Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Actors in plot summaries

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

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

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

Hindu Swami title in WP article titles

FYI

 – Pointers to relevant discussions elsewhere.

Please see:

• Talk:Swami Nithyananda#Requested move 18 July 2018
• Talk:Swami Vivekananda#Requested move 18 July 2018

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

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

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

Question re capitalization of titles when pluralized

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

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

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

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

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

You should use:

• Both the Duke of Norfolk and of Wellington .

The second 'of' is becoming optional in English, although required in most of our neighbouring languages. The Duke is capitalised as it is still part of the title of a particular named person. You really don't want to be writing Both the Dukes of Norfolk and Wellington ... as that can be read ambiguously as two Dukes of Norfolk and somebody else called Wellington. --RexxS (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Or, "two dukes, Norfolk and Wellington, attended the conference". Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

OK... that is actually a helpful answer. thanks. I will ask my next question in a new sub-section (others can opine here if they have anything else to add to this one) Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree those three examples are correct, and also concur with Johnbod. Side note: RexxS's "both the Duke of Norfolk and of Wellington" is ungrammatical in this particular construction (it's mixing plural and singular constructions), and as a phrase in general "Duke of Norfolk and of Wellington" it is ambiguous: For a single person, use "He was both Duke of Norfolk and of Wellington" (drop the caps if you insert a "the" before "duke"); for two people, use "Both the dukes of Norfolk and of Wellington", or Johnbod's version.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Question 2

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

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

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

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

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

Names like Smith are always going to be capitalised; the variations only concern titles/positions/offices.

Use: The Dukes of Norfolk have lived in Arundel Castle for six generations. Our guidance states "Avoid capitalization of titles except when one is attached to an individual's name, or the position/office is the subject itself, and the term is the actual title ...". In the case you give, the position "Duke of Norfolk" is the subject itself (even in the plural) and the term is the actual title. Compare with The Duke of Norfolk has lived in Arundel Castle for all of his life, for which there should be no uncertainty. I'd be interested in what others think about A Duke of Norfolk has lived in Arundel Castle since 1787 . --RexxS (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that's correct, and "three Dukes of Norfolk have been executed", but once you mix titles it's "two dukes, Norfolk and Wellington" as above. Johnbod (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree with the latter, John. My analysis of that is we would definitely write Two dukes attended the conference. So adding "Norfolk and Wellington" in apposition should not disturb that capitalisation. We might even write Two dukes, The Duke of Norfolk and The Duke of Wellington, attended the conference. --RexxS (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No, in answer to Question 2. This is already answered by the second bullet, third bullet, and first table rows 1 at MOS:JOBTITLES. "The Duke of Norfolk lives in Arundel Castle" is using a title stand-in for someone specific. If you pluralize a title, drop the caps. This is another confusion between Proper name (linguistics) and Proper name (philosophy); the latter has nothing to do with capitalization. "The Smiths" is a stand in for "the members of that particular Smith family"; "the Canadians" is a short way of saying "the people of Canada" (or "those particular people of Canada", depending on context, like "the Canadians did well in ice sports in the last Winter Olympics"). It's serving as a stand-in proper noun for a coexisting group of people. "The dukes of Norfolk have lived in Arundel Castle for six generations" just involves pluralization; it's the same case as "no two successive presidents of the United States have been impeached or assassinated".

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

But wouldn’t “the Dukes of Norfolk” be a stand in for “Those particular people who have been Duke of Norfolk”? I am now confused. Why would you recapitalize? Blueboar (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what "Why would you recapitalize?" refers to. The dukes of Norfolk, as a lineage, isn't someone in particular, it's just a plural. "The Queen" in reference to the Elizabeth II is someone specific. Maybe there's another way to put it, but I can't think of any meaning of "specific" or "particular" that expands to the entire class. Otherwise I could say that "human" is very specific as it identifies every Homo sapiens ever born. Just not what we mean by specific.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Third question

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

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

Then we would also write:

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

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

IMHO, once you make a clear reference to a specific person/title/office/position (as described in the guidance), you are using a proper noun, and it should be capitalised. So, yes, I'd capitalise the full title of the position "President of the United States", just as I'd capitalise the abbreviated title when used with a personal name. Thus:

• The Presidents of the United States have lived in the White House since 1790, but President Trump lives on another planet.

Contrast that with the use of common nouns here:

• The Queen of England lives in Buckingham Palace. Normally, kings and queens live in palaces.

I hope that difference makes sense to you. --RexxS (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does... so... to generalize: if a) a title is a proper noun (hence capitalized) when written in the singular, then b) it is still a proper noun (hence capitalized) when written in the plural. would that be accurate?

So... for example, "During the reign of Henry VIII, England had six queens" (because the singular "queen" is not a proper noun in this context)... BUT... "During the reign of Henry VIII, there were six Queens of England" (because the singluar "Queen of England" is a proper noun in this context). Yes? Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think so, but I can't guarantee that others would agree with me. There's a thin line between a common noun like "queen" and a proper noun like "Queen of England", especially in cases when the former is clearly being used as shorthand for the latter. In addition, you may find some constructions just don't look right. What do you think of During the reign of Henry VIII, England had six queens, one king, and three Archbishops of Canterbury? Should the last list items instead use "archbishops" (i.e. as a common noun)? Johnbod, any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I hear these queens could go either way as well.

-EEng

As you wrote on the last, I think. "six queens of England" could go either way without bothering me. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's great you're able to be so nonjudgmental. EEng 03:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Should be "queens". If we were in a parallel universe, and Henry VIII had six queens at once because he was a polygamist and all his wives were co-queens, you might have a case for "Queens", but even then it's dubious. This Henry VIII's queens digression is more over-thinking and more confusion of the linguistics and philosophy notions of proper names; "because the singular 'Queen of England' is a proper noun in this context" does not apply; it's only operating as a proper name when standing in grammatically for the name of someone "understood" in the context: "The Queen and President will have a teleconference in August".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Question 3 is the same as no. 2. There's nothing magically different about titles by country or by commerciality versus electoral versus peerage/noble. So, ”The presidents of the United States have lived in the White House since 1790”.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please explain the difference between a linguistic proper name and a philosophical proper name. Blueboar (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, God, don't get him started please. Last time an emergency budget override was needed for more server space. EEng 16:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we'd need a whole page on that. Better just read the articles (or, really, the kinds of sources they cite; our articles aren't all that great). A recent-ish academic volume (ISBN 978-3110190861) is basically a cross-disciplinary review (and expensive). Some people are trying to merge the approaches; I don't get the sense they're making much progress, and even if they did, it'd be decades or generations before they had any real impact on how we write, if ever.

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

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

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

I believe that MULTIPLENAMES does only apply to the lead, and does not prohibit including full birth name elsewhere in the article. However in this case it looks like there may be consensus on the article talk page to not include the birth name in this particular article. If you want to confirm that this is the case, or change the consensus, my guess is you'll need an RfC, just based on how much this has been discussed already. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Last I looked we don't include TG birth names unless the person was notable before their public transition, or something to that effect, but this may have been a moving target. A few years ago there here a whole slew of competing RfCs on such matters at WP:VPPOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The section of MULTIPLENAMES which deals with trans people's names only talks about the lead, yes. In the article body, other guidelines and policies come into consideration, such as MOS:IDENTITY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of non-notable information). There was a thread about this topic in one of the village pumps within the last two months or so. -sche (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is less about the Manual of Style and more about this being an article about a living person. Policy outweighs MOS. Also, the source is not that strong as it is a passing mention on entertainment news on a lesser known news website. This basically falls within the scope of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy. This is contentious material that was only referenced through one source. Multiple strong sources are required. Also more specifically is Privacy of Names which states; "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." Since Lavern Cox herself is a public figure some might argue this does not apply but since we are technically discussing two different subjects in some manner as the prior name represents the subject as a private person before she became the person she is now, we can assume the name was not necessarily meant to be made public. The section on Public Figures states; "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." This does not apear to be widely published. Privacy of Names also states (in regards to the sourcing used here); "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories".

At them moment I don't believe that the inclusion of the name meets required policy standards for Biographies of living Persons and that this particular issue is not an MOS issue. Aloha!--Mark Miller (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me. If it was commonly found in numerous publications, it'd be different.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Good argument. I don't know that the source is "lesser known" but the type of article certainly doesn't meet the standard and I was too quick to assume it would be all right because it was in a respected newspaper. But I knew I was reluctant because of the type article it was. I didn't get reverted until I started discussing it with User:Marie Paradox because I was trying to understand something she posted on my talk page. But it wasn't an objection to the specific edit.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Tilda Swinton and MOS:NICKNAME

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did a similar edit for a common variation of Bradley but it was reverted with this edit. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The MOS seems unambiguous here, it does not have to be the first given name to not need the hypocorism explained for those in the back. To wit, "If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial" -- emphasis added to note the plural in "names". It seems to the plain reading that any of their given names, if they have a common hypocorism, such as Bradley --> Brad, do not need to be spelled out. Nowhere does the MOS say this interpretation is limited to first names. Tilda, it is said on its own page, is a common hypocorism from Matilda (or its variants). JesseRafe (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a common middle hypocorism does not need to be spelt out. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"Those in the back:" classy. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Katherine Matilda Swinton (born 5 November 1960) is a British actress ... is fine, without "known professionally as Tilda Swinton". Tim Allen has a clause like that because his birth surname is different.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Just to give a different perspective... since she is better know as “Tilda”, I would start with that... and then explain how her birth name was actually Katherine... ie: Tilda Swindon (born Katherine Matilda Swindon ) is a British actress...” Blueboar (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a valid point... I think MOS:BIO specifies legal first... yep, from MOS:FULLNAME:

While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name, if known, should be given in the lead sentence (including middle names, if known, or middle initials)

which is weird given that per MOS:BOLDLEAD, you go with article title (often common name) first. Anyway, seems like it's generally agreed that it's only if someone's last name is different/absent that you specify if they are otherwise going by one of their given names or a variation on one of their given names. Which I will make my peace with, even though it seems to me that that people not going by their first names is still relatively non-standard and that it couldn't hurt to clarify those cases. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't care about Swinton, but there are times when the nickname (I refuse to say hypocorism -- too many syllables) is so much more identified with the person than is their formal name, that to not give the nickname just sounds wrong. For example, I read Herb Caen's column every day for twenty years, but if you mentioned "Herbert Caen" to me, I'm not sure I'd even realize who you were talking about. EEng 02:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Tilda Swindon (born Katherine Matilda Swindon ) is a British actress... - for clarity, as we normally do with actresses (well, often anyway: "Marilyn Monroe (born Norma Jeane Mortenson;...") otherwise we do Ruth Elizabeth "Bette" Davis. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

• Agree with SMcCandlish's suggestion - no need for "known professionally as..." GiantSnowman 13:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  I will say that the "Tilda Swinton (born Katherine Matilda Swinton ) is ..." approach is bit less annoying than "known professionally as...", though I again don't think it's necessary in a case this obvious. It makes better sense for a case like Davis since "Bette" isn't a common abbreviation of "Elizabeth" in English.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think this is another opportunity to further declutter opening sentence. I'd say simply

Tilda Swinton (born 5 November 1960) is a British actress...

because down below it already says

Katherine Matilda Swinton was born on 5 November 1960 in London, the daughter of...

EEng 17:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That would work for me as well. The point here is that a cookie cutter approach is not necessarily the best approach. We ARE free to play around with the wording of an opening sentence, and what works for one article may not work in others. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

No, the full name should be in the first sentence of the lead paragraph, not the opening of the main biographical section. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, lots and lots of people will object to not including the full name in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

MOS:FULLNAME indicates that best practice is to put the full name in the opening sentence, but it doesn't prescribe that it has to be the name used first. The principle of least surprise ought to tell us that the reader is expecting the article to begin "Tilda Swindon". My preference would therefore be to go with Johnbod's suggestion of following that with "(born Katherine Matilda Swinton ) ...". It sounds natural, fits expectations and doesn't seem to contravene the spirit or letter of our guidelines. BTW, "Bette" really is a common abbreviation of "Elizabeth" in England, although as an abbreviation, it is most often found among ladies of an older generation. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

FULLNAME notwithstanding, the principle purpose of the opening sentence is to help the reader confirm that he's reached the right article and to orient him. If the subject uses a stage name or whathaveyou, then the birth name doesn't help with that and is quite appropriately deferred to the usual bio section that opens the article in chief. But people seem very married to rigid formulas. EEng 23:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... well this is an MOS page... so what do you expect. Rigid formulas are what style editors do best. 😉 Blueboar (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

MOS says you should say a MOS page. Geesh! EEng 02:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't make me post another cabal banner.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Nationality and place of birth

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

My edit summary was cut-off. It should read "stating that it is no longer acceptable to say things like "American-born", "German-born", etc., in the lead sentence is a considerable change to the guideline, and should be discussed before implementation". DrKay (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we have far too many biographies that say "So-and-so is a Nationality something" with zero sourcing for the nationality (noting in particular that nationality, birthplace, and most recent dwelling are not always the same thing). I think that this is a MOS issue to the extent that the MOS encourages including this badly-sourced material. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A lot of the disputes in this area are due to editors wanting to identify famous people as “one of us” (or infamous people as “one of them”). Demanding high quality sources is how we resolve the disputes. Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in any edit-wars, so I'm glad this discussion is taking place. The latest version of the guidance that DrKay has added seems fairly reasonable to me. It does seem to suffer from the requirement that mentioning place of birth and death in the lead are subject to their relevance to notability. I'm quite sympathetic to keeping the lead concise, and requiring information to focus on explaining why a subject is notable is one way of helping that conciseness. However, I'm also aware that many readers will come to our articles just to find a single piece of information about a person. If the biography has no infobox (to give the information "at-a-glance"), we ought to at least consider supplying that in the lead, otherwise the reader has to find it somewhere else in the body of the article. Sometimes that's difficult; sometimes it's not. Take Hattie Jacques, for example, where did she die? That's not immediately obvious, and I think that it really should be, despite not being relevant to her notability.

Have a think about what we might consider best practice. When there's an infobox to hold simple facts, I can't see any problem in just putting of year of birth (and death where applicable) in the lead. But where there's no infobox, ought we not to mention place of birth and death in the lead? Is there a case for giving full dates of birth and death in those circumstances? I'm not tied to any particular formula, but I do think our guidance ought to offer sufficient flexibility to deal with these sort of issues, rather than a more rigid "one-size-fits-all" orthodoxy. --RexxS (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Nationality in the lede is notable and has always been present - it should stay. If it's unclear/complex then move it elsewhere in the lede. Simple example - "John Smith is an American astronaut". Complex example - "John Smith is an astronaut. Born in France, he moved to Germany at the age of 5" or "Born in France, he acquired German citizenship" etc. We have done that for soccer players ("Born in France, he represented Germany at international level") for years and it works well. GiantSnowman 19:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that nationality is always notable or should be included in the lede, especially in complex cases. I happened to see Meyer Lansky today, for example, where the issue is left to the body of the article (in the current version). Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Except, of course, that Lansky is described as American by a number of sources, including Britannica. He's also already in a number of 'American X' categories... GiantSnowman 09:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, he was about 9 when he emigrated. Calling him American in the lead sentence may be confusing. He was ethnic Polish, left formerly Polish territory controlled by Russia and now part of Belarus, and spend the rest of this life in the US. With some massaging, that's what the lead should say.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Why in the lead? How much of this is actually relevant for his later life? How can we even state any nationality in the lead when we have no source that states his citizenship as a citizenship? We currently source it to Brittanica's short description "American gangster" but to me that indicates only that he operated primarily in the US rather than saying anything about his citizenship. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: You say "latest version of the guidance that DrKay has added". I've added nothing. I am restoring the last uncontested version added by User:SMcCandlish: [1]. DrKay (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

When you make an edit, you take full responsibility for the content you add. It makes not a jot of difference if someone else made the same or similar edits earlier, it's still your edit. I happen to agree with it, but that's not relevant to the authorship of the edit. --RexxS (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. I think we're talking at cross-purposes. Your statement and revert[2] made it appear to me that you thought I was adding something entirely new to the guideline not reverting to an earlier version. I am not adding anything new. DrKay (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

That's fair enough. My objection to your edit that I reverted was partly the loss of the phrase "may appear in the lead" (because I think it's important to explicitly state that) and partly because of the assumption around jus soli you made in the edit summary as justification. --RexxS (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

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

You are introducing a strawman argument. Tina Turner should be described as an American singer, as BLPLEAD states "if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." We are trying to provide context, i.e. identify the place and social and cultural milieu in which the person became notable. We are not trying to label people. Lead sentences labeling people by their birthplaces or ethnicity (e.g. "Jewish American physicist", Egyptian-born French singer, etc ...) should be changed to remove those labels, unless integral to their notability; this is exactly like how we don't label people as Catholic, black, or gay, in the lead sentence. LK (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Once again, people are trying to formulate "one-size-fits-all "rules" for an issue that needs to be determined on a case by case basis. For some bio subjects, the best place to mention their nationality/ethnicity/place of origin is in the lead ... for others, however, the best place to mention these things is in the body of the text... for yet others, the best approach is to NOT MENTION IT at all. Policywise, we should allow all three scenarios... and leave it up to consensus at the local article level to determine which scenario fits the specific subject best. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Will you please stop trying to inject common sense, as if editors' mental faculties might be adequate for making choices like that? EEng 13:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. It's fine to outlay an average case, but it does need to be clear that there's no requirement to "lead-ify" this info if it's not actually encyclopedically useful in a particular case to have it there. For modern subjects, never mentioning their birth place or place of citizenship or any other indicator of national connection probably isn't going to fly, but going back more than a couple of centuries and that nation-state basis for approaching bio (or other) subjects rapidly falls apart.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Depending on people custom one can use birthplace (as in Castilian custom) or the social status given by the ethnic group, as in Catalan custom The Sardana: Catalan Dance and Catalan National Identity. This can result in conflicts, for example Pep Ventura. For Castilians he is Spanish (see this article in El Español which negates his Catalan national identity: Pepe Ventura, el andaluz que inventó la Sardana: regreso a su pueblo, Alcalá la Real), but Catalan custom gives him the status of Catalan, not Spaniard (refer to the previous article about Sardana and Catalan Nationalism) (nature versus nurture). So, depending on who you ask, Pep Ventura will be either Spanish or Catalan. It is clear that Catalan prevails, because for Spaniards Catalans are also Spanish. Using Spanish alone excludes Catalan identity, with wikipedia editors adding "Spanish from Catalonia" which is absurd when you could just put "Catalan", as can be seen in this diff: [3]. Filiprino (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

No; it's one thing using nationality (fine), it's another using regional/ethnic (not fine). GiantSnowman 13:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The political definition of nationality is a legal construct. We are talking about people, not laws. Anthropology, not politics. Filiprino (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As with infoboxes, every sufficiently long discussion eventually leads to Catalan something or other. EEng 20:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hungarian names

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

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

Transgender names

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

It's just an aspect of WP:BLPPRIVACY: personal information that we have reason to believe the subject would want to avoid repeating. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This is just for the first sentence. The information isn't suppressed, it's just left out of the first sentence. I disagree with this guideline, but I don't see it as a big problem. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The information is suppressed, it's put in a place where a reader is less likely to find it.

If privacy is the reason it should be the same for non-trans people too. If it's about not hurting the feelings of the person then I'm afraid that really shouldn't be a concern for an encyclopedia.

It is a big problem because it is an extreme viewpoint forced on a supposedly neutral site, for no good reason. 188.143.118.18 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The information is not suppressed, it's available, but not always in the first sentence. It is the same for non-trans people who change their name in the same way, or when we don't know the birth name. It's not an extreme viewpoint and it's not forced because it's a consensus decision made by editors. That's a good enough reason. --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

An analog person with his analog computer.

-User:Kendall-K1

The first sentence is more about letting the reader know they've got the right article than about telling the reader everything there is to know about the subject. Putting a non-notable extra name there does not serve that purpose. I have a problem with limiting this rule to just "non-binary people" but I have no problem with the general principle. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

These nonbinary people, would they be sexadecimal? EEng 03:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you about the blatant carve-out created only for those who changed their names for gender identity reasons. In my opinion the privacy argument should apply only when a transgender person wishes to remain "stealth" (not have their transgender status known) to the general public (in which case unless there is an overriding reason to have them in the article any other references that would indicate their transgender status should be redacted as well, which falls in line with putting up other medical information about a person). However, if one is voluntarily "out" about their status as a transgender person to the public (e.g. the example given of Laverne Cox), then I think their birth name should be held to the same standards as those who changed their name for other reasons where one would similarly prefer their former name not be prominently displayed (regardless of which way you think the guidelines should change).

If it were up to me I'd have a three-tier set of guidelines on how to handle birth or other former legal names (regardless of the reason for the change) using the analogy of how laws in the U.S. that treat people differently based on various characteristics are reviewed when challenged in court. In cases where the subject is unlikely to object to the former name being shown (or would want it to be shown, as would usually be the case for maiden names), then we should put in the lead and where applicable in the article as long as it's properly sourced (this being the "rational basis" case). In cases where the subject would likely prefer the former name not be prominent due to associations with it, but there are neither any tangible privacy issues nor would the name communicate anything that isn't otherwise specified on their page, then an "intermediate scrutiny" strategy where the former name isn't mentioned in the lead unless they were notable under it but (assuming proper sourcing) the name can be mentioned in the infobox or in the section(s) of their article covering the phase(s) of life in which they were known by that name (trans-related name changes where one is "out" by choice would apply here). In cases like a transgender person who wishes to remain "stealth", or where putting the name up could compromise their privacy in violation of BLP, then a "strict scrutiny" strategy would apply where the former name is not mentioned anywhere on their page unless there is a strong overriding reason to have it there (provided that such privacy protections would realistically be possible in that person's case).

The only "special treatment" that I would give to trans-related name changes would be that if the only reason the birth name was known was due to others causing harm (and that source would not likewise advertise a non-transgender person's birth name in the same matter if it had been changed), then such would not be considered a valid source.Okieditor (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright, do we vote to change it? 188.143.56.37 (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not willing to relax this. There are too many right-wing trolls who wish only for a license to deliberately disrespect transgender people. Wiggle room in this part of the MOS plays into their hands. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I second David Eppstein on this. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I would be in favor of removing "In the case of transgender and non-binary people,". Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Removing from the lead maiden names of women who changed their names on marriage, unless they were notable under the earlier name? That's a pretty big change. I assume you would at least keep the name later in the article (just as we typically list birthplaces later rather than in the lead). If we removed them altogether, some sources would become much harder to find. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be a pretty big change from our normal convention, but it would make sense. The opening sentence should be presenting really key information, and I just don't see how a woman's maiden name falls into that category unless they were notable under that name. Of course it would always be appropriate in the Early life section, so the information would remain, but then we wouldn't be offering what would then effectively be a piece of trivia in such a prominent place as we do now. --RexxS (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd change the phrasing to something like "In cases where posting one's birth name would likely cause harm in violation of BLP, including but not limited to transgender and non-binary people..." which would cover all cases falling under my "intermediate scrutiny" analogy. I just think it's unfair that for example someone who wants to distance themselves from their birth name for other reasons (e.g. they dislike what their parents named them, their birth family was abusive and they were adopted, their paternity was incorrectly assumed at birth, etc.) can't get their birth name de-emphasized in the same way as a transgender person who is open to the public about their status (and thus no concerns about the birth name outing them) can. Cases like most maiden names (and other "rational basis" name changes) would be unaffected. I am not transphobic, I just dislike how transgender people are getting special treatment that others who may not want their birth name prominent don't.Okieditor (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• There's nowhere near enough of a rationale offered above to remove or change this material (I see a bunch of socio-politicized WP:ILIKEIT, basically). The trolling and disruption potential is too high. Much of what MoS does (like 100+ points of it, on various pages) is explain how actual policy applies to certain style matters. This is one of those cases. If a change is desired about WP's approach to transgender people, that should be taken up at WP:BLP, or WP:VPPOL maybe (since some TG people are, of course, no longer living, though the privacy and WP:UNDUE dwelling concerns are about the ones who are). It's not like this hasn't already been hashed over again and again and again at extreme length. I think the last major RfC about TG people at VPPOL was one of the longest in WP history (both as to how long it ran and to what byte-size).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Health and Appearance of Michael Jackson

Disregard

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

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

Michael Jackson's been dead for quite some time so I'm assuming his health and appearance aren't the best at this point. EEng 03:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

EEng A perfect example to show how "great" Wikipedia is. If you want a qualiied answer this is the place to go. You sucked off a clown? Quaffel (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

In an abundance of generosity I'm attributing that comment to your tenuous grasp of English. EEng 17:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

That article actually exists? Why? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1: Because the spin-off from Michael Jackson survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael Jackson. À chacun son goût, I guess. --RexxS (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Michael Jackson had gout? EEng 21:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No, but he had great taste. --RexxS (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Less filling! EEng 22:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES

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

In this case the vice president becomes President.

but also

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

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

It should read "In this case the vice president becomes president" & "In this case the vice president acts in place of the president". GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

My question is framed in terms of what the cited guideline calls for, not what you personally think it ought to be. I'm basing the capital P in my examples above on the guideline's statement that When a formal title for a specific entity... is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description. I guess the question is whether President is a "formal title" -- or is President of the United States the only formal title for that position? EEng 16:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yoo hoo! Over here! EEng 03:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with your interpretation of the guideline, and also with GoodDay's statement of how this should really be capitalised. Conceivably one could argue that the "president" in your example is preceded by a zero article, reconciling the two! Are you proposing rephrasing MOS:JOBTITLES to clarify this exception, or is it rare enough to WP:IGNORE? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to know what to do at Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. Following the guideline makes things look really weird. EEng 07:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Your case is clearly an exception that isn't well covered by the guideline. In the words of WP:PG, Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

So I'm with GoodDay in thinking lowercase across the board would look best. (Obviously we leave the quoted text of the amendment alone.) I suppose we should wait a while to see what others think; maybe Tony1 has an opinion? EEng 14:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It's an entirely reasonable application of our MOSCAPS, and major styleguides like Chicago and New Hart's Rules (Oxford): minimise unnecessary capping. We can safely rely on organisations to over-cap job-names for some time, for PR purposes. We should not be fooled by this. Formal text, both academic and news outlets, now avoid capping wherever they can: even "prime minister Bombhead". Tony (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! EEng 03:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with "I'm with GoodDay in thinking lowercase across the board would look best." But it's about more than looks. The phrase the vice president becomes president isn't using president as title/role "as-such" (like in "President Trump", or "Trump is President of the United States"); it's playing the exact same role as "the vice president" (or as "president" in "Trump is a controversial president"). The wording is simply a grammatical compression of the vice president becomes the president, to save space. English does this frequently, e.g. "The dormitories for men are to the south; for women, the east."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Stage name that just drops the surnames

This bit doesn't seem to ring true:

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

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

Many articles record a stage name that is different from the actual name, whether that involves dropping a name or adopting a completely different name. In this instance it is probably pretty obvious where the name comes from, but it's still often worth specifying it. I can't see a problem with the MOS. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The difference here is the spelling of "Alan". Readers can tell when someone goes by their middle name or uses the just first of multiple surnames. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 14:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• You're correct there. But the MOS still spelled it Allen as did the article at the time. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It says "like" for a reason. It's not meant to be interpreted as "copy-paste this example, then insert the names that pertain to your article". It means to use some way to indicate that the end of the name has been dropped (or added; see Gro Harlem Brundtland example elsewhere on this page). It's just as common to do something like Tim Allen (born Timothy Allen Dick, June 13, 1953) (and sometimes without the bold around the birth name if it's rarely used in sources). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Middle-name redundancy

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

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

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

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

• Agreed. My parents always used my middle name, and in fact I finally abandoned my first name (and the number III!). Doug Weller talk 19:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• I figured this was already a rule as I rarely see it in articles. But yes, there is no reason to spell out when someone goes by a name that is just a variant of their birth name (using a middle name as a surname/first name). Nohomersryan (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Examples

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

Change the examples then - don't remove them. GiantSnowman 13:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Best propose new ones here first though. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Why? Every BLP should be an example. And don't forget that this page isn't just about BLPs anymore, it's about biography in general. I see no need to point people anywhere in this document. --Izno (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Because it allows editors to see the MOS fully & truly in action. What harm does it do? GiantSnowman 15:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

"MOS in action"? That's not the point of MOS. --Izno (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there izno need to point our fellow editors to any particular articles. EEng 15:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

"Do as I say but not as I do"...?! GiantSnowman 15:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Examples are helpful when they illustrate something inline right in the guideline (e.g. about an article title or about wording we've quoted from one, or just made up as a constructed example). They tend not to be helpful if someone has to go to the article and look at it (which they probably won't, and it could change at any time). Not sure what kind of examples are under discussion here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Suitability of the “Sexuality” section

There are multiple problems with the “sexuality” section:

1. MOS:ID, cited as the main article for this section, hasn’t a word on leads—or explicitly on sexuality, for that matter. It fails as authority for the dubious recommendation of this section.
2. The guidelines of the LGBT project, cited as “see also,” also hasn’t a word about leads. It too fails as authority for the dubious recommendation of this section.
3. “Sexual preference” is typically the disfavored equivalent of sexual orientation, which is the term that should be used if that is what is meant. As the sentence speaks in terms of a “person,” the singular form must be used. If something else is meant, another term or phrase should be used to avoid confusion.
4. Lastly and most crucially, the recommendation of the second sentence with regard to the problematic “sexual preferences” is wildly inappropriate, assuming the term is a stand-in for sexual orientation. It represents a heteronormative double standard, being as no other aspects of identity seem to be subjected to such treatment. Why should a person’s sexual orientation not be mentioned as a matter of course in the lead when any other aspect of his or her identity (like race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin) could be so mentioned casually and matter-of-factly, especially if he or she has discussed and revealed his or her sexual orientation in reliable sources? The recommendation makes no conceivable sense. It merely acts to conceal sexual orientation. To what end? Why should, say, a Cuban American child be able to find a role model simply by glancing at an article lead, whereas a gay American child is forced to scrutinize a whole and potentially very long article in search of his (taking gay as a primarily male term) role model? The effect here is to minimize the usefulness of articles for those readers most in need of them. How does such a guideline befit an encyclopedia and its readership, especially in the age of the It Gets Better Project? This portion of the guideline must either be deleted or very substantially changed. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography #Context. It is quite wrong to claim that "any other aspect of his or her identity (like race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin) could be so mentioned casually and matter-of-factly". You'll find that sexuality, like any other aspect of a biography, should only be mentioned in the lead if relevant to their notability. The Sexuality section is saying nothing new; it's already covered earlier in the guidance. --RexxS (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

A few points:

1. You ignore my points 1 through 3. I don’t see what objection anyone could have to my point 3. Some rewriting, at the very least, is clearly in order in that regard.
2. You are incorrect to say, “You'll find that sexuality, like any other aspect of a biography, should only be mentioned in the lead if relevant to their notability.” Biographical leads must still adhere to guidelines regarding leads generally. MOS:LEAD, linked to in this guideline, clearly states, “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.” So a biographical lead is not limited to establishing notability. It must also summarize the article, among other things. The confusing problem with this biographical lead guideline is that it’s poorly written almost entirely in terms of the opening paragraph that, like opening paragraphs in all leads, is supposed to establish notability. We appear to be expected to read the guideline in light of the more general one (MOS:LEAD). In fact, aspects of the general guideline do on occasion break into this one, as when we are directed in a specific context to “make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article.” Also note that I didn’t speak in terms of “any other aspect of a biography” but of “other aspects of identity.”
3. Relatedly, you are also wrong to suggest all identities are being addressed, let alone equally. The context guideline doesn’t speak in terms of all identities but only very particularly named ones. Race, gender, nationality, and in some cases national origin are not treated in the exclusionary manner that ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation are. Why? This is improper. With regard to sexuality, this is clearly heteronormative.
4. And let’s talk about this guideline’s broad acceptance of nationality. When I stop to think of the most salient aspect of a biographical subject’s identity, nationality does not quickly come to mind. Beethoven, after all, isn’t notable specifically for his German nationality, in and of itself. He is notable for his music, in and of itself. Yet the very first sentence of his article calls him a “German composer.” The obsession with nationality seems a bit nationalistic where “notability” is concerned.

So what would I suggest? I suggest changing all relevant guidelines (just the two, sexuality and context?) to allow all properly sourced aspects of a biographical subject’s identity (as that subject actually identifies) to be included in the lead, even if not in that first paragraph charged with establishing notability. That first paragraph can be reserved for those aspects of the subject’s identity for which the subject is notable. I am assuming here that any personal characteristics for which a historical subject has become notable, regardless of personal identification, would under current guidelines already be fair game for the lead, including that first paragraph. Antinoos69 (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

A few rebuttals:

1. Yes I ignored your points 1 to 3. I agree with much of what you wrote, and didn't think it worth making an issue over your incorrect characterisation of the guidance of "dubious". If you insist on a further comment on those points, it's "so what?" Guidance is documentation of practice on the wiki and doesn't need another part of the guidance for "authority".
2. I do agree that sexual orientation should be the preferred term.
3. I am actually perfectly correct when I tell you that “You'll find that sexuality, like any other aspect of a biography, should only be mentioned in the lead if relevant to their notability.” If you'd followed the link I gave you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography #Context, you would have found the following guidance:

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

4. You were the one who first raised those aspects when you incorrectly claimed "any other aspect of his or her identity (like race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin) could be so mentioned casually and matter-of-factly". I quoted the guideline that gave the lie to your claim, and now you want to pretend that I was suggesting something about all identities? Really? A classic straw-man argument. With regard to sexuality, it is to be treated in exactly the same way as ethnicity, religion or any other aspect that is not related to notability. The reason that three are mentioned specifically is because they are the most problematical, as a glance through the archives will confirm.
5. Beethoven was born in the Electorate of Cologne, within the area geographically known as Germany, but when he was born there was no German nation, and you are quite wrong to ascribe that as his nationality. Please actually read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography #Lead section and see what it has to say about providing context in terms of location. Carles Puigdemont is notable for being a Catalan politician, but he's a Spanish citizen. So that's what the lead of his BLP says. There's no obsession with nationality.
6. The opening paragraph is concerned with introducing the subject and establishing what makes them notable (which will be summarised from the body of the article). The rest of the lead allows a summary of the rest of the article. This is common practice in our most developed articles, and is what our guidance documents.
7. Your suggestion would have the effect of overloading the lead paragraph of most biographies. Including every piece of "properly sourced" trivia simply won't gain consensus here. Do you think that Bernie Sanders should be described as a "Jewish politician"? or that Sammy Davis Jr. should be described as a "short one-eyed Jewish negro" (as he famously quipped)?

There's no "fair game" in BLPs particularly. Our guidelines here reflect WP:DUE, which is a bastion against the free-for-alls that you seem to assume are the norm. --RexxS (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I must insist you check your insulting and abusive tone. You are absolutely nobody to be insulting me. A few corrections and clarifications:

1. As for the text of the “Sexuality” section, then, let’s work on changing “sexual preferences” to “sexual orientation.” We should also change “it is related” to “related,” as the possible subjects differ in number. Let’s get that much done ASAP.
2. Actually, you were indeed incorrect to claim, “You'll find that sexuality, like any other aspect of a biography, should only be mentioned in the lead if relevant to their notability.” Your point 6 means as much. Matters of identity do not fully constitute “any other aspect of a biography,” with respect to which your “in the lead” would have to be changed to “in the first paragraph of the lead.” Reread my previous point 2. Clear?
3. You know perfectly well I read your linked page, as I both referred to and quoted from it. So drop the routine.
4. Your claim, “With regard to sexuality, it is to be treated in exactly the same way as ethnicity, religion or any other aspect that is not related to notability,” is also not supported by the actual text of the guidelines. Your statement would be true only with regard to the first paragraph of the lead, not to the lead generally. In that regard, the guidelines do not speak in general terms but only in terms of specifically enumerated identities. Not all identities are treated equally, as explained in my previous point 3. This is improper and should be changed, as I previously suggested. You are reading things into the text of the guidelines that simply are not there.
5. As for my point 4, feel free to replace Beethoven with Philip Glass, described as “an American composer” in the first sentence of his article, and my original “nationality” with “nationality and location,” if you were tripped up by the original version.
6. I have no idea why you included your point 6, as I had already stated as much.
7. Your point seven is simply absurd and insulting to minorities and oppressed groups. An LGB person or Cuban American is not comparable to a “short one-eyed Jewish negro,” nor is an identity comparable to a “quip” or “trivia.” You know better, so start showing it. (Should you really be this ignorant, then spend some time working through a serious bibliography on identity studies. You’d soon learn the differences.) As for Bernie Sanders, he could be “described” as a “Jewish politician” or “Jewish” only if reliable sources do so, and depending on what you mean by “described.” I’ve been discussing identity, so the reliable sources would have to claim Sanders identifies as one or both of those. Under my proposal, as opposed to your straw-man argument, the first paragraph of the lead would be subject to all the current strictures. The difference would be that subsequent paragraphs of the lead could include other identities of the subject as explicitly established by reliable sources—not hobbies, pass times, quips, trivia, occupations, or any such other matters, but actually professed, deep-seated, foundational, and pervasive identities otherwise suitable for inclusion in the article. There would be no “free-for-alls” here, just the usual editing process. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on the issues on hand, and not your fragile ego, shall we?

Are you still trying to claim that "any other aspect of his or her identity (like race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin) could be so mentioned casually and matter-of-factly"? Can ethnicity be mentioned casually and matter-of-factly in the lead? Can national origin, for that matter? The answer is "no, the lead is for key information only", and I have given a direct quote that disproves the assertion for ethnicity specifically. I'll come to other aspects shortly.

I really am correct to clam "You'll find that sexuality, like any other aspect of a biography, should only be mentioned in the lead if relevant to their notability.” The guidance I've quoted twice now is clear about sexuality, religion and ethnicity. Now you seem to be proposing that the list would have to be expanded to a laundry list of every possible aspect of a subject's identity in order to have effect. There's no need. The guidance at MOS:INTRO (linked from MOS:BIO) already requires us to "avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article". We just don't cram every aspect of a person's identity into the lead section, and the inclusion criterion is generally "what makes the subject notable". Matters of identity are, by definition, a subset of aspects of a person's biography, and are subject to exactly the same considerations: just the key points in the lead; greater detail in the body.

My statement, “With regard to sexuality, it is to be treated in exactly the same way as ethnicity, religion or any other aspect that is not related to notability,” is not only supported by the actual text of the guidelines, but by common practice in biographies. The mistake is in thinking that the given list of identities must necessarily be an exhaustive list. That's both logically and factually incorrect. Those three are merely the ones that have caused the greatest problems. Fortunately, editors already accept that conciseness is a fundamental tenet when writing a lead, so we don't need to spell out every possible identity for MOS:BIO; it's sufficient to document the general principle in MOS:LEAD. The reason not all identities are treated equally is that not all of of them have given rise to drawn-out arguments among editors. A look at the talk page and archives of Talk:Carles Puigdemont will give a flavour of the issues surrounding national origin, while Talk:Chelsea Manning and its 18 archives show why sexual orientation is singled out for special mention in MOS:BIO. There's nothing improper about that.

Our documentation here and at MOS:LEAD is already sufficient to cover how we decide what aspects of a subject's identity to include in the lead, and it would not be appropriate to give free rein to fans who would otherwise take the opportunity to shove every piece of minutiae into the lead of their favourite pop-star. Neither should be be giving licence to spin-doctors opposed to a politician to use our encyclopedia as a vehicle to undermine the subject. The reason I gave the example of Bernie Saunders is that there was a concerted attempt to label him as "Jewish", despite the fact that his reliably sourced cultural background is of no relevance to the reason why we have an article on him. I don't want to see that door opened again. Because it is unrelated to his notability, Bernie Saunders cannot be described as "Jewish" in the lead, despite references that document his family's background. That is adequately covered in the body of the article, but would be UNDUE in the lead.

Similarly, the example I gave of Sammy Davis Jr. joking "I'm a short, one-eyed Jewish negro - and you think you have problems?" is to illustrate that not every reliably sourced self-identification should be included in a subject's lead.

To give another example, for a basketball player, their height may indeed be a key item in describing them; for most subjects it certainly will not be.

I therefore reject your proposal to include in the lead any-and-all sourceable identities that a subject may have. It is both unworkable and unwelcome. --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yet again, you will have to check your tedious tone. I direct you to WP:CIVIL. Perhaps you’ll manage to read that correctly. A few points:

1. You’re plainly incorrect to claim, “You'll find that sexuality, like any other aspect of a biography, should only be mentioned in the lead if relevant to their notability.” The context guideline reserves the “notability” criterion for “[t]he opening paragraph” of the lead and for very specifically enumerated aspects of identity, not for the whole lead and anything in it. The rest of the lead goes well beyond matters of “notability,” per MOS:LEAD. See, also, MOS:OPENPARABIO. Current guidelines improperly single out only certain enumerated aspects of identity.
2. Your attempts to circumvent or hand-wave away the plain text of the guidelines are truly pathetic. It is absurd to believe that “the list [i.e., of enumerated identities] would have to be expanded to a laundry list of every possible aspect of a subject's identity,” or that it would be a mistake to believe “the given list of identities must necessarily be an exhaustive list.” Really? Is that the brand of crazy you wish to promote? The guidelines could very easily, economically, and clearly have been written in terms of things like “all identities of a subject” or “all personal characteristics of a subject” or some other such thing, but they weren’t. Deal with it. The fact is that your claim, “With regard to sexuality, it is to be treated in exactly the same way as ethnicity, religion or any other aspect that is not related to notability,” simply is not supported by the actual text of the guidelines, though the guidelines could very easily have been written differently and briefly.
3. Again, some of your arguments are deeply offensive to minorities and oppressed groups. You must learn to check yourself—you know, like a human being. Identity is not an “overly specific description[]” or “detail” (per MOS:INTRO), a “piece of minutiae” to be “shoved” by “fans” of a “favourite pop-star,” “licence to spin-doctors” “undermining” a subject, a matter of mere “joking” (as though mere joking could be some reliable indicator of something like identity), or a matter of simple variation in “height.” Really? You do consistently amaze, just not for the good. Identity concerns who one consistently, deeply, and pervasively considers oneself to be. People don’t tend to have a million-and-one identities. At most, one tends to have a very few. Like anything else around here, identity would be dealt with through the usual editing process, based on reliable sources’ explicit presentation oh how biographical subjects actually identify. The process would be no messier than anything else around here. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Re #1, I agree, "main page" is being used incorrectly. The Sexuality passage doesn't even mention gender identity, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity doesn't mention sexual orientation. It looks like it should be a "see also" but, even so, gender identity should just as well be covered on this page. I suspect the main reason that there's special treatment for gender identity there is that, when discussing people in English, we can't avoid gender because of the language, such as our use of pronouns. That's just a guess, and I'm not even justifying it, nor criticizing it, just commenting. Well, we've got several issues going on here, but the most easily disposed of is to remove the "main page" designation.

Re #2, unlike "main page", which implies that what you're currently reading summarizes a more detailed consideration at the other location, "see also" doesn't imply that the referenced page has any authority over the current page, any more than Kolache has authority over what's written about doughnuts at Doughnut, just because it's listed in that article's "see also" section. This is the basis for my suggestion in my previous paragraph.

Re #3, yes, and I see you made proper edits.

Re #4: The core of your complaint appears to be "Why should a person’s sexual orientation not be mentioned as a matter of course in the lead when any other aspect of his or her identity (like race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin) could be so mentioned casually and matter-of-factly, especially if he or she has discussed and revealed his or her sexual orientation in reliable sources?" Your premise here is that "any other aspect of his or her identity (like race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin) could be so mentioned casually and matter-of-factly". But it says further up the same page, at WP:Manual of Style/Biography#Context, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Your premise is wrong, except for gender. (As I noted above, gender simply can't be avoided in English—a lead section is going to have third-person pronouns in it.) Therefore, your complaint was based on a mistake of fact, and is null, unless you're going to start moving the goalposts, which it looks like you may be doing in your discussion above, but TL;DR and I could be wrong. Largoplazo (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your points 1 and 2. It was just that, with there being a “main page,” one is lead to wonder whether the “see also” page might also be intended to offer some sort of authority. I think we should just list both pages as “see also.”

Point 3 certainly is now irrelevant.

Point 4, however, is indeed now out of date. We are now discussing changing all relevant guidelines (two specific sections at last count?) so that a biographical subject’s fundamental identity or identities can be included in the lead, just not in its first paragraph. You’ll have to wade through the details above. (Current cited guidelines do not even mention all identities, nor do they provide any reference to identities in general. Cited guidelines therefore treat the identities specifically enumerated for disfavored treatment differently from all other identities, whether mentioned or not. Gender isn’t the only identity I mentioned that escapes censure; race does as well. And the essential point isn’t the reason why gender escapes censure. The point is that it does, with real-world impact on members of other groups.)

The mere fact that sexuality is singled out in a separate section, despite being mentioned in the context section, already raises all sorts of red flags. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

If some cross-references are no longer pertinent then remove them. If they're not pertinent as {{Main}} but as something else ({{See also}}) then change them. Hatnotes not being quite right doesn't cast any magical doubt on the advice in the section. Anyway, I don't see a concrete proposal here, just complaining and editorializing, then back-and-forth about the content of that opinion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Honorific in infobox

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

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

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

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

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

I have been bold and removed the honorific. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Manual of Style is a guideline and they are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. MOS guidance should surely document our accepted practices, not become tablets of stone that dictate how we should edit. With over 1,000 articles using the parameter (search insource:/\| *honorific-suffix *= *[A-Z]/), I think it's pretty clear that our practice is to include honorific suffixes in infoboxes. If MOS doesn't document that, then I suggest that the proper course is to update the MOS to do so. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

No update is necessary. Suffixes are covered by the Post-nominals section. Prefixes are deprecated in wikipedia's own voice, which doesn't include the infobox. It refers to running text. DrKay (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, DrKay, although the explicit guidance was hiding away in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Formatting post-nominals section. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Except our infoboxes are in WP's own voice, by definition. Who else's could it possibly be? While we wouldn't have this parameter, and have it used occasionally (1000 bios is not many, in the grand scheme) without some expressed reasons for it, that doesn't necessarily mean it has consensus. Lots of people thought they had consensus to apply ethnic and religious labeling with infobox parameters, and they were wrong, as some long RfCs at WP:VPPOL determined. This is the sort of thing that is worth RfCing in such a venue (not at the talk page of the infobox, which no one pays attention to other than infobox coders). Or at very least, advertise the RfC at that page (or this one, or whatever) at VPPOL. Personally, I don't think we should at all be doing "His Excellency" in an infobox, because it definitely is in WP's voice, because the article body is where to describe honorifics and their applicability, and (related from that last point) because various people have far too many pre-nominal honorifics, styles, and titles (which aren't really the same thing, though easily confused) to list in an infobox.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

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

[4]. EEng 20:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - an interesting read, I guess I've learned something. This isn't commonly observed elsewhere though for notable Arab figures - quick check, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi, Nouri Abusahmain, Abdelilah Benkirane, Bashar al-Assad, Beji Caid Essebsi and the inestimable Boutros Boutros-Ghali all use the last name per MOS:SURNAME - the only other exceptions I found were royals like the Saud family (and there's a specific exception in the guideline for royalty). Do we need to amend MOS:SURNAME to take better note of alternative customs, or is there a reason why Saddam Hussein abdal-Majid (as I now know he's actually called) is treated differently? GirthSummit _(blether) 21:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I suspect if we wait a bit editors knowledgeable in this area will comment. EEng 21:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I edited my comments above to take account of EEng's change to the shortcut (which I agree is probably a good thing). I think that my question still stands however - either our usage is wrong for the Arab figures that I've checked, and we need to update MOS:GIVENNAME to take account of the treatment of names in Arab countries; or, we are treating Saddam Hussein as an exception for a reason I'm not clear on. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right, and I'll bet someone will volunteer to propose some text along the lines you suggest if we just wait a few days; otherwise we can ping some usual suspects. I note there's also WP:Naming_conventions_(people), which then lists a lot of really specific sub-guidelines like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) and, separately, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) (!), so I wonder if there's not a need for integration of all these far-flung pages. I certainly can't believe we need sportspeople AND baseball players. EEng 23:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Blimey - I'm surprised I've never seen 'Per WP:NC-BASE' in an edit summary reverting an IP before. Agree with you that it would be good to collate all this in one place; hope we get some expert eyes on the question in hand, happy to wait for them to come along. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

My solution to things like this is to insert an HTML comment right after first occurrence of the name that some editors might want to change, e.g. <!--Do not change this to "Hussein"; Iraqi naming conventions do not work that way.-->, with a cross-reference to an article, source, or consensus discussion if that seems helpful. This technique seems to work well. E.g., I've been using it for 10+ years to get people to stop over-capitalizing titles of works, names of animal breeds, and various other things in French, Spanish, and other languages that use different capitalizations rules than English (e.g., many do not capitalize "proper adjectives" like "Spanish", "American", only the proper noun forms).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-English name/birth name in lead

The article Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha has the following lead sentence:

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

Which to me is:

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

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

• Though, in this case the second "born" will disappear as soon as we have confirmation of his death, in favour of (4 April 1958 - 27 October 2018). It's a good point for still-living people, though. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• How about this, not much better but eliminates one "born":

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

Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That works for me. However, as Black Kite said (albeit before the news confirmation was made) it is a redundant query with this particular article although may be relevant to others. MIDI (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Usually, when multiple instances of native script and pronunciation guides begin to clutter the lead, I move them off into footnotes. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC) I've edited the article in question accordingly. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made a couple of changes which I hope retain information but at the same time improve readability. I am aware that various services that reuse Wikipedia content strip out bracketed content from the lead, so (although that's not really our problem), all pronunciation keys and translations are included within the same single bracket pair. MIDI (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Name change in living person

I think we should change

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

to

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

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

Just use a comma. I see that the article is presently doing so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

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

Royal surnames

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

They're not excluded (e.g. John III Sobieski, Anna Jagiellon, Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, Matthias Corvinus). Guidelines should describe actual practice. DrKay (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

They are excluded (e.g. Elizabeth I of England, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV of France, Frederick III, German Emperor). I wonder which articles did editors bother to check established guidelines and which didn't. I have no preference if they are included or not but I think we should find out if there is a compelling reason why monarchs' surnames were specifically excluded from the guideline before simply changing it. --Thinker78 (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I see no inconsistency between DrKay's above-referenced edit to the guideline (bringing this page into line with WP:NCROY, which goes into far more detail as to reasons) and actual practice. For absolute clarity, how about "(full name – including surname if known and commonly used)" in this article. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

To be pedantic, you might want to tweak that slightly since monarchs may not have a surname at all. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me. DrKay (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Rosbif73, actually WP:NCROY, under WP:SOVEREIGN, states, "No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them." So I don't understand why you say "it brings this page into line with WP:NCROY". Can you clarify? --Thinker78 (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

To summarise the situation: Most of the main European royal families don't even have surnames, so the question is moot. There are, however, cases where they do have a surname or adopt one for certain uses (e.g. Prince William uses Wales for military purposes), but this shouldn't be in the article titlelead sentence, hence the "normally used" qualifier. And there are cases (such as the examples listed above by DrKay) where the surname is commonly used and should be included. And, crucially for the edit in question, we don't want an exception for monarchs otherwise the guideline would effectively tell us to add William's surname to his article title once he becomes king, for example. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Reading that again, I realise I have the exception totally backwards, and that I have also confused article title guidelines with lead guidelines. An actual example where the edit in question makes a difference would be Albert II, Prince of Monaco, for which the guideline with the "except for monarchs" clause would have had "Grimaldi" included prior to his accession, but removed afterwards. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"No family names, except where English speakers normally use them." is the same as "Only incorporate surnames if they are in normal use." Either way, we do not list surnames unless they are used, in which case we do. DrKay (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

DrKay, but your edit stated, "including surname if known", not if they are in normal use. In addition, normal use by whom? As determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources? --Thinker78 (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you missed my comment at 17:19, 14 November 2018. I see no other good faith reason why you would continue an expired argument after I've agreed with the proposed amendment. DrKay (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

DrKay, if you think this is an expired argument you are free to ignore it or to request a WP:CLOSE. Your comment at 17:19 November 2018 doesn't tell me much, except that you agree with an unexplained tweak. I really dislike when people try to thwart discussions with baseless accusations. --Thinker78 (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Edited 21:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's what you're doing. DrKay (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I attempted to change this from "including surname if known, except for monarchs" to "including surname if known and commonly used", which appears to me to be the consensus here, but have been reverted by an admin. Does anyone actually object to this change or have anything further to contribute? Rosbif73 (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

As stated, a brief discussion is not sufficient and there is no consensus to change the status quo, given @Thinker78:'s opposition. GiantSnowman 12:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Rosbif73, I was hoping for an answer from DrKay but for some reason they went into a tangent instead of answering my question posted at 22:09, 15 November 2018. Feel free to shed light on it, as there could be normal use in the vernacular language if other than English as many editors are in other countries whose main language is not English and their normal use may be different than that in English. --Thinker78 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we at least agree on the original edit, removing the exception for monarchs which, if it were to be applied, would result in unwanted changes when an heir succedes to a throne, and which does not reflect actual practice? We can then go on to discuss the normal use angle if necessary. Obviously I can't speak for DrKay, but I don't see any reason to read anything into "normal use" other than its typical wiki implications of normal (primarily English-language) use supported by reliable sources (which can be presumed to reflect normal use in the wider world). Rosbif73 (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Normal angle is attached to the monarch exception. As you can see in the first comments in this thread, actual practice is split, and the guideline probably should have been followed unless the editor thought for some good reason it shouldn't be used. Maybe in the articles where the guideline is not used is because editors simply failed to look what was the established guideline. So we have to find out what was the original reason to put the monarch exception. In addition, heirs becoming monarchs is not a very frequent occurrence for us to be troubled to have to make an edit in their bios. Thinker78 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The editor who inserted the exception, claimed it came from the naming convention[5] even though there was no such rule at that page at the time[6] and still isn't[7]. Furthermore, that page was at that time in dispute[8]. DrKay (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't find actual practice to be split. The examples given above (John III Sobieski, Anna Jagiellon, Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, Matthias Corvinus) are historical, for members of dynasties that ceased to exist or reign centuries ago. Since the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1815, it has been prevalent usage for monarchs themselves, their courts and others to refer to them by regnal name, regnal number and title only, without a last name. The exceptions were a few of the Balkan monarchies in which the ruling dynasty was either new to the throne or had monarchs of different families succeeding to/usurping the crown (Montenegro, Romania, Serbia), but the last of those exceptions (Aleksandar Obrenović) died in 1903. This is also true for non-reigning members of Europe's dynasties: they don't use surnames (the exceptions being Italy's House of Savoy and France's House of Orléans in which the custom has been for royal dynasts to use a territorial designation rather than the name of the country, along with the princely prefix and their given name, e.g., Princess Maria Beatrice of Savoy, Princess Marie of Orléans). FactStraight (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Timeline:

• The phrase "to except for monarchs" was changed from "but not for monarchs" on 13:21, 8 December 2014.
• "but not for monarchs" was added on 08:42, 14 April 2010, moved from WP:NCROY.
• In WP:NCROY "but not for monarchs" was added on 15:43, 8 January 2005 amid more changes, referred to in the thread Extensive changes, in the archive, where the editor says that the edits were done to reflect current practice at the time.

The question is whether said practice has changed and what is the best practice to follow. Is it better to include the surname of a monarch or not? I am leaning to think that is best to include the surname because that provides more information. Thinker78 (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the evidence that the practice has changed of omitting monarchs' surnames? That practice remains usual, has long been prevalent and, as I noted, has been exclusively the norm since 1903. The cases in which rulers' surnames were ever used in Europe were exceptional, either Italian ducal dynasties (Sforza, Medici, Borgia, Gonzaga, Farnese, etc.) arisen from condottieres or those who obtained their thrones as individuals rather than as heirs of a ruling dynasty (viz. Stanislaw Poniatowski, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joachim Murat, Alexandru Ioan Cuza, Alexander Karađorđević). For articles on medieval and early modern monarchs known to history predominantly by their surnames, we should continue to call them as history does. To suffix surnames to the vast majority of other hereditary rulers would be an ahistorical Wikipedia innovation that is unnecessary: why not simply do what encyclopedias have usually done in such cases, i.e. not "Elizabeth II Windsor" but "Elizabeth II of the House of Windsor"? Otherwise we needlessly open a can of worms: The surname of Belgium's kings is officially in three languages (none of them English), all of which must be given if any is given. Norway's kings acknowledge no surname. In Sweden only members of the King's family who have forfeited their royal rights are referred to by the dynasty's surname (Bernadotte). Moreover, dynastic surnames, when they exist, follow unique rules: Elizabeth II and Charles, Prince of Wales, have the surname "Windsor" (although they have never used it) but that is by virtue of letters patent which specifies a different surname (Mountbatten-Windsor) for their junior, non-princely descendants, yet which is silent about the surname of Charles's own children, Princes William and Harry. Every member of the King or Queen of the Netherlands' family gets a different surname and title, legislated by the Dutch Parliament sometime during the course of their lives. When royalty's surnames exist they should certainly be mentioned in their bios, but should not be appended to their given names, as that would incorrectly imply that they are actually used in the way that non-royals typically make use of their last names. Let's not create confusion where none exists. FactStraight (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. There doesn't seem to be any serious dispute about the historical cases – either the majority that did not have surnames, or the minority known to history predominantly by their surnames. The only issue, as I see it, is whether we should mention the surname as part of the full name in the lead sentence for those (very few) more recent royal families that do have surnames - and in particular whether we should treat the monarchs amongst them any differently from other non-reigning members of the same family. In the few articles concerned, the surname does seem to be given both for monarchs and for other family members. I've only found one example of a current royal family that uses a surname: "Grimaldi", which is stated in the full names given in in the leads of Albert II, Prince of Monaco and those of his immediate family. There are a few more examples of recently-deposed royal families, and again the surnames are given (e.g. "di Savoia" in Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples and his relatives). Rosbif73 (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Edited my comment to acknowledge that the "di Savoia" example is actually territorial designation rather than a surname per se, which leaves us with Grimaldi as the only current-day example potentially affected by the guideline. Does anyone know of any others? Rosbif73 (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If "The question is whether said practice has changed and what is the best practice to follow", then is "No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them" actually the proper answer? That was written for titles and may not actually apply properly to leads. I tend to think it does not. And there's some confusion above. Dynastic names are not exactly surnames in the usual sense. "Family name" is probably broad enough, since dynasties are familial. But some royals in the same family do use surnames (like Mountbatten, a British modern surname constructed in the early 20th century from the German dynastic name Battenberg); such usage seems to increase the further they are from the throne, but there may be exceptions (I'm not a "royal-chaser", so I'm not sure), and it seems not to have operated as a surname at first but also as a dynastic name.

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

That is a poor example - Mountbatten was a name invented by the maternal grandfather of Philip, and which Philip then chose, or tried, to use himself, and for his children and other descendents - the subject of a big storm in the court in the 1950s, where he was essentially unsuccessful. His own natural surname, from his father, is something complicated involving Glücksburg, which of course is never used either. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the Prince Phillip article as the example. The name in the lede is, "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (born Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark...). This doesn't comply with the guideline as it is and has a diferent formula altogether: {royal title} {name} {ordinal if appropriate}{alternate title} (born {royal title} {name} {localities} )". Besides, most importantly, he is not a monarch. In addition, injecting "commonly used" would prevent writing their full names, even middle names, because they are not commonly used by reliable sources. Welcome back! Thinker78 (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment: Should the Infobox photo caption identify a place or event if the information is tangential?

McCloud at the RISD in March 2007

McCloud in 2007

Scott McCloud biography as an example

Should the biography infobox image caption contain information about the place or event where the photo was taken, if the place or event is not very relevant to the larger topic? Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• No. The caption in the infobox should be pruned down as much as possible, so that the topic is not immediately deflected into tangentials. The only guideline addressing the caption issue is found at Help:Infobox picture which says "It may be helpful to include the date or place of the photo." It's my opinion that the year of a biographical photo is almost always important, but the place may be irrelevant. And the infobox is the least appropriate place for a less-relevant place to be identified.
  Background information: After seeing a few hundred biography infobox images taken by Gage Skidmore at San Diego Comic-Con, all with captions naming San Diego Comic-Con, I felt that the event was, in the aggregate, being given too much weight across multiple articles. I started removing the place from biographies where it did not seem so relevant. Nightscream discovered my removals and reverted a great number of them, for example Ben Kingsley and Kirk Hammett. Kingsley's main fame is from acting in films, including many top awards. An appearance at Comic Con is not an important part of the topic. Similarly, Hammett is famous as the guitarist of Metallica, not for any comic-related stuff. So for guidance on the issue I started this RfC. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• No the year it was taken is relevant but nothing else, if the reader needs to know more they can click on the image to get the information. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep reasonable time and place indications

  A caption does not have be relevant to the article topic. It is reasonable to add an indication of time and place for descriptive purposes. Readers like to have an idea of where and when a photo of a subject was taken. This may be for historical purposes, for context, to compliment their aesthetic appreciation of the photo, to reference what a subject may have looked like at different points in their life, or for any number of reasons. Captions are widely used across various media for such purposes. I am not aware of any principle or precedent for captions that says that such information has to be directly relevant to an article on the subject, or that the year a photo was taken is the only acceptable information that can be placed in a caption. Nightscream (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree wih Nightscream about that it is useful to provide some basic information regarding the photographs. David A (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the place (and more importantly the date as it relates to how youthful the person appears in the photo and what they might look like at other dates) but drop the subject's name, per WP:SURPRISEME (see the entry there on Harry Elkins Widener) and to keep the caption more concise. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The media and other encyclopedias use captains to describe the photo. Place & time are important for historical contexts.--v/r - TP 20:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• No. Excessive captions, and they frequently contain wikilinks, are distracting. That this particular example was a photograph of the person taken at Rhode Island School of Design adds nothing whatsoever to the picture and, since an abbreviation is used, only leads me to click on it, pulling me away from the article. It may well be that some information is indeed relevant in a caption, but that's likely to be information about the setting, the scene, the activity, whatever, but in an infobox we need concise information, and we're dealing with a portrait. There's a huge difference between File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1972-045-08, Westfeldzug, Rommel bei Besprechung mit Offizieren.jpg and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1977-018-13A, Erwin Rommel(brighter).jpg . Drmies (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Leave it to editorial discretion—there's no "right" length of caption or amount of detail. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Use common sense. There is no one rule here that is going to apply in every circumstance. GMG^talk 21:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Leave it to editorial discretion. Either of these are ok, though personally I'd use the short one. Some people use ridiculously long captions - if it's over 3 lines it's probably too long. But if people start removing locations etc, as with San Diego Comic-Con above, they may well have a point. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Usually no; when yes, a consensus for a whole category should be seeked. I'll give a couple of exceptions to my "usually no" !vote, but I don't think there are many others. Captions are useful for explaining the clothes or makeup that the subject is wearing in the photo, but that's rarely needed. If the subject is doing their job, giving an interview, or doing a talk, then very likely no. If the subject is doing something weird, it will often be probably yes. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 22:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• No: year is adequate. In a picture such as this where the surroundings are entirely undistinctive, there is no reason to mention them; the lack of distracting surroundings makes it a suitable picture. Where the reader is likely to have questions prompted by the image (Where on Earth is that? WTF is happening there?), it would make sense to answer them briefly, BUT, if the image has so much other than the subject that attention is greatly distracted from the person allegedly presented, it is probably not a suitable photo, or it needs cropping. Kevin McE (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Not ideally. The purpose of a photo caption is to tell the reader what they are looking at. As already stated, if it's a person, the year is useful to provide age context. If the setting is a significant part of the picture, or if it's necessary to understand why the subject is (atypically) dressed like a ballerina, it should be identified, to satisfy the reader's curiosity. However, if the setting is not visible – such as in a closely cropped photos like the McCloud example – it should be left out. NOTE: A photo that requires a description of the setting is a poor choice for the infobox, which per WP:LEADIMAGE is supposed to be a portrait-style image of what the subject typically looks/looked like, without extraneous content.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep for context. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 00:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Date generally preferred and place per editorial discretion - The date shows how old the person was in the photo, and that is almost always wanted by the viewer. The place, well, if the subject is in scuba gear with a boiling geyser in the background, visitors will probably want to know the place, and, per editorial discretion, maybe even a bit more. If the subject is in ordinary clothes with a white wall behind, probably nobody cares. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Leaning keep Basic information about the circumstances of a photo may be useful or interesting for the reader, but I am not inclined to mandate a specific level of detail for captions other than discouraging very long captions in most circumstances. --Pine^✉ 03:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Only very briefly. Some context is important to interpret the picture--such things as the expression, the clothing, the degree of formality. But it should never amount to details about the event. Usually, , "John Smith in 2020 " maybe "John Smith accepting the X prize in 2020". not "John Smith accepting the X from from Governor Y in the ceremony at famous place Z along with A , B and C. " -- where A , B,. and C are even more distinguished. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• No guideline. The suggestion is thoughtful and addresses a nuisance, but WP has too many rules already. Editors should be wise and tolerant, even with subtle questions. If they aren't, this kind of guideline will avail little. If we must say something, it can be along the lines of "Captions should not be lengthened with irrelevant details", which is about as precise as Orwell's "No animal shall drink alcohol to excess". Jim.henderson (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Jesus H. Christ, do we need a rule for everything??? Use your judgment in each case. EEng 06:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• What may be happening is intelligent editors have created, argued, and reminisced about so many rules, guidelines, and related flora and fauna that Wikipedia is running out of them. Intelligence flows like water into extant depressions, and when the ground is mostly level all we get are slight smeared-out puddles which then freeze over and cause all kinds of slipping and grumbling. I've even come up with a "Guernica exception" to pass the time. We must live with this. Oh, and No guideline per EEng and Jim.Henderson. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)