Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Common name, birth name and post-nominal initials

I noticed an editor making a excellent job of cleaning up bios to conform with the MOS. In one case Mark Evaloarjuk, I notice that the style guide does not give any information as to the correct format. Is the current oepning correct, with the exception that "nee" should be "ne", or should it be '''Mark Evaloarjuk''' (né '''Evaluarjuk'''), [[Order of Canada|CM]] (died [[July 3]], [[2002]] By the way would it be possible to rewrite Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Maiden names so that it applied to both women and men?

Infoboxes

I've been cleaning up a lot of biography pages lately, and I've noticed that very few have infoboxes. Is there any sort of consensus as to when Template:Infobox person should and shouldn't be used? --Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 18:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There is not yet a consensus whether infoboxes should ever be used. Many of us don't like them, particularly not the long infoboxes that tend to completely unbalance the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I generally like to use infoboxes for a concise look at important facts. If done well, they also add some visual interest to the page. To help avoid the over-long variety filled with irrelevant information, try selecting from the more specific templates on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes. You may still, however, need to add or delete fields to yield the best infobox for a given article. WCCasey (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a reasonable compromise is to balance the infobox with the article. That is, a long prose body might merit a box with a dozen entries, while on shorter articles the box typically has a quick summary of why the person is notable. I also put birth and death dates there (and prefer to just put the vital years in the lead, although many oppose that too, sigh). Another way to keep the boxes clean and balanced is the rule that every bit of info in the box is included in the body prose with a citation there in the body. The box serves as a summary and thus does not need citation clutter, nor every little detail. That is what article bodies are for. I wish we made these guidelines explicit, but they seem contentious. W Nowicki (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm one of those who most definitely opposes not putting the full dates in the lead. The infobox should only ever be a supplement to the article, not replace it. There should be no info in the infobox that's not in the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like we agree on your second point - any chance we could make this explicit in the style guide? Without being too weasly, how about "Any information included in the lead or an infobox should be mentioned in the body of the article in prose. Citations for the details should be given in the body." My problem is I see more and more unsourced details going into leads and bodies. Editors might think they can get away with this since citations there look ugly. Hard to follow the negatives in your first sentence. My proposed compromise was to not force full dates to be omitted in the lead, but allow them to be in the body and infobox only, which seems more in line with the other guidelines they say only include when related to notability. W Nowicki (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I think the full dates should be in the lead. They're a vital piece of info. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nicknames in lead

I hate seeing nicknames in the lead. Unless that's how the person is referred to the vast majority of the time, it shouldn't be a lead IMO. It seems to be a problem mostly for sport figures. Is there a style guideline I can cite when removing these, or do I just to go with the standard sort of subjective "not sourced well enough" or something gray area-ish like "not commonly referred to this nickname"? Here's an example: Mike Epstein. In this case, the nickname is weakly sourced in one of the external links. I know I can remove it based on sourcing, but am curious if there's something else I can use as justification. Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to ask at the Helpdesk. It's worth noting that in the article you cite, the nickname is very well sourced.Exok (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply- my inquiry can go right next to "My own article got deleted", "Forgot to sign in can I remove my IP address to my user account?", and "wikipedia and facebook". Also, in the article I gave as an example, I see what you mean about it being referenced (thanks), but I still think it reflects poorly on this project to have silly nicknames in the lead. I'm sure posting at the help desk will help address my concern. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is entirely appropriate to discuss on this page. I don't entirely hate seeing nicknames in the lede, but they should only be included if the name is often used without an explanation of who it refers to. Can we also stop the inclusion of nicknames or shortened versions of first names in quotes in the middle of a subject's full name? Where the familiar name is a standard shortened version, eg someone called Michael who is known as Mike, the page will normally be located at the familiar name version and it will not be necessary at all to make explicit reference to the fact that their first name is shortened when giving their full name. In giving a full name, the full name should flow uninterruptedly from beginning to end, and any nicknames or alternate names should be given separately. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sam, thank you for understanding and providing feedback on my inquiry. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll second Sam's dislike of the increasingly common practice of adding nicknames or shortenings in quotes in the middle of the name. Horrible. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This does indeed seem the place for such style discussions. Generally sounds like the "use encyclopedic language" guide applies, which means nicknames only when used in cited sources, and use the last name after the first use. Worse yet are titles like William Wilson "Buffalo Bill" Quinn which does not seem encyclopedic. Military leaders often are given colorful names by their troops, which could be mentioned in the body with sources, but really, in the title? Although Buffalo Bill seems clearly known by the name. And embolden only if a search for that name in the title goes to that article. W Nowicki (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

W Nowicki - I agree with your concerns about nicknames in titles, but I was hoping to limit this to the name in the lead.

I think it'll be great if we can come up with something for the MOS stating that "firstname_"nickname"_lastname" should not be used, and also "firstname lastname, nicknamed ____" should not be used either. If an editor feels that the existence of a subject's nickname is important for the lead and/or anywhere else in the article, fine, go ahead and add something like "__ __ received the nickname ____, reflecting blah blah blah qualities..." as a separate sentence with sources, but just get it out of very the beginning of the article, as it's basically trivia that generally has nothing to do with their notability. I don't know if you can say there are exceptions.. take someone like Snoop Dogg. Of course that's not his real name, but it's not a nickname either - it's a stage name.

I never initiated a change to a MOS element, so I don't know if this needs to go through a formal consensus gathering process, but I'll be glad to help pursue it. Thanks again to those who have provided valuable feedback --CutOffTies (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The real problem arises with examples like Spike Milligan. Our lede starts 'Terence Alan Patrick Seán "Spike" Milligan KBE (16 April 1918 – 27 February 2002) was a comedian, writer, musician, poet, playwright, soldier and actor..." Ugly, cluttered and confusing. Everyone knew him as Spike (except possibly his family - I've no idea), and if anyone ever referred to him as 'Terence Alan Patrick Seán "Spike" Milligan KBE' to his face, I'd be very much surprised. (And given that he was an Irish citizen, the KBE is questionable in his name in any case, I think?). So 'Spike Milligan, formally Terence Alan Patrick Seán Milligan (16 April 1918 – 27 February 2002) was a comedian, writer, musician, poet, playwright, soldier and actor..." A little less stuffiness and overblown formality would seem entirely reasonable - I doubt that people go to Spike's bio to find out his full name, and even if they do, it needn't be dumped on their lap in a big ugly heap, along with his nickname (which they presumably know already, given that this is in the article title), his (honourary) knighthood, and his dates of birth and death, along with everything else that happened to him ('Soldier'? Well, yes. And a very entertaining one with hindsight - and, despite his self-effacing memoirs, probably a good one - but not exactly what made him notable). This desire to compress all the essentials of a person into the first sentence of a bio lede make for poor style, and make everything that follows look rather disconnected. Style (as in MOS) isn't a set of rules to be blindly followed - so if Spike was known as Spike, we need to acknowledge that properly, not hide it in a jumble of other details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Child named for parent or predecessor

This section needs clarification. No comma before the Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral prefix, such as "Sammy Davis Jr.," but Sammy Davis, Jr. has a comma before Jr. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

We currently have the phrase "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national". In the case of the United Kingdom it has been the long standing norm to use Welsh/English/Scottish/Irish if that is a part of the person's identity, or self-identification, otherwise "British" is used. This has applied for a long time to actors, politicians, sportsmen and women etc. etc. In sports the constituent countries of the UK compete in their own right in many tournaments (Football, Rugby, Commonwealth games etc.). The qualification "most" allows for this, but we have some cases of where people are interpreting "most" as "all" so I thought I would raise it here for clarification. --Snowded ^TALK 09:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think this should be clarified with an explicit mention of the UK situation.--Kotniski (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be changed, to go along with the sovereign state, in this case British for all. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Any arguments for that GoodDay, or are you opining as usual? --Snowded ^TALK 19:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we go with Canadian, American, Russian, Australian, etc etc; so let's go with British. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

None of those have constituent countries, or people who identify their nationality based on a country within the sovereign state. Also GoodDay, you really have no excuse given your "participation" in these matters not to be aware of that --Snowded ^TALK 20:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

According to you, the UK doesn't have constituent countries either, or have you changed your interpretation. Anways, I'm sticking with British usage, in these matters. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And we will call you a North American. Mo ainm~Talk 21:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Irreleveant here, as I've not called for European. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Far from it you are pushing a designation on people who don't want it. And for some who are very much opposed to it. Mo ainm~Talk 21:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeking popularity. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a difficult issue - without entering into the minefield of how to describe people from the six counties of Ireland at present within the United Kingdom, there are many editors who feel strongly on both sides. The present wording is, though it doesn't intend to be, ambiguous: Scotland, England and Wales are separate countries but they are not nations. Some, but only a few, subjects have made clear their own preference. My own view is that editors who think that we should always refer to English/Scottish/Welsh and only to British if the subject has said so, have probably gone too far. I would prefer to have British as the default, because most people have at least one ancestor from a different part of Britain, but to default to Welsh/Scottish/English if the subject is a sportsman or has identified with their home country rather than as British. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't agree with the use of British as default for anyone from Eng/Sco/Wal/NI, as it will lead to more edit wars this is why I think we should move away from eg "Joe Bloggs (birthdate) is an English (occupation)" To Joe Bloggs (birthdate) is an (occupation) from England, it is factual and neutral. Mo ainm~Talk 19:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sam has summarised what I for one think is the current default position (although they are nations as well as countries in many uses so I disagree with him there). So some people clearly identify as Welsh/Scottish etc. Others play for the Welsh or Scottish or English team at say Rugby. These are clear cases. Where there is no direct affiliation or preference we go with the press and citations - for Lloyd George for example we have Churchill as an authority for him being Welsh rather than British. "From England" is not really appropriate as many people in the UK are born in one of the constituent countries, but identify with another. Editors should remember than hundreds of articles are affected here.--Snowded ^TALK 20:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Change from to born. Mo ainm~Talk 20:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer "British" myself for all (although personally I tend to identify myself as "English") as that is our official nationality, but given that many would object I think the status quo should be kept. The constructions "from England" or "born in England" are contrived given that we describe ourselves as "English" or "British". -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The MOS in question was changed on 26 October 2010 (without discussion), from In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable TO In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen and/or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable. It seems the edit was to make a point about South Korean nationality law (see here), but had unintended consequences. Any objections to reverting?
I agree with Snowded that we should go with whatever the sources say e.g. English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, British, unless the subject is reliably sourced to self-identify differently to mainstream sources, in which case the self-identification should be preferred. Daicaregos (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to revert that change, but perhaps a specific note about British v. English/Welsh/Scottish would be helpful. It seems that affiliation to a constituent country within a nation is not really an issue anywhere else in the world, though possibly it was when the USSR was still around, as for example the famous 1966 World Cup final's 'Russian linesman' who was from Azerbaijan. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted that change. If it turns out to be controversial it can be re-instated. Daicaregos (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Even reverting that change, the guideline still states to go with where they are citizen/national of. For the UK there is only one option and thats British. The regional/ethnic nationalities that are Welsh, English, Scottish, and Irish/Northern Irish don't equate to citizenship in any form. In fact does point 3.2 not say we shouldn't state ethnicity unless is relevant to subjects notability? That alone is highly questionable for many articles, whereas its not for others.

In response to Snowded: None of those have constituent countries, or people who identify their nationality based on a country within the sovereign state. The term "constituent country" implies a far great degree of self-determination than actually exists and has no legal status and is a simple play on words. Instead those countries (Canada, Russia, USA, Australia) have states that have FAR more legislative independance and are more like countries than the so called countries of the UK - in the case of within the US, they refer to themselves as Texans or Californians not Americans, just as within the UK people refer to themselves as Scottish or Welsh. Internationally those same Texans and Californians would identify as American as that's their citizenship/nationality. Are English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish used by these people in an international context or inter-UK context?

Also ethnic wise, how many times do you read/hear of Americans identifying themselves as Irish-American or Italian-American etc? What about the various different ethnic populations in Russia who may not refer to themselves as Russian? Yet we still call them all American, Russian, etc. We don't use their ethnic nationality, we use their citizenship as that is what nationality refers to first and foremost in the world.

Having said that i have stated before i can back the use of ethnic nationalities in the lede as long as use the correct nationality (British) in the infobox which as far as i'm aware means citizenship, because no matter how you personally identify, you can't overrule your own citizenship without changing it.

Surely that would be the most NPOV stance on the matter - allow for their self-identification (of ethnic nationality) in the lede where they self-identify as that but state their actual nationality (citizenship) in the infobox. That way we don't cater to a nationalist agenda by keeping "British" out of the article, whilst getting out the fact the person identifies as one whilst stating what citizenship they hold. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And how do we determine what citizenship someone holds, without doing original research? --Kotniski (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's just go by the sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't conform to either a nationalist or an anti-nationalist/Unionist agenda. Per common use a large number of people identify as having Welsh or Sottish or English nationality,. They also compete in sports of those nations. The long standing practice is that we use British unless the person self-identifies as being Welsh/Scottish/Irish/English and or the article context (as in say Rugby where the UK never competes as a nation) makes the nationality clear. This does not exclude "British" it follows common practice. --Snowded ^TALK 11:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) states that the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears". That suggests to me that the infobox content should summarise whatever is decided, in each particular case, about article content. So, if self-identification is accepted for the article, it should equally be accepted for the infobox; there should be no opportunity for confusion between the two. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Common sense = common practice is the way to go for any manual of style. There are so many national galleries etc, and national sporting teams that represent Scotland, Wales etc that to say that Scottish can not be a nationality is preposterous. If a rugby player is famous for playing for his national team then it is blidingly obvious that that is his nationality, unless he has verifiably been quoted as saying he feels his nationality to be British. If a player plays for England for instance, English should be used as his nationality in the infobox. Let us not kid ourselves on that British can be the only nationality within Britain. The only citizenship, sure, but certainly not the only nationality. I'm surprised that anyone would think otherwise. Carson101 (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Carson101 nobodies denying that Scottish etc. aren't nationalities and that the UK is of one nationality. The issue is what definition of nationality the infobox is referring to seeing as it has two meanings depending on how you interpret it. Ghmyrtle has provided the best reasoning for the infobox yet. Though not all infobox information is actually in the article text.

I still have seen no evidence of a universal agreement on a consensus in regards to this issue despite asking Snowded many times for it. Now they label it "common practice", which seems like a change of direction. Would it not be best to actually draw up a guideline backed by editors to stick into a manual of style so that other editors can come across and find it or be notified of it? Daiceragos likes to provide WP:UKNATIONALS as evidence however it's an essay and a failed attempt at a guideline and shouldn't be used as if it was policy. So how about actually codifying this "established", "common practice" to prevent any future bother? Mabuska ^(talk) 16:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to draw up a guideline, preferably in favour of the usage of British. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume Mabuska is referring to me when s/he says "Daiceragos likes to provide WP:UKNATIONALS ... [sic]". Can I ask: what is there in WP:UKNATIONALS that you disagree with? Perhaps we could use that as a base and improve it. Daicaregos (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a complex issue and I agree with Daicaregos that we should look at WP:UKNATIONALS and look at improving it and using that as the guide in future. Bjmullan (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Daiceragos you provide WP:UKNATIONALS in discussions on a troublesome matter as if it is a guideline that should be adhered to. It's an essay, a failed attempt at a guideline as i was informed by another editor. If it had any chance of becoming a guideline it would of become one rather than remaining an essay as it couldn't be agreed on. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a terrible person. There may be no hope for me.
I'll try again ... Can I ask: what is there in WP:UKNATIONALS that you disagree with? Daicaregos (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

UKNAT is irrelevant & should be treated as such. GoodDay (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Country of birth, for historic bios

The MoS does not seem to cover how to describe places of birth and death for historic people. An editor has been doing a number of changes, mainly to infoboxes, so that, for example Raphael was born in the Duchy of Urbino and died in the Papal States, rather than just Italy. While the historic entities should usually be mentioned in the text ("then in the ...." etc), modern political entities should imo be used in the first sentence and infoboxes. Such edits are also often made from nationalist/regionalist motives, though I think not here. Unless there is disagreement I will add something along these lines in a few days. It is different for figures from the ancient world I think. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's that simple - while "Italy" might be a general term that can be used for that part of the world in all periods of history (though still I'm not sure it's the best solution for an infobox), in many cases giving the modern political entity would be highly misleading. It would be bizarre, for example, to say that Kant was born in Russia (though the solution currently used, with "now Kaliningrad, Russia" in brackets after, seems fine).--Kotniski (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is not that simple. For Italy, see, among many, the talk page of Fausto Veranzio who was born in Šibenik/Sebenico/Sibenik/…. Assigning nationality based on today's map is inviting trouble. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of the troubles Dalmatians etc cause - see the edit histories and talk pages of many of them Giorgio da Sebenico etc, but nb we are not talking about nationality here, but the identification of the places of birth and death. It is by sticking to modern boundaries that nationalist arguments are avoided here. I'm open to suggestions, and "now fooland" may often be useful, but the MoS here should say something. Really this is yet another instance of the troubles infoboxes causes. Johnbod (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever was the name of a place when the subject was born, is how the subject's place of birth should be described in the infobox. If it is known differently now, it should be Wikilinked, so the reader may learn more about the place should they choose. For example: had someone been born in Strasbourg in 1880 and died there in 1925, the infobox entry should read: born: Strasbourg, Germany. Died: Strasbourg, France. Daicaregos (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A good point, but a slightly different one. I agree "Germany" should be used rather than (at various periods) Holy Roman Empire, German Empire etc etc. Johnbod (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Germany" is pipe linked to German Empire in this example. I wouldn't advocate pipe linking Germany to the Holy Roman Empire on territory that isn't clearly considered German today, e.g. what is now northern Italy. Daicaregos (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think for infoboxes and first sentences we should normally use the modern political geography, and save explanation of the contemporary context for the first section of the bio itself. Experience has repeatedly shown that (Johnbod's Second Law): "Complication + infoboxes = inaccuracy" and also confusion for readers, even when the information is accurate. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that infoboxes should be kept reasonably simple, but I would go the other way on this issue - it's the contemporary situation that we ought to be presenting as our first priority, not the modern one. So Kant was born in Prussia, not the anachronistic Russia nor the then nebulous Germany (though we can say "now...Russia" in brackets if there's room).--Kotniski (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Daicaregos (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There may be exceptions, like Kant, but in the biographical areas I am familiar with, mostly artists from medieval and early modern Italy, Germany & the Low Countries, the approach I have described is I think usual, and to my mind certainly preferable. National wikiprojects may well have made decisions on such points at some time. For many of these places, to discover the appropriate contemporary political entity is actually rather difficult, and frankly beyond the capacity of most info-box fillers to do correctly. Was it, for example, the Holy Roman Empire, or the princedom or free city within that? That is even before you factor in modern nationalist and regionalist concerns, especially in Eastern Europe, but also Italy. The infobox for Leonardo da Vinci used to say he was born in the Republic of Florence, except that as far as I can see at the moment of his birth the Republic was in abeyance and the city ruled by a Sforza duke. The places of birth and death are geographical information, and should be given a geographical treatment in the infobox and (usually) the opening line, without bringing in what will inevitably often be half-baked and inadequate information on the contemporary political situation, using Easter egg links etc. That should be done in the text where there is space to cover it properly. Johnbod (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

But readers won't read our minds, and I suspect that most of them will read the stated country as a political entity, applicable at the time being referred to. If we really don't know what country-like entity the place was in at the time (which must be a relatively rare situation), then better to leave the information out altogether than to say something that readers are likely to misinterpret.--Kotniski (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think that most readers, on seeing Rome, Italy as the place of death of Michelangelo or Raphael, will think the information geographical, rather than implying there was an Italian state in the 16th century - that really seems an odd conclusion to draw! Do you have any evcidence for your belief? Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, "most" readers possibly know there was no such state in this instance, but if you don't, then it seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw, considering how common it is to refer to places in "City, Country" form, and how rare it is to refer to them in "City, Supranational geographical region" form (like "Madrid, Iberia"), or even worse in "City, Anachronistic modern country" form (like "Konigsberg, Russia"). Agreed that doing it with Italy is probably less bad than with most other examples.--Kotniski (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well how about Ireland, Germany, Belgium & the Netherlands, Germany, Colonial America, Poland etc etc then? Kalingrad is a rather extreme case. I am surprised to see editors with Polish and Welsh connections opposing this frankly. A quick sample of Category:Signers of the United States Declaration of Independence shows that purely geographical links are used, not articles on the colonies, British America etc. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, something like the above discussion has been going on (but has subsided for now) at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jacques Offenbach/archive1 - scroll down to Geography —The Prussia/Prussian issue and the link from there to the preceding discussion at Talk:Jacques_Offenbach#Cologne_is_not_a_Prussian_city. Enjoy! --GuillaumeTell 15:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That is somewhat different, as most of the row was about how much detail to include in the 2nd section on his early life. The article has no infobox. I'm not sure how happy I am about "...was a Prussian-born French composer..." in the lead though, with something of an Easter egg link. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Since I am the editor that "has been doing a number of changes", I would like to give my input here (I am aware of WP:TL;DR, but it's hard to avoid verbosity in a discussion about potential policy making). To be noted at the outset is that the issue at hand is not actually a discussion about ethnic disputes, nor a discussion about infobox-filling. However, since this issue was raised as well, I begin by making a passing remark on it.

Most experienced editors are quite aware of the problems infoboxes cause; but until the community decides to "burn them in Hell" forever, we ought to find a way to deal with them properly. In the case of former country infoboxes, the solution is usually to either not have an infobox at all (see Francia; where the infobox obscured everything that the article tried to explain) or to actually have an infobox featuring elaborate/cluttered information as an attempt to include all relevant subtleties (see Kingdom of Saxony).

Now in the case of historical biographies, my understanding is that (at some point) several editors started "changing place of birth or place of death to reflect contemporary political status" (this is is an actual edit summary I have come across with and now regularly use myself) either in infoboxes or in the body of the article. So for example (I will cite only articles I have never edited): Tesla was born in the Austrian Empire, Einstein in the Kingdom of Württemberg, Galileo in the Duchy of Florence, da Vinci in the Republic of Florence, and so on.

There are literally hundreds of articles that follow this practice (and I have made changes to a dozen more myself in order to "keep it consistent"). The only articles I am aware of in which the discussion led to following a different practice regarding the respective infobox were: the article about Mozart (no infobox) and the article about Schopenhauer ("according to Danzig/Gdansk vote policy. No further Prussia/Poland or other details [for the sake of lessening the controversy]. Leave that to the city articles"); in both cases, this happened because lame/persistent ethnic disputes were involved ("Mozart was (not) German"; "Schopenhauer was (not) Polish"), but even in these cases, the body of the article does give all the relevant historical information.

Now, I defend the view that we should always indicate the contemporary political status along with the present-day one (either in the infobox or in the body of the article; there is no reason to deem this "too much information"). Including only the latter (the present-day status) may often be:

1) Trivial; on the other hand, finding the contemporary (i.e., historical) political entity that included a modern city a few centuries or a few millennia ago on Wikipedia is not that easy; some Wikipedia articles about cities or villages don't even include this piece of information.

2) Unscholarly: what is common in scholarly publications is to always include detailed historical-geographic information in biographies (especially biographies of Eastern European/Russian/German/Italian artists or philosophers or scientists): e.g., "former district, f. region, f. province, f. kingdom, f. empire" or "f. uyezd, f. governorate, f. empire"; this may seem too tedious for encyclopedic purposes but it is very informative and reflects historical reality. (Some easily accessible Google-book links: [1], [2], [3], [4]; note also that Russian Wikipedia is meticulous regarding this issue: e.g. [5], [6].)

3) Confusing (at variable degrees): "Kant's birth place" is an obvious argument for illustrating this. But there are less obvious ones; when, for example, one indicates/hyperlinks just "Germany" as the place of birth of someone who was born in Berlin in the late 19th c. one assumes that the reader knows that Berlin was then part of the German Empire or that, for the purposes of a bio, these details don't actually matter. My experience is that these are a hasty assumptions: only a minority of readers have the necessary background to know when a present-day entity was established; and it is useful for the reader to have easy access (that is, within the biographical article) to information regarding whether, e.g., a person was born/flourished/died in Weimar Germany as opposed to Third Reich, or in West Germany as opposed to East Germany; this helps the reader put biographical information into historical context and avoid anachronistic fallacies. One solution is offering a piped link (an "Easter egg link" as is ironically referred to by Johnbod) containing a former country's constitutional/academic name (as opposed to common English name which is the one to be displayed) would do the job just fine; e.g.: "b. Rome, [[Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)|Italy]]" instead of just "b. Rome, [[Italy]]". (Please note, incidentally, that English Wikipedia does have a separate article for nearly every European European country, no matter how short-lived it may have been; e.g. see Ukrainian State or Russian Republic). Alternatively, one could include a parenthetical note; e.g., b. Tartu, Estonia (then Derpt, Governorate of Livonia, Imperial Russia) as is done in the article about Wolf von Engelhardt). The reason for having an overall policy is to ensure consistency (as opposed to doing this only in some "special" cases; e.g. only for people born in "German Straßburg" or in "Prussian Danzig").

A final, somewhat trivial, remark regarding the need for terminological subtlety: It is common knowledge that in Europe, since at least the High Middle Ages, one can speak of definite political entities (republics, principalities, duchies, counties, and other domains) with well-defined borders. This entails that, after some point, people from Europe (please note that while we mostly talk about them here, similar arguments also applies to a variable extent to people from Ancient South Asia, Pre-Columbian America, Colonial Africa, Colonial India, the British Commonwealth Countries, the Arab World, etc) are not simply natives of broad geographical areas/cultural regions (such as Silesia, Prussia, Westphalia, Galicia, Macedonia, Candia, Normandy); and they are certainly not natives/subjects/citizens of "perennial states" (such as "Germany", "France", "Poland"). They are, instead, natives/subjects/citizens of specific polities (often bearing a specific formal designation or administrative name) which were established at a specific date (such as German Reich (1933–1945), French Second Republic, Tsardom of Poland, Silesia Province, Westphalia Province, Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, Kingdom of Prussia, Socialist Republic of Macedonia, Kingdom of Candia, Duchy of Normandy). If we are to render this basic fact more intelligible, we should have an overall policy that will encourage knowledgeable editors to add this kind of historical-geographic information (a useful supplement to strictly biographical information) to biographical articles either in the form of a footnote, or of a piped/explicit link in the body of the text, or a piped/explicit link in the respective infobox. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• That there are "hundreds" of biography articles using a historical/political convention in infoboxes and the first sentence is I'm sure true, but since there must be tens of thousands of historical biographies means very little; a few editors who decide this convention is a good idea can easily do a lot of (sorry) damage over time. That Omnipaedista is only aware of a few that don't is more remarkable. It suggests he rarely looks at American, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish or French biographies, which almost invariably take a straight geographical line. I might mischievously suggest he tries changing a few prominent Irish figures to the appropriate political link for their period and see what happens. Equally editors never link to the appropriate French state for French figures. I won't go through the main arguments again, but will just say that his last paragraph, relating to the non-Western world, is actually one of the strongest arguments for a straight geographical approach. Deciding what is the appropriate polity for say a figure from medieval Islam is even harder than for one from medieval Germany, and likely to be equally confusing and un-useful for the reader. I have made it clear throughout that the contemporary political information should of course be included, but in the text, where it can be explained at the appropriate length, and without introducing absurdities such as saying Rome is "now Italy", or breaching the MoS with Easter-egg links. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • i) The point, again, is that finding a city (or a region) on a contemporary map is not enough. What is needed is to indicate the specific historical polity in which a historical person was born. One can easily deduce the former from the latter, but not vice versa. I am afraid you have yet to provide concrete arguments to support your thesis that historical-geographic information in infoboxes (either explicit or in the form of piped links) is damaging; aesthetical arguments are not enough. ii) You claim that former French or Irish states never get linked, but counter-examples do exist. You also claim that indicating the appropriate polity (Caliphate, Sultanate, Emirate, etc) for a figure from medieval Islam is hard/useless/unusual, but, in fact, a vast number of biographical infoboxes about people from Medieval Islam already contain historical information (see, e.g., Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī). —Omnipaedista (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And no doubt an even higher proportion of it is inaccurate than for European articles. You have produced no arguments as to why historical political information is needed in the infobox. Note that "Easter-egg link" is not, as you seem to think, a term of my invention, but well-established and used at Wikipedia:LINK#Piped_links, where of course they are strongly deprecated. See also Easter egg (media). Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And of course, when examined, the information for Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī turns out to be wrong - the Saminids ruled his birthplace briefly when he was in his 20s, and the actual situation at his birth-date is typically complex. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you fail to make the distinction between regular piped links and easter-egg piped links (the latter are indeed to be avoided). There is absolutely nothing "easter-eggish" in writing a former country's common English name and linking it to its constitutional name ("conventional long name"): we are clearly talking about synonyms. As for my main argument concerning infobox-filling (after reading the thread below), it boils down to this: it is not (always) practical/applicable to include this kind of detailed information in the lede section or in footnotes; however, since historical-geographic information should be included somehow (as per my arguments above), the most obvious place to embed it is the infobox. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) This gets us nowhere - the links you describe are indeed classic Easter egg links, but note that your own edits did not use such - putting Duchy of Urbino etc in plain text; the issue still remains. The argument that the infobox rather than the main text or footnotes is the place to put "detailed information" is so bizarre I don't think I need waste time countering it. As I've said several times, when the situation is really complicated the place for the full information is in the relevant text section, but normally the lead will accomodate perfectly well. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Let me restate my argument: I am not saying that in all cases, the only right place to embed detailed information is the infobox; I do not believe that. But let's consider stub articles that only contain a couple of sentences about the subject. Putting historical-political information in the body of those texts would be like providing undue weight to trivia; also creating footnotes to embed this information would be unheard of. So, we can either have double standards (placing trivia in the body of the text in some articles, but in footnotes/infoboxes in the case of stub-like articles) or a uniform/coherent policy (that is, either not including historical-political information at all, or always including it in the infobox). --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(to go back to the original post) On the contrary, the contemporary entity should be listed, with if necessary/useful the current country of that location in brackets. This is how it is done on e.g. Peter Paul Rubens or Jan van Eyck, and it looks to me the most informative and correct method of doing this. Fram (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It will always be necessary to give the "current country"! How could it not be? This approach assumes a fantastic amount of historical/geographical knowledge in our readers, which we surely all know very many don't have. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(replying to Johnbod) As I said above "I defend the view that we should always indicate the contemporary political status along with the present-day one." In Jan van Eyck's article-infobox there is currently no mentioning of the current polity that incorporates his place of birth. In Peter Paul Rubens's article-infobox there is mentioning of the contemporary polity and, parenthetically, of the present-day one. In the article about Galileo Galilei, on the other hand, the main text gives the present-day polity and, parenthetically, the contemporary one. I am fine with all those ways of displaying the relevant information, but I believe that we should take as an examplar the article about Peter Paul Rubens, and apply this practice to every article where it is meaningful to do so --Omnipaedista 14:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(replying to Fram) That is fine. The only thing is that in the case of scientists' infoboxes, it is usually done the other way around; but this is only a matter of convention. As long as we agree that the information is needed in the infobox, we can more easily reach consensus regarding the way we want it to be displayed. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The convention for scientists is the original convention for all bios, until some people got it into their head to change it for selected countries - very often for political reasons. The science editors just guard their articles better & reverted such attempts. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We are clearly not talking about political motivation here. We are talking about historical accuracy. The scientists' articles (I have come across several thousands of them during the last three years) always follow the practice of including the historical polity in the infobox (and parenthetically the modern state, if at all); and this the practice I defend. We have scrutinized so much this subject's details that I am beginning to wonder: Where is the point of our disagreement? --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Any evidence for this? On aricles like Rubens or Van Eyck, it was first not included, and then in its current form (i;e. with the old countries). Also for scientists like Andreas Vesalius or Nicolaus Copernicus, it lists the ancient country (Poland is no longer a kingdom), and has done so for a year or more. The Galileo Galilei article gives (in the infobox) first the Duchies, and then Italy. This was the same two years ago. Johannes Kepler? The "old" countries, with the current ones in brackets (this is the first one I found where this was done recently, but even here it has stood for two weeks without any problems). Thomas Aquinas has and had the old country. It looks to me a if the overwhelming majority of biographical articles that have infoboxes and where this issue exists, have the older countries, not the current ones, and that this is true for scientists as well as artists, and for the current situation as well as a year ago or so. Fram (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We all know there are plenty of continental European examples either way, though when it comes to English-speaking countries this ceases to be the case. It has very often been politically motivated - Italy is a classic example. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not cease to be the case; examples from English speaking countries: Karl Guthe Jansky, Reginald Fessenden, Andrew Carnegie. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok- 2/?500,000. Carnegie does not count, as the states are exactly the same then as now. Jansky does not mention the USA at all, which it should. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In Carnegie, United Kingdom is linked to the historical polity of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Note a simple fact: English speaking countries saw few territorial changes since their establishment as opposed to Continental European ones. This is the reason why in the case of English speaking countries, such problems don't arise. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So another Easter Egg! How many people have ever followed that link I wonder? And arwe they any better informed if they do? In fact the article does not say it is about a polity, but about a name and a period. We do not regard the US as a different state before and after various individual states joined the union. The Irish case very neatly disproves your other point! You have quite a talent for self-refuting arguments. The situation is exactly the same for France, which nobody can say has been stable politically. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Changes in constitutional names of countries often denote the supercedure of a polity by a new one; such a change never happened in the case of the United States. In any case, you miss my point: denoting David Hume's place of birth simply as Scotland is enough; denoting Leonardo da Vinci's place of birth simply as Italy is not enough. You should have noticed that no one has agreed with your posts so far. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Johnbod, meseems that all your argumentation (please correct me if I am wrong) centers around the observation that in the specific case of Italy, we should avoid referring to historical polities because this will cause controversy; but this is a baseless argument, since you have not provided any evidence about this having been the case in the past.

Let's take the article about Giacomo Leopardi. The opening section claims that "Although he lived in a secluded town in the ultra-conservative Papal States, he came in touch with the main thoughts of the Enlightenment." Here, Papal States are not linked, and nowhere can one get informed about the fact that Recanati was then part of the Papal States; not even the article about Recanati mentions it. Yet, this historical fact is relevant to this person's biography. What would be your proposal to remedy this situation? Incidentally, this edit of yours to Leonardo da Vinci's article removed at least one piece of information: that Amboise was then part of Touraine, a defunct French province. Why din't you relocate this to the main text? This is one of the reasons why I said above that is not always the best practice to include historical information in the main text. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So link it! The article on the town obviously should mention it, but that it doersn't surely tells you something! The circumstances in which any information should only be in the infobox are very, very few indeed. The province in which Amboise was then located is supremely irrelevant to Leonardo, who lived with the royal court, and is readily available from the article on the town. Loire valley would be a more useful link, if anything. WP:UNDUE barely applies to stubs, and would not in these circumstances. Your statement above that is indeed completely wrong about what I am saying; I suggest you reread (or read) my posts above. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. My view is that the aim should be to provide the information and context the reader needs to understand the article. Sometimes that will be only a link, sometimes, if the situation is more complex, both the then-current and present geographical and political context will be needed. I rather like the approach taken where one is provided in the main text and the other in parentheses after it. You can't expect readers to realise that using the current country name is an oversimplification, but neither can you just name and link a historic entity without providing some modern context. To give one example, I recently had reason to look up Sigismund von Herberstein in order to write a brief line or two on him for another document. The Wikipedia article describes him as 'Carniolan', but for my purposes I needed a simpler way to put who he was. As he was born to a German-speaking family, I described him as German, which is likely a gross oversimplification, but is what I needed to say up front. I later said he was born in Carniola and was a diplomat for the Austrian regions of the Habsburg Monarchy, but failed to mention the Holy Roman Empire connections (that gets confusing at the best of times). Another example is someone called Achatius Hilling and his son Gregorius Hilling. The son was German, but how would you describe his father? The description here states that the elder Hilling was from Elbogen, Bohemia (now Loker) and had fought for Frederick V (briefly King of Bohemia) at the Battle of White Mountain, and then fled Bohemia and settled in Nuremberg. But as I said, the concept of nationality within the lands of the Habsburgs and the Holy Roman Empire has always confused me. Balancing the need to be accurate with the need to not throw a mass of confusing history at readers in the first few sentences (let alone in infoboxes), has always been tricky. How should those two cases be handled, and how should things be handled in general? Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

One's ethnicity does not necessarily overlap with their subjecthood/citizenship. In "simple" cases, a historical person's subjecthood/citizenship can be derived from the common name of the place they mostly lived in. Bertolt Brecht, e.g., was born in Imperial Germany and died in East Germany. Despite the fact that his country of birth and his country of death are different historical polities, in common English usage we describe this person's subjecthood/citizenship simply as German. In the case of people from the Middle Ages, though, the concept of nationality becomes blurry: a historical person's membership of a sovereign state does not univocally indicate this person's subjecthood/citizenship. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's one thing O & I can agree on; "nationality" and ethnicity are whole different cans of worms, though also prone to be drastically over-simplified in infoboxes. In many medieval societies (European, Islamic etc) people born and living in the same place were often recognised as being of different "nationality" and ethnicity - they took the idea of a multi-cultural society rather more seriously than we do today. Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, ignoring ethnicity and 'nationality' (which was less of a concept then), what should be put for the geography in the two examples I pointed out? Actually, let's ignore Hilling as there is no article on him. Currently for Sigismund von Herberstein it says 'Carniolan diplomat, writer, historian and member of the Holy Roman Empire Imperial Council' in the lead, and in the first section it says he was born in 'Vipava (German Wippach) in the Duchy of Carniola (now Slovenia, then part of the Habsburg Monarchy) to [...] members of the prominent German-speaking family which had already resided in Herberstein Castle for nearly 200 years'. That current wording gives sufficient context, surely, but it seems too complex to put in an infobox (I agree with Johnbod that infobox-filling is fraught with dangers of oversimplification). But if someone did try and do an infobox there, what would they put geographically for the birthplace? (The death place is not given yet in the article). In general, the really stable information is what the situation was during a person's lifetime, as current names and places may change again in the future. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, we should put Vipava, Slovenia, which is what the sort of users looking at the infobox are likely to want to know. In the very unlikely event of Slovenia's borders changing all sorts of articles would have to updated, by "what links here" etc. The Duchy of Carniola is especially obscure, & an excellent example of the sort of information infoboxes don't need. It is also the wrong link for a "state" or polity at this time, being just a component of the Habsburg state of Inner Austria - another link that should be avoided in infoboxes, since it is obscure, and sounds geographical while in fact being historical/political . Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I actually said what I'd put in an infobox. Though reading what you have just said, I agree with you. What is really needed in the infobox is something like "Current name of place of birth" and "Contemporary name of place of birth". Going back to the Habsburgs briefly, and turning slightly to one side to look at the Holy Roman Empire, I just read Imperial Circle (I got there from Inner Austria) and that is fascinating reading. On borders changing, imagine if the UK ever did break up. And border changes are not that uncommon. Czechoslovakia and the Reunification of Germany are within the last 25 years. South Sudan was more recent. But you are right that lots of updating would be needed, and not just using 'what links here', as full-text searches would be needed to correct the non-linked uses of the older terms. Carcharoth (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's the point I should have emphasized since the beginning of this discussion: What is really needed in the infobox is something like "Current name of place of birth" and "Contemporary name of place of birth"; the really stable information is what the situation was during a person's lifetime, as current names and places may change again in the future. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A fairly desperate argument - Rome and Urbino are likely to be in Italy for a long while yet! Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing I'm not clear about is the closing sentence of your original post: "It is different for figures from the ancient world I think." This indicates that you don't always think modern states and modern names should be used, but you seem uncertain about where to draw the dividing line. There is no neat dividing line between the modern world and the ancient world. Isn't it logical to simply provide both, to avoid the issue altogether? Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

On relection, I think the modern, geographical, info should always be given in the infobox. Mind you, looking at some examples, ancient bios seem mercifully free of infoboxes altogether. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation in lede, or in infobox (if available)?

I've noticed a lot of bios have so much trivia in the lede that the reader has to wade through half a paragraph before getting to the opening line. One of the culprits is pronunciation. WP:PRON advocates moving the pronunciation out of the lede if it becomes too heavy, but that hasn't been discussed here. In the astronomy articles, the pronunciations were moved to the info boxes a couple years ago. The main bio boxes also support a pron. parameter. If there are any comments, a thread has been reopened here. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than discussing pronunciation at WP:PRON and other matters at other pages, let's have a proper discussion here about the lead section of biographical articles as a whole. I will start a new section below, and leave notes at the discussions you started at MOSNUM and PRON. Carcharoth (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Style of lead sections

Notifications left here, here, here, and here. Please add further notifications if needed (and list them here), and list on WP:CENT if warranted, but maybe wait until discussion gets somewhere here first.

Starting a new section to discuss the style that should be used in the lead section of biographical articles. The current discussions centre on concerns that too much information is placed in the lead and clutters it up. All information needs to be in the main body of the article or sourced in the lead. A possible compromise is placing material in a proper footnote with a reference used down there. There are also suggestions to use infoboxes to hold information where possible, but that is not always possible as the use of infoboxes is not uniform across Wikipedia's biographical articles. The following should probably be discussed in terms of location and sourcing. Either just in the lead, or in both lead and article, or just in the article, or just in a referenced footnote.

• Person's usual name
• Name variants (spelling, name changes, titles)
• Name variants (transliterations)
• Birth and death years
• Birth and death dates
• Birth and death locations
• Pronunciation guides

The current wording is here, but confusingly uses the term 'opening paragraph'. Can someone clarify if that refers to the paragraph after the lead section, or whether it is another name for the lead section? The current wording of WP:LEAD is here and includes this (simply a redirect to here), this (on BLPs), this (on clutter) and also some material in footnotes 7-11. This all needs discussion if sweeping changes are going to be made. Carcharoth (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand "opening paragraph" to be the first paragraph of tle lead section. --Boson (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. "All information needs to be in the main body of the article or sourced in the lead." Not true. Info can be placed in footnotes and sourced there (as you note), but can also be placed in infoboxes and sourced there. There are thousands of WP articles with data that appears only in an infobox, and there is no problem with sourcing such data. Supposedly there is a policy against doing that somewhere, but in my experience any such policy is roundly ignored, and so is effectively obsolete.

"There are also suggestions to use infoboxes to hold information where possible, but that is not always possible as the use of infoboxes is not uniform across Wikipedia's biographical articles." Thus the phrase where possible. In cases an info box is used but doesn't support the info, support can of course be added to the box. As for the tens of thousands of articles which don't have a box, that is of course not an option, unless the editor wishes to add a box. Generally I would expect better formatting in better-developed articles, and not much in stubs.

IMO, anything goes in the lead if it can be argued to be sufficiently notable. Foreign transcriptions are, IMO, very rarely notable, but are very common and often simply a distraction or even an impediment to the reader, though I'm sure there are exceptions. Many naming variants are obscure, though of course many are common enough to be potential names for the article; in the latter case, the variant should certainly be in the lead. IMO years of birth and death should be required, as they position the person in history, but the full dates and places are not normally of sufficient importance for the lead, as long as they're readily available (infobox, footnote, first paragraph of the body, etc.). Common exceptions might be, say, Obama's birth place and date (given the silliness which surrounds it) or the date of death of someone who died in the last year and so is still newsworthy. Pronunciation, unless highly unintuitive and likely to trip up readers, does not IMO belong in the lead if another readily visible option (box, dedicated section, etc) is available. IMO full dates & places of birth and death and pronunciation are the kind of details which can be inappropriate clutter for the opening sentence but of sufficient import to be placed in an info box at the top of the page. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are the examples I posted in the original discussion. First, one I ran across recently, Genghis Khan. (Here as I found it, apart from one adjustment to fix the display of a misbehaving template):

Genghis Khan (English pronunciation:/ˈɡɛŋɡɪs ˈkɑːn/ or /ˈdʒɛŋɡɪs ˈkɑːn/;; Cyrillic: Чингис Хаан, Chingis Khaan, IPA: [tʃiŋɡɪs xaːŋ] ; Mongol script: , Činggis Qaɣan; Chinese: 成吉思汗; pinyin: Chéng Jí Sī Hán; probably May 31, 1162 – August 25, 1227), born Temujin (English pronunciation: /təˈmuːdʒɪn/; Mongolian: Тэмүжин, Temüjin IPA: [tʰemutʃiŋ] ; [Temüjin] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help); traditional Chinese: 鐵木真; simplified Chinese: 铁木真; pinyin: Tiě mù zhēn) and also known by the temple name Taizu (Chinese: 元太祖; pinyin: Yuán Tàizǔ; Wade–Giles: T'ai-Tsu), was the founder and Great Khan (emperor) of the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his death.

How do we expect anyone to read that? Now compare it to the non-parenthetical text plus dates:

Genghis Khan (1162?–1227), born Temujin, was the founder and Great Khan (emperor) of the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his death.

That's way too much stuff to move to the info box, of course, so I put the more important there and the rest in footnotes.

For a more typical example, consider:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (/ˈroʊzəvɛlt/ ROH-zə-vɛlt or /ˈroʊzəvəlt/ ROH-zə-vəlt; January 30, 1882 – April 12, 1945) also known by his initials, FDR, was ...

with

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882–1945), also known by his initials, FDR, was ...

We can make vital information available without bludgeoning our readers with it.

For an example of templates which support pronunciation (and not added by me), see iron and 4 Vesta. — kwami (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, information in the first sentence should be full name, common alternative names (e.g. FDR) or bithname (e.g. Temujin) and full dates of birth and death, along with nationality (or acceptable alternative) and occupation or reason for notability (in general terms). Nothing else needs to go in the first sentence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Necrothesp. I would also like to explain here why, as a reader of Wikipedia (putting aside the editing hat for one moment) I appreciate the birth and death dates being in the lead of the article. The reason is that the most common information I look for (in the lead section) when reading Wikipedia biographical articles are: name, birth and death dates, birth and death years, nationality, and profession(s) and claim to fame. For me, simply the birth and death years are not enough. The birth and death dates as well give that little extra context, mainly because it helps to work out how old someone was at a particular point in their life, or in (say) a dated picture of them that you are looking at. In articles that only have the birth and death dates in the main article, and don't have an infobox, the reader is forced to go hunting in the main article for the information they have by now come to expect to see in the lead.

I would also like to turn the question around and ask kwami what reasons there are for removing birth and death dates from the lead, when those elements contribute very little to the clutter. Pronunciations, and excess name variants, I agree, should be part of the de-cluttering, but why birth and death dates? Those don't actually clutter, IMO, and provide a degree of precision that makes Wikipedia different from other biographical publications (the ones I looked at were the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Australian Dictionary of Biography - both of which don't have lead sections in the same way Wikipedia does, so comparison is difficult - of course, neither of those publications have infoboxes either - someone should do a proper survey of Category:Biographical dictionaries).

But if kwami can provide reason other than 'clutter' for removing birth and death dates, I might be able to support that, though only if someone can provide concrete numbers on how many biographical articles there are (I think it was somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million at last count, wasn't it?) and how many actually conform to the style guide and how many would need to be changed. Some reasons I can think of is that it would make bot-generated name disambiguation pages easy to produce. Though really, the lead sentence should be constructed from elements obtained from the {{persondata}} template. Has that possibility ever been seriously considered? I'm now reminded of Wikipedia:Biographical metadata that I wrote once. Maybe this time someone will make a serious effort to harness all that data. (Completely off-topic, but if anyone has yet solved the problem of being able to identify how many of our biographical articles are about men and how many are about women, there is a barnstar waiting for them - quite why gender is not tracked for biographies, I don't know). Anyway, kwami's examples with birth and death dates included and not included are:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882–1945), also known by his initials, FDR, was ...

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (January 30, 1882 – April 12, 1945), also known by his initials, FDR, was ...

Genghis Khan (1162?–1227), born Temujin, was the founder and Great Khan (emperor) of the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his death.

Genghis Khan (1162? – August 25, 1227), born Temujin, was the founder and Great Khan (emperor) of the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his death.

Do the dates really clutter? Carcharoth (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I second Carcharoth that full dates of birth and death are vital pieces of information for determining how old someone was at a particular point in their life. These should always be included (if known) and I see no good reason to exclude them. I notice that the tiresome question of infoboxes has once again surfaced. I would therefore point out once again that infoboxes are disliked by a significant number of editors and should never, ever be used to replace information that should appear in the lead. Although I'm not a big fan of them, I can see their use as a quick reference tool, but only as that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• The principle which should lead the manual of style is that the opening paragraph should quickly give the most common details which readers come to the article to find, and in such a way that makes the article easy to read. By that principle, the first sentence should contain, in addition to explaining the principal reason(s) for the notability of the subject, their full name, any significant other names by which they were known that are not obvious, the dates of birth and death, and their nationality during their life. Further detail may be cluttering and interrupt the flow of the sentence. Any less detail and readers have to search through the article for something which should be presented more prominently.

  Taking a few issues in more detail, the full name should be given uninterrupted, with any nicknames given separately unless commonly incorporated with the full name; this is partly for reasons of making the sentence flow smoothly, but also because it can cause confusion: it's not entirely clear whether 'Terence Alan Patrick Seán Spike Milligan' chose to use the fifth of his Christian names or whether he had only four to begin with and adopted a nickname to replace all of them. The urge to put a nickname in the opening line on all occasions should be resisted when the name is obvious, for example someone formally called Robert who is normally known as Bob; most people can be expected to know that Bob is short for Robert. Full birth and death dates are far the most frequent detail which people wish to check, in my experience; by the same token, birth and death places are far less important and also far less likely to be found. With regard to pronunciation, few readers are immediately familiar with IPA notation (I am only a beginner) and so the pronunciation guides can appear as gibberish; at the same point it would be unwise to go to any alternative standard for pronunciation which would be technically inferior. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree full dates of b&d are essential. If there is no infobox the birth goes in section 2 & the death right at the end. Even if there is an infobox they should be in the text. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Everyone agrees that full dates of birth and death are essential. What is in dispute is whether it is essential that the full birth and death dates appear in the opening sentence(s) of the lead section, rather than just the years (as kwami has suggested). My suspicion is that the style varies enormously across all the biographical articles. Has anyone ever done a survey or audit of the biographical articles to see what people actually do in practice? i.e. whether they follow Wikipedia's style guidelines, make it up as they go along, or follow the style used in their sources (most likely, IMO)? I've now gone and looked up the approximate figure for biographical articles at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality statistics. That figure is currently 940,706. That won't be entirely accurate because it does include articles on music groups which historically got included in the project scope (for reasons which probably seemed OK at the time - currently 65,796 in the musicians workgroup if you want an idea of size, though how many of those are groups and how many are individuals, I have no idea), and there is a small rump of similar 'group' articles (usually about duos such as saints and the like). But that figure is reasonably accurate. Maybe some statistical sampling of those articles will help get an idea of how many articles use which style (though some articles won't include birth and death dates because they are unknown or because no-one has looked them up and added them yet). But getting an idea of how many articles do include birth and death dates in the lead will help indicate how many could be removed (I believe this all started when someone started systematically relocating them as clutter along with pronunciation stuff, which I agree is clutter). I am also a bit annoyed that the recent 'clutter' section at WP:LEAD#Clutter got added without discussion here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with the other editors that pronunciation and anything else that looks like jargon (transliterations, identification of surname vs. patronymic, etc.) should go somewhere other than the lead sentence. Whether it goes in an infobox or a footnote or later in the lead is unimportant to me. I wouldn't miss the birth and death dates, either, because I don't feel that they're a crucial piece of information (as opposed to nationality, era in which they lived, reason for notability, etc.). FDR's life would be exactly the same if he were born in February 6 or March 10 or any other date. Everything else in the lead sentence is fundamental to his identity: if his name were different, if the year he was born was different, if his occupation were different, he would be a completely different person. If he were born three days later he wouldn't be (other than a butterfly-effect, but you get the point.)

      The fact that birth and death dates are omitted in many other encyclopedic publications makes a strong case for why they should be omitted here. They certainly belong in the article but I don't think they compare to other lead-sentence material in terms of priority. That said, I'd be fine with keeping them as long as we got the more offensive material (pronunciation) out of the way. —Designate (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

      • Agree with Necrothesp's comment above. I don't mind the pronunciation in the lead, but I also wouldn't mind it in the infobox. Also agree that full dates should be in the lead, but without locations (they create needless clutter). – Connormah (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    • "I am also a bit annoyed that the recent 'clutter' section at WP:LEAD#Clutter got added without discussion here." Yes, I agree. That section should be removed forthwith, as it implies consensus that information such as full dates should not be included in the lead. That is certainly not the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive issues

I fixed all the archive page links by moving the pages but MiszaBot archive search does not appear to like the current location being a search a subpage of a subpage, so the archive search does not work. Does anyone know how to fix it? ww2censor (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of German characters in English language articles

There is a discussion at Talk:Michael Groß#Spelling of surname in English; contested 2011 page move which may be of interest to members of your project, on which you may be able to share your knowledge and expertise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)