confusing. He retains the titles but doesn't use them. That can only be explained by writing 'He retains the titles but doesn't use them'. That is not conveyed by any version of the table. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  The only table is the Table of Contents, I'm presuming you're referring to the bulleted list, in which case I disagree with outright removal unless you can somehow justify removing it from every single other person's page who has changing reference styles over time. I don't see how it's confusing, but perhaps I have a base knowledge bias in this area that keeps me from seeing what a lay reader sees - I thought the only potential problem was people not understanding that it was 2 different, but related, things and they were misreading the "and" (Reference Style and Titles). I thought with it now more clearly marked as distinct subsections that fixed the issue. Was that not the original problem? Is it instead not knowing how subsidiary titles work? If that's it we could probably work in a link for a reader to go learn about it, but it's not the job of William's page to explain that concept. If it's something else confusing then what specifically is tripping you up?

  On a side note, come to think of it, I wonder if an actual Table in the title subsection (like Charles' page used to have) might help clarify. Gecko G (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Why is "His Royal Highness" italicized? - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Because it's part of the style, I think. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Because "His Royal Highness" is the style; "Prince of Wales", "Duke of Cambridge", etc. are the titles. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  They're also part of the style, in this context. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure about the italicization issue, but yes HRH is part of his reference style, which at this point in time, as I understand it, is properly and precisely "His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales." (sometimes the "His Royal Highness" bit will be abbreviated down to "HRH". I've also seen cases where the post-nominals get included, but I'm not sure how proper that is.) Notice that "William" does not appear anywhere in that (which is, I think, what @Powers: is getting at just below). Prince William is the only one referred to thusly at this moment of time. However, we can't call his wikipage that because in the past others have been called exactly that (i.e. his father had the exact same reference style before Sep 8th) so the compromise is conjunctions like "William, Prince of Wales" or "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" and the like, for the wikipage titles, none of which are proper reference styles, but is commonly misused by the public and even the media, so it also works for distinguishing and naming their wikipedia pages. Unfortunately people then glance at wikipedia, see that, don't read the Style section, and that results in further reinforcing people's incorrectly thinking the royals styles are like "Catherine, Princess of Wales" and such, in a reinforcing feed-back-loop, but that's a topic for discussion elsewhere. Gecko G (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't ask why the words were there, I asked why they're in italics rather than plain text. I'm not seeing anything in MOS:ITALIC about italicization of styles, although heaven knows I might be missing something. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  I was more replying to the discussion between Rosbif73 & A.D. Hope. As I said, I don't know about the italicization, sorry I can't help there. Given that it appears to be standard on other pages my guess is it might be a guideline from one of the relevant wikiprojects. Hopefully someone who knows will answer. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Call me nuts, but if this is supposed to be a list of all the titles he has held and when he held them, then "HRH Prince William of Wales" doesn't belong because that's not a title. And his Earldom and Barony titles are missing; there's no reason to state that he is still Duke of Cambridge while omitting that he is still Earl of Strathearn. No one would refer to him as "HRH The Duke of Cambridge and Cornwall" anymore outside of very specific circumstances. And the presence of "His Royal Highness" clearly marks this as a list of how he is styled, not a list of his titles. As such, the dates should identify the time period during which the Prince was properly addressed by the listed style. Powers ^T 19:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - At least we found the 'core' of the problem. Styles & Titles should never have been combined into one section. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• ??? Malformed RFC? This all seems about a difficulty in using a list style, not a problem of one section nor something separate sections would fix. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I find the format of the "Titles as Prince Charles" table under List of titles and honours of Charles III § Royal and noble titles and styles far more readable than the bullet points in most of the other articles in question.

It's clearer for the Titles section, if there's a complex case where there's multiple titles acquired at different times, but it is neither here nor there for the styles section. Gecko G (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps in the end, deletion from the bios would be best. With a link to corresponding Titles & Styles pages. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Whether that should be a separate page or not is entirely dependent on if there is enough information to support a separate page. Some do, some don't, but even if it does the underlying issue of whether to have separate subsections or not is still relevant, it's just then outside the scope of the Biography MoS specifically. Gecko G (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Are we removing the bulletted list as someone has from King Charle's page? Dbainsford (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

We should have either a bulleted list of principal styles, with a short piece of introductory prose saying that's what they are, or simply (and likely better) say the same thing entirely in prose. It's clearly unhelpful to readers to have a bald list in some "standard" format just to keep editors happy about that for some sentimental reason if it doesn't actually make its meaning clear. Having two subsections, one for "titles" and one for "styles" would be a little clearer, but bizarrely redundant to the point of itself possibly causing "why are we doing much the same thing all over again?", and not a good use of 'space' in an article at any speed. People rarely lose titles, and when they exceptionally do, that's worth explicitly noting in text, not quietly just having a end date in a bulleted list. The idea of style as 'poshest current title' isn't that hard to grasp, and I don't think people are often going to be confused into thinking that 'now has a posher title too' (or for monarchs, absorbed them) implies 'fired as a duke'. Most likely case seem to be that editors are confused into thinking that other people might be. But to prevent either, we should simply explicitly say what the section's doing, and link to our article -- or one of our potentially too many articles -- on the subject. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

To me a bullet point of titles with start and end dates with a small paragraph stating from this date he has been known as Prince of Wales, I do like when there is a paragraph which has the full name of the holder. Such as Prince William, Prince of Wales, Duke off... Aide De Camp Knight of the Most excellent order of the Garter, etc. Dbainsford (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No closure yet? :( GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2022 (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.

Jane Doe is a John Smith Professor

This kind of phrasing sounds terribly akward and obscure to people who are not familiar with the custom of endowed professorial chairs being named after their sponsors. Yet it is used many biographical articles (see discussion at Talk:Timothy D. Snyder#"who is the Richard C. Levin Professor of History at Yale University" in the introduction). It may be the standard way of referring to people holding such professorships, but the role of an encyclopedia should be to clarify things to those unfamiliar with such a tradition and this kind of wording. What would be the best way to explain this kind of phrase? My idea is to add a footnote (perhaps using a template) explaining the custom in a few words and linking to articles that explain it futher. It could look more or less like this:

Timothy David Snyder is an American historian specializing in the modern history of Central and Eastern Europe, who is the Richard C. Levin Professor of History at Yale University…

Any comments or other ideas? — Kpalion^(talk) 16:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. The current form of words is fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

hmm... usually it's named in a way that there is no confusion. In the rare cases where there is a potential for confusion, and if there's no suitable article to be linked to, then maybe either simply add the word "chair" or change "Professor" to "Professorship" or similar. Failing those (or in addition to) nothing wrong with a footnote. sidenote- I believe in all such professorships there is only ever one holder at a time, so you would never have x is a y, it would be x is the y or x was a y. Gecko G (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure there's ever a case where it would be confusing, as I'm not finding any examples of it being full name Professor. It always either name Professor of such-and-such or name chair (or some combination thereof), and often not full name. It might get referred to in shorthand as partial name Professor (i.e. Lucasian Professor) but only either within the field/university (thus not relevant for Wikipedia) or only used such after so explaining/establishing. Where's the confusion? Even in the example that started the discussion it's explicitly name Professor of thing (History) at place (specifically at Yale U). Can anyone give an example where there is potential for confusion? Gecko G (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the footnote is necessary. Would you put another footnote on Yale University explaining what a university is and what type of university Yale is? But I think the research specialty is usually more central than the current job title, so I would definitely put "specializing in the modern history of Central and Eastern Europe" earlier in the lead than "Richard C. Levin Professor of History". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

There's an important difference here: in an article about a Yale University professor, Yale University would be normally wikilinked, so if I don't know what Yale University is, then I can click that link and find out. And if I don't know what a university is, then from there I can follow the link to Research university and eventually to University. That's all fine. However, if I read that someone is "the Richard C. Levin Professor of History", then I can follow the link to an article that will tell me who Richard C. Levin is, but what it doesn't tell me is what a "Richard C. Levin Professor" is. That's the problem. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

counterpoint if I may: If there was a Wikipedia article about a businessperson whose job position was something like "Junior Vice President for Marketing", would you expect to find an article Vice President for Marketing? You can find an article about vice-president, just like you can for Professor in this case, but you can't always expect to have a specific article about every possible job title everywhere. In this example you give it perhaps shouldn't link to Richard C. Levin at all unless that article specifically mentions the endowment (in which case it should link to the specific subsection), but that's an aside. Gecko G (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I suppose a compromise could be to link to Endowed Professorship as a pipped link, if you strongly feel it's necessary. Gecko G (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I tend to use 'Jane Doe is a [nationality] [area of academia] who is John Smith Professor of Wikipedia Editing at [institution] e.g. 'is an American biologist who...' or 'is a British academic who...' etc. GiantSnowman 19:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand "Vice-President for Marketing" just as I understand "Professor of History", but I would be equally confused by "the John Doe Vice-President for Marketing". Anyway, a link to Endowed Professorship is what I'm driving at, but the question is, how exactly would you pipe it? Would "the [[Endowed Professorship|Richard C. Levin Professor]] of History" be fine? Some editors might say the link to Richard C. Levin should be kept. But then, "the Richard C. Levin [[Endowed Professorship|Professor]] of History" would be a terrible easter egg. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Junior Vice President for Marketing is just as much a job title as Richard C. Levin Professor of History or Lucasian Chair of Mathematics, and I don't see why there should be any possible confusion thinking the person was somehow named "junior" or "Junior Vice" or whatnot. Just because the job position/title is named in honor of someone else shouldn't be confusing enough to warrant an entry in the MoS, does it? Neither would John Smith being the director of the John Doe Charity Foundation for intercity youths (or whatever) would cause not be confusing John Smith for being the same as John Doe. Real-world examples: David A. Ricks is the Eli Lilly President, but no one confuses David A. Ricks for Eli Lilly. André Calantzopoulos is the Philip Morris Chairman but yet no one confuses André Calantzopoulos for Philip Morris. etc. etc. So why would Timothy D. Snyder be confused for Richard C. Levin in this particular case? I'm failing to see any difference here that could be causing confusion.

Regarding what to include in the pipe, "of History" is part of it so it should be included within the brackets. I'm not sure if "at Yale" is part of the title proper or not, but even if it is that is probably best left as a separate link. Personally, I would go with no linking at all (neither to Endowed Professorship nor to Richard C Levin) as I find it perfectly clear, but if you are going to include it then I would probably go with [[Endowed Professorship|Richard C. Levin Professor of History]] at [[Yale University]]. Better yet, If the Richard C. Levin article page mentioned the endowment (ideally if it included a link, piped or not, to Endowed Professorship) then just [[Richard C. Levin#(insert appropriate section title)|Richard C. Levin Professor of History]] at [[Yale University]] might be best, but the Richard C. Levin article would need to be expanded first. Gecko G (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I would expect any wikilink on "Richard C. Levin Professor of History" to go to an article on the Richard C. Levin Professorship, not to a general article on endowed professorships, just as I would expect a wikilink on Yale University to go to an article on that university, not on the general system of post-secondary education in the US. To do otherwise would be problematic with respect to WP:SUBMARINE. We do have some articles on specific named professorships (separately from the people who hold them) although I think most are not independently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME - what if the name change had nothing to do with gender identity?

MOS:DEADNAME says "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name, it should not be included in any page". But this presents a problem when a transgender or non-binary person has changed their name for reasons wholly unrelated to their gender identity. In this case, their old name is not really a deadname, but the guideline still says not to use that name, which is odd. I noticed this as being a problem from Talk:Colorado Springs nightclub shooting#RfC on birth name inclusion, where the suspect of the shooting claimed through their lawyers that they are non-binary, and had changed their name years earlier. But the reason the suspect changed their name was to avoid being connected to their father and to escape online bullying, rather than anything to do with their claimed nonbinary identity. So there's no real gender identity-related reason not to mention their former name, yet under a strict reading of this guideline, mentioning their former name would be forbidden.

So I think MOS:DEADNAME probably needs to be reworded? Maybe to something like "...not notable under their pre-transition name" or something of the sort, or with some other wording to make it clear that we should only censor their old name when the name change was gender identity/transition related? Endwise (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I asked this question a while ago, like with respect to birth names before marriage, and there was general resistance against that, which I personally think is wrong. BLP and naming should be rather consistent, and if someone's name at birth is not well known otherwise, there's no need to include it in general. Masem (t) 05:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to treat pre-marriage names and pre-transition names similarly. Most trans people don't like their pre-transition name being used or widely known, while most married people are indifferent to their pre-marriage name. If someone has indicated they don't want their pre-marriage name to be known, then we should follow DEADNAME's principles (and conversely, if a trans person indicates that they don't mind if people know and use their pre-transition name, we probably don't need to follow DEADNAME, but this situation is quite rare). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Its a matter of staying consistent with how we are handling sourcing. We would not use a weak source (like a court document) to document a person's deadname, but we seem to have no problem using similar sourcing for pre-marriage names. I recognize that it is not as offensive, but that we are drawing a line in some cases, but not in others is a problem when we come to these types of intersectional cases that fall between the extremes. Masem (t) 01:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't oppose the proposed wording change (from "not notable under a former name (a deadname)" to "not notable under a pre-transition name (a deadname)", but I don't think it is necessary. The majority of contributors at the discussion linked above have applied the MOS:DEADNAME guideline using reason and common sense. Ultimately, I don't think we can draft guidelines to guard against editors who insist on an overly literal interpretation - leaning toward WP:POINTY in some cases. Ultimately, the guideline can't and should not attempt to take into account every possible situation.--Trystan (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually all that WP:POINT-y to read P&Gs literally as they are written. There were many people in that discussion who interpreted MOS:DEADNAME literally, and I really don't think they were all acting in bad faith. If we could produce some clarity around the guideline from a slight rewording change, shouldn't we just go ahead and do it? It isn't like we'd be creating instruction creep by adding some WP:Asshole John rule and trying to account for every possible situation -- it's swapping around a couple of words. Endwise (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

But any change would open up the door to other misreadings, where people start to argue over what qualifies as a "transition." I think that MOS:DEADNAME is "safer" in its current state; I agree that we can include this name, but since I don't think it rises to the level of something we must include (which would override DEADNAME in any case), it wouldn't cause significant harm if we ended up excluding it, either. Whereas including actual non-notable deadnames does have some potential for harm, so we ought to err on the side of clearly excluding them without introducing a ton of red tape every time. --Aquillion (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:NOTEWORTHY, and therefore WP:NPOV. Regardless of whether anyone was notable while using a former name, if their former name is noteworthy it must be included. Aldrich's birth name is widely reported and therefore noteworthy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That comment doesn't seem helpful, since it doesn't apply to deadnames. Newimpartial (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• No, the entire point of MOS:DEADNAME, and the reason it's compatible with WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:NPOV, is that a mere mention of a name in sources doesn't necessarily make it noteworthy or due. There's a huge gap between stuff we can include and stuff we must include; that gap is where we have a degree of editorial discretion. MOS:DEADNAME governs a narrow subset of things that fall into that gap, essentially; it sets a preference to exclude unless they're indisputably noteworthy. Just being widely-reported isn't necessarily enough - we have to look at the context in which it's reported. In this case I don't think that that context treats it as terribly important and mostly just uses it as a passing mention, so I don't think it meets the threshold of something we absolutely must include the way you say. That said it also clearly isn't the sort of thing that MOS:DEADNAME was created for, so I think it's a matter of editorial discretion - I am not sure we need to actually reword MOS:DEADNAME to clarify this unambiguously, though. It's not possible to cover every possible edge-case and the fact that MOS:DEADNAME clearly defers to notability means that it is "safe" in the sense that it can't be used to exclude things that clearly must be included regardless of how it is misinterpreted. --Aquillion (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  My last sentence was imprecise. If Aldrich's birth name is nearly universally reported then it's noteworthy. Otherwise I don't know if I disagree with you, but I think the MOS:DEADNAME language is technically incompatible with NPOV. It doesn't matter whether someone was notable under their deadname, what matters is simply if their deadname is noteworthy. However, in most cases a deadname is noteworthy because the person was notable under their deadname. I don't think DEADNAME applies in this case, so I digress. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• This all can be boiled down to asking two simple questions: 1) has the person declared the previous name “dead”? If so, don’t mention it unless: 2) was the person notable under a previous name? If so, mention it. Blueboar (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  In discussing transgender persons, many do not explicitly say "<this name> is dead, I am now <that name>", which raises a problem with this approach. Via DEADNAME, we presume that when a transgender person states a new name, the old name is implicitly dead. Masem (t) 13:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with presuming that all pre-transition names are dead. The exception highlighted in the recent case is so narrow (the name change predates the announced transition, the expressly stated purpose of the name change is unrelated to transition, and both the old and new name are traditionally associated with the same gender) that it isn't something the guideline should try to cover. Hard cases make bad law.--Trystan (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Discussion of exception to WP:SURNAME. Sundayclose (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Ordering of positions?

Should the positions a person held be ordered chronologically or by notability (what they were most famous for doing)? ABuzzedWhaler (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

In what context? - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) ^talk 20:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what ABuzzedWhaler is thinking of, but look at John Quincy Adams. Chronologically, his being a member of the House of Representatives would be the top-most office in his infobox, but it seems right to list his presidency first instead (which is currently the case). — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This is probably one of those questions that has no “correct” answer. I would agree that the default mode would be to list chronologically… but also agree that the default should not be seen a firm and fast “rule”. Exceptions will logically occur. So… It depends on the specific individual and the specific offices they held. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Ephemeral net worth values

For the uber-rich across Wikipedia—Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison—it's the status quo to include an exact numerical value for their net worth, something our colleague Britannica avoids doing. This is an issue because the net worth estimate is highly volatile and constantly changing (violating MOS:DATED). Thus, we can never give readers an instantly accurate number. Nor should we try: Wikipedis is not news. Also, the exact value isn't really notable. The reader doesn't care if the subject is worth $185 billion or $197 billion. The difference is meaningless. What's notable is that the subject has a lot of frigging money. Furthermore, Forbes and Bloomberg are in constant disagreement as to the exact value of his net worth. For instance, as of this writing, Forbes estimates Elon Musk's net woth to be $176 billion and Bloomberg believes it's $164 billion. That’s a pathetically imprecise $10 billion difference. We cannot claim to know the true value to any degree of certainty and to do so is misleading to the reader. Choosing one over the other is ultimately arbitrary and violates NPOV. I think it makes more sense simply to say something more broad and stable like "A centibillionaire, person X is one of the wealthiest people in the world". Let's leave the details for the body of the article, where it can be better qualified and explained. How do we feel about this? ~ HAL333 19:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest avoiding neologisms such as "centibillionaire" (even with a link) because "centi-" means one hundredth, not one hundred. Musk is actually a hectobillianare. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The prefix "centi-" can mean both one hundred or one of a hundred. I mean it comes from the Latin "centum", meaning hundred, not hundreth. But I'm find using hectobillionaire if RS use it. But that's tangential. ~ HAL333 02:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Noble titles

Not sure if this is the right place for this but, there's a bit of a clash on another article regarding capitalisation.

Which version would be correct:

The Duke of Norfolk, by tradition, is in charge of organising the event as Earl Marshal. The current earl marshal is the 18th Duke, Edward Fitzalan-Howard. or

The duke of Norfolk, by tradition, is in charge of organising the event as earl marshal. The current earl marshal is the 18th duke, Edward Fitzalan-Howard. WiltedXXVI (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's :The Duke of Norfolk, by tradition, is in charge of organising the event as Earl Marshal. The current earl marshal is the 18th duke, Edward Fitzalan-Howard. Note the article is actually at Earl Marshal, just like Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, buyt not Prime minister. Johnbod (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Move Asian people > Asians

There is a move request that might be of interest: Talk:Asian_people#Requested_move_13_December_2022 Valereee (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Non-latin script name in lead

What's the guideline regarding the use of the "original" names of people in non-Latin script? For example, the opening sentence of South Korean footballer Son Heung-min includes "Korean: 손흥민". This makes sense, as Korean is the official language of South Korea, which is solely written in Hangul. However, what about ambiguous cases? According to languages of Morocco, the two official languages are Standard Arabic and Standard Moroccan Berber. It seems that Tifinagh (Berber script) is being taught in schools and used sometimes, but official documentation (such as IDs, passports etc.) only use Arabic and Latin script. How should I know when to include a non-Latin script or not? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion started on my talk page.

You say "official documentation (such as IDs, passports etc.) only use Arabic and Latin script"; no, whenever something official is written in Berber, it's in Tifinagh. You might be mixing up with Algeria, where they use the Latin script.

I don't see where the ambiguity is here. Synotia (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Whenever something official is written in Berber: when are these circumstances, though? Is there documentation in Morocco which uses Tifinagh? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

For example Synotia (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a website, not documentation. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It's run by the Moroccan government, which is why I used it to you as an example.

I don't understand your fixation on ID papers as the demarcator between admissible or not in the article.

For example, Abd el-Krim's Wikipedia page shows his name in Tarifit in Tifinagh script, although there were hardly ID papers back then, let alone in Tifinagh.
If you want to dig further, Circassian leaders, whose nations were genocided to near extinction back in the day (talk about language status etc) have their names written in Cyrillic Adyghe/Ubykh/etc, because that's how these languages are officially written in the present day. I know this is digging far, but it's to underline you how I don't really understand the point behind debating whether it's in ID papers or not. Synotia (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not specifically fixated on IDs or Morocco. I'm trying to understand what the criteria for inclusion is, wherther it be Tifinagh, Adyghe or whatever. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Any other opinions? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

To your question How should I know when to include a non-Latin script or not?, I'd say when the person uses the non-Latin script (for political, cultural, or ethnic reasons) and/or when WP:RS scholarship/journalism on them uses the script because the coverage of them is more extensive in that language/script (and it's politically/culturally/ethnically relevant). Having the name there in a from that helps in tracking down additional information/sources is an important benefit to readers and editors. To your example, since in Morocco and among the Tuareg Tifinagh (or Neo-Tifinagh) are preferred, then using that script makes sense; in Algeria, since Berber Latin is preferred, then using Latin makes sense. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)