Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Nationality

Out of no where this format à la "Austrian and American" comes to counter the long established tradition of the hyphen! Goodness gracious ;)

Where and when has this format been decided all of a sudden? Synotia (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you give an example. There is no nation of Austria-America, so Austrian and American or Austrian, American would be the correct way to show dual nationality. A hyphen is often used to describe ethnicity. Is that what you mean? MB 15:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

We write African-American culture for example, yet there is no nation of Africa-America either?

And has this been decided by a community consensus, or by just one single egghead? Synotia (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with MB… if we are indicating someone’s ethnic heritage (not encouraged, per MOS:ETHNICITY) then the hyphen would be appropriate, but if we are trying to indicate dual citizenship we would need to link the two nationalities with “and” (and if we are indicating sequential citizenship - ie the person renounced one citizenship for another - I would suggest not trying to do so in one single sentence). Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

No one seems willing to denounce themselves ;) Synotia (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that for ethnicity, MOS:HYPHEN says not to hyphenate:

Avoid using hyphen to connect racial or ethnic descriptors, regardless of whether or not they are used attributively (Aboriginal Australians, Asian American studies, Black British people).

—Bagumba (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Once again, I have no clue who came up with this, it goes against the established consensus on this encyclopedia. For ages people used hyphens and nobody had an issue with it. Only a very very small handful of articles use that weird format. Moreover, outside of Wikipedia I have never encountered it, making it feel made up as hell. --Synotia (moan) 12:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Sex in CONTEXTBIO?

MOS:CONTEXTBIO doesn’t make mention of sex (or gender), but it seems like there would be no reason not to treat it the same. We don’t need to clarify someone as a “female soccer player” or “female scientist”, except in cases like “first woman to win a Nobel Prize” (and so on). Am I missing something, or is this sort of consideration so obvious to be CREEPy? — HTGS (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

We don’t need to clarify someone as a “female soccer player” or “female scientist” — but we do categorise them (Category:Women's association football players, Category:Women scientists) and thus we should define them as such. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames I am not talking about categorization, but about the text (and specifically the lead sentence) of a biography, per MOS:CONTEXTBIO. And specifically, I am wondering out loud whether CONTEXTBIO should explicitly advise against including gender in the lead sentence. Whether or not people are put into gendered categories is of no concern to me. — HTGS (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Would this idea also apply to trans people? Would we no longer state “X is a trans-female soccer player” or “Y is a trans-male actor”? Blueboar (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would assume that in most cases of trans athletes, their gender would be central or pertinent to their notability. This may also be true of trans people generally, but it would still align with people like Rachel Levine, who is notable (largely) independent of her gender, and whose lead paragraph currently does not mention that she is a trans woman.

  FWIW I didn’t pose the question with trans people in mind (I had just made this edit … is a New Zealand female rugby union player) so a carveout for trans bios would be fine by me. Eg, a footnote like “for trans individuals this guideline may not always apply”. But I do feel that CONTEXTBIO's current wording (gender … should generally not be in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability) would cover it well enough for the good judgment of good editors. — HTGS (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  And, to be especially clear, I was (and am) posing an open question. The addition of gender seems to logically follow for me, but reasonable minds may differ. — HTGS (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

please explain (GENDERID examples)

(I noticed this on the MOS:GIDINFO page, but the content is transcluded from here)

As of this writing we offer two examples of "don't include the former name if not notable", both written in green (indicating this is how to write things):

• From Laverne Cox, not notable under prior name: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
• From Rachel Levine, not notable under prior name: Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...

First off, the green text doesn't actually match what the articles (currently) say: The first article begins "Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) is an American actress and..." Green text should IMO be reserved for the actual words we want to teach readers to use. Plus, wouldn't it be better if the example actually contrasted what to write with what to not write (which is why we'd use a made-up example)

Why not use a made-up example, and why not write (in green) the exact phrasing we want readers to adopt:

• Jane Doe (born May 1, 1980) is an American celebrity. They are known for..."
• Jane Doe (formerly John Doe, born May 1, 1980) is an American celebrity. They are known for..."

Doe is not notable under prior name, so do not include it at all.

My question is: why did the community decide to not use this style of examples? CapnZapp (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, but perhaps because it's redundant. The examples are of what names to use, not pronouns. We therefore do use the exact phrasing that users should adopt. (Your examples are also contradictory: the first recommends "they" and the second, for the same person, indicates that "they" is incorrect.) I'd argue that we don't need examples of pronoun use, because it's clear from the first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID (in your example, "Doe is not notable under prior name, so do not include it at all" is required to explain which name is which, but it's merely repeating that first paragraph). EddieHugh (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Nobody is discussing pronouns. Both I and the GENDERID is discussing whether to mention the former name. My example clearly shows how to write and how to not write it.

I'm saying that this...

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

• Jane Doe (born May 1, 1980) is an American celebrity. They are known for..."
• Jane Doe (formerly John Doe, born May 1, 1980) is an American celebrity. They are known for..."

Doe is not notable under prior name, so do not include it at all.

(obviously switching to a made-up example so we can show the incorrect way of doing it; illustrating what we're telling users NOT to do) ...is much more easily understood than whatever the current text's examples is trying to say. Unlike the current text it avoids text you're not supposed to write (in other words, no they don't contain "the exact phrasing that users should adopt"), doesn't begin with a "From" (that I don't understand the purpose of), and extremely clearly illustrates both the green do and the red don't.

That I chose Jane Doe as my example name, and my choice of example nationality, "job", and pronoun, is entirely irrelevant and beside the point. CapnZapp (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought you might be referring to pronouns because you wrote "the green text doesn't actually match what the articles (currently) say", and then included pronouns, which aren't in the examples, while the green text is exactly what's in the articles. Anyway, I think that the current text is adequately clear, if long-winded (one example for not notable and one for notable would be enough). EddieHugh (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I would point out that one reason to include two examples for each case is to show that there is not "one correct template" to use to follow in each case. The notable examples, for instance, give one case where the pretransition name is a "birth name" and one where it is not. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• The "From" part, intended to explain from which articles the examples have been lifted, is completely unnecessary. But if you must link to real articles, don't mess up the example to do so.
• The contrast between green and non-green text is not great enough. Better is to offer examples consisting of green (or red) text only, with no explanatory nonsense inserted mid-example.
• Sorry, but just providing examples isn't enough. The purpose of a demonstration is to be clear. I don't mind keeping the two real-life examples, but overt clarity would then be needed. In the spirit of overt clarity: if you provide an example to show how to phrase it when pretransition name is a "birth name", say so. Don't expect the reader to "just understand". These guidelines aren't written primarily for people that already know what to say and what to avoid. For many readers, this article will be the first time they even hear about terms such as "pretransition name"!

For example (feel free to write better explanatory text; copying bits from reply above just to illustrate):

When pretransition name is a "birth name" (example from Laverne Cox):

• Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...

When it is not (example from Rachel Leland Levine):

• Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...

When pretransition name is not notable (fictional example):

• Jane Smith (formerly John Hammer, born May 1, 1980)..."

(do not include non-notable pretransition name at all)

CapnZapp (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to assume I have answered y'all to your satisfaction, and that we are now in agreement. CapnZapp (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for "preserving the presumed intention", Newimpartial. However, wouldn't you agree your edits lost the explanation of why we have two green examples? That is (with your own words) "one case where the pretransition name is a 'birth name' and one where it is not"...? At least I don't know either of Laverne Cox and Rachel Levine, and wouldn't be able to discern any functional difference between the two examples (other than "one example subject has two last names, the other has one" and "one example includes pronounciation, the other does not") CapnZapp (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by Elliot Page's prior name not being a birth name? Wasn't Page christened "Ellen"? (And weren't we discussing these in the context of Cox/Laverne, not Manning/Page?) CapnZapp (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Prior to acting, Page's last name was a hyphenated form of his mother and father's surnames (Philpotts–Page), which was shortened for his stage name. It's a bit confusing since the hyphenated name is not in the linked article and it's not an obvious change (like from Norma Jeane Mortenson to Marilyn Monroe, for example). — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In fact, the hyphenated name does not meet notability requirements (to my knowledge, the only sourcing for it that satisfies WP:IND is a local newspaper in South America). This has been discussed at length at Talk:Elliot Page. The consensus has therefore been consistent that "Ell*n Page" is a notable professional name, not a birth name, and this consensus was reflected in the choice of example for the MOS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, come on. The purpose of giving examples is illustrating a point. In order to explain the point (why otherwise make it?) we need to explain an obscure detail that we have agreed to not divulge! The obvious conclusion is to use another example, where we can actually tell our readers what our example is meant to illustrate. CapnZapp (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not saying Page is a bad example. If we clearly (in our article) explain that Page is an example of a subject whose name is not a birth name, and avoid raising further questions by explaining why this is so, then it is a great example. If, however, we use Page as an example with zero elaboration as to why we use that example, it loses all instructive value. CapnZapp (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Where are you suggesting that this elaboration ought to be provided. Surely not in the article text of Elliot Page? Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know where the elaboration should be provided (or it if is even appropriate), but it's not clear to anyone unfamiliar with the lengthy discussions at Talk:Elliot Page why he would be used as an example for "not a birth name." It's about picking an example that makes clear the point being made, not further confusing the reader. Perhaps replacing "not a birth name" with "professional name" or "stage name" would be less confusing. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to reflect your suggestion in this tweak. Newimpartial (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

For the exclusion of pre-transition names, the difference is precisely that "one example subject has two last names, the other has one" and "one example includes pronounciation, the other does not". The value in those particular examples, as I suggested above, is simply to underline the fact that there is no single formula mandated in this branch of the decision tree, either. Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. But... this explanation needs to be provided to the reader of the article, because the point of the example is to convey a point. I certainly didn't understand this given only the examples - after all you needed to explain it to me! Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Does that make things clearer for the reader? The assumption I would work with is that a bio lede would follow MOS:FULLNAME and MOS:CHANGEDNAME, but with the stipulation that deadnames/prior names should only be used in very limited circumstances when the person was notable under that name. Do the multiple examples help understand this better? (And there really needs to be a pointer to MOS:GENDERID at MOS:CHANGEDNAME to make clear that pre-transition names are handled differently.) — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the carveout for pre-transition names of trans people deserves an effective pointer at CHANGEDNAME. Newimpartial (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Do the multiple examples help understand this better? As explained, the point of having two examples is that they are different. To me it is obvious this needs to be explained to the audience - it isn't enough that we that write the page understand what each example illustrates. Apparently, this obviousness does not extend to everybody. (While I'm not the one suggesting having twoi examples, I have no objections to it; I'm just clarifying that, to my understanding, the purpose of having two examples isn't to help understanding the basic point, it is to illustrate "there is no single formula" when you write such a lead sentence). Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

For the "no notable pretransition name" case, the two examples only illustrate "no single formula", since the difference between the cases doesn’t illustrate anything specific to pretransition names.

For the "notable pretransition name" case, the examples illustrate subtly different treatment for a birth name vs. a professional name, so they do illustrate a point that is relevant to pretransition names in particular IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point and see the same thing mirrored at MOS:FULLNAME. I edited how the GENDERID examples are presented to parallel how similar examples are presented at FULLNAME and other sections of the article. This makes it clearer to me what is being described and required (and how it aligns/differs from the guidance elsewhere). — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Specific guidelines apply to living transgender and non-binary people (see § Gender identity, below).

Late in the previous discussion, a point was raised: shouldn't CHANGEDNAME point to GENDERID?

And so it does (very last line). However, note the word "living" in the current text. Does GENDERID apply to living subjects only or equally to deceased subjects? We afford greater protections to living bio article subjects, is GENDERID one of these?

If the answer is "yes only to living" then GENDERID needs to make this distinction. If the answer is "no; to all" the above line at CHANGEDNAME needs to be edited. (To be clear: I have no opinion either way, I just want to point out this possible discrepancy)

CapnZapp (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID applies to living people ("If a living transgender or non-binary person..."). A large RFC about a year and a half ago found no consensus for changes relating to dead people.--Trystan (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably the existing pointer at CHANGEDNAME should be higher up in the section, perhaps after the red de Blasio example, since it creates a pretty big exception to what's stated upfront and currently falls after a section on changed surnames. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed GENDERID text revision redux

Per EddieHugh's request, below is proposed revised text based off what consensus here was showing, but edited to address their concerns.

When a living transgender or non-binary person's former name is not notable, that name should not be included in the article. For example:
When a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under their pretransistion pretransition name, that name should not be included in the article.
For example:

• From Laverne Cox: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
• From Rachel Levine: Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...
• Avoid: Not notable, do not use: Jane Smith (formerly John Hammer, born May 1, 1980) ...

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person who was notable under their prior former name, that name may should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article. Introduce the prior former name with "born" if they were notable under their birth name or "formerly" if notable under a prior former professional name, stage name, or pseudonym. For example:
In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person who was notable under their birth name or a former professional name, stage name, or pseudonym, that name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

• From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ...
• From Elliot Page, notable under prior former professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ...

Thoughts, objections, concerns? CapnZapp, Newimpartial —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think using the old language for the first case, like "when a living ... person was not notable under a pretransition name, that name..." is more precise (and therefore better) than your proposal. The test is the notability of the person while using the name, not the "notability of the name itself" (whatever that would mean). Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, adjusted above... Does using "pretransistion name" instead of "prior name" create any gray areas around gender change without a medical transition? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so, since the relevant transition here is social, rather than legal or medical for example. But I would like others to weigh in. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• "pretransition" is misspelled "pretransistion"
• I would have thought that the usage of green/red text is standard and that the reader can be assumed to understand its meaning ^{(actually, is green/red text color-blind-friendly?)}, but okay - if MOS generally explains examples in red as "don't actually write this, this is an example of how to do it wrong" then we should definitely repeat that here as well. If this would be an isolated case, however, I think the explanation "do not use" from "Not notable, do not use:" should be removed.
• I like how the new text avoids claiming Page's prior name is not a birth name, since we appear unwilling to actually explain that.
• I like how the new text explicitly tells us when to use "born" and when to use "formerly". (Just wanted to point out this, since the new text adds a rule that wasn't there before. Previously there wasn't an actual rule against using other words than "born" for the notable under their birth name case - we just stated editors should use "born" or "formerly". The examples hinted at which word to use where, but examples aren't rules. And to be ultra clear: I have no objections, I just want to raise awareness in case anyone missed the fact the suggested edit doesn't just change the presentation of the MOS rules, it actually changes them)
• I concur with Newimpartial's objection.

CapnZapp (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed the spelling. Looking at other examples on the page, some red text is introduced in the sentence preceding it with "do not use" or similar language. Others (particularly when paired with a green text example) it's introduced with Avoid on the same line, so changed to that. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the discussion back here. Comments:

• Is "When a living transgender ... For example:" needed? Most of that is in the existing "If a living transgender ... the person's current name" paragraph. Would adding "For example:" to the existing paragraph be enough?
• The current "...former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it" isn't very clear in its use of "should", but it differs significantly from the proposed "that name may be included in the lead sentence" ('should' versus 'may').
• I'm not sure about adding "pretransition name" to the list of terms used: what counts as "transition"? But then there's already "transition" in the same section. EddieHugh (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence of the proposed text is not needed, as it just repeats the existing "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable..." sentence. I also think that shifting from "should" to "may" reduces clarity and is likely to lead to unnecessary disputes about when to include the former name. The section as written establishes that by "former name" we mean a deadname. The proposed text would result in switching between "former name", "pretransition name" and "prior name", which reduces clarity. Finally, I oppose mandating that birth names be introduced with "born", as opposed to the current guidance which says both "born" and "formerly" are appropriate, leaving the choice up to the editors of a particular article.--Trystan (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, with Just wanted to point out this, since the new text adds a rule that wasn't there before. above I hope to have helped made sure this change didn't fly under the radar. (Unlike you Trystan I don't mind the change, but then again, I don't have a strong opinion either way). CapnZapp (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, tried to address the seemingly repetitive first sentence, use former name throughout, and replace may with should when talking about someone notable under a former name.

Regarding formerly vs. born. The examples as MOS:CHANGEDNAME all use born for birth names, as does MOS:NEE. The discussion of "also known as" names at CHANGEDNAME and MOS:PSEUDONYM puts a different emphasis on the professional or stage name (e.g., Timothy Alan Dick (born June 13, 1953), known professionally as Tim Allen) than I think is what's intended in GENDERID. To my mind, presenting "born" as the proper word for a birth name aligns with the rest of MOS:BIO and "formerly" covers well the instances when the notable name is something other than a birth name. Can you provide an example of a case where it makes more sense to use "formerly" for a birth name or "born" for a stage name? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to point out that examples can't make rules (or at least, shouldn't). That is, just because all examples use X doesn't mean there is a rule saying "you must use X"... unless there actually is rules text to that effect. We can't (shouldn't) expect readers to infer rules from examples. (I have no opinion either way; just want to keep the level of clarification high throughout this discussion, which I'm mostly monitoring so my proposed changes aren't lost half way) CapnZapp (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you suggest a better way to phrase things then? The existing text at GENDERID says introduce the name with "born" or "formerly":. MOS:BIRTHDATE says Birth and death labels are included only when needed for clarity. When given, use full words, whether immediately preceding a date or not: (which is referring to writing out "born" instead of using "b."). Examples may not be "rules", but they demonstrate the proper application of the rules to help aid in understanding them and almost every time a birth name is used in the examples when the person is known by a different name, "born" is used to mark the birth name. The only exception is MOS:NEE says specifically, when a birth name is given for someone who's changed their surname, Editors may denote this [the birth name] with "born" ... or, if the surname change is due to marriage, né or née may be used instead of born. (The conditional may is used here because of the exception for when né/née might be used instead.)

CapnZapp, as I see it, it's not a new rule, just a clarification that aligns with the rest of the MOS. The current GENDERID text specifies to use either born or formerly. The only difference is the revision specifies "born" for use with (notable) birth names (which is in alignment with the rule at MOS:NEE and the examples that illustrate the rules at BIRTHDATE, CHANGEDNAME, etc.), leaving "formerly" for use with other sorts of former (notable) names. Are there any cases where this would be problematic or where an editor would reasonably choose to use the words differently? Or should "may" be being used here instead of "should" (to mirror the verbs in MOS:NEE)?— Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Trystan, can you elaborate on your last point (let editors choose when to use born or when to use formerly)? Is there an instance where born would be used for a stage name? Or where formerly would be more appropriate for a birth name? How do you see this deviating from the rest of MOS:BIO, such as the statement at MOS:NEE to use born, unless you're dealing with a surname change due to marriage where né/née may be used instead? I'm seeing this not as a rule change but a clarification that aligns with the rest of MOS:BIO, but if there are cases where it doesn't work I'd appreciate being educated about them. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The current guidance to use either born or formerly came from a compromise solution achieved in this RFC, which discussed the different connotations born can have for trans individuals. I have no objection to testing if that consensus has changed (in either direction), but I suggest it be done through an RFC.--Trystan (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't located that discussion. I've revised again to reflect that RFC; however, I also went back to "prior name" in one instance here so as not to have a soft implication that "former name" was connected to use of "formerly" (which was the assumption I was working under). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Just so that we have everything on the table at once: yes, the 2015 RfC mandated "born" or "formerly", but it didn't mandate specific guidance about when to use one or the other, nor did it come to any particilar conclusion about the possible connotations of "born".

Also, the most recent prior discussion of this guidance, which resulted in the status quo text and determined the current selection of examples, was this one. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Newimpartial, I think with the revisions above there's nothing in conflict with either of those RfCs, but the changes still add some clarity, including the Avoid example, in response to the concerns CapnZapp raised in the "please explain (GENDERID examples)" discussion. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well.--Trystan (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just slow today, but I'm struggling to understand what the strikeouts at the start are meant to communicate. What would come before "For example?" Both suggestions are struck out. What would that be an example of? - Astrophobe (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, those were parts of the initial draft struck in response to comments and questions. The striking of everything but "For Example:" was because others felt the proposed line was too repetitive of an existing paragraph that wasn't being considered for change. So, now "For example:" would follow the existing "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name." — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Any further thoughts/concerns/edits, or does this look good to deploy? Clean (hopefully) final version (with the existing, unchanged preceding) below ... CapnZapp, EddieHugh —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

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

• From Laverne Cox: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
• From Rachel Levine: Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...
• Avoid: Jane Smith (formerly John Hammer, born May 1, 1980) ...

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should only be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

• From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ...
• From Elliot Page, notable under former professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ...

Comment - I don't blame you for not knowing the tedious background, but many editors would regard your change to the final intro paragraph, from should only be included if to In the case of .... should be included as substantive and, given the background, even as requiring its own RfC. (The former only sets limits on inclusion, while the latter positively mandates inclusion when the condition is met - at least, that is how many of us read that policy language.) Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't read it that way. Both the existing text and the revision use "should" with the same limitation on inclusion (when the person was notable under the former name). That said, does this improve it for you? "If a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under their birth name or a former professional name, stage name, or pseudonym, only then should that name be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article." —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

That's marginally better, but I'd be much more comfortable with, "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should should only be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article if they were notable under that name." Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that works for me (and has been inserted above). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Can that be changed to "in the lead" rather than specifically saying the lead sentence? For example, if someone was somewhat notable under their former name and if their lead sentence is already stuffed with more notable aspects of their life post transition then we might not want to put the former name in the very first sentence. I think it would be best to make this a "best but not mandatory" MOS practice. Springee (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID currently specifies "in the lead sentence." MOS:FULLNAME says "should usually be given in the lead sentence," so there is wiggle room elsewhere in MOS:BIO... What do others think? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Tcr25, I have concerns about Rachel Levine being used as an example above. She was an academic researcher into eating disorders pre-transition, and published a number of articles in medical journals under her birth name. Obviously pre-transition she was a lot less notable than now, but I'm not sure she was entirely non-notable – and I think that's a rather different situation from someone like Laverne Cox, who as far as I am aware was a complete nobody pre-transition. A person might be interested in Levine's academic career/research/publications, and a person who wants to pursue that interest would need to know what name she published much of her work in that area under. By contrast, a person's reasons for knowing Cox's birth name couldn't be anything other than interest in celebrity trivia. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Notable in the guideline links to WP:GNG, which is a specific and well-defined threshold to meet. The consensus at the subject's article seems quite stable that she was not notable under her former name, so I think the example stands.--Trystan (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling either way. If there's an alternate person you can suggest who is relatively high profile and would serve equally well to illustrate things, please suggest them. That said, and as Tyrstan noted, the consensus seems to be that Levine fits the case of not notable under her prior name. (She's also one of the existing examples on the article, so she's not a new example here.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think examples in the MOS should be really clearcut cases. I agree Laverne Cox is such a case but not convinced that Rachel Levine is one. I don't think the consensus on Levine's article is necessarily dispositive as to whether it is a "clearcut case". If we can't find another example to replace it with, I think just having the Laverne Cox example is enough. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You can see the discussion above why it is desirable to have more than example to show there isn't a single set format. I'm not opposed to changing the example, but would need some suggestions about who to use instead. In the meantime, since the Levine example doesn't change what's already in the MOS, I wouldn't hold up the rest of the changes over this example. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Given the repeatedly-estsblished consensus at Talk:Rachel Levine that her pretransition name is not notable, and its consistent exclusion from the article, I think the example is a good one. Newimpartial (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that discussion seems to have died out on this, I've moved the stable version of the examples and intro text to the MOS page. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"should only be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article if they were notable" would be less ambiguous as "should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable". That would also match the previous wording. EddieHugh (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I find the present text less ambiguous than the prior language, for what it's worth. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The first makes the inclusion conditional; the second highlights the condition to be met for inclusion. I think the effect are the same either way (the only reason to include a deadname is because the person was previously notable under it), just maybe a difference in which you stress. Neither feels more or less ambiguous to me. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The ambiguity: is inclusion to be in the lead sentence and nowhere else if the person was notable under that name ("only... in the lead sentence"), or does inclusion in the lead sentence require the person to be notable under that name ("only if... notable")? We mean the latter, I think. EddieHugh (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I restored this phrase to how it was ordered before the recent changes. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Should MOS:GENDERID apply to a person whose sole notability is due to a heinous crime such as murder or rape?

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

---

Consider an individual such as Amber McLaughlin (born Scott A. McLaughlin). McLaughlin was executed for the murder and rape of a woman, committed while living as male, only transitioning to female while on death row. You will find a number of other cases of individuals who have transitioned post-incarceration for heinous crimes, although this is the only case (thus far) which has ended in execution. McLaughlin's notability is due to committing heinous crimes; although the primary source of notability is only for being executed for them, being executed for a crime can't really be separated from the crime itself (especially in a case such as this, in which nobody–to my knowledge–is suggesting this was the execution of an innocent person). (Technically MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply to McLaughlin, since it only applies to living persons–but I'm trying to raise a broader point here than just that one individual case.)

Here are some arguments why MOS:GENDERID should not apply in such cases:

1. In very many cases, the victim or their family will be offended by extending recognition to the murderer/rapist's newly claimed identity
2. Many victims of similar crimes will be offended – many female victims of male sexual violence (and their supporters) have expressed opposition to the recognition of such identity claims by perpetrators
3. The intention behind the policy is to extend respect to transgender people; I don't think making an exception in these narrow cases exhibits any disrespect to transgender people in general. On the contrary, unequivocally accepting these individuals' claimed transgender identities may actually promote transphobia

Note, I am only suggesting we should carve out an exception for heinous crimes such as murder, rape, child abuse, etc, not for less inherently abhorrent offences. Such an exception would not apply to e.g. Chelsea Manning, since whatever your view on her criminal convictions, few would seriously suggest they are on the same level as rape or murder. I was thinking about filing an RFC on this topic, but thought it would be better to raise it informally for discussion first. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Misgendering someone – for any reason – disrespects all transgender people. Deciding it is alright to misgender someone based on crimes they did implies having your identity recognized is a privilege that can be taken away, which should not be the case.

Furthermore (and maybe more important for Wikipedia) deadnaming and misgendering someone is factually wrong. Amber McLaughlin isn't not a woman because she is notable for committing horrible crimes. We don't misgender cis people who do horrible crimes, there is no reason this should change for trans people, unless Wikipedia decides transgender individuals are not really the gender they identify as, which is obviously incorrect. Catgirl-su (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Disagree We at Wikipedia don't offer extrajudicial punishment by imposing a different set of standards to convicted criminals than to other people. This should be SNOWBALL closed. CapnZapp (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think, as with most things, it comes down to what reliable sources say, and ultimately WP:Consensus is the foundation. If the preponderance of reliable sources cease to recognise the transition as 'genuine' for some reason, then we could clearly discuss reflecting that in the article. But what you're discussing is a fringe case among fringe cases (fringe²), the MOS will never cover every single eventuality. JeffUK 21:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:Ignore all rules. I agree with JeffUK that we should follow how the topic is described in the preponderance of reliable sources. If the MOS guide attempting to be respectful to people with gender dysphoria means that we're helping a criminal obfuscate their crimes for posterity, then ignore the MOS. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

How would you demonstrate that we're helping a criminal obfuscate their crimes for posterity as opposed to the possibility that their gender dysphoria was one of many issues they were struggling to cope with? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It certainly should not be solely Wikipedians making that call. Reliable sources. BTW I disagree with the proposal to change the MOS, I was trying to point out that it doesn't need to be followed in every case. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that a person who committed a heinous crime under their former name is de facto notable under that former name (provided of course that the crime is attested by reliable sources), and thus the mention of that former name is covered by the existing wording of GENDERID. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Rosbif73… no need to change existing language. Which names to mention depends on which names the subject used when they became notable. There is no “one-size-fits-all” rule here. Specifics matter. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Also disagree for the same reasons everyone else does. There's no problems with the existing policy. Loki (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies

To bring WP:POSTNOM in better agreement with MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, I propose that this policy be altered to specifically omit post-nominal letters from lead sentences.

Per our guideline on biographical opening paragraphs, "the opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources." Post-nominal letters, many of which are unknown to laypeople, do not do any of those things. If anything, they actually delay a reader from getting to the part of the opening sentence that describes a person's notability.

Instead, WP:POSTNOM would advise that post-nominals be placed in the body of the article. If needed, the exact wording of this revised section will be determined after this RfC concludes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC) edited/turned into RfC 00:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Moving post-nominals)

Absolutely nothing should ever be in an infobox unless it is also in the real text of the article. Infoboxes are a summary, not a replacement. So "move to infobox" is a non-starter. Whether postnominals are lead-worthy is another question, but I think they are. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll remove that part of the proposal then. What makes them lead-worthy, in your view? What information do they impart to a reader that is critical to their understanding of the subject? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

They are part of the thing we do in leads of giving the person's name in as full a version as possible. They are a part of the name. Maybe not a very important part, but more important than most middle names, which we also give in full when we know them in the lead. There is usually nowhere else in the article that the full name can naturally get spelled out; as I said above, the infobox is definitely not the place, because it is wrong and bad to put anything in the infobox that is not in the article text. In some cases articles have a section for honors or recognition or awards where some of these can go, but not naturally in a form that would explain the postnominal lettering. So by process of elimination the lead is where it should go. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

They are a part of the name. — No. By definition post-nominal letters "are letters placed after a person's name", so the are not part of the name. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You can argue semantics all you want, but they are part of the string that you write when you address someone in a formal-enough context. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

they are part of the string that you write when you address someone in a formal-enough context — That may be the case, but the lead sentence of a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a "formal-enough context". There are many formal forms of address, but Wikipedia is not obliged to use them. For example, in a formal context, one would probably refer to His Majesty King Charles III, President Joe Biden, or The Honourable Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, but none or our articles use those forms in the lead sentence. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You are missing my point. The question is not whether the lead is a formal-enough context. The point is that the lead is where we standardly provide the most-complete form of address of the subject, and this is an important part of that most-complete form of address. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That reasoning doesn't seem to be supported by anything in MOS:INTRO, though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Albo doesn't have them in the lead because he doesn't have them at all. Consider the Governor General instead: David Hurley. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Anthony Albanese's infobox includes honorific-prefix = The Honourable. Prime Minister of Australia's infobox includes style = ... The Honourable (formal). Mitch Ames (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• I support this proposal. There was a similar discussion a while back at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2022_archive#Fellowships_by_subscription,_e.g._FRSA regarding post-nominals. As I said at the linked discussion, I've always thought post-nominals in lead sentences were ridiculous and clunky looking (e.g. (and emphasis mine) "Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman"[8]...)[1] and would support the removal of post-nominals from the lead sentences of biographies altogether. No opinion on whether they are listed in the infoboxes, although if they are, the post-nominals need to be verifiable (sourced) and discussed in the body of the articles first. Some1 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support and probably more, and long past due. Postnominals should never be in running text, let alone in the lead sentence. I'm perfectly fine with them being in an infobox. Yes, ideally they should be in the article proper too, but only in prose, not as inscrutable acronyms. Having an occasional bit of statistics in an infobox but not the article is fine when done sparingly, and as long as it's sourced. Presumably, these letters are all linked to some sort of award or honor that the subject has received, and the article can talk about, though. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support If any of the postnominals are critical to their notability, that can be spelled out in the lede prose. --Masem (t) 19:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - the lead should explain notability, but I suggest that a person is not notable because they have postnominals, but rather they have postnominals because they have done something notable (and it's the "something notable" that we should mention in the lead, not postnominals). Mitch Ames (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support These postnominals clog up lead sentences and devote undue weight to royal and aristocratic privilege. Describe the person's actual accomplishments in the lead and reserve the confusing alphabet baloney soup for the prose in the body of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  • You do know that most people with postnominal letters are neither royal nor aristocratic? Comments like this just show the fundamental misunderstanding of the subject, particularly by people from countries that do not commonly use postnominals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support As above, and also brings wikipedia into line with the practice and style of other encyclopedias. I think most readers do not expect, or want, this kind of clutter, which is often applied retrospectively and anachronistically to people in the past who did not actually use post-nominals. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - particularly per Cullen. Parsecboy (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Cullen. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - while POSTNOM, as currently written, allows only for significant honors and appointments, it is IMO frequently abused to justify post-nominals associated with fellowships, degrees, and memberships in certain groups, and not only in the lede. Such misapplication is often redundant within the same sentence where the membership is stated in prose. We don't allow religious honorifics like PBUH and given the misuse of the current policy, it might be worth not allowing any at all and spelling out the significant honors in prose as others have noted above. I am not against their usage in infoboxes as summaries of info within the article body. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Absolutely not. Commonwealth postnominals are a fundamental part of a person's style and are very commonly listed. I appreciate that people from countries that do not use them may not understand this and may not like them, but that's beside the point. Postnominals should be restricted to genuine (as opposed to made-up) postnominals for honours, fellowships and state-awarded appointments (like KC or JP) and only for countries that actually use them (that's mostly the Commonwealth). Infoboxes should never be a substitute for the lede and many articles do not even have infoboxes. And if the postnoms are bluelinked, as they should be, I see no confusion as some editors above have described. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Necrothesp: I respect the difference in opinion and only want to respond to your last point, as WP:EGG exists for a reason. Bluelinks alone aren't enough to ensure a reader's understanding. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
    • How does WP:EGG possibly apply to the expansion of abbreviations? -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
      • "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible", WP:EGG says, and something like FRSA is not intuitive to most readers. Hence, a link alone is not enough for a reader's understanding. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

        "FRSA" is the correct form of the postnominal and links to an article explaining what it stands for. This is completely unrelated to eggs or submarines, where an abbreviation, word, or phrase that means one thing is wikilinked to a different thing. Here, the link goes to the right place, not the wrong place. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Coming to this from the perspective of someone who neither speaks English as a native language, nor was raised in an English culture context, I've always found things like Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA an incomprehensible jumble of letters, distracting from the actually important bits at the start of the lede. Where post nominals are actually crucial for the notability of the person (for example, someone notable primary for a Victoria Cross), I'd expect them to be written out as prose. Where they are not, they can be left for the body and discussed there where relevant. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Those are the important bits at the start of the lead, and a VC winner will be introduced with the abbreviation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  The suggestion to write out "Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter" in place of "KG" in the lead is ridiculous and would contribute much more to WP:LEADCLUTTER than this proposal. Writing it "KG" in the lead, and expanding much later in the text that he was knighted in whatever year, is exactly the summarizing of later content that leads are supposed to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is a bad read of my point, so let me write it out in more detail. My premise is that the lede, and especially the first sentence of the lede, has a single goal: to establish, as understandably as possible, the absolutely most vital biographic information about the article subject (name, when did they live, where were they geographically important) and their claim to fame, i.e. what is the very most important thing or two they are known for.

  For example, we write Sauli Väinämö Niinistö (born 24 August 1948) is a Finnish politician who has served as president of Finland since March 2012... or George Smith Patton Jr. (November 11, 1885 – December 21, 1945) was a general in the United States Army... or Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman, soldier, and writer who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom twice.. (I'd go as far as arguing that Churchill's lede should move the prime ministership closer to the name, as soldier is so vague).

  For almost any person-honor/award pair, that award itself is not the source of their fame/notability. We don't talk, at the start of the lede, about Niinistö's Grand Master and Commander Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of the White Rose of Finland, or about how Patton has the Grand Cross of the Military Order of the White Lion or, indeed, about how Churchill was a Knight of the Order of the Garter: those awards and honours are not those people's (main) claim to fame, and they are very high awards indeed.

  It is even more clear cut for lesser (in this context) awards, such as Churchill having the Territorial Decoration, Patton having the Legion of Merit or Niinistö having nine honorary doctorates. For all these things, appending them — as an incomprehensible soup of acronyms, none the less — to the subjects name in the very first sentence of the article highlights the less important, confuses the reader, and pushes the actual main claim to fame further and further down the article. They are, in my view, given WP:UNDUE weight in the first sentence of the lede.

  With that out of the way, there certainly are some cases where the honour/award, or rather the action that led to it, is the main claim to fame. These probably include those awarded with e.g. Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor or Mannerheim Cross. But even here, too, the actual post nominal is redundant for the first sentence of the article: we can simply write Robert Vaughan Gorle (6 May 1896 – 9 January 1937) was an English recipient of the Victoria Cross... without any need for the postnominal.

  And there will be some cases where the honours/awards are sufficiently important, in the context of the person's other accomplishments in life, that they warrant writing out in a subsequent sentence of the lede, but not in the first sentence. The practice of always writing out the post nominals immediately following the name ignores all nuance and considerations of dueness in preference for a notation that is horribly reader-unfriendly and more often than not highlights the (comparatively) unimportant, distracting from the crucial. Ljleppan (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Your claim For almost any person-honor/award pair, that award itself is not the source of their fame/notability turns out to be incorrect and false. For many people in academia in post-nominal-producing countries, in particular, and many of the post-nominals commonly used by those people in those countries, the post-nominal indicates being "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" (e.g. FRS) for which membership is an automatic pass of our academic notability criteria. So putting it into the lead has the purpose, for those competent to read it, of clearly asserting the subject's notability. For those not already familiar with these abbreviations, the expanded form of the same recognition should be included later in the article text, of course, just like the expansion of other claims in the lead should be in the article text. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see how this is any different from my example of Victoria Cross. Ljleppan (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) There's several further bad examples in the post-

  The Finish Award has postnominals but they are only used when writing in Finish., not in English.

  The Czech award has no postnominals, and even if it did, Patton being American wouldn't use such.

  The American awards mentioned have common abbreviations, not postnominals. They are NEVER used as postnominals.

  Honorary doctorates should never be worth mentioning in the lead unless it is somehow relevant to the persons notability and justification for having an article in the first place (ie Guiness World record holder for most honorary doctorates might be an exception).

  Gecko G (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  This misses my point so wildly I don't even know how to start addressing your comment, so I'll just leave it at saying... well, that. Ljleppan (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Our point is that your post has so many not relevant points that we don't see what point you are trying to make. So either A) you got sidetracked in making your point (happens to me all the time on wikipedia), or B) you misunderstand postnominals, or C) you have no point. I'm assuming good faith and that it is one of the first 2, but I don't know which (A or B). Care to attempt to make your argument again? Gecko G (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  My main argument flows as follows:

  1. The goal of the lede, and especially the start of the lede is to convey the most important biographical information
  2. Postnominals are primarily associated with honours/awards, while granted for notable things, are rather rarely the source of notability themselves. Yes, there are notable exceptions such as the Victoria Cross.
  3. Postnominal-awarding honours that are not the underlying source of notability are undue especially in the first sentence of the lede.
  4. Postnominal-awarding honours that are the underlying source of notability should in any case be written out in the first sentence of the lede, thus making the postnominal itself redundant.
  5. In both cases, postnominals are a poor method of conveying information in a general, global, encyclopedia.

  Regarding your A, B, and C, I'll just note that there's a certain set of further options you apparently didn't consider. But perhaps we'll just agree that a side conversation of increasingly snappy retorts is probably not useful here. Ljleppan (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  ok, thank you.

  I agree with #1.

  Number 2 is wrong.

  Numbers 3 through 5 don't take into account WP:ENGVAR nor various Wikipedia MoS's (and I further also personally disagree with #5, but that's not relevant).

  Postnominals are not primarily associated only with honours/awards. They are also connected with Fellowships (some relevant and important, some not, as discussed elsewhere), Academic Degrees, Professional Qualifications, and various religious things, and likely others that I'm unaware of due to my own ENGVAR.

  Different ENGVAR's put different importance's on those or use some, or none, or just different mixtures of them. For a global English language encyclopedia, Is the best practice not to use the ENGVAR that the individual whom the article is about would use, rather than forcing one particular ENGVAR onto everyone even when the subject themself would never use such? Gecko G (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I fail to see why you are making the distinction about academic fellowships etc. or how it somehow undermines my point. Either those postnominal-awarding fellowships/degrees/whatever are the primary underlying source of notability for the article subject, in which case they ought to the spelled out, or they are not and they are most likely undue at the start of the lede. Perhaps you, in turn, could spell the argument out more clearly. W/r/t ENGVAR, we already discourage other notational variations (see e.g. MOS:CRORE) that make articles more difficult to understand than necessary for a global audience. Ljleppan (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see why you think that being sources of notability means that they need to be present in an expanded form in the lead. Leads are for summarizing briefly, not for expanding. If your argument is that they should be in an expanded form elsewhere than the lead, then yes, of course, but they should still be summarized in the lead. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  See MOS:INTRO, especially the second paragraph. Ljleppan (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)I'm out of time right now, I will reply later. Gecko G (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, back for a moment (not sure how long before I have to leave again).

  You asked me to spell out why I mentioned the various examples (ie Fellowships, professions, etc.)- I did it to specifically refute your point #2, they are examples showing that they are not only nor primarily associated solely with Honors.

  MOS:CRORE is about number formats just like the American vs European number format of 1,234.56 vs 1.234,56 or vs. the Indic numerals so I fail to see the relevance (and really I'd argue that "Crore" is more of a translation issue, like using the archaic but correct "score", though admittedly that can be a blurry line distinction - but expounding upon that could result in a not-relevant side discussion, so I won't go into that unless you feel it's particularly relevant).

  In your above reply to David Eppstein about the second paragraph under MOS:INTRO you may have the germination of an argument, but it's a weak one (One vague broad sentence of an MOS may be interpreted to partially conflict with much more topic specific MOS's elsewhere - I would always go with the more specific instructions over the broad, general ones).

  If you think that only something 100% relevant to establishing notability guidelines should be in the lead - and I'm not sure if that's where you are in fact going with this, but if you are, then this conversation is merging into that which I have discussed elsewhere in this section, so rather than repeating myself and risking fracturing the discussion thread I would instead refer you to some of the various arguments below. (If that is not the point you are building to, then ignore this last part).

  Gecko G (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose They will not appear in the article body; the article body will list them as they are earned, but usually they will not all come together until the end. The whole purpose of the lead is to summarise the contents of the body, and the post-nominals do that. Putting them in prose in the lead is absurd. Commonwealth postnominals are a fundamental part of a person's style and often appear on monuments and documents. Infoboxes are not a substitute for the lead and many articles do not, nor are they required to, have them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  postnominals are a fundamental part of a person's style — no more so than prefixes such as The Most Honourable, ... Her Majesty, His Holiness, etc, which MOS:PREFIX explicitly says should not be included. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  A more accurate comparison would be to pre-nominal titles like sir and dame, which per MOS:SIR are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose They contribute to providing a concise overview and summary of the person. I would hope (expect?) the awards will be discussed in the body with context, although that could be just a sentence. I would not oppose a limit on the # of post-noms to include in the lead (and maybe even the infobox) to address the cases where someone's got an arm's length of 'em like the Churchill example above.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 01:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose particularly per Tcr25 & Archer1234's reasonings. If this was the Simple English Wikipedia I would instead support, but here oppose. Though not a thing in American English, my understanding is these are very important in other English's and even some none English languages (ie Portuguese, Swedish, etc.). I could understand placing a limit on what to include or not (like the prior discussion about Fellowships, which never really reached a satisfactory conclusion), or a maximum number to include, or issues like only including certain types (ie should Order of Saint John be included?, etc.). If, conversely everything is going to be excluded then the prenominal stuff like "Sir" should also be dropped and then that would run into issues of how do we name articles about people's who's name includes titles, ie William, Prince of Wales. Further, if there was a reader who doesn't understand postnominals, I would think having it only in the infobox would lead them to the assumption that the string of letters was article vandalism - whereas if it's on both the lead and the infobox that should give such an unaware reader at least reason to wonder if something else was going on, and hover over the links to see, and thus learn as I did the first time encountering such many many many years ago. Gecko G (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  If ... everything is going to be excluded then the prenominal stuff like "Sir" should also be dropped — I would support such a change. I've never been a fan of (MOS:SIR) including "Sir", "Lady" and the like; I don't see that they are any more special than other honorifics.

  issues of how do we name articles about people's who's name includes titles, ie William, Prince of Wales — I think they are fundamentally different, in that "Prince of Wales" here is a disambiguator - there are many Williams, but only one Prince of Wales. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would support dropping the prenominals from lead sentences too. Readers who aren't familiar with such stuff might think "Sir", for example, is a part of the subject's birth/legal name, especially when Sir is bolded and is not wikilinked to anything else. Pre-nominal and post-nominal letters are better left for infoboxes; see Winston Churchill's infobox, for example. Some1 (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  (replying to both): At least removing absolutely everything would be consistent, but now you are talking about modifying several MOS's (not just 1) and violating WP:ENGVAR. On the other extreme, including every single minor fellowship or academic degree would also be consistent but is clearly way too much (WP:LEADCLUTTER, WP:UNDUE, etc.). So there obviously needs to be a middle ground somewhere (a cut off in importance/quality and/or number?). I would argue that removing all postnominals is way too severe to place the middle ground at, especially since I don't find the arguments about confusion relevant when the proposed alternative (as mentioned in posts above, not in either of your two's posts) would be even more confusing. I think our current de-facto placement of the cut-off is good (ie leaving out lesser fellowships and the religious one's when not relevant, leaving out most academic degree achievements, etc., etc.) but could definitely be better clarified in the MOS, but as I'm a native speaker of an ENGVAR that only ever uses a select few postnominals so I would put more faith on the input from native speakers of ENGVARs which use more postnom's than my own to try to succinctly phrase that short enough to be included in an MOS. Basically I understand it, but am bad at explaining it because it's not something in my native dialect. Gecko G (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  now you are talking about modifying several MOS's (not just 1) — Obviously a separate specific RFC would be required, but there's no reason why we could not modify other parts of MOS (given appropriate consensus). It is not unknown for a proposed specific change to be shown to be a specific instance of a more general change that should be considered.

  violating WP:ENGVAR — Several posts have mentioned ENVAR, but I don't think this comes under ENGVAR at all. ENGVAR is about differences in vocabulary, spelling, grammar, date formats, not the importance of honorifics. Can someone quote the specific part of ENGVAR (or Comparison of American and British English) that they think applies here? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hesitant support, in favo(u)r of some alternative: I understand this is often important info for some people (subjects and readers alike), so I am not averse to keeping it, but I wouldn't be sad to see it leave the lead sentence. Perhaps we want to allow/recommend a separate section or sentence at the end of a lede? Something like The formal style for him is "Sir John Grey Gorton GCMG, AC, CH" or The formal address for the prime minister is "The Honourable Anthony Albanese MP" (or whatever would be actually correct). Royal folk like Elizabeth II would still have their section like Titles, styles, honours, and arms, since for them, the topic is too extensive for the lede anyway. MOS:POSTNOM should continue to proscribe academic postnoms like "Ph.D" (and MOS:CREDENTIAL things like "Dr."). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I think post-nominal letters are generally lede worthy. I'm less sure that they're first-sentence worthy, and I can see the point that they might pile up and create an alphabet soup. An end-of-lede sentence along the lines of "She is formally styled..." may be a decent option in some cases. On the one hand, extra short paragraphs stuck at the end of ledes are, I think, generally frowned upon. On the other, such a line might flow naturally in the prose ("In recognition of these accomplishments, she has received many accolades, and so her formal style is..."). I'm not sure. XOR'easter (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not finding the arguments that postnominals are confusing or vague convincing, which leaves the main argument being either they clutter the lede or WP:IDONTLIKE. To a degree I think this is similar to MOS:ENGVAR or MOS:DATEVAR. In the Commonwealth, postnominals like VC are more frequently seen, understood, and accepted. Elsewhere, they seem superfluous or confusing. It may be that more specific guidance around how many postnominals are too many is needed (currently, MOS:POSTNOM says: When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters or seldom uses them (common among heads of state and members of royal families), they should be omitted from the lead, and the titles only described in the main body of the article.), but I'm not seeing a good reason to get rid of them entirely. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose. I find Carter's explanation here pretty much sums up what I wanted to say. Half-a-dozen post-nominal letters are no more intrusive than a middle name and can be quickly skipped by people who aren't interested. The template that hyperlinks the letters to the full names of the honours easily allows people who are interested but unfamiliar to learn what the honours are.

  I would also contrast post-nominal letters with peerages, which are many words long and often obscure the person's more commonly-known pre-peerage name. --Mgp28 (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support as a matter of WP:DUE weight. The first sentence should communicate the most fundamental, essential aspects of the topic. For a person, that would generally be, when and where did they live, and what sort of activities or accomplishments are they most notable for. The lead of Stephen Hawking (which is used as an example at MOS:POSTNOM) mostly hews to this ideal. If you needed to explain who Stephen Hawking was to someone who had never heard of him in the briefest possible terms, the points you would hit on are more or less what's in the lead sentence. Theoretical physicist. Writer. English. Died recently. Cambridge University. The element of the lead that sticks out as something you would not mention is the "CH CBE FRS FRSA". I can easily name a dozen aspects of Hawking which are not mentioned in the lead sentence and which are far more salient. And I'm not just saying this as a matter of opinion - I think that claim can be supported by RS. RS coverage of Hawking surely gives more weight to, say, his popular science writing, or his work on black holes, or his disability than it does to his formal titles. Colin M (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  The same argument could be made about the appropriateness of including a middle name in the lead sentence when the person and RS coverage do not commonly include it. To use this example, you would say "Stephen Hawking" when talking about him, not "Stephen William Hawking", but per MOS:FULLNAME "William" is included in the first sentence regardless of what weight RS give to his middle name. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I again find myself agreeing with Tcr25. For Stephen Hawking, how is his middle name being William, the fact that he was born on January 8th, or the fact that he was English, relevant by your argument, yet those are included in his lead sentence and all are typically included. Likewise you mentioned that there are several more salient aspects (ie his disability isn't even mentioned until the second paragraph, yet it's very well connected to what people commonly know about him). The lead sentence is never either 100% everything or 100% nothing. And given that we are dealing with different WP:ENGVAR's it can quickly get confusing, but since there aren't separate wikipedia's for each ENGVAR, we use the ENGVAR the individual would use. Gecko G (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with any of that. I don't think exact dates of birth and death should go in the lead most of the time, and would be happy to see them moved to the body (though they can stay in the infobox). The same goes for middle names which are not usually included in RS. I even wrote a mini-essay related to the latter problem. Colin M (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  ok, then see my above reply to Mitch Ames & Some1, as you are in the same boat. Gecko G (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  the appropriateness of including a middle name in the lead sentence when the person and RS coverage do not commonly include it. — As with dates of birth, one primary reason for including it is that is part of unique identity. A common way (in formal/official scenarios in real life) of distinguishing between two otherwise identically named people is by middle name, and/or date of birth. I might distinguish between John Henry Smith and John Joseph Smith, or possibly John Smith born 1970-01-01 and John Smith born 1981-02-03, but rarely if ever (possibly in some very specific cases) would I distinguish between John Smith AO, John Smith MBE, and John Smith (with no post-nominals). Mitch Ames (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I had an instinctive dislike of the proposal but couldn't think of how to articulate it until I read WP:ENGVAR in the discussions above. I suspect that it comes down to commonwealth countries. It would be interesting to see the numbers of the different countries in Template:Post-nominals. Gusfriend (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the template supports 21 countries — Antigua, Australia, Barbados, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Fiji, Germany, Ghana, Hong Kong, India, Jamaica, Kenya, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States — but (in a spot check of Category:Pages using Template:Post-nominals with customized linking) there are instances from other countries where the template is used too. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

My guess is that usage is concentrated in Commonwealth countries which would give weight to the argument that it is like WP:ENGVAR. Gusfriend (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I also wanted to say that, at least in Australia, post-nominals are included as part of the name on plaques, statues and the like which means that it is in a certain sort of common usage.

The more that I think about it the more that I think that the topic deserves a more nuanced RfC taking into account national usage and preferences in a wider forum. Gusfriend (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Avoiding thingies

Do you need to avoid Bill Gates III? ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please clarify the question. Do you mean that we should avoid referring to "Bill Gates III" at all, or possibly not use "William Henry Gates III" in that article"?

Relevant MOS guidelines include MOS:NAME, MOS:FULLNAME, MOS:JR, WP:COMMONNAME.

Mitch Ames (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Additions to JOBTITLES

Hi, an extra paragraph was added to WP:JOBTITLES in this edit, likely a response to a dispute I had with the editor over applying JOBTITLES to position leads following the use of "The". There was no discussion over this paragraph so unsure whether it is against consensus or a worthy inclusion. Or simply put, can such addition be checked, it seems to be a rewording of the third point above the examples table but excluding the exceptions, does this paragraph now argue that it should be capped even after using "the" or "a"? Third point above, stated it can be capitalised when it is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article). DankJae 00:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)