| Revision as of 02:54, 30 November 2023 editSideswipe9th (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers11,284 edits →Deadnames of the deceased – yet again: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:18, 23 January 2025 edit undoDavid Eppstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators227,077 edits →MOS:POSTNOM: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talk header|shortcut=WT:MOSBIO|noarchive=yes}} | {{talk header|shortcut=WT:MOSBIO|noarchive=yes}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Manual of Style}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| | algo = old(45d) | | algo = old(45d) | ||
| Line 7: | Line 10: | ||
| | minthreadsleft = 4 | | minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{WPMOS}} | |||
| {{archive box|age=45|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|search=yes| | {{archive box|age=45|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|search=yes| | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| Line 18: | Line 19: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *{{hlist|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]}} | *{{hlist|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]}} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Formatting post-nominals examples == | |||
| == RfC on JOBTITLES == | |||
| <!-- ] 20:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1687809760}} | |||
| <nowiki>Should the "Positions, offices, and occupational titles" section be changed to reflect actual practice, namely capitalising titles adjacent to names? ~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 19:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey === | |||
| *'''CLOSE for longer RFCBEFORE or OPPOSE ... but might support some rephrasing of the guideline'''. For context, this discussion started above, with ]. The proposer noted that, though JOBTITLES says to only capitalize titles ''before'' names, we do, in practice, capitalize some post-name titles, like "William, Prince of Wales". Above, I noted, "{{tq|Per ], royalty often use titles in lieu of surnames. As such, the title is part of the name. Though subtle, I think there's a distinction between saying, for example, "William, Prince of Wales" vs. "Charles was the prince of Wales". Notably, capitalization seems to be standard practice around the various articles: In ] discussing how a list of funeral attendees should be presented, no one is suggesting lowercasing titles.}}" I'd amend that to note, as NCROY does, that a similar title-in-lieu-of-surname practice is often used for non-royal nobility or consorts (]). That said, there are a few exceptions, ] has both a surname and a title.{{pb}}Regardless of the inconsistency, I think the above proposal is too broad. I'd oppose an approach of capitalizing all adjacent titles (I'd prefer "{{tq|George W. Bush, president of the United States at the time, ...}}" to "{{tq|George W. Bush, President of the United States at the time, ...}}". I might support some explicit clarification to account for the type of British nobility titles OP has mentioned, but I think such an amendment should be tailored to those titles (and probably discussed at the relevant Wikiproject—]?—prior to an RFC).--<span style="font-family:Georgia">''']'''</span> 12:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion === | |||
| * Over the past few weeks I've had a number of discussions about exactly when to capitalise titles; despite JOBTITLES the general consensus on English Misplaced Pages seems to be to capitalise them when they're directly adjacent to a person's name, except when they're commercial or informal. Rather than contradicting this, as JOBTITLES currently does, would it be worth updating the section? Although my preference would be for the current wording, I don't see any realistic prospect of either changing how titles are capitalised in practice or updating the thousands of articles which must technically be in violation of the MoS. Thoughts? ] (]) 19:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:] already reads: {{tq2|When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: {{xt|President Nixon}}, not {{!xt|president Nixon}}; {{xt|Pope John XXIII}}, not {{!xt|pope John XXIII}}.}} What change is being proposed? —] (]) 19:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Captalising when a title follows a person's name. JOBTITLES would currently have 'Richard Nixon, president of the United States', but I propose changing this to allow 'Richard Nixon, President of the United States' to better reflect how Misplaced Pages editors seem to capitalise in practice. ] (]) 19:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I disagree with this proposal. To my eye, the example above is improper for English and promoting it would gradually lead to such words always being capitalized, more as in German. To try to "reflect how Misplaced Pages editors seem to" do something is not, in my opinion, a rational or sustainable way to organize the MOS.] (]) 07:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The above example isn't improper English, to my knowledge, although admittedly it wouldn't be endorsed by the Chicago MoS. I do see your point, but then organising our MoS to work with editors rather than against them is both rational and sustainable, surely? ] (]) 10:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Frankly, I think most editors would use an article there, "Richard Nixon, the president of the United States, ...." Would your proposal also require capitalization there?--<span style="font-family:Georgia">''']'''</span> 12:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::No, it wouldn't. ] (]) 12:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Okay, so just so I'm clear: "Richard Nixon, President of the United States at the time" but "Richard Nixon, the president of the United States at the time"?--<span style="font-family:Georgia">''']'''</span> 12:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Yes. I know it's anecdotal, but that's the style a lot of editors seem to naturally adopt. ] (]) 12:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::There's a well established principle in a number of style guides where the title preceding the name is capitalized, but not when it follows the name. So "{{tq|President Nixon}}" and "{{tq|Richard Nixon, president of the United States}}," but not "{{!xt|Richard Nixon, President of the United States}}." I'd argue that where you see the later happening, it's both against the MOS and generally incorrect. More often, I've seen people misread MOS:JOBTITLE to say that "{{!xt|president Richard Nixon}}" is correct, probably confusing something like "{{tq|the president, Richard Nixon,}}" where it would be lowercased. That said, royal titles like "{{tq|William, Prince of Wales}}," are a different case in part because you would never say "{{!xt|the President}}" in running text without the president's name, but you would say "{{tq|the Prince of Wales}}" because of how the title acts as name. —] (]) 13:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I mostly agree with your comment ... although I do want to caveat {{tq|you would never say "the President" in running text without the president's name}} seems ... which I suppose might be true if you mean "on Misplaced Pages", but certainly outside of Misplaced Pages, "the president announced" is quite common.--<span style="font-family:Georgia">''']'''</span> 14:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::My understanding is that you should write "the President" in running text {{tq|hen a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office}} (the second bullet point of ]). ] (]) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Thanks for this! I was wondering where I had seen that—I wrongly assumed I had seen it in a third-party style guide, but I actually found that most style guides disagree! (In a 1999 article, ] announced that the NYT would be joining the AP in not capitalizing president even when referring to a specific person; he said his preference ''was'' to capitalize in such a case, though he said the approach was "no longer stylish".) CMoS, AP, and NYT all seem to now agree to lowercase it. I must have seen that passage in ] and just forgot it was there!--<span style="font-family:Georgia">''']'''</span> 15:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Yes, at the moment our MoS is very clear on 'the President' rather than 'the president' when referring to a specific person. Again, although that usage seems to have fallen out of favour among style guides it does still seem to be popular on Misplaced Pages, so changing it is a question of balancing stylistic trends with how editors actually write. As I understand it neither usage is really wrong, after all. | |||
| *:::::I do wonder if the best thing would be to make the MoS itself less absolute on this issue and title capitalisation, and aim for consistency within a page rather than across the whole enyclopedia? I think @] will back me up when I say that there are pages where the main editors would resist the MoS as currently written being strictly imposed, and not unreasonably. ] (]) 18:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Hurm, the examples there are "Queen" and "Pope", which seem a bit different to me than president, mostly because royal (and to a degree ecclesiastical) titles seem to be referring to the person, while president and governor would refer more to the office (i.e., one is more about WHO it is, the other is about the person's position). But that also sounds like I'm stretching for a rationale ... :) —] (]) 17:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I agree that it would feel totally wrong to write "the king" or "the pope" (referring to a specific person at a given point in time) but somehow more acceptable to write "the prime minister" or "the bishop" in the same context. If we are to change the guidance, we need clear rationale for the distinction. ] (]) 08:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have followed this discussion around a few different conversations since ]. At that point it applied to princes, earls, lords and so on. ] advised to capitalize these names. I was unconvinced that ] should apply to all of these people but there was a possible contradiction so I suggested above that it might make sense to rephrase the example for when the title has become part of the name: | |||
| *:* When they can be considered to have become part of the name, i.e. when combined with a person's name to form a title: {{xt|President Nixon}}, not {{!xt|president Nixon}}; {{xt|Pope John XXIII}}, not {{!xt|pope John XXIII}}; {{xt|William, Prince of Wales}}, not {{!xt|William, prince of Wales}} | |||
| *:I still think this could be reasonable, but only in the context of the title being part of the name in that position, not generically whenever a title follows a name. I would not think we should expand it to "Richard Nixon, President". Also, as presently phrased it might suggest capitalizing job titles that are never used as part of a name, "Adam Smith, Butcher", which I don't think it the intent. --] (]) 17:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Now that's its become clear this is about writing ""Richard Nixon, President of the United States" instead of "Richard Nixon, president of the United States", I hvae to '''oppose''', because the comma separates them into separate clauses, and the title is no longer directly connected to the name. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 22:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Oppose''', reluctantly, for the same reason given by User:SMCandlish. Personally, I strongly dislike the trend towards writing titles in lower case (e.g., president in lieu of President). But it is true that several style guides have adopted the distinction between capitalizing a title only when it immediately precedes the name of the title holder and otherwise not capitalizing. --] (]) 17:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. This is English, not German, and moreover it's not Benjamin Franklin's English, either. Moreover, I don't support capitalizing a title like "president" when referring to a specific person, because that's a distinction without a difference, and one that is entirely missed by any user who has impaired sight or otherwise isn't using their eyes to take in this information. I only note that last because it was raised by other editors, not to suggest a change at this time.'''~]]]''' 18:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: I assumed that foreign language like '']'' for ]. In full, Hitler officially styled himself {{lang|de|der Führer und Reichskanzler}} (the Leader and Chancellor of the Reich) does not assume per ]. --] (]) 11:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Neither of those are complete sentences, and it's entirely unclear what you are trying to convey. Probably not relevant anyway, since {{lang|de|Führer}} is a German noun, and German nouns are always capitalized. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 12:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Ethnicity == | |||
| It seems that the ethnicity section needs more elaboration. There are missing gaps in the policy; how do we reference people that lived in empires? How do we reference people that lived in abstract geographic regions in past times when no political entity existed? It wouldn't make sense to remove any ethnic/geographic reference from the lede. | |||
| Checking a number of Misplaced Pages biographies reveals this inconsistency: ], ] and ] would be Florentines instead of Italians; ] would be Sicilian instead of Italian; ] would be Roman instead of Jewish; ] would be Chalcidian/Macedonian instead of Greek; ], ] and ] would be "Roman Holy Empirer" instead of German; ] would be Almoravid instead of Sephardic Jewish; ] would be Abbasid instead of Kurdish; ] would be identified as having been born in the Hejaz instead of being Arab. | |||
| A new paragraph should be added along the lines of: "Persons who lived under empires and persons who lived in abstract geographic regions in pre-modern times, can be referenced by their ethnicity or by mentioning the geographic region if this supported by a majority of sources as a notable identification." ] (]) 14:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe. Or maybe we should say not to apply ethnic labels to them, since that's primarily a modern concept. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 15:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::It’s neither a modern concept nor is it our job to apply any labels; we take what reliable sources have described them to be. ] (]) 17:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::The word dates to 1765–75, which is well within the ] span. But yes, of course, follow the preponderance of usage in the source material. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 17:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Modern word doesn’t mean modern concept. ] (]) 19:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : You claim, {{xtg|It wouldn't make sense to remove any ethnic/geographic reference from the lede}}. Uh, why not exactly? For my money there's entirely too much emphasis on this nonsense. Editing on bios of fascinating figures is dominated by arguments over their nationality or other sorts of identity. Give it a rest. It just doesn't matter that much, and it's fine to leave it out when it isn't clear. --] (]) 17:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. When it's known, it's usually helpful to say where someone lived (e.g. was this an Ancient Greek philopher or a Roman one? Or Egyptian?), but material (often speculative and based on iffy primary sourcing) that delves into alleged ethnic origin is very often better covered in the article body, with sufficient ] balance. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 19:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure, when it’s controversial its better to be elaborated in the body. But when it’s not controversial, I see no problems in specifying this in the opening paragraph if supported by a majority of reliable sources; as is currently the case in majority of biographies as demonstrated above. ] (]) 19:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's one of the first pieces of context one would be curious about. Readers are used to biographies starting with that. As long as it corresponds with reliables sources, this should be included. If reliable sources only say where the person was born, or lived, or became famous, then we can stick to just that. If it gets into ] bickering then yeah it is a waste of our time. ] (]) 19:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed, the identification by reliable sources should be used in the opening paragraph. If controversial it could be discussed later in lede. My point is these things should be elaborated so that the policy is applied consistently across Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::When nationality, residency and citizenship information aren’t available, which is often the case in pre-modern times, something needs to be used to contextualize the subject at hand; and this is the case as seen by a large number of Misplaced Pages biographies I cited above. A greater conflict will occur if these ethnic references are removed. What I am proposing is to elaborate how this identification could be handled by relying on reliable sources. It definitely matters what context this historical figure lived through; especially if reliable sources have given them due weight. ] (]) 19:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It matters a little bit. It doesn't matter nearly as much as some editors seem to think. --] (]) 19:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It very much matters to me to know for example that Jesus was a Jew living under the pagan Roman Empire; it provides important context. ] (]) 19:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: There is a significant contingent of editors who think nationality (and similar characteristics) matter more than they do. They do not matter that much. --] (]) 19:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They matter a little enough to deserve a one word mention in the opening paragraph, I don’t think that’s giving these labels that much importance. ] (]) 21:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Aristotle would be included in a list of "Greek philosophers" in any reference or scholarly material, would he not? Just stick to the sources. ] (]) 19:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Exactly, he would be. However the policy doesn’t specify this. It says we should use citizenship, nationality or residency and says that we need to remove ethnic references. What I am proposing is allowing ethnic references if supported by reliable sources. ] (]) 19:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *If the question is “should we mention this person’s ethnicity ''somewhere'' in the article?” I would say, “yes… assuming we have sources to support it, we should”. | |||
| :However, if the question is “should we ''highlight'' this person’s ethnicity by mentioning it in the ''lead'' paragraph?” I am much more dubious. The lead paragraph should focus on what makes the person notable, and often (but not always) ethnicity plays no part in that. ] (]) 20:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes, exactly. We can talk about lots of stuff in the body of the article, as long as there are good sources. The first paragraph, and especially the first sentence, needs to be more focused. --] (]) 20:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::And how would you reconcile that with the reality on the ground, that the majority of articles and editors have given the opening paragraph in the lede, at least a brief mention of their ethnicity? ] (]) 21:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Some of it is just inertia and should stop. Some of it is from nationalists, identitarians, or identity-politics advocates, whom I'm going to oppose. And some of it is reasonable — politicians, generals, etc are likely to be persons for whom these things speak directly to why we want to read about them. --] (]) 22:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You imply the people who disagree with you are doing some kind of ] but isn't the same true of your position? Why do you want to change the "inertia" on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere which is to describe a person's nationality in the beginning of their biography? Britannica generally does so especially of more recent people. De-focusing on national or ethnic identity is an agenda. How does it serve Misplaced Pages, its pillars, its goals, or its readers other than to promote your worldview? ] (]) 22:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No. Opposing misuse of WP for advocacy purposes is not magically an "equal but opposite" form of advocacy, it's following our policies, even when we might actually agree, off-site, with what is being advocated. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The position that biographies, particularly of people who were alive when modern countries existed, should not start with identifying the nationality, is quite a bold position, and seems to be ADVOCACY. Again, Britannica describes as a "British mathematician". Of course, is not given an ethnicity or nationality which would be harder to justify. For the average person, the first thing they categorize people by after gender is probably nationality. That's the first question they are going to have about the context for a biography article about anyone who has been alive in recent history. Whether Aristotle is "one of the most important ancient Greek philosophers" or "one of the most important philosophers of ancient Greece" is not a difference worth arguing over, what is important is that it is established up front. | |||
| ::::::I think you are right, it is not an equal but opposite situation. The advocacy is this novel idea that a biography shouldn't start with nationality if it is possible and appropriate to the person in question. I think if we just stick to the sources, we are going to find most people described with a nationality if possible. For people who predate modern countries indeed a more nuanced treatment may be appropriate, but it should still be in the lead. ] (]) 23:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::For example, from a stub I have been working on, is an improvement? Is it important? ] (]) 23:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, removing the "Italian" claim is an improvement, because "Italy" as a nation-state and "Italian" as a concept (other than a vague geographical one that didn't correspond to any political or cultural boundaries), did not exist until much later, with the 19th-century ]. Calling Ferrara "Italian" is a terrible anachronism. She was ]n, which is not an ethnicity but a geographical specifier and a politico-cultural one to some extent (one temporally limited, like being ]). The "from Mantua in modern-day Italy" is perfectly adequate and reasonable, without breaking actual history to pander to racialists/identarians. What we call "Italy" now was back then a patchwork of kingdoms and principalities and whatnot, with a bunch of different languages spoken (some of which still survive as minority languages). For similar reasons, ] should not be referred to as "Scottish". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 00:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Ok I think we agree there. It is a worthwhile distinction. I'd support something like this being in the MOS. ] (]) 00:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::] is open to some question, though. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 00:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Switching for example from Italian to Florentine and Sicilian at Niccolò Machiavelli, Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo Galilei will set off a huge conflict between editors, especially when no reliable source can be attributed for this label (or if minority do). Although I agree that modern identities should not be imposed on the past, however, this is my opinion, and in no way does that mean reliable sources agree (i.e. original research). I would say we stick to what the majority of reliable sources use. ] (]) 12:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Then according to MOS: ETHNICITY, Adolf Hitler should be listed only as German and not Austrian-born German (even though that is exactly what he is) as he is listed. Also, he renounced his Austrian citizenship in 1925. ] (]) 22:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's a different relevant guideline ]: {{tq2|Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability...}} —] (]) 00:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then it should go for everyone who was not born in the same country they were raised. For instance, the Young brothers (especially George, Malcolm and Angus) are all cited only as Australians instead of Scottish-born Australians (as they were all born in Glasgow), or the Van Halen brothers, who were Dutch-born Americans (who were born in Amsterdam and raised in Nijmegen), but are only listed as Americans. Or is that irrelevant in their case? ] (]) 13:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You would need to establish ], as it currently says to mention it {{tq|if relevant to notability|q=yes}} —] (]) 13:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Understood. But just to be sure, in Hitler's case, is there any consensus saying that his birthplace is relevant for his notability for him to be listed as Austrian-born German? That is all I want to know. ] (]) 13:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's a question to ask at ]. ] isn't really for arguing out the details of every individual bio article, or there would be thousands of threads on this page. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 22:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==="in modern-day "=== | |||
| I found this discussion via "]", which I'd arrived at from a search for the term . It seems to me that using "modern-day" (or "modern day", or simply "modern") in this way often leads to absurdities. Earlier today I learnt that "</nowiki> culture was concentrated mainly in modern Tunisia"]; previously, that , and that the Third Punic War . Elsewhere, I learn that the ] was "preserved and transmitted by northern Ostrogoths in modern-day Italy". | |||
| I'm old-fashioned, and quite British, but is it really acceptable to use "modern" or "modern-day" like that? There are no Ostrogoths in modern-day Italy, the Third Punic War was not fought in modern Tunisia, and the Etruscan civilisation died out long before modern Italy was thought of. Margherita Gonzaga was born in Mantua, and Mantua is now in Italy, but she wasn't born in modern Italy, or in modern-day Italy. Doesn't the Manual of Style have anything to say about this? ] (]) 23:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's a common locution meaning "a place that today is (in) X". ] (]) 01:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I understand how it's being used. I just wonder why it's being used in that way, and whether it should be. ] (]) 08:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be. It's being used that way because language evolves, words get compressed, and long phrases are collapsed: "taxi" instead of "taxicab" or, before that, "taximeter cabriolet", for example. Similarly, if someone uses the word "nice", we don't worry about the fact that the word used to mean, not "pleasant", but "stupid" or why its meaning evolved. We just use it with the generally understood meaning it has today. ] (]) 11:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I do understand that language evolves. I suppose my question (and thank you for helping me refine it) is this: has this usage evolved to a point that it can now be considered encyclopaedic? My own instinct is that it hasn't. , for example, is much more careful in its use of the construction. But I'm old-fashioned. ] (]) 13:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :In any case where something confusing has resulted from poor writing, like "Capsian Neolithic culture was concentrated mainly in modern Tunisia", just rewrite it to make sense. This is not rocket science. "Capsian Neolithic culture was concentrated mainly in what today is Tunisia". Likewise, this kind of rewording would fix every single bad example given above. There is not cause for some "new rule" here. Just ] and fix it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not arguing for a "new rule", and note that I've "fixed" most of the examples I gave above. But I don't want to waste my time "fixing" problems that aren't generally regarded as problems, which is why I asked the question. I've been looking for a more appropriate place to ask, but this will do. "In what is now Italy" or "in what is today Italy" seem more appropriate (to me) in nearly every case, but this use of "modern" is common enough that I wonder if it's acceptable to other readers. What's intended by it is generally fairly clear. In the case of Italy, we could also argue that "Italy" has a geographical sense as well as a political one, and that Mantua was in ], if not in ], when Margherita Gonzaga was born there. But that's not the case for every country. ] (]) 08:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure, I'm just saying excercise your own judgment when there's not a rule about it. I've seen plenty of "modern " cases that were not confusing, but the ones highlighted above clearly had potential to be. It's more likely to be confusing when some action/event is the subject, and seems to be implied to have taken place in modern times. But there's no issue with writing "medieval Ossory (modern Kilkenny and western Laois)". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 08:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you are going to distinguish between ] and ] that is going to need to be clearly linked with no sneaker links from "Italy" to something else. Maybe it would be better to say "on the Italian peninsula" in that article? I made the edit to ] for illustrative purposes in this discussion, there are two other similar articles I've made of her female relatives (] and ]) which are now in two variations (bringing the total to three variations) of how to describe it. I don't think it's that important of an issue as long as you don't equivocate on the meaning of "Italy" or use it in a confusing or potentially inaccurate manner. ] (]) 22:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"]" also has an article. My own inclination would be simply to describe Mantua as being "in what is now Italy". Or perhaps we could use "]": ''Margherita Gonzaga ... was a noblewoman of the ] from the ] of ].'' ] (]) 10:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Mantua was always in Italy. Just because there was at the time no ''sovereign state'' called Italy (or, indeed, Germany) doesn't mean the terms weren't used for the areas now occupied by those countries. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying Mantua was in Italy, even if referring to a time before the sovereign state existed. And linking Italy is unnecessary per ]. -- ] (]) 13:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(ec) ExactlyThere are tens of thousands of articles on Italian subjects predating the ], and there is absolutely no reason not to do what the vast majority do, which is just to link to "Italy". Italy was was a well-understood cultural area from Roman republican times, let alone during the Renaissance, with pretty trivial differences as to the area the term embraced. RS use the term constantly without feeling the need to explain anything. There's no point linking to geographical articles like ] or ]. Really there's no reason for a link at all, as Italy is well enough known. Tunisia and Germany, even France, are rather less simple cases. ] (]) 13:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::How about for ]. Or should she just be "Italian" since she had a Mantuan title by marriage? Actually I think is the most correct in this case? My reason for suggesting it was because ] is described as ] (linked thus). ] (]) 23:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"Tuscan" would make more sense than "Italian". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 18:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ===Two Examples, and Comments=== | |||
| First, I agree with ] that the ethnicity section needs clarification. That is evidenced, among other things, by '''two''' disputes that I am mediating, and I don't usually mediate two disputes about the same class of issue at the same time. | |||
| One of them, ], really does involve whether you can refer to medieval Italians as Italians, and the specific questions are: | |||
| *1. Can persons born on the Italian peninsula between 476 AD and 1860 AD be referred to as Italian? | |||
| *2. Can persons born in the ] between 697 AD and 1797 AD be referred to as Venetian? | |||
| *3. Can a person be both Venetian and Italian? | |||
| I think that the answer to all three questions is yes. In particular, ] was a geographic region, and a part of the ], long before the ] was proclaimed. I think that we need a statement to that effect somewhere, because the issue keeps coming up. | |||
| The second dispute is more controversial, and has to do with ], a composer who was born in what is now ], which was part of the ] at the time. Since blood is being spilled as I write this, we clearly need to be ready to deal with disputes about persons born in what is now ]. | |||
| ] (]) 17:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :The historically accurate name should be used. ]] 17:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::] your statement to use the historically accurate name is useful but inadequate. Both Italian and Venetian are accurate for ], since ] was a defined geographic region even when it was not a nation. In the case of ], how do you define historical accuracy? ] (]) 23:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Except ''Italian'' is not "accurate" in this case because it has multiple meanings, and the most common one in readers' minds is the present nation-state of Italy. "Italian" in such a case is confusing and ambiguous at best, and even directly misleading. "Italy was a defined geographic region" in Marco Polo's time is even debatable. We certainly can't have an across-the-board expectation that every reader agrees with this, much less an assumption that each understands that our article means "Italy as a geographic region not a nation-state". There was not even an Italian language in that era, but a continuum of related Italic languages (some of which still separately survive). The idea that what we now call Italy had a consistent culture throughout it and that people living in it thought of themselves as Italians is highly questionable and not something anyone has proven with reliable sources. So applying such a label to Marco Polo is not appropriate. It makes much more sense to say that he was from the Republic of Venice in what today is Italy. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'Italy' did not exist when Polo was born. So saying he was born in Italy - regardless of what any sources might say - is inaccurate. ]] 10:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Robert McClenon}} I am only surprised how a discussion about this hasn't been opened here before. They should be able to be referred to as Italian if its supported by majority of reliable sources; while Sergei should be referred to as whatever most RS claim (without contradicting he was Russian Empire citizen). My line of thinking is as follows: | |||
| :So to identify the problem: it is the presence of conflicting ethnic identifications and the raging disputes around them. | |||
| :The possible solutions to this: we leave it for editors to decide amongst themselves (an original research disaster as currently seen by the raging disputes and the obvious bigger problem of inconsistency across Misplaced Pages as evidenced by my examples above); or simply using what the majority of reliable sources have said. The latter option is simple, straightforward and to the point. | |||
| :The sentence to be added as part of the only solution: "Persons who lived under empires and persons who lived in abstract geographic regions in pre-modern times, can be mainly referenced by their ethnicity or the geographic region only when this supported by a majority of sources as a notable identification." ] (]) 18:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Something like that could work. It defaults to the "use the historically accurate term" position that GiantSnowman just posted and which I also argued in the thread above (and which I regularly observe to be our general practice; we don't call Julius Caesar an Italian, but a Roman), while leaving room for this default to be overridden by sourcing. More specifically, that should only happen when a preponderance of modern, independent, reliable sources use not the historical term we would default to but agree on another alternative term. If they don't largely agree on a particular alternative, then our default should still apply, even if it is not found in the majority of sources (if chaos reigns, then it will be our chaos, not one of competing external chaoses). Needs a little other wordsmithing, like "is" missing between "this" and "supported", and "notable identification" not really meaning anything concrete. That's not how we use the word "notable". But the germ of the right idea is in here. PS: On Marco Polo, I would think it would be "Venetian" not "Italian", which is in at least some senses anachronistic as well as unhelpfully (for that time period) vague. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 18:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::We don't call Julius Caesar an Italian because the majority of RS call him a Roman. Similarly for Marco Polo, a quick Google search reveals that he is more referred to as Venetian rather than Italian. I stress again that we must follow RS, like we do for anything else on Misplaced Pages, rather than leave this to original research and thus apply it inconsistently across Misplaced Pages as it is the case currently. And to stress, we are currently talking about ethnic identification in the opening paragraph, which doesn't negate the fact that conflicting identities could be elaborated elsewhere in the body. Ex: Marco Polo was a Venetian merchant... And in the body: Marco Polo was a Venetian merchant, but a number of sources have also referred to him as being Italian. ] (]) 19:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I entirely agree that the answer to all three questions is yes. However, we don't need to say "Venetian and Italian" (any more than we need to say "English and British"). "Venetian" is fine. Stick to RS, per usual. -- ] (]) 08:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Necrothesp}} That's precisely the problem, sticking to RS isn't highlighted in the guideline, which states instead that any ethnic identification must not be included in lede, and thus leaving us with countless of raging disputes. ] (]) 10:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Some of these people might only be included in a book on e.g. Italian subjects and never described in a particular RS as being from the sovereign state they were born in. ] (]) 10:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|DIYeditor}} Again, also the problem lies here. If we identify people using the sovereign state they were born in, then Jesus would be a Roman and not a Jew. He was indeed a Roman citizen, but the notable identification is that he was a Jew ethnically, and that is only because this is what most RS have used. However, this rationale is not specified here in the guideline, and leaves raging disputes. ] (]) 10:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Going by consensus across RSs seems like a good rule of thumb. I think there can be a false consensus due to what I described with some sources being more general and only making a passing or brief mention of the person whose information is being cited, even if when mentioned as the primary subject they might be called something else. ] (]) 11:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"Going by consensus across RSs seems like a good rule of thumb." Again, this is the current situation, and has failed to stymie disagreements. The policy needs amendment. ] (]) 11:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Jesus was not a Roman citizen. In the provinces of the Roman Empire, Roman citizenship was the exception rather than the rule. Roman citizens who were put to death were not crucified. That is why ] was beheaded while ] was crucified. What this illustrates is that the modern concept of citizenship may cause confusion when we try to apply it to earlier times. That is, of course, why we are here, and why this discussion is complex. ] (]) 17:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Fair enough but St. Paul is not called a Roman citizen either, rather a Christian apostle. Again, my argument remains the same: usage of what majority of RS are reporting. ] (]) 09:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal for the adoption of a new rule regarding anachronism=== | |||
| I started a Village pump (proposals) discussion regarding the problem of anachronism in the articles, considering that the articles are uneven in this regard. If there are sources that speak differently about a historical person, I don't think we can use that argument alone ie only RS argument. Because with the will of most editors and some sources if there are any, we can have anachronistic information in the article. Thus, for a certain Roman emperor, we could put information in the article that he was the Italian emperor. The key problem is that we do not have any guidelines regarding anachronism in the articles. If you want to discuss this problem, feel free to join. | |||
| ] | |||
| ] (]) 07:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::The discussion at ] has largely fizzled out. In my opinion, it was in the wrong forum. Mikola22 did not specify what they wanted to do about "anachronisms", so that their idea was a partially baked idea rather than a proposal, and should have been at ] if anywhere. I think that if there are any remaining issues that need to be addressed (and I think that they are), they can be addressed here. ] (]) 04:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I proposed to adopt a new rule concerning anachronism in articles. The only place for that procedure is Village pump (proposals). And in that sense I presented the proposal there. ] (]) 05:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You presented a proposal to present a proposal, and the community was not interested. ] (]) 16:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ===Do we want to discuss further? Do we have consensus? Has this discussion fizzled out?=== | |||
| Is there agreement that the MOS can be left alone? Do we need to formalize anything, such as that we should state what the majority of ] say? ] (]) 04:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Majority of reliable sources can say that someone is Italian even though he lived in the Roman Empire and the Roman era. So most of the sources in this case mean nothing as an argument. As far as I know, the information in the article must be presented in a time context, at least as far as the biography of famous people is concerned. ] (]) 06:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ===The specific case of medieval ]=== | |||
| A specific question that recurs from time to time has to do with people born in ] between 476 AD and 1860 AD, who are often referred to as Italian, but also often the subject of arguments because there was not an Italian state. Should we specifically discuss either a rule that this characterization should be avoided, or that this characterization is permitted? ] (]) 04:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think it's just a problem of medieval Italy. This is problem of all European countries, historical peoples, etc. What I know from experience is that information in articles must be presented in a time context. This would mean if Italy as a country existed only from 1860 AD then from that year we can talk that someone is Italian. ] (]) 06:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::The issue here is that there is often overlap between the names of modern political states, and the names of geographical area in which they exist. It is not anachronistic to talk of “Germany”, “Italy”, “Ireland” (etc) in a geographical context - even for periods prior to the formation of the modern nation states of the same name. Similarly, “German”, “Italian”, “Irish” (etc) can refer to ethno-geographic peoples as well as citizens of modern political units. | |||
| ::Context is important. When you say “Florence was one of the most influential cities in Italy during the Renaissance” it is understood that you are using “Italy” in its geographic context and not its modern political context. | |||
| ::There are limits, however. While it is not anachronistic to say that Normandy was an important region of medieval France, it ''would'' be anachronistic to say that Julius Caesar invaded France and defeated the French. This is because “France” and “French” are not used in an ethno-geographic sense in relation to Caesars’s time frame. ] (]) 17:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Fictional characters known by initials - what qualifies as the "preferred style for their own name" ? == | |||
| {{discussion top|1={{Moved discussion to|]}} <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 14:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{tq2|''']''' | |||
| ] has consistently interpreted the "Initials" section as also applying to names of fictional characters. | |||
| Since ] now says (after the 2023 RFC) "post-nominal letters may be included in the main body of the article, but not in the lead sentence of the article", why are the examples in {{slink|MOS:BIO|Formatting post-nominals}} formatted with boldface names, as they would appear only in the lead sentence of the article? Can we maybe find some actual article where a post-nominal is properly "included in the main body of the article" but not in the lead, and copy the formatting from there? —] (]) 20:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| An initial is capitalized and is followed by a ] (period) and a space (e.g. ]), unless: | |||
| :Good grief. How did I miss this RfC? This is yet another example of cultural bias on en WP, something which was explicitly not taken into account by the closer. But in answer to your question, it actually now makes it awkward to explain what a post-nominal is when they haven't been introduced in the lead sentence with the name (where they belong, frankly). For example, in the body you might say, "In January 1927, Fooist was made a Companion of the Distinguished Service Order (DSO)." But then why is the (DSO) there? It essentially requires an additional sentence or explanatory footnote like "This award entitled the recipient to place the initialisation DSO after their name, or some similar formulation if it could be written generically to apply to all awards the person received that came with a post-nominal, which would be particularly important in the case of highly decorated Commonwealth generals, for example, who might have six or more postnominals, where you wouldn't want six separate notes. Talk about a solution in search of a problem... ] (]) 03:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * the person ] has a different, consistently preferred style for their own name; {{em|and}} | |||
| ::Even as an anti-royalist and anti-classist, this doesn't make much sense to me. It's conventional to give post-nominals after the name of the person to whom they pertain, on the person's first mention in biographical materials about that person (or, I guess, about them in substantial part, e.g. if the article were about a band and its members, or covered both a person and the company they founded). What's not conventional is to keep repeating the post-noms in the same article, or to pepper other articles with them where they are not pertinent because the person to whom they pertain is being mentioned only in passing. The RfC alluded to must have happened while I was off doing something else, since I would have opposed this extreme result. The RfC is over at ], and the conclusion is "There is consensus in support of moving post-nominals outside of lead sentences." So, that equates neither to "removing from the lead section" nor "removing from the article". While I don't think that the practicalities of this were thought through at all (thus the current thread), and would support revisiting this as a ] matter, I would think that in the interim, the most sensible approach would be to have the lead sentence read something like "Dame '''Amelia de Groot''' was a prominent underwater basketweaver, who ..." or whatever; then at the beginning of the first non-lead section, start with something like "Dame Amelia de Groot, <small>], ]</small>, was born Marie-Amelia van Phluph in ...", and progressively lay out her life and achievements in the course of the article. At that spot, use the same template, links, and (when deemed appropriate) footnotes with regard to the post-nom. abbreviations as we formerly used in the lead sentence. In other words, treat the non-lead first mention of the subject as the first mention for post-nom. purposes. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that variant style for that person. | |||
| :::Someone is going around removing the post-nominals from the article. It is a shame, because this is very important information, and sums up a career very well. But it is more important to assert American control over the internet lest the United States pull the plug on our servers. ] ] 19:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In such a case, treat it as a ]. Examples include ], ], and ].}} | |||
| ::::Postnoms should be retained in the infobox. The big problem is that some editors are going around removing postnoms from the first line and either not adding them to the infobox if they are not already there or not adding an infobox where there is none. This is deleting information and is a very bad idea. -- ] (]) 11:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::G'day {{u|SMcCandlish}}, I entirely agree with your anti-royalist and anti-classist position, but I'm not sure about putting postnoms in the first sentence of the "Early life" section or whatever, because that bit is about the person at the time of birth, who their parents were, where they were born etc. It seems incongruous to put postnoms on their name at the point in the narative that they were born. Cheers, ] (]) 23:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Fixable with sensible writing. Start the "article proper" with an introdutory sentence that nutshells who they were in life, then have a second sentence that harks back to their birth. Or put the post-noms in the first sentence of a "Career" section, or whatever. Or even later in the lead. My point was that "don't do it in the lead sentence", as a rule we're stuck with until this is re-RfCed, doesn't mean "don't do it anywhere in the article". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Is a "re-RfC" on the horizon?] (]) 20:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Not from me personally, since it would probably be more ]tic that I can stomach right this moment, and I have my head deep in several ongoing projects, so am not around WP a lot for the short term at least. But see ] below, where the subject has been raised again; that could potentially be where to develop a followup RfC about this. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal to import a line-item from ] into ] == | |||
| {{od}} Would the "preferred style for their own name" for '''fictional characters''' be the owner's name for the character? Examples: | |||
| One important element of what will shortly be at ] is a line-item, targeted by the shortcut ], which is entirely correct and addresses a frequently recurring and sometimes disputatious WP writing issue, but has nothing to do with Judaism, really hasn't been seen by much of anyone, and actually belongs in ]. | |||
| # Owner: '''''' for '']'', style followed in | |||
| # Owner: '''''' for ], style followed in | |||
| # Owner: '''''' for ], style followed in | |||
| # Owner: '''''' for ], style followed in | |||
| # Owner: '''''' for ], style followed in | |||
| # Owner: '''''' for ], style followed in | |||
| # Owner: '''''' for ], style followed in | |||
| ''']] (])''' 13:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I propose importing that line item about use of "Christ" into that guideline, though with more guideline-appropriate wording: | |||
| * I would support the above in adherence to key content policies, when we adhere to the owner's name of the character, we satisfy ] and avoid ], and we are less likely to run afoul of ] because sources tend to follow the official name as the ]. However, if the official name differs from the most widely used name in reliable sources, then the official name would not qualify for the exception. ''']] (])''' 13:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:There is absolutely nothing like a "key content policy adhere to the owner's name" of anything. Quite the opposite. See ] and ]. And ] and ] and ] are satisified by doing what a large majority of {{em|independent}} reliable sources are doing, not what is found in a primary source. Making up your mind based on a movie poster or a title card that the trademark holder must be upset about spacing or dot placement in a name just because they style it one way and we and various other publishers style it another way is OR by definition. Bending over backwards to satisfy trademark holders' stylization demands is entirely a POV exercise. And V is dependent on independent secondary sourcing. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *WP cares most what {{em|independent}} sources are doing, not (per ]) what the trademark holder prefers, when it comes to any style questions. Fictional characters do not have feelings that can be hurt and preferences that can be offended, so the "self-published name change" idea (or anything else derived from ]) cannot apply to them. This initials stylization stuff is pretty much arbitrary, so there's no particular reason not to just follow ]'s default of "J. D. McDonagh", except in a case where a style like "JD McDonagh" is pretty close to universal in independent reliable sources. However, some of the above are not initials, but two-letter acronyms/initialisms, including E.T. and C.C., so the question about them would really be whether to remove the dots. ''E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial'' is a work title, so we'd generally be inclined to leave it alone (unless "''ET the Extra-Terrestrial''" was well represented in sources, too), and thus to write the character as "E.T." to agree with the work title. As for CC, I dunno. If the {{em|indepdendent}} sources near-univerally write it as "C.C.", then we would, too. But if they sometimes use "C.C." and sometimes use "CC", we would probably use the ] default of "CC". PS: Googling around, I see some highly speculative claims the CC character actually has an original human name in her backstory, that also has initials of "C. C." (though they can't decide what that name actually is), so that case might be futher complicated/debatable. But only weakly because of lack of any definitive and reliable sourcing at all. Expecially since the human name is not the source of the acronymic CC code name, but just an fictional coincidence. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *BTW, this really is a matter for ]; it has nothing to do with ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I moved the entire discussion over there, with all comments, since it's just completely off-topic here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 14:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussion bottom}} | |||
| {{tqb|] should not be referred to in Misplaced Pages's own voice as "Christ" or "Jesus Christ"; the word '']'' is an honorific title ('The Anointed'), used by those who believe specifically that Jesus is the son of God and is the Davidic-line messiah, in ] and some related doctrines including ]. Misplaced Pages asserting this term would be against the ] policy. Jesus should be referred to simply as "Jesus" or, when more clarity is needed, "Jesus of Nazareth" (or "Isa" in the context of Islam, in which he is considered a prophet).}} | |||
| == Nothing wastes more editor time than WP:JOBTITLES == | |||
| Having a locus for this in that section of MOS:BIO will also provide a place for whatever is eventually decided about Muhammad and "the Prophet" or "the prophet" (used alone or with his name), a subject of some continuing dispute. (An RfC about it earlier this year failed to come to a clear consensus, and it will probably come up again sooner than later.)<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 08:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Just look at this talk page. Look at the archives. JOBTITLES is ''constantly'' discussed. Not even people familiar with MOS understand it. Alternatively, pay attention to ]: the most common point of contention there is capitalization because mere mortals cannot wrap their minds around what JOBTITLES is trying to say. It is absurdly convoluted, to the point that it does not reflect either academic and journalistic usage or government usage. | |||
| :I've thought for years it's absurd that we go on at such length about never using "PBUH" while completely ignoring the much more common NPOV issue of "Jesus Christ". To be clear for anyone unfamiliar, this isn't just a technical etymological "gotcha". Many Jews—and, I assume, many other kinds of non-Christian person—actively avoid using the word "Christ" to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, because it is an explicit statement of faith, even if some non-Christians do use it without meaning that due to cultural osmosis. I didn't know there was guidance on this in WikiProject Judaism's style guide, but now that you've raised this, yes, I definitely '''strongly support''' adding this to MOS:HONORIFIC, although it probably can be pared down a bit. I would suggest just {{tq2|] should not be referred to in Misplaced Pages's own voice as {{!xt|Christ}} or {{!xt|Jesus Christ}}; the word '']'' is an honorific title ('The Anointed') which expresses the belief that Jesus is the messiah. Acceptable names include {{xt|Jesus}}, {{xt|Jesus of Nazareth}}, and, ], {{xt|Isa}}.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 02:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| To illustrate, this mumble is the only correct way to capitalize per MOS:JOBTITLES: | |||
| ::Maybe trivially obvious but I think the difference in practice is mostly that secular usage totally memory-holes that ''Christ'' is a title. If I have ever run afoul on this, I'm guessing that's just me having that blind spot. It's clearly a perfectly equivalent situation upon examination though, and I'm glad you brought it up. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{blockquote|John F. Kennedy was '''P'''resident of the United States. He was the '''p'''resident of the United States from 1961 to 1963. Before he became '''p'''resident, Kennedy served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. The '''P'''resident served at the height of the Cold War. In 1963, '''P'''resident Kennedy was assassinated.}} | |||
| :If "Christ" is a POV title, is "Buddha" as well? "]" would be a name which doesn't take a position from within the belief system, and (thinking specifically about article titles, though this is about running text as well) is one which "{{tq|someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize}}" (the ] of Recognizability) – so it's not as if no such option is available. ] (]) 10:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Every title expresses a POV. The issue is Christ very specifically refers to the fulfilment of a concept within Judaism. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 11:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' for at least proscribing “Christ” alone. Would probably be better to merely advise “avoid Jesus Christ” though. It is certainly the most common name for him in English, and far more recognisable than “Jesus of Nazareth”. (We should also make sure to avoid using his middle name when in polite company.) | |||
| :End jokes. | |||
| :For what it’s worth though, I don’t see MOS:BIO as the logical place for this stuff; it would basically be saying that these are individual biographies who need a carveout, but applied to an entire wing of the encyclopaedia. Better would be to admit that religious topics just need their own place. Not that I would put up any fuss if it ends up here for now. Also, ain’t it weird that ] has only ] and ]? <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span> (])</span> 13:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Title link or no? == | |||
| We will all be spared the eyesore of apparently random capitalization as well as the incessant questions about the intention of MOS:JOBTITLES if we just adopt the style that is almost universally used in academic and journalistic writing, namely: | |||
| {{blockquote|John F. Kennedy was '''p'''resident of the United States. He was the '''p'''resident of the United States from 1961 to 1963. Before he became '''p'''resident, Kennedy served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. The '''p'''resident served at the height of the Cold War. In 1963, '''P'''resident Kennedy was assassinated.}} | |||
| Hello there. There is bit of a dispute over at the article ]'s talk page, about whether or not to link the title. My view is that, as a rule, the title should not be linked - e.g. King ], as oppose to ] - as that would be consistant with what is written in ]. However, there is no clear policy there and its led to misunderstandings. | |||
| Only capitalize job titles when preceding the person's name. That's it. No "when not in plural", "when not preceded by a modifier", "when not a reworded description" and all those other conditions that make MOS look like a computer code. Just do as academic and journalistic style guides do. | |||
| Can there be a policy made on this to avoid such disputes or at least clarified? Much appreciated. ] (]) 12:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| So, to spare us yet another unproductive discussion about this, I beg your answer to two questions: | |||
| *Would a proposal to simplify JOBTITLES have a chance of succeeding or are we stuck with this horrid halfway that none of us actually likes? | |||
| *How would one go about ''officially'' proposing a change such as this one in the most clear, succinct manner? | |||
| Thanks and bear with me. ] (]) 19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :@], you seem the most active on here. Pinging you first. Please ping others if you know who is most active here. Regards. ] (]) 12:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :A proposal like this could probably grow legs, since the section in question has mutated over time into a ]uous mess. I think workshopping it here and seeing what the general reaction is will be a good first step. If it comes to a local consensus, I think I would propose it at ], because the change would affect a wide swath of articles. For my part, I'm in favor of the idea, because I agree the current system is complicated and confusing and produces text that might be reader-confusing (at least as to whether any rationale is at work); WP, like ''Chicago Manual'' and various academic-leaning publishers has a default-toward-lower-case or "downcasing" position across the board already; and we have too much of a ] problem with tiny nitpicks being added all the time instead of sticking to general principles and not making exceptions unless a need for one seems overwhelming.{{pb}}That said, there are apt to be some tweaks and codicils, e.g. some titles come after instead of before names, so it's really a matter of the title being directly attached to the name, fore or aft. (But then people will argue about whether a comma makes a difference, as in "John James Jingleheimer-Schmidt, Baron" versus "Baron John James Jingleheimer-Schmidt". So, we'll have to settle that. I'm not sure there are lot of other complications; "Kennedy was the 35th president of the United States" but "when President Kennedy was". And "according to Queen Elizabeth II" and "when the queen wrote". One of our confusing practices is writing "king" or "duke" when refering to such a position in the abstract but "King" or "Duke" when used as a stand-in for a specific person's name. While the practice is certainly {{em|attested}} elsehwere, it's arguably not {{em|helpful}} to the reader in any way, and just leads to needlessly distracted readers wondering why the case keeps changing.{{pb}}One bit of advice: When proposing such changes, it is good to do to a {{tlx|tqb}} of what the current guideline wording is, and another showing what the proposed wording would be, so people don't have to try to compare text in two different browser windows and whatnot. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 20:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also pinging @], @], @], @]. They took part in a previous survey on ]. ] (]) 18:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Demanding consistency via one size fits all simple rules is superficially attractive but cannot work. And using only super-famous job titles like PrEsIdEnT oF tHe Us or qUeEn Of EnGlAnD (random capitalization chosen to avoid bias in favor of any specific capitalization) as your starting examples is a really bad way of matching how job titles are used more widely. Job titles like "Florida Photonics Center of Excellence (FPCE) Endowed Professor" must be capitalized, for instance; no source uses any other capitalization. —] (]) 21:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't link to the title, please. I'd say the same with President ], for example. ] (]) 16:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, there are always wrinkles like named endowment chairs. Though "no source uses any other capitalization" by itself is not always a good argument. No {{em|independent}} source, among many independent sources using any other capitalization would matter, but what would not matter would be whether non-independent sources like to capitalize something, or when there are nearly no independent sources to examine, or hardly any sources at all to examine. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 14:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm afraid its another user who is being VERY adament in linking the title. I think you found the initial talk page as well where I gave this example, along with others. ] (]) 17:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Um. Basic logic. If "no source uses any other capitalization" then it is also automatically true that "no independent source uses any other capitalization". Also, why the fetish for independence in this context? Sources can be reliable for matters like "what is the job title of this organization's employee" without being independent. —] (]) 07:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't see anything in ] that is relevant to this. All that is saying is don't change it from including the "Sir" to omitting it, of vice-versa, as both are equally correct. It doesn't mention whether to include the "Sir" in the link text, or not. -- ] (]). 17:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Because internal sources have an {{em|overwhelming}} tendency to capitalize everything to do with the company (or school, or whatever it is). From job titles down to "Staff Break Room". They are not reliable sources for English-language norms, even if they are valid primary sources for someone's job title being "assitant custodian" versus "assitant janitor". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 17:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I know that "Sir" is USUALLY not linked in the event it is mentioned, which is where I'm coming from here. There isn't really a policy otherwise on whether a title should be linked in the name. That is partly why this should be clarified here, so there isn't any dispute/confusion about it going forward. And yes, this policy may not be the exact one but it is related to titles and I'm just making an argument based on what it says about titles in general as well as other policies on here. ] (]) 17:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :FWIW - I try my best to abide by WP:JOBTITLES, even though I disagree with its lower-casing preferences. IMHO, we should've stayed with capitalising. But, I doubt the community will choose to return to those days. ] (]) 16:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :What's the reasoning for not including ]'s title in the link text and writing it as "King ]"? We don't write "Pope ]" instead of "]" or "Princess ]" for "]", or "General ]" for ]. -- ] (]). 18:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *JOBTITLES will continue to be a time sink no matter what we say… because ''someone'' will always disagree with it, no matter what we say. The capitalization rules vary depending on a) the style guide you prefer, b) when you went to school (I grew up at a time when it was standard to capitalize almost most job titles, but today that is considered over-capitalization). Personally, I just want it to be consistent ''within'' an article. I’m not overly concerned if one article capitalizes where another does not. ] (]) 17:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I already explained that but I will repeat it here: because "Princess" and "Pope" are both part of the article names - it it is part of the article name then it should be linked. I wouldn't link General based on that; I'd write General ] if I had to, same as I'd write President ]. ] (]) 18:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand what you mean. Unfortunately, correctly applying JOBTITLES leads to internal inconsistency. See my examples above. The correct application of JOBTITLES leads to capitalization that must seem entirely random to a casual reader. ] (]) 18:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, I've explained before to you specifically on the Victoria Starmer talk page, and I don't want to repeat everything all over again on this one - just see if you want to see my stance fully. Regards, ] (]) 18:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::And a side concern is that various editors {{em|do}} care about consistency across articles on such matters, both for reducing recurrent editorial strife about them, and for presenting content that doesn't stylistically veer all over the place from page to page, for the reader. But anyway, having a {{em|simpler}} MOS:JOBTITLES, even if like most style rules it's ultimately pretty arbitrary, is surely preferable to the current complex mess. It is correct that someone will disagree with it no matter what it says (this is true of pretty much every style rule anyone has ever written, here or elsewhere), but we can at least in theory reduce the number of things to object to, while also just making it simpler. PS: I share Blueboar's generational experience, but am nevertheless in favor of downcasing. Just because I was taught to do something in 7th grade doesn't mean it was a good idea at the time much less that it remains one in 2023. Lots and lots of what was taught to us in elementary and secondary schools was nonsense, and we need to not hold onto it as if it's somewhow precious. This stuff is not religious doctrine or a core element of cultural identity. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 19:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is a different discussion though, with a potentially very different audience. All relevant detail needs including as a matter of courtesy. -- ] (]). 18:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::if you want a simpler MOS, how about: never use capitals for any purpose ever. there. done. simplicity is not always best. there is a reason we went from having a single case in classical latin to using mixed cases in modern languages, and that reason is that capitals convey a certain amount of extra information, lost from intonation in spoken speech. information like: this is the official title used for a certain job and not merely the colloquial meaning that the same words would have if they were lower case. "Head Doctor" means the chief physician (or would, if anyone actually used that as a job title). "head doctor" could be a low-level psychiatrist. —] (]) 07:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: |
:::::If anyone asks for my opinion, then I'll given them my opinion. You already know it, however, and I don't feel the need to explain it to you in detail again. ] (]) 18:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::::: |
::::::You cannot assume that I'm the only reader of this though, and should write it so that others know where you are coming from. -- ] (]). 19:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::: |
:::::::I began this convo so others can chip in and give their opinions. My view is that it should not be in the link which I made clear at the start and, if someone wants me to elaborate further, I will do so when asked. Since you know already, I don't feel the need to as of yet (and I've also put in the link). ] (]) 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::So you think the link text should match the article name? Wow. What would be the purpose of redirects then? Or even pipes? Surely the link text should be in keeping with the article prose flow, style and English variant. Editors should not have to compromise the prose to incorporate the exact article name. | |||
| ::::::::To put it more bluntly, your examples at the lead of this thread are bad examples. One can get the same haphazard-capitalization effect in any sentence crafted to use a proper noun and the corresponding improper nouns in close alternation. For instance, "Lotus cars are cars made by Lotus Cars. Lotus Cars is named for the lotus flower, and Lotus cars are named for their manufacturer, Lotus Cars." Getting that effect does not mean we need to change our capitalization rules for corporations and the brand names they manufacture; it means we need to not put prose like that into our articles. —] (]) 16:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::You would have fun trying to write prose in an article that referred to the ]. -- ] (]). 18:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::In none of those instances is the word "president" a ]; and the problem highlighted here is the difficulty of interpreting JOBTITLES's random (and elsewhere unattested) capitalization instructions even for short text such as the Main Page blurbs. ] (]) 17:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, given that this discussion is related to TITLES only and my response was clearly in relation to titles in article names, I clearly meant it in relation to that. I would have thought that was fairly obvious. Please refrain from twisting what I actually meant; I was pretty clear and conscise in my reply. ] (]) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Unhelpful snarky silliness like "how about: never use capitals for any purpose ever. there. done." just short-circuits meaningful discussion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 18:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Would redirects for articles about people become redundant then if we adopt your idea? How about pipes, would they be allowed? -- ] (]). 19:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: *shrugs* I don't see how that is relevant to this conversation. I think I spelt out to you I'm just not in favor of the title being included in the link when the full name is being used - e.g. King ] or President ] - unless its part of their common name and/or article title, like ] or ]. If you want to a pipe/use or redirect where it is appropriate, go ahead. I'm not at all against piping ] to simply ] or using the redirect ] in place of ], nor have I ever said so. ] (]) 19:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You obviously haven't made it clear. And now you've made it even more confusing. So you're ok with piping ] as ], but not with using the redirect ]? Is that correct? How about piping ] as ]? -- ] (]). 20:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If you still think its confusing, I'm afraid that's not my problem. ] (]) 20:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Now I think it is best to wait for others' opinions on this matter as well. I've pinged a fair few people who partake in this talk page regularly and I hope we can hear from them soon. One other, @], has already shared theirs on the matter. ] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You didn't answer the questions, especially the one about piping ] as ]. -- ] (]). 20:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I did. ] (]) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Where? -- ] (]). 20:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Again, it's not my problem. And I already said I won't repeat myself to you. You don't seem to be interested in understanding either so its a waste of my time. Good night to you. ] (]) 20:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I'm interested in trying to understand your objection to using redirects to link articles directly from vocabulary used in prose. At the moment, your arguments seem to wobble, and appear inconsistent to me, and I'm trying to unravel the confusion. -- ] (]). 21:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd say that the answer depends on the wording from which the link is being made. If it is more natural to include the word 'King' in the prose, then it should be part of the link per ], and it should not be piped per ]. But if the context means that 'King' is not needed, linking to ] is preferable. ] (]) 08:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Certainly is quite wording dependant, agreed. ] (]) 08:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The title doesn't need linking by itself (e.g. not <nowiki>] ]</nowiki>), but I would argue that it is far better, mostly for aesthetic reasons, to link the whole name, including the title, either by using a redirect (e.g. <nowiki>]</nowiki>) or a pipe (e.g. <nowiki>]</nowiki>). The latter is not necessary here, but it is useful for titles like "Sir" that are not likely to have redirects. -- ] (]) 17:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@], I think the first one would be a ] issue so definitely no. Weirdly, part of my objection is aesthetic reasons too. I wouldn't link "President" in "President Joe Biden" in any way for example but I guess that differs from what type of title it is, would you agree? ] (]) 19:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Neither would I! But I would link titles and military ranks. -- ] (]) 17:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't link the title as if part of the name. Just overlinking, extra blue for no reason. Few titles actual appertain to a person life-long anyway, so doing the links that way will often be contextually erroneous. E.g. ] doesn't go, as some would quite reasonably expect to, ], i.e. the topical intersection of ] and his presidency; it goes to ], which is about him as a person. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Reading the original post without context, at first I thought it was referring to ]'s own title of ], but I see it's actually about the title in ]. Until this discussion I would have written (in the few cases where using the titles at all would be the best choice) "{{xt|King ]}}", "{{xt|President ]}}" and "{{xt|Sir ]}}", essentially linking the article titles. But this discussion has persuaded me otherwise – if the title "Lady" is linked ("{{xt|]}}" not "{{xt|Lady ]}}"), and "Pope" often is because the article titles include it, and also "{{xt|General ]}}" and {{xt|Princess ]}}" don't look right, the most consistent approach is to link all honorific titles. If that creates an unwelcome amount of blue, it should be an opportunity to question whether "{{xt|]}}" as opposed to just "{{xt|]}}", "{{xt|]}}" as opposed to "{{xt|]}}", etc., etc., is the best choice of phrasing in encyclopedic prose anyway. ] (]) 09:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| == Minor consolidation merge == | |||
| The removal of postnoms from the lead under these new guidelines has started to create some problems. While I am not opposed to this in principle, I ''am'' opposed to the removal of information. Some editors are "enforcing" these new guidelines by removing postnoms (often on dozens of articles at a time) where there is no infobox showing them. If there is no infobox then the postnoms should remain in the first line until an infobox is added. It doesn't matter if the honours are included in the body of the article - it is extremely useful to have an indication of what the person's correct style is at the top of an article where it can be seen at a glance. This problem is compounded by the sniffiness of some Misplaced Pages editors about infoboxes, especially those involved in projects relating to cultural figures. An example of this can be seen on the article for ], where his CBE has been removed from the first sentence but an editor is resisting the addition of an infobox (and, indeed, deleting one that has been added) showing his CBE. Postnominals are important in the UK and other Commonwealth countries and removing useful information like this is not helpful. -- ] (]) 14:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. I don't think the changes have been thought through very well, to be honest. -- ] - ] 17:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :+1. In Commonwealth countries, every publication includes a person's post-nominals like KBE, AO, at first mention. It's defining, and having to include a clumsy phrase in the lead to convey that information is a backwards step: it leads to more clutter and verbiage, not less. This should be discussed again. -- ] (]) 19:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed with {{u|Michael Bednarek}}. In Commonwealth countries, the post-nominals are defining; we should not be losing information from articles. ] ] 19:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't really see what purpose removing the information achieves assuming it is sourced properly. Post-nominals take up little space and putting them after the name is an easy way to naturally introduce them into an article. Mass removal of content based on a MOS guideline shouldn't happen as the MOS is only a guideline. | |||
| :Although if it is being removed because it is unsourced that is a different matter. ] (]) 20:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I would support reversing the previous decision about removing these from the lead sentence - that seems a reasonable place for them to be. ] (]) 00:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Same, though in the opposite direction we need to undo ] and ]'s usurpation of infobox fields for pre-nominal titles and for names, to instead hold salultations and peerage/nobility titles, respectively. It's just unbearably bad. See ] for typical example. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed that ''some'' post noms should be in the lede, and also agree that not all need to be in the infobox. ]] 08:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :See also ], above, for related recent discussion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, a poorly thought-through decision which should be reversed. I suggest anyone interested read the thread Stanton linked above. ] (]) 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I couldn't agree more with all of the points made by {{u|Necrothesp}} and {{u|Michael Bednarek}}. ] (]) 20:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am opposed to the removal of postnoms from their normal position after people's names. Some screenreaders cannot read infoboxes, so putting the postnom there instead is no solution. ] (]) 03:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I completely agree with everyone. Particularly in Canada (and the UK along with the other Commonwealth countries), post-nominal letters are very important and heavily used. Post-nominals letters should not be removed from the lead at all, and I don't believe any of the changes impacting this policy were necessary or justified. There's no reason to be losing this information, and it seems like this was not thought through well at all. – <strong style="color:green;"><i>Handoto</i></strong> (<small>]</small>) 21:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Finally some common-sense, the previous decision was ill-conceived and should be reverted as soon as possible. ] (]) 04:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I totally agree. I came across this issue only just now when checking ] and finding the post-nominals missing from the opening sentence - still in the infobox, but not blue-linked; mentioned in full in the "Awards and honours" section, but just as one item, also not blue-linked, in a list of 11 (including major academic and business awards, as well as having a genus, a mineral, and a main-belt asteroid named after him!) My immediate reaction was to revert the deletion, before following the thread back to the RfC and this discussion. IMHO the RfC outcome was a poor decision, and needs to be reversed. ] (]) 12:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>No objection to amending MOS:POSTNOM. If there's no infobox? than postnoms should be in lead. Gotta show'em somewhere. ] (]) 17:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ::Everything in the infobox should be a summary of material in the article itself. Putting it only in the infobox is inadequate. —] (]) 17:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::As mentioned earlier by another editor. The infobox at ] concerning postnoms, is overkill. ] (]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *What do other encyclopedias do? Britannica and ODNB avoid post-nominals. The Canadian Encyclopedia uses them, but only for Canadian orders, so British and foreign orders are not shown, e.g. compare https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sir-john-alexander-macdonald and https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/brian-mulroney. Most, if not all, encyclopedias either avoid or restrict them. We should do the same. Post-noms are not shown in comparable works. Long strings of letters after a person's name are intrusive and interruptive. Honours are not usually the primary reason for a person's notability and so should not be the first thing to be mentioned about them (though there are exceptions). For people before the modern age, post-noms are anachronistic. Post-nominals associated with foreign orders awarded to non-citizens are not used in that person's country of citizenship. ] (]) 08:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{FYI|pointer=y}} | |||
| ::The people objecting here to the outcome of ] have made it clear that some post-nominals in some countries are widely used in the press and other publications and almost never omitted from the subject's first mention. -- ] (]) 09:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Please see ] - Idea to merge a line-item (about stylization of stage/pen names) out of MOS:INITIALS (where the one of the examples is only semi-pertinent anyway) and into ], leaving behind a cross-reference to MOS:TM from ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 14:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::They have made that claim, but I know from my own experience that such claims are dubious. In practice, strings of post-nominals are not used in the Commonwealth press. ] (]) 10:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. To add, I think moving post-nominals from the lede to the body ruins the flow of the text and is out place. The RfC about exclusion of post-nominals from the lede in my view presents a rather fastidious case of instructions ] ] (]) 18:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree. I have removed postnoms from the lead of several articles, but kept them in the infobox – or moved them there if they were missing there. ] (]) 19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Best to stick with ''not'' having the postnoms in the lead. Respect the RFC results. ] (]) 19:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with DrKay's comment. Post-nominals are fine in infoboxes, but keep that clutter out of the lead sentences please. Average readers reading ]'s article wouldn't care that she's {{tq|Joanne Rowling '''CH OBE FRSL'''}}. If those post-nominals are important or noteworthy, then they should be explained in the body of the article in prose. ] (]) 19:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::They are explained in prose: 'She has received an OBE and made a Companion of Honour for services to literature and philanthropy' and 'She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature (FRSL), the Royal Society of Edinburgh (HonFRSE), and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (FRCPE).' ] (]) 20:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Which they should be considering the post-nominals appear in the infobox. I don't see the need for them in the lead sentence though. ] (]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::This suggestion of including the postnominals as parentheticals in the part of the article where these recognitions are detailed makes sense to me and I have started applying it to other articles where postnominals are relevant. | |||
| :::I wish the gnomes who are just going around blindly removing all postnominals from article text based on the previous RFC would take more time and do something like this. —] (]) 07:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Seems to me there is overwhelming support for overturning the previous RFC. ] (]) 01:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Perhaps that seeming overwhelming support is because nobody has notified those who participated in the previous RFC of this discussion? Including the ] and ] of the discussion, the latter of whom said they welcomed discussion of it through their talk page? Personally, I did not participate in the previous RFC but would affirm its conclusion. ] (]) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Melcous}} Thanks for the ping as the initiator of the 2023 RfC. I think it's obvious that any unadvertised discussion won't have enough ] to overturn a formal RfC. However, in line with {{u|Ixtal}}'s read of the RfC consensus, we could tweak POSTNOM to address the OP's core complaint, making it explicitly clear that post-nominals can be listed elsewhere in a lead and/or in an infobox (if the info is in the article body). ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 05:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Given the previous consensus and fair concern noted in the OP, I've boldly the guideline. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 06:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh I agree, a new RFC would need to be adequately advertised, unlike the previous one. ] (]) 05:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Nford24}} You are of course free to point out any specific area(s) of concern that you had with the previous RfC, but there's no need for snide comments. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 06:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Appropriateness of using given names in bio == | ||
| I just ran across an article about a retired US Navy admiral ], who in the second paragraph, it said "In 2017 or earlier, Mike served as a vice director of Joint Chiefs of Staff at Pentagon....". I changed this to his last name citing WP:BIO in the edit summary due to the fact that a bio of an adult like this shouldn't refer to the subject by his/her given name, as I had recalled seeing that it was part of the MoS from several years ago. I now can't find it in the MoS. Was it removed at some point in the past? I still consider it inappropriate. ] (]) 21:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] reads: {{tq2|With initials, it is not necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. For example, ] has that title, {{xt|H. P. Lovecraft}} appears in his ], and his lead sentence just gives {{xt|'''Howard Phillips Lovecraft''' ... was an American writer ...}}, without "explaining" to the reader what "H. P." stands for.}} Would this also apply for people with "Jr." in their name, for example, ], whose full name is Derek Sherrard Hayden Jr.? —] (]) 08:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I don’t think MOS:INITIALS is relevant since he is known as “D.J.” and not “D.S.” … This example seems to be more a case of an initialized nickname than a true use of initials (at least I assume that “D.J.” stands for “Derek Jr.”) (] (]) 12:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::My main question is whether "D. J." should be presented in the lead sentence or not. And whatever is decided, does it warrant some mention in the MOS? —] (]) 12:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Should likely be in the lead sentence, since it's what he's best known as but is not instantly apparent from what his full name is (especially since "DJ" or "D. J." is also used occupationally/avocationally, from "disc jockey"). Edge cases like this nearly never need new MoS line items (]!) since they don't come up often, aren't a subject of recurrent "stylewarring", and are easy enough to figure out from the existing rules after a short discussion). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 18:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::MOSBLOAT: For the record, it did come up with edit summary {{tq|Don't need to add DJ here if it's obvious where it comes from|q=yes}}. —] (]) 00:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, it's not obvious where it comes from. Even my 95% sure assumption that it's from "Derek Junior" could be flat-out wrong, and he could have picked up the nickname from DJing at parties. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 05:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"<first-name initial>. J." is common for people named "Jr.". However, I only came to know this later in life, and I'm guessing a lot of readers might not even be aware of it. —] (]) 05:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And it might be largely an Americanism; I've learned the British "Juniors" typically drop the Junior after the death of the father rather than treating it as lifelong and indelible part of their name. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 05:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Even its use in the first place is an Americanism; in British English it is incredibly rare. Indeed giving the child the same first name as the father (or mother, I guess) is itself considered somewhat naff and almost never done. ] (]) 17:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Go with ]: '''Derek Sherrard''' '''"D. J.'''"''' Hayden Jr.'''? ] (]) 13:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cleaner markup: '''Derek Sherrard''' "'''D. J.'''" '''Hayden Jr.''' .... But it would probably be more appropriate to go with: '''Derek Sherrard Hayden Jr.''', best known as '''D. J. Hayden''', ..... What we have here is an unsual case where someone is habitually called D. J. as short for "Derek Junior", so it's really a form of hypocorism (as WP broadly uses that term, to include shortenings), not a nickname like "Spanky" or "Killer", so it really doesn't belong in quotation marks as a nickname. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 18:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|...case where someone is habitually called D. J. as short for "Derek Junior", so it's really a form of hypocorism (as WP broadly uses that term, to include shortenings), not a nickname like "Spanky"...|q=yes}}: I think many might stumble on the nuance between a nickname and hypocorism to determine whether to quote or not, or simply mix this up with ]. —] (]) 00:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Doesn't much matter, because someone else will clean it up later if they care, and it's not hard to remember anyway: if it's not something kind of silly like "Thunderman" or "Cheeks", or a weird half-descriptive half-praising phrase like "Wonder from Wolverhampton" – i.e. if it's not an actual nickname in the usual sense, as opposed to a simple name-shortening like "C. C." or "Beth" – then don't put it in scare-quotes. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 05:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * Just throwing out there that ] is often nicknamed "RDJ". ] ] 18:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:That's in the same class "JLo" and "WinRy" and "JenLaw" - shortenings made up by fans and sometimes the intertainment press but which aren't generally used by the subjects themselves. Sometimes called "nicknames" anyway, but really a different class of things, and probably not encyclopedic except in some cases to mention but not to use in Misplaced Pages's own voice. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 22:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Surname should be used. ]] 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Death cause parameter in infobox== | |||
| ::] ] ] 21:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Quite a while I posted on the person infobox template talk page to ask about this. I checked back again just now and saw my attempt at a discussion disappeared but an identical one is there now from another editor. Someone suggested to try here. The template doc says to only include this parameter when "the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability." However, it appears this is inconsistently enforced and honestly it seems extremely objective and in some cases difficult to prove. The prime example is ]. Can we honestly and truly say one of the best selling and most popular artists of all-time's cause of death had significance to his notability? The death itself, absolutely. But the actual cause? Not necessarily. He's the only one I can come up with that's a good example but I'm sure there's others. People like Tupac Shakur, John Lennon, that were murdered and had their legacies live on partially due to how they died makes sense. Elvis had his for the longest but it was recently removed (I've since added it back). I'm looking to either change this silly having "significance for the subject's notability" rule or make it a little more clear as to what exactly this means. There's a single editor I will not mention by name that has been on a tear over the last couple of years of removing death cause parameter, sometimes for articles that have had it up for years (like Elvis).--<span style="color:red;">'''Rockchalk'''</span>''']]''' 05:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::It can be used in certain situations in order to differentiate from other family members who share the same surname who are being mentioned in close proximity. For example, after explaining who someone’s mother was, starting the next sentence with “Mike …”. But other than that, there is rarely justification for it, and it is too informal for an encyclopaedia. ] (]) 21:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks! ] (]) 21:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I quite agree. ] (]) 21:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I knew that, I was just looking for the operative policy. Thanks! ] (]) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Name usage in other articles == | ||
| A debate is going on at ] about ]'s name usage in ]. The question is whether she should be referred to in the article as '''Cass Elliot (of The Mamas & the Papas)''' or as '''Mama Cass'''. | |||
| Well, we've had rather big discussions about former names of deceased transgender and non-binary subjects, and we kinda-sorta settled on wording along these lines: | |||
| {{tqb|For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple ] and ] containing non-trivial coverage of the person.}} | |||
| but addition of this text has now been reverted by three different editors, so it seems like another discussion is in order, tedious as this may be. What are the issues with it? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 09:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I realize that ] focuses on how to use a person's name in said person's article, but this is the closest I could find in WP: regarding this question. | |||
| : I have a technical problem: A transgender or non-binary person who already had a gender-neutral name may choose to keep it, yet the rule taken literally says we can't use any name at all in those cases. So I propose to add ", if different from their current name," following the parenthetical part. I believe that just clarifies the intention and isn't a substantive change. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is that needed? If someone only ever had one name and met ] then there would have to be multiple references to their name in secondary and reliable sources? But if that is a concern, how about removing {{xt|birth name or}} so it only refers to former names? Or {{xt|any former names}}? | |||
| ::I’m afraid I do not know the concerns that are leading to the whole paragraph being removed. ] (]) 08:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have to agree with @] — it's not a former name if the person kept it and it will, in that case, always be true that there will be {{tqqi|the name is documented in multiple secondary and reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person}}, surely? — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ])</small></span> 10:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not necessarily if they're notable by a SNG like ]. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- ] (])</b> 18:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure I understand the issue here. If the trans or non-binary person didn't change their name, regardless of whether they're alive or dead, surely the name provisions of GENDERID wouldn't need to apply? We would simply use whatever name they used. Of course the pronoun and gendered words provisions might apply, if contextually relevant (eg, their birth name was Sam, and want to use they/them pronouns and gender-neutral terminology), but that's already covered in the first paragraph of GENDERID. ] (]) 19:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Currently, going by the text of this provision only, if there were an academic called, say, Sammy, who passed ] on ] and not ], that would mean there would not be {{tq|multiple secondary and reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person}}. Therefore, we could not mention Sammy's birth name, ''Sammy'', at all. Now, if you see the first name-related paragraph as introducing the rest, it's of course different. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- ] (])</b> 19:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, I agree that this is a problem. When an academic achieves academic notability but not general notability under their deadname, this wording would make it impossible to write about them in a way that makes sense. This doesn't match the cases of academically notable trans people that come to my mind but it seems likely enough to happen occasionally. We don't want our clumsy rule-crafting to restrict our coverage of notable trans people by making it difficult or impossible to write articles about them. —] (]) 19:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not sure it would be a serious problem. Suppose a deceased trans person had achieved academic notability per ], based on citations to papers published under their deadname. We could write about their work without using that deadname in the text proper; it would appear at most in the author lists within the bibliography, quite possibly only as a last name and first initial. That seems within the spirit of the provision. If they achieved academic notability per any other prong of ], their deadname would be documented in the secondary sources that establish notability (e.g., their listing in the IEEE Fellows database). So, the criterion would likely be met anyway, and we ''could'' include their deadname (although we probably wouldn't ''need'' to). I agree that {{tq|We don't want our clumsy rule-crafting to restrict our coverage of notable trans people by making it difficult or impossible to write articles about them}}; I currently think that this particular edge case isn't truly troublesome in that regard. ] (]) 00:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Does the IEEE Fellows database contain "non-trivial coverage" about its fellows, as the proposed wording would require? It has the fellow citations, not just names and years, but that's not true of some other major society fellowship listings, and I think GNG-purists would discount the depth of its coverage. —] (]) 01:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hmmmm, while paragraphs 2 and 3 of GENDERID apply in different contexts (ie, notable under former name or not) and as such are mutually exclusive with each other, I'd have thought that they're generally read in context with the other paragraphs of the guideline. I can't see why that would be any different in this case, unless you're reading each paragraph in isolation from the others? | |||
| ::::::In the case of our hypothetical academic Sammy, I would first apply the relevant parts of paragraph 1, then depending on their circumstances (notable under former name, or not, or deceased) apply whichever of paragraph 2-4 fits, before finally looking at applying any relevant parts of paragraphs 5-8. Our article would therefore refer to them as Sammy, as that name reflected their most recently expressed self-identification. | |||
| ::::::Alternatively, I guess you could add something like {{tq|who was not notable under a former name}} (mirroring the language in paragraph 2) or {{tq|who changed their name}}. Gets a bit clunky though. ] (]) 20:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I would suggest {{tq|their former names (including birth name, professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be...}}. Although I don’t see this as a problem. Guidelines aren't meant to be drafted to cover every possible eventuality, but to be interpreted using common sense and good faith. I think it would be clear the wording at the top of this section is not intended to prohibit mention of an unchanged name.--] (]) 00:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm still not sold on the {{tq|should be included}} part of this, preferring {{tq|may be included}} instead, but after skimming the last in-depth discussion about this I might have been the only editor who wasn't. As I said previously, I'd prefer for the guideline to allow for inclusion if the circumstances are met, and not mandate inclusion when the circumstances are met. But I wouldn't oppose this guideline addition simply because of that. Other than that, I don't really have an issue with this. | |||
| :As for it being reverted three times. I guess the only way to truly resolve that would be to have a straight up yes/no RfC on whether we include this paragraph. Is that necessary? I guess we could directly ask the editors who removed it for their opinions, whether they're opposing because it wasn't RfCd, or if there's some other issue they have with it. ] (]) 19:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I definitely agree that inclusion of deadnames should not be mandated. | |||
| ::I would go further on that second point, though. There appears to be consensus on this Talk: page to include that paragraph and there is not consensus to remove it. I think we should treat such removal as vandalism. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ])</small></span> 23:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I dunno. The reasons in {{diff2|1167525202|the first revert}}'s edit summary do make some sense, even if I don't agree with them. There are good faith reasons to oppose this being added in this manner (ie, without an RfC), as this can (to some) represent a substantial shift in how the guideline operates, so I would hesitate to call it vandalism. ] (]) 23:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Was this paragraph settled on by an RFC? If so could I see a link? I think as is this paragraph could be read as mandating deadnames of trans people, even though ] applies to recently deceased people and is a main basis for the current deadname policy for living people. ] (]) 03:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can see that it's unclear here — while the intention is to avoid mandating deadnames, it's easy to read as the opposite. | |||
| ::Would it be better if we change {{tqb|For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name ... '''''should''''' be included in the lead ... '''''only if''''' ... |style=border-left-color:#850000;background-color:#f8eaea}} to {{tqb|For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name ... '''''may''''' be included in the lead ... '''''but only if''''' ... }} | |||
| ::perhaps? — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ])</small></span> 13:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I like “may”. ] (]) 13:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} I don't feel all that strongly about it, but various editors {{em|do}}, and have made this very clear. I don't think {{em|anyone}} in this discussion is unaware, from numerous previous discussions here and at VPPOL and elsewhere, going back 5+ years, of the fact that there is a large body of editors who consider former names of long-deceased notable subjects to be encyclopedic information, period. So, if the intent here is to change "should be" to "may be", to enable what's going to amount to socio-politicized editwarring to remove all deadnames, even of long-deceased persons, simply because they are former names of TG/NB people and because the guideline has been changed on the basis of nearly no discussion to seem to permit their exclusion, then I think that is a recipe for long-term drama-and-disruption disaster, without an RfC establishing that the community actually wants wording so vague and gameable. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Could someone help me figure out what policy or norm would apply to this situation? Thank you, <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 05:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq| of the fact that there is a large body of editors who consider former names of long-deceased notable subjects to be encyclopedic information, period}} There was a very well attended ] on this guideline, and in the close it said {{tq|With around a hundred editors responding across these RFCs taking place at VPP, it is obvious that '''there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion'''. Also, '''there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest'''.}} Emphasis from the closer. | |||
| :Accordingly, mandating inclusion by saying {{tq|should be included in the lead ... only if <conditions are met>...}} would run counter to the first of our two recent RfCs on the guideline. For myself, changing "should be" to "may be" is nothing more or less than respecting the closure of the first of two recent RfCs on this guideline. ] (]) 02:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Place of birth etc. in the infobox is potential overlinking? == | ||
| {{moved to|WT:MOSLINK|2=<span style="font-family:courier"> ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 04:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| While the "Knighthoods, lordships, and similar honorific titles" subsection says, "{{xt|The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the}} {{xt|infobox heading}}", the "]" subsection says, "{{xt|In general, honorific prefixes and suffixes should not be included, but may be discussed in the article}}", with no provision for including them in the infobox heading. Yet, some prefixes (e.g. "The Honourable") are typically included in the infobox heading. Could the guideline please be clarified re honorific prefixes such as "The Honourable", "The Reverend" etc. in infoboxes. ] (]) 22:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Correct infobox template for living people?== | |||
| :Frankly, I've been interested in knowing why, out of all the titles of nobility and honorary titles in the world, there's an exception for two pairs (male/female) of specific titles from one specific country (UK). ] (]) 23:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Am I right in believing that ] is pretty much redundant now and ] is the correct way to go?]] 15:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:18, 23 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Biography page. |
|
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Formatting post-nominals examples
Since MOS:POSTNOM now says (after the 2023 RFC) "post-nominal letters may be included in the main body of the article, but not in the lead sentence of the article", why are the examples in MOS:BIO § Formatting post-nominals formatted with boldface names, as they would appear only in the lead sentence of the article? Can we maybe find some actual article where a post-nominal is properly "included in the main body of the article" but not in the lead, and copy the formatting from there? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Good grief. How did I miss this RfC? This is yet another example of cultural bias on en WP, something which was explicitly not taken into account by the closer. But in answer to your question, it actually now makes it awkward to explain what a post-nominal is when they haven't been introduced in the lead sentence with the name (where they belong, frankly). For example, in the body you might say, "In January 1927, Fooist was made a Companion of the Distinguished Service Order (DSO)." But then why is the (DSO) there? It essentially requires an additional sentence or explanatory footnote like "This award entitled the recipient to place the initialisation DSO after their name, or some similar formulation if it could be written generically to apply to all awards the person received that came with a post-nominal, which would be particularly important in the case of highly decorated Commonwealth generals, for example, who might have six or more postnominals, where you wouldn't want six separate notes. Talk about a solution in search of a problem... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Even as an anti-royalist and anti-classist, this doesn't make much sense to me. It's conventional to give post-nominals after the name of the person to whom they pertain, on the person's first mention in biographical materials about that person (or, I guess, about them in substantial part, e.g. if the article were about a band and its members, or covered both a person and the company they founded). What's not conventional is to keep repeating the post-noms in the same article, or to pepper other articles with them where they are not pertinent because the person to whom they pertain is being mentioned only in passing. The RfC alluded to must have happened while I was off doing something else, since I would have opposed this extreme result. The RfC is over at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies, and the conclusion is "There is consensus in support of moving post-nominals outside of lead sentences." So, that equates neither to "removing from the lead section" nor "removing from the article". While I don't think that the practicalities of this were thought through at all (thus the current thread), and would support revisiting this as a WP:Consensus can change matter, I would think that in the interim, the most sensible approach would be to have the lead sentence read something like "Dame Amelia de Groot was a prominent underwater basketweaver, who ..." or whatever; then at the beginning of the first non-lead section, start with something like "Dame Amelia de Groot, MSW, POEE, was born Marie-Amelia van Phluph in ...", and progressively lay out her life and achievements in the course of the article. At that spot, use the same template, links, and (when deemed appropriate) footnotes with regard to the post-nom. abbreviations as we formerly used in the lead sentence. In other words, treat the non-lead first mention of the subject as the first mention for post-nom. purposes. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Someone is going around removing the post-nominals from the article. It is a shame, because this is very important information, and sums up a career very well. But it is more important to assert American control over the internet lest the United States pull the plug on our servers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Postnoms should be retained in the infobox. The big problem is that some editors are going around removing postnoms from the first line and either not adding them to the infobox if they are not already there or not adding an infobox where there is none. This is deleting information and is a very bad idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- G'day SMcCandlish, I entirely agree with your anti-royalist and anti-classist position, but I'm not sure about putting postnoms in the first sentence of the "Early life" section or whatever, because that bit is about the person at the time of birth, who their parents were, where they were born etc. It seems incongruous to put postnoms on their name at the point in the narative that they were born. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fixable with sensible writing. Start the "article proper" with an introdutory sentence that nutshells who they were in life, then have a second sentence that harks back to their birth. Or put the post-noms in the first sentence of a "Career" section, or whatever. Or even later in the lead. My point was that "don't do it in the lead sentence", as a rule we're stuck with until this is re-RfCed, doesn't mean "don't do it anywhere in the article". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is a "re-RfC" on the horizon?Halbared (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not from me personally, since it would probably be more WP:DRAMAtic that I can stomach right this moment, and I have my head deep in several ongoing projects, so am not around WP a lot for the short term at least. But see #MOS:POSTNOM below, where the subject has been raised again; that could potentially be where to develop a followup RfC about this. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is a "re-RfC" on the horizon?Halbared (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fixable with sensible writing. Start the "article proper" with an introdutory sentence that nutshells who they were in life, then have a second sentence that harks back to their birth. Or put the post-noms in the first sentence of a "Career" section, or whatever. Or even later in the lead. My point was that "don't do it in the lead sentence", as a rule we're stuck with until this is re-RfCed, doesn't mean "don't do it anywhere in the article". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- G'day SMcCandlish, I entirely agree with your anti-royalist and anti-classist position, but I'm not sure about putting postnoms in the first sentence of the "Early life" section or whatever, because that bit is about the person at the time of birth, who their parents were, where they were born etc. It seems incongruous to put postnoms on their name at the point in the narative that they were born. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Postnoms should be retained in the infobox. The big problem is that some editors are going around removing postnoms from the first line and either not adding them to the infobox if they are not already there or not adding an infobox where there is none. This is deleting information and is a very bad idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Someone is going around removing the post-nominals from the article. It is a shame, because this is very important information, and sums up a career very well. But it is more important to assert American control over the internet lest the United States pull the plug on our servers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Even as an anti-royalist and anti-classist, this doesn't make much sense to me. It's conventional to give post-nominals after the name of the person to whom they pertain, on the person's first mention in biographical materials about that person (or, I guess, about them in substantial part, e.g. if the article were about a band and its members, or covered both a person and the company they founded). What's not conventional is to keep repeating the post-noms in the same article, or to pepper other articles with them where they are not pertinent because the person to whom they pertain is being mentioned only in passing. The RfC alluded to must have happened while I was off doing something else, since I would have opposed this extreme result. The RfC is over at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies, and the conclusion is "There is consensus in support of moving post-nominals outside of lead sentences." So, that equates neither to "removing from the lead section" nor "removing from the article". While I don't think that the practicalities of this were thought through at all (thus the current thread), and would support revisiting this as a WP:Consensus can change matter, I would think that in the interim, the most sensible approach would be to have the lead sentence read something like "Dame Amelia de Groot was a prominent underwater basketweaver, who ..." or whatever; then at the beginning of the first non-lead section, start with something like "Dame Amelia de Groot, MSW, POEE, was born Marie-Amelia van Phluph in ...", and progressively lay out her life and achievements in the course of the article. At that spot, use the same template, links, and (when deemed appropriate) footnotes with regard to the post-nom. abbreviations as we formerly used in the lead sentence. In other words, treat the non-lead first mention of the subject as the first mention for post-nom. purposes. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Proposal to import a line-item from WP:JUDAISMSTYLE into MOS:BIO
One important element of what will shortly be at WP:WikiProject Judaism/Style advice is a line-item, targeted by the shortcut WP:JESUSCHRIST, which is entirely correct and addresses a frequently recurring and sometimes disputatious WP writing issue, but has nothing to do with Judaism, really hasn't been seen by much of anyone, and actually belongs in MOS:BIO#Honorifics.
I propose importing that line item about use of "Christ" into that guideline, though with more guideline-appropriate wording:
Jesus should not be referred to in Misplaced Pages's own voice as "Christ" or "Jesus Christ"; the word Christ is an honorific title ('The Anointed'), used by those who believe specifically that Jesus is the son of God and is the Davidic-line messiah, in Christianity and some related doctrines including Theosophy. Misplaced Pages asserting this term would be against the neutral point of view policy. Jesus should be referred to simply as "Jesus" or, when more clarity is needed, "Jesus of Nazareth" (or "Isa" in the context of Islam, in which he is considered a prophet).
Having a locus for this in that section of MOS:BIO will also provide a place for whatever is eventually decided about Muhammad and "the Prophet" or "the prophet" (used alone or with his name), a subject of some continuing dispute. (An RfC about it earlier this year failed to come to a clear consensus, and it will probably come up again sooner than later.)
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've thought for years it's absurd that we go on at such length about never using "PBUH" while completely ignoring the much more common NPOV issue of "Jesus Christ". To be clear for anyone unfamiliar, this isn't just a technical etymological "gotcha". Many Jews—and, I assume, many other kinds of non-Christian person—actively avoid using the word "Christ" to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, because it is an explicit statement of faith, even if some non-Christians do use it without meaning that due to cultural osmosis. I didn't know there was guidance on this in WikiProject Judaism's style guide, but now that you've raised this, yes, I definitely strongly support adding this to MOS:HONORIFIC, although it probably can be pared down a bit. I would suggest just
-- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 02:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Jesus should not be referred to in Misplaced Pages's own voice as Christ or Jesus Christ; the word Christ is an honorific title ('The Anointed') which expresses the belief that Jesus is the messiah. Acceptable names include Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, and, in Muslim contexts, Isa.
- Maybe trivially obvious but I think the difference in practice is mostly that secular usage totally memory-holes that Christ is a title. If I have ever run afoul on this, I'm guessing that's just me having that blind spot. It's clearly a perfectly equivalent situation upon examination though, and I'm glad you brought it up. Remsense ‥ 论 02:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- If "Christ" is a POV title, is "Buddha" as well? "Siddhartha Gautama" would be a name which doesn't take a position from within the belief system, and (thinking specifically about article titles, though this is about running text as well) is one which "
someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize
" (the WP:CRITERION of Recognizability) – so it's not as if no such option is available. Ham II (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)- Every title expresses a POV. The issue is Christ very specifically refers to the fulfilment of a concept within Judaism. Remsense ‥ 论 11:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support for at least proscribing “Christ” alone. Would probably be better to merely advise “avoid Jesus Christ” though. It is certainly the most common name for him in English, and far more recognisable than “Jesus of Nazareth”. (We should also make sure to avoid using his middle name when in polite company.)
- End jokes.
- For what it’s worth though, I don’t see MOS:BIO as the logical place for this stuff; it would basically be saying that these are individual biographies who need a carveout, but applied to an entire wing of the encyclopaedia. Better would be to admit that religious topics just need their own place. Not that I would put up any fuss if it ends up here for now. Also, ain’t it weird that Category:Misplaced Pages Manual of Style (religion) has only Islam-related articles and Latter Day Saints? — HTGS (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Title link or no?
Hello there. There is bit of a dispute over at the article Victoria Starmer's talk page, about whether or not to link the title. My view is that, as a rule, the title should not be linked - e.g. King Charles III, as oppose to King Charles III - as that would be consistant with what is written in MOS:SIR. However, there is no clear policy there and its led to misunderstandings.
Can there be a policy made on this to avoid such disputes or at least clarified? Much appreciated. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish, you seem the most active on here. Pinging you first. Please ping others if you know who is most active here. Regards. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also pinging @Bagumba, @Tcr25, @Rosbif73, @Jerome Frank Disciple. They took part in a previous survey on MOS:JOBTITLES. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Don't link to the title, please. I'd say the same with President Joe Biden, for example. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm afraid its another user who is being VERY adament in linking the title. I think you found the initial talk page as well where I gave this example, along with others. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see anything in MOS:SIR that is relevant to this. All that is saying is don't change it from including the "Sir" to omitting it, of vice-versa, as both are equally correct. It doesn't mention whether to include the "Sir" in the link text, or not. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I know that "Sir" is USUALLY not linked in the event it is mentioned, which is where I'm coming from here. There isn't really a policy otherwise on whether a title should be linked in the name. That is partly why this should be clarified here, so there isn't any dispute/confusion about it going forward. And yes, this policy may not be the exact one but it is related to titles and I'm just making an argument based on what it says about titles in general as well as other policies on here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- What's the reasoning for not including King Charles III's title in the link text and writing it as "King Charles III"? We don't write "Pope Paul VI" instead of "Pope Paul VI" or "Princess Margaret" for "Princess Margaret", or "General de Gaulle" for General de Gaulle. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I already explained that but I will repeat it here: because "Princess" and "Pope" are both part of the article names - it it is part of the article name then it should be linked. I wouldn't link General based on that; I'd write General Charles de Gaulle if I had to, same as I'd write President Joe Biden. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I've explained before to you specifically on the Victoria Starmer talk page, and I don't want to repeat everything all over again on this one - just see here if you want to see my stance fully. Regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a different discussion though, with a potentially very different audience. All relevant detail needs including as a matter of courtesy. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- If anyone asks for my opinion, then I'll given them my opinion. You already know it, however, and I don't feel the need to explain it to you in detail again. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- You cannot assume that I'm the only reader of this though, and should write it so that others know where you are coming from. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I began this convo so others can chip in and give their opinions. My view is that it should not be in the link which I made clear at the start and, if someone wants me to elaborate further, I will do so when asked. Since you know already, I don't feel the need to as of yet (and I've also put in the link). Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- You cannot assume that I'm the only reader of this though, and should write it so that others know where you are coming from. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- If anyone asks for my opinion, then I'll given them my opinion. You already know it, however, and I don't feel the need to explain it to you in detail again. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a different discussion though, with a potentially very different audience. All relevant detail needs including as a matter of courtesy. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- So you think the link text should match the article name? Wow. What would be the purpose of redirects then? Or even pipes? Surely the link text should be in keeping with the article prose flow, style and English variant. Editors should not have to compromise the prose to incorporate the exact article name.
- You would have fun trying to write prose in an article that referred to the Buddy Holly airplane accident. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, given that this discussion is related to TITLES only and my response was clearly in relation to titles in article names, I clearly meant it in relation to that. I would have thought that was fairly obvious. Please refrain from twisting what I actually meant; I was pretty clear and conscise in my reply. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would redirects for articles about people become redundant then if we adopt your idea? How about pipes, would they be allowed? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- *shrugs* I don't see how that is relevant to this conversation. I think I spelt out to you I'm just not in favor of the title being included in the link when the full name is being used - e.g. King Charles III or President Joe Biden - unless its part of their common name and/or article title, like Pope Francis or Prince Harry. If you want to a pipe/use or redirect where it is appropriate, go ahead. I'm not at all against piping Charles III to simply King Charles or using the redirect Prince William in place of William, Prince of Wales, nor have I ever said so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- You obviously haven't made it clear. And now you've made it even more confusing. So you're ok with piping Charles III as King Charles, but not with using the redirect King Charles III? Is that correct? How about piping Charles III as King Charles III? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you still think its confusing, I'm afraid that's not my problem. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Now I think it is best to wait for others' opinions on this matter as well. I've pinged a fair few people who partake in this talk page regularly and I hope we can hear from them soon. One other, @GoodDay, has already shared theirs on the matter. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't answer the questions, especially the one about piping Charles III as King Charles III. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, it's not my problem. And I already said I won't repeat myself to you. You don't seem to be interested in understanding either so its a waste of my time. Good night to you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm interested in trying to understand your objection to using redirects to link articles directly from vocabulary used in prose. At the moment, your arguments seem to wobble, and appear inconsistent to me, and I'm trying to unravel the confusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, it's not my problem. And I already said I won't repeat myself to you. You don't seem to be interested in understanding either so its a waste of my time. Good night to you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't answer the questions, especially the one about piping Charles III as King Charles III. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- You obviously haven't made it clear. And now you've made it even more confusing. So you're ok with piping Charles III as King Charles, but not with using the redirect King Charles III? Is that correct? How about piping Charles III as King Charles III? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- *shrugs* I don't see how that is relevant to this conversation. I think I spelt out to you I'm just not in favor of the title being included in the link when the full name is being used - e.g. King Charles III or President Joe Biden - unless its part of their common name and/or article title, like Pope Francis or Prince Harry. If you want to a pipe/use or redirect where it is appropriate, go ahead. I'm not at all against piping Charles III to simply King Charles or using the redirect Prince William in place of William, Prince of Wales, nor have I ever said so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would redirects for articles about people become redundant then if we adopt your idea? How about pipes, would they be allowed? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, given that this discussion is related to TITLES only and my response was clearly in relation to titles in article names, I clearly meant it in relation to that. I would have thought that was fairly obvious. Please refrain from twisting what I actually meant; I was pretty clear and conscise in my reply. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I've explained before to you specifically on the Victoria Starmer talk page, and I don't want to repeat everything all over again on this one - just see here if you want to see my stance fully. Regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I already explained that but I will repeat it here: because "Princess" and "Pope" are both part of the article names - it it is part of the article name then it should be linked. I wouldn't link General based on that; I'd write General Charles de Gaulle if I had to, same as I'd write President Joe Biden. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say that the answer depends on the wording from which the link is being made. If it is more natural to include the word 'King' in the prose, then it should be part of the link per MOS:LINKINNAME, and it should not be piped per MOS:NOPIPE. But if the context means that 'King' is not needed, linking to Charles III is preferable. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly is quite wording dependant, agreed. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- The title doesn't need linking by itself (e.g. not ] ]), but I would argue that it is far better, mostly for aesthetic reasons, to link the whole name, including the title, either by using a redirect (e.g. ]) or a pipe (e.g. ]). The latter is not necessary here, but it is useful for titles like "Sir" that are not likely to have redirects. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp, I think the first one would be a MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue so definitely no. Weirdly, part of my objection is aesthetic reasons too. I wouldn't link "President" in "President Joe Biden" in any way for example but I guess that differs from what type of title it is, would you agree? Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neither would I! But I would link titles and military ranks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp, I think the first one would be a MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue so definitely no. Weirdly, part of my objection is aesthetic reasons too. I wouldn't link "President" in "President Joe Biden" in any way for example but I guess that differs from what type of title it is, would you agree? Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Don't link the title as if part of the name. Just overlinking, extra blue for no reason. Few titles actual appertain to a person life-long anyway, so doing the links that way will often be contextually erroneous. E.g. President Joe Biden doesn't go, as some would quite reasonably expect to, Presidency of Joe Biden, i.e. the topical intersection of Joe Biden and his presidency; it goes to Joe Biden, which is about him as a person. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reading the original post without context, at first I thought it was referring to Victoria Starmer's own title of Lady Starmer, but I see it's actually about the title in King Charles III. Until this discussion I would have written (in the few cases where using the titles at all would be the best choice) "King Charles III", "President Joe Biden" and "Sir Keir Starmer", essentially linking the article titles. But this discussion has persuaded me otherwise – if the title "Lady" is linked ("Lady Starmer" not "Lady Starmer"), and "Pope" often is because the article titles include it, and also "General de Gaulle" and Princess Margaret" don't look right, the most consistent approach is to link all honorific titles. If that creates an unwelcome amount of blue, it should be an opportunity to question whether "President Joe Biden" as opposed to just "Joe Biden", "King Charles III" as opposed to "Charles III", etc., etc., is the best choice of phrasing in encyclopedic prose anyway. Ham II (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
MOS:POSTNOM
The removal of postnoms from the lead under these new guidelines has started to create some problems. While I am not opposed to this in principle, I am opposed to the removal of information. Some editors are "enforcing" these new guidelines by removing postnoms (often on dozens of articles at a time) where there is no infobox showing them. If there is no infobox then the postnoms should remain in the first line until an infobox is added. It doesn't matter if the honours are included in the body of the article - it is extremely useful to have an indication of what the person's correct style is at the top of an article where it can be seen at a glance. This problem is compounded by the sniffiness of some Misplaced Pages editors about infoboxes, especially those involved in projects relating to cultural figures. An example of this can be seen on the article for Michael Hordern, where his CBE has been removed from the first sentence but an editor is resisting the addition of an infobox (and, indeed, deleting one that has been added) showing his CBE. Postnominals are important in the UK and other Commonwealth countries and removing useful information like this is not helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. I don't think the changes have been thought through very well, to be honest. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- +1. In Commonwealth countries, every publication includes a person's post-nominals like KBE, AO, at first mention. It's defining, and having to include a clumsy phrase in the lead to convey that information is a backwards step: it leads to more clutter and verbiage, not less. This should be discussed again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed with Michael Bednarek. In Commonwealth countries, the post-nominals are defining; we should not be losing information from articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really see what purpose removing the information achieves assuming it is sourced properly. Post-nominals take up little space and putting them after the name is an easy way to naturally introduce them into an article. Mass removal of content based on a MOS guideline shouldn't happen as the MOS is only a guideline.
- Although if it is being removed because it is unsourced that is a different matter. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would support reversing the previous decision about removing these from the lead sentence - that seems a reasonable place for them to be. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Same, though in the opposite direction we need to undo WP:ROYALTY and WP:NOBILTY's usurpation of infobox fields for pre-nominal titles and for names, to instead hold salultations and peerage/nobility titles, respectively. It's just unbearably bad. See Margaret Thatcher for typical example. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed that some post noms should be in the lede, and also agree that not all need to be in the infobox. GiantSnowman 08:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Same, though in the opposite direction we need to undo WP:ROYALTY and WP:NOBILTY's usurpation of infobox fields for pre-nominal titles and for names, to instead hold salultations and peerage/nobility titles, respectively. It's just unbearably bad. See Margaret Thatcher for typical example. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- See also #Formatting post-nominals examples, above, for related recent discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, a poorly thought-through decision which should be reversed. I suggest anyone interested read the thread Stanton linked above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I couldn't agree more with all of the points made by Necrothesp and Michael Bednarek. Paora (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am opposed to the removal of postnoms from their normal position after people's names. Some screenreaders cannot read infoboxes, so putting the postnom there instead is no solution. DrThneed (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I completely agree with everyone. Particularly in Canada (and the UK along with the other Commonwealth countries), post-nominal letters are very important and heavily used. Post-nominals letters should not be removed from the lead at all, and I don't believe any of the changes impacting this policy were necessary or justified. There's no reason to be losing this information, and it seems like this was not thought through well at all. – Handoto (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Finally some common-sense, the previous decision was ill-conceived and should be reverted as soon as possible. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I totally agree. I came across this issue only just now when checking an Australian article and finding the post-nominals missing from the opening sentence - still in the infobox, but not blue-linked; mentioned in full in the "Awards and honours" section, but just as one item, also not blue-linked, in a list of 11 (including major academic and business awards, as well as having a genus, a mineral, and a main-belt asteroid named after him!) My immediate reaction was to revert the deletion, before following the thread back to the RfC and this discussion. IMHO the RfC outcome was a poor decision, and needs to be reversed. Bahudhara (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
No objection to amending MOS:POSTNOM. If there's no infobox? than postnoms should be in lead. Gotta show'em somewhere. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)- Everything in the infobox should be a summary of material in the article itself. Putting it only in the infobox is inadequate. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier by another editor. The infobox at Margaret Thatcher concerning postnoms, is overkill. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Everything in the infobox should be a summary of material in the article itself. Putting it only in the infobox is inadequate. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do other encyclopedias do? Britannica and ODNB avoid post-nominals. The Canadian Encyclopedia uses them, but only for Canadian orders, so British and foreign orders are not shown, e.g. compare https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sir-john-alexander-macdonald and https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/brian-mulroney. Most, if not all, encyclopedias either avoid or restrict them. We should do the same. Post-noms are not shown in comparable works. Long strings of letters after a person's name are intrusive and interruptive. Honours are not usually the primary reason for a person's notability and so should not be the first thing to be mentioned about them (though there are exceptions). For people before the modern age, post-noms are anachronistic. Post-nominals associated with foreign orders awarded to non-citizens are not used in that person's country of citizenship. DrKay (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The people objecting here to the outcome of that RfC have made it clear that some post-nominals in some countries are widely used in the press and other publications and almost never omitted from the subject's first mention. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- They have made that claim, but I know from my own experience that such claims are dubious. In practice, strings of post-nominals are not used in the Commonwealth press. DrKay (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The people objecting here to the outcome of that RfC have made it clear that some post-nominals in some countries are widely used in the press and other publications and almost never omitted from the subject's first mention. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. To add, I think moving post-nominals from the lede to the body ruins the flow of the text and is out place. The RfC about exclusion of post-nominals from the lede in my view presents a rather fastidious case of instructions WP:CREEP SigillumVert (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agree. I have removed postnoms from the lead of several articles, but kept them in the infobox – or moved them there if they were missing there. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Best to stick with not having the postnoms in the lead. Respect the RFC results. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with DrKay's comment. Post-nominals are fine in infoboxes, but keep that clutter out of the lead sentences please. Average readers reading JK Rowling's article wouldn't care that she's
Joanne Rowling CH OBE FRSL
. If those post-nominals are important or noteworthy, then they should be explained in the body of the article in prose. Some1 (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)- They are explained in prose: 'She has received an OBE and made a Companion of Honour for services to literature and philanthropy' and 'She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature (FRSL), the Royal Society of Edinburgh (HonFRSE), and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (FRCPE).' Traumnovelle (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which they should be considering the post-nominals appear in the infobox. I don't see the need for them in the lead sentence though. Some1 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- This suggestion of including the postnominals as parentheticals in the part of the article where these recognitions are detailed makes sense to me and I have started applying it to other articles where postnominals are relevant.
- I wish the gnomes who are just going around blindly removing all postnominals from article text based on the previous RFC would take more time and do something like this. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are explained in prose: 'She has received an OBE and made a Companion of Honour for services to literature and philanthropy' and 'She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature (FRSL), the Royal Society of Edinburgh (HonFRSE), and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (FRCPE).' Traumnovelle (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seems to me there is overwhelming support for overturning the previous RFC. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps that seeming overwhelming support is because nobody has notified those who participated in the previous RFC of this discussion? Including the initiator and closer of the discussion, the latter of whom said they welcomed discussion of it through their talk page? Personally, I did not participate in the previous RFC but would affirm its conclusion. Melcous (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Melcous: Thanks for the ping as the initiator of the 2023 RfC. I think it's obvious that any unadvertised discussion won't have enough weight to overturn a formal RfC. However, in line with Ixtal's read of the RfC consensus, we could tweak POSTNOM to address the OP's core complaint, making it explicitly clear that post-nominals can be listed elsewhere in a lead and/or in an infobox (if the info is in the article body). Ed 05:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the previous consensus and fair concern noted in the OP, I've boldly tweaked the guideline. Ed 06:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh I agree, a new RFC would need to be adequately advertised, unlike the previous one. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Nford24: You are of course free to point out any specific area(s) of concern that you had with the previous RfC, but there's no need for snide comments. Ed 06:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Melcous: Thanks for the ping as the initiator of the 2023 RfC. I think it's obvious that any unadvertised discussion won't have enough weight to overturn a formal RfC. However, in line with Ixtal's read of the RfC consensus, we could tweak POSTNOM to address the OP's core complaint, making it explicitly clear that post-nominals can be listed elsewhere in a lead and/or in an infobox (if the info is in the article body). Ed 05:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps that seeming overwhelming support is because nobody has notified those who participated in the previous RFC of this discussion? Including the initiator and closer of the discussion, the latter of whom said they welcomed discussion of it through their talk page? Personally, I did not participate in the previous RFC but would affirm its conclusion. Melcous (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Appropriateness of using given names in bio
I just ran across an article about a retired US Navy admiral Mike Dumont, who in the second paragraph, it said "In 2017 or earlier, Mike served as a vice director of Joint Chiefs of Staff at Pentagon....". I changed this to his last name citing WP:BIO in the edit summary due to the fact that a bio of an adult like this shouldn't refer to the subject by his/her given name, as I had recalled seeing that it was part of the MoS from several years ago. I now can't find it in the MoS. Was it removed at some point in the past? I still consider it inappropriate. rogerd (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Surname should be used. GiantSnowman 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:SURNAME Schazjmd (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- It can be used in certain situations in order to differentiate from other family members who share the same surname who are being mentioned in close proximity. For example, after explaining who someone’s mother was, starting the next sentence with “Mike …”. But other than that, there is rarely justification for it, and it is too informal for an encyclopaedia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! rogerd (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I quite agree. rogerd (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- It can be used in certain situations in order to differentiate from other family members who share the same surname who are being mentioned in close proximity. For example, after explaining who someone’s mother was, starting the next sentence with “Mike …”. But other than that, there is rarely justification for it, and it is too informal for an encyclopaedia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I knew that, I was just looking for the operative policy. Thanks! rogerd (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:SURNAME Schazjmd (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Name usage in other articles
A debate is going on at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#"Mama_Cass" about Cass Elliot's name usage in List_of_common_misconceptions#Popular_music. The question is whether she should be referred to in the article as Cass Elliot (of The Mamas & the Papas) or as Mama Cass.
I realize that Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Names focuses on how to use a person's name in said person's article, but this is the closest I could find in WP: regarding this question.
Could someone help me figure out what policy or norm would apply to this situation? Thank you, Kingturtle = (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Place of birth etc. in the infobox is potential overlinking?
Moved to WT:MOSLINK – Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 04:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Correct infobox template for living people?
Am I right in believing that Template:Infobox YouTube personality is pretty much redundant now and Template:Infobox person is the correct way to go?𝔓𝔓 15:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)