Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2010 archive

Cardinals

Should cardinals be referred to in Wikipedia in the form "Cardinal John Doe" or the form "John Cardinal Doe"? It has been authoritatively suggested that, in relation to the body of Wikipedia articles, this question should be discussed here, not under Wikipedia: Naming conventions (clergy), which lays down that "John Doe" is the form to use in the title of Wikipedia articles.

• Reuters Handbook of Journalism has: "At first reference Cardinal John Doe. At subsequent references the cardinal or Doe";
• The Associated Press stylebook, quoted by Douglas LeBlanc on Anglicanism out of AP style at the Times?, agrees: "The preferred form for first reference is to use Cardinal, Archbishop or Bishop before the individual's name: Cardinal Timothy Manning, archbishop of Los Angeles. On second reference, Manning or the cardinal.
• The religious Publications Style Book of the Franciscan Holy Name Province likewise lays down: "Use the form 'Cardinal John Smith' instead of the older 'John Cardinal Smith'."

At least one book written by an individual Catholic clergyman says that "John Cardinal Doe" is the correct form. There seems to be no corporate manual of style that agrees. On the contrary, an old corporate manual of the Catholic Church, The Catholic Directory (London 1906), quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia (which says it "may be safely taken as representing the best custom of the United States, the British Isles, Canada, Australia, and the British colonies in general"), states that the correct form is "His Eminence Cardinal ..." - not "His Eminence ... Cardinal ...". And "Cardinal John Doe" is the form normally used on the Holy See website to refer to cardinals. (It reproduces the signatures of cardinals in the "John Cardinal Doe" style, which is traditional for such signatures, just as in the signatures of popes the word "Papa", abbreviated Pp. or PP., is put after the name, as "Benedictus PP. XVI", but the popes are always referred to in the form "Pope Benedict XVI", never as "Benedict Pope XVI".)

The academic source that I have cited rules only that "Cardinal John Doe" must be used, not "John Cardinal Doe". In the interests of brevity, the two press agencies also require that further mentions of a cardinal, after the first, should be in the forms "the cardinal" or "Doe". It might be well to apply this rule also of the press agencies, but for now I am only proposing that, as required by all the cited manuals of style of secular and academic corporate entities, we adopt the rule that "Cardinal John Doe", not "John Cardinal Doe", is the style to use in Wikipedia articles.

The following wording, which others will doubtless be able to improve, may serve:

In Wikipedia articles, a cardinal is referred to as "Cardinal John Doe", not as "John Cardinal Doe". Lima (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I agree that the policy/guideline be adopted when refering to cardinals in Wikipedia articles. -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Cardinal <name> <surname> is according to the Holy See an informal format generally adopted in non-formal contexts post Vatican II. The technically correct matter remains the pre-Vatican II <name> Cardinal <surname>. The problem with using the modern variant is that it involves constructing a new form for a thousand years of cardinal who were never at the time known by that format. As late as the 1960s formal protests were made to broadcasters in Ireland when reference was made to "Cardinal William Conway". Conway himself, a notoriously tempermental man behind a calm exterior, would blow a fuse if the media didn't refer to him as "William Cardinal Conway". His successor, Cardinal Tómas Ó Fiaich, was the first Cardinal in Ireland ever to be know widely by the modern form of Cardinal <name> <surname>.

The stylebooks referred to are referring, as style books tend to, to current usage in current contexts. Media sources are not likely to be concerned about a 16th century Spanish cardinal or an 18th century Italian cardinal, or the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin in the 1870s. But Wikipedia, unlike those stylebooks, has to cover not merely modern cardinals, for which the modern version is more common, but a millennium of earlier cardinals for which not merely was it not used but it was highly offensive. The proposed policy would involve reconstructing the form of name of a millennium of cardinals to conform to informal post-Vatican II usage, when the modern form only began to be used widely circa 1963.

In addition while it is not common now, many mediaeval cardinals adopted an entirely different cardinalate name to their personal name. So if one tries to use modern informal and stylebook usage to those names one would have to entirely create names that not merely were never used but which no historian or history follower would recognise. Cardinal Giulio Raimondo Mazarino would not be recognised by anyone. But he is recognised as Jules Cardinal Mazarin or Cardinal Mazarin, never Cardinal Jules Mazarin, for their actually was no name "Jules Mazarin".

Trying to rename a millennium of cardinals to match post-Vatican II naming styles and modern media and cultural usage would be a nonsense. Wikipedia, unlike the sources those style books are used for, is concerned not just with the present but with the past, and it would be absurd to have to make up a form of address that did not exist for a millennium of people that were never known that way. Logic suggests you show the same flexibility that history has produced, and either apply one standard (in which case as the vast majority of cardinals were known by <name> Cardinal <surname or title> it should be in that format) or allow for flexibility to enable people to be entered in the form they are known by, even if means complications where one format was in practice replaced by another, eg, the move from William Cardinal Conway to Cardinal Tómas Ó Fiaich. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Fear Éireann makes many affirmations that are unsupported and, as far as I can see, incorrect. His opening claim about a supposed declaration by the Holy See is an example. In contrast with what he says, the formal use of the "Cardinal X Y" form long predates the Second Vatican Council. I have quoted above the 1906 Catholic Directory, which says this is the correct form in English. Other much earlier books could be quoted, as can be seen in relation to Fear Éireann's claims about Cardinal Mazarin. This cardinal called himself "Giulio Mazzarino" when speaking Italian and growing up in Rome as the son of Sicilian parents, but "Jules Mazarin" when speaking French and active in the French court. Since he is best known for his activity in France (and in French), he is known as "Cardinal Mazarin" or, as in this 1908 book and hundreds of others, as "Cardinal Jules Mazarin". He is referred to in Latin as "Cardinalis Jul. Mazarini" (genitive case of "Cardinalis Julius Mazarinus" ) on the title page of this 1708 book - decidedly earlier than what Fear Éireann supposes to have been the first formal usage of the "Cardinal X Y" form. It is by no means the only source that show how baseless is Fear Éireann's affirmation that using "Cardinal X Y" would mean referring to pre-Vatican-II cardinals in a way in which they were never referred to in their own times.

We are in the 21st century, and should follow 21st-century usage, as defined in the authoritative sources quoted above. Lima (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not because of I have any preference on how to write about Cardinals, but because I don't think we need a rule to cover every situation or every office. I trust our writers and editors to write well formed prose, and creating all these rules to force them to write in one way or another just becomes constraining. I suppose I'm voting for inconsistency, because I think forced consistency is overrated and boring. Gentgeen (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support The form Cardinal Christian-name Surname is the most common in usage now. I don't see any reason to support a form which, while it enjoys some support among editors, has not been shown to be consistent with anything else in the Wikipedia or current general audience media. patsw (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I came here by accident but a comment above, nothing more than an Appeal_to_novelty - "We are in the 21st century, and should follow 21st-century usage" did it for me. Further, in M.F. McCarthy's "Heraldica Collegii Cardinalium" (2000), the forward is signed as Edward Bede Cardinal CLANCY. 79.70.116.29 (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment on this anonymous editor's remark about the signature attached to a foreword: As mentioned above, cardinals sign as "<Christian Name> Cardinal <Surname>", but are normally referred to as "Cardinal <Christian Name> <Surname>". The question here is how we in Wikipedia should refer to cardinals, not how any cardinal who wants to join our discussion should sign his contributions! Lima (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The normal usage today is Cardinal <Christian name> <surname>. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. If John Doe is a Cardinal, then he is most likely to be referred to neither as "Cardinal John Doe" nor as "John Cardinal Doe". Most likely he will be "Cardinal Doe" on first reference, and on later reference just "Doe". For comparison, one usually refers to "General Custer", then "Custer"; seldom "General George Custer". In this respect, encylopedia style differs from news-agency style. The only exception will be in the opening sentence of his own biography; in that case, use "Cardinal John Doe" or "John Cardinal Doe" depending on when he lived. By all means let's debate when the change of style occurred; but that should be agreed at Cardinal (Catholicism)#Title and reference style and its talk page, and then reflected in the MOS. jnestorius^(talk) 19:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Background on Christian-name Cardinal Surname

A separate section to discuss how the convention of Christian-name Cardinal Surname originated.

• One claim is in the origin of the word, cardo meaning hinge. The two parts connected are the local community for which he is archbishop and the Holy See. You can see this presented in The Catholic Answer Book, Volume 3 and many other sources of Catholic miscellany.
• Another claim is based upon the structure of titles of nobility, where the form Christian-name title surame was used. At some point in the past "James Lord Baskerville" was used as well as "John Cardinal Fisher." The former usage was dropped and the latter usage retained at least until the time of Vatican II. I will try to find a source for this. patsw (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, we still sometimes refer to "Alfred, Lord Tennyson", but I can't think of any other cases like that. Why Tennyson alone gets this treatment is beyond me. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• While I permit myself to observe that the usage may go back to before the adoption of hereditary family names (surnames), when people only had a given name to which might be added, in the case of the nobility, a non-hereditary indication of the territory they ruled over (So-and-so Earl of Such-and-such, So-and-so Cardinal of Such-and-such), I think this question, if pursued, should be moved to another page, keeping this for discussing the style to use in writing Wikipedia articles today`. Lima (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• The style "James Lord Baskerville" hasn't been dropped. It's still correct usage, although with a comma. "Lord James Baskerville" would mean he was the younger son of a duke or marquess; "James, Lord Baskerville" is a baron in his own right or is the eldest son of an earl or above and holds one of his father's baronies as a courtesy title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

By all means discuss this; but not here: use Cardinal (Catholicism)#Title and reference style and its talk page. jnestorius^(talk) 19:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Honorifics

I don't understand why there are separate sections Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific titles. The latter reads as though someone is struggling to make a very specific point, but I for one can't make out what that might be or why it can't be made in the earlier section. I also note that, whereas MOS:HONORIFIC redirects to the second section, there's also WP:HONORIFIC which goes to the first one.jnestorius^(talk) 19:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Post-nominal initials

The guideline currently limits the inclusion of post-nominal initials immediately following the bold article subject by reference to only one criterion: to those "issued by a country or organization with which the subject has been closely associated"—in particular, there is no suggestion that such honors be significant, generally recognized, or otherwise noteworthy. This does not seem reasonable. For example, the the use of "FACSM" (presumably "Fellow of the American College of Sports Medicine") in [1] this article revision appears to be consistent with policy. However, the vast majority of significant academics are fellows of much more well-known organizations and articles on those individuals seldom advertise such fellowships in the lede. Does anyone else (a) see a need for some kind of further guidance; and/or (b) have a suggestion for what would be appropriate?

^Bongo_matic 02:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, but suspect that the reason for the omission may be the difficulty of agreeing on what is "significant, generally recognized, or otherwise noteworthy". This sounds like a recipe for pitched battles on talk pages. You might want to do a search of the talk page archives to see if the issue has been discussed before. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Also a problem is the current wording. "issued by a country or organization with which the subject has been closely associated". This would suggest that if it is a country where the person has lived, that would be acceptable. However, if it is a society such as the Royal Society, unless the person had a "close association" with the organization (not just a fellow, but perhaps a president, member of the board, etc.) then they do not get the post-nomial letters. Following the MOS here would require changes to featured articles such as Charles Darwin and Michael Woodruff. DigitalC (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe your assessment of Darwin's relationship to the Royal Society is correct. If my memory of the Darwin biography I read a few years back is correct, his relationship to the Society and other prominent members of it was close and a significant part of his professional relationships. He clearly qualifies to have "FRS" after his name in his Wikibio, even under the current scheme. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly nothing in the wikibio that indicates a "close association" for the Royal Society. What is your definition of "a significant part of his professional relationships"? DigitalC (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't basing my comment on the wikipedia article, but on my memory of a full-scale biography I read. (I'd pull the volume off my shelf, but the Christmas tree is currently in the way.) A quick Google on "Charles Darwin" and "Royal Society" brings up some pertinent facts: Darwin received the Society's "Copley Medal" in 1864, the combined Darwin/Wedgewood family had at least ten members of the Royal Society, that Darwin received a state funeral was due to a request by the President of the Royal Society, Darwin reported his findings after the voyage of the Beagle to the Society, a number of Darwin's letters were published in the Society's Transactions, a good deal of Darwin's correspondance was to and from other Fellows of the Society, etc. etc. Darwin is one of the most significant figures in science in the last millennium, and the Royal Society wasn't just an organization he joined and mailed in his dues every year, it and the people in it were the backbone of English (and therefore European) science, and for that reason his membership is significant.

Now, in what way, for instance, is Stephen J. Press's Fellowship in the Academy American College of Sports Medicine comparable, that his article should include the post-nomial "FASM" following his name? What is his relationship to the organization? Did he publish in its journal? Has he been an officer? Is his correspondance centered around relationship defined or created by his association with the Academy ACSM? If I Google his name with the name of the organization, will significant tendrils of a relationship be found? Or is it, in fact, simply a professional association of which he is a member? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Press is the only Chiropractor who has been granted a fellowship in the American College of Sports Medicine. I would consider this to be a fairly significant relationship. However, I don't consider it to be a "close association". I don't consider receiving medals from a society to denote a "close relationship" either, nor the fact that a society arranged a state funeral. Again, I think my biggest problem with the text is that it is vague. What defines a "close relationship"?

What can I say, we couldn't disagree more. A quick cursory search shows the close relationship between Darwin and the Royal Society, but being the only chiropractor in the ACSM seems to me to be an extremely slender thread to hang a post-nomial on. I think if you want to include it in the article, you must come up with something showing a close relationship, because I don't see that as sufficient. It's not enough to argue that "close relationship" is vague when you're not providing anything that even comes close to being reasonably considered to be a "close relationship." Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand (as there are plenty of other good forums to squabble about Press), despite the difficulty of agreeing, isn't it worth trying? How about:

Post-nominal letters should be included when they are issued by athe country of the subject's citizenship or long-term residence or by a widely-recognized organization with which the subject has been closely associated.

Not that it's perfect, but at least it distinguishes sovereign and private honors. ^Bongo_matic 04:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That would surely include postnoms denominating degrees, which we have long deprecated! It's a difficult call, but I would only include official postnoms (since some people seem to make up their own postnoms!) denominating honours awarded by a recognised sovereign state and a handful of others which are always included (e.g. in a British context, PC [Privy Councillor], QC [Queen's Counsel], DL [Deputy Lieutenant], FRS [Fellow of the Royal Society], FBA [Fellow of the British Academy], and not many more - these are used even in official British government lists). Most countries surely have a small selection of postnominals which are usually used, even in official lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand why it would "surely include postnoms denominating degrees", as degrees are specifically excluded under WP:CREDENTIAL. While I think the idea of limiting it to ones awarded by sovereign states, I think claiming that FBA and FRS are more deserving of recognition than, say FACS, becomes a question of line drawing that will always be difficult. I think it would be fine to drop all non-official postnoms. But either way, Necrothesp, why don't you propose language? ^Bongo_matic 03:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The wording proposed would include degrees since they are issued by recognised organisations. My point about FRS and FBA is that they are considered to be official and are included in government lists, whereas other fellowships generally are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The previous language permits those issued by any organization closely associated with the individual, so this is a restriction. As stated, the previous section in the MOS (WP:CREDENTIAL) is dispositive on whether degrees should be included—they shouldn't. If you think this is ambiguous, even the current form should be clarified to say

:Post-nominal letters, other than degrees (which are discussed immediately above), should be included . . .

If you can suggest an objective criterion for determining for each government which domestic fellowships or equivalent are deemed "official", that would be useful. But inclusion on one or more government lists doesn't, in itself, evidence a consistent policy or rationale. ^Bongo_matic 21:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That wording still leaves the ambiguity as to what defines "closely associated". DigitalC (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, a little bit off-topic, but what is your opinion about the use of post-nominal initials in infoboxes? Somehow many think to be less stringent and then also academic degrees are then included. See for example Michaëlle Jean. It's a huge bunch of Post-nominal initials. Demophon (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The example you cite is clearly excessive and needs to be drastically reduced. Perhaps a numerical limit should be set -- mayeb 3? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the same guidelines as apply in the lede should apply. ^Bongo_matic 21:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think infoboxes are often used as a way to get round lede restrictions on honorifics and postnominals. Frankly, I think infoboxes should be banned anyway. They're frequently exceptionally messy, poorly done, ridiculously long and only serve to clog up the article and make it difficult to insert additional images. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of married name vs. maiden name for past events

When an article refers to accomplishments of a married woman, should the article always use her married. Or should the use of her maiden name be retained for events that took place when she used that name. For instance, several articles on specific asteroids refer to the discoverer as "L. Šarounová." However, she is now Lenka Kotková. I'm assuming that the asteroid articles use the maiden name because she still retained it at the time of the asteroid discoveries. So which name, maiden or married, should be used in those asteroid articles. Thanks. --JamesAM (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

I'd be grateful if someone can clarify this. The guideline, "In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.", seems straightforward enough. However, I recently became involved in a brief edit war on the Craig Ferguson article over his nationality. That he was born in Scotland to Scottish parents, grew up and began his career in the UK is not in dispute. The fact that he now has American citizenship is also accepted. But is it right to call him "Scottish-American"? Most of the rationale seemed to come from his declared love of the country and the title of his autobiography. The same debate has been going on within the Anthony Hopkins article, but some editors seem unwilling to accept that Hopkins (born in Wales) was very well established as a leading actor in the UK for over 20 years before be became widely known outside of it. Does the description of one's nationality reflect parentage, citizenship, country of birth or all three if they happen to be different? Are there formal Wiki guidelines for describing the nationality of people who:

• Were born in one country to overseas parentage but then raised in their parents' country
• Were born and raised in one country but their parents are from another
• Were born in one country, established a career there, emigrated to another but have not taken formal citizenship of the latter
• Were born in the same country as one of their parents

I'm sure there are more permutations, so is this such a minefield that it's solely a question of individual cases? It all seems to be about *when* a person became notable. I've noticed that this debate can get quite heated (witness the Cary Grant article) and I thought it might be helpful for editors to try and achieve consensus for perhaps some more detailed guidelines. Chris 42 (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The primary criterion has to be citizenship at the time of the article (obviating questions of just when the person became notable). Following that, it is reasonable to have exposition as to ancestry and natal nationality. In short, try to include all pertinent information rather than have a big argument as to nationality at some point in their life (which can be shown to be variable - a Yugoslav citizen at birth might well now be a Slovene -- easiest to say "Slovene" and then append that they were born in Yugoslavia.) Collect (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, unfortunately questions concerning nationality and citizenship are one of the biggest pains within wikipedia. A lot of people do seem to equate citizenship with nationality in a very rigid way, and there is nothing to be gained in attempting to argue the point with them. If someone is also a citizen of country X then they must also be recorded as having nationality X with equal importance. There seems to be no room for common sense to apply, and wikipedia guidelines do not cover a lot of possibilities that can occur. I'm sure the vast majority of references to Craig Ferguson in the general media and literature would identify him quite correctly as being Scottish. Afterall that is where he grew up and would have spent the majority, if not all of his formative years. Perhaps you might try seeing if you can get away with describing him as a "Scottish born television host and comedian". The term Scottish-American in these circumstances is a bit naff really, but that's wikipedia for you! Ernest the Sheep (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Quite correctly as being Scottish"? Surely if someone lives in the US and has taken on US citizenship, it's fair to call them American? The whole thing about one's nationality is that one can change it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually take the view that "nationality" and "citizenship" can mean either the same thing or different things depending on the subject. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the former as either "the status of belonging to a particular nation" or "an ethnic group forming a part of one or more political nations". "Citizen", meanwhile, is defined as "a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth". If someone has moved to another country at some point in their life, then I would be more inclined to describe their original nationality and add something like "who is now also an American citizen" or "who also became an American citizen in (year)". To me, at first glance, the term "Scottish-American" would immediately indicate mixed parentage if I was unfamiliar with the person in question. Chris 42 (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My initial impression was that the term "Scottish-American" would mean an American who could trace their ancestry back to Scotland. I would not have thought it would apply to a Scottish born and bred person who acquires American citizen as an adult. I would also agree that nationality and citizenship are not necessarily the same thing, although on wikipedia a lot of editors do treat them as equivalents. In my opinion nationality also implies something about identity. Unfortunately it does not seem to be something that can be covered by simple rules. Each subject needs to be treated on a case by case basis, and a degree of common sense needs to be applied, which might not be that easy to achieve on wikipedia. This same issue crops up on numerous wikipedia articles. For example Michael J. Fox is apparently a "Canadian-American". I find the use of these sorts of terms odd, they seem somewhat American-centric to me. In my opinion the fact that Craig Ferguson has recently acquired American citizenship is significant and clearly should be mentioned in the article, but I do not believe it is notable enough in itself that it needs to be feature in the opening sentence. The description "Scottish born" should suffice. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't it notable enough to be in the intro? Changing your nationality is a pretty big deal. If Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't American, then he wouldn't be Governor of California. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the view that "nationality" and "citizenship" can mean very different things depending on the subject and circumtances. In Central-Europe, due to frequent changes of border, citizenship and nationality mean and meant largely different things. In spite of this, there is a tendency by certain countries (and editors from these countries) to push identification of people born as their citizens with the ethnicity of the dominant ethnie of this particulary country, even if this is not identical at all with the self-identification of the person concerned, nor with the judgement of people about him. Presenting Hungarians from Transylvania as 'Romanian-born Hungarians' is misleading as it creates the false impression that the person in question at birth had been Romanian, then, at a certain point of his life, he/she changed identity or citizenship. As a matter of fact, Hungarians living in Transylvania do not usually identify themselves as Romanians, but as Hungarians from Romania/Transylvania or as Hungarians with Romanian citizenship, so citizenship clearly differs from nationality. This is due to the fact that sovereignty over the territory on which these autochtonous ethnic communities live changed in history and the country where they live (eg. Romanian or Slovakia) considers and declares themselves as 'nation states', the state of the dominant ethnie. The same way, speaking about Poles born in the Russian Empire or Austria-History until 1918 as a 'Russian-born Pole' or an 'Austro-Hungarian Polish writer' would not oly be misleading, but bizarre as well. In other cases, however, Germans born in Silesia are sometimes referred to as Bohemian-born Germans, which, in its turn, refers to Bohemia as a multi-ethnic historical region and not as the slavic 'Czech' Land after WWII. So, while the expression 'Austrian-born American movie-star and politician' may give correct information, the "Serbian-born Albanian politician" may give a very false one. In these cases, even if it may look a bit clumsy, insatead of nationality, a more than clear reference to citizenship or to country-name should be used if such a reference is needed at all in the lead. In case of Hungarians, I would suggest the formula "Hungarian writer from Transylvania, Romania" or 'Hungarian politician from Slovakia' or similar.Rokarudi --Rokarudi 16:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, your argument tends to assume readers are incapable of clicking a link, and we shouldn't make that assumption. Take, for instance, Albert-László Barabási. If a reader is confused, clicking on Romanian will lead him to the article on Romania, indicating his birth country. Clicking Hungarian will lead him to Hungary, his country of citizenship. If the links were to Romanians and Hungarians there might be a problem, but there really isn't much room for ambiguity, especially as, lower down in the text, it says he is an ethnic Hungarian.

The second problem with your argument is that the number of Hungarians in Romania with a direct connection to Hungary (citizenship or residence) is fairly small. Most of them, despite speaking Hungarian and identifying as ethnic Hungarians, are born in Romania and hold only Romanian citizenship. Which is why it's appropriate to label György Frunda a Romanian politician in the lead, only identifying his ethnicity further down. He is not, and never has been, a Hungarian politician (see where that link leads for why I say this). 71.192.241.118 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hungarians received citizenship in Romania as the Treaty of Trianon obliged Romania to grant citizenship for Hungarians living in Trasylavania annexed by Romania after WWI. But let us not speak about Hungarians only, speak about "Russian-born Poles" like Adam Mickiewicz or Juliusz Słowacki. All of them were born in the Russian Empire, however, all of them are, rightly, given an Polish poets in the lead. In the life section, it is explained that they were born in the Russian Empire (as Polan was under Russuian sovereignty at that time) Your ideas reflecting the view that "if you eat Romanian bread you are Romanian" is defunct with Nicolae Ceauşescu.--Rokarudi 11:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to bring up Ceauşescu: if you have a Romanian passport and a Romanian identity card, you are automatically a Romanian, even if you are Kovács Attila of Székelyudvarhely. You are not automatically a Romanian, and no one says you are anymore. (And do click those links!)

As for the Polish example - it may be wise to ask some Polish editors their input. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Academic titles - proposed change of guideline

The guideline on academic titles (Professor, Dr) says that they should not be used. I would like to know on what grounds this guideline has been erected, and with what degree of consensus. It departs from normal usage in at least some countries (specifically the UK, probably also some other Commonwealth countries) where substantive academic titles are normally used when writing in non-scientific contexts about someone who remains an active academic (e.g. in the recent controversy about the dismissal of David Nutt from the UK government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the media referred to him consistently as "Professor Nutt"). I know that this is not normal usage in some other countries - e.g. it would be rare in Germany or the US in my experience. Also, it is not normal practice within academic discourse - in a discussion within David Nutt's own domain of psychopharmacology, he would usually be referred to as "Nutt", or perhaps "David Nutt" if the author happened to know him.

In the light of these usages, I suggest the following:

• Academic titles may be used in the initial line of an article if they would normally be used in a non-technical article about the person in the country where they are principally located.
• Academic titles should not be used in the title of an article
• In the body of an article, academic titles may be used if they would normally be used in a non-technical article about the person in the country where they are principally located, but should not be used excessively.

These suggestions are based on a review of a sample of articles about UK academics, and they reflect what the majority of such articles actually do - if we were to bring them all in line with the guideline as it now stands, we'd have to do a whole lot of editing; and frankly, I think editors would be better employed writing new articles.

However I am not going to change the guideline until there has been discussion here, and I will only do so if there is reasonable consensus. If there is a more formal procedure, please advise here. seglea (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for a change. This is a long established style on Wikipedia and it is not usual to use academic titles in other encyclopaedias or in biographical works (e.g. Who's Who or the Dictionary of National Biography). The media usually refers to people as "Mr" too (it would be normal to refer to the prime minister as "Mr Brown", for instance, although in actual fact he is "Dr Brown"!), but that doesn't mean we should. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC on CREDENTIAL

There's a claim at this RfC that this page, and therefore WP:CREDENTIAL, only applies to articles that are biographies, rather than to any mention of a specific person's credentials. Therefore, the editor concludes, physicians should be described as "Dr Smith" instead of "Smith" in non-biography articles (e.g., all medicine-related articles that discuss history, research, staffing at pharma companies, universities, etc.). The specific case is complicated by the physician apparently being a celebrity: thus in addition to the general rule, editors need to decide whether to use her 'stage name' or her real name.

I encourage you to read and respond to the RfC, but I think it would be helpful to remove or clarify text on this page that could be misinterpreted as it applying solely to, e.g., a biography about the CEO, and not to the CEO's description in his company's article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We'll that's a coincidence: the exact opposite seems to be proposed for clergy in this RfC --Jubilee♫clipman 00:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that the one is about WP:Article titles and the other is about a single sentence inside an article (whose main subject is the organization that hired her). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am the editor referred to by WhatamIdoing, and can I give my summary of the full discussion that took place. We have a single passing reference to a physician Dr Donnica Moore in an article (and yes, she is publicly know as Dr Donnica Moore). One editor tried to remove the reference in its entirety. After a few more reverts and when a number of editors objected, she then removed the "Dr" citing CREDENTIAL, so we suggested Donnica Moore, MD. She then removed the MD. We had a 4-1 impasse so I raised the RfC to try to stop this cycle, Most of the editors on this page still prefer the "Dr Donnica ..." form, and a number of us have made the same point. But let me expand our reasoning here.

At some point, typically early in a Bio you always introduce the academic qualifications of the subject, so the guideline of sticking to the subject's name elsewhere in the article makes sense. This situation can be quite different when you link to the person as a passing reference in another article. The reader of this article may not be aware of the academic or professional qualifications of the person referred to. It is unreasonable to expect the reader to go to every linked article. It is overkill having to add the persons full qualifications after every reference. Surely the sensible approach is guided by economy and accuracy. In some circumstances, use of the person's title (consistent with WP:MOS) in a passing reference is the simplest way to achieve this. So what is so wrong with a passing "Dr Donnica Moore" or a "Professor Steven Hawking", say, that gives one editor the right to quote this guideline to go against the wishes of the consensus and remove the title?

So I do think that the rules for passing references are different to Bio reference. However, if the consensus of the maintainers of this MOS is that this is clearly wrong, then I don't have a problem with this. But in this case, then why not simply change the intro to this article so that instead of limiting its scope to "guidelines for maintaining visual and textual consistency in biographical articles" to make it clear that sections X,Y,Z apply to all articles, or even just relocating this content to the parent MOS?

These guidelines should say what they mean and mean what they say. -- TerryE (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, as an inveterate opponent of academic titles in biographies, that I have no problem whatsoever with using an academic title in a reference to an individual in another article in which said title is germane. And it looks much better than using postnominal letters. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Postnominal initials are less likely to be used in a misleading fashion. Donnica Moore, MD, leaves you with no doubt that Dr Moore is a medical doctor instead of, e.g., a Doctor of Education or Doctor of Business Administration.

This is particularly important for medicine-related articles, because there are a far too many people using the academic title "Doctor" to make people think "licensed physician" instead of reality, e.g., "I got a PhD in sociology 40 years ago, and now my hobby is giving dangerous advice about alternative cancer therapies". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine as long as you're American. However, a medical doctor from Britain or the Commonwealth is likely to be John Smith MB ChB (very few British doctors hold MDs, which is a postgraduate research qualification in the UK as opposed to the basic medical qualification as it is in the US), which is a mouthful and will tell the uninformed reader (i.e. someone who is not familiar with British medical qualifications) absolutely nothing. You have to remember that Wikipedia is an international project and every country is different. In actual fact, your example is somewhat flawed in any case, as many medical scientists aren't qualified doctors and instead do hold PhDs in medical sciences, where the PhD in question is actually a postgraduate research qualification which completely qualifies them to talk about medical sciences, probably much more so than a ten-a-penny MD straight out of medical school with no research experience whatsoever! To many people, I'm sure, "Dr" makes them think of "physician or person with a doctorate", the latter being its actual meaning (and an American MD not being a proper doctorate in that sense). -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I know what an MBBS is, and a simple wikilink to MBBS will explain all to a reader.

But "Dr Smith" explains nothing: the reader will not know, and cannot discover, from "Dr Smith" whether the qualification is likely to be relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Since PhD is used for doctorates in almost all subjects, how does this help? There is no way of knowing that an individual's PhD is in physiology, nuclear physics or English literature! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Even PhD provides some information, e.g., "not a medical degree" and "not a law degree". "Dr" clearly provides less information than "PhD". "Dr" provides far less information than "MBBS" or "D.O.".

And, in the relevant case, Moore has an MD (that's why I used it as the example), and "M.D." is far more informative than "Dr". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Rank

There is nothing in the article about "Rank", like military. I thought there used to be? And (unfortunately) some people need it spelled out. > Best O Fortuna (talk)

What spelled out exactly? You seem to be assuming it's obvious. There have never, to my knowledge, been any actual guidelines laid down for this. There probably should be. Military ranks are usually included before the name inline, but certainly not always and some people seem to disapprove of them. My personal opinion is that military ranks should be included inline but not linked (as I think linking before the bolded name looks ugly) and certainly not bolded (as they're not an actual part of the name). The rank can be linked later in the text when it (hopefully) will say when the individual was promoted to said rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Post-nominal initials

I deleted this section

ensuring that readers who hover over the initials see the expanded abbreviation as a hint and in the status bar at the bottom of the window. Readers who click immediately on the link, missing hints will hopefully see a short article with the definition clear and near the start. Often one line article will suffice, with appropriate links to further information, thus: Jack Brabham, OBE. (see above in regards to academic titles and post-nominal initials)

but it has been restored by another editor. I really do fail to see what it adds to the guideline. Everything it says should be fairly obvious and applies to any other link. It is also a pretty confusing and poorly-written paragraph. And the last sentence seems to be completely meaningless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

About normally: The text says, "should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name." Contrary to your assertion in your edit summary, it is not restricted to the first line. There might be a limited number of circumstances in which identifying an academic degree is appropriate (e.g., when naming a non-notable or redlinked person whose professional credentials are highly relevant to the context of the sentence). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Now clarified. Note that every example given in the section refers to the first line. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Translation of titles

The discussion here [2] raises is a very interesting point. The suggestion is that we should use translations of foreign titles which may (or may not) be equivalent of English language titles. The proposal is that Magister should be translated as Master's. Whether that is appropriate or not is to be the subject of a RfC. However, Scottish universities' M.A. degrees are equivalent to B.A.s, but are reported as M.A.s. If we are to use equivalent qualifications rather than the name used by the actual universities themselves, we will have to write all article about people who have Master's degrees from Scottish universities to say that those people have Bachelor's degrees. I imagine that that will be neither very popular nor a good idea.Varsovian (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a list prepared by the University of Toronto that lists foreign degrees they accept as the equivalent of a Canadian four-year degree (honours bachelor). The Four Deuces (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that there should be no translation of degrees - some people on Wikipedia have a mania for translating everything (often very badly) into English. That is completely unnecessary and is not what the guidelines, which are usually cited to support this obsessive translation, either say or mean (even if we get away from the fact that they actually only refer to article titles, despite their frequent citation in other situations). Proper names should generally remain untranslated. If there is an obvious and commonly-used (i.e. by people who know what they're talking about, not by some random bloke on the internet) translation then we should use it (and even then, only with care), otherwise we shouldn't. It's impossible to establish equivalency anyway (e.g. is a three-year English Bachelor's degree equal to a four-year Scottish Master's degree equal to a four-year American Bachelor's degree?) and we shouldn't try to do it, since that's effectively original research. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that in many cases, the foreign names of non-English academic degrees are already routinely translated into English by student advisories such as http://www.universitiesabroad.com, in order to keep them understandable and in line with each other. The issue is especially important for BLP individuals who obtained these degrees in politics, science and international relations. Please take a look at some abstract examples, based on the above PDF page by the University of Toronto. It is of vital importance that we address this issue properly, and provide guidance for the community, because of its cross-national nature. Let's imagine: such and such BLP academic (inventor, laureate), have obtained Pytchion in Greece, Egyelem Oklevel in Hungary, Maitrise in France, Licenciaat in Belgium, Sarjana Insinyur in Indonesia, Laurea in Italy, Doctorandus in The Netherlands, Magister in Austria and Poland, Diploma of Specialist in Russia, Diploma Visoko Obrazovanja in Serbia, Titulo in Spain, etc. Would you have known that all of them mean the same thing? And, what if the author of the article wants to keep it ledgible? I think, there must be a system devised, perhaps in a form of a separate guideline, allowing for the translation based on reference we all can agree on. --Poeticbent talk 16:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Just record the actual degrees they earned and link to the appropriate article. No problem whatsoever and no need to translate. If there's not an article then someone can write one. We are not in the business of trying to make the whole world identical. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you might have missed my point. For example, the doctorandus in the Netherlands is not a doctorate (and, what do you think it is), so insisting that it NOT be translated into English might be misleading to our readers. Also, I don't understand what you meant by saying: "Just record the actual degrees they earned"? Record what exactly, and it what context: the Bachelor's degrees, or the Master's degrees based on universitiesabroad.com, or perhaps Honours (or any other translation) based on whatever academia we run into? Why not work on a proper guideline instead? --Poeticbent talk 17:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean the exact degree they earned. If they earned a Doctorandus then say they earned a Doctorandus (which, you will notice, already has a bluelink to an article explaining exactly what it is - no confusion there). Why does everything have to be translated into English? It's not a bachelor's degree or a master's degree - it's a doctorandus! If I read an article about someone from a non-English-speaking country I don't want to know the awards they would have had had they been British or American - I want to know the awards they actually have. Being an intelligent human being, I don't require everything to be translated into my language as long as what it is is explained in my language. It's like going to see a foreign film - most people (in Britain, at least) prefer subtitles to dubbing, thus leaving the film in its original context while still explaining it in our language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically, what I see here is that you have very well defined personal preferences. Not so clear though, with regards to the rest of my own examples from above. I added the links like you did, i.e. Pytchion in Greece, Egyelem Oklevel in Hungary, Maitrise in France, Licenciaat in Belgium, Sarjana Insinyur in Indonesia, Diploma of Specialist in Russia, Diploma Visoko Obrazovanja in Serbia, or Titulo in Spain. --Poeticbent talk 18:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it means we're in the business of writing an encyclopaedia, not an attempt to homogenise the world. Where does it say that everything on Wikipedia should be translated into English? If those terms don't have bluelinks then articles should be written for them. That is not an excuse to just translate everything into English and ignore the original terms. There is nothing worse or more inaccurate than an encyclopaedia saying that something approximates something else because otherwise "it might be a bit confusing". It doesn't and it isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody else have an opinion in this matter except for Necrothesp? How about our own university graduates, who aren't British, but had their credits transferred? Where are you? --Poeticbent talk 17:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I very much feel that we should leave the orginal names of all academic qualifications.

Admittedly a post-2006 Magister degree is a second cycle Bologna qualification and a British MA is a a second cycle Bologna qualification but that does not mean they are the same: it just means they are a second cycle Bologna qualifications! Saying that a Magister is the same as an MA because it is a a second cycle Bologna qualification is rather like saying that dogs have four legs and a tail and then observing that because my cat also has four legs and a tail, it must be a dog. Varsovian (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to see if there is a president for this but my search abilities let me down, can anyone else have a look, at the present time how are polish peoples degrees being reported? A search on Wiki for the word Magister should show us, is this a wiki wide issue or is it just this article where the title description is being disputed? Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should leave degrees in the original and only mention equivalency if it is in the source. However it would be helpful if someone could provide information about recommendations in major manuals of style. We may have to set up an RfC for this issue. (This section should refer to academic degrees, not titles.) The Four Deuces (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Tomasz_Kamusella had written his Masters thesis....He obtained his doctorate in Political Science from the Institute of Western Affairs (Instytut Zachodni), Poznań, Poland. Category:Polish_academics feel free to look if there is already a general usage and if this is a wiki wide issue or just related and disputed on this single article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It also says that the Central European University where he studied for an M.A. was "co-accredited then by the Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom". It is now accredited by the U.S. and instruction is in English. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will have more of a look later, the question is imo, is Magisters translated in the wider wikipedia as a masters, which is the literal translation and is imo a quite close intellectual qualification, the open university of milton keynes is a minor facility, anyway, Magisters degree is as yet a redlink and if we dispute the translation then we would need to detail exactly what a magisters is because this is the eng wiki and no one will have a clue what a magisters is, tomorrow I will look some more as I want to see if magisters is used or it is translated in the other articles. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is described under Magister (degree). Note that the French baccalauréat is usually left in French. Since the M.A. referred to was from an English language university it would not make sense to translate it into the local language. The Open University, whose administration is based at Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, has an enrolment of 180,000 students. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what do you mean that the Open University is a "minor facility"? It is a fully-accredited British university on a par with any other British university. "This is the eng wiki and no one will have a clue what a magisters is" is an extraordinarily sweeping statement - I'm sure many people reading Wikipedia know exactly what a Magister degree is, even if they don't come from a country that uses them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The general english speaking public will not know what a magisters degree is and why should they? The idea that english speaking people will have any idea about a magisters degree is incredulous, I also have heard the baccalauret as it is a common discussion in the UK, is this normal in the wiki, this is my question, is it normal that foreign language certificate are left in the original language? I fail to see that there is any big issue here, the magisters degree,states in the first sentence.. In Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, and Slovakia, the Magister is equal to a Master's degree. imo it is a bit pointy, but hey, thats just me. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

a) An MA from the ancient Scottish universities and from Oxford & Cambridge and Trinity college Dublin is equal to a Bachelor's degrees from any other British university. Should we start to refer to those MAs as Bachelor's degrees?

b) Having taught on Magister courses, knowing a lot about them and having worked on trying to get Magister holders places at British universities, and having read the requirements of English universities such as the London School of Economics, I can assure you that a Magister does not equal a British Master's (other than those from the ancient Scottish universities and from Oxford & Cambridge and Trinity college Dublin). Varsovian (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In order to generate greater attention to this issue, I have set up an RfC below. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Birth name

Just wanted to bring up a suggestion to change the placing of the birth name in some cases. There was a dispute at the Miley Cyrus page (here) as to whether her birth name, Destiny Hope Cyrus should be placed in both the lead and the "Early life" section, or just the early life section (bolded). Personally, I think opening the lead as "Miley Ray Cyrus (born November 23, 1992)" looks a lot cleaner and less cluttered than "Miley Cyrus (born Destiny Hope Cyrus; November 23, 1992)", which I feel is especially unnecessary and redundant since her surname was not changed. Can we make certain exceptions in cases like these; where the surname (or first name) was not changed, and there is suitable documentation about the birth name in an "Early life" section? Thanks for any input. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 17:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I always use the style "Miley Cyrus (born November 23, 1992), born Destiny Hope Cyrus, is a...", which I think looks fine and uncluttered. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But that's repetitive, using the word "born" twice. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, since the first use is in parentheses, not part of the sentence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

She has apparently made a legal name change -- the legal name thus has precedence. [3] Collect (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Honorific titles

I have just reread this section. What on earth does it mean? I really have no idea what the point of this section is. It belongs more on a discussion page than a guideline page and seems to be a single editor saying "I don't agree with this, but it's been included so I'm pointing out that I think it's controversial", which isn't really appropriate. It's an essay, not a guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the meaning is supposed to be something like "Use just plain 'Churchill', not 'Sir Winston'." It appears that a substantial re-write is in order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's probably the essential meaning, but I don't think it needs two paragraphs to say it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we consider combining and clarifying the Honorific titles and the Honorific prefixes sections? There's a discussion going on at the WP:USC talk page regarding a batch inclusion of honorific prefixes in the infobox of every current United States governor, congressman, and senator. The argument there seems to be that the style guidelines here discourage inline usage but not infobox usage. It seems to me it discourages both, but what do I know? In any event, we should try to discern some consensus from here, there, or somewhere, so that we don't have several hundred biographies constantly in flux on something that ought to be standardized. jæs (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear to me. The United States does not have titles and honorific prefixes should not be used. I do not think the honorifics used are even recognized by law, unlike Commonwealth countries. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Um -- this Wikipedia is not purely US-centric. You are correct that one should not refer to "Sir Barack Obama" (or any US citizen who might have a foreign honorific) but it is proper indeed to use honorofics for people who are not US citizens. I have not even ever considered writing about Elizabeth Windsor. And the Wikipedia policy is that ALL English-speaking editors are welcom, last I checked, even Canadians. Collect (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Attempt made to remove odd verbiage and to make the whole section more common-sense in approach. Collect (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It is improper to use any honorific prefixes in biographical articles unless they are honorific titles and they should only be used in their biography. (Since royalty do not have surnames, they are referred to by their christian names.) The Four Deuces (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Where a person is customarily referred to by title, it is presumptious indeed for us to simply say "This is the USA and we got no titles." <g>. Collect (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

While it may be presumptious to address someone without their customary honorific prefix, the MOS advises that honorific prefixes are omitted from articles, even for Commonwealth nations. And there are no honorific titles in the US, except those awarded by foreign governments, e.g., knighthood, which are not used. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We already know that ... except for such things as "Judge" (applied to former judges), "Senator" and "Governor" (ditto) and a few dozen other exceptions to the absolute rule presented. The clear "best choice" is to defer to usage outside WP. And not to simply assert "titles are not used in the US, therefore they are not used in WP". This faux egalitarianism is not seen ouside the US as being a great thing <g>. Let us, since you raise the issue, look at how "Commonwealth nations"'s media handle it. (Noting that the Chicago MoS says this is how US media should handle it as well). [4] is fairly definitive. Is that good enough? Collect (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In the Times style book honorific prefixes are never used, and I agree with that. It also says: "appellations on news pages, though not on features and sport, almost every surname should be granted the courtesy of a title....First mention, Herbert Palfry, Juliette Worth, subsequently Mr Palfry, Mrs/Miss/Ms Worth." Do you think we should change the policy so that everyone is called Mr., Mrs., etc.? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Other honorifics used in the U.S. and elsewhere include: Mr, Mrs, Miss, Dr, and Professor. We don't want to repeat the New York Times' famous refernce to Meat Loaf as "Mr. Loaf".  Will Beback  talk  06:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nationality/For the record...

...this is bullshit: "...or was a citizen when the person became notable." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have requested for it to be clarified. However, I would suggest that a person's nationality is defined as that which they are now or which they were when they died; previous nationalities are only important in an historical sense. Hence, the fact that someone came to prominence as a Finn but later emigrated to Canada means that they are now either Canadian or joint Canadian-Finnish depending on how the naturalisation was accomplished. They certainly are not pure Finnish any more. The nationality at the time they became famous is not relevent except insofar as the person was that nationality at that time. Perhaps this latter is what is meant? --Jubilee♫clipman 12:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Even if the person was quite old at the time of naturalization, and died the day after Canadian citizenship was granted?

I think we are best off following high-quality reliable sources, even if that results in us reflecting a rather muddy reality instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all rule on 100% of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I never thought of that senario. Perhaps the only way to be sure here is to say "A person's nationality is whatever the RSs say that person's nationality is"? There is another issue: what about countries and areas that change hands or name? This reminds me of the hypothetical person that was born in Saint Petersburg in 1913, was educated in Petrograd, wrote their most notable works in Leningrad and died in Saint Petersburg in 1992... without ever actually moving house! Prussia/Germany, Yugoslavia/"FYR of..." and several other states spring to mind in this context, especially states in centeral Africa. Perhaps ...should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability... should also apply to nationality (with the further provisios ...and is verifiable and indisputable? --Jubilee♫clipman 19:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with following what sources say in this case is that you can find a source to describe anyone as just about anything they qualify as. Someone who was born in Cuba, raised in Venezuela, and became famous in America, for example, would have sources describing them as "Cuban", "Venezuelan", and "American". If they later took on Canadian citizenship, you can add that as well. I see this as a guideline issue, not a source issue. I think a good idea would be to use both the nationality they had when they became famous, as well as one they may have taken on later. I.e. Alfred Molina would be described as "British-American", or perhaps "a British and American actor". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that a very important factor in biographies of actors is that the majority of film work is conducted in the US. The US has strict residency requirements and for a foreign actor based in the US it is often convenient to take American citizenship once they have been living in the US to become eligable. This normally doesn't require them to renounce their original nationality and is really nothing more than an administrative scenario. Spudbynight (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Gender Neutral

What's the guidline for the use of gender neutral terms such as calling an actress an actor instead of an actress? Do we only do it for some pages or should there be a concensus on all biographical pages?--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As one of several editors involved in this situation it would have been nice to be notified about it. This editor does not believe in using Gender-neutral language in articles. In general he has refused to take in the information in the Actor article regarding the present day sensibilities of gender neutrality. Specifically he has edit warred on Helen Mirren's page.

For the record I do not feel that we have to make a hard and fast rule on this. Both terms can be used. When we have someone like Ms Mirren, who prefers the gender neutral term we should use that. If we have someone who prefers the gender specific term then we can use that. While I favor gender neutrality I feel that Wikipedia can be flexible. MarnetteD | Talk 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this is something that will only lead to massive edit wars and irritation if strict guidelines are imposed. Frankly, using "actor" to refer to a woman still grates on me and I have no doubt on many other people. Let's face it, "actress" is still the commonest way to describe a female actor in the media and everywhere else. If we know (and can prove) that an individual prefers to be referred to as an actor then fair enough, but otherwise actress is fine. We also have to remember that huge numbers of our articles are about people who died long before the concept of gender-neutral language appeared and to impose it on their articles would be highly anachronistic - I doubt if many actresses before a few decades ago would even have considered referring to themselves using the masculine term (back to about 1700, when actress became the common term). -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I will start by concurring with MarnetteD that there is no valid reason why we cannot be flexible (even sympathetic) in our approach to this topic. I also agree with Necrothesp that retrospective treatment of deceased female thespians would be anachronistic and plainly a nonsense.

However, we cannot escape the fact that in the new millennium an increasing number of female artists are starting to refer to themselves with the gender-neutral term of actor. Helen Mirren is probably the most prominent - but in TV media interviews I have also noted Felicity Kendal, Demi Moore, Meryl Streep, Celia Imrie and several others apply the neutral term to themselves. This usage is definitely on the increase and I see no reason why we cannot respect the individuals' wishes and reflect it in their biography articles.

If a female exponent of the acting craft finds the term actress demeaning or sexist it would appear to me that we should refect their wishes. Throughout wikipedia we are so careful in many other respects when dealing with BLP issues and to ignore this specific aspect, to my mind, would be nothing short of insulting and insensitive.

The opening sentence of the article on Actor clearly states The word actor refers to a person who acts regardless of sex, while actress refers specifically to a female person who acts; therefore a female can be referred to by either term. My feeling is strongly that this should indeed be our policy – applied on a case by case basis and reflecting the wishes of the individual. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 14:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem with that... Actor is a wikipedia article, not a wikipedia guideline. Necrothesp ignored my request for such a guideline during our "edit war" (and I don't see how the "edit war" has any bearing on tis discussion anyway... unless he's trying to color my activities). Since he did not take the opportunity to start a proper discussion I have brought it here. We can cite all sorts of things ([5] defines actress as "a woman who acts in stage plays, motion pictures, television broadcasts, etc., esp. professionally.") but it seems the real solution is wikipedia should have a guideline or policy on this. So... how do we resolve this?--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are the relevant sections of the Manual of Style. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language.5BR.5D and Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language. You will note that both sections state that the guideline is "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." The dictionary source that you use also has this [6] which applies gender neutrality by using the term person. These combined with the other comments in this section would seem to show that the guideline has already been set. It should be noted that flexibility has been recommended by all but one member of this discussion MarnetteD | Talk 03:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dr who1975, would you care to enlighten me which "edit war" you're talking about? I don't recall edit warring with you on anything. Specifically, I'm not aware of ever having edited the Helen Mirren page! Since you have apparently had debates with MarnetteD and 21stCenturyGreenstuff on that page, I would suspect you are getting me confused with someone else. Please check your facts before you make allegations in the future! Particularly since I generally agree with referring to female actors as actresses, which seems to be your point of view! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Putting Helen Mirren and still being flexible ... the distinction in common usage between "actor" and "actress" is meaningful. Usually, men perform men's roles, and women perform women's roles. Maurreen (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-English language university degrees

Should non-English language university degrees be translated into English or remain in the original language (which is often Latin)? If they are translated, should they be translated according to their literal meaning or into the equivalent degree? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The normal ranking for degrees at English language universities is bachelor, master, and doctor. However, European degrees developed separately so that the Baccalauréat is awarded before university, while the magister degree is often awarded as an undergraduate degree. ([Here is a link to a list prepared by the University of Toronto that lists foreign degrees they accept as the equivalent of a Canadian four-year degree (honours bachelor).) On the other hand, some English language universities issue masters degrees as undergraduate degrees (equivalent to a bachelors). The Four Deuces (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment US colleges generally recognize an "associate" degree as well. Law schools upgraded the law degree to a "doctorate" even though they have no dissertation requirements. As there is no general rule which applies in all cases, it is reasonable for someone to write an article on the equivalencies and provide footnotes corresponding thereto. Collect (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Follow the sources. I think that translating degrees is likely to result in errors. It is not something that the average editor should undertake. Furthermore, there's often no proper equivalent (e.g., the German abitur would be translated into 'American' as something like "a high school diploma from a college-prep charter school for intellectually gifted students"). There are articles on nearly all of these degrees, so readers who don't know what a string of letters is can easily find out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I've asked a professional English-Polish sworn translator for her opinion. She said it is best to avoid translations, as exact equivalents are rare, and if translating, always add the original title in parenthesis. Using originals also reduces the confusions of "translator original research" - as there are no international rules on this issue, some translators can be quite "creative" with their translations, which doesn't help the issue. Such an approach (do not translate) is also supported by a bunch of professional institutions, starting with UNESCO/CEPES, European Commission, Council of Europe, and Polish BUREAU FOR ACADEMIC RECOGNITION AND INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE as well as TEPIS. For editors speaking Polish, here are two professional discussions: [7], [8]. Based on this I would strongly suggest making this a wiki rule. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Use the original. Any translation is likely to be inaccurate, disputed and not reflect the actual meaning of the degree. There is absolutely no need to translate everything into English on Wikipedia as long as an explanation is provided (preferably with a bluelink) as to what the term means. That is why we have linked articles. In actual fact, literal translation is usually a very poor idea for pretty much anything - a literal translation frequently does not convey the concept that is conveyed by the original language and often just ends up looking weird if not completely meaningless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. The basic rule of Wikipedia is to always follow the most reliable third-party source. We are not supposed to engage in making arbitrary decisions about academic matters, because we don't accept original research in general. Whatever your personal opinion, our policy guidelines do not (and cannot) disallow the use of English sources, which provide definitions of academic degrees in the English language, as quoted also by universities. The opinion expressed by the University of Toronto for example, should not be used outside of their own environment due to conflict of interest. They have no jurisdiction over other universities and, are not a reliable source of info about them. Their own definition of Masters is reflective only of the source of our info. Likewise, when a foreign university (offering Masters) is listed by a third-party source in the English language; our only concern here in Wikipedia should be the reliability of the source, and not the truthfulness of the degree. "My Masters is better than yours" approach stemming from competitive spirit between universities is not acceptable here. The only question is, whether there is a need for a new policy guideline in this matter, or whether the WP:SOURCE motto: "verifiability, not truth" is broad enough already. Here's another example. When a third-party source such as CollegeAbroad.com says that the Academy of Fine Arts in Krakow offers "5 or 6 year MFA studies and 3 year BFA studies with the legal status of Master of Fine Arts and Bachelor of Fine Arts degree" our only concern here in Wikipedia should be, whether the English source as such, is independent enough and reliable. Please note, the MFA info provided by the Academy itself is not being used in this example, but it might as well since it is not detrimental to others. -- Poeticbent talk 17:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it not synthesis to take a degree from one source and the translation from another? Why do you think that CollegeAbroad.com is a reliable source? And why do you say that the University of Toronto has a conflict of interest? The list they prepared is for admission requirements to their graduate school. They recognize the 4-year US bachelor's degree as an equivalent to the 4-year U of T degree, which seems uncontroversial. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. University degrees from different countries are inherently not comparable, as is made clear by many reliable sources, government agencies and universities. See for example this OECD study. As we have articles on the most common degrees we should use the original name of the degree and wikilink. Pantherskin (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please provide a page number in that OECD document. I looked it over carefully, and found nothing about university degrees from different countries in its Table of Contents. Thanks in advance. -- Poeticbent talk 16:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• p 161 Pantherskin (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Actually, the OECD study (p.161) proved my point. The university degrees (i.e. tertiary-type A studies) are routinely compared between OECD countries, based on their cumulative duration, to ensure international comparability at the Master's level. The programmes are divided into graduate or undergraduate levels of tertiary type in accordance with the total duration of studies. Their foreign names are seldom mentioned in the document. -- Poeticbent talk 22:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because they standardize degrees by comparing their length and looking at completion rates. Obviously we should not expect our editors to standardize degrees on their own (or should we have a policy on how this standardization is done, not very desirable too). That is why we have to stick to the name of the degree in the native language. Pantherskin (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Recommendation Articles should describe the foreign degrees as they appear in the source used. If the source is foreign language, the degree should not be translated. If there is conflict in the translations used in English-language sources, a foreign language source should be used with the degree described as it appears there. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

  It's not always a "foreign language" issue. For example, some American sources translate the MBBS into M.D.. You should not go looking for a German or Chinese or other "foreign language" source to figure out what degree is actually awarded by Imperial College School of Medicine in London. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• CommentTranslations should be avoided. If somebody has a Magister, they have a Magister: they do not have a Master's. Varsovian (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Recommendation Keep the original foreign degree, unless they are already translated in the source cited, in which case follow the cite. If a translation is provided by a Wikipedia editor, the translation should be in parenthesis following the original degree name. LK (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A Question (Infobox?)

First of all I would be glad to know the exact name of the table in the right side of a page related to a person and my second question is whether you think it's right or wrong that a person's ethnicity is emphasized in this table? -- And Rew 03:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about what we call an "infobox"? Can you give more context? Maurreen (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think Infobox it is! And now my question is that should we write someone's ethnicity in the Infobox? For example take a look at this page please: Bobby Jindal Thanks.-- And Rew 22:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that ethnicity generally does not belong in an infobox or even in an article. Maurreen (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it belongs in an infobox. It may belong in an article as long as it's specific (e.g. "he is of Nigerian descent" as opposed to a simple "he is black", which certainly doesn't belong) and referenced, as this is a valid facet of someone's biography. The fact Jindal is of Indian descent should be mentioned in the body of his article, but shouldn't be in the infobox. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I will remove his ethnicity from the infobox. I wish there was some sort of supreme court in Wiki. Is there any place that I can suggest this idea?-- And Rew 17:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it is a frequent problem? Maurreen (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I think if such a place was available, it could solve some very long going arguments and struggles and setting new laws when they are needed. Exactly like a Common Law system.-- And Rew 21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

But the whole point of Wikipedia is that things are decided by mutual agreement. It may be longer and sometimes more frustrating, but if we had a small group of individuals who made decisions it would transform the whole nature of the project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that's pretty much true but the other point is that as Wikipedia keeps growing, there should be an effort to prevent it from falling apart and maybe not something like a supreme court but a system of voting to set some new laws and not too many so that Wikipedia doesn't lose its quality. As Wikipedia gets bigger and bigger, the chance of losing control of it gets higher and higher.-- And Rew 16:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Whose control? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone's control, false material, vandalism, low quality articles. Now we have around 3.3M articles. Take a look at this article which has remained like this for a long time and nobody seems to be fixing it: List of Largest Empires -- And Rew 03:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's why we have admins. We may not get around to fixing everything, but I think we do a pretty good job of keeping things tidy, in co-operation with all other genuine editors of course. We'll always have vandals in a project of this nature, but Wikipedia is not overrun with them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I hope so. Personally I'm so much dependent on Wikipedia and we all know ideas, things, websites that started well, but in the end they got too big and didn't try to do anything about it that they fall apart and I'm just worried about that and nothing else. -- And Rew 21:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Honorifics in info boxes

We say don't include these in inline text, but see Beverley McLachlin and Margaret Thatcher for examples of their use in infoboxes - how does this differ from 'inline text' in any meaningful way? Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

Where it says to state someone's nationality in the opening paragraph, it seems to emphasize too much the question of citizenship (this has caused confusion at many articles, particularly historical ones, with editors trying to turn people like Mickiewicz and Chopin into Russians, Frenchmen and Germans on the basis of claims of citizenship (which is totally contrary to how their nationality is given in sources). "Citizenship" is a recent concept anyway, and is not generally sourceable except by doing original synthesis. I've amended this section slightly, but I think it needs a complete rewrite to emphasize that we reflect primarily how reliable sources describe people. That would also help answer the UK question which is left unanswered in the present guideline.--Kotniski (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be clarified. To be consistent with WP:LEAD it should serve to put the person's notability in context. For example, if they were a politician, saying of what country is obviously required. Almost every person I can think of could use some indication of what part of the world they affected or did their notable stuff. Writers or actors probably say what language their works are in, for example. This seems related to the question of entwining their birth and death places in the lead, or not. As you point out this can get complicated when dealing with people who move around, or countries whose borders move, or have ceased to exist, or were part of other countries during the time the person was notable, etc. W Nowicki (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification (post-nominal initials)

The section Post-nominal initials says "Post-nominal letters, other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated". Does it mean they are included where the awarding body

• is a widely recognizable organization closely associated subject or a country, or (only the organization is closely associated)
• which may be a widely recognizable organization or a country, and must be closely associated with the subject? (must be closely associated with the subject whether it is an organization or a country)

Thank in advance. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Honorific titles in lead

From reading the guideline, I can't make out whether to have honorific titles included in the bold part of the lead. Using Barry Curtis as an example, should it be Sir Barry Curtis or Sir Barry Curtis in the lead? I expected to find the answer in this guideline, but can't see it. Schwede66 19:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, pretitles should be bolded. They're part of the name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A belated thanks. I can't see that from reading the page, but I also don't understand the usage of the term 'inline'. Can I suggest two things?

• Explain what is meant by the sentence "should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper" - maybe wikilinking inline might help? (I couldn't find something of relevance), and
• If the 'inline' bit doesn't cover it already (once it's been explained more clearly or wikilinked), spell out that pretitles should be bolded, as they are part of the name.

I hope this is helpful. Schwede66 22:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Compound surnames, or not

In this thread on the help desk, an editor suggests capitalising the surname, because it is sometimes unclear how many of a person's names are part of the surname - I gave examples Ralph Vaughan Williams and Joseph Blanco White. This confusion can exist in real life as well as in Wikipedia: I was unsure for a long time whether Diana Wynne Jones's surname was Jones or Wynne Jones. I agree with other contributors to that thread that capitalising the surname is alien to the customs of English; but I wonder if we should have a recommendation here that in such cases the lede explicitly say how much is the surname? --ColinFine (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Special advice for U.K. nationality

The Opening Paragraph section had the following material in it (regarding Nationality and ethnicity):

(Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the essay "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom" and the talk page archives. There are also issues with highly mobile people whose nationality may be unclear.)

I've moved the material here, because it is problematic for a number of reasons.

1. It is extremely specific to the U.K., which is just one country among a couple of hundred in the world. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and must avoid focusing on just the U.S. and U.K.
2. It refers editors to an essay; Wikipedia essays have no weight, but are merely individual opinions. As the policy points out, "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established." Guidelines cannot make essays authoritative or imply that they represent consensus.
3. It also links to Talk: page archives. Guidelines should not direct people to old Talk: page archives, in part because guidelines should be sufficient and complete themselves, and in part because, as the Consensus policy itself points out, consensus can change.
4. Finally, the last sentence is unclear: "There are also issues with highly mobile people whose nationality may be unclear." Yes. And? In what way does this sentence guide the editor? What does it suggest they do?

Other thoughts welcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1. The UK is a unique case which needs special consideration so, regardless of the advice being specific to the UK, the issue the advice attempts to address is important enough to warrant a special note.
2. Essays have no weight?! WP:DUCK is used all the time in SPI's often as the first and last word. How about WP:Tendentious editing? Or WP:COMMON?
3. Talkpages are perhaps less helpful, true.
4. The last sentence just flags up the issue that some people have had several nationalities in their life.

Answer: as pointed out a few sections above, follow the reliable sources. Whatever the RS's tell us, that is the person's nationality. If the sources say Scottish, they are Scottish; if they say Chinese, they are Chinese, etc. The present Guideline (not Policy, note) doesn't quite say that and it should: WP:V applies to everything --Jubilee♫clipman 02:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm... then again, I had forgotten about this discussion. There must be a way to deal with this sensibly? There is no doubt that James MacMillan is a Scottish composer, for example, while Thomas Tallis was an English composer. OTOH, if I ever got an entry (born in Wales of Scottish parents but lived most of my life in England) I would be British! More thought required... --Jubilee♫clipman 02:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My responses:

1. The UK may be a special case. There are other special cases too; for example, what was Mozart's nationality? He was born in the Archbishopric of Salzburg, which was then an ecclesiastical state in the Holy Roman Empire. How about Beethoven? He was born in Bonn, then in the Electorate of Cologne, also an ecclesiastical state in the Holy Roman Empire. Is the former Austrian, the latter German? But neither of those nationalities existed at the time! Are they both "Holy Roman", whatever that means? Is one Salzburgian, and the other Colognite? Odd nationality issues abound, both in the past and today. While it is important to have a reasonable way of dealing with this, we cannot have a general guideline address the specific U.K. situation. There must be another way of solving the issue.
2. Essays are sometimes good summaries of arguments, and specific ones may be popular with various editors, but policy is clear that they do not represent consensus. A guideline cannot be used as a back door for elevating an essay to guideline status; if an essay is to become a guideline, it must be done explicitly.
3. Yes, I'm sure "highly mobile people" is an issue. Why is it in this guideline though? Guidelines should guide, not just "flag".
4. Yes, WP:V applies to everything. This, in fact, is the general solution for all of these issues.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed: WP:V. We just need to help editors apply it. Your point about the UK not being alone in being unique is a fair one, though: the section "For the record?" above points to other unique situations. I wonder what others think about this. BTW, since Handel was born in Saxony-Anhalt and later emigrated to England was he an Anglo-Saxon?  :) --Jubilee♫clipman 03:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not? All the Anglo-Saxons theoretically descend from people who invaded England from Saxony, Handel just invaded 1300 years after the rest. :) Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing is wrong-headed. The UK isn't a special case at all. If we can sum up someone's national identity in one adjective, we should do so in the way that reliable sources most generally do for that person. Sometimes it will be the same as their citizenship (like British), sometimes something else (like English/Scottish/Welsh/Palestianian/Kurdish), sometimes it will be a double-barreled adjective, sometimes it will just be impossible. But WP policy doesn't give us any licence to overrule what sources say.--Kotniski (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom has a unique problem though: Sean Connery could be referred to as a British actor by reliable sources—especially those written outside the UK—and indeed often is. His article, on the other hand calls, him a Scottish actor. In fact, he is both—as are all Scottish people—but we wouldn't call him a "British-Scottish actor" or a "British/Scottish actor" or say "variously referred to as British or Scottish". We choose one and stick with it. Which one do you choose, though? That's the question. The question is even more thorny for people living in Northern Ireland: some of them reject the UK altogether, others wholeheartedly embrace it yet they both may be referred to as British, Irish, Irish-British or British-Irish. Which one to choose, again? It's a question of sensitivity as much as sourcing, especially for living people --Jubilee♫clipman 00:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should attach a lot of weight to self-identification, and not only to living people. We should also be as accurate as possible - if we can say "Scottish" rather than "British", we're conveying more information at no extra cost (but we must know that the person really does identify as a Scot or is otherwise unambiguously Scottish). --Kotniski (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Just on the Handels of the world: an immigrant to the UK may choose to live mainly in one of England, Scotland, Wales or NI. But they cannot become English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish - they can only become British. It's only native-born people who get to choose a home country nationality. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is why the essay "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom" was written in the first place – to explain the fact that there was an extended (and at times heated) debate about this topic, and no consensus could be reached. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It is even more complex for the period before the British Nationality Act, which intoduced British citizenship. Until 1981 all people born within the Commonwealth (which numbered dozens of countries on every continent, representing a quarter of the Earth) were British subjects, and the constituent countries only developed their own nationality laws beginning in the 1940s. Would we consider George Orwell to be an Indian or Bengali writer? What would be the nationality of a Canadian-born member of the U. K. parliament? TFD (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Including degrees with Alma Maters in a bio listbox

In the article for Sonia Sotomayor, there is a difference of opinion over including a degree with each alma mater in the officeholder listbox. So in one version it's "Princeton University" and "Yale Law School" and in the other version it's "Princeton University (A.B.)" and "Yale Law School (J.D.)". See Talk:Sonia Sotomayor#Edit war over degrees in infobox and also the article history. Although this isn't of earth shaking importance, may we set a style so this doesn't get debated each time? — Becksguy (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal either way. Usually, a law school confers a JD, but some confer other degrees as well. Usually the undergrad university (for lawyers anyway) confer an AB, but some lawyers get a BS. Also, sometimes there are three schools or more because other degrees are conferred (master's degrees and Ph.D degrees, etc.). My slight preference is to list the degrees. Doesn't take much space, and it's marginally helpful. I would be more against a mandated style of no listed degrees, but I wouldn't object that much to an optional style depending on the context.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

rv honorific titles

I reverted the honorific titles section to the earlier version that was arrived to by consensus (see archive of this talk page). Whoever changed it implied a prescriptive use of the honorific title for all occurrences if such is the custom in a country. This is not what was agreed upon. Since we agreed we are treating honorific titles with the intent of it being a 'title' and not 'honorific,' their use inline is not mandatory any more than adding 'Queen' in front of every instance of Victoria. Ripe (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Need some guideline-knowledgeable eyes on Jacob Epstein

Jacob Epstein changed his citizenship from American to British before becoming notable. All the works for which he was notable (sculpture) were created in Britain, and are displayed in Britain; he took British citizenship, served with the British army, was granted knighthood by the Queen, and is buried in London. His connection with the American art scene was minimal. There are numerous references identifying him as British, some but not all of which also identify him as "American-born British" but British nonetheless. Even American encyclopedias identify him as British. A number of editors, presumably American, are repeatedly trying to remove his chosen identification as British. Could some MOSBIO knowledgeable folks please watchlist the article and participate in educating these editors on our guidelines for this sort of case? Yworo (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite clearly should be "American-born British" as it currently states. No further debate really needed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly. Still, certain editors have been edit warring and claiming "consensus" to remove British from the lead and the infobox. Yworo (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? That's not how the debate on the talkpage reads to me. There it seems that most people favour "American-born British" and you object to the "American-born" bit, alleging that WP:MOSBIO explicitly states that form of words shouldn't be used (which it doesn't). Indeed, before you changed it, the article had already read "American-born British" for over a year. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus pretty much was for "American-born British" but Yworo wasn't too happy about that. Note that he changed the lede against consensus or before consensus was truly wrapped up based soley on his own opinion and one new user coming in to agree with him. This new user then promptly "quit" Wikipedia because we were supposedly being mean to him or her (having completely "ruined" their day apparently). As far as I am concerned, the issue is resolved and I'm glad to see others at this page agree with the American-born British decision. This is actually something that is crucial to art-related articles as artists often have international careers (e.g. Picasso, a Spaniard living in France and Van Gogh, Dutch living in France--actually it's worse: Picasso was a Catalan and many do insist on this as being his nationality). We will be working this out at WP:VAMOS and would appreciate feedback from editors working at the main MOS page. I will post a note here when that is underway. Thanks. freshacconci talktalk 16:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We want to remove the infobox, which many of us feel is unnecessary. We all have said American-born British was ok...Modernist (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with American-born British. Yworo has added four references to the British designation in the infobox which seems to be too many. In my view, in cases such as these, infoboxes can be more a hindrance than help, and as they aren't mandatory, removing the infobox should be acceptable. There are other reasons to move the infobox, not germane to WP:MOSBIO. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, MOSBIO states that "Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Now, if the consensus is that being American-born is relevant to Epstein's notability (which I find borderline), then so be it, but his nationality is British. There's no real reason to remove the infobox. Various WikiProjects encourage the use of infoboxes. Yworo (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's more than borderline, it has been established and there's consensus. As for the infobox, there is also consensus for its removal and this has been done by another otherwise uninvolved editor (who I believe is also a Brit, as if that matters). I am actually neutral on the subject of infoxes as I find them useful at times, but there is a clear consensus here and I concur with its removal. freshacconci talktalk 20:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Corday

Talk:Charlotte Corday#First name.

Should we call her Corday? Surtsicna (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course we should. Why not? We make no distinction between men and women and neither should we. Frankly, I see no validity in the arguments of the editor opposing the use of her surname alone, which seem to boil down to "She lived in the 18th century and not the 21st century", which is a very poor argument. So what? Charlotte is clearly her first name and Corday her surname. As has already been pointed out, if a woman is primarily known as somebody's wife then her first name is often used to distinguish her from her husband. If a woman is primarily known by her title (e.g. Madame de Pompadour), then that is what we mainly use, as her title is not strictly her surname and her surname may not be well-known. However, if a woman has a surname, is known by that surname (whether in combination with a first name or not), and is known for her own achievements and not for her husband's, then there is no real case for treating her differently from a man. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, "the editor" (the undersigned) "opposing the use of her surname alone" is not opposing it only because "she [Charlotte Corday] lived in the 18th century and not the 21st century", but because Charlotte Corday is known in the History of the French Revolution, as "Charlotte Corday", or "Citoyenne Corday" at time of her trial, not as "Corday" alone, just like Joan of Arc is "Joan of Arc" in en:wiki, not "Arc". There are historical personages who stand out for particular reasons that warrant their being named as History has recorded them, Marie Antoinette, for instance, who, in en:wiki is given no other name. These three women, Joan of Arc, Marie Antoinette and Charlotte Corday, whether the name they are known under was their maiden name or that of their husband or translated baptismal names are known to History under these specific names, not "Arc", not "Maria Antonia" and not "Corday". That is the point the (undersigned) "editor" with "a very poor argument" was trying to make.

Mr. Necrothesp, in commenting my supposedly "poor argument", you overlooked other examples I gave of women who are mentioned with both first & last names together, never last name alone: "Juliette Drouet", for instance, who in en:wiki is either "Juliette" or "Juliette Drouet", but never "Drouet" alone. Why a special case for her since she was not married to any "Monsieur Drouet"? And rather weird as she was born "Julienne Joséphine Gauvain"; the name "Drouet" being that of her uncle who raised her; she never married & lived the greatest part of her life with Victor Hugo. If en:wiki has chosen to keep the alias "Juliette Drouet" in its totality, why not do the same for "Charlotte Corday"?

I do not understand why what I say has to be qualified of "poor" when there are so many cases in en:wiki that translates a rather "poor taste" of redaction & judgment, the article on Laura Bush, for instance, with a few sentences that are rather comical because of the insistence of calling her "Bush" instead of "Laura Bush".

Furthermore, it would have been more than courteous of the party who initiated the discussion here to tell those taking part in the discussion at Charlotte Corday talk page that a question was being put on this page, as we are now finding ourselves with discussion on two pages with part of the group unaware of what's happening here. Surtsicna put his question here at 14:27 on 16 August & went on discussing at Charlotte Corday page with last comment signed same day at 17:24 on 16 August, never notifying us of his question here. If there is a notice, I fail to see it.

I also find it rather annoying to have my words being dissected & discussed and being qualified of "poor argument" behind my back. I have fallen on this discussion by chance as this is a page I check regularly, and I am outraged to find that my comments are being commented without my knowledge. Is this common Wikipedia policy?

The posting of this sentence alone should have been enough to, at least, put something on my talk page telling me that I was being talked about: "Frankly, I see no validity in the arguments of the editor opposing the use of her surname alone, which seem to boil down to "She lived in the 18th century and not the 21st century", which is a very poor argument."

--Frania W. (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you reread the original discussion, you will see that Surtsicna recommended in his/her first post that the discussion be transferred here, which is the obvious place for it. This was repeated in Surtsicna's second post. You, however, chose to continue the discussion on the talk page. Nothing has been done behind your back. Your "outrage" is misplaced.

I have seen Charlotte Corday referred to as "Corday" many times (e.g. this is how she is referred to in the Encyclopaedia Britannica). I see no reason whatsoever to make an exception for her. Yes, some Wikipedia articles continue to refer to both men and women by both names. This is, however, the exception rather than the rule, and should probably be corrected in most cases. It certainly should in the Laura Bush article, which refers to her far too much by both names and looks very odd. Just because other articles do it is not a reason for it not to be corrected. Most articles do not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please notice how Frania Wisniewska finds an article that does not comply with the Manual of Style and then cites that article as a reason why other articles shouldn't comply with the Manual of Style, while, of course, ignoring all the articles that do comply with the MoS. Apparently, the Manual of Style should be ignored because it is not followed by every article. An interesting argument, don't you think? Surtsicna (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC) From the manual of style

The (administrator or) editor is right in principle and de jure.

"Manual" say: People who are best known by a pseudonym shall be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (i.e. Madonna, Snoop Dogg, The Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is to be used. For people well-known by one-word names, nicknames or pseudonyms, but who often also use their legal names professionally i.e. musician/actors Beyoncé Knowles, André Benjamin, Jennifer Lopez; use the legal surname.

But

An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion.

And

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

Marie-Anne Charlotte de Corday d'Armont was known to history as Charlotte Corday, naming her Charlotte Corday is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines if not exactly what "Manual" had in mind. And if "Manual" is to be strictly followed she should be named Corday d'Armont. The fact that the Wikipedia is not consistent does not mean the Wikipedia is not correct. Examples: Sir Winston Churchill is usually referred to as "Churchill", although his name is officially Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, so, if you follow Wikipedia guidelines, he should be called Spencer-Churchill, consistently. Similarly Tim Berners-Lee (credited for being the inventor of the World Wide Web), is referred to as Berners-Lee and not Berners or Lee.

This discussion is senseless, so I'm quitting, this disussion, this article and the Wikipedia. I'm going home, I am taking my football, you can have the field (and this inconsistency in style is not accidental).

Et a FW: "Courage ma petite vieille. Quand je visite Charlotte, je penserai à vous." --JHvW (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And for our non native speaking editor a little film with a Scandinavian Conquistador click here

So, it is wrong to call her Corday because her legal surname was "de Corday d'Armont", just like it is wrong to call the prime minister "Churchill" because his legal surname was "Spencer-Churchill"? Good luck convincing anyone that the surname of a man known as "Winston Churchill" is not "Churchill" or that the surname of "Charlotte Corday" is not "Corday".

Here you go again, undermining your own arguments. You are an administrator (or editor), you feel that you are correct. De jure you are. De facto Charlotte Corday should be referred to as such. Quibbling is a waste of time of everybody concerned. So referring to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (which I believe is frowned upon in the Wikipedia, except for the versions which are now in the public domain), naming your own sources (which are by themselves inconsistent) and slagging off sister Wikipedias is not very elegant. Just as slagging off people who use a different language or have a different religion is not very elegant. Just refer to "Manual" and all will be fine. I am quite sure if this were to be referred to the Arbritation Committee that they would put you in the right. But I can not help feeling that you would be reprimanded for starting a revertion war with some serious contributors. That is not what the Wikipedia is about.

"And for our non native speaking editor a little film with a Scandinavian Conquistador" - which non-native speaker would that be? Surtsicna (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

On August 16, 2010, you write "I am not a native speaker of English", your grammar suggests that you are from Scandinavia (I could be wrong of course), so I included a little film about a Scandinavian man whose name is Conquistador. This to keep things civil and lighthearted. The customary answer is a) no reply, b) Thank you. I am sure that there will be enough contributors after I am gone. Now I am going to leave you at whatever you are doing and finish the articles I had started. I have been distracted long enough. And I want to indulge in some "excessive happiness". --JHvW (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is simply a somewhat pointless discussion. The MoS clearly states "After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only". As Surtsicna says, arguing that this should not apply to Charlotte Corday because her legal surname was actually de Corday d'Armont is pure semantics. If she was never known by the surname Corday then the argument would be valid, but it can clearly be established (and has been on the talk page) that she is known by that name. Not only that, but she's the most famous person known by that surname. Whether she lived in the 21st century, the 18th century or the 10th century is utterly irrelevant. The fact that when she lived she was commonly known as "Charlotte Corday" or "Citoyenne Corday" is utterly irrelevant - Winston Churchill was commonly referred to in the press of his time as "Mr Churchill", but we don't use that honorific because that's not the style used in encyclopaedias. To me, Frania's argument simply seems to be that she doesn't like it. There's no reason whatsoever why Charlotte Corday should have a special case made for her. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As you can see I agree with your policy, the fact that this discussion is a waste of time (arguing the point about Churchill is also a waste of time) but not with your statement about Frania. --JHvW (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My grammar suggests that I am from Scandinavia? Interesting. Though born in Norway, I never spoke a word of Norwegian or any other GermanicScandinavian language.

"So referring to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (which I believe is frowned upon in the Wikipedia, except for the versions which are now in the public domain), naming your own sources (which are by themselves inconsistent) and slagging off sister Wikipedias is not very elegant." Referring to the Encyclopaedia Britannica is not frowned upon when one is trying to prove how a person is called by other encyclopaedias. Why would it be? "Naming your own sources?" It's not like I published that source. Are you saying that now, all of a sudden, users shouldn't cite sources? As for sister Wikipedias, it is absolutely irrelevant how they call someone. If we did what "sister Wikipedias" do, we'd have articles titled Koizumi Jun'ichirō, I. Lajos, etc.

"Just as slagging off people who use a different language or have a different religion is not very elegant." Oh my, who did that?

Finally, Necrothesp is right, of course: the entire discussion revolves around one user's preferance. Frania Wisniewska seems to be very offended whenever I cite the Manual of Style,[9] as if it were designed to ruin an article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well on a final note, I am obviously wrong, a contributor who is obviously well versed in the French language and French history will have to stand corrected. But you cannot help making things difficult for yourself. English is considered a Germanic language. And I am not going to argue the other points. I am sorry you did not like the little film. I will remove it.

This whole disussion could have been avoided by simply pulling rank and being civil about it. If you had stated for example: "I am sorry but as an adminstrator I have been asked to enforce "Manual" (the MoS) so I have had to change the article, I am sure that you will understand". I would not have gotten involved in this argument. But I also feel that Frania is ardent and passionate about this subject but I have not found Frania to be unreasonable. I do not wish to sound like a contributor who gets angry when he does not get his way but I argue scientific facts for a living. When another contributor argues with me, I think that is a good thing. But I also think, and this is what "Manual" clearly states, that as long as there is consistency within an article, it does not really matter what "Manual" says. When arguing you achieve two things: 1) the person you are arguing with has the idea that the case can be argued, 2) a lot of facts that are mentioned are irrelevant and de facto a waste of time. The administrators and editors should be happy (although it makes their lives more difficult) when contributors point out inconsistencies (and there are a lot of inconsistencies). When I started out and I cocked up an article I would get a polite note saying: "Thank you for your contribution, but would you please use "Manual", you can find it here (and a reference would follow; if the admin had any sense probably copied and pasted from his files) so we will not have to clean up after you". This is why the point was made about leading by example. A lot of administrators and editors just like contributors know a lot of things. Contributors by their nature want to contribute, administrators and editors try to keep Wikipedia within bounds. This does not have to be at odds with each other.

Well we have wasted a lot of each others time. Good luck with Wikipedia. Kind regards to Frania and Necrothesp. --JHvW (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected when it comes to the classification of English language; I should've said "as my first language", which is what I meant. But I am not French either, if that is what you were insinuating.

"I am sorry but as an adminstrator I have been asked to enforce 'Manual' (the MoS) so I have had to change the article, I am sure that you will understand." If you are addressing me, I have to tell you that I am not an administrator and that I have never been one. Besides, administrators are not the only users allowed to edit articles in order to make them comply with the MoS. Of course, nobody has to be sorry for improving an article.

I have no patience left to discuss this. The Manual of Style advises us clearly and neither you nor Frania have convinced anyone that the MoS should be ignored. Surtsicna (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have rather a thing about administrators "pulling rank" and "enforcing" guidelines. Nobody is doing any such thing. The MoS has been formulated not by administrators but by the community over many years. It is not "enforced" in any way, but as the editing community has decided this is the best way to write articles it is obvious that an editor (not just an administrator) who sees it being contravened is likely to amend an article to conform to it. You also seem to have the idea that administrators, editors and contributors are different people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Administrators are simply editors/contributors (there is no difference incidentally - editor and contributor are different words for the same thing) who have been given certain additional powers, mostly to deal with vandalism. Nobody is suggesting that vandalism is relevant here. Surtsicna is not an administrator in any case. I am, but I am not speaking here in any way in my capacity as an administrator, but only as an editor, just like you. Just like most other editors, I spend most of my time on Wikipedia creating and improving articles, not using administrator powers, and I certainly don't "pull rank" in any way, because I don't have any "rank" to pull. This is an editing matter, not an administrative matter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My last entry met edit conflicts, so it probably seems out of place here, but it does not matter anymore as it is my final one:

Mr. Necrothesp,

Surtsicna did in fact "recommend" that this discussion take place on this talk page; my reply was:

• "The reason of my question had a direct relation with the fact that the first name "Charlotte" was removed from the article on "Charlotte Corday", so I do not see why Talk:Charlotte Corday is not the place to ask the question.", and I stuck to my reasoning even after Surtsinca suggested again having the discussion here, while continuing to discuss there as late as three hours after posting his question here. So, when he put a question on this page, why did not he mention it to us then?

Quoting Surtsicna:

• "Please notice how Frania Wisniewska finds an article that does not comply with the Manual of Style and then cites that article as a reason why other articles shouldn't comply with the Manual of Style,..." : I have given my reasons why with the comparison with "Joan of Arc", "Marie Anroinette" and "Juliette Drouet", which I find to be "reasonable" reasons.

Quoting Necrothesp:

• "To me, Frania's argument simply seems to be that she doesn't like it.": See reason above.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Merci JHvW for your support. Aurevoir ! --Frania W. (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Briefly, to answer Frania: Joan of Arc is invariably referred to as Joan, since in English she is not really given a surname (you can't call "Of Arc" a surname). Marie Antoinette was a queen and therefore didn't strictly have a surname, any more than the Duke of Edinburgh is ever referred to as Philip Windsor. We use names that are used. Marie Antoinette and Joan of Arc are commonly referred to in English by those names, without abbreviation. The article on Juliette Drouet needs correcting, so is hardly a good example to use. Just because nobody has yet corrected it does not mean it's somehow canon. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Necrothesp, think about this! I have already apologised, said that I do not wish to contravene convention, etcetera. But why bring in new arguments like that there is no difference between administrators and contributors and then saying that an administrator is a contributor "who have been given certain additional powers". There clearly is a difference. Why do you think there are lawyers? Most constitutions have an article that says: "every citizen should know the law", yet there are still lawyers. I think you missed the point I was trying to make (or maybe I was unclear), let's concentrate on fact and remain civil. It is fine that I am criticized, I can take it. Just as easy as I could suggest that you seem to be favouring the parties in favour of "Manual". Where will this get us? Nobody wants to go to the Arbitration Committee, but being sensitive about other people's feelings is not against the spirit of Wikipedia. Many of us are from different cultures. As you probably know the British have a sense of humour that most other cultures will not understand. Deborah Tannen has written extensively about the differences in communication between men and women and different cultures. Why should it be any different here? We are quibbling and may be reading things that are not there. It also seems we are asking the wrong questions and giving and getting the wrong answers. Can we agree that we all want a better Wikipedia? By which I do not mean that it is bad, but it could be better. I know a lot, but I also know that I know very little. Discourse is often a verbal or written way of enrichment. I will leave you with a wish from popular culture: "live long and prosper" (and that is meant for everybody who reads this). + - And it should be clear by now that I do not insinuate, but here is the difficulty in understanding what is written: Frania I believe is French or speaks French very well. Maybe, just maybe, some of the things we write are not properly understood. Can we show a little compassion? Please? Traduire, veut dire, mourir, de rire (to translate means to die of laughter). Or are we going to be like the late Queen Victoria and say "I'm not amused"? I wanted to share may knowledge but in a lighthearted but factual way. Goodbye. --JHvW (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Necrothesp,

For some reason, what I say does not seem to be understood the way I mean it: in the case of the above three, the names are those by which they are known in History, so Marie Antoinette is not followed by any title, Joan of Arc is Joan of Arc, and no need to comment anymore on my reasons for thinking that Charlotte Corday's baptismal name should not be removed. As for the case of Juliette Drouet, what is she going to become when corrections are made to her article: "Drouet" or "Gauvain"?

It would also be nice if someone would take the time to correct the abominations in the Laura Bush article. Her "political" life is so entwined with that of her husband, that it is difficult to know within a paragraph, if not within a sentence, "who is who", "who has done what", "who has been elected to what", "who has become the *First Lady of Texas*" - that last one is a pearl!

--Frania W. (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

JHvW,

Yes, I am French... isn't obvious by my signature?

--Frania W. (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"As for the case of Juliette Drouet, what is she going to become when corrections are made to her article: 'Drouet' or 'Gauvain'?" "Drouet" when the sentence is about an event that took place after she assumed that surname and "Gauvain" when the sentence is about an event that took place while she was a Gauvain - just like the article about Marie Antoinette calls her "Maria Antonia" when discussing events that took place prior to her marriage.

Anyway, two of Corday's baptismal names have already been removed, along with half of the surname. Calling her Charlotte Corday once or twice is not a problem. Calling her "Charlotte Corday" every single time she is mentioned is redundant, unneccessary and it looks odd, while calling her "Charlotte" is simply not encyclopaedic. We do not normally refer to people by their first name if they have a last name by which they are known. Corday should not be an exception. Surtsicna (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have to say that this is one of the most bizarre discussions I have ever been involved in in my six years as an editor on Wikipedia! Who would have thought that following the Manual of Style and using someone's surname in an encyclopaedia could lead to such emotional outpourings! Time to end the discussion, I think. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Deja Vu. This whole debate happened a long time ago for Ada Lovelace (Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace). Ada Lovelace is referred to as "Lovelace" in her article and Charlotte Corday should be referred to as "Corday". It doesn't matter if the pseudonymous surname was part of their real name or not. The guidelines are actually pretty clear about this now. I don't see why there is so much controversy. Kaldari (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Need guidance on applying WP:LASTNAME to Constanze Mozart

How does one correctly apply WP:LASTNAME to someone who has had several different last names over the course of their life? Do we always use the last name from the article title, or do we use whatever last name is appropriate for the timespan of the section? Please join the discussion here if you have any guidance. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ranks of people

Although, ranks are similar to how titles are styled in grammar, I would like to establish a general concensus in how to place them with the name of a person. For example, at the begining of the Michael Mullen article, should the beginning sentence be stylized as, Admiral Michael Mullen, USN is the 17th and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or should it be Michael Mullen is a United States Navy admiral who currently serves as the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Neovu79 (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, Admiral Michael Mullen, USN whould highlight his status far greater than Michael Mullen is a United States Navy admiral would in the beginning sentence. Neovu79 (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest Admiral Michael Millen is the 17th and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In any newspaper I have read, he would generally be written Admiral Michael Millen on the first mention; in military histories people who have rank and decorations might be written Cpl. Echo, VC, CD. Admiral implies that he is with the navy; this fact could go in the article but doesn't necessarily need to be in the first sentence. I don't think suffixing , USN adds any clarity. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that "admiral" could also indicate that he is a member of the US Coast Guard, or US Maritime Service, or NOAA, or Public Health Service. But, I don't see it so much as an issue of highlighting anyone's status (as we should be neutral around Wikipedia), but rather more of giving an encyclopedic tone to the BLPs. I suspect that the norm that I accept (i.e., title after the name as in the second example) came about because of the need for NPOV. Common usage of titles before a name are to honor one with the titles they have adopted and/or earned. But, WP:MOSBIO#honorific titles makes it clear that titles should not preceed names for nobility, government officials, royalty, or educators, so I have trouble seeing how one's military rank would be any different (assuming that the subject of the BLP doesn't already qualify as a "government official" and subject to existing MOSBIO rules regarding use of titles). QueenofBattle (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I ran into opposition when I tried to remove "General" from Hastings Ismay and I'm not really satisfied with the argumentation. I think we should try to settle this issue one way to avoid disputing about it. I tried to search for discussions and find consensus, but it doesn't seem as if anything has been actually agreed upon. Here are some previous threads:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/2010 archive#Rank
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Archive 5#Military ranks?
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68#First word in biographies

I believe titles of all kinds should be avoided unless they're actually part of someone's name. That it's used within a person's profession shouldn't really matter, especially since we don't use titles for either politicians (Barack Obama) or royalty (Akihito) eventhough these people are actually more often reffered to in contemporary text as "President" or Emperor. Making an exception for military ranks, especially British and American, just seems like a reason to promote jargon and topic bias. It also removes any need for complicated rules and controversies on whether to include titles for people who are well known for both their military careers and what they did retiring. (Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ulyssis S. Grant come to mind).

I believe we should simplify the current guidelines to exclude any title before a person's name except for iffy and controversial "Sir/Dame" and titles that are actually part of someone's widely recognized name (Doctor Dre or Mother Teresa.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is the first time this has come up, and there's never been any consensus to remove it. If you take it from in front of the name, it'll almost certainly end up elsewhere in the lead, usually in a more clumsy way, "Fred Bloggs was a senior army who reached the rank of general". Yes there can be borderline cases wehre someone isn't really notable for their military career where it makes more sense to omit (there's a US actor whose name currently escapes me who was also a reserve USAF brigadier-general who usually comes up in this context). If someone is notable for their military career, their final rank is a quick way of seeing just how senior they were. David Underdown (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really borderline cases. If someone is notable for his military career, then it makes sense to put his final or highest rank at the start of the lead sentence. If someone isn't notable for his military career, but has a military rank, then it shouldn't be in the lead sentence but somewhere in the actual biography. Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant is a major general and a rear admiral, but it makes no sense to add these to the lead. I would personally exclude the rank from the lead sentence of e.g. Samuel Tickell, William Wollaston (Ipswich MP elected 1768) and Charles Collier Michell, perhaps include it with William d'Alton Mann, and certainly include it at the start of Alfred Gardyne de Chastelain. Generally, when the notability is completely or in large parts due to military efforts, include the rank at the start: if it is not directly related to military exploits, don't, even if the notability comes from scientific work when done as part of the military. Fram (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, if somebody had a rank and used that rank then it should be included inline in the lead. Let's remember that, in Britain at least, it was usual to use one's rank if one had one, even in other walks of life. For example, if John Smith joined the army in the First World War, reached the rank of major and left the army at the end of the war, then was elected to the House of Commons, it would be usual for the press and everybody else to continue to refer to him as "Major Smith" even if he never again had any contact with the army. If he never used that rank outside a military context then that would be different. The difference between military ranks and most others is that once granted they are generally kept for life. Eisenhower was technically only "President Eisenhower" while he was in office; he was "General Eisenhower" for the rest of his life. I do not, however, believe that ranks should be linked in the lead. It never used to happen and it looks wrong - they can be linked in the body of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the issue here is really notability on account of military careers, but that we're talking about using a type of formal address that is important to the field the person was active in, but isn't necessary or even expected in descriptions unrelated to that field. And since why are we obliged to put this type of information in the first sentence of the lead? Placing it one or two sentences later in the lead would hardly make it difficult to locate.

As far as I understand, we don't do this with any other profession. Despite the importance that doctorates and professorships have in the academic world we don't start the articles on Peter Ladefoged or Hugh Trevor-Roper with titles and have (sensibly enough) formulated a guideline against it. And I should add that retired professors are usually referred to as "professor emeritus" in the press and quite often by the individuals themselves. So why exactly are we supposed to make fairly complicated exceptions for military officers?

Peter ^Isotalo 17:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Academic rank is fluid and is conferred by individual institutions. When an academic moves from one institution to another he can have a different academic rank. Military rank, on the other hand, is fixed. If you have a rank, you have a rank, which is conferred by the state. You can be promoted, but you can never lose rank unless you are deprived of it by legal action. That's the difference. By way of illustration, an American academic with the rank of assistant professor is addressed and referred to as "professor". However, if he gets a job in a British university he is no longer entitled to use that rank or title of address, as British academic ranks are different. On the other hand, a major in the US Army, whether serving or retired, is perfectly entitled to be addressed as "major" wherever he goes. He has that rank for the rest of his life. I really don't see why it's in any way complicated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, "Dr." or "PhD/MD" would be applicable just about anywhere and can hardly be described as "fluid", but that's not really interesting. The relevant issue is that we're talking about a form of address, as we both have pointed out. Only problem is that encyclopedic do not address article subjects with deference, formality or formal shop talk in mind, but are supposed to describe them. And in the case of Wikipedia it's supposed to be done without bias. Specifying someone's highest rank can be done in a more neutral tone without being either contrived or confusin. So, again, why should the articles on (some) military officers be the only exception to the principle of neutral description?

Peter ^Isotalo 00:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Explain to me why use of a military rank is POV, deferential, "shop talk" or non-neutral. It's a simple statement of fact. I also find it strange that you describe the use of British titles as "iffy and controversial" above. To whom? Do you perhaps have a bit of anti-title POV to push yourself? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Look up "Dame/Sir" in the archive. To someone who hasn't been involved either way, it looks as if it generated too much discussion to be considered wholly uncontroversial.

I'm against titles of any kind when not actually addressing a person, and Wikipedia article's never address the subjects they describe. You're free to try to discredit my suggestions as mere "anti-title POV", but they are entirely consistent with how texts of this type are written in most genres of fact literature, especially encyclopedias. We've also chosen not to state facts by using titles with everything from police officers to royalty, and for good reasons. That they're not "universal" doesn't matter since that wouldn't actually apply to literally all military ranks either. For some reason (some) military biographies have turned into major exceptions, but without any broad consensus for exemptions.

So I'm simply saying that military articles shouldn't be seen as unique and should conform to the same standard as all other biographical articles.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

They do. Simple as. Military ranks are generally a different case as they are not transitory. Police ranks, since you've raised them, are. When Superintendent Smith retires he generally does not keep his rank. Indeed, many senior police officers in previous decades continued to use the rank they had reached in the armed forces instead of their police rank. As for not using titles with royalty, maybe you should check the first word of Prince William of Wales for example. Is that not his title? We don't use them with sovereigns as that would be repeating information (e.g. Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning queen of...), which would look weird. The "Queen" prefix is also not formally attached - she is Her Majesty Elizabeth II, not HM Queen Elizabeth II. We simply remove the honorific.

As to claiming that titles such as "sir" and "dame" are not used in "most genres of fact literature, especially encyclopedias", which encyclopaedias have you been looking at? I've never seen one that doesn't. The so-called "controversy" regarding these titles, in which I have been involved, has generally been claimed as such by one or two individuals who are wholly against titles of every form, mainly, it would seem, on ideological grounds. A handful of vocal opponents does not a controversy make. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have claimed nothing about the use of "Sir/Dame", only that I thought it was a prominent exception which was slightly controversial. Other than a technicality, I see no relevant disagreement on this issue between us.

How police officers handle these things is not something I know in detail, but academic titles are certainly not transitory. A PhD is quite permanent, and in most cases "professor" will be too if you consider "emeritus/emerita". Prince(sse)s I believe are for the most part known under their name with the title, but it's also a matter of it actually being part of the names of their articles, which is entirely consistent with most naming policy.

Military people, however, are not introduced with prefixed rank titles in modern encyclopedic texts. It's also somewhat unclear if this is even the most common practice on Wikipedia itself. If you check military bio GAs and FAs, there is no consistent system at work. The only consistent rule seems to be that prefixed titles only appear in articles on (commissioned) officers active in armed forces of English-speaking countries from c. 1800 and onwards. It seems to be far more common, though not universal, for British or Commonwealth officers. US officers, even really famous FAs like, seldom have titles and non-English officers never have them.

It seems to me that there is a noticeable tendency for contributors on British/Commonwealth bios to use prefixed titles while others tend to avoid them.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Applicability of this MOS to fictional persons

A dispute has arisen (specifically on Buffy Summers) about the inclusion of middle names for a fictional character in the opening sentence of the article. One camp believes that WP:NAMES is that appropriate governing manual of style, while another refers to WP:WAF insisting that "unimportant" details should be omitted. The dispute in this case is fairly straightforward, as all parties agree that the primary sources (in this case, the Buffy Season 3 episode "Anne") clearly establish Buffy's middle name as Anne. 22:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

View by Jclemens

Notable fictional characters covered by Wikipedia should be addressed in a style as consistent with living persons covered by Wikipedia. Our best articles about people, such as Baden-Powell, include full names of little or no relevance to the rest of the article in the opening sentence. Likewise, some of our featured articles on fictional characters, such as Martin Keamy and Sideshow Bob also include middle names of little or no relevance to the rest of the articles in their respective opening sentences. Thus, it's clear to me that consensus is that notable fictional characters covered by Wikipedia should follow WP:NAMES and include sourced names or name elements in the opening sentence of the article.

Users endorsing this summary

1. As author, Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
2. RandomTime 22:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Biographies of fictional persons are still biographies of persons. —fetch·comms 00:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Agreed - mostly. I'm not sure that it's entirely black and white. Buffy is an obvious one, but I think we may have to retain a little flexibility should there be future grey areas. Suppose there's a big film franchise with well known lead characters with no apparent middle name - and then some spinoff paperback gives them middle names. Or replace that paperback with fanfic. Or suppose some source "outside universe" gives a middle name. This could easily shade towards the "unimportant" side, I think. bobrayner (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
5. We're talking about a few words in 1 sentence that ought to be easily referenceable. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Our duty is to supply information. So long as the text of an article makes it clear that the character is fictional, I would construe it as an insult to the reader's intelligence to imply that an average reader would be confused. "First Sergeant Martin Christopher Keamy is a recurring fictional character" is not ambiguous. Mentioning middle names per the suggestion may well lead to violations of WP:TRIVIA and random listcruft. Of course, this isn't ironclad, per Bobrayner's remarks. The Rhymesmith (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Yousou (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Collect (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
9. per Bobrayner. Davewild (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
10. The more informative the better. -- œ^™ 20:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
11. WP:Names should be applied to Biographies universally, well developed and popularly studied (hence notable) fictional characters have full biographies, therefore full treatment like a Biography, Sadads (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Wikipedia biographies, whether they are of real or fictional individuals, should provide as much verified information on the individual as is avaliable. Laurinavicius (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
13. If these names are sourced and canon I see no reason why not include them. If the character is notable enough for its own article there middle name is as well. Many characters are almost always referred to by there last name or even nickname, making there first name just as trivial as there middle name. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
14. WP:WAF & WP:NAMES are not in conflict on this so long as the article maintains real world perspective.--Whoosit (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Crazy runner (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

View by Sandstein

I'm not involved in the discussion about "Buffy", but I disagree with Jclemens. We use the full name in the lead of real biographies because this is the conventional place to put the "biographical core data": full name(s), dates of birth and death, nationality. But articles about fictional characters are not biographies, but descriptions of an aspect of a particular fictional work. If we treat and layout such articles like biographies, this gives our readers and editors the impression that we are indeed describing a "real" person, contrary to WP:WAF: "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself."

Since everything about such characters is fictional, their biographical core data does not have more inherent significance than any other aspect of the character, and its placement in the article should reflect that. Consequently, if a character's middle name is not regularly used in the work to identify them, it should be mentioned wherever relevant in the article body ("in the n-th episode, her middle name was given as ...") or omitted altogether if it is a too trivial detail (such as with other aspects of a character which are mentioned once in passing in the work, e.g. their favorite food).

Users endorsing this view

1. As author,  Sandstein  08:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes, this seems a sensible approach. Buffy is not a person, Buffy is a fictional creation by Joss Whedon. There is a different approach to writing about an aspect of a creative work than there is writing about a real person. Various things do not apply to fictional characters, such as the BLP policy. When we start dealing with fictional characters as though they are real, we are slipping out of appropriate perspective. Using a name of a character in the lead sentence that is not the character's usual name is misleading. I would assume from the lead of Martin Keamy that the character's name is First Sergeant Martin Christopher Keamy, which apparently it is not - the character's name is Martin Keamy. I feel it is more helpful and useful to the reader to provide appropriate, rather than misleading, information. If at some point it is useful to tell the reader that the character has a certain middle or alternative name, then do so. I checked Martin Keamy, and the name Christopher is not explained or sourced. It is given in the lead sentence and in the info box, and that is it. It is a puzzling anomaly of articles on fictional characters that the middle name is used in the lead, and I welcome this RfC on the matter. SilkTork *^YES! 22:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
3. First, editors need to realize that these are fictional characters and part of writing about fiction is that we don't treat them like they are real people. The fact that a character's "middle name" was first introduced 3 seasons later, and only mentioned once after that initial acknowledgement means that it clearly isn't relevant to understand the character as a whole. Secondly, in the case of Buffy, you have to understand that you're dealing with a character that crosses multiple mediums. She was first created for film, where her only name was "Buffy" - no middle or last name. It was not until the TV show that she received a last name, and the middle name wasn't even provided until 3 seasons later (and then immediately ignored for another 3 seasons when it is mentioned again). I would actually argue that some of the featured articles need to be re-evaluated (not for FA status mind you) on their lead in sentences and whether those names are common knowledge, or even commonly used for the characters. Where does such trivial mentionings end? Does it end with street addresses, favorite colors, or what?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
4. My preference is, specifically, to identify a character in the lead as "Common Name X (full name given as Full Name Y)", since the common name is radically more important than the so-called "real" name, since fictional characters are not real. Given that Buffy always is referred to as Buffy and never as Summers, we already selectively ignore WP:LASTNAME for fictional characters. Nifboy (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
5. While I don't have a strong feeling about the Buffy issue described above, I think that Sandstein has it right. Fictional character pages are not biographies, but rather descriptions of an element of a fictional work or series, and formatting them like biographies confuses the issue. It's not that readers will be confused but that formatting and presentation should adhere appropriate perspective as much as article content. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
6. It is inappropriate to compare a fictional character to a living person. When we write about articles about living persons, they are biographies. When we write articles about fictional characters, they are not biographies. Part of a fictional character's article may provide an in-universe biographical section, but the rest of the article discusses the creative background of that character. We do not treat a fictional character as a human being. In the opening sentence, the most common name of the fictional character should be used; a distinction from a living person must be made. In-universe detail is supposed to be reasonably contained as context for the creative background of a fictional character, and a so-called full name in the opening sentence is an escape from that containment. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Treating characters in works of fiction as if they are real people adopts a distinct POV not widely shared in academic treatments of characters. The form in which the name is most-commonly known ought to be the criterion for how a name should appear in these cases, in my opinion. DionysosProteus (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Clearly there can be no such thing as a biography of a fictional character. Characters appearing in a work of fiction rarely have a full life account. For editors to confuse fiction with real life demonstrates to me the appalling state of education today. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Those before me say it well, but articles about fictional characters are not biographies, and details like middle names mentioned once in passing are the very definition of trivia. A fictional character article should be more like an article on a topic, like a toaster, rather than a person. Unfortunately, a great number of fictional character articles seem to be created and "maintained" by fans with a loose understanding of policy and guidelines, giving the general impression that they are supposed to be in-universe bio articles consisting of plot summary only (see Nikki Newman). They are not. Look at an actual Featured Article like Pauline Fowler or Jack Sparrow. — TAnthony^Talk 22:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
10. I agree that those preceding have hit the high points - an article about a character in a work of fiction is not a biography, regardless of how it is dressed up. Such articles cover an element in a work of fiction, most times limited to that work, to treat that element as a real person blurs the line between writing what should be an encyclopedic article and writing what can become fan fiction. - J Greb (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Agreed. A real person's full name is included in part to cement the reference, a consideration that does not obtain with fictional characters. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Agree. The Sideshow Bob example given above is quite jarring. I would greatly prefer that the revelation of the full name be given more or less naturally, whenever the author(s) reveal it. These full name revelations are often a sign that the treatment of the character has deepened. For example, Plankton in SpongeBob SquarePants is hilariously revealed to be named Sheldon J. Plankton in the third season of the show, and if there was a full article on him, I would expect to read about this in chronological order. It's better for all concerned, as it allows the reader to get a firmer understanding of the development of the character. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Agree. Real people have actual names that need cross references and may well be needed in future disambiguation--almost everyone with a middle name or initial is referred to both with and without that name. This is not true of fictional characters--in many or most cases, the middle name is just part of the totally inconsequential background. Fiction is fiction, and is written about as such. There will be exceptions, such as people who appear in both fictions and the RW, or people where the middle names are actually significant in the fiction, but these will be rare, except where different members of a family in a fiction have the same first and last names--there may be circumstances where neither form is really preferred, and the response here is that it does not make much difference. DGG ( talk )`
14. Agree. Many articles already have problems with a cursory glance being unable to confirm that they are fiction or nonfiction based; treating the encyclopaedia as if fictional and nonfictional persons' names had equal relevance and weight would exaggerate this problem. — Chromancer^talk/_cont 23:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Agree. The correct way to describe fictional characters is from a real world perspective, rather than to construct a fictography. To do otherwise is not to recognise that the "biography" of a fictional character is a literary trope known as a metonymy, which is a genre for writing fiction, not encyclopaedic articles that are based in the real world. For contributors to employ fictography to write articles it is a form of original research, for it is not supported by the primary source (i.e. the Plot (narrative)). The idea that trivial detail such as middle name should appear anywhere is ridiculous. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
16. I'm torn but Sandstein's view allows for case-by-case decisions. I'd expect a single first and last name in the lead for any character, even if one of the names is not used very often (e.g. Robert Chase not "Chase"). Middle names or nicknames should only be mentioned if they aren't just a gimmick (e.g. James "Sawyer" Ford). But starting articles with Pippilotta Delicatessa Windowshade Mackrelmint Ephraim's Daughter Longstocking is just ridiculous, even though the full name should be mentioned somewhere in the article, IMO. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Agree. Main title headers for articles delineating fictional characters should reflect the form by which the characters are most frequently referenced. All alternative names for those characters should be handled via redirects. Gilligan's Island characters, The Skipper and The Professor (Gilligan's Island) are exclusively known by those appellations, although once or twice, in news reports heard within their fictional universe, they were named as Jonas Grumby and Roy Hinkley, respectively, with both names currently serving as redirects. Various fictional characters, in fact, have no stated given names and are known solely by the limited appellations assigned to their identities. Inspector Henderson, Inspector Lewis or Sergeant Hathaway are primarily known as such and, although at some point in time, have been briefly identified as having a given name, those given names should not be part of the main title header. Readers who feel the need to type: Inspector William Henderson, Inspector Robbie Lewis or James Hathaway have that option via those redirects. In the case of Star Trek's Captain Kirk, users preferring James Kirk, James T. Kirk, James Tiberius Kirk, Captain James Kirk or Captain James T. Kirk have similar options regarding those redirects (as of this writing, the article is at "James T. Kirk", rather than "Captain Kirk").—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
18. Agree. Use the most common name of the character in such lists. If we require the most correct name, people will go out of there way to find a 1 second clip from 150 episodes where the character's middle name was briefly on screen on a blurred handwritten form and assert it to be that. Fiction has be treated out-of-universe, this is one way to do that. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
19. Agreed. Fictional characters are not real people, and should not be treated as such; WP:NAMES does not apply to them (and nor does the rest of this MoS page). Articles on fictional people should not be written in the same manner as real-world biographies; doing so is misleading to the reader, confusing fiction and fact and giving the impression that the article is dealing with a real person. Robofish (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
20. Per all above, esp. TAnthony, DGG. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
21. As pointed out by others: fictional characters have fictional biographies and should not be confused with actual biographies. The usage in Sideshow Bob is an obvious case of cruft given undue weight. Peter ^Isotalo 00:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
22. Fictional characters should not be treated as real people. I'm having trouble finding any cogent argument for doing so in the support for Jclemens's proposal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Slippery slope arguments aside, this RfC is intentionally narrowly focused to focus on 1) name elements, specifically middle names, but conceivably covering anything specified in the WP:NAMES MOS, 2) of fictional characters, 3) which are sourced appropriately--which, for a fictional character would generally be a primary fictional source. Discussions of favorite foods or colors are not covered by NAMES, and the raising of non-name issues by those not endorsing applying NAMES to fictional characters is a straw man argument. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What's interesting is the fact that most people supporting the use of WP:NAMES in fictional character articles also believe that these articles are biographies. They are not biographies. By definition, a biography is an account of someone's life. These articles do not recount the so-called "lives" of these fictional characters. Only a small section recounts any "life"; the rest of the article is about what went into creating those characters and how they were received by the public. These characters are not real, and the articles are not biographies of their fictional lives. That is an incorrect notion. Biographies are what you find on Wikia for these fictional characters, which are written from a perspective that they are real.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the discussion should be what the Wikipedia wishes to achieve. If it is also to be a reference for fictional characters, following the WP:Names guideline makes sense. For example Homer J. Simpson is referred to in his article as Homer Jay Simpson. The fact that fictional characters have their own "biographies" is something that I find amusing, but the Manual of Style, as I have been reliably informed, encourages consistency within Wikipedia. So if fictional characters were to have their own articles, it would make sense that they are structured according to the same guidelines as for living persons. This would also mean that a seperate guideline for fictional characters could be avoided and the Wikipedia would remain consistent. The fact that articles on fictional characters are not "biographies" because the character is fictional, is not strictly true. Many fictional characters develop over the years, although they sometimes remain of the same age. Sometimes they are played by different (female) actors or have different voice actors. There are people that find that interesting. The question should be: "What does Wikipedia want?" The fact that there is already an enormous section on "The Simpsons" suggests that both Wikipedia and contributors think this is important. Maybe even more important than the living (or those who should be remembered). Fictional characters are often part of modern culture, the fact that they are not real, are parodies of society or just plain fantasy figures, makes no difference in my opinion. But if someone were to ask my what Buffy's real name is, I would like to be able to tell them that it is not Vampire slayer, but that she is called Buffy Ann Summers, just like her mother is called Joyce and not just Mrs. Summers. In "Happy Days" The Fonz is actually called Arthur Herbert Fonzarelli (but his real name is Henry Winkler should there be any confusion) but has many nicknames. The Wikipedia could sort that confusion. Just like in real life where Anthony Head is usually credited as Anthony Head but in Buffy as Anthony Stewart Head (which is his full name). Is it important? Probably not. --JHvW (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If they are to be encyclopedic, why would you treat them as if they were real and write their pages like an actual biography? If someone asked you what Buffy's real name was and you said "Buffy Ann Summers", I'd have to follow that with "if you're speaking directly about the TV series". That is not her name in the film, the original source of her creation. If a full name is important to understanding the character, then it should be mentioned but the start of an article should be based on how a character is commonly known. Clearly, what Wikipedia wants are fictional character articles written from the perspective of an out-of-universe context (i.e., not treating them like they are real people and thus not following the same guidelines as BIO). That is self-evident from all of the reviewed character articles (i.e. community consensus is that they are not treated in the same way we treat living person articles). Their "biography" is merely a summary of their storyline in a show, film, or novel. Why would you treat one specific aspect about them in a different context than you are treating the rest of them? When you write their "biography" section, you don't write it like they actually did it in real life (WP:INUNIVERSE). You note what they did in a specific book, film, or TV episode (e.g., In "A Hero Sits Next Door", Peter Griffin meets Joe Swanson). Why would you treat some minute detail about the character (e.g., a full name) if it's something that isn't a significant part of their history. Homer Simpson is Homer Simpson. He isn't known commonly as Homer J. (or Jay) Simpson, and it's not something stated regularly on the series. On the other hand, "James Tiberius Kirk" is something the character is commonly known as, and something significant to that character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not that I disagree with you, but my point is that there has to be one style for these characters. Making a seperate style guide is fine by me, but it also means that the Wikipedia will sometimes not be able to give an answer. You probably do not care that Mickey Mouse was a character that was known as "Steamboat Willie" (the third animated short featuring Mickey Mouse by Disney), I do not even know why I know this, but there are people that find that interesting. And I dont believe you are correct about Homer Simpson. Many afficionado's will know that he is called Homer J. Simpson. We can only guess why the J. was converted to Jay, but it happened. And I agree, that if there is a difference between the series and the film, that should also be mentioned (another issue to be resolved). And there are of course continuity errors. David Duchovny onces states that even his parents called him Mulder in The X-Files. Then his parents show up and they call him Fox. There is also a mention that his name is actually Fox William Mulder. Is this important? Probably not. Do I care? No. But an encyclopedia, as I have been reliably informed is not about caring but about fact. And it is a fact that Homer Simpson is actually called Homer Jay Simpson, just as it is a fact that Mulder's name is actually Fox William Mulder. Do I care? No. But the Wikipedia has asked what should be in the style guide. This is my opinion, we obviously do not agree, let's agree to disagree. --JHvW (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Afficionados do not equal average reader, and Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the average reader and not for experts. Is it a fact that Homer is called Homer J. Simpson. Yes and no. It's a fact that in some episode(s) they identified his name as such, but is that what he is really known as? Do characters regularly mention his middle name, or is it something that's only ever been mentioned a handful of times in a series that is 400 episodes long? For the most part, Homer is just called "Homer Simpson" when you read about him more than "Homer J. Simpson". Compare 2.9 million hits to 295k hits in Google Web, 3 hits to 295 hits in Google News, 14k hits to 182 hits in Google Books. Now, notice how close the numbers are for Captain Kirk's middle name and sans middle name: 414k hits to 504k hits on Google Web. That's pretty close, and places a higher correlation between the common usage of the names in discussion. It's not to say that some people don't call Homer "Homer J. Simpson" - because there are people that recognize canon and try and use it when discussion characters. But the fact remains that in a disproportionate number, most do not refer to his middle name because it was a trivial mentioning for the character that is not commonly used even on the show. In the case of Buffy, her middle name has only ever been mentioned 2 times in a 7 season, 130+ episode series (and it wasn't even first identified until season 3). That's largely insignificant for the character. People are trying to place undue weight on insignificant facts. You have to weigh each aspect and for most characters their "middle name" is nothing more than a trivial detail writers put into a story to make the character seem more real. Maybe it's nice to note it somewhere, but as far as introducing a character in a page we should not treat them like they are real and assume that just because someone gave them a middle name years later that it somehow retcons their primary existance. In your example about Mickey Mouse, the primary existence is "Mickey Mouse". It would be good to point out that he started out as "Steamboat Willie", but we shouldn't lead his article with that name just because it's his "real" name. For Buffy, her primary existence is "Buffy Summers". Nothing more, nothing less. Someone retconned a middle name in. That doesn't change the fact that before season 3 she was merely "Buffy Summers" and following the season three premiere, she was merely "Buffy Summers" - never to be called "Buffy Anne Summers" again in the existence of the show (the second mentioning was on a gravestone and used more for continuity since they gave her a middle name).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have already been reprimanded for discussing names in the Wikipedia, often citing arguments as you do. This has been a pleasant discussion. We do not seem to agree. So I will leave it at this. --JHvW (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(Note the indent level--this is jumping up a big, long ways) What is also interesting is that most of our "biographies" of living people are not themselves biographies in any meaningful sense: They pick up on things that meet V, but unless a person has already had a biography published in some meaningful form already, that leaves out a ton of material. I think the difference between what we cover of fictional characters and what we cover of living people notable in certain contexts is not as different as you make it out to be, Bignole. Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So, the primary information in a living person's page is how they were created, their personality characteristics, how well those living people were portrayed by other living people, and how their storylines were critiqued?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the problems with biographies of living persons (or those who have recently deceased). It would be very hard to write a good biography about Cleopatra, for example. But I do not think that there will be an argument about her place in history. But using sources that the Wikipedia (or some of it's editors) find unreliable but are used (for example the place of someone in a community) will be deleted. The great thing about fictional characters is that they are usually well documented. If the current MoS would be used, Homer Simpson would be referred to as Homer Jay Simpson in the opening of the "biography" and in the article could be explained in which episodes this is actually used. For the rest of the article he would be referred to as Simpson. In the opening of the article it could also be explained that his wife usually calls him Homey, his children refer to him as dad (which maybe a little superfluous) or variations on Homer. This would make an article complete, although some contributors or those who reference the Wikipedia might feel there is a bit to much detail. But that is a sentiment and the Wikipedia deals with fact. --JHvW (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The opening of the "biography" would be where you find the plot info. The opening of the article itself is not the opening of a "biography". These articles do not start with "Homer Jay Simpson (1920 - present) is a nuclear plant worker....". That would be the start of a biography, and that isn't how fictional character articles start. They are simply "Character X is a fictional character is Y series". Thus, if you're introducing a character as an overall thing, then it should be with his commonly used name. If you, later, say "He is formally known as Homer Jay Simpson" in some plot section that's a different story.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It would make sense to have an article start by stating that the article is about a fictional character, just to make things clear. But I can not help feeling that you agree that at some point mention might be made of the full name, referencing the source. This would be the same as with real persons. If artists change their name that is usually mentioned and (if known) at what point. Elton John is consistently referred to as John, although he was born under a different name. If an artist (like for example Bono) does not change his name but is generally known under that name, that would be the name in the article. If a person is attributted a title by which that person is known, the MoS states that the person should be known by that title after it is granted. Before that time the person should be known by the usual name before the title. The MoS states that Robert Dudley was known as Dudley before he was given the title of Earl of Leicester. After he was given this title, he was known as Leicester. So an article on Homer Simpson could start (and this is meant as an example): Homer Simpson is a fictional character in the long running cartoon series "The Simpsons". His full name (it is learned in the series) is Homer Jay Simpson. Another could be: James Bond is a fictional character created by Ian Fleming. After which the subject can be expanded. The way the subject is expanded could be in the styleguide or left up to the editors, as long as it is consistent within the article. This automatically solves the problem of fictional characters playing fictional characters within a given setting. An example could be Galaxy Quest. This is a film about actors that used to play in a series. So there are the actors, their fictional stage names and the names of their characters in the fictional series. So if it is uncovered that Bones Mccoy, does have a first name, there are people who wish that would be mentioned. So the article could state: Bones McCoy is a fictional character in the series "StarTrek". His full name is Leonard H. McCoy, but in the series is generally referred to as Bones or Doctor. --JHvW (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never said I don't agree with mentioning what a full name would be (for appropriate characters...as some it would truly be irrelevant), but that I don't agree with including it in the lead sentence if it actually isn't a staple of that character. The "T" or "Tiberius" for "James T. Kirk" has been a huge staple of that character for decades. The "Anne" in "Buffy Anne Summers" has only ever been mentioned twice, and the second time was a passing mentioning. In those two cases, I would argue that Kirk deserves full treatment in the lead, while Buffy does not. With your example with Homer, I would probably agree with, but not as the second sentence because the first couple of sentences should be strictly OOU information (fictional character in what series, who created him, who voices/portrays, and probably first appearance. After that, you get into the summarized "biography" info in the lead (i.e. explaining basic plot information). That is where I would say, "Homer's full name is given as 'Homer Jay Simpson' in the series" -- or however you wish to word it. I like your Dr. McCoy example as well, because it's clear that although he has a full name, he is primarily referred to as just "Bones", or "Doctor". I just feel that since that is plot based info beyond common usage, it needs to be with the other plot based info.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As this will be my last remark, I think I am right in concluding that using of the MoS would be acceptable with one exception. The title should contain a leader stating the usual name i.e. Homer Simpson. And that in the article a section, let's say Names, should be included for a disussion about names used for that character. It is inevitable that this section will be edited, but this will not affect the article, as a casual reader wil skip over this section. To validate this point I have also done a check on real people. Homer goes to the Greek philosopher and not the cartoon character. Fortunately Tito goes directly to Josip Broz Tito (although he adopted this name, he is generally known as "Tito") and not to a disambiguation page on the use of the name Tito (although I would find that acceptable) and certainly not to Tito Jackson. --JHvW (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We can readily agree, I think, that as a significant element of many forms of fiction a character is important enough to warrant treatment as a separate article in Wikipedia. We disagree, however, on how that element should be understood. It does not follow (re: JHvW's first comment above) from the importance of the element that Wikipedia:Names should apply, since this conclusion adopts a particular and partial point-of-view towards this element of fictional works--it adopts the fallacy of treating a representation as if it is a reality. A representation is not the same as a reality. It is not simply that a representation has the same form embodied in a different substance, as the arguments for WP:Names above assume (i.e., that a person and a representation of a person have the same set of internal relationships, the one embodied in the matter of reality, the other in the material of fiction). On the contrary, there is no homology. In certain historically and culturally specific forms and modes of fiction, a representation produces the illusion of being the same thing as a person; but this illusion is not universal. Many fictional forms and modes exploit precisely the gap and difference that arises from the non-homology. In other words, not all uses of characters produce the illusion of biographical substantiality on which the arguments above are based. To insist that characters are treated in this way is to adopt a partial point of view on the nature of characters that is not shared either (1) with a great many critical treatments of characters (with the exception of the Romanticism of someone like A. C. Bradley, for example) or (2) with a great many works of fiction from a range of historical and cultural traditions that do not share the assumptions of the 19th-century realism of the West. Consistency in Wikipedia demands that "character" is treated in a manner consistent with the other 'elements' of fiction, not with people. The development of a character over a number of episodes or different works of fiction in no way constitutes a "life" or the conditions of possibility for a "biography." Take Sideshow Bob, for example. Part of the meanings that we understand in watching him in an episode of The Simpsons turn precisely on the understanding that develops from our ability to hold simulteneously the different levels that we perceive as arising from the actor Kelsey Grammer's act of portrayal and its intertextual relationships with other representations (principally Fraiser). These dimensions are all dimensions of the "character" Sideshow Bob. In other words, it is only possible to recognise these dynamics--which clearly are highly significant and arise not merely from a specific audience member's interpretation but which are presupposed and incorporated into the structure and meaning of the representation by the show's creative team, since to 'not get' them is to miss an important part of the character--if we do not insist on the fallacy of mistaking a representation of a person for a person. This is only one example of the many ways in which an encyclopedic treatment of a character and that of a person differ radically and fundamentally. No one here is arguing that characters are not important. We are arguing about how we understand those important elements. To argue, on the basis of their importance, that a biographical treatment necessarily follows is to miss the point of the objections. We are not arguing that an article should not include the information that JHvW and others identify; we are arguing about the consequences of establishing a policy about Wikipedia's treatment of elements of fiction that gives undue weight to a fallacy that is not universally held--in other words, this information should appear in the article, but not in a biographical treatment that violates NPOV and UNDUE. The relevant criterion should be the form in which the character's name is most commonly known, just as it is for any other element of the fiction that might spawn its own, independent article. The most commonly known form is the "fact" that the article ought to present. Alternatives, such as those known by afficionados, variations in terms of address by other characters, etc., are most appropriately detailed further on in the article, in line with UNDUE. Where, exactly, in the article these other details should appear ought to be determined by means of an assessment of the relative importance of these details, in line with UNDUE (as Bignole's examples of James T Kirk and Buffy illustrate). If a character is regularly identified by means of an alternative to the most common form, then an argument could be made for its inclusion in the opening paragraph. If it is an alternative mentioned rarely, then it consistutes trivia and ought to be given a position in the article commensurate with that triviality. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you've nailed it. Characters are identified by common names - the name that is commonly or rutinely associated with the character. In some cases that is going to be a full, proper name. In others, especially in serialized fiction, the full, proper name may be or have been revealed over time only to be retained as what amounts to "fan knowledge" - those who were paying attention know it, but every one continues to use the "common name". While Wikipedia articles should include the full names as part of the character's development in the works, if it isn't the common name, the point of inclusion should not be the lead section. - J Greb (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• What's clear to me about this is that there appear to be two camps: One prefers a straightforward guideline, the other prefers a case-by-case, let-us-all-contemplatively-navel-gaze-and-decide-what-we-think-consensus-is-about-the-importance-of-names approach. The latter group has been guilty of good faith textwalling: to the first group, my proposal is immediately obviously the right answer. To the second group, some variation of Sandstein's appeals more... but none of them can resist adding their own twist or rationale to it. I find this bit fascinating, and perversely, the diversity in supporters seems to demonstrate that if there is a single consensus, (although we're clearly headed for a no consensus close here) it would be for my proposal. Jclemens (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • By that assessment, you'd have to remove the people "siding" with your viewpoint that assume we write fictional character biographies. I don't know how many times I read "Agree, because it's a biography". It isn't a biography. WP:WAF is clear on that, and no featured, GA, or even basic well written character article is written like a biography. Not even the section that details their plot related information is written like a biography. We don't include birthdays or death days, which would be just as canon as a middle name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Nor is this heading for a "no consensus close"; there's a very straightforward argument against treating character articles as biographies and it enjoys broad support. That there are a variety of different "twists" on Sandstein's support is because it's right on so many levels. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Since you claim you can't understand the reasoning, let me spell it out for you: The first sentence of the lead is the place to find middle names in Wikipedia. It's that way for real people, who don't have infoboxes, and almost all of the early !voters agree. The fact that several editors are more focused on their arcane and self-referential rules for fictional elements, which give more weight to Wikipedia editors than making things clear and easy for readers, doesn't overcome the number of editors arguing for simple and clear expectations. If the people opposed to a style guideline change need to spill lots of ink about it, it's clear that that position is no the ambiguous one that needs justification. Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
        • What fictional characters or real people do not have an infobox? You claim that you find those "middle names" in the lead for people that don't have an infobox. Every "real" person that I come across, and fictional character that I come across, tend to have infoboxes. If that's your argument, then there is no real argument. Buffy has an infobox. So does just about every fictional character with their own article. If they don't, it's probably because the page is recently created and no one has put one in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Are infoboxes now MOS-required? Lead sentences are de facto required: any article without one gets speedied. :-) If you want to look at moving fictional character and real person full names, together, from the first sentence of the lead into an infobox, by all means feel free to propose that. I wouldn't be opposed, since I'm after consistency. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
            • I'll say it again (If you read way above you'll see that I've said this before), I've never been completely against the inclusion of full names, just not in the lead sentence unless it's something they are primarily known as (example always being James T. Kirk). Infoboxes are not "required", but they are kind of always present regardless. If people feel that the "middle name" or some other variation of a character's name is important to mention (not all are important), then I would be fine with either a mentioning in the infobox or in the plot section of the article (the latter is where context can be provided).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course you've said it, but how does what you propose achieve consistency throughout Wikipedia? As it stands now, the first sentence of the lead is the most consistent place for them to go. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • Oh, I understand your position very well; I just disagree with it, as do most editors, including the vast majority of those who don't share your general viewpoint on Wikipedia's coverage of fiction. You can continue to characterise your position as "clear" and the opposition's as "complicated" and "ambiguous" if you want, but when the opposition's argument in its entirety can be boiled down to "articles should take a real-world perspective and not assign undue weight to plot content by treating fictional character articles as biographies" I don't think you're going to convince many people. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It brings me back to my original statement to begin this whole that, that this is not a BIO or NAMES issues, because those deal with real people (real people are born with their "true" names from birth - not true with fictional characters). This is an MOS issue, and something that WAF needs to have addressed as to where, when appropriate, this type of info needs to be placed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So I'll reiterate mine: Readers don't care whether article describes a fictional or real person. They want consistency, and we should give it to them. Pick one place where full names go for everything that has a full name--people or fictional characters. I don't really care which it is. It should be consistent, and the lack of consistency is the real disservice to our readers. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, we can pick a place....but the place to discuss said location is not here. It is as WP:WAF, which details how to write about fiction. This is the page for writing about real people.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So if WAF decides that real people's middle names should be in infoboxes, that will be normative for here? Really? I'm not convinced this is the wrong venue, since I expect that Wikipedia covers at least as many real people, living and dead, as fictional people. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, WAF wouldn't dictate regarding real world subjects. Just like a manual for style for articles on real world subjects should not be applied to articles about elements in works of fiction. And that's where the friction is coming in - this MoS is tailored to real people, a topic that is unavoidably rooted in the real world. That real world context includes, if known, a persons 1) full birth name, 2) full legal name, 3) and, if applicable, routinely used "stage names". Including that in the lead establishes part of the real world context for the article. For characters - elements in works of fiction - the real world context is what the character is commonly called. That may or may not be what is revealed as the character's full name. Establishing the real world context for the character is done with that common name or names (super heroes for example). The remaining names the character has in the work can, in most cases should be covered in sections on the development of the character and a plot summary of the character.

Attempting to use this MoS to add the full "cannon" name of a character that is different from what the character is commonly known as feels like an attempt to blur the line between the in universe continuity of the work of fiction and the real world. To present a piece of intellectual property as though it were a real person.

- J Greb (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Challenge: Academic titles

I should like to challenge the current guidance (and its implementation) on academic titles.

When someone has earned (let's say) a doctorate, it is generally considered polite to use it in reference to them unless/until told otherwise. Actually, there are many cases in which "Prof Dawkins" (for instance) is the most common way to refer to someone. In this edit, my sourced (on their own pages methinks) inclusion of bishops' use of the Dr title has been removed due to the current guidelines. Now, since said men officially use their doctorates in public life (c.f. their websites etc.), why should Wikipedia decide otherwise?

Also, on the inclusion of academic postnominals: when we can source said postnominals, why can they not be noted as part of a subject's full and proper style, for instance in their infobox? I don't understand the rationale for purging the 'paedia of reference to these...

I wish to challenge these practices (and, if I must, the concerned guidelines) DBD 15:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the names of articles, or mention inside of articles? I have no problem with using titles, etc. in an infobox. As far as article names, however, if/when a person earns a new title or postnominal, or even loses one, would we then have to rename the article about them? My preference is to use the person's legal name (I don't even like the inclusion of nicknames such as "Lefty" in titles). --Auntof6 (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look in any other encyclopaedia or reference works such as Who's Who, you will see that they too generally do not use academic titles. It is rather too easy to claim you have a doctorate when you do not have (or only have an honorary doctorate, for example, as do most of the bishops on your list) - it's simply easier not to use them at all. In addition, usage is wildly different from one country to another. A perfect example is the use of "Dr" for medical doctors - in the USA this means the individual has an MD; in the UK it is usually an honorary title, since few British doctors have MDs (although they have trained just as long - it's merely a difference in the academic title and degree system). As for being polite, it's usually polite to address someone as Mr, Mrs, Ms etc as well, but we don't and shouldn't do it in encyclopaedias. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I am talking about within articles. I do not believe that titling articles with Dr or PhD in is a good idea at all.

It is perfectly acceptable to use an honorary doctorate (or not to, in fact). I agree that usage differs between countries — perhaps we have hit upon an improvement which could be made in the guidelines — that, where local custom dictates, these titles may be used. For instance, we refer to Davies in prose after we have first referred to Alan Davies, but often refer to Dr Williams after referring to Rowan Williams, so that would be common UK usage within a British article.

I propose something to the effect of "where local custom dictates, sparing usage of academic title and one note of postnominal letters may be used to establish a subject's full and proper style" What say we? DBD 16:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it. It tends to push a POV (that this is a person whose additional education or position makes him more worthy of respect than the average person). It's also an uncommon style for most modern writers. (NB that it's "Obama", not "President Obama", in almost every news article, especially after the first mention) Local style is a poor standard, since there's no clean way to determine who counts as "local". (If I write an article about a person in another country, is it my local style, or his, that matters?)

If you get tired of plain "Williams", then you can vary your prose by substituting "the archbishop" for his name in suitably relevant sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that any POV would be served by this addition, but if it were, it would only be a slight skew, and it would only be toward the custom of the place local to the subject (on Wikipedia, it is always the subject's locality which matters, never the editor's). I'm not "getting tired" of anything — it's just about proper styling and noting the full facts about the person (as we should in their article). I'm not saying we should litter every article with academic titles, merely that article should note (and maybe use sparingly) academic titles and letters where appropriate to the subject and his locality. DBD 15:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll at MOSNUM concerning opening dates

Poll currently taking place here --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Starting a sentence with a surname beginning with a lowercase letter

As I understand it, we should remove 'Dr.' from in front of the name of the subject, so at Pia de Solenni we have someone whose surname is de Solenni - so is it ok to start a sentence with 'de Solenni'? I presume it must be, but just checking. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I would capitalize it (or reword it to avoid the problem).--Kotniski (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In American English, you would normally capitalize it. I don't know if other variants do the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Usually capitalised at the start of a sentence even in the original language. It doesn't need capitalising within a sentence, but it does at the beginning. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, capitalize it if it occurs at the start of a sentence. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:INITIAL

WP:INITIAL encourages the addition of absurdly lengthy strings: [10] that are of no practical benefit. At the very least, there should be some sort of limit. DrKiernan (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have also already started a discussion at Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Post-nominal letters.By the way, I do not find the the addition an absurdly lengthy string. And your opinion is POV and what is lengthy is quite arbitrary. With regards, Diodecimus (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If all these abbreviations are actually used then they should be included. However, I have to say that I'm not convinced that all, or even most, of these abbreviations are usually used as postnominal letters. All his British and Commonwealth orders and decorations should be included, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a better solution, for royals, is to keep the styles and honors in the styles and honors section at the bottom of the article, as we do for honorific prefixes. That way the lead isn't interrupted or cumbersome and the article becomes more accessible. Unlike other holders of these honors, royals tend to have a large number of post-nominal letters that are of little individual importance. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:INITIAL - Post-nominal letters of a foreign honour

WP:INITIAL states the following: "Post-nominal letters should only be included when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated. Honours issued by other entities may be mentioned in the article, but generally should be omitted from the lead." This text is rather vague with descriptions as "closely associated" and "entities". Does this mean that post-nominal letters of honours from other countries can be included or should be omitted? What about if the person lived in that country for a long period, or even was born in that country from which he received the honour? Or if the person receives an honour from the Holy See and is a devout Roman Catholic Englishman? Include the post-nominal or not? Maybe the text has to be rewritten to make it clearer? Diodecimus (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Many many surnames

Please explain how WP:SURNAME is applicable in case of Janet Bragg: She began her life as Janet Harmon, she lived the last forty years of her life as Janet Bragg, but the decisive events of her life happened when she was Janet Waterford. I suspect that the text shouldn't jump from "Harmon did..." to "Waterdord did..." and let the reader solve the riddle ... but using the last (chronologically) surname for the events that had happened before she adopted this surname seems no good either. So how should she be called inside the article? East of Borschov 15:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of small postnoms

Some people seem to be using this template to make postnoms 85% font size (thus far, only in a tiny minority of articles). When changing it to make the font full-size, I have been accused of "corrupting" the template. The use of small postnominal letters, although occasionally seen, is not normal practice and I do not believe we should encourage their use on Wikipedia. I think our standard should be postnominals in normal-sized font and that if people wish to use this template (although, to be honest, I'm not sure of its point) it should be altered from 85% to 100%. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It would seem you were accused of corrupting the purpose of the template, which making it render letters at 100% does indeed do. The 85% size was an agreed-upon compromise between 100% and the 50% size that <small> code creates. A smaller than 100% size was desired because post-nominal letters at the head of an article are not priority information and a string of them can be quite unwieldy and difficult to run the eyes across, especially right at the opening of a page, or confusing in a list of people (see here and imagine all those post-noms at full size). The template works as is where consensus exists to use it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is possibly true when they are used in lists, as in the example you give (although frankly I see no value in their inclusion in lists in the first place). However, it should certainly not be used in article leads, as there is no consensus to do this. Who agreed this "compromise"? I can see no discussion in the appropriate places to create such a template or to apply it. If it should only be used "where consensus exists to use it" (which may only apply to the sort of lists you specify) then this should be made very clear in the template itself, as I have been told by one editor who uses it "Until the use of it is omitted, I’m going it to use it, and I do not see why not". Thus far its main usage seems to have been in Canadian articles (and, indeed, the template has been set up for Canadian postnoms) - is this something a group of Canadian editors have come up with? If so, it should not be in any way implied that a consensus has been reached for articles on anybody else. Indeed, since most Canadian governors-general until relatively recently were actually British and had as much if not more notability outside Canada than inside it, there is no consensus to use them on articles about these individuals either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Need guidelines for describing nationality of foreign born people

I'm interested in any guidelines for stating nationality of persons who immigrated at an early age, i.e. Sergey Brin, which is being contested. Note a few examples, although not all emigrated at an early age or before notability:

• Discovery.com
• Scientific American
• Encyclopedia Britannica
• Art Cyclopedia]

Whatever the guidelines for stating this, especially for children emigres, it would help to put it in this article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As with all things, we ought to follow what sources say, and if sources say different things, indicate that sources say different things. There are always differences between individual cases, so any attempt to lay down rules is probably going to lead to breaches of our core content policies, which say (in effect) that we can't invent our own truth.--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Phrase "Academy Award-winning" in article lead

It seems like a bit of puffery to include this phrase in the lead if the award is mentioned in the body of the article. I recall someone waging an edit campaign a year or so ago to clean these out; is there any current guideline? Thanks, CliffC (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It took some looking but I think that this Wikipedia:ACTOR#On-going projects.2Fto do lists is the spot that you are looking for. As I remember it there was a consensus to take awards out of the lead entirely due to both POV and edit warring problems - i.e. which awards merit mention and which don't. I also was under the impression that all awards were to be mentioned in the body of the article but the item in the link above states that they shouldn't be in the first sentence but could be mentioned later in the lead. I don't know when that was put in. As a wikignome I am not always up to date on the latest consensus. You may want to check with User:Erik who is the current coordinator of the WikiFilm project. I will leave him a note directing him to this discussion. I hope that this is of some help. MarnetteD | Talk 22:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the only coordinator! :P I'm just the one with too much time on his hands. While I work on the film side of things, we've avoided the use of "Academy Award-winning" in the lead sentence as explained at MOS:FILM#Lead section. It's avoided for the reason of puffery and lack of clarity. These arguments apply to actors' articles as well. In the lead sentence, we don't know what the actor won an Academy Award for, and it does sound promotional, like a trailer for a film that identifies the actors that were Academy Awards winners or nominees. Award wins and nominations are best presented after the lead sentence, where there is room for context. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems like a reasonable way to handle situations where it's plunked into the first sentence, which is what was bothering me. Best, CliffC (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Officeholder and Succession Templates

Currently we have Template:Infobox Officeholder which are used in infoboxes and the succession box templates (see Template:S-start for documentation) which are used at the foot of (mostly) biographical articles. There appear to be two problems. First, they largely duplicate information and secondly, in the case of officeholder infoboxes, they can lead to run-away infoboxes. An examples of this problem is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Balfour&oldid=394356281 . I would suggest that if we are to use officeholder infoboxes they should be limited to one or two of the subject's most significant offices (e.g. Prime Minister in the case of Balfour). Greenshed (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have worked to trim some {{Infobox Officeholder}}s that seemed to dominate small or mid-sized articles. My thinking is that it just looks odd to me to have boxes longer than the body. So if someone was, say, vice preisdent of the USA before being president, that might merit a mention in the infobox, but every minor office should be mentioned in the text, and then only in the infobox if something very notable (e.g. worth one or more paragraphs of text) happened while the person was in office. In particular, if they were just in an "acting" capacity until someone else was nominated or elected. Not clear to me where to draw the line with Balfour, but I do agree it should be cut. Perhaps, say, cabinet minister and above, or a guideline like: if the person holds both national and municipal or regional offices, only list the national ones? W Nowicki (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Family tree placement

I have been working on some political and business family bios and find that family trees with links provide a good way to visualize the relationships, taking advantage of the "web" nature of Wikipedia. Often a template can be used to put the tree on each article in the family. The question is where it goes. One thought is to consider it like a navigation template, and put at the end (probably just before the horizontal footer templates?). Or consider it more like a "see also" section, and put it between the body and references. That is what I would favor, I guess, and it seems more common. Another approach would be to split off the tree into, say, a separate article on the family as a whole, which has been done in a few cases. Maybe very notable families would get both a family article and nav template? I cannot find any guidelines anywhere. Anyone have strong opinions? W Nowicki (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Gender of roles

I've recently seen some changes from "actor" to "actress" in biogs, specifically Lalla Ward; my take is that feminine "diminutives" are now deprecated, and this is supported here. Whereas I doubt we can achieve policy, advice would be worthy of investigation. Comments welcome. Rodhullandemu 23:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you from past discussions that passions on this issue can become heated and that some editors will not be able to give up gender specific language. While I am on record as stating that it is time to move away from feminine "diminutives" others co not want to give them up. Flexibility in use of the terms has been the begrudging consensus up to now. It will be deprecated one day but I don't know how near or far that day is. Thanks for the research into this. MarnetteD | Talk 01:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I should have added that the Actor article has had sourced info about the deprecation of actress for a few years now. Also, as seen here Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language.5BR.5D Wikipedia has had guidelines regarding this for awhile. I am posting these for the record but I also know that they don't change editors minds very often. MarnetteD | Talk 01:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If we used period-specific language, what do RS'es call Ms. Ward most frequently? It would be anachronistic to call e.g., Vivien Leigh an actor, as the term was not generally applied to individual female thespians during her career. At the same time, it would be much more appropriate to call Kristen Bell an actor, given her contemporary career. Ms. Ward appears to fall in between the two. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Jclemens. Period specificity is one of the places that flexibility in use of the term was agreed upon. I would note that there is a slight flaw in the "time period" argument. When Jack Johnson was heavyweight champion of the world he was referred to by the "N" word. Most editors here would not advocate placing the term at various places in his article just because it was in general usage when he was alive. Having said that I am okay with continuing the flexibility in this situation that has been the consensus up to this point. MarnetteD | Talk 02:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not the same--an insult is not the same as a job title, even though both may be applied to a person. Just because Johnson was called a nigger (afraid of particular words, are we?) doesn't mean we should continue the usage in his article outside of relevant direct quotes, because any prominent African-American in his era would have been so insulted. Point being, we can cover Johnson without gratuitously repeating such insults, but we can't cover female thespians without deciding (or alternating...) between "actor" and "actress". Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is and it isn't. At the time reference for "Jack Johnson", there were two versions of the N-word in use. One was used as an slur, the other in the same manner as "Caucasian". Quoting a source written/printed in the period(s) mentioned, normally slurs would be sanitized. Not necessarily all the time since the derision might be the point of the section of the article, but those are few and far between. The terms not used in a disparaging manner are normally left as is in such quotes though.

In fresh prose or paraphrasing, current norms should be followed. If the current norm is "actor" then current writing should use it whether referring to Mel Gibson, Halie Berry, Mae West, or W.C. Fields. - J Greb (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)One oddity I have increasingly noticed and don't understand is that there seems to be a higher level of resistance to the gender neutral term of actor amongst our American editors. The USA has usually been at the leading edge of the PC movement, but suddenly, in this single topic, the European and British editors appear much more open to the use of actor for female exponents of the craft. The female thespians who are more likely to adopt 'actor' to describe themselves seem to be those with a higher level of involvement in stage work than roles in film and television eg Dame Diana Rigg, Helen Mirren, Felicity Kendal etc but I have also seen recent TV chat show interviews where film stars like Cher, Jennifer Aniston, Angelina Jolie etc have applied the term actor to themselves. It is obviously a growing trend and one that we should readily embrace and accept. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 12:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems presumptuous in the extreme for an editor to insist on their personal standard instead of the wishes of the player in question. Moreover, it's question-begging to assert that 'actress' is diminutive of 'actor', therefore it's a slur (see below). Usage is subject to changes in fashion. Good enough. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)--Ring Cinema (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to suggest that "actor" is commonly used to refer to women in either Britain or the US. I am British and I have rarely seen the term used to refer to a woman. The common term, whether one likes it or not, remains "actress". It is not a slur. It is not a "diminutive". It is merely the feminine version of the word, on a par with the masculine version. I have no doubt that one would be universally derided if one tried to use a masculine term for a woman in many other languages - why should a small mafia have taken it upon themselves to change perfectly standard usage in English? And why on earth should a femine term be seen as insulting or somehow "less" than a masculine term? That strikes me as insulting and patronising in itself. If a female actor is universally known to refer to herself as an "actor" then that is the term we should use for her; otherwise, "actress" is standard English and let's not try to pretend differently. It should certainly never be applied retrospectively to women in history who would never have dreamed of describing themselves as "actors". -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You're obviously not a Guardian reader then, their style guide mandates actor for both sexes in general, although actress is still used for eg "Best Actress at the Oscars, as that's the official title of the award. David Underdown (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I am not a Guardian reader. And the last time I looked, the Guardian was not the official arbiter of style in the United Kingdom or of the English language. It has a political bias, as do most newspapers. The Times, on the other hand, says that actress is acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely, the main reason why "actress" is still in widespread usage, while "aviatrix", for example, is not is simple. The roles played by performers in this field are defined by their sex. Occasionally male characters are played by actresses and vice versa, and this fact is in itself significant. The reason why "gender neutral" language has not caught on is that the profession of acting is inherently gender non-neutral. The terminological distinction is useful in this field. In others it is pointless. The same aircraft can be piloted by an "aviator" or an "aviatrix", so the different terminology tells us nothing about the profession. The same role cannot normally be played by an actor or an actress. But if an actress does play Hamlet, that's significant. Paul B (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Mesut Özil

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football‎ seems to be of the opinion that the opening paragraph of the Mesut Özil should not mention his Turkish heritage since it is not related to his notability as a football player. An editor has come and indicated that Özil was a dual citizen of both Germany and Turkey until 2007 (only a single source confirms this) and this editor cites some other information to insist on either the inclusion of his Turkish dual citizenship or to remove his German heritage from the opening paragraph. We could use some additional wisdom on this topic if not an official policy at Talk:Mesut Özil. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)