Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Discussion in the ice hockey project

Hi.

We're having a discussion in the ice hockey project (here). It's about what we should use as disambiguator, when people sharing the same name have the same profession. What's so wrong with having year of birth as a further disambiguator in such cases? Sure, that's information people normally search for (not by), but usually those who search have an idea of which era the player is from, and thus are able select between the alternatives. (If the alternatives are also born the same year (like hockey plaers Steve Smith), then we face a bigger problem.) But that could be said about middle names too: that may be information that people search for, especially when people are not known by both first names.

Could you help us?

LarRan (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick question regarding disambiguating a Colonel

Should it be "Colonel Russell Williams" or "Russell Williams (Colonel)" or "Russel Williams (Canadian soldier)" ? –xeno^talk 20:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC - prefixes in article title of Eastern Orthodox officials

An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#naming_convention_associated_with_Eastern_Orthodox_officials) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Military titles?

I have found no specific guidelines regarding military titles in the MoS. Initially I was just curious about using titles for retired personnel (I believe the convention is that you do not lose your title upon retirement) but now I'm curious in general about Wikipedia's use of miliarty titles. If anything, the MoS seems to suggest not to use the military title. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We certainly should never use it in article titles. john k (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Fastest Dodge in Deadwood

The issue of moving Wild Bill Shrewsberry is under discussion here; Input is welcomed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Firm dab

There is a discussion concerning the disambiguation of this article, which is disambiguated from another article "The Firm (band)". Can anyone offer some insight on WP guidelines or policy on naming articles on musical acts either "group" or "band", and using genre or nationality to disambiguate one article from another? The discussion is here below. Dan56 (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

B F L Ward

Maybe someone better acquainted with these conventions can take a look at B F L Ward. I think we need some redirects as well. Danski14^(talk) 00:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Combining biographies section

Now has two redlinks. Any ideas? Dougweller (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed (the categories had been renamed).--Kotniski (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Senior and Junior

This is really a form of disambiguation (we don't use them where they don't disambiguate, unless idiom compels - and I can't think of an example where it does). So I've consolidated that section with disambiguation, and added some more examples, including the Bushes, previously buried in a middle paragraph. I don't think I've changed guidance, merely given a more logical structure:

• If we need to disambiguate two people of the same name, and one of them is primary topic, give them the name as title
• or else if there is a natural disambiguator in common use, use it
• else use a tag in parentheses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"the Elder"/"the Younger" are also used in English (Henry Vane the Elder and Henry Vane the Younger) -- not just with Ancient Greek and Latin names. I think that Capitalisation of (Elder/younger] should follow that most commonly the sources. There is also a question about whether it would be a good idea to put in a comma before "the elder/Younger" so that the pipe trick works. -- PBS (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say not commas; neither Cato, the Elder nor Sir Harry Vane, the Younger feel like usage; indeed the first suggests he was in a Sanhedrin. But usage must decide. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Logic

I don't see how recognizability, unambiguousness, English, no slurs, and avoiding unnecessary titles add up to Albert Einstein rather than Einstein, Albert, which is what the Britannica uses.

On the other hand, I am satisfied with the actual guidance. I don't want to move all the biographical articles, and having a standard convention is a good thing.

There seem two solutions: come up with another principle, or remove the claim of implication. I did the second, as a simple solution to this minor nuisance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the reason Wikipedia uses first name first in article titles is to facilitate linking, for example: Albert Einstein developed the theories of Special relativity and General relativity. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to disambiguate - how to use dates

The text of an example was changed here in August 2010 from

• Jessica Collins (Tru Calling actress) and Jessica Collins (The Nine actress) (two actresses called Jessica Collins)

to

• Jessica Collins (1971) and Jessica Collins (1983) (two actresses called Jessica Collins)

The two articles have since been renamed Jessica Collins (actress born 1971) and Jessica Collins (actress born 1983), but the text of the naming convention has not been changed.

I know of no consensus for removing the main disambiguator ("actress") just because it needs to be refined (by date, genre, or most famous role) to distinguish two people, but this kind of thing is being suggested for another pair of people, User_talk:Boleyn#Peter_Atkinson_.28disambiguation.29, citing this page.

Giving the birth date, alone, as a disambiguator for a person is very unhelpful - born, died, active, first hit the headlines? (It could be sensible for a film, a battle, even a building).

I propose that the text of the article should be changed to show these two actresses in the form in which their articles are currently titled.

PamD (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• On second thoughts, I have updated the text of the article to reflect the current titles of the articles. I note that the change to the "...(1971)" etc version of the text was made in August 2010 by a now-blocked sockpuppet editor, who also renamed the two articles, which were renamed again to their current titles in Sept 2010. PamD (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

added section on peoples

In case there is not a page on naming peoples, I created a short section here. (If there is such a page, we should link to it from here.)

The first part is taken from WP:naming conventions (languages) and shouldn't be controversial. The second concerns the word 'tribe' and may be. Tribe has a specific, non-judgmental meaning; however, often nations are called "tribes" either as an error for tribal people or because they were not considered 'civilized' by Europeans. The first is an error; the second is both an error an racist. However, the word 'tribe' itself is not racist, and many many peoples are organized into tribes and have a strong tribal identity, which may be stronger than their national identity; avoiding the word 'tribe' in such cases is censorship and creates its own problems. However, it's sometimes difficult to tell from the lit which groups are actually tribes; I've gone through our articles and attempted to move them away from the word 'tribe' when that was not accurate, but have left it in or even moved them to it when I thought it was accurate. I'm sure I've made many errors, and if my examples here aren't good, please substitute w something better. — kwami (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Your addition is contested. See As with your attempted move of the article Māori, using the talk page to suggest an alteration to a long-standing page title/guideline in advance would be appropriate, rather than unilaterally making such changes. I note that you twice removed my objection from the page, and warned me for vandalism, rather than actually addressing the issues or removing your post. Nor have you notified the current discussion at Talk:Māori#move.-gadfium 08:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a long-standing convention. All I did was copy it here where I thought it would more likely be found from the 'people' side. Nothing inappropriate in that, though I agree that it may not be the best place for it. I can't think of any place better: it concerns coordinating the naming of articles on peoples and their languages, but we only have a dedicated guideline for languages, and IMO it is appropriate to access it through both language and the people. — kwami (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So you believe this is not the best place for your addition; yet you did not discuss it on the talk page, and you reverted my statement that it was contested twice and threatened that I might be blocked for vandalism. I think at the very least you should remove the addition until you gain some degree of consensus. You have quoted WP:BOLD to me on your talk page, but when I object to your addition you consider me to be a vandal.-gadfium 08:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the specific page being discussed, in my opinion this talk page should have been the first stop for both parties; Kwamikagami before adding the original inclusion, and Gadfium instead of objecting in the page itself. sonia♫ 08:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Sonia, the part he's objecting to is not original; it's been stable at the language subpage for some time. But as it involves both people and languages, I thought I should be accessible to people searching for people as well, so I copied it here verbatim. (At least I think it was verbatim. Maybe I'd better check.) Anyway, this is the only subpage with a title that would match such a search, even if the rest of the content concerns persons rather than peoples. I can't think of anyplace better, and IMO it's irresponsible to not provide such access. — kwami (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not article namespace. Saying that an addition is contested is reasonable.-gadfium 08:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's reasonable! But there are templates for that, or you can use the talk page. You don't turn the guideline itself into a talk page. That should have been clear to you before the end of 2004. — kwami (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe I should rephrase. It's not the best idea to unilaterally add content to a guideline, copied or not, which pertains to a heated discussion you're currently part of; likewise, leaving a message on the talk page regarding such an addition, whether you revert it or not, is better practice than discussing it in what is supposed to be a fairly stable page. Either way, this is silly, the sniping going on at your talk pages is even more silly, could the discussion get back on-topic (and this page be put back at least for now) and be contained at Talk:Māori, where it seems most appropriate? sonia♫ 09:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Revert it if you like (preferably copying it here), I won't contest it. The Māori discussion wasn't heated when I added this. It doesn't really pertain: we can refer to it just as easily in either location. I don't think Māori would be the place for a discussion, not least because of the juvenile level of the debate there, but perhaps someplace like WProj:Ethnic groups. — kwami (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)#Clarification about the issue of people vs -s vs ø. At least that discussion has remained rather civil. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 14:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Specific naming conventions and people notable both within and outside of that field

Should we apply a specific naming biography naming convention (e.g. WP:NCPEER) when the person is notable both within and outside of that field? Dpmuk (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is an issue with how we apply the more specific naming conventions when a person is notable both within and outside the field of a specific biography naming convention. This most frequently seems to crop up with WP:NCPEER where people argue that this should apply even when they are more notable for actions not related to their peerage. As an example say an athlete becomes a peer. Naming the article based purely on NCPEER seems wrong to me as by applying a specific guideline like this we are effectively giving one set of editors (those active in the "peerage" area) primacy over another (those active in the athletic area) and saying "because there is a guideline that applies to all peers we're going to apply it despite many interested parties in this specific example having had no input (and probably wanting no input) on that guideline. Therefore I suggest changing Article titles for certain groups of people are dealt with on more specialized guideline pages. See: to something like Article titles for certain groups of people are dealt with on more specialized guideline pages (listed below). Where a person is notable both in one of these fields and another field these guidelines should be applied with common sense and the relative importance of the fields and what the article would be named if they were only notable in the other field should also be taken into account.. Dpmuk (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions within an article

If a person changes name during their lifetime, how should the person be styled within the article, For example Prince Albert became King George VI. The article George VI of the United Kingdom uses “Albert” when referring to events before his accession to the throne and “George VI” or “The King” for events after his accession. In contrast, the article Diana, Princess of Wales uses the name “Diana” throughout the article. If consistency were to be observed, the name “Spencer” should be used when referring to events before her marriage. Comments? Martinvl (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? She was Diana before her marriage as well.--Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

But Wikipedia convention is that Lady Diana Spencer would be referred to as "Spencer" - see Sophie, Countess of Wessex as an example. She is referred to as "Rhys-Jones" for event before her marriage. Martinvl (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, see your point, but I don't think that convention is absolutely fixed. If for any reason it's clearer to the reader (e.g. if you're writing about members of the same family with the same surname - so that the surname alone is ambiguous) then you can use the forename instead. I'd have thought that keeping the same mode of reference throughout the whole article would be another sufficient reason to switch to that style (though a lot is going to come down to individual preference - it's hard to make hard-and-fast rules about these things).--Kotniski (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The answer to the substantive question depends very much on which person we are talking about. Frederic Leighton, 1st Baron Leighton uses his title; David Lloyd George does not; both make sense.

I counsel against the verbal change. You are concerned about the wrong page; the guideline is WP:NCROY and it already says that whether a person is identified as a peer or not depends on circumstances, including what else he was known for, and when he was known for it.

That applies to titles. Within text, a competent editor will change name as the subject did; thus referring to Prince Albert or the Duke of York or George VI in due succession. Eventually, the Princess' article will have fewer fangirls and be reedited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion

Editors here will be interested in discussion ongoing at wp:Naming conventions (Indic)LeadSongDog come howl! 18:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes over time

Afaict, this MOS doesn't offer any guidance on how to treat biographies when the subject's name changes over time (due to adoption, marriage, stage name, etc.). For instance Florence Owens Thompson is best known as the "Migrant Mother" from Dorothea Lange's photographs. She was born Christie and married repeatedly. During the time the famous photo was taken she was known as Owen and married Thompson only afterwards. To refer to her as "Thompson", as the article does in the discussion of the event, seems anachronistic. Is there an accepted rule? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles on peoples (ethnicities and tribes)

I would like to propose a change in the policy of naming tribes. The examples given with a disambiguation page is suggested are not ethnic groups or tribes, they are populations of major nation-states, i.e. Chinese, Russian, etc. These very broad and widely used terms benefit from disambiguation pages. When it comes to actual tribes, very few articles use the name of the tribe. Often the name leads simply to the ethnic article, e.g. Hutu, Banu 'Amir, Al-Dhafeer, etc. I can't see how changing these terms to go directly to a disambiguation page instead of the primary article would be of benefit to users. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I am not taking any particular position on disambiguation, other than to suggest that we don't dab for the sake of dabbing or mere navigation, but when we DO dab a page, I would also like to note that "tribe" for a living ethnic group can be considered offensive in some circles (varies a lot from group to group, I admit). It would make more sense and avoid edit wars to say "people" or "nation" in most titles, unless, for example, the term "tribe" is part of a legal name or something. The analogous situation is Chinese, Chinese people, Chinese language, etc. Montanabw^(talk) 19:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the word "tribe" when it actually refers to a tribe. (The Hutu are not a tribe, for example, but then there's the twelve tribes of Israel.) The reason it's offensive is because Westerners often describe "primitive" people as having tribes rather than nations, chiefs rather than kings, sects rather than religions, dialects rather than languages. Of course, if they actually do have those things, it's our responsibility to be clear about it, and there's nothing negative about a tribe is a tribal society. Claiming that it is offensive imposes our values on them, and we have no business doing that. This is very much like the language–dialect distinction: nothing wrong with speaking a dialect (we all do), as long as it's defined as such because it's actually a dialect. I'm thinking of the museum in Accra, where they define out the outset what a "tribe" and "nation" are. In that case the people creating the exhibits spoke of their own tribes and nations. In many societies around the world, tribal identification is stronger than national identification. (And by "nation" I mean the ethnic group, not the state.) — kwami (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That said, before I started moving them, we had dozens or hundreds of articles about "tribes" that were not actually tribes.

We have a problem though with Somalia, where the tribes are called "clans", and the clans "sub-clans".

I think we need to ask ourselves: Is the society tribal? If it is not, then we have no business calling it or one of its components a tribe, unless that's part of an official name, in which case we've agreed to capitalize it. If it is tribal, then we need to ask if this particular group is at the tribal level. Peoples aren't "tribes" just because they're tribal. (I've changed dozens of leads from "X are a tribe in Y" to "X are a tribal people in Y".)

In many cases when the society has been disrupted, assimilated, or exterminated, we may not know what the original social structure was, but in most cases the difference between a band, clan, tribe, and nation should be evident from the literature. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the need to distinguish the form of organization of a people in the article title. If they are a tribal society, then surely that information can be incorporated into the lead and the rest of the article; I see no need to name some articles "X tribe" and others "Y people." Maybe I'm missing something (this is kind of out of my area of expertise...), but unless there's a very good reason, my recommendation is for simplicity and consistency--and consistency entails naming the articles consistently. --Miskwito (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. "People" is the best neutral term. In the US terminology changes when an ethnic group is represented by multiple tribal governments, but that problem is solved by simply using the term "people" for the entire ethnic group and the official name of the tribe (or a slightly truncated version) for the smaller group. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

As for the OP, I'm more agnostic/unsure. If a single term does refer to both a people and the language they speak, there's surely justification for disambiguating. On the other hand, more often than not I suspect the term is more closely associated with the people than with their language. And I wonder whether random people searching Wikipedia aren't more likely, when typing in "X" to be looking for information on the people X than on the language X? --Miskwito (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The people X is typically the primary topic, not the language X. I think our current policy is therefore misguided. --Avenue (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against naming articles "Foo people" and "Foo language" at all. I'm against the name of an ethnic group pointing to a disambiguation page, especially when there's only two pages on all of Wikipedia with the group's name (people and language), as in the case of Wauja, Panará, Kuikuro, etc. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Yeah, I'm not a fan of over-disambiguation, I prefer to shoot for WP:PRIMARY when possible. But I've also sort of burned out on fighting over it unless there is a real issue with a misnomer. Montanabw^(talk) 20:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

After thinking about it some more, I have to say I'm in agreement with Uyvsdi. The articles I generally pay the closest attention to are those dealing with the Ojibwe people and Ojibwe language. And in my experience, if some other article has a link to "Ojibwa" or "Chippewa" or "Ojibwe", it's far more likely to be in the context of talking about the people, rather than the language, so it makes sense for those pages to point to the "Ojibwe people" article. If in context the language is really what's intended, well...the Ojibwe people article mentions and repeatedly links to the language article. In this case there's also links to dab pages at the top of the article, but that may not be applicable in many cases, where the term only refers to a single cultural group and the language they speak. But in those cases we can always go with "for the language, see ..."-type notices at the top. --Miskwito (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The background discussion to the current ethnic group naming conventions took place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)#Pro-disambiguation in February of 2011. The proposed practice of automatically creating a dab page for any ethnic group/language's name goes against Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Incoming links, article traffic statistics, and Google searches are all acceptable means of determining the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Under, WP:TWODABS: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed." The ethnic group naming conventions needs to be rewritten.

Secondly, "people" is definitely the preferred default disambiguation for articles about ethnic groups, but how should long-standing articles that have a large number of editors be treated? For instance, the Hutu article has been about the Hutu group since 2002. Hutu people is a redirect to this article. If the standing article title works, it seems that it should stay. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I support avoiding two-item DAB pages. So, in general, when there is no ambiguity, I support making the name of the ethnic group (without a tag such as people or tribe) the primary topic, and linking to the language article from the article about the people, as is in fact done with Timucua. -- Donald Albury 21:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I just read through the archives of WP:WikiProject Ethnic groups and, most importantly Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Article_naming. Attempts to force ethnic group articles to conform to one naming system have been repeatedly rejected, so it's unlikely that it can or should happen here either. The naming conventions for ethnic groups could provide suggestions or commonly used formats or be deleted, but proposing all articles confirm to one system is out of line. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

New proposal for "Articles on peoples (ethnicities and tribes)"

As per the discussion above, I would like to propose specific changes to the first paragraph of this section. The "see also" for language is fine and the second paragraph is fine as is. "Russian" and "Chinese" also refers to nationalities containing multiple ethnic groups, so they are not the best examples to use. I'm drawing upon naming conventions set up by WikiProject Ethnic groups at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Article_naming. Specific disambiguation page policies do not need to be spelled out here because they should follow established conventions for disambiguation. So the proposed text for the first paragraph is as below. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Ethnic groups have several acceptable naming conventions, with "Foo people" being preferred as a neutral and unambiguous term. In articles describing multiple ethnic groups, "peoples" is pluralized, for example: Aboriginal peoples in Canada. The article title should use the common English language term for an ethnic group; autonyms would be used as article titles only when they are the most common name among English speakers.

In the following table the pattern is based on an imaginary Elbonian ethnicity.

Pattern	Examples
Elbonians	American Jews, Romanians, Rusyns, Serbs, Taiwanese aborigines
Elbonian people	Basque people, Kurdish people, Wauja people
Elbonian	African American, Iyer, Jew
Ethnic Elbonians	Ethnic Germans
Elbonians (ethnic group)	Macedonians (ethnic group)

It's been over a week. No comments, changes, or thoughts? Is this proposal acceptable to people? -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

In accordance with WP:Silence, I'll go ahead and switch out the paragraphs. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Changing to a made-up example is fine, but you've excised too much important instruction in the process. You kind of nuked the entire section, really, even template instructions, how to disambiguate when a term is both a language name and an ethnonym, etc, etc. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's why I brought this up here - for discussion. The table comes from WikiProject Ethnic groups, which has dealt with the issue of naming ethnic groups over and over (check out their talk page archives) and concluded there is no single consensus for naming ethnic groups. Language naming conventions are appropriately spelled out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages). -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

The "(ethnic group)" tag should not be encouraged. That was just a fudge for a difficult case. — kwami (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's easy enough to remove. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Just removed this sentence: "Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, a title based on that term is preferred for both articles, with the basic term serving as a disambiguation page." This is where Wikipedia:Disambiguation conventions should be followed. The basic ethnonym should go to the WP:Primarytopic, unless there is a genuine lack of a primary topic, as in the instance of Korean. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Hello ... I don't follow the discussions on this page and came across it while looking for guidance on how to deal with a naming conflict at Arab citizens of Israel. Having missed the opportunity to add my view on the proposed wording, I would like to now note what I see as a major problem with the following sentence: " The article title should use the common English language term for an ethnic group; autonyms would be used as article titles only when they are the most common name among English speakers."

This directive seems to conflict with MOS:IDENTITY, which advises to be deferential to how ethnic groups define themselves. If reliable secondary sources indicate that the most commonly used name in English is rejected or not used by members of the ethnic group in quetion, it seems that using it would be unadvisable no? I propose that this sentence be removed and that the reader be directed to MOS:IDENTITY for more information on how to deal with naming and naming disputes. or alternatively, we could summarize the jist of what is said there here. Thoughts? Tiamut^talk 16:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY should be taken into account, especially in light of the offensive terms by which many ethnic groups have been called; however, autonyms have presented a problem, for instance, Payomkowishum for Luiseño people or Iviatim for Cahuilla people. One could argue that those autonyms are not the most commonly used terms for the group, and that use of these terms conflict with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Do you have any suggestions for how to rephrase the sentence that would take both MOS:IDENTITY and WP:English into account? -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Okay, that's a tough one ... but here's a first attempt at trying to balance the different directives and advice. Please improve, critique, discard as needed ...

Ethnic groups have several acceptable naming conventions, with "Foo people" being preferred as a neutral and unambiguous term. In articles describing multiple ethnic groups, "peoples" is pluralized, for example: Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Generally-speaking, the article title should use the common English language term for an ethnic group. However, if the most common name is not an autonym, how the group self-identifies should be considered. If there is an autonym that is widely used in English language sources, it may be preferable to the most common name. This is particularly true if the most common name is seen as derogatory to the group in question. Disputes over how to refer to a group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, Article titles and English.
Tiamut^talk 20:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Any thought on this proposal? I'd like to either implement it, amend it based on feedback, or simply undo the change proposed at the top of this section because it introduced a default position that allows for common names that are not autonyms and may be offensive to be used without regard to self-identification. Tiamut^talk 17:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe what's currently in the table could be rephrased in sentence form but it should be clear that there are several acceptable ways to name ethnic group articles (Foos, Foo, Ethnic Foo), which Foo people being preferred. The probably with your current phrasing is that the overwhelming majority of common English-language terms are not autonyms. We don't use "Deutsch" for Germany people, etc. I'm mostly familiar with indigenous American articles, and autonyms for ethnic groups that don't historically have written languages tend to a variety of spellings, e.g. Luiseño people could be Payomkawichum, Payomkowishum, Pooyukitchum, etc. Another challenge that comes up frequently is the debate over what constitutes derogatory names. Some are clearly derogatory and not favored by groups (Papago, Digger Indians) but some have been strongly debated (notably using "Indians" in a name for indigenous Americans (e.g. Teyas Indians, Tompiro Indians) and the derogatory nature of the terms is questionable. Basically the guidelines should help but not give uninvolved users a carte blanche to make undiscussed, unilateral moves of articles based on spurious reasoning. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

How about the following...

Ethnic groups have several acceptable naming conventions, with "Foo people" being preferred as a neutral and unambiguous term. "Ethnic Foos" and "Foos" are also acceptable. In articles describing multiple ethnic groups, "peoples" is pluralized, for example, Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Generally speaking, the article title should use the common English language term for an ethnic group. How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided. Disputes over how to refer to a group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, Article titles, and English. Undiscussed, unilateral moves of widely edited articles are discouraged.

-Uyvsdi (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

That looks good to me. Thank you for putting so much thought and effort into this rephrasing. I appreciate the points you have raised and the way you have gone about it doing it. Tiamut^talk 16:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'll switch it out if that's okay with everyone. Loosing the bulky table will definitely be an improvement. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

The following paragraph was just re-added back to the article. Is there a consensus to re-add this? Does this issue actually warrant its own paragraph and is there evidence of ethnic groups find the term offensive? Thanks for any input. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

A people should not be called a "tribe" unless they are actually a tribe (sub-ethnicity) rather than an ethnic group or a nation, even if references commonly call them tribes, as that label can be offensive when used inaccurately. Examples of true tribes are the Walla Walla tribe of the Sahaptin people, the Bukusu tribe of the Luhya people, and the Naphtali tribe of the ancient Hebrews. In the case of an article on a tribal government with 'tribe' in its name, the word 'tribe' is capitalized, as in Spirit Lake Tribe.

This was uncontroversial when I added it. It's offensive to call an ethnicity a "tribe" for the same reason it's offensive to call a language a "dialect", a king a "chief", or a religion a "sect"—or for that matter, a grown man or woman "boy" or "girl". All these words have legitimate uses, but they have long been used to belittle people as primitive or inferior, to the extent that people may be offended even when they are used correctly (for example, Somali tribes are called "clans", to avoid offense, which means that Somali clans have to be called "sub-clans".)

Also, we have an established convention of capitalizing "Tribe" when it's part of a governmental name. — kwami (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

'Advocate' disambiguation

Tavix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be going around retitling articles of type 'Firstname Secondname (XYZ advocate)' to 'Firstname Secondname (advocate)', giving WP:QUALIFIER as the rationale. The problem is that most of these people seem to be more prominent for the specific XYZ, than for generalised advocacy -- so the new titles aren't particularly helpful. Do these changes comply with this policy and/or current practice? The example given in the policy of Eddy Merckx (billiards player) (rather than the less-helpful 'Eddy Merckx (player)') would seem to suggest otherwise. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these changes are utter nonsense and ought to be swiftly reversed, and a note left with the user explaining why they are wrong.--Kotniski (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions (sportspeople)

Is there a reason why Baseball is linked to in the {{naming conventions}} template, but WP:Naming conventions (sportspeople) is not. AIRcorn (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is and as been for a few days. I think you missed it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh this. I was looking at the template to the right. It should probably go there too. I will add it myself then. AIRcorn (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Should baseball be removed from the template, it will still be linked to from the sportsperson page? AIRcorn (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ideally it should be merged here but I think you would need to get consensus on that page to do it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge consensus discussions take place at the merge-to (target) talk page not merge-from page's talk. See WP:MERGE. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 17:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I realize that, that isn't what I meant. I meant that people who watch that page would have to be notified of the discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Propose to Demerge section "Articles on peoples (ethnicities and tribes)"

This article is about people's names not names of peoples. The section "Articles on peoples (ethnicities and tribes)" is out of place and should have its own article - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). Any objections? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point; it's a short section and this is the logical place to put it. This is a guideline on naming conventions for people. Peoples are people. joe•roe^t•c 22:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Because the lead of the article says "This guideline contains conventions on how to name Wikipedia articles about individual people... Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>, as with Albert Einstein and Margaret Thatcher." This has got nothing to do with whether an article should be called Britons or British people. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Sasa Tuksar

Is this WP:STAGENAME guideline intended to cover International Tennis Federation registration requirements requiring foreign players to remove diacritics, such as the caron on "š"? Is this a Stage Name or is it a spelling/alphabet restriction? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment reverted Fyunck's edit "Saša Tuksar, professionally known as Sasa Tuksar, (born 12 May 1983)" back to normal WP:MOS per Kauffner. Asked for advice on WP:STAGENAME discussion page. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I have written an essay explaining why tennis (ITF) uses only English spelling names: WP:TENNISNAMES. If we do not at least mention the name they used in their activity as a tennis player in the article, then there is potential confusion whether "Saša Tuksar" is the same person as "Sasa Tuksar" which is always found in all tennis draws and results. Article name should at least mention their "player name" to avoid such confusion. But really the article should be at "Sasa Tuksar" because he is not notable for any activities conducted under his "real name". MakeSense64 (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) also applies here. There it is stated that "the name of an article about a sportsperson should be the most commonly used name of the person. That is, it should be the name that is most generally recognizable." With the tennis organizations and English sports media consistently using the non-diacritics name for tennis players that is obviously the "most generally recognizable" name for them. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding a diacritic does not magically make a different name, so WP:COMMONNAME does not apply (or, more accurately, it is met by either spelling as long as the other is a redirect). A minor variation in orthography does not create a "stage name", nor does the result fail to be the "most generally recognizable" name, since adding a diacritic mark does not cause people's brains to melt and fail to recognize the letter "s" or whatever. It's extremely common on Wikipedia to consistently spell properly, with diacritics, names that should have diacritics. This does not have universal support (I recall some anti-diacritics rant page that got WP:MFDed a while back), but it has enough support that trying to force no-diacritics spellings is controversial, and not just in bio articles. This is not actually a WP:NCP or even WP:AT issue at all, but a WP:MOS issue more generally, like other style matters. The article title should be the same as what is used in prose, or that actually will lead to reader confusion. To the extent that naming conventions are applicable here, they already have rules about how to disambiguate, including adding middle names or initials, and so on. Even article naming policy and sub-guidelines don't follow WP:COMMONNAME off a cliff. WP:COMMONSENSE moderates everything on Wikipedia.

My personal take on this is that trying to force incorrect/simplified spellings on tennis players (separately, as if they were their own species), based on the preferences of a professional association for its own internal purposes, is a WP:UNDUE issue, and the argument that people could ever possibly be confused that a world-class tennis player named Saša Tuksar is a different person than the world-class tennis player named Sasa Tuksar, is pure nonsense. Please demonstrate a comparable example of such confusion arising, ever, even once. Forcing no-diacritic spellings also smacks of WP:SOAPBOX, especially given that the proponent for doing so has felt compelled to write an essay about the off-wiki reasons for such orthography, as if personally a reliable source on the matter; this is not what WP essays are for. Translating one's own take on why a sport league prefers one orthographic convention, in its own publications and materials, into Wikipedia page moves and content edits is also possibly a WP:NOR problem. WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied by noting the non-diacritic spelling somewhere in the prose, probably in the lead section. I'm also raising this at the talk page of the anti-diacritics essay linked above. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 17:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There's an RfC on this proposal to require no-diacritics names

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names#RfC: Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English press?. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 18:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 18:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Maiden/Nicknames on disambig pages

We have a clear guideline for naming of biography pages (the common usage name, with preference given for the commonly-cited name). Redirects handle variations, such as nicknames, maiden names (hyphenated or atrophied), initials, legal names, etc.

What do we do on disambiguation pages? Perhaps I'm missing it, but I haven't seen anything. Do we stick to the primary article (unredirected) title only? All versions of the names that have redirects? This could easily result in many links to the article from the disambiguation page, which is awkward on smaller pages, but makes sense when the disambig page already includes many terms... until you get a bunch of variations close together, which causes it to be awkward again.

OTOH, we don't want to make it hard to find common alternatives of the name. A reader landing on a dab page should be able to easily find the name by clicking and scrolling (category/alphabetical) or by search within the page.

Here is what I would like to propose:

• Where the dab page contains few entries, i.e., everything fits within one screen at reasonably low resolutions, and stick to one entry that includes any name variations (see below)
• Where the dab page is long, include each name variation in its appropriate context on teh page (within categories, properly sorted). Where this would cause several items in close proximity for the same entry, use a single entry for those entries, with an unlinked sub-list below, such as in the first example of combined terms below

Acceptable combined terms examples, for use where the above guidelines allow combined terms (none from real DAB pages):

Bullet list (the only useful format where there are many terms combined)

• John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt, fictitious celebrity, also known as:

• "JJ" Schmidt
• John Schmidt
• Jack Schmidt

Maiden name inclusion

• Jane Maiden Married, wife of President John Married and daughter of industrialist John Maiden

Parenthetical, for use of one variation; do not use if it will make the overall entry hard to read; any of the following or similar are acceptable:

• Jane Married (formerly Jane Maiden) do not use terms nee, maiden name, or married name
• Jane Married (also known as Jane Maiden)
• Jane Maiden (also known as Jane Married)
• John F. Kennedy (also known as "Jack" or "JFK"), President of the United States
• John F. Kennedy, President of the United States (also known as "Jack" or "JFK")

Standard nickname format (may also be combined with parenthetical format, but not maiden formats)

• John F. "Jack" Kennedy, President of the United States
• John F. "Jack" Kennedy, President of the United States (also known as JFK)

Note: This discussion is obviously appropriate to both WP:D and WP:NAMEPEOPLE, I flipped a coin, and heads seemed to work better with NAMEPEOPLE.

Thanks for giving this some thought. If I've missed earlier discussions and/or established guidelines, let me know. Dovid (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously to me, it belongs at WP:D, a more active project with only six weeks discussion on the main Talk page. Did you reconsider "tails" during Mar/Apr/May?

I use either comma or parenthesis for lifespans or born dates, unobtrusively following previous usage on the same page. If I am first, I use comma. I prefer chronological order by birth, never alphabetical Jacks before Johns and Bills before Williams, but don't know when we use one combined or two separate pages for Jacks and Johns, etc. --P64 (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguations census?

Is there any report on the numbers of biographies by parenthetical disambiguation such as (writer), (novelist), (author), (author/illustrator), etc? --19:21, 23 June 2012‎ P64

Let me try again after "signing" last fortnight's too-brief inquiry.

WP:QUALIFIER recommends standard, commonly used tags, such as "(musician)" and "(politician)". Is there any way to learn what is standard, what is recommended by many editors, or what is used how commonly? "(writer)" or "(author)"? I had supposed "(writer)" but working recently on many pages about children's book awards --in association with Kate Greenaway Medal, for example-- I have noticed that "(author)" is commonplace, perhaps because the writer of a book with distinct writer and illustrator is commonly called the author by the book and library industry.

(The particular example, writer v. author, pertains also to the lead sentence of a biography or an article about a book. Do we call it a book by "the award-winning British author John Bull" or "the award-winning British writer John Bull"?)

In this context, children's literature, we have:

Anthony Browne (author), Anthony Browne (illustrator)

redirect illustrator->author created, 29 March 2010‎

Michael Foreman (author/illustrator), Michael Foreman (author / illustrator), Michael Foreman (illustrator)

space-slash-space moved to slash, 18 June 2011‎

(illustrator) redirect created by me last fortnight

Bob Graham (author / illustrator), Bob Graham (illustrator)

(illustrator) redirect created by me last fortnight

As for Browne, both author and illustrator (and also writer) are otherwise unused qualifiers for Foreman and Graham. They were created six and five years ago with space-slash-space qualifiers. I suppose that their creators wished to give them credit for work of both kinds; in a field where many people specialize on one side, it seemed that either qualifier alone would slight these generalists.

How should one choose where to move the two slash biographies now?

How should one originally choose, say, author v. writer? --P64 (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

the general WP:Disambiguation page referrs people to go to:User:Jarry1250/Findings, although that cataloging was last updated in 2009, but it is something. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And that gives you absolutely no guidance because "writer" and "author" are for all intents and purposes tied! -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting help regarding disambiguation

Hello, anyone who is familiar with disambiguation issues is encouraged to help give input or guide the discussion at Talk:David_Andrews_(Trio_Capital_chairman)#article disambiguation -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jane Harrison (GC)

A discussion in which at least one contributor has recommended that we should title an article using the individual's full name (although she didn't use it) in order to avoid parenthetical disambiguation. Contributions welcome. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Proposing replacing the first paragraph of name conventions for ethnic groups 19:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Common names and knighthoods

I'm having a problem with a number of Australian political articles, which must also be an issue elsewhere. In many cases, especially in the 20th century, when someone was knighted they would begin using the long version of their given name. For example, Bill Spooner was known after his knighthood as Sir William. My question is whether the article should be at Bill Spooner or William Spooner. Since knighthoods generally come at the end of a career (at least in Australia), they spend the majority of their time of notability as the diminutive. And in a case like this, we have the problem that Spooner was rarely known as William Spooner and never as Sir Bill. I genuinely have no idea on this one so any help would be much appreciated. (Other examples include Sir Kenneth (Ken) Anderson, Sir John (Jack) Cramer, Sir John (Jack) Egerton, Sir Robert (Bob) Cotton, currently at a mix of formal or diminutive names.) Frickeg (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Or, most famously of all - Donald Bradman. StAnselm (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Although often, in the case of very well-known people, the knighted name becomes the name by which they are known to history. Robert Menzies and John McEwen are two other examples, although I think Bradman is a bit of a tossup. But for the rest, it's a conundrum. Frickeg (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We use the name by which they are best known, as you say. The use of full names with knighthoods (when shortened names were used without) tends to be only in formal situations, particularly in the past when newspapers and the like tended to be more formal than they are today. I have written many biographies of knights and with people who aren't terribly well-known to history (and are therefore usually referred to in the few sources available using their full names or only initials) I usually use the name by which they were known to those who were likely to call them by their given names, if that can be established with any certainty. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Other examples are Dick Hamer > Sir Rupert; Jim Killen > Sir James; and Billy McMahon > Sir William. Not a problem with Sir Billy Snedden, because Billy, unbelievably, was his correct given name, although he sometimes tried to have it reduced to Bill. I think most people just sort of assumed he was William, and Billy was a nickname, so he was stuck with that.

Another level of difficulty comes when a particular editor has only ever known a knighted person by the name they had after they were knighted. Bill Spooner, Bob Cotton and Ken Anderson et al are hardly on the lips of Australians constantly, so unless we're looking at very early career material, we're usually going to be coming across references to Sir William, Sir Robert and Sir Kenneth.

I remember being aware of Anderson and Cotton before they were knighted. Anderson became my minister when I worked in the Department of Health in the late 60s and early 70s. I had never heard of him before that, and to me he was always Senator Kenneth Anderson and later Sir Kenneth. That's how his name always appeared in official documents, and how he was referred to on ABC Radio News and on parliamentary broadcasts. I never once heard him referred to as "Ken", but I fully accept that those who dealt with him personally and other insiders called him Ken. But did the general public know him as Ken? I sort of doubt it. Same with Cotton, who to me was always Senator Robert Cotton and later Sir Robert, never Bob. Again, insiders would tell a different story, but are they representative? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We also have to look at how they are being referred to in the literature. I've been doing a fair bit of reading in this area lately and the preference is towards calling them the diminutives (Ken or Bob, etc.), although not overwhelmingly. But it is very rare, in my experience, to see someone mention "Liberal MP James Killen" rather than "Liberal MP Jim Killen" before the individual was knighted. We also have to deal with the fact that the public probably knew a fair few of these people by their initials, especially those in the earlier periods.

Hamer, to my mind, is a no-brainer - he should be at Dick, since that was how he was known when he was Premier and is certainly how much of the literature refers to him. McMahon is trickier since he hung around in public life after being knighted and is often referred to as William. (I wonder if we have Sir Joh to thank for this difficulty becoming obsolete.) The whole thing makes me wonder whether we should be including knighthoods in article titles, but I suspect that's a bigger battle than this discussion will cover. Frickeg (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:INITS

Is there ever a reliable source for distinguishing J.S. Bach from J. S. Bach? See WP:INITS. What do reliable sources and style guides say about spacing. Is there ever a conscious meaning in the choice of a non-spaced inital (I cite Bach because Johann Sebastian is a double-barreled given name, like Jean-Baptiste in French. I suspect sometimes this may be a factor, rather than just carelessness and the lack of consistency in sources). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the same question or not (feel free to move it to a new section or ask me to) but regarding the article that arose your question, I'm specifically referring to initials that are combined to make someone's first name. For example, someone named "Firstname Lastname, Jr." going by "F.J." for "Firstname Jr." or any other reason that would make the initials a common first name, rather than solely the shortening of a first and middle initial, such as in the J. S. Bach example. Thanks for your help in clarifying! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Popes and patriarchs

... are covered by WP:NCCL, which says that the titles of articles on them usually start with "Pope" or "Patriarch". This contrasts with the general guidance on the use of titles, styles, honorifics etc. in WP:NCP#Titles and styles (in general not used) and the more specific one on titles of sovereigns and nobility in WP:NCROY (in general also not used). There is a proposal to change this at WT:Naming conventions (clergy)#Pope as part of the name. I think it could do with a little more activity. Hans Adler 21:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

2nd order disambiguation by birth date - RFC

I don't know how actively watched this talk page is but be advised that I have started an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#2nd order disambiguation by birth date - RFC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

NC-COMICS characters

FYI, see WT:Naming conventions (comics) where a discussion on the conventions of naming of comics characters articles is going on -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate

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.

---

RFC bot (talk · contribs) has closed the discussion procedurally because it is an WP:RFC that was open for over 30 days. Comments are still welcome, however.

Note: Previous closure by nominator reverted. I have asked an admin to close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure Ego White Tray (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There are many situations where disambiguation is quite difficult because people who are known by the same name are also notable for the same subject. Oftentimes, a second order method of disambiguation is date of birth. However, there is quite a bit of variety in the method by which birth dates are used as second order disambiguation. The most common types of disambiguation using birth date are the following:

1. Name (subject born YYYY)
2. Name (subject, born YYYY)
3. Name (subject b. YYYY)
4. Name (subject, b. YYYY)
5. Name (YYYY–YYYY)

At disambiguation pages for most common first name-common last name combinations, examples exist. All of the varieties above are among the following samples of common names:

Michael Green: Mike Green (footballer born 1946), Mike Green (footballer born 1989), Michael Green (cricketer), Michael Green (cricketer, born 1951), Mike Green (basketball), Michael Green (basketball, born 1985), Mike Green (ice hockey b. 1979), Mike Green (ice hockey b. 1985)

Robert Williams: Robert Williams (1767–1847), Robert Williams (1811–1890), Robbie Williams (footballer born 1979), Robbie Williams (footballer born 1984), Bobby Williams (footballer born 1932), Bobby Williams (footballer born 1940)

John Smith: John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1826), John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1831), John Smith (Medal of Honor, 1880), John Smith (cricketer, born 1833), John Smith (cricketer, born 1834), John Smith (cricketer, born 1835), John Smith (cricketer, born 1924), John Smith (footballer born 1855), John Smith (footballer born 1866), John Smith (footballer born 1921), John Smith (footballer born 1927), John Smith (1930s footballer), John Smith (footballer)

David Jones: Dave Jones (footballer born 1932), Dave Jones (footballer born 1956), David Jones (footballer born 1914), David Jones (footballer born 1940), David Jones (footballer born 1955), David Jones (footballer born 1964), David Jones (footballer born 1984), David Jones (cricketer, born 1914), David Jones (cricketer)

Tom Smith: Tom Smith (cricketer born 1985), Tom Smith (cricketer born 1987), Tom Smith (footballer born 1876), Tom Smith (footballer born 1877), Tom Smith (footballer born 1900), Tom Smith (footballer born 1909), Tom Smith (footballer born 1973), Tom Smith (rugby union player born 1893), Tom Smith (rugby union player born 1971), Tom Smith (rugby union player born 1985)

It was suggested that I open an RFC discussion on this topic. My question is whether in instances where birth date is chosen as a second order method of disambiguation, do we want to have a common policy on how to format that method. This is not in any way intended to prescribe when to disambiguate by birth date. It is an attempt to consider whether we want uniformity when that method is used.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The following talk pages have been notified of this RFC WP:VPP, WP:TITLE, WP:WPDIS, WP:WPBIO and WP:DAB. In addition, I have added a notice at Template:Centralized discussion. I have notified WP:POST, but there has been no discussion report since this discussion began.

Discussion

Below state whether you Support or Oppose having birth date format conformity when it is used to disambiguate article names. NOTE: This discussion will not consider when dates should be used to disambiguate or what format is preferred. It is to determine whether to pursue uniformity.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral - my comment was only an off the cuff suggestion, as I didn't see it as something to be settled at the Talk of an ice-hockey player, but all the same wish you luck. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Much better than middle name, at least if middle name is not part of the WP:COMMONNAME. It's far more likely that people have a hunch of when the searched-for subject was born (or lived), than they know the middle name. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning oppose. I think uniformity would be a good thing but I also suspect that it would be quite costly to impose. If we were already close to uniformity, it would be easy to argue that the few outsiders should be brought into the fold. But if we force uniformity in the current situation, tons of pages will have to be moved and each of these moves will mean potentially frustrated users that don't understand why their preferred format wasn't chosen. Pichpich (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC

Personally I find it frustrating not to know the prefered method of disambiguation. There was a time when Name (football player) was as common as Name (American football). Now, that the project has decided to pursue conformity it is easier to name articles as a page creator and to guess article names for seeking articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose We should not have a rule which is both exact and universal. One reason is that this would be be rules creep. Another is that there may be different conventions for different occupations and periods; for example, see floruit. Warden (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If we decide to impose uniformity (which I don't really support), I don't think it would be entirely fair to call it rule creep. It would never be prescriptive and it would be like all the MoS guidelines: presentation and formatting conventions that make the encyclopedia more predictable in form and thus easier to use for readers. Pichpich (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support I forgot to voice myself as the nominator. I support uniformity. As per Pichpich (talk · contribs), I agree that CREEP is not relevant if we are not telling people when to use birthdates and only clarifying how to format their use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• I prefer "John Smith (artist born in 1906)". --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not a debate about when or how to employ uniformity, but whether we want to pursue it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. It should certainly be "born" rather than "b.", as we generally don't use abbreviations if we can avoid it, and I prefer there to be a comma between the occupation and the DOB. We should generally avoid dates as disambiguators if at all possible, of course. Robert Williams (1767–1847) is utterly useless as a disambiguator, for instance, as it only tells us who he is if we know his dates. There needs to be something else in there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not a debate about when or how to employ uniformity, but whether we want to pursue it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm fully aware what the debate is about. I have no strong views on that, which is why you may have noticed I began my comment "comment" and not "support" or "oppose"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support for soft convention - I mean that there should be a convention that encourages the format, but it shouldn't be imposed strictly, and it should allow exceptions which always happen. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning oppose for pretty much exactly the same reason that PichPich mentions. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support uniformity. As with anything, this does not preclude reasonable exceptions. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support — I perceive an encyclopedia to have more value when there are not haphazard patterns of usage. If there are historical or other reasons for using different formats in different topics, I'd be interested in seeing those examples. This guideline would decrease confusion for new article creators and make lists more consistent. SchreiberBike (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support, providing guidance on this would be quite useful. Kaldari (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. An instruction such as this will encourage the use of double disambiguation, which should be avoided if at all possible. There are many ways to avoid monstrosities such as those listed in the proposal. For example, you could disambiguate by team name. The ideal should be minimal and concise disambiguation, not uniform disambiguation. The title should be the actual name of the subject, or be as close to it as possible. Kauffner (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The purpose of disambiguation is simply and purely to distinguish one article from another. Uniformity of style and format is not required. To give an example: Let's assume that there are three hockey players named "Joe Blow". Since all three could be given the title Joe Blow (Hockey player), we need to disambiguate further in some other way. So let's assume the following titles are chosen:

1. Joe Blow (Hockey player, born 1925)
2. Joe Blow (Hockey player b. 1983)
3. Joe Blow (Hockey player born in 1872)

Is this enough for a reader to tell the three players apart and find the one he/she is looking for? Yes. Therefor, all three are acceptable forms of disambiguation.

That said... I think there are half a dozen ways to further disambiguate Joe Blow (Hockey player) that would be much better than the year of birth... what team they played for: ( Joe Blow (Rangers hockey player) vs. Joe Blow (Bruins hockey player) )... or perhaps what era they played in: ( Joe Blow (1920s era Hockey player) vs. Joe Blow (2000s era Hockey player) ). Year of birth is particularly unhelpful, since few readers are likely to know when a particular hockey player was born. Year of birth should be a last resort, when all other options fail. Blueboar (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Going by team name is difficult since many players have appeared with multiple teams. We shouldn't be getting into value judgements about which team they are most notable for. I also don't like "1920s era hockey player" because it is even more ungainly than "ice hockey b. 1899" and can be decidedly inaccurate. What do you do for a player who played between 1928 and 1932? Most readers will come to such an article ether though an inline link, or through the disambiguation page. We would be better off putting things like the era they played in in the disambiguation page. Resolute 21:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

All of Blueboars suggested alternatives to date of birth are WP:POV. Saying which team a player is most closely associated with or most notable for playing for is POV as is saying which decade his play is most notable for. His date of birth is not POV. An opposition based on a preference for POV disambiguation seems a bit questionable if not ludicrous. I think I am rephrasing Resolute's argument by pointing to a specific policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

My point was simply to illustrate there are lots other ways one might disambiguate, rather than by date of birth. I was not trying to push any particular system. Obviously, if a hockey player has played for multiple teams, disambiguating by "team" will be problematic... we would pick something else. All I was trying to say was that disambiguating by year of birth isn't very helpful for the average reader (a helpful dab will use some fact about the subject that the average reader is likely to already know... so that when confronted by a list of links, the reader will be able to easily identify which link to click on to reach the article he/she was looking for. It is unlikely that the average reader will know when the subject of an article was born, so that is not a particularly helpful way to disambiguate. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

When I say POV, I don't mean that you are pushing a particular system, I am saying that the system you are suggesting requires POV choice. The last thing we need is a system that results in page move edit warring.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral. I am partially inclined to support because standardization is good, but I tend to lean oppose, because I don't think standardization across all Wikipedia is necessary or a productive use of time. I think it is good to standardize dabs for articles within individual projects (insofar as they don't conflict with other related projects), but if all of the hockey project uses (ice hockey b. 19xx) and all of the football project uses (footballer born 19xx), then that is sufficient. Resolute 21:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Standardization happens naturally, more regulation is bad. Things will sort themselves out on their own without another layer Manual Of Style rules, as always. Carrite (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Carrite: quite the opposite, here and everywhere in the universe--standardization always takes work. Chaos is what happens naturally. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

There are two laws here. The second law of thermodynamics and the desire for uniformity. One leads to chaos, the other to order. Over time what we do find is that when naming files, people tend to choose similar titles to what have already been used. I do not see any need to add additional rules. Apteva (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose We should have some degree of uniformity, but it is difficulty to state a general rule that would apply. (Librarians normally use date if known, but the problems are different. If the people are in radically different fields, I'd go by field, if similar fields but very different years, by year. The problem is when both the filed and year are at the same degree of difference, as seen from the perspective of the reader: for that we need a rule: everything equal choose [ ] and it doesn't matter which. and any time trying to argue why one is inherently better is wasted. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • We always use field or as I called it subject first and date second. This discussion is only about situations where the field, as you call it, is the same and birth date must be used as a secondary differentiator (see above).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. If people feel the need for standardization, the obvious solution is to use the birth year alone as a disambiguator. I never saw anyone off Wikipedia using double disambiguation. I see it as a step toward the creation of a Wikipedia-ese dialect. Kauffner (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Date is far less informative and less likely to be known by the reader than field. Staying with field (or subject as I call it above) as the primary is better for the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • A title is not supposed to be "informative," except in the sense that it provides the name of the subject. Further information is available in the text of the article. Kauffner (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
      • A title is suppose to represent what is in the reader's mind when he is in pursuit of information on that subject. If you wanted to research Adam Smith, I would say the economist or someone else. If you said an economist, but not that Adam Smith, I would say oh a more modern economist. Hence, first disambiguation would be by field and then by dob.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
        • The purpose of a title is to tell the reader the name of the subject. A reader should be able to look up at the title and say, "Yup, this is the right page," not "What is that parenthetical doing in the title, and what's that year all about?" What your talking about is search engine optimization. We aren't SEO experts, and I would be most surprised if it turned out that that disambiguation helped anyone find an article. Disambiguation is so that the MediaWiki software can distinguish one article from another. If you think two disambiguators are informative, what about three disambiguators? Even more informative, I suppose. Kauffner (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no... The purpose of an article title is NOT to tell the reader the name of the subject. The purpose is simply to distinguish one article from other articles, and to identify what the article is about. Not every title is a name (For example... the title History of slavery is not the "name" of the subject... if anything it's a description of the subject.) That said, when an article is about a person, using that person's name as a title is the most logical way to distinguish the article and identify what the article is about... but even then, we don't have to use the subject's name if consensus agrees that something else would be better. While Name and Title are often the same... The article Title, and the Subject's Name are two distinct concepts. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Kauffner: disambiguation is not solely there for the purpose of the software. If that were the case, it would be completely trivial to hide the disambiguator for readers. We choose to show the disambiguator to help readers find what they're looking for and to help editors in linking to the correct page. And the "why not three disambiguators" slippering slope argument has no place in a rational discussion where nobody has advocated in favor of gratuitous disambiguation. Pichpich (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly showing the disambiguator helps editors. I don't see how in any respect it helps readers find what they're looking for. john k (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This seems quite sensible and logical and the most rational way to proceed forward from here on out in the future from now on. — Cirt (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral but with a preference that we state somewhere, if not already stated, that abbreviations (I'm thinking of "b.") should not be used in disambiguators. Note also that in some cases we know the deaths, not the births, of ambiguous people - I think there are some early British MPs listed as "(Member of Parliament, died xxxx)" - probably particularly likely when son succeeded father and shared name and role. PamD 23:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• As to standardizing, I'm neutral, though I'd prefer the titles not use abbreviations like "b.". But in general, I'd prefer to see stronger guidance that such disambiguation by year of birth or death should be avoided and only used as a last resort. older ≠ wiser 14:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I second that. It's generally a particularly unhelpful form of disambiguation and shouldn't be used unless there really is no alternative. General job title (or similar) should be the first choice, followed by nationality (always combined with the former, never on its own - John Smith (New Zealand) is utterly pointless, as well as being inaccurate, since John Smith clearly isn't a New Zealand), then more detailed job title. Only if all those permutations have been exhausted and the individual really has been particularly unhelpful by taking up a completely identical job to a compatriate with the same name should we be resorting to dates. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support, although only if we can't use middle names, whether because they're identical, or we don't know them, or the people don't have middle names. Always best to put as little into parentheses if possible — middle names aren't the most WP:COMMON, but they're actually part of the name, while things like (hockey player) definitely aren't WP:COMMON. That being said, if we have to use parenthetical disambiguation [no problem with using something like (New Zealand), because the person's associated with New Zealand; nobody's going to assume that (xxxxx) means that the person is an xxxxx] and have no choice but to use the dates too, I'd strongly support having a standard format. WP:CREEP is more of a way of following WP:BURO than this; it's not going to hurt anyone to have a few pages moved around to follow this convention. Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No, middle names should never be used as a disambiguator unless they're actually used to refer to the individual. Doing otherwise makes a nonsense of WP:COMMONNAME - standards shouldn't be used selectively. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Obviously. It really doesn't matter at all how we format this, so we should always do it in the same way. This is by the same principle that creates phenomena such as orthography, and it has much the same motivations and benefits. Rules of orthography are not rules creep. Detailed rules for what to do when several orthographic systems clash unnecessarily are rules creep. Hans Adler 21:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Uniformity would best prevent any confusion between pages. There's no need to enforce this strictly, but we should attempt to preserve it wherever we can. Ducknish (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I see no reason not to have a preferred format. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Of the many possibilities, I favour Name Surname (YYYY-YYYY, occupation best known for), for example George Washington (1732–1799, US President). I think that these titles should feed an index system, and that about 50 characters is a nice title length. The number of possible biographies is very large, and this degree of precision is both needed in many cases and useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

However, this is in principle and I don't support immediate or sudden changing of any existing articles. I think the preferred format should be especially preferred for new biographies on long dead people. Most yet-to-be-written historical biographies will be obscure to most readers, with well-known historical figures already having articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. (and while this is not a debate about which format, in case I miss that, "born" not "b.", and I agree date is better than middle initial)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I assume we are talking about the article's titles, not what is put on the disambiguation page to describe each title. Titles should be logical and succinct, but one cannot expect a user to arrive at the correct article intuitively or by following any rote rule. Who in their right mind will type in Joe Blow (footballer, born 19XX)??? They'll search either Joe Blow or Joe Blow football and end up on the dab page. Moreover many people won't (a) know someone's birth year or (b) know that a particular title's disambiguation must go that far. Given that the titles themselves need not be immediately addressable by the searcher, there is no reason for them to either be uniform or non-uniform. There will be natural variation. I think a requested convention may be appropriate, but common sense must prevail - a player intimately affiliated with a particular team I would expect would be with such title rather than a birth year. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support. Consistency and predictability of article titles is good for several reasons most outlined in the initial proposal. Of course there is no barrier to redirects from other formats (and they should absolutely exist where a page has been moved) if one standard is chosen. Of the other suggestions mooted above, team names only work for athletes from team sports so wouldn't be at all useful for e.g. golfers, sculptors or astronauts, and non-athletes often have much longer periods of activity than can be summed up in a single decade (what era are Madonna, Richard Harris or Warren Buffet for example?). Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support if uniformity around birth dates is done only after field/profession is conflicted. Mkdw^talk 13:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose (mostly) If only a birthdate is included I would suggest we standardise on "born" not "b.", as more comprehensible. But disambiguation should be more flexible. There may be a case to agree a format for articles on a specific sort of person, as to whether we include subject, team, nationality, birth date, death date, regnal dates, or some other time range (e.g. century), but the best disambiguation for a modern football player is not necessarily going to be the best for an ancient or medieval figure. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • What are you opposing. First, Your rationale says you think this is a discussion about a case when only birth date is used. It is not. It is about when birthdate is used (possibly along with other things like subject). It is not about when only birthdate is used. Second, your rationale suggests you believe this is about using b. or born. This is not a debate about how to standardize (i.e., born vs. b.). It is about whether we should standardize to an as yet undetermined convention. If we end up supporting standardization the undetermined method (not for discussion now) could be name (subject, born YYYY). I.e., we could end up with John Smith (medieval knight, born c. 1200) and John Smith (footballer, born 1950). We are not discussing whether it will be born or b. yet though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• I would tend to oppose this. I understand the point that using different formats does not look quite as neat, and sort of makes us look like amateurs. On the other hand, we are amateurs, there's no material cost to the reader in having different formats, and every time you impose a rule on editors you annoy some of them, which should not be done unnecessarily. Herostratus (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - We could easily add this as one of the sections under existing guidelines. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - if we had only 2 normal formats, we could easily redirect from one tothe other. But when we have 5, hat would mean that for each page, we would need 4 redirects (to make sure that these pages can be found easily) - and that is too much. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • We do not create redirects because of naming standards, but because someone might type it in that way. No number of alternate formats, high or low, will change in any way the number of redirects that are created. Apteva (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Article titles should not have such a variety of formats, and a consistent style is preferred. Reywas92^Talk 19:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• I am counting 17 support, 7 oppose, 3 neutral, and 2 neutral leaning oppose. I propose that this RFC remain open until one week after the first WP:POST discussion report rather than the default 30 days since there has been no discussion report in signpost since the discussion began.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support with the caveats that several have mentioned: A) that we only require this where disambiguation is necessary (if we only have one Joe Blow (foosballer) then we don't need to stick in the date of birth) and B) that we don't require this if there is a shorter or more commonly used way to disambiguate (Joe "My Nickname Here" Blow, for example). But for cases where both occupation and date of birth are strictly necessary, we should certainly have one specific format we put them in. No opinion on which that should be yet. --GRuban (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• As for Blueboar's and Herostratus's objection that uniformity isn't required ... I am afraid it is, because otherwise we could well end up with three distinct articles about the same person, titled

• Joe Blow (Hockey player, born 1925)
• Joe Blow (Hockey player b. 1925)
• Joe Blow (Hockey player born in 1925)

Avoiding that is worth adding an extra rule. --GRuban (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Except that the editor about to create Joe Blow (Hockey player born in 1925) would have looked at the Joe Blow (disambiguation) page and spotted which form was already in use, surely? PamD 14:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Better to do it now and cause a little disruption, then do it it later and find it isn't worth the effort because it would involve too much work. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support uniformity with a preference for "([occupation] born [YEAR])" as the disambiguator. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2013 (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.