Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2016 archive

Honorifics in infoboxes

Honorific titles are allowed in the first mention and in the infobox, but it is unclear if honorific prefixes may be used in the infobox. The policy for honorific prefixes states: "In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article." The reason for this question is that recent edits ([1], [2]) to justices of the US Supreme Court added "The Honorable" using the honorific prefix parameter of the infobox. All of the infoboxes of the justices have "The Honorable" as an honorific above their name in the infobox. For comparison, I don't see "Her Majesty" (or whatever the correct honorific is) in the infobox of Elizabeth II, a featured article. AHeneen (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think these honorifics should be added. The infobox on a biography should be (1) about the person, i.e. the topic of the article, and (2) concise, i.e. just giving the basic facts about their life. It should not feature details that, usually, only relate to one of the offices they've held rather than them as a person. DrKay (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@DrKay and AHeneen: your comments above may well have a bearing on the ongoing discussion below, qv. Post-nominals "PC" for holders of prefix "Right Honourable". Please advise - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Post-nominals "PC" for holders of prefix "Right Honourable"

Discussion of 9-13 January 2016

User:Mabelina has been removing instances of the post-nominals "PC" (for membership in a Privy Council in all or many of the Commonwealth realms) from biographies for the apparent reason that "PC should not be used as a post-nom where Rt Hon is displayed as an honorific prefix." They have provided no source for this information, I have certainly never heard it before, and it goes against wide-spread practice in Wikipedia. I think the veracity of the claim should be settled before Mabelina does too much possible damage. Does anyone here know if "PC" and "Right Honourable" should never appear together is indeed the correct practice? Is it only in the UK, if anywhere at all? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC) @Miesianiacal: first of all, thank you for including me in your comments. Secondly, the reason for removing "PC" where "Rt Hon" is also displayed is quite simple: it is duplication (something which Wiki massively dislikes above all things, seemingly). JorisEnter and I have corresponded on this matter, in a most agreeable and informed manner, which hopefully Miesianiacal and others will look at before reaching any conclusion - Wiki MOS is a vast subject... Suffice to say, User talk:Miesianiacal's statement : "[They] (sic) have provided no source for this information, I have certainly never heard it before, and it goes against wide-spread practice in Wikipedia. I think the veracity of the claim should be settled before Mabelina does too much possible damage." is a wild accusation (& incorrect), & let me prove in a nutshell why...: qv: Don Foster, Baron Foster of Bath http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-foster-of-bath/214 - NB Don Foster is a Privy Counsellor & the UK Parliamentary website styles him properly as The Rt Hon The Lord Foster of Bath. Is it too much to ask for Miesianiacal to withdraw the attempted badmouthing? M Mabelina (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC) See Privy Council of the United Kingdom#Rights and privileges of members: for commoners, "PC" is not used with "Rt Hon"; however, it may be used for peers because they already hold styles with their peerages and so membership of the privy council is not otherwise indicated. DrKay (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC) @DrKay: - my point entirely. Who devised Wiki's script because it is incorrect? To deal with the very specific point of Rt Hon. + PC, where, in any official manual or reference book of note, is such "lingo" (for wont of any better terminology) used? It is not, so why has Wiki adopted it? Please comment as to what you make of: http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-foster-of-bath/214 re. The Rt Hon The Lord Foster of Bath - I use this example because he has no other appellations so there can be absolutely no complications in coming to the correct conclusion. Awaiting yours. M Mabelina (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC) PS. please let's attend to Wiki's MOS where necessary - thank you. Privy Council membership is a problematic situation for the Manual of Style. It is certainly true that the usual style in Britain is for Privy Counsellors to be given the honorific prefix 'The Right Honourable' with no postnominals; that does not apply to Peers because all peers under the rank of Marquess have the 'Right Honourable' prefix anyway, whether members of the Privy Council or not. The MOS problem is that a consensus was arrived at a long time ago (about a decade, if I remember) that 'The Right Honourable' should not be used as an honorific prefix in the lede of biographical articles. Hence it was decided, relatively informally, that Privy Council membership could be signified by the postnominal 'PC' in the lede. Then things became slightly more complicated by the fact that infoboxes were added, and they did include honorific prefixes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC) I have some recollection of Mabelina getting blocked for edit-warring over this issue. If I'm wrong, I'll apologise. If I'm right, then Mabelina should cool it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC) There's also the point that there is no one "correct" way of styling or describing people and their titles/honours etc. It depends on context and is to some extent a matter of presentational choice. Here on WP, clarity is key, and as pointed out, the Rt Hon/PC issue is confused in the case of peers. It's certainly not advisable for one editor to go around edit-warring over this relatively trivial issue. That same editor might also care to peruse other parts of the MOS relating to capitalisation and overlinking. These edits, for example, highlight the problem in that regard (and there are multiple similar ones, across multiple articles). Their odd changes and attempts to apparently copyedit articles require constant clean-up. N-HH talk/edits 11:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC) @Sam Blacketer: thank you for your explanation, which is helpful because it provides reason behind the situation Wiki now arrives at. It would of course appear that by having the temerity to raise the issue certain activists are lining up to have me blocked again - or should I not glean that? What to do? M Mabelina (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC) PS. I stated long ago that I thought it was more a problem of Infobox template design than anything else - if somebody could find this statement of mine, much obliged. Still doesn't give a clear route by way of solution, given the immediate hostility... However, I am here to discuss & make Wiki better informed (with a fair wind)... Best M Mabelina (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC) PPS. the latter two contributors make a good attempt at neatly swerving the point entirely, namely: http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-foster-of-bath/214 re. The Rt Hon The Lord Foster of Bath & choose to engage in the "dark arts" (you know what I mean) rather than actually answering the question. So as to reach "consensus", I defy User:N-HH & User:Nomoskedasticity to provide justification for Rt Hon. + PC being acceptable usage as is in question. RSVP. M Mabelina (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC) As anyone can see, I addressed the issue directly and in some detail in the first part of my comment (while also highlighting other problems with your editing). Part of my point was that there is no one correct way of presenting information and describing people (or indeed of addressing them, which is a different point of course anyway). So what pointing again to how they happen to be described on one site (the Parliament site) is, rather obviously one would have thought, hardly definitive proof of what should be done on another site, ie this one. It certainly doesn't justify constant disruptive editing. I and others have also very clearly explained the problem with peers who are members of the PC, which means that using Rt Hon on its own does not always clearly denote membership. The only "swerving" of the point here is by you. N-HH talk/edits 12:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC) @N-HH: NO, NO & thrice NO. I am not swerving any point. I have merely asked how to justify going against what the UK Parliament's website states online.. Would citing Burke's, Debrett's, Dod's, Vacher's, Whitaker's, Who's Who or any other recognised and authoritative publication help matters? What everyone can glean from this exchange is, that rightly or wrongly and I make no judgment here merely a statement of fact, the whole process of consensus and discussion is being hijacked and suppressed. Why is anyone's guess (or choice, as could be said). So why bother with substantive footnotes & references etc, if when one doesn't like what it says (qv. "So what pointing again to how they happen to be described on one site (the Parliament site) is, rather obviously one would have thought, hardly definitive proof of what should be done on another site, ie this one. It certainly doesn't justify constant disruptive editing"), you just ignore that & launch another broadside? Sounds more like anarchy to me... So there is something wrong with www.parliament.uk is there? Not sure this is a winning argument, but no doubt you might soon tell me again otherwise. M Mabelina (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC) I never said there was anything "wrong" per se with parliament.uk or indeed any other source, or the way any of them choose to present information. My comments so far have explained my argument quite clearly, as others' comments have theirs. I'm not going to keep repeating it so that you can respond with more non-sequiturs. As for consensus, you might have noticed that you seem to be pretty much on your own here. You're free of course to edit without regard for the MOS or the views of other contributors, but you can hardly be surprised if you find multiple other editors taking you to task as a result. N-HH talk/edits 14:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC) But they are not taking me to task, you are just attempting to abuse me. How else to put it? Please answer the question: in UK Parliament website it states very clearly - The Rt Hon The Lord Foster of Bath; how does that match up with Wiki's previous Infobox style? Please advise - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC) PS. What do YOU mean by I AM ON MY OWN. Are you part of some sort of collective then? PPS. maybe we need to go back to basics and remind you of the meaning of Wiki? Do you know what it means? And, in any event, this is getting extremely tiresome since you won't attend to the question. Hasta proxima M Mabelina (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC) I should be glad of one or two supportive comments. M Mabelina (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC) OK, avoiding all the more bizarre stuff in there, I'll answer the specific question you've just asked: it doesn't. The prevailing practice for WP infoboxes does not appear to follow parliament.uk, which has "The Rt Hon. The Lord X" for peers on the PC and "The Lord X" for those not, and there's no reason why it has to. Here, by contrast, peers such as Michael Dobbs and Sebastian Coe tend to have Right Honourable even though they are not on the Privy Council, on account presumably of them being peers/barons; peers such Clive Soley who are on the Privy Council tend to have both Right Honourable and PC to mark the distinction. Most peers are "The Right Honourable the Lord X" and some "The Right Honourable Lord X PC". That is a perfectly reasonable way of doing it, just as it would be perfectly reasonable to simply have the infobox say simply "Lord X" for all peers, with no postnominals at all, or to do what parliament.uk does. It's a choice, but it's a choice that seems to have been broadly made here. What you have been doing is randomly removing PC from individual page infoboxes, thus losing the distinction between peers on the PC and those who are not and introducing inconsistency in the way information is presented in the infobox. That has led you into conflict with other editors. If you find everyone disagreeing with you, it doesn't mean that they are in a collective conspiracy against you, it means you should probably query whether you are doing the right thing in a consensus-based environment. If you think the parliament.uk way is better, get that change in principle agreed first, and then apply it universally: take the PC off all Right Honourable peers and take Right Honourable off all non-PC peers. Don't pick away at what appears to be the current consensus on an ad-hoc basis and then complain when people disagree with your actions. N-HH talk/edits 16:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC) I have stated this before in discussions with Mabelina but I'll post it again here: Debrett's recommends using PC postnominals for peers who are also Privy Counsellors: In a social style of address for a peer who is a Privy Counsellor it is advisable that the letters PC should follow the name. [3] That same Debrett's (which is apparently Mabelina-approved) also recommends using The Rt Hon as style for a peer, by the way.[4] I agree with N-HH that we should try to keep Wikipedia consistent above all else. JorisEnter (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Good - I do hope we are looking at the same thing, so here goes: http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/titles/privy-counsellors. M Mabelina (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC) PS. perhaps I should spell it out: nowhere does it say that Rt Hon. + PC should be conjoined... Is that clear? M Mabelina (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC) PPS. & yes Wiki should aim always to provide the correct info, consistently. So, now that this has been pointed out there is no reason not to do it.. ARE WE ALL AGREED THEN? You guys make me nervous - all the evidence is before you - if you can't think of a problem please concur - many thanks @N-HH: actually I quite like your Talk page statement; so what happens when you occasionally meet an editor who is not a moron! Anyway, let's put this one to bed, surely it's crystal clear now? M Mabelina (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Here again Mabelina, is an issue in which there is more than one option for how to proceed (rather like our previous discussion on capitalisation here or the ambiguous status of Corbyn's PC membership back in October). The question for us on wikipedia is which option do we choose, considering all the available RS. In a case like this there is not a right or wrong answer, so your "I'm right because I'm right" attitude (again) really does not cut any mustard. You also cannot take silence from other members for an hour as agreement with your position. A discussion like this needs to be open for some time before a definitive decision can be reached. The facts seem to be that there is ambiguity over the use of the PC suffix. Even the Debretts article you link to says that a place card should read "Lord Smith, PC" while an envelope should be "The Rt Hon Lord Smith". Given that Debretts do not give the recommended style for a wikipedia article we need to work it out ourselves. I would also suggest that the Debretts article is not infallible given they say that the last person to be struck off the PC was Jonathan Aitken, whereas I believe Elliot Morley was struck off as well. We seem to have a problem not just with consistency between articles, but with consistency within articles. I think the infobox and intro sentence should include the same postnoms otherwise it is confusing (see Andrew Lansley for example). I'm not too worried either way, though I think inclusion of "PC" for privy counsellors who have peerages would be best given that all peers are currently shown with the Rt Hon prefix in infoboxes. We ought to have a sentence or two in the MOS to clarify this. We also ought to clarify the need for a counsellor to be sworn in before they get the Rt Hon prefix (given that the MOS specifically refers to other UK honours which are "active" as soon as they are gazetted). We also need clarification on the position for former (non-privy council) members of the HoL now that peers can resign their seats. My understanding is that a peer who resigns keeps their title, so I assume they keep their Rt Hon prefix as well - but it's something that could do with clearing up. Frinton100 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC) PMJI but you might be interested in List of people removed from the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC) @Frinton100: - a PC is appointed for life at HM's pleasure, whereas a peerage in whatever form it takes is created in Law, thus making them impossible to abolish just like that as Tony Blair & others thought pre-1997 - even Falconer got mightily mixed up about how to extinguish the office of Lord Chancellor (until he realised the night before taking office that it would take an Act of Parliament to abolish it and similarly a combination of Corbyn & No. 10 last year had no idea whether the Leader of HM Oppo was a Privy Counsellor or not until Buckingham Palace stepped in to clarify the issue). I have been given to understand that Wiki much likes to modernise things which is actually the way most articles are written & I am full of admiration for this outlook. Where there seems to be an ideological mindset though concerns Labour politicians, machinery of government & protocol. Presumably because we Brits are trying overhard to .... I don't what... Anyway by changing everything capitals to small etc, where dies it get us? Knowing where one stands is good - and it would appear that Wiki doesn't want to know the categoric situations about certain things as displayed above. Otherwise why so much argument. Are you saying that whenever I pipe up I'm in the wrong? I don't think you are, but it is strange how it is always the usual suspects & it always revolves around something political where there is a left-wing slant... It is what it is - by constantly changing everything for no reason it doesn't make it better... I am totally amazed that my suggestion which is much more in keeping with Wiki's normal approach causes such hostility. It just shows how contrary people can be. So PC only for PCs & as a postnom. Simple! M Mabelina (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC) You don't get it do you? No one is saying you are wrong - just that there is more than one way of doing things so we need to come to a decision one way or the other for the sake of consistency. On the capitalisation issue, it was clear from RS that there was no consistency on the particular word we were interested in (and the inconsistency had begun well before wikipedia was around, so it is nothing to do with wikipedia "modernisation"), so the decision of the wikipedia community (via the MOS) when RS do not consistently capitalise a word is that on wikipedia we don not capitalise. Re. Corbyn, yes you're right, there was a complete and utter mess with some RS saying one thing and others saying another. The way we deal with it that case is to discuss and come to a view, which we did (ultimately it proved the wikipedia consensus was correct). We needed to come to that view considering all the available RS, rather than just cherry-picking the ones that backed up a particular POV and coming up with reasons why other RS were not reliable at all. The issue with these postnominal letters is that practice varies we just have to have a clear and consistent policy. Most of all I think we need consistency within articles (so if PC is included in the opening line it should also be included in the infobox). I also think we need an addition to the MOS along the lines of whatever the consensus turns out to be. My question about peers resigning their seats was just that - a genuine question. I was asking because it is something we need clarifying. I did not need a diatribe about the last two decades attempts at House of Lords reform. The ability for peers to resign their seats has been introduced so when we update the MOS, we ought to include guidance as to whether an ex-member retains the Rt Hon prefix as this is an area that could cause some disputes in the future. My guess is that they do retain their Rt Hon title, but it is only a guess based on the fact that they retain their title of Lord X. It's an issue that could do with some clarification from RS. Frinton100 (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC) PS. I have just seen you later addition to your previous post - will you please let go of this idea about it being a "left wing conspiracy". You should not be surprised at wikipedia editors who are interested in politics contributing to a discussion about politicians. There are relatively few of us on here, and when people are committed to contributing on a regular basis to a particular subject area, this is usually something that most wikipedia members find positive. I must admit I'm confused - you say at the end of your post "So PC only for PCs & as a postnom." - that's my view, but you've been deleting the PC postnoms from infoboxes. So what is it you are actually proposing? Are you suggesting that PC should be restored to the infobox of, say, Andrew Lansley? Frinton100 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC) IMO we should only use PC postnoms when the PCship cannot be inferred from whatever other features there are. For example, a peer is already Rt Hon (or Most Hon or His Grace, which rank higher). Therefore, based on the Right Honourableness of the person you can't tell whether they are a PC or not. If they are, however, not entitle to the style of The Rt Hon (because they are a commmoner, for example), you shouldn't use PC postnoms because you can infer the person's PCship from their Rt Hon style. This is also the reason why we should use PC postnoms in the lede: there is no Rt Hon used there (or any other style, for that matter) so you can't deduce somebody's PCship from that either. As far as I know, all peers, whether they are in the HoL or not, are entitled to appropriate styles (Rt Hon / Most Hon / His Grace etc) and we should style them as such. Debrett's (although it is indeed not in any way a replacement of WP's MOS) does not appear to differentiate between peers who are in the House and those who are not. JorisEnter (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC) This entire discussion appear to be based on the false premise that only PCs and peers are entitled to the prefix. Amongst others who are entitled to its use are the Lord Mayors of London, York, Cardiff and Belfast, and the Lord Provosts of Edinburgh and Glasgow. It is self evident that being a "Right Hon", and being a member of the PC are not synonymous. FF-UK (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Correct. That's the reason why PC postnoms should be used in some cases, even when Rt Hon is also used. JorisEnter (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC) The situation with Lord Mayors/Provosts is different as the title goes with the position rather than being granted to the person - e.g. "The Rt Hon, The Lord Mayor". Incumbent and former Lord Mayors/Provosts should not be given the prefix Rt Hon on their own articles (unless they hold it by virtue of another office of course), as they themselves are not "Rt Hon". So any individual who is themselves a Rt Hon and not a peer is a privy counsellor, so for that reason I don't think the PC suffix is needed for "common" Right Honourables, but I would support its use for peers who are also PCs. Frinton100 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Well, I certainly didn't expect my question to initiate so much discussion! However, I've read through it all and believe I understand things thusly: There should be no "PC" post-nominals used for people who are or were members of the UK Privy Council (this is putting aside practice in other Commonwealth realms) but are or were not peers or by any means other than membership in the Privy Council entitled to the honorific "Right Honourable". There should be "PC" post-nominals used for people who are or were both members of the Privy Council and entitled to the honorific "Right Honourable" by means other than membership in the Privy Council. Since "Right Honourable" can indicate positions other than membership in the Privy Council, when someone holds that honorific for reasons other than membership in the Privy Council, the "PC" clarifies that they are or were members of the Privy Council. That is not according to any external rule; there is no definitive rule outside Wikipedia. It is merely a practice used in Wikipedia to best convey information. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC) @Miesianiacal: If I understood this correctly, then yes. To put it short: only use PC when there is no other way of identifying the person as a Privy Counsellor. JorisEnter (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Also, regarding your "I certainly didn't expect my question to initiate so much discussion": you are aware that most Wikipedians have some degree of OCD? JorisEnter (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Frinton100 - Both that, and the opposite view, are to be found in other WP articles, but what matters, surely, is the use in RSs. Taking the Lord Provost of Edinburgh as an example, referring to him as "The Rt Hon Donald Wilson" is common terminology by the City of Edinburgh Council, the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the various Universities of the City of Edinburgh and many many other sources. FF-UK (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC) @FF-UK: Of course, there are also people who are by tradition styled Rt Hon but who actually aren't. As if things weren't complicated enough already. JorisEnter (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC) MIESIANIACAL, I would agree with that, and I would propose the following addition to the MOS: ====Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom==== Privy council members should have the prefix “The Right Honourable” added to their name in the infobox. Given that Wikipedia’s standard practice is not to include honorific prefixes in the opening sentence, the prefix should only be included in the infobox. The post-nominal letters “PC” should not be added unless the subject is a peer (whether currently a member of the House of Lords or not) who is ordinarily entitled to use the prefix “The Right Honourable”. In these cases, privy council membership cannot be inferred simply by the subject’s title, so the post-nominal “PC” should be used. In line with Wikipedia’s standard practice outlined above, such post-nominal letters should be added to the subject’s name in both the opening sentence and the infobox. Note that a privy counsellor is only entitled to the styles and titles of that office after they have been sworn in, an announcement of a pending appointment is not sufficient. Frinton100 (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Two remarks. (1) Shouldn't PC postnoms also be used in infoboxes where the subject has another reason for being Right Honourable? (e.g., the Lord Provost of Edinburgh) (2) I'd also add that PC postnoms should be used in the lede, where there is no Rt Hon style used. JorisEnter (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Those taking part in this discussion would do well to remember that the purpose of WP is to inform. It should be obvious that membership of the PC is significant and should therefore be made clear. Users will rarely have the knowledge that the use of Right Hon can signify (but does not necessarily mean) that the subject is a member of the PC, but using the post nominal makes it clear (even though many users will have to look up the meaning). Surely this is one of those occasions when clarity should come before pedantry? FF-UK (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC) I'm not actually too bothered about the issue of postnominals and styles of address per se, but having been involved here so far, I was going to say pretty much the same thing. Plus having a general rule that says "always add PC if they are a member" is much simpler to explain and easier to remember and apply. This is about clarity in an encyclopedia, not necessarily offering or following a strict etiquette guide (which are rarely definitive anyway and depend very much on context). N-HH talk/edits 13:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC) N-HH, I can see the sense in that approach as it's a clear and concise rule to follow. The "challenge" with that approach is the state we are in at the moment - PC is not currently used on wikipedia for most privy counsellors, so it will take a lot of work to get to the stage where there is consistency across a reasonable number of articles. Are you suggesting only adding PC in the infobox (where we would also add the postnominal MP for members of parliament for example)? Frinton100 (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC) My understanding and impression is that actually most do have PC in the infobox currently, and that that this would therefore pretty much be a confirmation of the status quo, at least for peers (a quick scan of a few MP pages suggests it may not apply quite so uniformly there). This whole issue only really kicked off because User:Mabelina was going around removing them (on a haphazard and random basis) and then edit warring when reverted. As for it appearing elsewhere, eg in opening sentences, that's another issue, but my personal preference FWIW would be for not cluttering them up with any show-off postnominals. N-HH talk/edits 13:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC) You're right about peers, given that we have typically worked on the basis (which I always felt was fairly uncontroversial) that if council membership couldn't be inferred directly from "Rt Hon" that PC was added as well, but for "commoners", Rt Hon was sufficient, so MPs who are also PCs don't have the postnoms added. Moving over to a "postnoms for all privy counsellors" policy would involve adding the letters to any non-peers' articles. I think with opening sentences we need to either have no postnoms at all, or the same postnoms as in the infobox, I think the inconsistency in say, Andrew Lansley is unsatisfactory. Frinton100 (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Is it safe to say, given the lack of replies in the last 33 or so hours, that we have reached the conclusion that PC postnoms should be used when there are other reasons for Right Honourableness (such as peerages)? JorisEnter (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC) No, I believe we have established that use of Right Honourable can never be assumed as indicating membership of the PC, therefore if it is known that someone is a member, that must be separately indicated, and the addition of the PC postnominal is the obvious logical method. FF-UK (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Do you mean that PC postnominals should be used regardless of the presence of a Rt Hon style, or that they should only be used when the PCship cannot be inferred from the Rt Honness? JorisEnter (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC) "Regardless of the presence of a Rt Hon style", as that style does not indicate membership of the PC. FF-UK (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Well, as far as I know people who are not styled Rt Hon for any other reason (i.e., no peerages or specific positions) and who are PCs, should be styled Rt Hon without PC postnominals. In the lede, though, PC should be used, as there is no Rt Hon there. Placing PC in every infobox regardless of Rt Hon would imply changing massive amounts of pages. JorisEnter (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC) That is completely illogical, as it depends on A) Readers knowing and understanding all the possible reasons for the use of Rt Hon, and B) Readers being familiar with the details of a persons appointments and status to allow them to work out whether the subject might, or might not be a PC. WP's purpose is to inform, not play guessing games. FF-UK (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC) I wouldn't support starting to use PC postnoms anywhere for non-peers who are privy counsellors. I think that it's also important that postnoms in the lede match those in the infobox, otherwise it is very confusing. Wes should have either no postnoms in lede and all in infobox (e.g. David Cameron or else they should really match up (which, for example, Andrew Lansley's do not. The main issue that triggered this discussion is the use of PC for peers who are privy counsellors - I sense a general agreement among most people that on that issue at least, PC should be used in both infobox and opening sentence. If we could establish that as a consensus I think that would be a big help. Frinton100 (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Removing postnominals from the lede doesn't really work either; some pages don't use postnominals in the infobox (either because the infobox doesn't support |honorific_suffix or because it looks ugly, as is the case with {{Infobox military person}}). The problem is that the lede should include all basic information about the subject, including postnominals. There is no Rt Hon in the lede either, so you can't infer it from the style. JorisEnter (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC) So,Frinton100, you are suggesting that it is important to indicate which peers are PCs, but it does not matter for non-peers who are PCs? Given that we have established that the use of Rt Hon CANNOT be taken to indicate a member of the PC, how is that logical or justifiable? JorisEnter you can never infer from the style Rt Hon that someone is a PC, you need to know why they are entitled to Rt Hon! FF-UK (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC). Hi all, I can see this is becoming a very vexed issue, so I have just amended the Baroness Mone article by way of example. Lady Mone IS NOT (and unless in the unlikely event she becomes a Privy Counsellor, she WILL NEVER be) styled The Rt. Hon. so in my view, and I hope you take my point, it seems ridiculous for Wikipedia to accord her that honorific prefix. So as to reach a rational and agreeable solution, would it not be better to think about excluding the honorific of Rt. Hon. rather than a blanket use of this style before ALL Peers? It did use to be customary to accord Peers of the Realm the style Rt. Hon. & I note that Wikipedia seems to have decreed that Life Peers are not Peers of the Realm (which is not true) so why not let's state in MOS that NO Life Peer be described as Rt. Hon. & for PC to be used as a postnom (where applicable). As a footnote, someone mentioned about other uses of Rt. Hon. such as in the case of Lord Mayors etc but this is a red herring because the Rt. Hon.-style attaches to the office not the individual (despite what Edinburgh's website might or might not say). The matter of ancient peerages could be addressed separately, otherwise we'll never reach a satisfactory decision. M Mabelina (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Not at all a red herring. If it is in common use, then that has to be allowed for, you cannot ignore the common in favour of the pedantic, that helps no one. FF-UK (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC) I agree with FF-UK that common use has to be allowed for; however, any encyclopædic source of note such as Wikipedia should, I believe, be slightly pedantic insofar as it must provide correct & knowledgeable information. Please advise M Mabelina (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC) For the avoidance of doubt, let me make it clear that I am neutral on the use of Rt Hon or not. My points are solely to do with the use of the post nominal PC which must be explicit and not inferred from the presence or absence of the Rt Hon. FF-UK (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Thanks FF-UK, I don't know about you but when people bandy around "before Mabelina does too much possible damage" (hopefully a joke - although such statements could be worthy of sanction?) it is not good. Anyhow, perhaps my proposal above is worthy of further consideration as it does provide a route forward: it would be better for Wiki to be consistent in its application of titles, and so Life Peers, I suggest, should be likewise (eg. "The Lord so-and-so" or "The Lord so-and-so PC")..? M Mabelina (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC) You can be Hon or Rt Hon without being a privy counsellor - eg by virtue of being a peer - so inclusion of both prenomial and postnomial is acceptable.192.235.252.195 (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@192.235.252.195: errm....

Well, there's no specific agreement here, but the broad consensus seems to be that retaining the PC in infoboxes among other postnominals would be clearer for the average reader. Yet User:Mabelina is still happily and unilaterally removing it en masse (see rash of edits for early morning UK time on 14 Jan). Looking at their block log and their inability to get the wider MOS too (see also their obsessive use of capitalisation for standard words and overlinking) is there a case for some sort of new restraint being imposed? N-HH talk/edits 09:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The one thing I though we all (except for Mabelina) agreed upon was that PC postnoms should be included in the infobox for peers. @Mabelina: didn't quite get the message, it seems. JorisEnter (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi dear fellow Wikipedians, I have to confess that it was not clear at least to me whether agreement/consensus had been reached on this matter. This was for the sole reason that since my suggestion above that "NO Life Peer be described as Rt. Hon. & for PC to be used as a postnom (where applicable)" two days ago, no messages to the contrary were posted so one might assume that there was little/no objection. My apologies for any misunderstanding and look forward to hearing the result of these discussions. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a great line in the discussion below on hyphenated Americans - "a solution searching for a problem" and I think it applies pretty well to this discussion too. There has long been a near-universal style for PCs on wikipedia - a peer would be "Rt Hon Lord X of Y PC" in the infobox and "John X, Baron X of Y PC" in the opening sentence. A "commoner" would be "The Rt Hon David Cameron MP PC" in the infobox and "David William Donald Cameron" in the lede. The fact that this has been used by many editors and that many more editors who could have changed it in individual articles have chosen not to seems to be an indication that this style is widely accepted. I see no reason to depart from this method for all the reasons I have already outlined - a "commoner" who is personally a Rt Hon is a PC so the postnoms aren't needed (if there are any wikipedia articles of British "commoners" who are Rt Hon and not a PC then I would suggest it's probably wrong and needs to be changed - if I'm wrong on this point then I'd like to see some evidence). The PC postnoms are needed for peers and my own view is that should be given in both the infobox and the opening sentence - to do otherwise is confusing.

The fact that this has come up at all is because one user has failed to respect this policy - which though unwritten is generally upheld by many editors. There was not a problem until a couple of weeks ago - very much a solution searching for a problem. The additional fact that @Mabelina: continues to edit in the way they have been while the discussion is ongoing is troubling but sadly not surprising. Mabelina - if you notice, the rest of us have not been making edits to any of these articles while we are having the discussion as we do not yet have a consensus, and making edits which reflect our own POV would be discourteous to the other users involved in the discussion. It is a shame that you have not afforded the rest of us the same courtesy.

A few days ago (08:52 on 10th Jan), I made a suggested addition to the MOS (as I still think it would be useful to get this codified). No one has made any changes to that, and I would suggest that if others think it should be re-worded we begin to play about with it and try to form a consensus around that. Frinton100 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: Hi & I sincerely wish matters could be dealt with in a less accusatory manner. I thought a discussion page is just that, for discussion. If you are suggesting that somehow I have caused the problem then let me simply refute that in a polite and discursive (rather than aggressive) manner, simply by pointing fellow Wikipedians to the John Seymour, 19th Duke of Somerset article where you can see that no Honorific prefix or postnom is displayed. Surely it is easy to appreciate the lack of consistency here & I implore you to understand that my reason for raising the matter was simply to enhance Wiki and achieve the consistency we all strive for. I do look forward to hearing and let's agree on a correct and consistent policy going forward - this is my wish, as I am sure it is yours too. Best M Mabelina (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As @Mabelina: may have noticed, the Template:Infobox peer, which is used on the page of John Seymour, 19th Duke of Somerset, does not use pre- or postnominals at all. Most peers that have postnominals are also officeholders of some sort (see for example Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington), and the Template:Infobox officeholder does use pre- and postnominals. There is no 'lack of consistency' here. JorisEnter (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mabelina:, could I please remind you again of WP:AGF, and incidentally I won't be taking lessons in wikipedia politeness from you. I hope that you'll agree that while this discussion is ongoing no one should be making any edits involving PC postnominals - either adding or removing them. If you want to amend my suggested MOS addition then please do that and actually make a concrete contribution to the discussion. You have complained to me before about how much time is spent on discussion pages - well that is mostly of your own doing, if you actually suggested a substantive alteration to my proposal instead of going round in circles hurling your "polite" insults at anyone who crosses your path you would find discussions were wrapped up much sooner. Frinton100 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: I have done - but I have just rewritten a comment three times now which is deleted because of edit conflict. Allow me a minute or so to respond please. M 19:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@JorisEnter and Frinton100: hello both of you & I wish to engage in sensible discussion not to be constantly abused. The reason I raised this matter is quite simple & that is because Wiki reads inconsistently when it comes to the matter of Peers of the Realm of all ranks including Life Peers (generally, although not always historically, in the rank of Baron). I have been making useful suggestions such as NO Life Peer be described as Rt. Hon. & for PC to be used as a postnom (where applicable). This has the merit of both being correct and reading correctly according to Infobox template formulae (which seem to be the root cause of this issue). Let me just alert you to how Wiki looks from the outside when you have John Seymour, 19th Duke of Somerset styled The Duke of Somerset (correct) but not His Grace The Duke of Somerset DL (also correct) whereas Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster is styled Major-General His Grace The Duke of Westminster KG CB CVO OBE TD CD DL (correct but inconsistent to the outside reader). All I wish is that we could reach a view as how deal with all the different types of Infoboxes because to the outside reader this can cause confusion. I trust you can appreciate that my whole raison-d'être is to enhance Wiki so please cut me some slack (as they say) because by raising these issues it would seem that I am getting the blame for them - which could not be further from the truth. Please advise your thoughts on the matters of factual layout regarding Infoboxes - many thanks indeed and looking forward to hearing. Best M Mabelina (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the text you keep putting in bold is that it is not clear. This is perhaps why no one has responded directly to it. I'm certainly not sure what it is you are proposing. This policy needs to be spelt out exactly, as I tried to do with my suggested addition to the MOS. Why not copy that text and highlight areas of it you would change? Frinton100 (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you actually being serious? You make a specific proposal that no one says they agree with, while quite clearly discussing the issue in terms that clearly and directly contradict the proposal, and you take that as evidence of agreement with the proposal? Look at the length of the discussion above – which, even if there perhaps could be a little more clarity and consistency, is as others have noted basically all about a solution in search of a problem – and ask whether we are in the realm of trollery and/or gross lack of competence at this point. N-HH talk/edits 20:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@N-HH: I am not being sarcastic at all but I do appreciate that my input can cause a stir, for the most part I guess because it is founded on a traditional point of view as to how titles etc are displayed. I have said so many times before, so let me just say again, that I have much admiration for Wiki's style and its way of modernising language so it is easy to read and understand. And, all I aim to do is enhance Wiki by providing factual info - we keep straying off the point so let me attend shortly to Frinton100's request, which is a good one. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: Thank you for your request above and please see the below accordingly:

====Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom====

Privy Council members should have the prefix “The Right Honourable” added to their name in the infobox. Given that Wikipedia’s standard practice is not to include honorific prefixes in the opening sentence, the prefix should only be included in the infobox.

The post-nominal letters “PC” should not be added unless the subject is a peer (whether for life or hereditary and currently a member of the House of Lords or not) in place of the traditional honorific prefix “The Right Honourable”. In these cases, Privy Council membership cannot be inferred simply by the subject’s title and honorific prefix, so the post-nominal “PC” should be used without the use of the traditional honorific prefix. In line with Wikipedia’s standard practice outlined above, such post-nominal letters should be added to the subject’s name in both the opening sentence and the infobox.

Note that a Privy Counsellor is only entitled to the styles and titles of that office after they have been sworn in, an announcement of a pending appointment is not sufficient.

Alternatively we could follow the example of Peerboxes and have no honorific prefixes or postnoms...?

M Mabelina (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, assuming that this is your suggestion for the MOS on PC postnominals. JorisEnter (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@JorisEnter: the above proposed slightly modified wording is based on Frinton100's proposal and is indeed with respect to PCs. Thanks Joris. M Mabelina (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet again, the above proposal solves nothing. Firstly, it continues to ignore the common usage of Rt Hon for reasons other than being a Privy Councilor. Secondly, it is entirely unreasonable to assume that a reader will be able to infer from the use of the honorific that a person is a PC. The only fool-proof method of identifying someone as a member of the Privy Council is to use the post-nominal PC always, not sometimes. FF-UK (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@FF-UK: thanks your take on this - all opinions are valued. If you believe that Rt. Hon. adds no clarity to the matter then it should, perhaps, not be used at all in Infoboxes (& maybe somewhere else, such as under the Styles section in the main body of the text) and PC be deployed at all times? M Mabelina (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

FF-UK, the Rt Hon prefix should not - as I understand it - be given personally to anyone who is not a peer. If it ever is (for example a Lord Mayor) then it is wrong, and if it's done on wikipedia it should be changed. If I'm wrong on this then please provide some evidence. Mabelina, what is the rationale for undoing well understood wikipedia practice of including Rt Hon in infoboxes (where it can be - infobox design permitted)? As I said before, I see no reason (not least because of the amount of work involved) to depart from previous practice. Frinton100 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: As far as I can see, Mabelina's proposal states that Rt Hon and other styles should only be included in the infobox, which is standard WP practice. As @FF-UK: commented, there are people who are styled Rt Hon because they hold this or that office; I refer you to the page on The Right Honourable. JorisEnter (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: thank you for your comments and what do you think about the revised wording above? You are absolutely correct that Rt Hon only applies to peers (traditionally) and PCs (by courtesy) NOT to holders of civic offices such as Lord Mayors - in such cases the style Rt Hon accords from ancient times to the office and not the individual. The customary use of courtesy titles and styles are indeed complicated ones, so let's work our way through the issue to reach a watertight solution for Wiki. Awaiting yours - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy titles are fairly simple: they're just courtesy titles. Their holders are not accorded the style of Rt Hon unless they have some other reason for holding it (e.g., being a PC as well). Debrett's (on its page on "how to adress a knight") recommends that PC postnominals aren't used for commoners who are also Privy Counsellors, as the PCship can be inferred from Rt Honness. JorisEnter (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

JorisEnter, Mabelina's version says "“PC” should not be added unless the subject is a peer....in place of the traditional honorific prefix" which I read as suggesting we should not now be using Rt Hon anywhere for peers. Is the suggestion that a peer who is a PC would still be "Rt Hon Lord X of Y" in the infobox, but a privy counsellor would be "Lord X of Y PC"? I don't see a reason for this change if it's what is being proposed. Frinton100 (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: Oh wait, you're right. I had quickly read the proposal and missed the subtle note that PC postnoms should come in the place of Rt Hon - which they shouldn't, if you ask me. A peer who is also a PC should be "The Rt Hon The Lord X of Y, PC" or something along those lines. JorisEnter (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

A day or so ago I made myself clear, this is still my position: "For the avoidance of doubt, let me make it clear that I am neutral on the use of Rt Hon or not. My points are solely to do with the use of the post nominal PC which must be explicit and not inferred from the presence or absence of the Rt Hon." There seems to be a collective willful blindness here about the usage of Rt Hon. As JorisEnter has pointed out, the page The Right Honourable amply demonstrates the complexity. That page details some of the persons who have the right to the honorific on a personal basis and who are neither Lords or PCs. Also (unless there is a proposal which I have missed requiring WP users to meet a certain level of competence in undstanding the complexities of rank and honorifics) excluding common usage of the term in favour of a strictly pedantic correctness seems designed to make WP distinctly user-unfriendly. We must not assume that users will be aware of the significance of the term Rt Hon. FF-UK (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: thank you for your further comment and let me clarify. The wording I proposed above simply came under the title of Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, hence its content. I feel as if I have to tread very gingerly here given what some say about me, but you are also correct in identifying that attention will then have to be given to non-PC peers as well as to whether Template:Infobox peers should be brought into line with other peers in terms of style etc. I was just dealing with the very specific issue of Peers who are PCs for the time being. We might as well get the whole thing straight though - good idea. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

further to above comments between FF-UK, Frinton100 and JorisEnter if Rt. Hon. and its correct application is causing such an issue, because Rt. Hon. plus PC is most certainly not correct (please advise if you can find anywhere reliable advice to the contrary), why not let's drop Rt. Hon. as a prefix and use PC all the time instead? And, although it might require a bit of work, this would be much simpler in the long run. M Mabelina (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
PS. please see Honorifics in infoboxes section above

Mabelina, Sorry, but you haven't clarified. I think I'm clear now that you want to remove "Rt Hon" from all peers who are privy counsellors, but what about peers who are non-PCs?

I don't think we should be too concerned about whether "Rt Hon" + "PC" would be "correct" in formal notices, invitations, etc. We are creating wikipedia articles here so we shouldn't be too hung up about what is "right" or "wrong" in other contexts. The Debretts article you referred to some time ago makes clear that different forms of address are considered correct in different situations, so there is no reason why wikipedia cannot be different to all of the situations outlined in Debretts. The issues are 1. Is an individual entitled to a particular style or title; and 2. How best to display that information so as to make the article informative and readable, while maintaining a degree of consistency both within, and between articles.

FF-UK, the Rt Hon article demonstrates that there are only two groups of British people personally entitled to the style "Rt Hon" - privy counsellors and certain peers. If you believe this article to be wrong please provide evidence from RS, and it can be considered, and if necessary the Rt Hon page can be changed. Frinton100 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: this is perhaps where I could lead myself down the vilification route yet again! but I very much do think it is Wiki's responsibility to impart info in the correct manner & it does matter about what is "right" or "wrong" in other contexts (when it is so easy to display the correct info). Thus, Rt Hon & PC should not be stated "in the same breath": nowhere else are things like this stated, apart from in the multitude of internet articles which basically plagiarise Wiki's content. Please don't think that this is a single-issue hobby horse; my whole concern is for Wiki to be an accurate, reliable and responsible encyclopaedia. Needless to say, if you do think, however, that it is a good idea to have Rt. Hon. + PC in the same style then so be it. But, we (collectively) really ought to attend to this matter & others in relation to Peers of the Realm, etc, eg. Infobox peer (issue exemplified in my edit of the 19th and present Duke of Somerset at 23:29), so as to make Wiki well informed and consistent - please advise. Given that my submission is that Wiki must be accurate and if it is too complicated for the average reader to grasp the Rt. Hon.'s usage & its anomalies, then perhaps let's drop honorific prefixes entirely. This, after all, would be far more in keeping with Wiki's standard practice (& the discussion on Honorifics in infoboxes above). M Mabelina (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

PS. if it is not already clear, my over-arching concern is for accuracy, so I concur with FF-UK since it seems too complicated to get across the significance and protocol concerning such styles & prefixes. Frinton100, you are totally correct that Lord Mayors etc have no right to the personal use of the style of Rt Hon, although given the number of inaccuracies I have spotted in Wiki on related issues temporarily maybe it would be better not to rely on the Rt Hon article, until we have got all related matters straight. I have already mentioned one glaring error, namely in the Peer of the Realm article it states that Life Peers are not Peers of the Realm.. please permit me to amend this since inevitably it will only precipitate further inaccuracies if such a statement is allowed to remain. Thank you.

There may well be an issue over the infobox template, and this should be discussed here Template talk:Infobox peer, and I would suggest an RfC would be useful on that page as I doubt anyone is going to stumble across it. The thing about what is "right" or "wrong" varies according to the context. We are not sending out invitations to a state banquet, we are trying to create articles that contain as much relevant information as possible presented in a clear and concise manner. I don't see that practice up until now has failed on any count, so I don't see why it needs to change. I agree we should not be relying on other wikipedia articles as sources (wikipedia policy even says so itself), which is why I have asked for RS to support the assertion that Rt Hon is used for individuals other than privy counsellors and some peers. I think removing Rt Hon altogether would cause not only a lot of work now but huge problems down the line. It really shouldn't just be for a small group (we are a small group here) to make that decision, if this is the route we want to go down (I am not opposed to it for any factual or presentational reasons, just for the practicalities of what it will mean on wikipedia now and in the future), we need to seek out many more opinions than those on here at the moment. Frinton100 (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: thank you & you and I are on the same page - I could not agree more. Let's see what others say. Till anon. Best M Mabelina (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
PS. good tip Frinton100 - thanks & you'll see that others have already made the same positive criticism at Template talk:Infobox peer; perhaps you could add any other comments you see fit on that page too? (especially since Removing expired RFC template occurred at 01:01, an expiration of comment time of a mere 40 minutes after its launch! Are the Wiki powers-that-be being entirely reasonable here?) - please advise. Best M Mabelina (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
PS. if so, and on the presumption that Wiki has no intention of improving the Infobox peer template as variously suggested, I trust it will not be regarded as unreasonable to replace in due course all such Infoboxes with something more workable? (qv. replacement of the 19th and present Duke of Somerset's Infobox at 03:06; there being no time like the present, do you approve of this in the circumstances? Awaiting yours - many thanks)

I note that another false premise has crept in here. Frinton100 refers to only two groups of British people personally entitled to the style "Rt Hon" as if this issue were purely a UK one, it is not. There are other Commonwealth nationals for whom the term is correct and applies for life, such as certain Canadians and New Zealanders. Would contributors to this discussion please stop implying that PC membership may be inferred from the use of the term Rt Hon, otherwise it will be impossible to reach a sane and logical conclusion. FF-UK (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, but we are discussing the use of Rt Hon and PC when related to the Privy Council/Peerage of the UK. Styles and titles vary from country to country, so different policies need to apply. Within the UK the Rt Hon prefix is only used personally by peers and privy counsellors. I have yet to see any evidence which contradicts this. Please could I also point you in the direction of WP:SENSE regarding your "sane and logical" remark. Frinton100 (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Frinton100 Please check again, what you say is incorrect. The first line of this discussion refers to "membership in a Privy Council in all or many of the Commonwealth realms". Many of the contributors here are putting the cart before the horse. Membership of the Privy Council is indicated by the post nominal 'PC'. A member of the Privy Council is entitled to the honorific 'Rt Hon', but that is not a unique usage to members of the PC.

The logic is incontrovertible:

Premise 1: Membership of the Privy Council is indicated by the post nominal 'PC'.

Premise 2: Mr X is entitled to use of the post nominal 'PC'.

Conclusion: Mr X is a Privy Counsellor.

However, with regard to the use of Rt Hon:

Premise 1: Members of the Privy Council are amongst those entitled to the honorific 'Rt Hon'.

Premise 2: Mr X is entitled to the honorific 'Rt Hon'.

Conclusion: Mr X might be a Privy Counsellor, but it is uncertain.

If the rules of WP have difficulty in accommodating this, then the rules are wrong and need to be changed. Frinton100 draws attention to a WP page which clearly states: Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. This is clearly one of those occasions. FF-UK (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of the discussion does refer to PC being used in various Realms - but my reading of this was that Miesianiacal was merely explaining what "PC" stood for in this case, rather than suggesting that we should be coming up with a commonwealth-wide policy. All of the disputed deletions of PC have occurred (to my knowledge) on British people, and most importantly, my proposed addition to the MOS refers only to the United Kingdom. Therefore I do not think it is unreasonable to restrict any conclusions we reach to British people.

If Mr X is entitled to the postnominal PC, he may not necessarily be a privy counsellor, he may instead be a President's Counsel of Sri Lanka (for example Mark Fernando). And there may be other instances of its use in other countries. If Mr X is a British "commoner" and is a Rt Hon then he is a privy counsellor, just as the same were true if he were a British person with the postnoms PC. I do not think this is an |ignore all rules case, given that the "rule" which editors have stuck to for years - and I have attempted to codify in my suggestion above - is commonly understood and widely accepted. The amount of work and the problems it will cause down the line if we change it are enough in my view to merit its retention, even if it does not 100% satisfy everyone. Frinton100 (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi all - here is a reference in the London Gazette (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/34351/page/8187/data.pdf & there could not be a more authoritative publication) clearly describing Lord Athlone as Major-General The Right Honourable The Earl of Athlone KG GCB GCMG GCVO DSO note no "PC" as this is covered by the Rt Hon prefix, providing Wikipedians with a most authoritative example of why Rt Hon & PC don't go together. M Mabelina (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC) PS. for encyclopaedic reference purposes see http://livesonline.rcseng.ac.uk/biogs/E004941b.htm wherein it states Sir Alexander Augustus Frederick William Alfred George Cambridge Earl of Athlone KG PC GCB GCMG GCVO DSO FRS Hon FRCS, note without the Rt Hon but using PC.

Surely the point of WP is to inform, and the Infobox is away of presenting the essential facts concisely. PC must count among these, but the use of an honorific, while polite, is relatively unimportant. The source offered by Mabelina is irrelevant. FF-UK (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me put things bluntly, firstly I agree with FF-UK WP's purpose is to be informative; secondly honorific prefixes should not be used in Infoboxes (not least because they cause too much confusion & could also be deemed to be irrelevant); thirdly my subsmission above was not irrelevant (as it highlights why Rt Hon & PC do not go together, both ways round ie. with the use of "Rt Hon" and with the use of "PC"). M Mabelina (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with FF-UK that an 80 year old article is hardly relevant to the decision we need to make. I can see that with someone like the Earl of Athlone, PC is more useful than Rt Hon. However, the use of Rt Hon is so well understood by wikipedia users that I dont think we should stop using it. As I've said before, I support retaining our current practice, despite the fact it does not please everyone 100% (myself included), not least because of the problems a change of this nature would create. Frinton100 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Mabelina is just taking this interminable discussion round and round in circles. It was pointed out endlessly above that there is no one correct or definitive way of presenting information, yet here they come citing their latest source, as they have previous ones, as if it is some kind of trump card. They are also still edit-warring to impose – on random pages, on an ad-hoc basis – their personal preference for removing the PC postnominal from infoboxes. Enough is enough, surely. N-HH talk/edits 17:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@N-HH: should you be accusing me of taking this discussion round and round in circles and making it interminable, then that quite patently is incorrect. There is no "trump card" issue at stake here, this appears to be a phrase coined by N-HH somehow to diminish the veracity of my contribution. I am not edit-warring either, but you should rather refer to the opening gambit of this whole discussion wherein "User:Mabelina has been removing instances of the post-nominals "PC" (for membership in a Privy Council in all or many of the Commonwealth realms) from biographies for the apparent reason that "PC should not be used as a post-nom where Rt Hon is displayed as an honorific prefix." They have provided no source for this information, I have certainly never heard it before, and it goes against wide-spread practice in Wikipedia. I think the veracity of the claim should be settled before Mabelina does too much possible damage (contravening Wiki's code of good practice surely?). Does anyone here know if "PC" and "Right Honourable" should never appear together is indeed the correct practice? Is it only in the UK, if anywhere at all?". Now far from being unreasonable surely it is most pertinent for me to have made the following statement today with regard to the specific point under discussion? namely Post-nominals "PC" for holders of prefix "Right Honourable": "in the London Gazette (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/34351/page/8187/data.pdf & there could not be a more authoritative publication) clearly describing Lord Athlone as Major-General The Right Honourable The Earl of Athlone KG GCB GCMG GCVO DSO note no "PC" as this is covered by the Rt Hon prefix, providing Wikipedians with a most authoritative example of why Rt Hon & PC don't go together. M Mabelina (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC) PS. for encyclopaedic reference purposes see http://livesonline.rcseng.ac.uk/biogs/E004941b.htm wherein it states Sir Alexander Augustus Frederick William Alfred George Cambridge Earl of Athlone KG PC GCB GCMG GCVO DSO FRS Hon FRCS, note without the Rt Hon but using PC." @Frinton100: I agree with you and FF-UK that PC is more useful than Rt Hon, but I disagree that Wikipedia should cite Rt Hon & PC together, therefore my suggestion is that editors refrain from doing so. The reason for this is twofold: 1. it is incorrect (as exemplified by my relevant citation about the Earl of Athlone) so Wikipedia should not display it for its own integrity; and, 2. it is leading to a proliferation of such incorrect usage in plagiarised articles elsewhere (internet and other media).
I trust we can resolve this matter equitably without further ado. Many thanks in advance for your co-operation. M Mabelina (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
PS. my proposal is for Wiki to drop the use of honorific prefixes in Infoboxes & use the post-nom of "PC" instead - this is much clearer.

Would the following wording be acceptable to fellow Wikipedians:

====Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom====

Privy Council members should not have the prefix “The Right Honourable” added to their name in the infobox but for “PC” to be added as a post-nominal.

Note that a Privy Counsellor is only entitled to the styles and titles of that office after they have been sworn in, an announcement of a pending appointment is not sufficient.

M Mabelina (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that the Rt Hon prefix is generally understood and should definitely continue to be used for "commoners", and on balance I think it should continue to be used for anyone who is entitled to it. Frinton100 (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I imagine it is clear where I stand on this issue from my last message, but Frinton100 does make a good point inasmuch as it should be pretty obvious to Wiki readers what Rt Hon signifies simply by looking at the opening line of the main text in articles about Privy Counsellor commoners. (Needless to say, Wiki should not promulgate inaccuracies by putting incorrect info in its Infoboxes, referring here to Peers of course.) Thanks for all your input so far. Best M Mabelina (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

So I suppose what it boils down to is how obvious really is it that Rt Hon = PC - I guess we have to form a view on that?

If you are implying that it is obvious - you're wrong. Peers (and several other people as well) are entitled to the style The Right Honourable, whether you like it or not. So Rt Hon =/= PC. Clear? JorisEnter (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@JorisEnter: I think you misunderstand me. I was not implying anything - simply stating that a judgement call would appear to be needed & you've given your view (albeit in a most cantankerous tone) - thank you. You seem to missing the point, though, and that is whether anyone likes it or not Rt Hon & PC don't go together, yet Wiki Infoboxes seem to be set up so that Wiki is, to all intents and purposes, redefining formal styles (which surely can't be right - unless we should just make a lot of other new things up simply because "we" think that's how it should be?). Let's try to conclude this matter, please. M Mabelina (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE - don't mistake brevity for cantankerousness Frinton100 (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't but messages elsewhere, which you are aware of, were of a similar nature. This whole discussion was not occasioned by me btw, but since it has been started we might as well get Wiki to present the correct info - so let's stop having a pop at each other and reach a conclusion, please. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: in accordance with your suggestion at User talk:Frinton100 I have just posted an RfC. As stated having worked at the College of Arms, this is a subject I know something about & so the only two correct ways of styling Peers who are also PCs are: The Lord X PC or The Rt Hon Lord X (not Rt Hon & PC together). The present situation espoused by Wiki is incorrect and teaches others bad ways thus promulgating inaccuracies - let's see how this pans out & I am of course available to answer any further questions on this matter as necessary. Thanks for your help so far. Best M Mabelina (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia use Western naming order for Hungarian names?

Hungarians use the [family name][given name] order for names, which is the opposite of the Western naming order. The issue came up at George Soros between Smallbones (talk · contribs) and I as to whether we should just go with the Hungarian naming order or "convert" Hungarian names to the Western naming order. The George Soros article says his name at birth was "Schwartz György", with György being the given name and Schwartz the surname, but other articles like Imre Nagy have converted Hungarian names to the English naming order. My argument is that readers unfamiliar with Hungarian naming order will assume that Western naming order is being used (and thus be confused), Smallbones' argument is that we should go for authenticity and not convert names. Any thoughts? 203.59.20.130 (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#People from countries where the surname comes first: "... With Hungarian names, use Western name order (given name before surname)." I hope that answers your question. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that link refers to the article name, which is not part of the discussion. The article is George Soros. The only thing being discussed is the first half of the first sentence

" George Soros (/ˈsɔːroʊs/ or /ˈsɔːrɒs/; Hungarian: Soros György; Hungarian: [ˈʃoroʃ]; born August 12, 1930, as Schwartz György) is a ..."

I don't see anything confusing here, especially since "Hungarian: Soros György" is also included. There are 2 possible issues here. What was he called at birth? Obviously Schwartz György. The 2nd possible issue is that there are lots of folks who just like to mess with this article for political reasons. I'd rather just leave out random changes like this because they have been used in the past just as an entre to mess with the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur. Francis is right that WP:NCP generally points the way, with regard to the title and thus the boldfaced beginning of the lead. But it doesn't mean we should ignore native Hungarian name order when giving the name parenthetically in its Hungarian form. In the George Soros example above, the lead strikes me as spot-on, including the avoidance of diacritics in the bolded title and in the actual pagename, since Soros himself does not use them in English. The idea of reversing this to read "George Soros (... Hungarian: György Soros ... born ... as György Schwartz)" would be nonsensical and counterfactual. WP:AT-based WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE arguments do not apply to article content.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I've ever learned of a Hungarian who didn't identify himself in given name-first order when speaking English, or any English text that kept a Hungarian's name in Hungarian order. Common practice is overwhelmingly clear on this. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep. This is not like Japanese and several other (mostly Asian) languages, where there's considerable room for debate with regard to particular individuals, even different periods, and frequent conflicts between self-identification in English vs. how most Western news sources treat the subject. My general rede on this is that 1) the subject's preference should come first (and this may change over time; Hajime Sorayama now uses this name order in current editions of his art books in English, but did exactly the opposite until ca. the mid-1990s; I still own a number of earlier editions that say Sorayama Hajime), followed by 2) prevalent use in English-language sources, with us favoring 2a) high-quality academic ones over 2b) lowest-common-denominator newspapers/magazines/websites; and 3) only going with lastname-first order as a default when English (and failing enough of those, other Latin-alphabet) sources aren't consistent but a substantial number of academic sources respect the native name order generally, and the individual subject has no determinable preference when it comes to how their name is rendered in English materials. This seems broadly consistent with the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of the checklist at MOS:JA#Modern names that is applied in addition to (or, rather, as a practical interpretation of) the formal site-wide WP:CRITERIA. We might consider implementing a genericized version of that checklist, as how to treat names in prose. However, it needs some revision, because it's commingling name-order issues with diacritics issues, which we've mostly approached as severable issues (I know that WP:RM certainly has), simply as a practical matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of Rt Hon and PC for UK Privy Counsellors and Peers

There is a suggestion to clarify the way privy counsellors are identified in opening sentences and infoboxes. Currently the most common method is to add the "Rt Hon" prefix for people who are not peers, and the "Rt Hon" prefix and "PC" suffix for peers who are privy counsellors. Peers who are not privy counsellors are given the title "Rt Hon" only. There are various suggestions for how these prefixes and suffixes should be used. Frinton100 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see talk page section above for the original discussion.

• The main issue revolves around peers who are also privy counsellors, and whether they should be "Rt Hon Lord X of Y PC" (the most common form on wikipedia at the moment), "Rt Hon Lord X of Y" or "Lord X of Y PC".
• The discussion also moved on to the use of Rt Hon and/or PC for people who are not in the House of Lords but who are privy counsellors ("Rt Hon David Cameron" is the most common form)
• Also whether we should continue to use the Rt Hon prefix for peers who are not privy counsellors
• Whether we should adopt the same form for all privy counsellors (and how that would affect peers not in the privy council)
• Should the postnominal letters in the infobox exactly match those in the opening sentence of the article, or can they differ? (e.g. "Andrew Lansley, Baron Lansley, CBE, PC" in the opening sentence but "The Rt Hon The Lord Lansley, CBE" in the infobox) Frinton100 (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Frinton100 - much obliged & your point about whether postnominal letters in the infobox should exactly match those in the opening sentence of the article, or can they differ? is neatly put. Just to summarise our previous discussions, I put forward to you that the only two correct ways of styling Peers who are also PCs are: The Lord X PC or The Rt Hon Lord X (not Rt Hon & PC together).

Since Rt Hon signifies PC (as well being a style formerly accorded to Peers as a matter of courtesy) how to stress membership of the Privy Council because the inclusion of the post-nom of PC (in conjunction with the honorific prefix of Rt Hon) contravenes established British correct form, (qv. http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/titles/privy-counsellors as well as numerous other sources upon request) and Wikipedia is thereby unwittingly assisting in the creation of new British formal styles of address (at least, in some quarters)! Best M Mabelina (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The following post was deleted by Mabelina at 20.59 on 17/1/16:That is not a summary of the previous discussion - that is your opinion on the matter. Frinton100 (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Apologies M Mabelina (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The way these prenominal honorifics and postnominal letters are used has changed over time. Privy Counsellors seem to have always been "the Right Honourable", but as far as I can tell the postnominal "PC" only started to be used in the early twentieth century. Until recently all peers under the rank of marquess were always "the Right Honourable", but this now seems to be changing. Younger sons of dukes and marquesses and daughters of dukes, marquesses and earls used to be "the Right Honourable" as well, but have not been since the early nineteenth century. Similarly, "Kt" or "Knt" used to be used for knights bachelor, but now is not. Trying to come up with a standard convention for all biographical articles will end up endorsing the use of anachronistic postnominal letters like the "PC" in use at William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne. I think honorifics and postnominal letters should only be used for those for whom a reliable source shows they were actually used during that person's lifetime: i.e. they should be decided on a case-by-case basis. The onus should be on the person adding the information to prove that this was how the person was styled (WP:BURDEN). Opera hat (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support using PC This is surely a fairly simple issue about presentation of information with clarity and consistency. A blanket rule that where postnominals are used PC should be included is simple to apply and offers clarity to the reader, without worrying about whether it is "implied" by the use of Right Honourable. As for "correctness" or the argument that we should go with how the person was styled at the time, these fall on the basis that there is no one correct "style" for address and that WP is not an etiquette guide anyway. In different contexts and different publications, different styles will be used for the same person. As a practical point, the latter proposal would also entail huge amounts of research and work for every single page, as well as disputes when conflicting evidence was found. N-HH talk/edits 11:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mabelina: has claimed multiple times that this page from The London Gazette proves that PC isn't used together with Rt Hon (Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone is styled "Major-General The Right Honourable The Earl of Athlone, KG GCB GCMG GCVO DSO" without any mention of PC). However, this page from The London Gazette, dated 6 March 1953, styles him "Hon Maj-Gen The Rt Hon The Earl of Athlone, KG PC GCB GCMG GCVO DSO DCL LLD" followed by a bunch of appointments. PC and Rt Hon do go together, as stated by this (more recent) edition of that same London Gazette Mabelina gives as "a most authoritative example". JorisEnter (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that article JorisEnter, I hope that settles the argument about whether PC and Rt Hon can go together - the question now is whether they should do on wikipedia. I think the answer to that is "yes" in the case of peers, as we have been doing up until now. Frinton100 (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I think so too. Until now, we have had no serious problems with the use of both Rt Hon and PC in the case of peers (and several other individuals), apart from an inexperienced editor making a mistake here and there. Mabelina appears to be the only person with serious concerns about this matter, and as the consensus is that the current MOS satisfies (although I'll admit that we might explain the usage of Rt Hon/PC a bit more explicitly) I see no reason to change it. JorisEnter (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@JorisEnter: the way you phrase your statement above it sounds like you have taken glee in seemingly proving me wrong! I must admit I had not noticed this previously but you must have spent some time looking for it. However, the style of "Hon Maj-Gen The Rt Hon The Earl of Athlone, KG PC GCB GCMG GCVO DSO DCL LLD" is incorrect in itself (I am not sure why but I could ask my contacts at HMSO - I used to work at the College of Arms, hence my knowledge of this subject - if you feel that it would serve any useful purpose) and this is for the simple reason that putting Hon & Rt Hon together in the style is also unheard of, so perhaps it could be a typo? If you could find any more examples of his being styled as such to prove it wasn't a one-off that would be helpful. Many thanks. Best M Mabelina (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, right, so the source which goes against your POV is a typo and yet the one (from same publication) that backs you up is "most authoritative"? This is typical I'm afraid, we have heard it all before. I'm afraid the sources are clear in their ambiguity (if that makes sense), so it is now purely a matter for the wikipedia community to decide how best to display this information Frinton100 (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mabelina: I presume the "Hon Maj-Gen" refers to an "Honorary Major-General", not to an "Honourable Major-General". And as Frinton100 pointed out, the source that contradicts your point of view is suddenly not "most authoritative"? That's a textbook example of cherry picking.

@JorisEnter: yes it does mean exactly that - I am genuinely confused as to what Wiki is trying to achieve here. So now it is okay for honorary titles to precede substantive titles in Infoboxes? If that is what you believe let others also have a say. M Mabelina (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mabelina: Military ranks precede styles such as The Rt Hon. This, I suppose, includes honorary military ranks. --JorisEnter (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@JorisEnter: Please do not keep supposing! M Mabelina (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mabelina: Now that I think of it, it's actually not much of a supposition. --JorisEnter (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@JorisEnter: Not to worry, I think I can keep up with your logic, but let's just stick to practicalities at the moment, rather than theory. Please understand that I have no wish to a) waste huge amounts of time, b) make enemies; but I am keen for Wiki to be a) correct, b) easy to understand. M Mabelina (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

PS. User:Mabelina notes that Mabelina continues to be pinged, before any others seem to have a chance to make any comment (nor for Mabelina to think about anything else before the next ping). Time out svp!

Well Mabelina, for the first time I've actually had a look round and it didn't take too long to find some other examples:

1. London Gazette 1949: [5] - note that other people are described as Rt Hon + PC too, like Lord Nathan. 2. This from Oxford University: [6] - see page 2, several Rt Hon + PC again. 3. Obituary from the Royal Geographical Soc.: [7]. 4. And on Google Books - look for Proceedings: Thirty-Third Annual Convention of Rotary International and see page 166. Frinton100 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There are so many counter examples to make they are far too numerous to list here. I do however think that constantly bickering about this won't achieve much (apart from winding each other up), so let's stick to the main issue, namely what would Wiki like to do..? Originally I was always told to keep such matters of noble styles simple and not use honorifics, now we seem to be going out of our way to prove otherwise. I am not sure it is a good use of time to devote hours to proving/countering this - let me comment, should you so wish, once others have had an opportunity to have a say. Much appreciated. M Mabelina (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
PS. just now I have been occupied amending the Molyneux baronets article, since Wiki previously stated that there had been a Molyneux baronetcy created for Sir William Molyneux (of Wellow). This is not the case, & I suggest that this sort of thing would be better for me to concentrate on whilst others draw their own conclusions about noble/honorific styles etc (rather than engaging in constant argument/counter-argument).

Exactly - this is is what we have all been trying to say all along - RS differ in their approach and always have done so, the question is, as you say - what would Wiki like to do? I think the general consensus is that with peers who are privy counsellors we should keep using Rt Hon + PC. And please stop complaining about the length of the argument and discussion; once again you are the one who started the whole thing off, so you shouldn't be surprised when others have something to say about the matter, and if you had accepted early on that it was not about being "right" or "wrong" but a matter of wikipedia preference, then it would have been over a long time ago. There is nothing wrong with holding the view that we should not use Rt Hon + PC, I'm sure many people could see the logic behind that view. The problem is when you refuse to listen to alternative arguments, put people down who dare to hold different views or are just plain rude to people.

Now, the other question is whether we wish to add something to the MOS to this effect. My feeling is that the diversity of opinion on other issues such as Rt Hon v. PC for "commoners", and the use of Rt Hon for peers who are not PCs would make that tricky. We could just leave it as an unwritten rule, in keeping with much of the British constitution. Frinton100 (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: so much more time is being expended on denigrating me than dealing with the substantive issue, surely that speaks volumes? M Mabelina (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
PS. in a nutshell, I am concerned that Wiki's Infobox style(s) are leading to a (completely needless) proliferation of incorrect styling elsewhere - it is so simple to remedy. Stick to simple styles in Infoboxes, for instance: The Lord X PC.
PPS. please see Lord Lansley, CBE, PC compared with http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-lansley/123 - the major point(s) that I note from this are a) fellow Wikipedia editors have got themselves into a massive stew about this, b) hardly anyone really seems to understand the subject properly, c) Wiki should agree on a most simple form of expressing such titles so as to be easy to understand and not to deflect from the main text...

As I say, I'm sure most people could see the logic in doing as you suggest, they just don't agree with it. Personally, I'd be all for getting rid of all titles and postnoms anywhere and just discussing them in the article if they were significant enough to, but I appreciate that is a minority view, so I am willing to work with others to find the best possible solution that satisfies a majority, even if some are not 100% satisfied. And please stop denigrating those who hold different views on the matter to your own. Frinton100 (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you've been told a number of times already, Mabelina, to stop edit warring on articles while discussion is ongoing and especially when you're going against what seems to be a consensus. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: Yes I have been accused of edit-warring BY YOU, but in the course of our discussions it transpires that the amendments I have made to Lord Athlone (especially with regard to his coat of arms, titles, styles, insignia, etc) prove to be correct. Please comment here should you think otherwise, rather than reverting or making your usual sly comments. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know I just said you are edit warring; you may well receive yet another block for it, as well as for still overlinking, insisting on bad grammar (wrong capitalisation, poor sentence structure, misuse of hyphens, etc.), which you have been told at least a dozen times to stop doing. I can revert, per WP:BRD. It's up to you, once reverted, to move to the talk page to discuss. Though, in this case, much of it has already been discussed, but you refuse to listen. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: you have only just now rejoined the discussion - as far as I can tell to try to get me blocked! This is quite exasperating - unnecessary when the point I have made is so simple - let others adjudicate - so please do not rabble rouse (or incite trouble) - thank you. M Mabelina (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't seem to let an article alone while "others adjudicate". You just barrel through Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone and other articles with your sub-par grammar, inconsistencies, overlinking, and ignorance of the general consensus here regarding post-nominals and honorifics. I'd point you to WP:BRD again, but, what's the use? You either never look at it or can't comprehend it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Note that this discussion only really applies to infoboxes, since we do not use "Rt Hon" or other honorifics in the first line. In infoboxes, I support continuing to use Rt Hon alone for peers who are not Privy Councillors, Rt Hon and PC for peers who are also Privy Councillors, and Rt Hon alone for commoners who are Privy Councillors. Personally I also support using PC in the first line for all Privy Councillors. It has been claimed that commoners are not entitled to the post-nominal; however this is contradicted by many sources where (and only where) Rt Hon is not used as a prefix (which is of course rare, but is our practice and should remain so to avoid a proliferation of honorifics). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Per @Necrothesp:. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Same for me. This is pretty much the current practice, though I'm not entirely sure if this is stated explicitly in the current MOS. --JorisEnter (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not anywhere in the MOS. The way I see it we have three options: 1. Leave it unstated and just do it; 2. Make a very general reference to use of PC for peers; OR 3. Go down the route I was suggesting back in the first discussion (above) of fully codifying the practice. I am beginning to think the second option may be best, as clearly I don't think we have any chance of an agreement on every dot and comma of my proposed addition to the MOS. Frinton100 (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I will continue to maintain that we should not expect WP users to EVER have to infer from the use of honorifics that a person is a member of the Privy Council. The only sensible approach is to ALWAYS use the post nominal PC for all members of the Privy Council. I take no view on when honorifics should be used and when not, because they are not that important. FF-UK (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It occurs to me that one aspect of this we have not discussed here is the fact that privy council membership can/should be mentioned in the article text. So I don't think we need to be too concerned about readers having to "guess" whether someone is a privy counsellor, or indeed make any sort of guesses about any other honorifics/postnoms, as that should all be clear from the article. Frinton100 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If you follow that logic to its conclusion then you are actually suggesting that there is no point in having the infobox at all. FF-UK (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"No. 16632". The London Gazette. 11–15 August 1812. Lord Amelius Beauclerk and Lord Henry Paulet are both described as "Right Honourable", and this could presumably be used to justify inclusion of the style in the infoboxes of their articles, but neither was a Privy Counsellor. Opera hat (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur with the aforementioned that honorific prefixes are not that important from a Wikipedia standpoint, since its role as an encyclopaedia is to impart accurate knowledge; this is amply achieved by the use of PC as a post-nom alone, whereas it is becoming abundantly clear that "customary usage" (ie. courtesy styles) vary not only from to time, but also from country to country. The following proposed amendment to Wiki's MOS guidelines takes this into account, thereby being correct in all countries worldwide. I trust fellow Wikipedians approve?

====Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom====

Privy Council members should not have the prefix “The Right Honourable” added before their name in the infobox but for “PC” to be used as a post-nominal.

Note that a Privy Counsellor is only entitled to the titles and styles of that office after they have been sworn in, an announcement of a pending appointment is not sufficient.

• Question: for style in infobox -- Rt Hon or PC? M Mabelina (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think from the discussion so far it is clear that fellow wikipedians do not approve. A majority (not all, of course), want to continue to use Rt Hon in infoboxes. I think that given the widespread use of Rt Hon for senior politicians this is perfectly reasonable. I still see no reason to change from what we have done up to now. Frinton100 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Frinton100: OK but since the RfC it has been the same folk commenting - of course I appreciate why people might want to lead the discussion but, given this proposal is a) accurate & b) simpler, how/when do others get a say (ie. those who haven't yet participated - or is it on another page somewhere (since I'm not totally au fait with Wiki's practices)? Just wondering so as to be fair, given that it was deemed that many more people would be needed to comment... Cheers M Mabelina (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Lots of people have contributed across both discussions. And far more people have been putting the current methods into practice by the way they edit articles. The fact that this hasn't come up for several years would suggest a reasonable level of contentment with the way these things are done at the moment. Frinton100 (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Unbelievably, Mabelina continues to remove honorifics from the infobox at (and seemingly only at, which just makes for inexplicable inconsistency) Vere Ponsonby, 9th Earl of Bessborough (as well as still incorrectly capitalising, hyphenating, and making other grammatical mistakes). It would be nice if this whole matter of pre- and post-noms could be put to an end as soon as possible (though, the discussion above indicates to me that it is already settled). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: I am sorry you claimed matters had become "unbelievable", so let's hope my discussions with Frinton100 have helped restore some order qv: User talk:Mabelina (with regards to Wiki editing style) and Vere Ponsonby, 9th Earl of Bessborough edited January 26th.

Perhaps I should make clear here that my sole purpose is for Wikipedia to represent facts correctly and in this vein I trust we can work together to this aim? Please advise - many thanks. M 04:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Mabelina has been banned for "exhausting the community's patience".--JorisEnter (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A "stage names and real names" discussion

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The thread Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Stage names and real names related directly to this page and its advice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Articles about siblings with names involving logography

What is the guideline for full names in lead sections of articles about multiple people, when those people 1) are siblings, and 2) hail from countries whose languages involve logography (e.g. East Asian countries)? I ask because I noticed that when such an article is about people from countries whose languages are non-logographic (e.g. Europe, the Americas), the full names are always written in the format "John, James and Jesse Smith", whereas in cases like ManaKana, the names are listed as if they're different surnames (i.e. "Mana Mikura (三倉茉奈) and Kana Mikura (三倉佳奈)"). MarqFJA87 (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@MarqFJA87:Normally, use English conventions, this being English Wikipedia. But it depends on the nature of the construction. If they were Japanese-Americans who did not use Japanese names, it would simply be "Mana and Kana Mikura are...". If it were some other pairt of twins, it might go something like vs. Manny McUragh (also known as MC Rocket Monster) and Ken McUragh (a.k.a. Vampire Count K.) are..." (I'm making up details to illustrate a point, of course). Because of the intervening parenthetic constructions, I would keep the present wording of "Mana Mikura (三倉茉奈) and Kana Mikura (三倉佳奈)". It's informationally redundant, in a minor way, but it's syntactically and logically correct, because "三倉茉奈" does not translate as "Mana". WP:NOT#TWITTER; it is not necessary for WP to be as compressed as humanly possible at the expense of clarity.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hyphenated-Americans (first sentence nationality descriptors)

Are there any guidelines about using nationality descriptors on the first sentence? I know that a lot of articles are moving away from the vague "German-American" and into the more precise "German-born American" or simply "German-born" with a follow up explanation in the Background section. Is this something we can agree on (should we add it to the MOS) or is there opposition? Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

For more context the original discussion was about the term "Canadian-American" on Anita Sarkeesian. The term itself is quite common, and is used when to describe plenty of notable people (e.g. Phil Hartman, Martin Short, Jim Carrey, Dan Aykroyd). It's use is usually appropriate when describing someone with strong ties to both countries. — Strongjam (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Forum shopping. User:Hamsterlopithecus is the only editor in the Sarkeesian talk discussion advocating such a change. Insufficient argument has been made that this is an issue more broad than this single example. BusterD (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Woah... good faith man... We were having the discussion on the Sarkeesian article and I came here to see if there was any rule about it in the MOS. Since there was no mention about it, I posed the question here in the talk page to get a general idea about how people feel about it. I then let people know in the Sarkeesian talk page that I had done so and asked if they would continue the discussion here as we were no longer talking about the subject of that article but of a more general MOS topic. Anyway, can we just start the discussion fresh and we can share our thoughts on the matter? Hopefully we can reach a consensus. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith, but this does smack of a solution searching for a problem. As was already explained at the talk page, ethnicity is generally deprecated in intros, but nationality is encouraged. In cases where someone has more than one nationality, there's no reason not to cover both of them. In some cases, it's appropriate to say "xxx-born American", or avoid nationality entirely (if only to avoid endless debates with nitpickers), but this isn't one of those cases. Here, the subject quite plainly identifies as Canadian-American and this is how sources represent her, which ought to settle the question.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidental to the actual debate, I can't think of any time that "Canadian-American" has been a term in use. "Italian-American", "Irish-American", sure. But not "Canadian-American". And this is a relevant topic beyond just Sarkeesian. Nationality is fairly important on many sports articles, and there have been edit wars from people trying to "claim" players for their countries - usually when said player gets a secondary citizenship long after they retire. Resolute 00:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"Canadian-American" is quite a well established term. Strongjam just linked a number of Wikipedia articles that use it, and a few minutes of Google searching reveals a wide variety of external sources that use it as well.[8][9][10][11][12] That "Italian-American" and "Irish-American" are more common indicates only that there are more Italian Americans and Irish Americans than Canadian Americans.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I should have specified that I was thinking more from the Canadian perspective; we rarely hyphenate people in general, and almost never Canadian-American (i.e.: The Canadian Encyclopedia doesn't at all). Just as a nitpick though, there are more Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans because of the distinct cultural history and identity of the Irish and Italians that people either hold onto themselves or get 'stereotyped' by others. Canada and the US don't really have that, meaning a second generation Canadian of American parents or second generation American of Canadian parents will almost always simply call themselves Canadian or American. Resolute 16:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but again, we're not talking about ethnicity or heritage here. This article and the others listed above are people with dual nationalities, born in Canada and living and working in America. In Sarkeesian's case, she's lived and studied in both countries, and she uses the term "Canadian American" to identify herself.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Reso brings up a good point about Hyphenated Americans: this terminology is rarely used, if at all, outside of the USA. The article on hyphenated americans describes it as a historically disparaging term to emphasize how non-american people were. And it seems like it may mean vastly different things for different people (and depending on the context). So why not just explain what is meant instead of putting a vague label? If they are born in Canada then we say that. If they live in a country, we say that. I think that in this case, terminology, in an attempt to simplify, creates unnecessary vagueness. And what's worse is two different readers understanding two different things but not realizing it. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your comments are a bit all over the place. At any rate, it doesn't appear likely that there will be consensus for changing this article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• More of a "content consensus at the article" matter than a style one at present. Refer to sources. There probably is an underlying WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE problem about the whole thing, but that's a policy problem not solely a style problem, as with the gender identity stuff. If someone wrote an article about me and called me a "Scottish American" I would laugh really hard (even though I am into Scottish history and even own a kilt, I don't think of myself in such terms). How does the subject identify? What sources apply what label and what are their potential biases? Do we notice that brown people get these labels more? That Jews get them pretty often but Christians don't? That people's whose surname-generating families from east of about maybe Germany get these labels a lot more than people of nominal Western European extraction? It's clearly a WP:SYSTEMICBIAS issue, but it won't be addressed, probably, at an MoS page. However, it could in theory be addressed at MOS:IDENTITY, perhaps with an instruction not to make up labels, or apply labels attested only in outlying sources, especially in absence of clear self-identification with it. That has come up repeatedly about Mariah Carey and people trying to label her "African American" on the basis of the racist "one drop rule" (one of them even said "she admitted she was part black in an interview", as if this was some kind of confession. I'd really like to see an end to this sort of pandering to 1940s thinking, but it would probably take a WP:VPPOL RfC to gain any traction on it, and I have other fish to fry. I think it would take an RfC because it's not solely a style matter yet; the purpose of guideline is to codify our consensus on best practices, not dictate what they should be (per WP:POLICY), and there clearly isn't a consensus on this yet, given the number of article that dwell, right in the first sentence, on aspects of subject's alleged ethnic or "racial" backgrounds. PS: I'm addressing the broader issue; I have little interest in the Canadian dispute above, which seems pretty pointless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Spanish naming custom

Please see this discussion regarding Alejandro González Iñárritu (credited since 2014 as Alejandro G. Iñárritu). Lapadite (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Amending MOS:JR on comma usage

Please see this RfC at the village pump. RGloucester — ☎ 23:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing "only if" to "only when"

In WP:BIRTHNAME, it states:

In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable prior to coming out. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly":

The use of "only if" here can be read to imply that it is optional to include the birthname when the person was notable prior to coming out. Logically, this should be "if and only if", since the birthname should be included if the person was notable prior to coming out. However, "if and only if" does not make for easy reading. I suggest changing to "only when", the sentence would read: "should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out". LK (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Full name, (Birthdate), known as (just first name and last name)

I have a question about the first mention of a person's name within a biographical article.

If a person is known as, and commonly billed as, "Jane Doe", and the convention in Wikipedia requires that the person's full name should be used in the article's very first sentence (for example, "Jane Marie Doe"), then is it really necessary to add "known as Jane Doe" after the full name is mentioned, just because simply "Jane Doe" is what the person is what she is commonly billed as, even though "Jane Doe" is her real name and not a pseudonym or stage name? For example:

"Jane Marie Doe (birthdate), known as Jane Doe, is an American actress."

"Jane Marie Doe (birthdate) is an American actress."

Jim856796 (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It's absolutely not necessary. The article title shows what a person is known as. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Mostly. It's only needed in cases where confusion could arise. Some examples: A) They were known more than one way in the sources and there could be any confusion on the part of the reader (actors, for example, are often credited under variant name spellings and abbreviations, and the average person is not always certain they're the same individuals). B( The name they're best known by bears little resemblance to their real one – if the article title is "DJ Phathead" and it begins "Mark Allen Johnson is ...", readers are apt to wonder if they've arrived at the wrong page if the lead does not also include a "best known as DJ Phathead" statement; but the problem does not arise if the common name is "Mark Johnson" and the article title is "Mark Johnson (musician)".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Survived by

Because of this discussion, I think this situation should be explained in the Tense section for guidance in future situations. For reference here's the Wiktionary definition Mlpearc (open channel) 19:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest rather that we avoid the "survived by" formulation entirely - it doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

We need clarity on this situation. If a deceased person has any living descendants. Do we write the deceased person is survived by his/her descendants? or was survived by his/her descendants? GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I concur with Nikkimaria. WP:NOT#OBITUARY. It's not encyclopedic writing. If their family members were pertinent enough to mention in the article, they should be mentioned before the part about the subject dying. If some of them died before the subject, that should be mentioned before the part about the subject dying (see, e.g. Roy Orbison). If it's a poorly developed stub article, the obituary-style text might linger around a bit, but I wouldn't agonize over it. It should be "were survived", because it might be a month, or 10 years, before someone updates the article again, and any of them could have died in the intervening time, so any "is survived by" wording will imply that they're all definitely alive right now, when that might not be true at all. It's OK for a newspaper to do that, because it's understood that the "present" of a newspaper is the day it was published and no more. The present on WP is interpreted as "actually right now, to the best of our editors' ability to keep up with the world".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This has become an issue of confusion in several articles of persons who have recently died. The general rule is that "is survived by" is often used in obituaries, which are contemporaneous with the death of the person, but "was survived by" is used in encyclopedic articles and other biographies. The verb "is/was" is singular and thus refers to the subject of the article in keeping with the rule of English that the verb form must agree in number with the subject (the sole exception being "you [singular] are/were"). The standard reference work of the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary, agrees with this usage (definition 1.2 of the word "survive") ["he was survived by..."]:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/survive

This is the correct usage in biographies of deceased persons and is further bolstered by the statement in 'WP:MOS/biographies#tense' that historical events of deceased persons must be in the past tense. What could be more historical than the death of the subject? Let's look at some examples: Would you say, "George Washington is survived by his wife, Martha"? In this case, obviously not. Or, to take an example within living memory: "John F. Kennedy is survived by his wife and two children." In this case, his daughter is still alive (she's currently the U.S. ambassador to Japan) but his wife and son are dead. So do we use "is" or "was"? Here's an even more recent example: "Elizabeth Taylor is survived by her three children." In this case, since none are notable for WP purposes, we simply do not know who is or is not alive. It would be an impossible task to follow the survivors of the tens of thousands of WP biographies of recently deceased persons by using "is" until at least one dies. Even then, using "is" does not clarify which survivors are dead or alive. But using "was" to refer to the deceased subject makes clear who the survivors were at the time of the subject's death (which can be easily obtained from contemporary obituaries) and is grammatically correct for an encyclopedia or other biography that is not reporting a current news event. The best practice is to follow WP:MOS and state historical events in the past tense ("he died on...she was survived by..."). Therefore, I propose adding to 'WP:MOS/biographies#tense' the following sentence: "In describing the survivors of deceased persons, 'was survived by' is the correct usage." Comments? American In Brazil (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have to agree with those who point to WP:NOT#OBITUARY... the best solution is to avoid using "survived by" entirely. Reorganize and Rephrase the information in a way that does not use those words. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with not using "survived by" is that it omits useful, relevant information. Nearly everyone has surviving family when they die. If not, the correct phrase would be: "He had no survivors." I agree with you that WP is not an obituary (which is written contemporaneously with the death of the subject), and also WP is not a newspaper (including current internet news items) WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. The item becomes historical within a day. Indeed, obituaries in weekly news magazines say "was survived by". So the simple (and grammatically correct) solution is just to say "was survived by...". American In Brazil (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to support "not using at all" as too many variables are involved to use is and was just don't sound right Mlpearc (open channel) 21:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, "was just don't sound right" just doesn't sound right. (In English, the third person singular, present tense, of all verbs always adds 's' or 'es', no exceptions.) What doesn't sound right about 'was'? It is the form used by the definitive authority on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary (see citation above). The past tense 'was' is the grammatically correct form. It is the form used in all biographies of deceased persons throughout the English-speaking world, except for obituaries which are contemporary with the subject's death (see biography.com or any weekly news magazine). 'Was' solves the many variables that arise with using 'is', as you correctly point out. 'Was survived by...' is correct in every respect and solves all problems - grammatical, historical, practical. American In Brazil (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify, first, I am, in no way, an English student, as you can tell (and at 57 no ambition to be either), "was survived by" doesn't sound right because I am not use to hearing the phrase that way. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Although you are "not use [sic] to hearing the phrase that way" (correct usage is 'used' because you are using the past participle as an adjective), this is a subjective judgement, not an objective one, and therefore is original research WP:OR. Objectivity is a reliable source WP:RS and the most reliable source for the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary (citation above). By the way, if you click on this link you will find the same usage for both British and American English. Examine biography.com or online editions of weekly news magazines such as Time or Newsweek or U.S. News & World Report to see how they treat recently deceased persons (in the past tense: "s/he was survived by..."). Only newspaper and online obituaries, written contemporaneously with the death of the subject, use the present 'is'. If this is the usage throughout the English-speaking world, why should it be different for WP? Further, if 'is' is the correct style, it would be necessary to review every one of the tens of thousands of WP biographies of deceased persons for correction. Are you volunteering for the job? As I said above, 'was' solves all problems - grammatical, historical, practical. American In Brazil (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Look, I just started the discussion, because it seemed like it needed to be started. I'm not trying to argue or defend anything in this thread. I apologize. you have taken the time to point out English lesson but, like I said "I'm not interested". Your time would be better spent directed at the other users in this discussion. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 02:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree that it is a needed discussion and I appreciate that you have taken the time to engage in it. I am not trying to be pedantic by correcting your English (although as a teacher of English to Portuguese speakers, that's my job), but rather to establish in the MoS the correct style for tense usage in biographies of deceased persons when referring to their survivors. I'm sure we can both agree that our conversation is in good faith and that we both wish to improve WP so that it continues to grow as an outstanding online resource. I hope we can get some other comments on this topic from those who care about correct English usage. American In Brazil (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This discussion appears to have become dormant. Unless there are further comments, in 10 days I will add to MOS/Biographies#Tense the following: "In referring to survivors of deceased persons, correct usage is: 'S/he was survived by...'. If there were no survivors, say so." Any comments? American In Brazil (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be the opposite of a consensus for any such thing (except that "is", a daily newspaper style, is even worse than "was"). Salient quotes from the above discussion:

• I would suggest rather that we avoid the "survived by" formulation entirely - it doesn't seem very encyclopedic.... Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• WP:NOT#OBITUARY. It's not encyclopedic writing. If their family members were pertinent enough to mention in the article, they should be mentioned before the part about the subject dying. If some of them died before the subject, that should be mentioned before the part about the subject dying....  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• I have to agree with those who point to WP:NOT#OBITUARY... the best solution is to avoid using "survived by" entirely. Reorganize and Rephrase the information in a way that does not use those words. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Even the person who opened the thread wrote: I'm going to have to support "not using at all" as too many variables are involved.... I'm not trying to argue or defend anything in this thread.... like I said "I'm not interested".... Mlpearc (open channel) 02:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So, I'm pretty sure at least three or four of us would revert such an addition on the merits, and many others would on principle, since it didn't just fail to get consensus – consensus so far is clearly against it. While we can probably agree that "was" hypothetically is the correct usage for such a construction in a non-ephemeral publication, it's a moot point, since we don't want either construction. It's a bit like wanting to insert either shizzit or shiznit as the correct spelling of the slang minced oath, when we have no call to use either form here outside a direct quotation. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

As you can see I didn't do anything except put it out for further discussion, so let's discuss. The problem with leaving out "was survived by..." is that survivors are almost always mentioned in obituaries, usually in the present "is" because the obituary is contemporary with the death of the subject. But as Mlpearc correctly mentions, "is" is worse than "was" because it leads to all sorts of problems, as I previously pointed out with pertinent examples in the discussion above (George Washington, John F. Kennedy, Elizabeth Taylor). As has been mentioned, WP is not an obituary and is not a newspaper. Also, some deceased persons had notable family members who have a WP article, and a link to their names is not only appropriate but mandatory. Further, there are now tens of thousands of WP articles mentioning survivors of deceased subjects; shall we review them all for rewording? Any volunteers? And of course to leave out pertinent information that is mentioned in the sources (the obituaries) is ignoring what was important to the subjects during their lifetimes (his/her family). For all these reasons, I think that stating "was survived by..." is the best solution to the problem of using the correct verb tense to refer to the survivors of deceased persons. And if there were no survivors, to so state. American In Brazil (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Nationality

MoS recommends that indication of nationality should be as follows: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable".

What about the - rather frequent - case of notable people that were citizens of some country that no longer exist (= absorbed by another one)?
Likewise (and even more frequently), what about those people that became famous as citizens of a city that was then part of country X (e.g. Morocco), but is now part of country Y (let's say Algeria)? Which nationality should prevail in that case?

In more general terms, is there anywhere any guideline to deal with such cases? Problem being that this may lead to edit wars every time some famous guy was a citizen of a place that "changed countries" over the centuries. And a guideline would really help... --Azurfrog (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

As stipulated in the quote from the guideline, the country where the person was resident when they became notable is preferred. So, if the city was then in Morocco, the person would be considered Moroccan (barring other concerns) even if that particular city is now in Algeria. DrKay (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@DrKay: - hat @Azurfrog: is asking is what if the country no longer exists any more. You wouldn't use the modern location's term - Caesar was not Italian, he was Roman etc. GiantSnowman 18:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Complications mostly arise when the jurisdiction changed and they still lived there. Generally, just follow the sources. James Joyce is considered an Irish author, though technically born a British subject.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I am obviously glad and reassured that you both agree with me, though I am disappointed that you have chosen to phrase your concurring opinions as dissents. DrKay (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your (concurring) feedbacks. Problem is, whenever the place where the person was resident no longer exists as an independant entity, referring to sources won't help much, as they will themselves generally hesitate between some past nationality (if any) and present-day corresponding country.

Best (most tricky?) example I can think of could be Ahmad al-Tijani, who was born in Laghouat Province and became notable in Morocco. Now Laghouat is part of present-day Algeria, but was then totally independant, even from Ottoman Algeria. So sources differ, hesitating between Algeria, Ottoman Algeria, Laghouat (independant State), and Morocco (very rarely so, though). And according to the guideline here, it should be Morocco, insofar as this is where he became notable, but which does not reflect what little consensus there may be on this matter.

Any further thoughts, or reference to some other, more detailed guideline, would be most welcome. --Azurfrog (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarify: I meant follow the modern sources. Of course we're not going to use Victorian sources to "prove" that something we think of today at Turkish is 'really" Ottoman. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• This sounds more like a POV content dispute (asking which nationality is accurate) than a style dispute (asking how we should style that nationality). Suggest asking at the NPOV notice board. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  True enough: it takes a POV background to have this kind of dispute. I just wondered if there existed some general guidelines on the subject that could be specific enough to help settle the matter satisfactorily on a purely "technical", factual basis. Thanks for your help anyway. Azurfrog (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Family

I wonder whether it would be appropriate to say something about describing family relationships in the MOS. It's normal in articles about politicians, it's necessary in articles about royalty, but it's unusual in articles about, say, business people and run-of-the-mill actors. A little advice on when to include it and what to say might be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a content matter, not a style matter. Covered at WP:BLP.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

BLPNAME only appears to cover the question of naming those family members. It doesn't appear to address questions like "Bob had two children by his first marriage, one from his second, and now has 10 grandchildren". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• See WP:Handling trivia. Decent essay that might apply. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Jr./Sr. double comma in lede

I'm curious how to use the double comma around the life range in the opening sentences of biographies. Example: "Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an ..." Should the latter comma for Jr. be before or after the parenthetical dates? Thanks for any guidance. Fdssdf (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The dates are not referring to the Jr., so should not be between the commas. Logically, should be "Martin Luther King, Jr., (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an ...". I think that it would be in the spirit of WP style to use punctuation logically, though you'll find it both ways in sources (along with the omission of the comma, which all style guides point out is an error). I have been fixing a few articles this way, and haven't encountered any pushback. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Right. The sentence structure is [Name], [more info including [birth/death dates] [is/was] [descriptive noun phrase(s) relating to notability] [additional clarification as needed]]. The birth date is squarely a part of the more info, not the name, so it goes after the comma. The only style guides anywhere that would drop the comma in such a construction are journalism/PR ones, which are entirely about maximum textual efficiency in tights spaces, including at the expense of clarity. It's impermissibly sloppy, confusing, and illogical to do "Martin Luther King, Jr. (b. ...), ...." clumping the birth/death material as part of the name, and still sloppy, confusing, and illogical to do "Martin Lutehr King, Jr. (b. ...) ...." without ever closing the comma construction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr.Nawar Al-Saadi

The academic title Dr. in the title of the article Dr.Nawar Al-Saadi is incorrect, and it should be Nawar Al-Saadi. Am I correct in this statement? If so, it should be mentioned in this article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You are correct per WP:DOCTOR. Plus there's a space missing. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Beware bogus printings of The Elements of Style

I repeat info extracted from my comment to Collect above because it broadly relevant:

A number of less-than-scrupulous publishers have taken Strunk's 1918 first edition of The Elements of Style, which is in the public domain, and re-published it with a modern date, pretending that it's a current edition (some, like this one, go so far as to put White's name on it, too). The actual current edition is the 4th, by Strunk & White. Since the 1979 3rd edition, E. B. White has advised dropping the comma. The real one is here.

A usually reliable way to tell the real current editions from the old public-domain copy: the real ones don't put a comma into "Strunk, Jr.". Dicklyon (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You're fighting your own sources now? - ^theWOLFchild 22:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Do not remove other editor's comments from talk pages. That is something you aren't allowed to do. I don't care if you don't like the question. It's a legitimate question. You have made a lot of changes to this project, predicated on this apparent "broad consensus" and on these outside sources, such as style guides. Now you're here telling everyone how the style guide you relied is wrong... "don't look at that style guide, look at this one!". Good grief. - ^theWOLFchild 22:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

If I'm fighting a source, it is Collect's bogus printing. I don't have one like that, but I'm familiar with it since it's widely available for free online. It's not bad for 1918, but he used it to suggest that The Elements of Style still says to use the comma. OK, yes, the 1918 edition still says that, but the editions since 1979 say the opposite. From your comment, I take this needed to be repeated. Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey guy - saying my sources were "bogus" is about as foul a trait in a post as one might wish. Are Chicago MoS and Casagrande "bogus" as well in this splendid example of "hobgoblin" rhetoric? Collect (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You obviously have a bogus printing of Strunk, based on your statement that "Strunk insists on a comma still in its latest edition." I'm just pointing out that these bogus printings of Strunk are common, and one needs to beware lest they mislead to think that "latest edition" means later than 1918. Dicklyon (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Thewolfchild:: Dicklyon is obviously not "fighting his own sources". See straw man. You're fighting in contravention of the stop-or-be-blocked warning you received just a few hours ago, however, posting personalized pseudo-disputes just to keep arguing. If this doesn't stop immediately, it's rather obvious what the outcome will be. No one competent in English could come to the conclusion you're trying to come to here. A warning about bogus copies masquerading as current real editions cannot possibly be a warning about the current real edition. Basic reasoning. I know you are smart enough to have understood this, so your posts appear to serve no purpose but continued battlegrounding and pointless disruption, in contravention of the final warning you received a few hours ago [13], two of them actually [14].

PS: It actually is permissible, though uncommon, to remove disruptive nonsense, and very common to hat or otherwise refactor it. You know this, because you've previously been blocked for editwarring against refactoring. Please stop.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Garner explains the when, why, and where here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Another legit printing:

• "50th Anniversary Edition" (2008 slipcased hardcover, Longman; ISBN 9780205632640, ASIN: B003OUKLQQ) – Repackaging of the 4th ed. paperback (Pearson Press, 1999), which Dicklyon linked to above

Amazon is overrun with the bogus ones:

List of caveat emptor junk:

"Annotated and Updated for Present-Day Use", ed. Stanford Pritchard (self-published Kindle, ASIN: B006TH2CYU) – some random guy's self-published rewrite "Updated 2011 Edition" (Kindle e-book, ASIN: B0058I7TFI) – Fraudulent; just a digitization of the 1918 version (more likely the 1920 edition, i.e., the publicly published version of the in-house 1918 version). "Illustrated" version (Kindle, ASIN: B00MKACA1A and B00NOGSOYG – Digitization of the 1918/1920 edition with cartoons or something added. (Penguin actually produced an illustrated version of the 3rd ed. (ISBN 978-1594200694), but it's obsolete.) "December 10, 2012" version (Kindle, ASIN: B00AMXXNBI - Some random person's digitization of the 1918/1920 edition "The Original Edition" (paperback, ISBN 978-0486464503) – reprint of 1918/1920 version, from some random print-to-order company "November 24, 2014" version (paperback, ISBN 978-1503313774) – reprint of 1918/1920 version, from some random print-to-order company "September 23, 2013" version (paperback, ISBN 978-1492788577) – reprint of 1918/1920 version, from some random print-to-order company "June 26, 2012" version (paperback, ISBN 978-1612933016) – reprint of 1918/1920 version, from some random print-to-order company "The Original Edition" (2008-09-17) (paperback, ASIN: B012TQGFR4 – reprint of 1918/1920 version, from some random print-to-order company "60 Minutes to Better Writing & Grammar" version (audiobook, ASIN B001N0OZTI) – some random company's read-aloud version of the 1918/1920 edition, surely abridged (60 minutes?) "Recorded Books Edition" (audiobook, ASIN B0015AOEGU) – some random company's read-aloud version

If you wanted a paper reprint of the original for research purposes, the Dover Press one would be the one to get:

• "The Original Edition" (hardback, ISBN 978-0486464503; paperback, ISBN 978-0486447988) – professionally produced reprint of the 1918/1920 version.

Amazon Digital Services also produces a Kindle e-book version of it without any monkey business:

• "May 5, 2015" version (Kindle, ASIN: B00X8UPUIG – Amazon's own digitization of the 1918/1920 ed.

However, it's available free online (in the 1920 Harcourt Brace edition) at Project Gutenberg in HTML, Epub, Kindle, and plain text formats; and (in the genuine 1918 privately printed original form) at Google Books in PDF.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Section merge

Propose merging Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Initials into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Names, and just leaving a cross-reference behind. It's frankly bizarre that we're covering a human naming matter outside the guideline for it, and buried in another one that is almost entirely about non-sentient things. (See also WT:MOS#Section merges for additional MoS cleanup merges).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

If you look in this page's history in December 2013, the section was essentially a link back then. It has since been expanded. I don't know if there was discussion that resulted in that expansion. It may be worth perusing the history of this page and the talk page.

Have you considered placing a second section merge tag on WP:INITS? It seems to me that we have three sections that say roughly the same thing, which usually leads to problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Re: "in December 2013, the section was essentially a link ... It has since been expanded – Yeah, that's how WP:CONTENTFORKing tends to happen in guidelines. People don't bother to read the parent section, they just add stuff to the derived one in a "drive-by" manner, and often no one notices for a long time that it's redundant or divergent (we can probably forestall some of that by adding HTML comments that say something like "Please do not add advice to this section, but seek consensus to add it to the parent section at WP:Whatever#Foobar"). Periodically we have to merge and normalize. There hasn't been a concerted effort to do this (except for MOS:LIFE) since around 2012, so the cleanup is long overdue.

Re: WP:INITS – Not sure I detect a problem there; it's only addressing use of initials and middle names in the context of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DAB, so I'm not sure I see anything to merge out. It's not giving instructions on how to format initials, or other style-but-not-titles advice, that I noticed, but I have to get out the door to my pool league match, and maybe didn't read it very closely. Is there a specific part you'd merge? I'm actually all for merging all style material out of AT and NC pages to stop these constant confusions and (often imaginary) conflicts, so if you can devise a way to reduce the verbiage at WP:INITS, and at that entire NC page, I'd be supportive, and the thread at WT:AT indicates a lot of others would be too. I think that most of the style-masquerading-as-naming advice is actually in the topical NC pages, however, as well as in WP:AT itself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Support merging. Seems like a good idea to put related topics together. LK (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Manuals of style

Garner's Modern American Usage (OUP) says "Both forms are correct." Not a "bogus" book. Further, "jr. and sr." really mean "son" and "father" or "the younger" and "the elder". Examine Alexandre Dumas, père on Wikipedia for the usage of a comma as common in particular. Same use of comma in EB. The appendage is a descriptor of the person, and not an integral part of a name.

Ritter's "Oxford Guide to Style" (2002) uses the comma for the "post-positive particle." Straus' "Blue Book" (2014) "The comma is no longer considered mandatory" but says one may use a comma. Guffey's "Essentials of Business Communications" (2012 Cengage) says to use the comma unless the person prefers not to use a comma with their name.

Need more? The world is not unanimously opposed to commas by a long shot. Sorry about that.

Again - the entire interminable series of discussions is about as big a waste of verbiage as imaginable, but when one editor explicitly accuses another editor of using a "bogus" source, the temptation is to point out that the sources are not bogus by one whit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No one denies that the comma form is both correct and used. However, there are advantages to using the commaless form, and the majority of style guides worldwide agree that the commaless form is to be preferred in contemporary English. As such, the Wikipedia MoS has expressed that preference, much as we express a preference for double inverted commas, despite single inverted commas being standard in some varieties of English, including my own. RGloucester — ☎ 16:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it ever possible to put something to bed around here?? Collect, if you feel you can bring a significantly stronger case than was made in the last RfC, go ahead and do so in a new RfC. Be prepared to piss off a lot of editors if it is not significantly stronger, for wasting yet more of the project's time. But this is not helpful or productive. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I was accused of using a "bogus source". Amazingly enough my nly voiced opinion was that where the living person uses one form or the other that we use that form. O just suggest that when one accuses any editor of using a "bogus source" that it should be made clear that the name-calling editor is actually wrong. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I was correct that you were citing a bogus modern printing of Strunk as if it were a modern edition. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I find your graciousness invisible here. I did not cite bogus sources and your inane reiteration of that inane point rankles inanely. I would point out that I called the one source "Strunk" and linked exactly to it, and cited a large number of other sources as well. Now can you look up the meaning and connotation of "bogus" before you make the same charges and attacks on others? I have iterated that the entire issue is like the value of the Vice Presidency to John Nance Garner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You wrote "Strunk insists on a comma still in its latest edition." If you meant the 1918 edition as the latest "Strunk", then OK. If you meant to imply that The Elements of Style in its recent editions requires a comma, then you are wrong, most likely because you were misled by a bogus reprint of Strunk 1918 dressed up like a modern edition. That's all I meant, and I'm pretty sure it's correct. I never accused you of citing "bogus sources" as you claim I did. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That's correct. The Elements of Style has directly recommended against the comma since since the 1979 3rd edition. Collect is relying on a reprint of a century-old book. PS: Referring to a particular printing of some source as bogus is not a personal attack on an editor. Someone needs to re-read WP:NPA for a refresher on what it says.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Collect:: You're citing nothing but obsolete sources. and I'm not sure what you hope to gain by this; I already sourced it to the b'Jesus belt [15]. Ritter's has been replaced twice over (2005, also Ritter, and 2014, new editor Waddingham), and the new Garner's (Modern English Usage, now) came out a month or so ago. Anyway, you keep arguing this "the comma is not wrong, it's not forbidden" angle, and well, so what? There is no such thing as Standard English, handed down from on high by authoritarian edict and enforced by the International English Language Police. All style is arbitrary at one level or another, and every style guide conflicts with some other style guide on virtually every single point, even the most basic things like "sentences begin with capital letters" (some style guides would permit "3M is a company that...", and others would not). You cannot overturn an RfC and a long and growing string of consensus conclusions at RM by bible-thumping old style books from a decade (or century!) ago. The premise never was that the usage is incorrect or unheard of, it's simply declined to the point that it's being abandoned across all genres, dialects, and registers. The usage in reliable sources show this, the advice in actually current style guides show this, and that was sufficient for consensus to change. I'm sorry that you feel so strongly about this comma, but we really need to move on to more productive things than recycling the same argument indefinitely. If, as you say, your only concern is that "where the living person uses one form or the other that we use that form", we already have that in here. So, aren't we done here?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Nearly done. We're still seeking an example of a living person who shows evidence of consistently using and preferring that comma. Dicklyon (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing about this person, when he or she is eventually unearthed.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Amakuru, since you are participating in these talks I ask that you do not do anymore comma closings, such as the one you've just done at Martin Luther King Jr. Day which includes, at least from my reading, both biased comments as regards future closings as well as doing a 'count the votes'-type close, something that the topic surely does not deserve. Randy Kryn 21:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I remain opposed to concerning ourselves with subject preference, as it does not merit the editor time required to determine it, as if it can very often be clearly determined in any case. I strongly suspect that the presence or absence of the comma is far more significant to a few Wikipedia editors than to the subject individuals involved. Thus, it looks to me like more bikeshed battleground. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I have taken to not even looking for subject preference, since I haven't been able to find an example where it matters. I agree we should get rid of it, as we agreed over a year ago, but that might raise a backlash again. Having it in there allows the possibility that someone will find an example of where this applies, and in the mean time we should probably not sweat it, and continue to invite an example. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That matter can be considered resolved. After the closer of the RfC about MOS:JR objected to my including BLP-related rule (which was discussed but did not make it into the close), I removed it and instead made it a factual observation about likelihood, and this has been stable for a while, nor have any problems arisen about that change, or the inclusion of it at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

What about composition titles with Jr.?

The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. appears on its associated media with a comma, so I was thinking maybe this could be the example we need of when the comma is to be used. Then then I found that some reasonable fraction of books (like 40%, probably not a majority) do drop the comma. And the percentage is higher for the name Brisco County, Jr.. So what's our preference? Style composition titles like other things with Jr, or follow what seems like the official preference? And treat the character name like any other name? Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• It seems a no-brainer to me that both articles would be exceptions to the house style. The producer of a work has the last word on its title, including any punctuation; this is not something that requires analysis by secondary sources. The character's name follows from the title of the work that includes it. If any books disagree, they're just wrong.
  But, per WP:CREEP, I would trust those decisions to local consensus until such time as that proves counterproductive. MOS:JR does not need to anticipate every possible situation; it needn't prevent the need for all local discussion on the question; but it hopefully will avoid a large majority of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  I'm not suggesting we modify WP:JR, except if we find a great example to put into it. But many books do disagree with your approach; 5 on the first page of book hits here and 5 in the first page of News hits here. (I realize this can vary as hits are somewhat non-deterministic). Dicklyon (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps some versions of official media don't use the comma. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  I suspect they cleverly and creatively obscured the location of the possible comma with Comet's left ear, so as to avoid getting involved in the 21st Century Great Comma War. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

  Quite possibly. Not convincingly, but maybe. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

And a related question. We all know the Jr needs a second comma if it has a first one, right? So a sentence like "During its broadcast run, The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., garnered ..." has that second comma. But it seems incongruous with the italics that define the title, since one wouldn't want a comma after a title. I don't see any books doing that. Do we need different guidelines for composition titles that end with Jr.? Not that I seek more creep, just wondering what's right here. Leaving out the comma is the most tempting, and is what a lot of books do. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would be inclined to re-cast the sentence. The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., during its broadcast run, garnered...
  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC).
  
• It's an out-of-band example, really. It's the title of a published work, so it is given as-published (within reason – i.e., we don't attempt to mimic font choices, colored text, purely decorative superscripting, and other typographic shenanigans; more on that below). If we came back in 200 years and the norm in English was to use "II", not "Jr." or any other variant of "Junior", and it were applied retroactively (e.g., MLK was called "Martin Luther King II" in then-contemporary sources), the title of that TV show would still be The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. For fictional characters, we generally follow the same rules as for real people, but this is a good case for an exception (and there are many, e.g. professional or honorific titles when treated as an integral part of the name, as in Doctor Doom and Prince Valiant), in this case to avoid conflict with the title of the TV show (principle of least astonishment). It only need appear once per article anyway; even the article on the character can just refer to him as "County" after the first occurrence.

  "The producer of a work has the last word on its title, including any punctuation" is not true across the board. For one thing, subtitles used to be separated from titles with commas in many cases, but these are normalized to colons these days, unless the construction grammatically calls for a comma (The Hobbit, or There and Back Again). As another. Secondly, books a century and more ago often had very long full titles, sometimes with three, even four levels of subtitles; these are routinely shortened. Another example is the Japanese fad of adding extraneous periods and other punctuation to English-language or "Engrish" titles of Japanese works, just because they think it looks cool. The consensus has been to drop this as extraneous and meaningless excessive stylization, per MOS:TM (thus the long-discussed moved of "Gangsta." to Gangsta (manga), among various J-pop and K-pop album and performer-name cases.) The de-stylings also mirror "P!nk" → Pink (singer), "Alien³" → Alien 3, "Spın̈al Tap" → Spinal Tap (band), and thousands of other examples. The general rule, which applies here, is: avoid unnecessary style, unless it is used consistently by almost all reliable sources for the subject in question (thus iPod, Deadmau5, and Mötley Crüe, not "Ipod" or "Ipod", "Deadmaus", and "Motley Crue"). The comma remains the vast-majority usage for the title of The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., so there ya have it. We need not do an analysis of the source treatment of the character name, since our own WP:CONSISTENCY concerns for readers and editors trumpsany off-WP preference. The consistency policy applies more strongly toward consistency between related articles than consistency across all titles. If it were not for the comma-jr. pattern in the title of the series, however, we would probably remove the comma from the character-name article, just as we use between-initials spacing (T. J. Hooker, B. A. Baracus, etc.) even the space-free style is common off-WP.

  PS: I agree with Rich F. that recasting confusing or dispute-generating sentences is the right way to approach them. That's why MoS's lead says to take that approach. :-) That said, "During its broadcast run, The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. garnered ..." (no comma after Jr. despite one before it inside the title) is actually correct. A work's title is a unit that can be replaced with anything ("During its broadcast run, X garnered ..."), and which does not affect the surrounding grammar ("I watched The Should Horses, Don't They? last night."), nor is affected by it ("J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings", not *"J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

A Senior moment

I moved John H. Bloomer, Sr. to John H. Bloomer, because I find no source that calls him Sr. and many that call him John H. Bloomer or John Bloomer. It seems that some people like to automatically add Sr. to a name if there's a Jr. Wouldn't we want to only do so when the Sr. is used in sources? Should we add something to that effect? Dicklyon (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree we should follow the sources on this (current ones – people die and new ones are born, changing the distribution of these suffixes). The usage seems inconsistent; it tends to vary with the notability of the parents, and the use of "Sr." is more prevalent in North America. Some British sources (e.g. New Hart's Rules) assert that "Sr" (or "Snr") is never actually part of anyone's name but just a disambiguation, applied only when necessary. This seems a reasonable position. Per WP:TWODAB, WP:HATNOTE, etc., we have no reason to apply a disambiguation when there are only two articles, and one of them is already disambiguated (with "Jr[.]"), unless WP:COMMONNAME tells us that the senior one is conventionally called "Sr[.]" in the preponderance of the modern sources.

NHR goes further, though, and says that "Jr." should no longer be applied to the son when the father dies. But this is not the norm elsewhere, and I don't even see any evidence that this recommendation in followed in British print sources, even if it probably is conversational use of the language (e.g., unless you are at a conference of spiritual mediums, one need not say "I"m meeting with Davenport Chesterfield Jr in an hour" if everyone in the conversation knows the elder died last year). At least in the US and Canada, the "Jr[.]" is usually part of the legal name; I don't know enough about British birth certificates and such to know whether that's true in the UK, nor how much any of this affects Australia, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

In American, Jr. is sticky, I'm sure. My Dad is still Jr. even though Sr. died in 1978, and my Bro is still III. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Bloomer, there's a Jr., but no article on him. Even if we make an article on him, I'd argue against Sr. for the dad. Dicklyon (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Right. If the son isn't notable, we have no need to disambiguate the father at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

An example of this is Donald Trump Jr. His father is notable and has an article, but I've never seen him referred to as Donald Trump Sr. (except on the Wikipedia disambiguation page). On the other hand, there is the case of Edward Higgins White, Sr. I will confess that I was the one who gave him the appellation. The problem was that while he was referred to as Edward Higgins White all his life, the article of that name points to his (more famous) son, Edward Higgins White II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like the II requires a Sr. to oppose it, but up to you. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

When modern sources just say "Edward Higgins White", which one are they referring to? If it's almost always one of them, that would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and if they use that more than the name without the suffix, it'd be the WP:COMMONNAME, too. E.g. Marvin Gaye was really Marvin Gaye, Jr., and the world knows his father as Marvin Gaye, Sr. (even when he was alive, though probably not among his friends and acquaintances, just in the press).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That's easy to answer: the modern sources will always be referring to Edward Higgins White II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Most often so. But it's not clear that means we add Sr. to the dad. See the first line I just added at WP:JR, which I dredged up from an old 2009 version of Naming Conventions (people). Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I learned recently that James Madison was a Jr. Dicklyon and I have mulled over the possibility of moving King, Jr. to just 'Martin Luther King'. This may solve my heretical leanings that the Jr. comma is part of his common name (his name without the Jr. seems to be in about half of the sourced renditions). Randy Kryn 15:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

MoS RfC notice: Image montages on ethnicity and other demonym articles

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Proposed repeal of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. It is a proposal to vacate the previous consensus reached in the February 2016 RfC that resulted in the creation of the MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES provision at MOS:IMAGES, and also relates thematically to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes (all of these discussions are ultimately about using infoboxes to identify individuals as members of particular ethnicities, and this relates also to MOS:IDENTITY). The MOS:BIO talk page seems like a relevant notice point, since it's about mass biographies; we don't see to have a separate MoS page for that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Comma with post-nominal letters

Hi, should a comma precede post-nominal letters? For example, I see in this guideline that it is included, e.g. "John Doe, MSc", but in the article post-nominal letters, it is not, i.e. "John Doe MSc". --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Either is perfectly acceptable. Although of course we shouldn't include degrees anyway. Note that if a comma is used then it should also be used between each set of letters, something which some editors don't seem to realise (e.g. either John Smith CBE DSO MC or John Smith, CBE, DSO, MC, but not John Smith, CBE DSO MC). Neither should a comma be used at the end of the sequence, which some editors also unaccountably do (e.g. John Smith, CBE, DSO, MC,). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Comma at the end to close off the aside seems rather accountable to me. Are there style and grammar guides that say not to? Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously if you used it as part of a normal sentence you'd add the terminal comma. But not in the lead with a DOB in parentheses afterwards, which is how we usually use postnoms. Only ever seen that done (and then only occasionally) on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It would therefore be acceptable to write either "John Doe, BSc, Civ Eng" or "John Doe BSc Civ Eng", but not "John Doe, BSc Civ Eng"? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Although since we don't use degrees inline it's not really relevant as far as they're concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Australian Government Style Manual says that Commas should be used to separate names from titles or degrees and postnominals are written without stops but commas are inserted between them when there are more than one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Certainly in the UK the commas are usually seen as optional. Some sources use them, others don't. Either style is acceptable. But it's always all commas or no commas, never a mixture between the two. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC concerning honorary titles

Dear all. There is current a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) concerning the manner in which the honorific "Sir" ought to be formatted at the beginning of biographical articles. As the matter falls under MOS:HONORIFIC I should be grateful if editors here can drop by and give their comments. Atchom (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

MOS:POSTNOM and commas between name and post-nominal(s)

Is there any compelling reason why MOS:POSTNOM says we should place a comma between a person's name and the first or only post-nominal letters? This is no longer the usual punctuation custom in many Commonwealth countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia. In Australia it is actively discouraged. It is more logical to me ~ and seems more consistent with other style guidelines ~ that editors should be allowed to follow the normal punctuation conventions of the country with which a person is most associated. Thoughts please. Afterwriting (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

As an American at least, I have never seen post-nominals in any kind of quality writing without a comma. But I see no reason why WP:ENGVAR shouldn’t apply here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It is standard in the UK to use commas; eg the latest New Year Honours list, and the Oxford University notes on style. I assume its something to do with separating the post noms from the name so that there's no confusion. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 20:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

In Australia, the Commonwealth Style Guide says to use a comma between a person's name and the post-nominal letters. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: Have any sources for your claims? Because it sounds like you’re mistaken. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Just the fact that the UK evidence so far demonstrates comma usage (and can't be erased by UK sources not using commas) proves it's not a consistent national style, so ENGVAR cannot apply. WP is on perfectly firm ground insisting on commas here, to clearly distinguish the natural name from later honors appended to it. This is particularly important because there are a) a large number of such abbreviations (for academic, military, peerage, ecclesiastic, and other purposes), and b) there are also many short names like "Ng" and "Po" that are easily confused with such abbreviations.  — SMcCandlish ☺, BA, NRASS – ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Nationality, again

Should a person born outside the U.K, who never lived in the U.K, who became notable in America, who became an American citizen when she was 25, but whose parents were British citizens, be labeled as a British-American? See Olivia de Havilland for recent arguments and re-labeling. --Light show (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It depends... First, is the label intended to indicate nationality - or is it indicating ethnicity (cultural heritage)? If it is supposed to indicate nationality, then citizenship matters. We have to ask: what was her citizenship prior to age 25?

If, on the other hand, the label is intended to indicate ethnicity (cultural heritage), then citizenship does not matter. We are into the realm of self-identification. Time and distance from the "mother country" means little to self-identification. For example, someone who has great-great-grand-parents that came to the US from Ireland in 1850 may self-identify as "Irish-American"... even if the person himself has never set foot in Ireland in his life. Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Does MOS's guideline cover that? Paragraphs #1 and #5 strongly imply that notability is the focus. Therefore if a person is notable only for being an actor or whatever in the U.S., they would be described as an "American actor," without the hyphenated ethnic/citizenship aspect being in the first line. Cultural connections are usually covered in the infobox or early years section. --Light show (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone wrote an article about me, I should be described as "American" not "Scottish-American" (or "Scottish American" as MoS prefers for some reason) despite the fact that I own a kilt. In the lead, these "hyphenations" are to indicate nationality broadly defined (and not limited to legal citizenship), not personal notions of heritage. And a Village Pump RfC removed the ethnicity parameter from {{Infobox person}}, so the place to get into such matters is in the main article prose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

In order for a person to be labeled with a specific nationality, (s)he must meet 2 basic criteria: Firstly, the person must have ties to the country in question - generally the person lived there, but a person who never set foot in that country could still count if (s)he has ancestors from there and the person considers that to be a relevant part of him/herself. This criterion is clearly met in this case. Secondly, the person must self-identify with that nationality - either explicitly, or through the rolls the person has had (i.e a president of the US is clearly American). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why that's indented as a reply to me, since it appears to be addressing the topic generally, not my particular comment.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Invented pronouns

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The thread Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Novel pronouns is relevant to MOSBIO, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding including age in the summary section using the Template:birth date and age template

I was directed here by DMacks because of this edit. DMacks stated:

(MOS:BIO guideline only says birthdate. Feel free to do discuss changing the guideline at its talkpage

I've read through the relevant sections and the "First mention" section shows examples of how the name should be presented, but doesn't specifically forbid including a template that includes the current age. The section for Out-of-date material does specifically state:

as with a living person's age or career, you may use the "Age" template. The article subject's age can also be calculated in the infobox.

My edit was made because a group of editors decided the infobox should not be allowed for that article, so the age can't be calculated in the infobox, which is why I want to make this change to substitute the {{birth date}} template for the {{birth date and age}} template. Thoughts? Offnfopt^(talk) 08:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• The MOS should reflect actual practice. Which is that {{birth date and age}} is used for BLPs, and {{death date and age}} for others. I've only seen them used in the infobox before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • MOS is not a an endorsement of "current practices", whether regarded as good or bad by some people. Tony (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • MOS doesn't "forbid" such a template there; it's a matter for local consensus at the article. Someone's present age is a convenience calculation, not encyclopedically necessary, since anyone can just do the math themselves, so I can see why some people want to omit it from the lead (and I don't add it myself). But I have seen this template used in many bio leads, and I do not remove it when I find it. There is more than one way to write a bio here. Many bio leads include birth city and full birth date, others give only year and nationality (of citizenship), reserving the details for the "In early life" or "Early years" section. There is nothing wrong with this level of flexibility.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Allow inclusion of former names in lead section of biographies covering transgender and non-binary people

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure)MOS:BIRTHNAME currently reads in part: In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out. A proposal to strike this guideline entirely did not achieve consensus. Subsequently, no proposed alternative wording achieved consensus. Two proposals garnered significant support, both of which extended the style guideline beyond the case of transgender and non-binary deadnames. Concerns over the effects on maiden names and other former names were chief among the rationales of editors opposing the two proposals.

While consensus opposed special-case guidelines particular to certain groups, a relationship between the following sets was not established:

• Former names of trans/non-binary people
• Former names of people who wish to disassociate themselves from previous identities for any reason
• Former names of all people who have changed their name for any reason

With respect to the first two sets, consensus was not reached as to whether placement of the former name in the lead sentence is an MOS issue or a content issue covered by WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPPRIVACY.

The purpose of former names in the lead sentence was raised without significant discussion, and may inform a future RfC.

Participating in these discussions was one editor identifying as non-binary/trans.

Snuge purveyor (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Initial proposal

The guidelines currently say:

In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out.

I find this illogical and dislike the suggestion that encyclopaedic information should be omitted. It's also extremely inconsistent to apply such a guideline only to transgender people. Bill Clinton was certainly not notable when he was William Blythe; Portia de Rossi was not notable when she was Amanda Lee Rogers; and Chuck Lorre was not notable when he was Charles Michael Levine.

Of course, all of their articles mention their former names, and I think most people would agree that to not mention these birth names would be contrary to everything the encyclopaedia seeks to be: according to WP:ABOUT, "The ideal Wikipedia article is well written, balanced, neutral, and encyclopedic, containing comprehensive, notable, verifiable knowledge."

So what's the difference for transgender people? Is it believed that the subject of the article themselves might find the mention of their birth name offensive? Or that someone else might on their behalf feel offended? Well, Wikipedia is not censored, and certainly feelings of offence that we imagine the subject of an article might feel are not a sensible reason to suppress verifiable information about them. The subjects of articles should not have any say in how facts about them are reported. After all, if the feelings of article subjects are of concern to us, then it should not just be transgender people who we look out for. Chuck Lorre's article reports that he said "as far back as I can remember, every time I heard my last name I would experience acute feelings of low self-esteem", and yet that last name is reported.

It seems to me that someone's birth name is pretty much always of encyclopaedic interest if it is known, and their own personal feelings about their birth name are seldom known to us and are not relevant in any case. Thus, I would suggest that this guideline be omitted. What does anyone else think? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, making the fact that they're transgender THAT obvious could encourage discrimination against them. Maybe you can do it when discrimination against LGBT people has decreased. 2601:2C1:C004:4900:BD04:8B7D:BB53:4F01 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Is that you're opinion as a transgendered person, or are you purporting to speak on their behalf?2001:56A:F567:3700:D9A0:2729:376:D853 (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Would that be relevant? I'm sure both kinds of people are taking on both sides in the following discussion. ~Mable (chat) 12:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: The difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed assumption does seem relevant. Do transgender people whose birth names are already publicly accessible by a simple web search care if we mention it the same way we do for anyone else? Or do we have a bunch of people saying we know what’s best for them? Or do we have FUD over the notion that editors will go to extreme lengths to dig up largely unreported birth names, which shouldn’t be posted on Wikipedia anyway? These questions matter. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This is certainly not FUD. In fact, transgender people have been fighting to keep this information from becoming publicly accessible. In New York, for example, it is now possible for a transgender person to have their name-change application and order sealed by the court and the publication requirement waived, due to the potential danger associated with publicly "outing" a transgender person. There may not be a public record connecting their legal name to their birth name. So yes, they do care, and no, you cannot assume this information is publicly accessible. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Shelbystripes: The FUD comes in with worrying that our editors will deliberately expose these people in violation of WP policy. And that a style guideline would be the only thing standing in their way. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not that simple. Our policies are normally designed to encourage diligence in finding reliable sources so that we can take obscure information and disseminate it widely. For Laverne Cox, the subject's birth name was included based on one relatively minor source, which later removed it at the subject's request. Following its inclusion in Wikipedia, it started appearing in a number of other sources, with USA Today specifically acknowledging they got it from here, citing that as evidence that the name is "out there". Meanwhile, most reliable sources didn't publish the name. Critical examination of the operation of our normal policies and their effects on this complex issue shouldn't be dismissed as FUD.--Trystan (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What does "deliberately" have to do with it? As Trystan notes, it's possible for a Wikpedia editor to cause harm to a transgender person without specifically intending that harm. And I was directly responding to your initial statement, which was to ask whether transgender people care if this is mentioned or not. You have been given a very clear answer, which is that yes, at least some of them definitely do care. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Shelbystripes: Your reply started off by countering (or perhaps misinterpreting) the concern about FUD over editorial misconduct. I thought that was your main point, and that the rest of your reply was in support of it.

@Trystan and Shelbystripes: I didn’t think we were talking about the possibility of WP editors outing people whose previous identities were not public knowledge. I thought WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:BLPPRIVACY, et al. strictly forbade us from doing that. But it sounds like we need to look at clarifying policies like WP:NOT, WP:BLP, and WP:V rather than a style guideline; the concern here isn’t where in the article the content is placed, but whether the content is appropriate to include in the article at all. I mean, if BLPPRIVACY isn’t clear enough to the point that we’ve had a domino effect from unintentional violations, the MOS is the least of our problems. And that’s way out of the scope of this page.

But back to my original point in this thread: Yes, it matters whether the person posing concerns is speaking from experience or not. It’s relevant. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@67.14.236.50:My initial comment was providing feedback to (1) your question of whether transgender people actually care about the publication of such information, and also (2) the matter of whether such information is publicly accessible, which you presupposed in your comment about FUD. I agree with you that the larger issue of whether to provide this content at all is beyond the scope of this, but I was addressing your (incorrect) assumption that such information is always publicly accessible. It is not. This relates to the larger point of FUD, and how transgender people feel about this issue, in the following respect: It is fair to assume that transgender people do, in your own words, "care if we mention it the same way we do for anyone else". It is fair to assume this because there are active and public efforts by transgender individuals (such as in the story I linked from NCTE earlier) to limit the publication of their birth name together with their current legal name. Because this position, taken by many in the transgender community, is well known and public knowledge, it is categorically not FUD as you have suggested. At least, since you suggested FUD as the opposite of transgender people caring about this kind of mention. And yes, I do also have personal experience interacting with transgender people that supports this. Perhaps that clarifies my point, which is that many transgender people do care about this issue, because they do not want the prominent publication of their legal name together with their birth name. For purposes of this discussion, I guess that's all you need to focus on, but there it is. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Shelbystripes: I was addressing your (incorrect) assumption that such information is always publicly accessible—I made no such claim. Any such information which we are ever permitted to publish anywhere on Wikipedia is publicly accessible. (Put another way, if a transgender person’s past name is not readily available to anyone interested, that person is excluded from the question.) The FUD I referred to was over a hypothetical concern that malicious editors would violate that basic tenet because our users are a bunch of transphobics (note: I’m sure they’re not, as a rule). If that concern is not hypothetical, if our editors have harmed people by wrongly publishing private information as Trystan pointed out, then any and all discussion on the matter here should be shelved until that massive problem is properly addressed. And if I haven’t explained this before, the questions in my initial reply here were meant only to show why it mattered who was voicing the concern raised at 22:06, 1 June 2016. I hope I have now sufficiently clarified my previous comments.

As for the efforts to conceal former names: I have no doubt that there are also transgender persons who have no qualms about revealing the fact that they’re transgender or revealing their former names, because people are individuals. There are also non-transgender people who would prefer to have their former names or identities stricken from any public record. That’s a case-by-case issue, not one for a sweeping rule, especially not one that singles out a class. But again, this is not the time or place for this discussion. so that’s the last I’ll say on that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That’s a case-by-case issue, not one for a sweeping rule, especially not one that singles out a class. Except that we have rules for very good reasons, and one of those reasons is to avoid harm. So if there's something that could be harmful in some cases but not others, the logical conclusion there is not to avoid adopting a rule, the logical conclusion is to adopt a rule that protects against harm when it's necessary permits and allows case-by-case exceptions where appropriate. That does seem to tie into the current discussion, too. Any rule we adopt should avoid a default position that encourages the highlighting of birth names of transgender people, because it can be harmful to do so in many cases. We can create a rule that allows exceptions, on a case by case basis, but it's still important to discuss and agree on what the default position (in the absence of a "case-by-case" exception) should be. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It does tie into the current discussion, but that discussion is in the wrong place—it belongs at WT:BLP or somewhere more general, not at the talk page for something that has no say in matters of content. If a name is allowed in the article by all relevant policies, I see no problem including it in the lead. I also see no problem moving past names from all BLP leads, or establishing some sort of recognizability threshold. Basically, again, I see no reason to single out a class of people in a style rule, as if they’re the only people who might have reason to hide a past identity. They’re not. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus

*Support: I'd tend to agree here. Seems like political correctness overstretched in an area that compromises on article quality. NottNott|talk 22:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Going to expand on my comment seeing as I'm likely to start a full discussion regarding this.

The issue is in the clear exception made to the usual policy just because someone is transgender or non-binary:

1. Current policy states that someone who simply changes their name has to have their former name included regardless of how notable that person was at the time.
2. Why should there be an exception for transgender/non-binary people?

I feel as the larger debate must consider whether anyone who has had a changed name must have their former name(s) included in the lead section, and how this would impact on article quality. Leaving the policy as it is and giving unjustified preferential treatment toward transgender and non-binary people just makes an unnecessary distinction in trying to not cause offense as well as compromising on article quality. NottNott|talk 22:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

As of 00:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC) I'm retracting these comments I have made nearly two weeks ago. I'm not doing it because my intentions were wrong at all - I'm doing it because this post was poorly worded in a way that could make me seem transphobic. I have received a fair share of comments throughout this RfC that I want to address now.

1. I support the LGBT rights movement fully and unequivocally. I possibly should have mentioned this to begin with as some editors have seen this as some conservative Wikipedian POV-pushing some backwards philosophy that hates LGBT people - I'm far from this. I feel as if I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer like that in any contentious topic as supposedly we comment on policy, not people in RfC's - but perhaps it's better to be clear now.

2. My main issue is with the wording of the policy, not the implementation of it as it is right now. Transgender people shouldn't have a policy written in their interests that applies exclusively to their group while entirely avoiding concerns regarding former names that any other BLP could have. I feel as if this politicises the wiki in relation to recent advances in LGBT rights rather than making any attempts to create a more neutral policy. Transgender people are not to be talked down to so they are not to be given special treatment in this way - this only serves to undermine their cause as if they're extremely special people who have to rely on exemptions naming them specifically in policy.

• The exception should be made the rule. This avoids politicising policy almost as if it is slanted toward pro-LGBT groups rather than impartial like it should be. If naming anyone in the lead section can potentially cause disproportionate harm to that person per WP:BLP then it shouldn't be done. Always make sure that all former names in a major BLP are included in the article body - WP:NOTCENSORED. If someone is relatively unknown but still has an article, former names aren't relevant to their notability and so shouldn't have to be included at all.

• As a rule of thumb, my opinion doesn't support changing the way content is written in articles whatsoever, rather I only have an opinion about how the policies are worded in Wikipedia namespace - this means WP:MAIDEN and any other guideline related to naming in the lead section would remain the same. These policies don't harm the person.

3. I started this RfC as a bold edit because the original IP poster (79.158.212.99) wanted to start a discussion but probably didn't know how to start an RfC. I didn't ever feel like repealing the policy entirely was the right choice but to me and in my eyes this was the IPs RfC. The IP never explicitly mentioned the lead section of an article, so there could well have been a misunderstanding that he thought this applied to the entire article (instead of just the lead). In that case, that's fairly funny considering how such a long thing started over a small misunderstanding

I didn't start this RfC wanting to overthrow all the established conventions of biography writing. I also don't come from an article creation background by any means. I simply feel that firstly Wikipedia is not a platform for social change (policy should be worded neutrally) and that any issues regarding naming in articles can be reworded to work in every BLP's interest rather than just one group. If anyone wants to respond to me about what I've said here it's probably best done on my talk page as this RfC is too full now. But I simply won't tolerate anyone not assuming good intentions on my part - I've been an editor for three years now and both the integrity of the wiki and my small space in the community itself mean a lot to me. Thanks for the time. -NottNott|talk 00:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@NottNott: Thanks for that. I can see that you meant well, and have learnt from this.

However, there are still a lot of things which you still seem to misunderstand, and that's why you have received a fairly critical response. For example:

• You still link to WP:NOTCENSORED. If you read it, you'll see that's not relevant, because it's about the sensitivities of readers. This issue is about protecting the privacy of living people.
• You made a bold edit in good faith converting a proposal into an RFC ... except that you appear not to have read the instructions on how create a WP:RFC. It requires a neutral question, which was not the case with what you did here.
• This is not and never has been about politicising policy or wp being a platform for social change. It is about the BLP policy not to do harm to living people.
• That principle of not harming people may require us to treat different situations differently. There is no policy requirement to do everything the same way. Maybe a common approach is appropriate, or maybe not; some analysis of the pros and cons is needed, but the BLP priority is not to do harm to living people.
• You write above that you {{support the gay rights movement}}. Fine; that's your right, just as you are entitled to oppose gay rights. But this discussion is actually not about gay rights, so that's irrelevant here. It is about avoiding harm to transgender people, who may or may not be gay ... and about avoiding harm to others.

Anyway, thanks for the rethink. Best wishes --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for the message. Firstly, noted about WP:NOTCENSORED - thanks for that. On the RfC - the title is neutral yet the initial two posts weren't - good faith error as the first RfC I've written. It was hastily constructed during recent changes patrol, but next time I'll bear this in mind.

I reject the idea that this discussion isn't about being a 'platform for social change' as seen in your comment "[...]"privileged" and "preferential", which really are bizarre terms to apply to a group which endures such horrors as a 50% lifetime rate of being sexually assaulted". This could just be described as loaded and preferential to one point of view and could be considered POV-pushing. Using emotive language about something as serious as sexual assault as leverage to state that my view is wrong certainly doesn't indicate you've assumed good faith. This feels like the assumption like I have an agenda to punish LGBT people, and I'd truly hate for another editor to actually see me like this.

With that said, I often use LGBT and 'gay rights' interchangeably as many people do - I've corrected this in my post so apologies if you've misunderstood me there. Also this is totally WP:HORSEMEAT and doesn't improve the wiki so I'd suggest that it's left at this. It's 2:14am for us Brits and we need our rest -NottNott|talk 01:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel as if I haven't said enough, and I haven't made it clear enough how I'm standing my ground here. You've messaged enough editors with similar wiki-lawyering comments to make it clear you're not in this entirely for the BLP concerns - you're more interested in pushing the perceived concern you appear to have for the transgender community.

You shouldn't have to create a formal bulleted list to address your concerns. Claiming that I use WP:NOTCENSORED or start RfCs correctly does not undermine my argument any further. If you truly couldn't infer that 'gay rights movement' implies 'LGBT rights movement', you may be in need of a WP:WIKIBREAK more than you think. Editors shouldn't have to dot and cross their i's and t's to this degree.

You shouldn't have to link to a page listing the rates of sexual abuse toward transgender people to advance your argument. This shows an extraordinary assertion on your part and another editor may have quit over this. This isn't the type of judgement I like to see from an admin, and competence is required. -NottNott|talk 07:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@NottNot: you seem angry, but please focus. It's not complicated, and there's no wikilawyering involved. The policy at WP:BLP is about the simple principle of avoiding harm to living people. Both the IP who made the original proposal and many others who commented lost sight of that, and chose instead to prioritise their personal preference for treating all BLPs in the same way.

You're still on this "platform for social change" thing, which is an attempt to politicise the harm issue. The issue here is nothing to do with whether transgender ppl should be protected from discrimination, or get legal recognition of their gender, or be allowed to use public toilets, or any of the other political battles out there. It is simply about the harm that may be done by giving undue prominence to certain types of private information. Whatever anyone's views on the broader politics, they don't belong here.

When editors choose to describe an editorial guideline to avoid that harm as "privileged" and "preferential" towards the potential victims of that harm, that's a prejudicial politicisation of the concept of avoiding harm. That's why it was relevant to point out the sorts of harm that happen to this particular set of living people. If you choose to view US govt data about the victims of crime as "emotive" and "loaded", take it up with the US govt.

As to competence is required, I had wondered about quoting it wrt to your actions here ... but I thought it more helpful to simply list some of the ways in which you had misunderstood the issues. I still think that's a better approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I fully support the WP:BLP policy and due care must be taken. I also think the intention behind the current policy as written is positive and fine. I don't support changing the levels of protection afforded to transgender/non-binary people in practice in articles, just the way it is worded in WP space in a way that BLP concerns can be extended to more groups of people. Giving BLP protection to transgender/non-binary people exclusively doesn't make much sense, as deadnaming can happen to many groups of people including names of those divorced, religious reasons or other subjective reasons. There is little editorial loss to removing these names in the lead of these articles and it may better enforce WP:BLP in extending the presumption of privacy to more groups of people.

We're both human beings and suffer from confirmation bias. You may see "privileged" and "preferential" in bad faith as if I'm trying to escape WP:BLP - I can totally understand that. I see the fact that you felt it necessary (not the actual contents of the link itself, they're just facts) to use something as serious as sexual assault to try and assert that I'm wrong is offensive. You said it yourself that real world politics have no place here, so using an example like that is unnecessary to building a good argument and feels rude. Your original reply to my first message as seen below simply throws me into hot water when it could have just nudged me toward explaining my views a bit better. No other editor felt it necessary to be this assertive in replying to me as it's pretty clear I'm acting in good faith. -NottNott|talk 14:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@NottNott: there should be an exception for transgender/non-binary people for the simple reason that per WP:BLP we try to respect the privacy of living people, and avoid causing unnecessary harm.

Your description of this as giving giving unjustified preferential treatment is an extraordinary assertion, which you don't even try to justify against the policy requirement that "BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy":

1. You assert that this is "preferential treatment", which I believe is a false assertion.
   It is different treatment, but your use of the loaded word "preferential" implies that this is something which would be generally preferred, but granted only to one group. That is not the case: by far the largest group of people who change their name are married women, and I am not aware of any general preference amongst married women to keep their birth names private. However, there is a strong desire among transgender and non-binary people to do so: they have different needs, and face different issues in their lives.
   This is not a matter of "preferential treatment"; it is a matter of treating people differently depending on the impact of Wikipedia's coverage on their lives, in accordance with WP:BLP's principle of respecting privacy and not doing harm.
2. You assert that this is "unjustified treatment", without considering the reason why it is sought. The disclosure of previous names of transgender people (known as "deadnaming") is far more critical to transgender/non-binary people than to the rest of the human population, because it is routinely used as a form of harassment by transphobic people who seek to deny the identity of trans people. There is a whole major section of policy on the presumption in favor of privacy for living people, and WP:DOB imposes restrictions on even publishing the full name of a living person, because of the risk of identity theft. It is policy to consider entirely withholding basic biographical information which may lead to the victimisation of people in this way, so editors are instructed to "err on the side of caution". However, you simply reject by assertion (with no explanation) the existing guidance to extend a similar but lesser courtesy to transgender people -- not by witholding info, but simply by reducing its prominence.

So, NottNott, remember that the policy WP:BLP requires that "BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" and that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Note the word "must" in each.

By not even considering those issues wrt trans people, your !vote is invalidated because it contravenes policy. The closer closer of this discussion is obliged to discount it, and to discount the !votes of other editors who similarly contravene policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Limiting the "different" treatment to only one subset of the people who desire that "different" treatment is, in fact, preferential treatment of that subset. It isn't relevant that subset A has a high incidence of people who so desire while subset B has a low incidence (and you're ignoring subsets C, D, E, etc. entirely). For example, why is the "different" treatment not offered to cisgendered people who changed their name to disassociate themselves from childhood abuse or from a former lifestyle that does not correspond to their current religious beliefs? Anomie⚔ 15:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anomie: there is something highly prejudiced -- to the point of hostility -- about the application of the "preferential treatment" label to a small measure for the protection of a category of people who experience extraordinarily high levels of discrimination, harassment and violence. Do you apply the same sort of hostile terminology to disabled people who get to use a wider car-parking space?

You continue to miss the point that the redaction of previous names is not something sought by most people who have changed their names (e.g. many married women would actually oppose that removal of biographical their info). So it's a skewed logic to label as "preferential" something which many people would not want. It's like calling out the "preferential treatment" of paraplegic people who get to use wheelchairs all day when the rest of us have to walk. Most such people would much prefer not have a wheelchair ... just as most trans people would much prefer not have had a previous name which could be used to harass them.

Sure, there may be good reasons why other groups of living people might want previous names to be redacted, or to be displayed less prominently (as we do for trans people). I see nobody in this discussion opposing such a move, and if someone wants to propose other exceptions then per WP:BLP we are obliged to consider it. I really hope you are not going to argue that our encyclopedic purpose would somehow be undermined if we failed to try to prevent further harm and distress to someone who had experienced childhood abuse. Please don't disappoint me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need for any exceptions (and find such exceptions detrimental to the encyclopedia) when we can easily make the exception be the rule and improve the situation for everyone. It seems to me that you're so focused on protecting this one group that you're ignoring everything else and twisting definitions of words to try to discredit anyone who doesn't directly agree with you. Anomie⚔ 16:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anomie: I am not, as you claim, focused on protecting this one group. I am focused on the policy in WP:BLP that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered". That is the policy ... but the preference expressed by you and some others that we must have a one-size-fits-all styleguide is not policy.

If you don't like being called out on terminology like "preferential treatment", then don't use it. Any reasonable consideration of harm to living people takes account of their different circumstances, and how different people different protections from harm. Referring to that as "preferential treatment" is your linguistic choice, not mine ... and it is terminology designed to make protections for vulnerable people appear to be "special privileges".

If you don't like being called out on that terminology, then don't use it. There is plenty of more neutral terminology, such as "exceptions" or "differential treatment".

I now see that you support proposal A below, which might be a viable alternative. But in this section you are arguing unconditionally against the removal of the existing guidance, regardless of whether anything replaces it. That would be a very bad outcome for trans people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl and Anomie: There are could be many cases of people changing their name and feeling bad because it is included in their biography. There is plenty of variety here and everyone's case is different. You can't appease everyone - but the current policy only makes concessions to appease the transgender community. As Anomie says, we can make the exception the rule to try to improve treatment of everyone - it's about equality. I'm (believe it or not), very supportive of LGBT rights - I'm by no means conservative in this area but at the same time I don't think this should grant them automatic privilege over other groups of people. For the record my opinions shifted from 'repeal the policy' to 'extend policy to all BLPs' pretty quickly in this RfC simply because I hadn't considered that option minor retraction as of 00:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC), idea that I wanted to 'repeal the policy' in a malicious way out of line with policy is something I'd have rejected on the spot - I also wrote congruently in line with views expressed in my original post to this RfC in this response. My intent was certainly not to avoid the important WP:BLP no matter how poorly worded this might seem, apologies, as well as editors who understood issues surrounding the LGBT community better came forward to explain their view.

I use the word 'unjustified' because one group is given blanket coverage for all cases whereas every other biography isn't given any consideration into their own personal circumstances. I use the word 'preferential' because it is preferential treatment toward a group of people - this isn't dumb 'transphobia' for no reason as you seem to read it as. On a case by case basis it should be argued WP:COMMONSENSE applies, but ammending the guideline would still improve standards for all BLPs. -NottNott|talk Notify with {{re}} 18:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@NottNott: as with Anomie's stance above, I had misread your position as supporting the removal all efforts to limit the damage to transgender people, and I am happy to accept that was not your intent. Proposal A might, as you hope, provide the same degree of protection, though I'm not yet sure about that: the removal of any direct mention takes attention away from the very grave risks which some people (esp transgender people) face when attention is drawn to their former names.

However, much of the language you have been using plays strongly into the hands of those who refuse to consider possible harm. Please remember that the policy objective wrt BLPs is not some sort of equality of treatment, regardless of circumstances -- the objective is to avoid harm to living people, and there is no reason in principle to require a one-size-fits-all approach.

For most trans people, the disclosure of their former names in any circumstances is a highly destructive act, because that disclosure provides harassers with a crucial tool. Similar risks may apply to other circumstances, but they do not apply to most name-changes. That's why there is a case for differential treatment.

So, whatever your intent, the language of "privilege", "unjustified", "preferential" etc has the effect of characterising trans people as seeking some sort of huge boost over everyone else when they are simply seeking the avoidance of damage in an area where they are unusually vulnerable. In supporting their calls for some restriction, I am not trying to do anyone down or place anyone in a less advantageous situation, which is what is implied by the language of "privileged" and "preferential", which really are bizarre terms to apply to a group which endures such horrors as a 50% lifetime rate of being sexually assaulted. I am simply trying to ensure that the pursuit by some wikipedians of some abstract, non-policy-based principle of equality through identical treatment does not cause further harm to living people. Far too many of those commenting in this thread are much more concerned to achieve identical treatment than to prevent harm to living people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: This RfC only covers mentions in the lead section of an article. Because you say disclosing former names is highly destructive, are you opposed to the disclosure of former names in the main body of the article as well? note: preparing for exam - response might be late -NottNott|talk Notify with {{re}} 22:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@NottNott: that's mostly a separate discussion, which as you note is outwith the scope of this RfC.
My concern with the lede is that placing a deadname in the lede gives it vastly more prominence. It's not just that it places the deadname in that crucial first part of the first screenful of the page, making it much more likely to be read than something further down. As I note a few days ago a deadname in the lede will also be displayed in google searches. Look, for example at a Gsearch for Cherie Blair or Christine Hamilton: in each case, google places the en.wp biog near the top of the list of search results, displaying the former name in the snippet of lede. That's why this discussion is so important for privacy.

Similar considerations apply to usage of deadnames in infoboxes, because that data is harvested as microformats which can be used in many contexts for machine-driven analysis.

Returning to your question, I note that the current guidance at MOS:GENDERID is unhelpfully vague. I wouldn't support a complete ban, but I think there should be some sort of proportionality test, balancing the dangers of disclosure against any broader relevance. Given the BLP imperative to consider harm to living people, it should not be acceptable to include a deadname simply because it is verifiable from some obscure but reliable print source; Wikipedia has the capacity to change an "outing" from a minor local breach of privacy to a global breach, and I see no case for that sort of outing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Where we differ is that you seem to think we need an explicit policy about transgender deadnames specifically, rather than a policy that urges appropriate consideration of harm (per WP:BLP) for all subjects regardless of cis/trans status (such a policy might use transgender harassment as an example of potential for harm). And your persisting in debating terminology that tries to paint your explicit exemption as not really being an exemption and lack of an explicit exemption as really being discrimination. Anomie⚔ 12:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – The guideline does not suggest "omitting" this information, merely not placing it in the lead in bold print. I agree that we should not do this, as the guideline specifies, when a person was not notable under said prior name. It simply adds clutter. No one has suggested, anywhere, that the birth name should not be included in the article at all. It would likely appear in an "early life" section. However, that doesn't mean that we go against the WP:BLP policy and highlight an irrelevant past name in the lead, in a way that questions the legitimacy of the person's present identity. RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So you'd omit Bill Clinton, Portia De Rossi and Chuck Lorre's birth names from the relevant lead sections? Under what criteria would you consider a birth name "irrelevant"? In what way does specifying a birth name question the legitimacy of the person's later name? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It isn't necessary information. If the person was notable whilst having the name, then it should be included in the lead. Otherwise, it is just cluttering the lead with information that is not relevant to the person's notability. The lead section is a summary, and highlighting an irrelevant name that existed only when a person was not notable in the first sentence of the article is giving that name WP:UNDUE weight, suggesting that that name has more significance than it actually does in the wider context of the person's biography. This does not align with WP:NPOV. RGloucester — ☎ 23:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Their date of birth is also completely irrelevant to their notability. It is, nonetheless, a vital biographical detail that it makes no sense to omit. Would you omit the birth names of the three people I mentioned in their articles? Under what criteria would you consider a birth name "irrelevant"? In what way does specifying a birth name question the legitimacy of the person's later name? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @RGloucester: Currently anyone with a changed name regardless of their notability at the time must have that not notable changed name included in the lead. This in theory also clutters the lead giving weight to the previous name. Perhaps this forced inclusion of previous names is the issue. NottNott|talk 23:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No one, again, has suggested omitting any biographical detail. This is merely about the first sentence of a biographical article. The threshold is that of notability. If a person was notable under an old or alternative name, then that name should be included in the first sentence of the lead. If they were not, then it should be left to the body of the article. This should apply to anyone, not merely transgender people. It does not make sense, at all, to clutter the lead with names that have nothing to do with the notability of the subject of the article (I would support changing the guidelines to this effect). As far as "specifying a birth name", this is quite clear. In the case of transgender people, as opposed to others, placing the name chosen by a transgender person's parents in the first sentence of the article, bolded, when that name has nothing to do with their notability, i.e. the reason for their having of an article, gives WP:UNDUE significance to their birth name in the context of their notability and biography, and strikes me as an attempt to delegitimise the person's transition, and nothing more. It is one thing if the person was notable under the old name, but if they were not, there can be no good reason for including it in the first sentence of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 23:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You're not answering my questions. So that I can understand your thinking, can you please tell me if you would omit the birth names of the three people I mentioned in their articles? Under what criteria would you consider a birth name "irrelevant"? In what way does specifying a birth name question the legitimacy of the person's later name? And how does your logic apply to birth dates or places? What is the good reason to include those that is not a good reason to include their birth name? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I have made my reasoning very clear, and I shan't repeat myself. Read from the third sentence of my last comment prior to this one. RGloucester — ☎ 23:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Why not just answer the questions? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"The threshold is that of notability. If a person was notable under an old or alternative name, then that name should be included in the first sentence of the lead. If they were not, then it should be left to the body of the article. This should apply to anyone, not merely transgender people". Specific discussions on whether a person was notable under a prior name can be decided by consensus at an article talk page. That's how I'd change the guideline. RGloucester — ☎ 00:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

So, specifically for those three people that I mentioned, what is your opinion? Should their names be mentioned? How does your logic apply to birth dates and places? and how, as you claimed earlier, does mentioning a birth name "question the legitimacy" of a later name change? I really don't understand why you are refusing to outline your thinking like this. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about those people, so I am not fit to comment. On the rest, I have made myself very clear. I shan't engage in this discussion further. RGloucester — ☎ 00:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't know anything about Bill Clinton? I'm impressed. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

B @79.158.212.99: As a new editor you're likely unaware of the policies and guidelines that more experienced editors will be well aware of. WP:Notability is an important policy that covers whether an article is worthy for inclusion on the site. Remember to WP:Assume good faith and respond calmly - this isn't a battleground. I can support this proposal but being hostile to established editors is unacceptable. NottNott|talk 00:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not being hostile. A discussion is no use if views are not made clear, so I was asking RGloucester to clarify their views. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@RGloucester:: Your suggested revision would never work, because WP:Notability is not an intra-article content inclusion guideline, only a guideline for whether a topic can exist here as a stand-alone article. There is no connection at all between that guideline and encyclopedic relevance within an article. The guideline exists to prevent people from creating new articles on garage bands, random academics, small businesses, and neologisms, and has nothing to do with whether a celebrity's hobby garage band can be mentioned in her article, a non-notable academic can be mentioned as co-author of a cited paper, the name of a small business can be mentioned in an article about a mass-shooting that took place there, or a neologism can be given in a short list of neologisms coined by someone who is in part notable for their inventive use of language. One of the principal uses of WP:N is to cause topics that fail its qualifications to be merged into parent topics that do not. This could never happen if failing WP:N meant the content had to be deleted entirely. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is the applicable policy with regard to whether non-notable information is retained in a parent-topic article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think, in general (not just concerning transgender individuals), the rule should be: If the birth name was something they were actually notable under (such as with Caitlyn Jenner), their former name should be included in the lead. If it's reliably sourced but they only became notable under their new name, the name they're notable under should be used in the lead, and the body of the article should contain information about previous name(s). And of course, if it's not reliably referenced, it shouldn't be included at all. That should be true of anyone who uses a pseudonym or has legally changed their name; it shouldn't be specific to transgender individuals. We should never deliberately exclude entirely information about a real name or previous name if it's supported by reliable sources, but that doesn't mean it has to go in the lead if it's not actually one of the most significant points in the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support: For quite a few reasons, the wording should not have the word "notability" in it. Notability is not a content matter (and we are dealing with a content issue par excellence here). It's a technical description of our inclusion criteria. Per the notability guideline, notability is only used to determine if we should have a separate article for the topic, and not the content of any existing article. Either MOS:BIO is in conflict with that guideline, or it uses the word "notability" in some other sense (highly confusing in the Wikipedia environment). From the content point of view, it makes no sense to argue that we include or omit content from the time before the subject was notable. Once again, notability is not a content guideline, and it becomes crystal-clear when we consider such content: hardly anyone is notable when they are born, lead their "early life and career", and so on, and this information is regularly included in articles and rightly so. If the person did something before or after there was "significant coverage [about them] in reliable sources that are independent of [them]" is utterly irrelevant. The word "notability" aside, the spirit of the current MOS passage is, as NottNott points out, in conflict with the rest of the guideline, or at best, a rather unfounded exception to the rule. It begs the question: why is the birth name seen as unwanted by some in the lead? If it is a matter of a profound change in identity accompanied with respect for privacy, we should turn to BLP policies rather than our style guide. WP:BLPPRIVACY lends itself to discussion on this, and concludes that it all boils down to the availability of such information in reliable sources. On a final note, RGloucester is arguing for an option (all birth names should be omitted in the lead) that is not on the table at this RfC, and it would require significantly stronger consensus to overturn that steadfast guidance of the MOS. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Notability is merely a concept, and there's no reason why it can't be used for content just because its primary use is the inclusion criteria. Indeed, notability already plays a key role in the application of BLP policy to categorization (WP:BLPCAT) and lead paragraphs (WP:BLPLEAD). -- Irn (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Except that there is, because the idea has been discussed about thousand times in the last 15 years, and the clear consensus is that notability is, and only is, an inclusion criterion for a full article, and does not affect inclusion of material in a parent-topic article, which is based on encyclopedic relevance, a matter largely left to editorial consensus at an article (but within the bounds of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and MOS:TRIVIA).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Except that, as I pointed out, that's not true: when implementing BLP policy, notability matters. See, for example WP:BLPCAT and WP:BLPLEAD. -- Irn (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Read how notability matters. WP:BLPCAT and WP:BLPLEAD refer to whether the info is "relevant to the subject's notability". Here the proposal has "only when the person was notable prior to coming out". Prior notability is a non-issue here; subject is either notable or not. I'd say changing to something like "only when the prior name is relevant to the subject's notability" might address SMcCandlish's concern. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

If using the word "Notability" causes a problem... Just substitute that word with "Noteworthiness" ... It means the same thing, without the confusion of wiki-jargon. Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Or use other wikijargon that fits better, like "encyclopedic relevance". One slight problem we have is that a "WP:Relevance" guideline never did materialize, so any wording like "relevance", "pertinence", "noteworthiness", "non-indiscriminate nature in the context", etc., is going to have some element of wiggle room. At any rate, Dicklyon and Blueboar's gist is correct: Avoiding use of "notability" at all, or properly clarifying with something like "relevant to the subject's notability", would resolve my objection to Irn's proposition. And that objection still stands despite BLPCAT and BLPLEAD, which are also tied to relevance to the subject's notability, and do not ban inclusion of a piece of information in the encyclopedia at all just because the datum itself does not pass WP:Notability. Anyone who doesn't get that does not understand WP:Notability and needs to re-read it carefully.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - when a transgender person changes his/her name, it's a denial of that person's birth identity; to compare this to someone changing his last name out of respect of the man who raised him/her (Bill Clinton) is, n my opinion, inappropriate. You could perhaps make this claim for a person who "intended to reinvent herself" (Portia de Rossi). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand what you're arguing for here. Should people's birth names be given, or not, or are you suggesting that it should depend on the reason that they changed their name? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. People who changed their name out of denial of some aspect of their former life (gender, religion, etc) should have this wish respected, unless they were already notable under their old name (e.g Chelsea Manning); peopl;e who's name change was not a denial of their original identity should have the old name written in the lead. (I think this should apply to women who lost their original last name when they got married). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      • All name changes are a denial of original identity. How can they not be? How do we ever actually know what the wishes of an article subject are, and why should we respect them in any case? Conscious disrespect, I am not advocating, but attempting to consider feelings which may be unknown and unknowable seems very problematic. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
        • According to the article on Clinton, He changed his name out of respect of the man who raised him, not of denial of his birth father. Calling him William Jefferson Blythe III would be undercategorizing him, not miscategorizing him. Calling Dana International Yaron Cohen would be miscategorizing her, because she changed her name to Sharon as a denial of her maleness. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
          • You see, I think you're attempting to put way too much meaning into names. Personally I doubt you known enough abut Bill Clinton to say that he changed his name 100% for reason X and 0% because of reason Y, nor do I believe that you can claim with such certainty why Dana International changed her name. And we are not talking about what we call someone now, we're talking about whether birth names should be mentioned for everyone who has changed their name, and if not, why not. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Current wording works as-is for people who are transgender as well as those who are not. To address one of the examples the IP has been badgering RGloucester with above: There is no real need to have Bill Clinton's birth name in the lead of his article, of course it should be in the body, but it is neither relevant to his notability, nor adds anything to the understanding of him that would be relevant to have in the lead of his article. This is the case for most subjects who are notable after a name-change, regardless of the circumstances. Likewise for people who are notable before a name-change, then yes that generally should be mentioned in the lead. Either way, Birthname is a subsection of the MOS which is an editing guideline (not a policy) listing best practices, it can be ignored on case by case basis subject to local consensus at the article if there is a need to do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The current wording is "In some cases, subjects have legally changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given [in the lead sentence] as well", with a specific exclusion for transgender people. Are you suggesting that the exclusion for transgender people be extended to all articles? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Ah I see what you mean. Well yes I would still oppose removing the specific exemption for transgender people unless it was extended to everyone equally. EG: "Where subjects have changed their names - birthnames should not be in the lead unless they were previously notable under that name." would replace both sections. Cant complain about special treatment, it makes no restrictions on discussing the name change in the body of the article, and where necessary the birthname will still be included in the lead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      • But why should birth names not be mentioned in the lead? You say that Bill Clinton's birth name doesn't add to the understanding of him; why, then, should we mention when or where he was born? These are similarly unnecessary, by that logic. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Why should it? The lead is a summary of the article, it is not required (and is generally frowned upon) to go into detail regarding everything in the article. Arguably lots of biographies would be improved by leaving the non-essential biographical data to the infobox's and the body of the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Speaking as a trans person who has changed their name (legally as well as socially): Referring to a trans person by their previous name (deadnaming) is a form of misgendering, and can cause emotional distress (gender dysphoria). Cisgender people who change their names do not experience dysphoria, so the situation is not analogous (though they may experience discomfort with their previous name for other reasons). Even if the trans person's previous name can be found by searching online, there is no need to emphasize that name in their Wikipedia article if they were not notable before they transitioned. Funcrunch (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that it would be absurd to imagine that all transgender people feel a particular distress about their birthname that is not shared by any non-transgender person. I further think that we, generally speaking, have no way of knowing how a person with a Wikipedia article feels about any of the facts that appear in it, and I do not think they should have any say in it anyway. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I didn't say "all" transgender people feel distress about their birth-assigned names.. But gender dysphoria is a very real condition that nearly all transgender people experience, and misgendering can exacerbate that condition. Even if a particular trans person does not mind seeing their previous name, displaying that name prominently in a Wikipedia article - for a person who was not notable before transition - sets a precedent that it is permissible to refer to trans people this way. Wikipedia leads appear prominently in search engine results, so this site has a responsibility not to cause unnecessary harm. Funcrunch (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Obviously I know that gender dysphoria is real. But I don't believe Wikipedia articles set the precedent you claim. Do you have any evidence of harm being caused in this way by Wikipedia articles? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I do not take it as obvious that you or anyone else knows that gender dysphoria is real, or understands what it entails. As an editor active on the LGBT Studies Project, I see denial of that condition and other trans-related issues all the time. As far as evidence of harm, I don't have a citation on that immediately to hand. Funcrunch (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  It's WP's job to present properly sourced, encyclopedically relevant facts, regardless whether the subject would like to expurgate some of it. Otherwise we would never include anything controversial. The difference under discussion here is much like the difference between including Winona Ryder's high-profile shplifting arrest, and dwelling on a misdemeanor someone was convicted of a decade before they ever did anything notable. And it isn't even that cut-and-dry. Pre-notability facts can become relevant when the off-WP world gives attention to them and increases their interest level in the public mind.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  I question the validity of your comparison. Changing one's name in the course of gender transition is not in any way comparable to committing a crime, even independent of one's notability. There needs to be a compelling reason to include information that can potentially cause avoidable harm to a marginalized class of people. The public's curiosity about a trans person's gender history is not a sufficiently compelling reason. Funcrunch (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  So substitute another comparison. I provided a birthdate one below, and could generate 20 additional ones. It doesn't matter whether the genesis or nature of the fact in question is comparable or not; what matters is sourcing and encyclopedic relevance. The crowd that wants to always include old names is making a mistake in that regard. So is the crowd who want to expurgate them no matter what. They're both extremist positions that are not doing any relevance analysis, which is always going to be case-by-case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I do find this an interesting question. I can't say much about deadnaming people in a lead section; it's honestly somekind of awkward balance of mental health and consistency in a world where "original name" is seen as something "official", but I would like to make a comment about bolding a deadname in the lead section. I would strongly oppose to doing that, as a bold name is usually a name under which a person may be known. In case of a transgender person that is only really known by their real name, this just isn't the case for their birthname. I suppose you could make a form of legal name argument ("it's their official name!"), but seeing as legal name changes exist, this just seems rather moot. Honestly, in general, a deadname is just not the same as another kind of birthname. It's difficult to figure out how to mention it in an article if mentioned by reliable sources. ~Mable (chat) 15:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal mischaracterizes the current practice as omitting encyclopedic information; the current guideline merely excludes said information from the lead. The current guideline adequately applies the BLP policy to the leads of articles on non-cisgender people, and I see no reason to change it. -- Irn (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That seems to me to be what the current practice is. In the article that led me to post this request for comment, the person's birth name has been repeatedly removed ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]), and is not currently mentioned at all in the article.[21] 79.158.212.99 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Nah, if a name has been meaningfully reported upon by media in any way, it should be reported. I wasn't able to check on Monroe's name in the example you gave, as the media are censoring themselves, but we just describe whatever the media publishes. If you have a reliable source for Monroe's birth name, feel free to add it. Is the mentioned Daily Mail article still out there? I wonder if an archived version of a web page is allowed as a source on Wikipedia if the page was taken down because of its content... Hmm, all interesting questions, but probably outside of this RfC's scope. We're currently discussing using a deadname in a lead section. ~Mable (chat) 17:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      • People have added it several times, citing reliable sources such as the subject of the article themselves, and it's been removed. That's why I started this discussion, rather than just adding it back. But thanks for the invitation to start a flame war! 79.158.212.99 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  If the subject themself has been raising their old name, in publication, that should just be the end of the discussion. No one can hope to make a WP:OUTING or WP:UNDUE claim in such a case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support some loosening of the current wording; there is a middle ground. The problem here is that we're discussing a false dichotomy as if it were real, a binary choice between never including the old name in he lead unless the subject used it when after they became notable, or always including it if it can be sourced, no matter what. This is pretty silly, and is not how we go about things. We include things in the lead based on relevance to the readership. Ergo, if an old name was not used by the subject when they were notable but has itself become fairly commonly known, it is encyclopedically relevant and belongs in the lead. If it's ancient trivia hardly anyone knows or cares about, it does not belong in the lead, and it might not even belong in the article at all. The current wording is too restrictive, and the proposed change may be a little too permissive. But this really doesn't have anything to do with transgender issues; we would asks the same question about, say, a cis-male newscaster whose birth name was something different because his mother remarried when he was an infant. If the old name had no real impact on the life-course of the subject, it is of no encyclopedic value, and is just indiscriminate trivia. However, a name change made as an adult probably does not qualify as being so trivial; otherwise we would not include the maiden names of married female subjects who changed their names upon marriage, nor would we include the legal names of celebrities with stage names/pen names.

  TL;DR version: Use WP:COMMONSENSE. The hyper-progressive and the ultra-conservative camps both need to stop trying to use WP as a social issues advocacy platform. People who want our articles to be encyclopedically complete and accurate are not theocratic transphobes, and those who don't want our articles to be full of trivia, or of WP:UNDUE dwelling on private lives, are not political-correction police. The one side needs to refrain from demonizing the other, and the extremists in both camps need to stop trying to recruit here. Most editors are pretty centrist on matters like this, and this is good.

  PS: "Is it believed that the subject of the article themselves might find the mention of their birth name offensive? Or that someone else might on their behalf feel offended?" is a good question to ask, about where all this fist-shaking is coming from. Absent the subject (in a verifiable interview or in a verifiable self-publication) stating that people even mentioning their old name is a source of stress, the argument that it must be is WP:ADVOCACY and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH on the part of LGBT language-change activists. And such a sourced statement wouldn't necessarily affect our coverage, anyway; a statement by someone that people mentioning her age or year of birth would be stressful to her would not prevent us properly noting the information with reliable sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I appreciate such arguments. Whether we add a name to the lead section specifically should be all about what the sources do. Besides some mean-spirited outings, I don't believe most other reliable sources really make much of a point of someone's deadname unless they were well-known with it... but if they do, then it should probably be mentioned in the lead section. ~Mable (chat) 20:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• sort-of support I'm seeing a lot of discussion above concerning gender changes which seems entirely divorced from the seeming reality that hardly anyone who has declared a gender change and has an article only became notable after that and not because of that. The three cases I know of right off (Manning, Jenner, and Walter Carlos) became famous/notorious before and without reference to anything about gender, and it's unfair to the reader not to use the older and generally more familiar name right off. Likewise it is reasonable for users of pseudonyms to mention the real name right off it is well-known. I could support something that said that little-used birth names, etc. should not appear in the lead, but that's not what it says now, and that's not the intent of what it says now. Mangoe (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This rule change would not affect the people you mentioned: as they were notable before they came out, they have their deadnames in the lead section in bold letters. The idea of the current rule is indeed that little-known names shouldn't be noted in the lead section if they can result in dysphoria, but if that isn't phrased appropriately, then it probably should be changed in some manner. ~Mable (chat) 20:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Well yes but wikipedia doesnt operate on hypothetical conditions that someone *might* suffer from. Otherwise if we are going that route my previous suggestion to extend the same consideration we give to transgenders should be applied to everyone who has changed their name, due to the potential PTSD the abuse victims (a common cause of legal identity changing) might suffer from being reminded of their previous names... RGloucester above also seems to agree unless someone was notable under their previous name, it should be in the body, not the lead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support the birth name, or legal name, should be in the lead as in formerly XXX or born as XXX. We are not censored and we are not politically correct, we are an encyclopedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose We've discussed this previously and some of the primary objections to blanket directives to include non-notable deadnames are (1) they're not notable and we don't include non-notable private info about living people (e.g., how we treat spouses' and children's names), (2) many MOSs for other outlets suggest not to include the names (most notably GLAAD's guidelines), and (3) the use of deadnames is often considered offensive by trans folks and thus using them should be limited to cases where it's important. The current guidelines are the result of compromise, discussion, and consensus. I see no compelling reason to change them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The preferences of an advocacy group have no bearing on our manual or style.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: NYTimes then ([22])? Reuters says to always user the person's name. Even Buzzfeed ([23])? GLAAD is an advocacy group (like SPLC or ADL), but they're an authority on the matter and heeded by many major journalism outlets (one example of glaad coverage: [24]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Not directly no, but indirectly yes. Our content is based on information from reliable sources, so as word usage by such sources changes, it will bleed into our content here. We maintain a neutral point of view, do not censor, and do not misrepresent or revise historical facts. Disallowing the inclusion of "deadnames" in articles would distort those core values we hold dear. We do what we can, when it is reasonable, for example: using pronouns that a subject prefers for periods of time after their transition, as the usage of gender pronouns in modern English has adapted to be inconsistent with physical sex.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: before referring to Wikipeia's core values, you would do well to check what they are.
You cite WP:NOTCENSORED, which you appear not to have read. It is irrelevant, because it refers to withholding info to avoid causing offence to readers ... whereas the issue here is the possibility of harm and distress to the living subjects of articles.
The relevant policy is at WP:BLP, which requires that "BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" and that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Note the word "must" in each: it means that consideration for the subjects is mandatory. You are breaching that policy.

You claim that Disallowing the inclusion of "deadnames" in articles would distort those core values we hold dear. That is an irrational claim, because you seem to believe that BLP is not a core value, and you similarly pay no attention to WP:UNDUE ... and it is irrationally hysterical hyperbole, because reducing the prominence of a piece of info is neither revisionism nor censorship.

It is already policy at WP:DOB to consider withholding the full names of living subjects, and to always withdraw them if requested ... yet you refuse to extend the same sort of courtesy redaction to trans people's deadnames, and you even climb on a high horse to wave banners of "core values" in your opposition even to the more modest step of simply lesser prominence to the deadnames of trans people.

This is a form of indirect discrimination, because it imposes a requirement which disprortionately disadvantages one group, without any consideration of reasonable adjustment. I cannot know whether your intent is transphobic, but since you refuse to avoid harm to trans people make reasonable adjustments to the prominence of names of trans people even tho it is policy to actually withhold such info in other cases, effect of your refusal is transphobic discrimination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: WP:5P.
My views don't breach WP:BLP.
I said "in articles" not "in the lead".
WP:DOB doesn't state "to always withdraw [full names] if requested". "courtesy redaction [of any] people's [former names]" = censorship in some cases.
I have no problem with an argument for changing the manual of style for all people. However, I do have a problem with the notion that specific courtesies should be codified for certain groups of people when unnecessary, because there is no reason the same courtesies shouldn't be extended in the same way to others in this case. Personal dislike of former names isn't exclusive to transgender and non-binary individuals.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: This is not complicated.

It is policy that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment".

It is not policy that all topics must be treated with a mechanistic equality of content and presentation.

Your reasoning breaches BLP because you give no weight to the possibility of harm to transgender people which may arise from giving undue prominence to their previous names. In fact, in all your many posts on this page, I don't see a single attempt by you to analyse the nature or depth of that harm. Your commentary on it seems limited to downplaying it as "personal dislike of former names", which is a gross understatetment.

It is policy that "BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. You reasoning pours contempt upon the privacy of transgender people, by dismissing it as unworthy of consideration because the issues there doesn't apply to everyone. There is nothing in BLP which or any other policy which prevents us from considering how privacy affects different people in different circumstances, and respinding as aproporiate.

You link WP:5P; good idea, and I hope you read it. You will not find in there anything some assertion that it is some sort of "core value" that previous names should be displayed, or that they should be displayed prominently. That is an editorial decision.

You claim to be trying to even-handedly apply the same rule to everyone, but that approach can create indirect discrimination. The English Citizens Advice Bureaux explains the concept well: "Indirect discrimination is when there’s a practice, policy or rule which applies to everyone in the same way, but it has a worse effect on some people than others." By not considering that worse effect, and giving no weight to use of former names as a tool to harass transgender people, you are promoting a form of indirect discrimination.

You claim that you object only to the fact that transgender people are the only group currently given this courtesy. That's no defence; if there are other groups of people or sets of circumstances in which prominent display of former names would cause harm or distress, we should consider those too -- we are in fact obliged to do so by that BLP requirement that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered". There is no policy to say that any such courtesy must be applied without exception to every living subject, regardless of circumstances.

It is already policy that certain courtesies should be extended to particular groups of people. For example, WP:BLPCRIME gives greater privacy to people who are not public figures. Similarly WP:BLPNAME demands caution in publishing the names of family members of notable individuals. Even if the information is verifiable, there is a proportionality test ... because of the fundamental BLP requirement that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered".

You appear to be taking a mechanistically rigid view of equality, as if the same actions would have the same effect in all cases. I have no idea why you are so fixated on the abstract principle of identical treatment, because it is clearly inapplicable in everyday life ... and this whole discussion is about living people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Follow the sources. What is or isn't relevant is not an arbitrary choice to be made by WP contributors. As with everything, we must follow the sources. If a name is well-known enough to appear in reliable secondary sources, it should be included. Similarly, if the name cannot be found in secondary sources, WP:BLPPRIVACY tells us it should not be included. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 11:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Mixed It is clear that names which make too clear that a notable person whose prior name no longer would seem rationally applicable to the person as they now are would appear to be properly estopped from being in the lead, but, also clearly, where major sources generally mention the other name, still belong in the body of the biography.

I disagree that "transgender or non-binary" names are the only category which should be singled out, and that the goal should not be "political correctness" (which is altogether an amorphous construct IMO), but the general principle that information about individuals should be carefully written in a manner to avoid harm to anyone, living or dead, and not restricted to gender issues (which appear to have different opinions in different places and different times).

Thus my suggestion that we make a general statement about names where current reliable sources do not generally give the "prior names", and not specifying any particular category of name. Collect (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Extend the notability rule to all biographies. While issues of naming are particularly sensitive with respect to transgender people, I don't think their biographies need particular treatment in this regard: mentioning their earlier name does not amount to a misgendering as long as the former name is identified as such. But there are good editorial reasons not to distractingly highlight a very obscure former name, and I propose that we adopt this practice for all biographies: if a person is not notable under a former name, mention it only in the article body and not in bold.  Sandstein  14:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Although after reading Funcrunch's comment above, I must strike part of my comment, but maintain my view that it is a good idea to extend the present practice to all biographies.  Sandstein  14:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Since some editors seem to object to using the term "notability" in the way I proposed above, and which has now been taken up by other editors, I thought I'd make clear what I meant by it. Notability is how we determine whether a person (or other subject) deserves an article on Wikipedia. Usually, a person becomes notable for doing something of significance that reliable sources have identified at some point in their life, as opposed to being notable at the time of his or her birth. When I said "If a person was notable under an old or alternative name, then that name should be included in the first sentence of the lead. If they were not, then it should be left to the body of the article", I meant that if a person became notable (i.e. began to be covered by reliable sources as having some kind of significance) under a name, and then changed his or her name, that name should be included in the lead. If a person became notable under a name that was not his or her birth name, i.e. reliable sources never referred to this person directly by his or her birth name (as opposed to mentioning a 'born as xxx'), then that birth name should not be included in the lead in bold print, and should be left to the body of the article. I hope this can make some sense. RGloucester — ☎ 14:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - While these matters should be considered on a case-by-case basis, our purpose here is to write comprehensive biographies, not to make our subjects or readers "feel good." Carrite (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply. Straw man, Carrite. I see nobody arguing that the purpose is make anyone "feel good". The concern is here is to not do things which make people feel bad, unless they are proportional to our enyclopedic purpose. This accords with our policy at WP:BLP, which is very clear in the lede:

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment

The subsection WP:BLPPRIVACY is clear about the general principle of restraint wrt to private, personal information. The essay "avoiding harm" sets out at WP:NOTATABLOID why "the potential harm to the subject should be taken into account", and WP:HARM#TEST suggests some ways of making that assessment. This guidance simply applies those general BLP principles to a group of people who face a prtucukar set of issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - The one thing that seems to be missing from this conversation is an explanation of why we parenthetically highlight the former names of article subjects in the lead sentence. The most obvious reason is that our readers may not be aware that the subject of an article has changed names, and may search for our article on the subject using the prior name. When the reader does this, he/she will be redirected. It is important to highlight the prior name (and to do so in the first sentence of the article) so that upon being redirected, the reader quickly and easily understands that "Oh, Yes, I have reached the article I was searching for... the subject has undergone a name change".

Doing this is especially important to do when the subject of an article is noteworthy for something he/she did when using the prior name. In such cases, the likelihood that a reader will search for the subject using that prior name (and will be confused when redirected to an article entitled with the new name) is high. However, I think it should be done in every case where the subject has changed names.

In other words, highlighting prior names has nothing to do with our acceptance or rejection of the subject's gender identity... it has everything to do with how best to aid our readers, and how best to present them with necessary information in a clear cut and informative manner that limits the potential for confusion. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• • I agree with this idea of why a person's alternative or former name would be placed in bold in the lead section, but wouldn't this also imply that if a person is not known under a former name at all anymore - they became notable after their name change and have kept their former name basically a secret - it has no place in the lead, as no one would search for it? ~Mable (chat) 16:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I'm in favor of SMcCandlish's nuanced approach. Fdssdf (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - The birth or previous name is simply a verifiable fact about the subject. It may be present in other sources and its omission from WP would sever the logical link with those sources. The personal preference of the subject is not relevant for information about them. −Woodstone (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As I've said before, the rule about including birth names in the lead should be consistent for notable people, we shouldn't discriminate based on gender.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose removing it all together, support a rewording (edit conflict) The idea that neutrally applied policies are unproblematic is untrue. A neutrally applied policy can still be discriminatory, e.g., in Loving v. Virginia the state of Virginia defended its ban on interracial marriage by stating it applied to everyone, and the same in Lawrence v. Texas and in Obergefell v. Hodges and in Brown v. Board. In all these cases, these laws have been overturned because they have disproportionate impact.

The common thread is that rules applied consistently to everyone can cause disproportionate harm to particular groups. That is not to say the current wording is best but that the arguments for abolishing it all together are unconvincing and are just as heavy handed as the current wording. I very much agree with SMcCandlish, and while I personally disagree with deadnaming trans people, this is an encyclopedia. And that means we should cover it in the lead if it's critically important to the person and in the article if it's important. If it's not important, why are we including it? Just as trivia? As a way to mark trans people? This discussion needs a nuance and self analysis that seems largely lacking. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 17:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• "If it's not important, why are we including it?", could be said of all birth names, not just in regard to those of subjects of a certain gender (though I think birth names are of encyclopedic value because they aid further research at the least, though off topic, because this discussion isn't about whether or not to include birth names as a whole).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

while I support the idea of a rewording in general, none of the proposals seem to strike my fancy so I struck that part of my !vote above. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 16:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Not including the name somebody changed is not the same as including 'william' for 'bill'. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support The reasoning for this exemption comes down to that some transgender people see the use of their former name in any context as denying the validity of their now-expressed gender identification, regardless of whether the use of the former name is actually intended as such or is a simple statement of historical fact. I don't see that as a convincing reason to have a special rule that only applies to this one group of people. Anomie⚔ 22:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Excluding such verifiable information can be very confusing to readers. We are here to serve our readers with history about a person. We do not edit our BLP articles based on how the subject wants them to say, citing policies such as WP:COI and WP:V. Often this has lead to problems. And we don't correct them until the subjects complain publicly about their Wikipedia articles. All a transgender person wants is for other people to treat them like normal people. Treating transgender people and cisgender people differently not only is a form of discrimination, it confuses readers. SSTflyer 01:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The attempt to create a contrast between transgender people and "normal people" is not pretty.
    What transgender people want is to be recognised in the gender in which they live their lives. Deadnaming undermines that, and it is a problem particular to transgender people. Claiming that everyone should be treated in the same way is like saying that there is no problem with steps at the entrance to a building, because everyone has to use them. No problem to a fit person, but it's an insurmountable barrier to a wheelchair-user. Different people have different needs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    • We are here to serve our readers, not to avoid annoying transgender people. We keep a lot of reliably sourced, WP:BLP-compliant information about living people which may be seen by them as harmful or detrimental towards their safety and/or reputation. When the subject complains about such information, in most cases we ignore the subject and even sanction them for violating WP:COI policies. Just because the subject feels threatened due to information we include is no reason to remove such information. SSTflyer 16:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
      • We are indeed here to serve our readers, but policy is not to titillate them with trivia and policy is also quite explicitly clear that we are not here to cause harm to living people. The policy WP:BLP is very clear that Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Giving undue prominence to previous names does cause harm to trans people; the practice of deadnaming is well documented as a form of harassment of trans people. This problem very rarely applies to non-trans people (e.g. women who have changed their name on marriage), and it is because of this distinction in real lives that we currently have a distinction in how we write about trans people.

If this proposal is accepted, then not only will the deadname be given great prominence on wikipedia pages; it will also be displayed in gogle searches. Look, for example at a Google search for Cherie Blair or Christine Hamilton: in each case, google places the en.wp biog near the top of the list of search results, displaying the former name in the snippet of lede.

I am aware of no reason to believe that this causes any harm to Blair or Hamilton, but it does cause real harm to transgender people. The policy WP:BLP is full of examples of situations where editors are advised to exercise restraint in coverage of living people, e.g. those notable for only one event, those who have been victims, people accused of crime, etc. Why are some editors so averse to exercising restraint wrt transgender people? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. We have a good essay on the underlying principles: WP:Avoiding harm, particularly the section WP:NOTATABLOID. In the case of transgender people, there is ample testimony from transgender people and their allies that deadnaming of living people is a hurtful and destructive practise ... so where a previous name is available, it should not be given excessive prominence. In some cases that may mean that info is ion the lede; in other cases it may mean that it is in the body of the article; and in other cases it may mean omitting viable info. The current wording may be clumsy, but the principle is sound. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Above you used an analogy about providing a ramp for wheelchair users. Let's extend that analogy. Right now we have a ramp, but only people in wheelchairs are allowed to use it. Anyone who can't climb stairs but isn't wheelchair-bound is out of luck, they're forbidden from using the ramp that they could easily traverse. Is that really a sound principle? Anomie⚔ 19:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. In practice, we should always do what's best for our readers, rather than what we imagine might be preferred by some article subjects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:BLP places a very clear obligation on us to avoid doing harm to living people who are the subject of articles: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
    Why are Andrew Lenahan and some other editors so keen to ignore that obligation in this case? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I completely agree with RGloucester and BrownHairedGirl's clear statements above. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Broadly support some loosening per SMcCandlish. We should be able to come up with a wording that covers ALL names, on whether the old name is relevant, widely covered in RS etc. As I say below, it being well known public information that one had a previous name is not the same as being well known while one used that name. If one of the best known things about a person is that they had a previous name (for whatever reason), why exclude that from the lead. If their previous name/identity is largely unknown, why mention it at all? Pincrete (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As a few folks have mentioned above, there are serious BLP concerns with including the former names of transgender people when they weren't notable under that name. It's a pretty common tactic of anti-transgender activists to dig up the former names of transgender people and persistently refer to them by those names, even if they were never notable under that name; this is generally done to try to delegitimize transgender people's identities, and can cause significant emotional distress both to the transgender person in question and other transgender people who come across this stuff. If Wikipedia had a general policy of including the former names of transgender people, I can see editors digging up old, obscure court records and newspaper announcements to find former names and using them as sources to include the names in Wikipedia, thereby lifting a former name from relative obscurity to one of the first Google results for the person. Given Wikipedia's fairly low bar for notability and that many notable transgender people will be notable for unrelated reasons (and their transgender status may not even be well-known in their area of notability), a policy like this could lead to some very bad outcomes for the living transgender people we have articles about. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose While I accept that this kind of special case is not ideal, this is one of the contexts where it is, at least for now and the near future, among the least bad alternatives. To give an example (hopefully without enough details to allow identification), a transgender acquaintance of mine who transitioned over 30 years ago has a Wikipedia article on the strength of their notability as a writer. The article lead makes no direct mention of their being transgender or indeed their transgender rights activities, though the transgender rights activities are given a couple of sentences in the main body of the article, and another sentence briefly mentions that they are transgender, in relation to some biographical details about the start of the subject's writing career, before the subject transitioned and a decade or more before the earliest of the works that are generally regarded as making them notable. This seems about right to me - the works for which the subject is primarily notable have little visible connection to their transgender rights activities (still less their transgender status) and almost always seem to be discussed without reference to these. However, at least one definitely reliable source notes that their earliest works were published under a name which is obviously of the other gender to their present one (presumably their birth name), and an arguably reliable source, from the time at which they transitioned and since put online, actually has an announcement of the change of name from the previous to the present one. The main proposal above would therefore come close to disallowing any challenge to an edit inserting the subject's birth name - which is clearly at odds with the subject's current gender and thus a blatant indication of their transgender status - ahead of all actual reasons for their notability. It may be useful to put some basic information into an article lead, that is not strictly relevant to a subject's main grounds for notability but that people may want anyway, that we should generally do it - but not if it is then, however unintentionally, likely to distract readers from the actual grounds for notability or strongly colour their view of them (and I accept that transgender status may not be the only thing that does this - suggestion of illegitimate birth certainly would have done at some times in the past though, I think, no longer does). Some of the alternative proposals below would probably mitigate this problem, but I do not think that any of them would actually remove it. PWilkinson (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment In practice, the issue has often not been about whether any reliable source can be found for a person's name at birth, but how much effort we are going to go to dig up such a source. When the media in general have refrained from using someone's birth name, do we follow the general standard and not include it (or at least, not emphasize it), or accept the minority of sources (often more politically conservative ones) as meeting verifiability and follow their lead? In one article, the subject's birth name was published, then subsequently removed from an online source. The question was whether to continue to use that as a source supporting inclusion or not.

There are many sorts of verifiable facts that we don't include in articles based on societal standards of privacy and what is considered encyclopedic. This is clearly an area where there are rapidly evolving standards.

I haven't seen a lot of exploration of what makes a little-known previous name a valuable addition to an article's lead. In cases where editors are going to great lengths to find a source for the birth name, I'm not convinced it adds any value to the article at all. The purpose of including it in bold in the lead is to let someone know they have arrived at the right article. For obscure former names, that doesn't apply.--Trystan (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to say I like this point of view a lot, and think this is probably the most important thing to keep in mind while amending this guideline. ~Mable (chat) 20:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose because if you had a friend that changed their name from Jenny to let's say Jacob it would be very hurtful and disrespectful to introduce them as Jacob formerly known as Jenny. Now I know some of you are going to say "Well we have to be politically correct and blah blah" first of all that's a very transphobic thing to say and no we don't have to be politically correct because we here on wikipedia rely on the subjects gender identity. Do we have to be accurate? Yes, but we need to respect the subjects privacy and I believe the current guideline is fine and is really only used in a handful of articles. A perfect example would be CeCe McDonald, her birth name is not mentioned in the lead section because she was not notable before coming out, her birth name is irrelevant and not necessary to include. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@JayJay: Generalize your statement a bit, "[a] birth name [should not be] mentioned in [a] lead section[, unless the subject was] notable [before they changed their name, as their] birth name is irrelevant and not necessary to include", and it could be argued that way in regard to all living notable people. That is a reasonable argument. The argument to treat a certain group of people differently, because not doing so would "be very hurtful and disrespectful" and "we need to respect the subjects privacy" (as if the privacy of a particular group of people is more important than that of others), "compromise[s] our integrity as an impartial reference work" (the last quote steals some succinct phrasing from 67.14.236.50 below).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: Oh hey, you quoted me! Just to be clear, that comment of mine did not necessarily represent my own position, but was meant to hopefully more clearly represent yours. It seems like I was successful, so that’s good to know!
As for me, it does bug me that some editors here seem to be more concerned with protecting the rights and welfare of transgender people than with just people. Because non-transgender people are people too. Also, I think it’s ludicrous to cite privacy concerns regarding publicly known names (or otherwise they wouldn’t be allowed in Wikipedia in the first place). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@JayJay: CeCe McDonald may be a bad example of this as it seems like the article doesn't mention her deadname at all. The lead section of this article doesn't contradict this change of rules. ~Mable (chat) 07:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current wording is a decent compromise and I think we should stick to it. There is no reason that we need to draw attention to non-notable deadnames in the lead. Mentioning them in the body is adequate. To emphasize them in the lead is disrespectful, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. We need to tread carefully here. The systematic placement of birth names in bios could easily lead to inadvertent (or intentional) outing. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. This discussion is being brigaded by an off-site hate group who is actively encouraging people to create meatpuppet accounts to rig the "vote" (which shows they don't understand Wikipedia). They are a notorious transphobic hate group who have a history of participating in doxxing, harassment, and threats of violence against trans people. This is the post from the hate group, where they explicitly instruct people to "Vote SUPPORT". MarleneSwift (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose omitting that sentence with no other action (the only thing proposed in this non-neutral non-RfC) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, mainly per the points made by RGloucester. Unless the subject was notable before their transition (such as with The Wachowskis) there is no reason to include their former name in the lede. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. The main "oppose" argument is based on BLP policy, but these guidelines apply to all biographies. If this is opposed for BLP reasons, then the guideline should at least be modified to living "transgender and non-binary people". StAnselm (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I was wondering about this. I honestly don't know if privacy-issues are still kept in mind for deceased subjects. I would assume there would be some protection due to a close relation with potential family, but I wouldn't think former names would be in any way protected under such a guideline. ~Mable (chat) 21:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that WP:WEIGHT would come in to play. If a preponderance obits and other sources consider it notable enough to mention the person's deadname/birthname, then we should include it too per WP:WEIGHT. Mind you, WP:BLP does have WP:BDP along with it for the recently deceased. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Trans people have an uphill battle for dignity in almost every culture in the world. To start with most doctors have little clue what to do when a baby shows genitalia that are in any way ambiguous. For as long as modern medicine has been practiced damaging surgeries to "correct" such ambiguity have occurred and still routinely happen. Where a child does find non-invasive surgeries have been avoided they still have to navigate a world that will often reject them both as a boy and a girl. Sometimes leaving them psychically scarred for life. Then growing up they usually face a gauntlet of discrimination which leaves them with bad vs. poor choices in any kind of life to lead including what kind of closet can they live with. Unless someone explicitly have stated they are fine with their former identity splashed across the www for the world to know about, it should been omitted in any way possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:15A1:8773:456D:8253 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  I agree with the sentiment, but the people you're describing are intersex. Some intersex people identify as trans and some don't. Funcrunch (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. If they weren't notable under that name, then it isn't important enough to go in the lead. WP:OTHERNAMES makes it clear that we're only supposed to include significant other names in the lead, and a name that they were never famous under is, by definition, not significant. --Aquillion (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Split the difference: no general rule Once someone has changed their name for any reason, we should generally use the new name. The prominence with which the old name should be featured depends on a case-by-case analysis of how notable their old name was, and is particularly ill suited to general rules in a guideline. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Only because the discussion is of mention of the person's birth name in the lead section. I think it is encyclopedic content, and if reliably sourced is not unduly offensive, derogatory, defamatory or any such thing. The Bill Clinton argument is interesting (no one knows him as "William Jefferson Blythe III"), but I would turn it around and question why his birth name should be included in the lead; the current wording of the transgender guideline is in my opinion something that should be expanded to other people who were never widely known by the birth names. If, say, the lead section of our article on the Wachowskis didn't mention the names by which they were known when they made their best-known film, then we could call political correctness gone too far, but that is clearly not the case, and the current wording explicitly recommends the opposite. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose What is the point of this suggestion? To single people out, to be petty and mean? this just seem like a pointless act of bigotry. Artw (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Basically, the argument being made here seems to be "WP:NOTCENSORED!!1" and "political correctness gone mad!". Neither is a good reason to include information in the lead of an article that is not critical to an understanding of the subject. Exercising editorial discretion and considering the needs of our readers first is not "censorship". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose, and not a MOS issue As soon as birthnames (or anything else) become contested content, what to do with them becomes a content question (specifically the appropriate WP:WEIGHT for the info, under WP:NPOV which is the supreme content policy on Wikipedia) rather than a style question. This is especially sensitive for BLP's but is not limited to them. The lead sentence of an article is the most visible place this info can possibly go, not only giving it undue prominence for readers of the article, but also splashing it into the search snippets shown to users of off-wiki search engines. For some other types of biographies (e.g. Mark Twain's) the birthname is uncontroversial "metadata" so then its placement is more like a style issue. This discussion at most tries to recognize that when transgender people are involved, it's likely to be a content issue and should generally be treated as one.

  It never occurred to me that there was a strong convention of putting birthnames into the lead sentence anyway. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthname (Michael King) isn't mentioned until the MLK article's "Education and early life" section, 5 paragraphs into the article, after the TOC, and and not in the lead section at all. I'm quite sure it's been that way for years at least, and the article is quite well developed so it's not an oversight. That all seems perfectly fine to me. There's no high importance to these birthnames unless they figure heavily into the RS about the person. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support in cases where the individual's birth name is common knowledge, i.e. published in an extensive number (more than just a small handful) of reliable secondary sources. We don't need to go out of our way to deadname people, but we also don't need to exclude information just because the subject may dislike its presence. If our biographical articles catered to the subjects, we'd be excluding a lot of less favorable information about people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or a celebrity's PR team, and to act otherwise is a disservice to the reader. Chase (talk | contributions) 15:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Nobody is talking about excluding the info. The discussion is about whether to put it in the lead sentence of the article instead of in the article body, when the person was not notable under the old name. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposed change for a variety of reasons, including those laid out by RGloucester and those noted by Kaldari and EvergreenFir. Also, as Irn notes, "The proposal mischaracterizes the current practice as omitting encyclopedic information; the current guideline merely excludes said information from the lead. The current guideline adequately applies the BLP policy to the leads of articles on non-cisgender people, and I see no reason to change it." (Is this section/proposal still open for comment, or has it been superseded by the subsequent sections?) -sche (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Why should the lead sentence include information from before the person was notable? WP:Summary style applies. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Procedural Break

• Comment This section as I understand is to see if any changes are necessary to the current guideline and multiple proposals have been made. Seeing the huge amount of input on this issue already it seems that there will be no consensus on this issue. Does anyone else think that this RfC should be closed as Wikipedia:NO CONSENSUS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayJay (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 June 2016‎

  I do, and I think we should have a no-vote discussion on the issue. We need to figure out what to propose before we try to talk about any proposal. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  I think the !voting has given us a good hint on that.

  1. All former names in the lead, without exception (original RfC proposal).
  2. All former names in the lead, except transgender deadnames (no change).
  3. Former names in the lead unless it might somehow harm the person (not explicitly proposed, but seems to be a topic of discussion).
  4. Former names in the lead only if the person received significant coverage in reliable sources under the name (proposal D).

  We should be clear that none of these would preclude mentioning the former name elsewhere in the article when relevant, just whether it belongs in the lead section. Anomie⚔ 14:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  3 seems the most sensible to me. 4, I would modify to “if significant coverage in reliable sources used the name” (for instance, if sources say, “John Doe, formerly Jane Doe, …”). The rationale being, if reliable sources have no problem mentioning the name, neither should we. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  3 - my contention is in the wording of the policy in WP space, nothing with implementation as it is. Seems like the best compromise. -NottNott|talk 14:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  I don't think voting here is going to do much good, this was brainstorming for a followup RfC assuming that this one gets closed as having been hopelessly confused. Although I will say the one concern I have with #3 is that "harm" isn't actually defined in policy anywhere; for example, I see no mention of it in WP:BLP besides one passing mention in the lead. Anomie⚔ 17:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Anomie: About that… if a former name is mentioned in multiple significant-coverage sources (i.e. if Googling the subject is more than likely to reveal a deadname), wouldn’t any potential harm have already been done? Wikipedia wouldn’t really be able to do anything about it. How much does the fact matter that the information is out there and readily accessible? (Has this been discussed before? I feel like it’s too obvious not to have done.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per RGloucester and BrownHairedGirl. Neljack (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  @Neljack: Please see WP:PERX and WP:AADP#Per others. If you agree with one or more other users, you should specify why you think their ideas are good. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose it would be very rare for this to need to be in the lead sentence unless they were notable before the name change. I could maybe see it where the fact they are TG is why they are notable, but even then, I don't think it important enough to be in the lead sentence. I suppose there could be a case where the name change itself is why they are notable (?) in that case maybe, but as with all guidelines and even policies, we write the rules so they work 98% of the time and take the other 2% as needed. Hobit (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

All changed names mentioned in lead only if it is relevant to the subject or carries enough weight (proposal A)

Many multiple people have (rightly, in my eyes) suggested that all changed names regardless of how they came to be should only be mentioned in the lead section if that person was notable under their former name. I propose changing the WP:BIRTHNAME guideline to say this:

Any former name should be mentioned in the lead section only if the subject was notable under that name.

Anyone is welcome to tweak the wording of that proposal above for flow/consistency - but the idea must remain the same.

• Withdrawn See proposal D. -NottNott|talk Notify with {{re}} 16:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC) *Support as proposer. -NottNott|talk Notify me with {{re}} 18:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support – I was actually trying to write a suggestion quite like this, but I still feel like there's missing something. Perhaps applying common sense in certain situations would solve any issues that this guideline may bring, but I imagine that it may be slightly edited in the future if such things become apparent. Either way, I much prefer this version compared to our current guidelines. Former names (or deadnames, as it may be) can always be reported upon in infoboxes and article prose if mentioned by sources. ~Mable (chat) 19:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: What is the exact version you'd suggest? Or is it just a gut feeling? If you have any improvements to make to the wording definitely do so. -NottNott|talk Notify me with {{re}} 19:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It is more of a gut feeling than anything else: I refrained from making such a suggestion myself because I wasn't able to write anything good. My worry relates to the difference between being notable when you have a name, being notable under a name, and having had a highly noteworthy name. I don't know if that sentence even made any sense, which is where my problem lies with improving the suggestion further. Sandstein may have made an improvement to it, though. ~Mable (chat) 20:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: Like the difference between a show name, a legal name, and (long shot) having a name that someone else was notable for but since you also have it, it's also notable? If I'm wrong I didn't get the sentence, but you should certainly elaborate on it if you can and believe it's an important idea. -NottNott|talk Notify with {{re}} 20:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I imagine there may be situations where a person has changed their name legally before they had gotten in any way notable, but are still commonly referred to by that name. Or other such situations, I'm honestly not really sure. I'd rather see this guideline in action and see what kind of issues may arise first. ~Mable (chat) 20:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral for now I still have feelings^[clarify] about notability being applied to article content. But not enough of a problem to object to this. I'll think about it more and maybe come to a conclusion. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 20:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Oppose as worded Lest important is that I share some of the concerns above about notability being applied to article content. Most important is the use of legally changed their names which can be a problem. Many people (not just trans people) don't legally change their name or cannot change legally change their name. Requiring some sort of legal process (which may not exist or be required in some jurisdictions) instead of secondary sources calling them by a particular name seems ill advised. If "legally" were removed I'd no longer object, but I'm yet to be sold on this proposal. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 19:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I mistakenly left reference to legality in the proposal - using the current WP:BIRTHNAME policy stating subjects have legally changed their names at some point after birth as a stem to write that proposal. Sandstein has proposed a much better version that omits legal status below, and I've replaced it in the current proposal. -NottNott|talk Notify with {{re}} 20:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support, although the wording is not concise. I suggest: Any former name should be mentioned in the lead section only if the subject was notable under that name.  Sandstein  19:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Just pasted your version instead. Concision is hard for me. -NottNott|talk Notify with {{re}} 20:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I would prefer the former name not be included in the article at all in the case of trans people who transitioned before becoming notable, for reasons I explained earlier. But I don't have the energy to respond to (further) charges of WP:ACTIVISM right now. Funcrunch (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the text of this proposal keeps changing, this is the specific wording I'm supporting (with above caveat): "Any former name should be mentioned in the lead section only if the subject was notable under that name." Funcrunch (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support per my reasoning in the section above. RGloucester — ☎ 21:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - If this will allay concerns about "fairness" or "discrimination" regarding specification of trans/non-binary folks, than I'm fine with this. I see no problem with expanding the language to include all BLPs. As noted elsewhere, LEAD and DUE are what should really be considered here and this proposal satisfies those. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support If a name change is not relevant when the article is about a transgender person, a similar name change is equally not relevant when the article is about a cisgender person. Anomie⚔ 22:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I think this would help improve readability. That William Jefferson Clinton was named William Jefferson Blythe III as a child is suitable for mentioning in the relevant section of the article, but it doesn't need to be in the lead section, let alone the first thing mentioned in the lead sentence.--Trystan (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support with the removal of the word "only". The wording "... should ... only ..." does not allow much flexibility. It's like if the former name is notable (e.g. Bruce Jenner), it must be mentioned, while if it is not notable, it must not be mentioned. This may cause excessive discussion over whether the former name of a trans person is notable or not, wasting time which can instead be used to improve the article itself. SSTflyer 01:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Brainfart. Thanks Godsy for reminding that this proposal applies to WP:BIRTHNAME instead of transgender people. No need to change what is WP:NOTBROKEN. At the very least, such a proposal should not be bundled here. SSTflyer 05:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Woodstone below - The inclusion of birth names in the case of subjects who have changed their names at the first mention (i.e. the lead) within biographies has been in place since at least 2005, Special:Diff/20403072. They aid further research and help reduce ambiguity. It is a good encyclopedic practice to give readers this factual information right off the bat if it is verifiable (especially for historical individuals). This also raises the question of whether maiden names should be included in the lead if they were not notable by that name. This major change would affect many articles, and is another topic altogether, which really should have been in a section of its own. At the least, the WP:CENT listing needs its wording changed, and WP:VPPOL needs another notification.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Procedural objection: The proposal in the heading and the proposed wording do not match. I would support what the heading says (two inclusion criteria), but not the one-criterion version in the text of the section (especially since the criterion given there does not match either of the two given in the heading). I already covered why in the previous section; nutshell: Former names that were used pre-notability are often still encyclopedically relevant, and this will be a case-by-case determination, as with most other relevance questions, as a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Almost no-one is arguing they are not encyclopedically relevant to the article, just not significant enough to be in the lead when they were not notable under their previous name. The guidelines on what should be in the lead already reflect this but not explicitly. Can you honestly argue Bill Clinton's prior name is so relevant to his notability it needs to be the first line in the article? Besides, this is a MOS discussion, ALL mos guidelines can be amended on an article case-by-case basis depending on local consensus. This is merely a change to the guidelines for best practice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree Clinton's birth name should not be in the lead in his particular case, because it verges on obscure trivia. This will often not be the case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – more or less per SMcCandlish, and "notable under that name" still conflicts with what "notable" means in wikipedia, which has nothing to do with a name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - This proposal is almost the opposite of how the discussion started. The birth or previous name is simply a verifiable fact about the subject. It may be present in other sources and its omission from WP would sever the logical link with those sources. The personal preference of the subject is not relevant for information about them.−Woodstone (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support One of the arguments in the discussions above is the implication of special treatment. By extending the courtesy applied to Trans people to all those who have changed their name, we remove that implication and respect the deadnaming issue for Transgenders. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, this would mean that the "maiden" names of, for example, First Ladies in the U.S. could not be mentioned in the lead. Or an actor's real name as opposed to their stage name would not be mentioned. Ridiculous. Randy Kryn 10:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Propose amendment to address some concerns above: Any former name should be mentioned in the lead section only if it is relevant to the subject's notability. I hope this might be able to alleviate some of the above concerns about usage of the term "notability". RGloucester — ☎ 13:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It would for me, but we still have the problem that it starts by proposing two criteria then does a bait-and-switch to just one, which matches neither of those originally stated. I.e., this alt. proposal is hopelessly self-confused.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons given by SMcCandlish, Randy Kryn and SSTflyer. The notion that any REAL biography would not very early on give the name at birth is ridiculous, and in the case of wives, insulting. The notion that the person needs to have been notable under a prev. name is completely different to the person's prev. name being well-known, which I could support and which would not exclude wives, stage names or other well known name changes, but would still protect gender or other name changes which are not 'in the public sphere'. Pincrete (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Mostly agree. Bill Clinton's birth name is of encyclopedic interest due to the source coverage. A name not used since infancy might not be encyclopedically relevant to include at all for someone else, though. The insistence on including abandoned birth names in particular seems to be a habit of celebrity fandom. I've had three legal names, and if I had an article here I would expect it to include the second (the one I had in high school), but not the one I was born with, which isn't relevant to much of anyone but my biological parents when they divorced during my infancy. Lots of adoptees are in a similar position. The case-by-case nature of such questions applies whether there was a gender realignment or not. But if RS have taken an interest in a former or alternative name, that is sufficient reason to include it here, often in the lead depending on frequency with which it turns up in sources. So, for most bio subjects who are "celebs", that will include their legal names, which most often will also be their birth names. For someone like a notable chemist it probably won't, because few if any RS will ever mention it. Basically, it's important to remember that "birth name", "legal name", "maiden name", and "former name" are not synonyms, they just have a high probability of coinciding for people who have had multiple names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Include birth names of trans people in the lead if it should be in the lead (proposal B)

Per MOS:LEAD: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents...According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.

So I propose the following wording:

In the case of trans and non-binary people, include birth names in the lead only if it is part of the most important article content

I think this satisfies a number of problems that have been raised:

1. Others have raised issues with using notability as the guiding factor, and I think this satisfies that.
2. It creates a guideline specifically for trans people but it is not exclusive to trans people. MOS:LEAD applies to all leads, this only serves as a guideline for a specific (yet commonly confusing) case.
3. It requires the name be significant enough to be included in the body of the article, preventing the inclusion of the name as trivia.

Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The current wording of this proposal (In the case of trans and non-binary people, include birth names in the lead only if it is part of the most important article content) is nebulous. As I commented above, if a trans or non-binary person was not notable before transitioning, I don't think their former name belongs in the article at all. But I'm not going to fight over that point at this time. Funcrunch (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: I see the vagueness as a feature, not a bug. Whether the former name is important enough to be included in the article at all is decided on an article by article basis. If it's not worth being in the article, it can't be in the lead. If it is important enough to be in the article (say, in the case of Caitlyn Jenner), but not the most important aspect (as decided on an article by article basis) it still shouldn't be in the lead. But I get that you're repeating yourself at this point, and I don't want you to feel like you need to do that. This was more of a clarification than me trying to refute you so I don't intend to start an argument. I get this wording might not please everyone, and that's fine. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This proposal doesn't make anything explicit about people who have changed their name in general - if you replace In the case of trans and non-binary people to In all cases of someone with a changed name then it becomes very similar to the first proposal. If the issue is of WP:Notability, perhaps change the word to 'Noteworthiness' instead as Blueboar said. Or perhaps if it is part of the most important article content to if that specific name has been covered significant coverage independent reliable sources. -NottNott|talk Notify with {{re}} 21:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue that using WP:Notability in the original proposal is about having reliable independent sources to cover the topic at the time, under that name. Like The Wachowskis were formerly known as The Wachowski Brothers and received plenty of notable coverage with that title, and now they're The Wachowskis they also receive notable coverage. Hence why both names are covered: both had notable coverage at the time - with sources stating that exact name. -NottNott|talk Notify with {{re}} 21:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I mildly prefer the proposed wording in the above section by NottNott if only for it's clarity. I think both are in the same spirit, but this wording could be gamed more. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose in favour of proposal A. RGloucester — ☎ 22:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose a special exemption for a particular group of people. Rewording it to apply to all people makes it roughly equivalent to (but inferior to) "Proposal A". Anomie⚔ 22:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Anomie and my supporting comment in the "Consensus" section.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Anomie. I don't believe a certain group on Wikipedia should be treated differently with respect to article content guidelines that are applied differently to others. RotubirtnoC (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose on the ground that this is tautological. MOS:LEAD already applies, so it need not be restated. The general consensus across bio articles is that names that are relevant enough to mention are relevant enough to include in the lead when editorial consensus at the article in question feels it is, generally based on treatment in reliable sources. We don't know which name any reader will be looking for, and it's important that they be certain fairly quickly that they are at the correct article, but this does not always translate to lead inclusion. So, proposal B would not actually address the central question: Is a name that was used pre-notability ever encyclopedically relevant enough to include at all, and if so to include it in the lead? It still comes down to a case-by-case, WP:COMMONSENSE determination at the article in question. I also procedurally object in that the heading of this section, as in the preceding section, does not really align well with the text of the proposed wording.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Revised; I did not mean to imply that all alt. names must be in the lead, but I seemed to be doing so due to poor original wording.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I object to censoring types of factual information, solely because of the personal preference of the subject. −Woodstone (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding what is being discussed here: this is only about the lead - that is, placement within the article - and not about eliminating information from the article altogether. -- Irn (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as per SMcCandlish and RGloucester. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – this version seems even worse than the original. To me, it suggests that someone should only be introduced by the name they used during their most significant career path. This is even an altname problem, as it seems to completely disallow introducing someone by a name they are also well-known by. In the case of Caitlin Jenner, you would be forced to assume that her Olympic career is "more important" than her recent activism, or not include her former name at all. Even if in this example it may be correct to say so, it seems ridiculous to me. The current/original phrasing of the guideline is much better. ~Mable (chat) 07:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• oppose First, this is too subjective. Second, like others, to some extent I have problems with treating name changes on account of gender self-identification as somehow different. The best reason I can see is to hide to some degree that they have changed their gender identity, but if someone has changed their name and are well-known by a previous name, it really doesn't matter why they made the change. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as too vague and subjective to be a workable guideline; the current guideline is preferable to this. -sche (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Include any prior names that are likely to be searched for in the lead (proposal C)

As I have stated above, one of the primary reasons for prominently listing prior names in the lead is to let readers who have been redirected know that they have arrived at the correct article. If there is even a remote possibility that a reader will search using a prior name, we should include that name in the first sentence of the lead. Blueboar (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support – This is basically what I think the purpose of the guideline should be: "Include any names in bold in the lead section that are likely search targets or important names of the subject." It may be a bit unspecific, though. ~Mable (chat) 12:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The policy WP:BLP is very clear that Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
  This proposal takes no account of that policy commitment to privacy, or of the possibility of harm to the living subject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well... If I were inclined to Wikilawyer, I might point out the inconsistency in that... Which is that the prior name has been declared "dead", and WP:BLP only applies to the living.

Thankfully I am not inclined that way. I think you raise a valid concern. My response would be this: I would certainly agree that Wikipedia should not "out" someone's birth name (publishing it when no other reliable source has done so)... Doing so violates not only BLP, but NOR. The fact of the birth name would have to be published in a reliable source before we could include it in an article. That said... I don't see this as invalidating my proposed standard. It would be highly unlikely that a reader would search for the subject using a name that had never been published before... Therefore, that unpublished name would not fit my proposed criteria. Or were you thinking that mentioning even a reliably published birth name some how violates BLP? Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The game-playing with the word "dead" in "deadname" is silly. BLP does indeed apply only to living people, but as I'm sure you will have noted, this discussion related the applicability of those deadnames to living people. (And if you're "not inclined" to wikilawyer in that way, why raise the red herring?)

Your proposal above is inconsistent. The heading refers to "likely" search targets, but the substantive proposal refers to "even a remote possibility". The heading considers a probability greater than 0.5; the second is a probability greater than zero.

Since the substantive proposal is the text which would be used, your proposal amounts to a license to use any previous name in the lede. Here's why: take a man notable only as Ebenezer Ahmed, but who is now revealed in a reliable but obscure print source to have been known before his change of gender as Galilea Alon. It will always be reasonable to argue that people who knew of Galilea Alon may wish to search by that name, so there is more than a remote possibility. The result is that when a previous name is revealed in a any reliable source, however obscure, your proposal would recommend its inclusion in the lede of an article on one of the world's most-used websites ... which would in turn lead to it appearing near the top of any Google search for them. See for example how a Google search for Cherie Blair displays her previous name near the top of the search page: that's what would happen to a Gsearch for Ebenezer Ahmed.

Why would you want to cause such distress to a living person? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't censor the encyclopedia to avoid causing a living person distress. That aside, censoring only certain things from the biographies of living people that potentially causes them distress makes the encyclopedia biased.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of your interpretation of BLP policy, this is not about censorship. It's a style guideline; we're discussing whether or not this information belongs in the lead. -- Irn (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: before linking to a policy you really should read it. If you had actually read WP:NOTCENSORED you would see that it says we do not censor material which readers consider objectionable or offensive. Note that word "readers"; it does not refer to the living subjects of articles, who are covered in WP:BLP. The BLP policy says the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment ... and that is one of the the relevant policies in this case, along with WP:UNDUE.

So, I'll ask again: Godsy, why would you want to cause such distress to a living person, contrary to the policy at WP:BLP? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If we deviate from the norm because anyone considers it objectionable or offensive, it constitutes censorship. If someone hasn't read our article or a characterization about it elsewhere (i.e. isn't a reader), how can it cause them distress? That is unless you're making some extraterritorial argument that it could affect or harm them because of others reading it, which we can't and shouldn't try to control anyhow, if it is a verifiable fact (we don't remove other verifiable things from biographies that can be viewed as negative). That portion you quote above is more in regard to un-reliable sources. Otherwise everything "harmful" would go and we'd be effectively writing ourselves off as a positive publicity site (at least for biographies of living people).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: please read the policy WP:BLP. As in, actually read the words and consider their meaning. It's not an essay. It's not a guideline. It's policy.

When you have read it, you will see that most of what you write above contravenes long-standing policy.

BLP is very clear that when we are writing about living people, there is a presumption in favor of privacy. That is the norm.

Your idea that we publish everything without restraint is not, and never has been, "the norm". The policy is very clear about that -- as you would already know if you had read it.

For example, you write if it is a verifiable fact (we don't remove other verifiable things from biographies that can be viewed as negative. That's not true: it is policy that BLPs "be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy".

For example, when a subject has divorced, there is very clear guidance not to report the details of the divorce, even if they are in reliable sources ... unless the story of the divorce is important to the article. You want to call this "censorship", but policy requires it ... because it is the decent way to treat another living person.

Another example: BLP says that if a person is only borderline notable, we should respect their privacy by publishing only their year of birth, not the full date. You want to call this "censorship", but policy is to regard it as decent treatment of a living person.

So, I'll ask yet again: Godsy, why would you want to cause such distress to a living person, contrary to the policy at WP:BLP? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Here’s my read as a bystander: It was never a goal to cause anyone distress (and your question is a mischaracterization). The goal is including basic biographical information in an encyclopedia. Distress is an unfortunate but at times unavoidable side effect. Yes, it could be avoided, at least by our own indirect hand, by limiting the basic biographical information we share; but it could be argued that this would compromise our integrity as an impartial reference work.
When one realizes that a style guideline has no say over whether the name appears in the article at all, this argument loses some of its power, methinks. Leaving it out of the lead but mentioning it later in the article is by no means censorship. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@67.14.236.50: No, my question is not a mischaracterisation. Policy at WP:BLP is very clear that we seek to avoid causing harm to living people, by not giving WP:UNDUE weight to trivia, and by respecting people's privacy. Some editors are insistently avoiding that policy obligation, by denying the responsibility to consider the effect on privacy. As you acknowledge, this is entirely avoidable.
Your suggestion that restraint might compromise our integrity as an impartial reference work is silly; respect for privacy of living subjects does not compromise impartiality. That applies equally to former names of transgender people and to verifiable facts about messy divorces.
It's also a little jesuitical of you to deny that causing harm and distress is a goal. That may not be the primary intent, but when it is an inevitable consequence of an action, the persistent refusal of some editors to weigh the consequences of that action amounts to wilful harm. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Brown Haired Girl said it well. We don't include every possible named searched in the lead indiscriminately. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brown Haired Girl. Funcrunch (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brown Haired Girl. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment While this is a slight improvement over the existing "the original name must be stated even" and eliminates the troublesome exception for one particular group of people, I find "any prior names that are likely to be searched" is too vague and does too little to address the concerns that including prior names so prominently is giving them undue weight. Proposals A or D are better. Anomie⚔ 20:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose It is the right spirit since it implies the former name is 'in the public domain', but is too vague and simply shifts the issue elsewhere.Pincrete (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brown Haired Girl. Kaldari (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brown Haired Girl. -sche (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Stop trying to make a magically special case for human names. We do not at every article force into the lead every attested variant name or spelling that someone could conceivably search for, just those that, on a case-by-case basis, editors feel are common and significant enough to warrant this treatment. The same applies here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

All changed names mentioned in lead only if significant coverage used that name (proposal D)

Alright, this addresses the rightful concerns about including the WP:Notability guideline in the policy. It's true, notability is just for determining whether an article should exist or not. I feel as if this has all the thought of proposal A while avoiding the wikijargon.

Any former name should be mentioned in the lead section only if the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that use that name.

This avoids reference to transgender and non-binary people entirely, which was initially the reason for the RfC. It takes into account BLP policy - WP:Verifiability is important in this proposal. It's not just a 'guess' at what an editor thinks is important enough to go into the lead, rather it needs to be verifiably significant to put the name into the lead. Most importantly, it avoids using the notability policy incorrectly.

• Support As proposer. -NottNott|talk Notify with {{re}} 16:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@NottNott: Have you considered that this would likely lead to most maiden names being removed from lead sections? That's a significant change from current practice, and would also require changing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Maiden names. Kaldari (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kaldari: An exception to maiden names would definitely be supported in my eyes as I find very little reason to believe it would cause harm to the biography in any way. It's unfortunate that a proposal G probably has to be written at this point taking into consideration everything everyone has said up to this point, and I doubt I'm familiar enough with the many nuances of content creation to do so. -NottNott|talk 14:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support If a name change is not relevant when the article is about a transgender person, a similar name change is equally not relevant when the article is about a cisgender person. Anomie⚔ 19:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose solely on the grounds of redundancy. No information should be in the lead which has not had significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Why say that specifically about a name? Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Information shouldn't be in the lead if it isn't significant - the lead is just a summary of the contents in an article. See WP:BIRTHNAME. This proposal is about removing specific preference to changed names through a sex change vs other methods. I'm certainly not avocating original research - I'd suggest you read over the discussion and what has been said. -NottNott|talk Notify with {{re}} 21:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:NottNott, I did read extensively. This section is proposing that ALL former names be excluded unless they are 'notably covered', it does not mention 'sex change' anywhere. My argument is that Cliff Richard's or John Wayne's or Hillary Clinton's former names would probably not be in the lead ANYHOW under present p&g if they were not RS and widely covered, though none of them were known at the time they used the former names. I agree with the spirit of your proposal, but consider it redundant at best. If you intended the proposal to cover only 'sex change' name changes, you should have said so, since Anomie seems also to have understood it as I did. Pincrete (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Not opposed - but not fully supportive. I don't think parenthetically mentioning a birth name gives it UNDUE weight... even in the lead sentence. Mentioning a relevant fact in passing normally does not require "significant coverage"... Just a reliable source to support it. We definitely should not "out" someone's birth name... But if a birth name can be supported by reliable sources, we can certainly mention it in passing. And the first sentence of the article is the most logical place to do so. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Support until talked out of it, (edit: talked out of it, doesn't seem to fulfill what is common sense:) as this addresses my concern and will still allow "maiden" names on pages of American First Ladies and allow the official names of most actors to be kept. Randy Kryn 23:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Randy Kryn: If they weren't notable by that name, per this guideline, mere mentions in reliable sources may not be considered "significant".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Randy Kryn and Godsy: I don’t see anything in the proposed text about the name being “used significantly” or anything to that effect. If the subject receives significant coverage in reliable sources, and if many of those sources mention an alternate name for the subject (just like we do in our leads), I’d say that qualifies. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per WP:NNC, Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. "Significant coverage" shouldn't be required. A former name should be from/attributed to a reliable source, but for this useful piece of information to be included [in the normal place per a longstanding practice (i.e. the lead)], the coverage [shouldn't necessarily] need to be "significant". [If someone wants to make a similar argument for all notable people, outside of an RfC specifically concerning the treatment of the former names of transgender and non-binary people, I would reconsider my position].—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Godsy: Unless I’m very much mistaken, this proposal doesn’t set any requirements for article content. It only addresses what content of an article belongs specifically in the lead, as opposed to the rest of the article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Amended above.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. A full or original name isn’t vital to understanding who a person is and how that person is significant, and so (while it should be in the article) it doesn’t need to be in the lead. To use a very mild example, there is no need for Bill Clinton to open with “William Jefferson Clinton,” nor for that name to be included in every article that mentions him. This has nothing to do with WP:N nor with gender issues. The lead should use the name(s) that the subject is known by, and that’s that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  I’ve just created #Proposal G, but this proposal seems compatible enough with that for me to continue supporting it as well. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support as 2nd choice (1st is proposal A) for the same reasons I provided above. RGloucester — ☎ 05:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I've had difficulty following the many options presented in this RfC, especially now that the first proposal presented has apparently been withdrawn with a referral to this one. As noted, this proposal doesn't mention trans or non-binary people at all, which was the original point of the RfC. I still think the pre-transition names of trans and non-binary people are qualitatively different from the former names of cisgender people, for the reasons BrownHairedGirl articulated in Proposal C. Funcrunch (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support We should include the person's former name if it has received coverage per WP:N, and WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. This would likely lead to the deletion of most maiden names from lead sections. I prefer the current wording and don't think it is overly jargony. Kaldari (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  While I agree the removal of many maiden names from leads would be a likely result, explanation as to why you think that's a bad thing outweighing the good of the change would be helpful in understanding your strong opposition. I also note the mention of "jargon" in this proposal is in reference to #proposal A (specifically it's use of the word "notable"), not the current wording. Anomie⚔ 13:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Anomie: The current wording also says "notable", but isn't linked. Regarding maiden names, I think any effort to remove maiden names is going to be disruptive (and we will end up right back here with another RfC). In the case of trans people, there is actually a good reason to not emphasize their birth name by default (namely, that in many cases, they want to disassociate themselves from that name as much as possible, thus the term "deadname"). In the case of maiden names, there is no equivalent justification. We would be causing disruption and edit warring for no good reason. Deadnames and maiden names are similar concepts, but not really equivalent when you consider how they affect the subject (which is a legitimate thing to consider, per BLP), so I don't see anything wrong with treating them differently. Kaldari (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Kaldari: I’ve asked a similar question in the discussion section below, but what purpose does it serve to include the maiden name in the lead in cases where the maiden name is not commonly used? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, much better than previous suggestions (I appreciate not making it a trans-specific rule, and the nod to WP:BLP), but we still have the issue of sources that use deadnames or obsolete names purely to make a political point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC).

  @Lankiveil: Are those sources reliable? My instinct is “of course not,” but I don’t think I’m familiar with any such. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  I'm not familiar with any such sources either, but I can imagine a lot of politically conservative journals existing that deliberately misgender trans people. Such sources may fall within our reliable sources guidelines. I'm not sure what to think of such sources. ~Mable (chat) 08:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  Without any examples, it’s purely hypothetical, so I don’t think this is really something to worry about. On the other hypothetical hand, if reliable sources overwhelmingly exclusively used an unwanted name for a given subject (again, purely hypothetical situation), wouldn’t we be obliged to follow the sources? After all, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a tool for social justice, nor is it politically progressive or liberal or politically anything. It’s an encyclopedia that publishes what reliable sources report. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  The question was whether we should follow a hypothetical selection of sources that are reliable by our standards, but differ from other sources politically, and therefore always make use of deadnames rather than preferred names. If 100% of the sources still used deadnames, this whole issue wouldn't have even been a question. We'd just follow the sources. If, let's say, 10% of our sources always use deadnames, then should we keep including them as well? ~Mable (chat) 07:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  I’d say that depends on the sources, their motivations for using the name, and the individual’s own feelings on the use of the name. If those 10% of sources deliberately used the name to disrespect the person, again, I would seriously question the reliability of those particular sources and whether we should even take into consideration anything they say. However, if they used the name for instance out of confusion over a recent change, the old name would likely still be noteworthy and should be included. A non-hypothetical example would really help inform this discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support with reservations. I agree with Kaldari that it is probably in our best interests to include maiden names in the lede, on the basis that it can sometimes be the case that (potentially) those names may in some cases be required to find some relevant information, like, for instance, place and date of birth. Theoretically, if we were to see a swift upturn in temporary contract marriages, which might lead to numerous surnames for females (I think primarily?), that might potentially be problematic. But that doesn't seem to be the case with this. Not all people this proposal would apply to live in the developed West. Some will live in areas where records are less well-kept, and, in some cases, where records have been destroyed through war or misadventure. Also, except in a few extremely rare cases, which I could, I suppose, see specific allowance for as and if they arise, most people will not be adamantly opposed to ever being referred to by a name which they had earlier been willing to take on through marriage or which they had been born with. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose changing the guideline from its current content to what is proposed here, on the basis that the current guideline is better (and e.g. does not have the problems with regard to maiden names which this proposal does, other commenters have noted) and better-worded than what is proposed here. -sche (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support I kind of like the current phasing, but this does tend to clarify the issue and settle future arguments. As for the maiden name thing, I see no real reason to include them, but I would suggest adding them as an exception as a compromise solution. Tamwin (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support, perhaps with some copyediting for clarity. It was noted above as kind of redundant, since the criterion that it be found in RS is required of any info in the lead, or the article, at all, and has nothing to do with names intrinsically. But, clearly, people are "not getting it", and too many people also object to the current wording. The idea behind Proposal D, which simply needs to be worded better, is consistent with our case-by-case approach to treatment of articles generally. For example, some herbs and weeds have 20 or more regional vernacular names in English alone, and while we will list them all in the article somewhere, usually only the best-attested ones appear in the lead. As another example, there are numerous historical spellings of Mexico, but the article lead only mentions current Spanish México, not older variants like Mejico, Méjico, etc.). Much of the discussion in this entire set of threads comes down to including in the lead what the sources indicate is important, and including in the article at all what can be sourced and seems pertinent. These are two different standards, that we already use for all info in articles, per MOS:LEAD, and per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE + WP:V + WP:RS. There is no rationale for a special, different rule for TG people. If the name is common enough in RS that people are likely to use it as a search term, e.g. because the subject was notable even marginally before the name change, or something caused RS attention to frequently be drawn to the old name, include it in the lead. If it's a name virtually no one knows, don't. If it's a name that can't even be sourced well, don't include it in the article anywhere. This is no different from any other examination of potentially encyclopedic material.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

  I note one possible "something caused RS attention to frequently be drawn to the old name" with regard to transgender people's former names is anti-transgender sentiment, however. Anomie⚔ 11:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  If readers of anti-transgender trash (pardon my opinion) search Wikipedia for a name because reliable-but-possibly-bigoted sources use that name, don’t those readers have as much right as anyone to find information about the subject? We’re here to serve our readers, wherever they may come from. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

  The concern is that anti-transgender editors would use otherwise-reliable "anti-transgender trash" publications to support including a former name in the lead that is not paid attention to by reliable sources for any reason other than opposing transgenderism. Anomie⚔ 15:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

  @Anomie: Then WP:BIASED would apply, on a case-by-case basis. I still haven’t seen any examples, but if these sources are indeed reliable in the Wikipedia sense, and if the editor citing them is not clearly motivated by transphobic thinking, I see no problem with the hypothetical editor’s rationale. I think at this point the only thing to sway my opinion would be to see an actual source that disrespectfully refuses to use a subject’s preferred name despite meeting WP:RS standards, or else we might as well be worrying about whether sources are run by unicorns (which is to say, we don’t need to take precautions against things that don’t exist). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

  This smacks of conspiracy theory. What "anti-transgender" editor cabal is this? What are these "anti-transgender trash" publications, and if there are any, why would WP consider them "otherwise-reliable"?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Exactly what I’ve been wondering. Even if @Anomie’s concerns have any merit, why on earth would the sources behind them have any merit? Strikes me as policy by paranoia, lacking any actual reliable sources that are out to get you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support, both as a matter of WP:BLPPRIVACY and a matter of WP:Summary style. This is what we normally do - follow the sources. Inclusion of the information at all in the article should require the sourcing to pass WP:EXTRAORDINARY, let alone the lead. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

No guidance (proposal E)

I thought I'd throw this in on a whim. As people seem to enjoy mincing about when it is appropriate to include alternative names in the lead on the basis of individual cases, it seems like it may be necessary to remove all MoS guidance on alternative names in the lead, leaving it to talk page consensus in each particular case. Therefore, I propose the removal of the second and third paragraphs of the "first mention" (WP:FULLNAME) section of the guideline. RGloucester — ☎ 06:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - That would be detrimental to maintaining a consistent style throughout the encyclopedia and this matter would almost undoubtedly perpetually take up considerably more of our community's time because disputes would arise about it.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Godsy. Graham (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. "It's hard, so we should give up" is not how we roll.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Include birth names of people who have changed their names (proposal F)

While I am dubious about addressing this in a style guideline (see “Discussion” section below), I will say that transgender and non-binary people are people who “have legally changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well.” That is a quote from the very section we’re discussing here. That line is the one we should be discussing, rather than the overly specific restriction on it. There are any number of reasons that a person may not want it publicly known that he changed his name, so the issue has nothing to do with gender identity. But if it is publicly known, it should be reported in the lead, as per usual. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, per above. Editorial consensus is needed to determine whether the birth name is significant enough to be given prominent position in the lead section, in line with WP:UNDUE. There should be no prescription of mandatory inclusion. RGloucester — ☎ 17:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not all trans and non-binary people have legally changed their names. Some have financial or other barriers to doing so. A person's name is irrelevant to whether or not they are trans, and the legality of said name should be irrelevant to how they are addressed in spaces like this. Funcrunch (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  Well then, strike “legally.” I’d argue it’s equally irrelevant that Bill Clinton’s full name is “William Jefferson Clinton.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose (my own proposal) per User:RGloucester and User:Funcrunch in favor of #proposal D above. (I shall now add anchors to the proposals because links like that should work.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think this should be a blanket rule. There may be cases where someone's birth name is significant enough to warrant being in the lead, for example, if someone's birth name was changed immediately after they were born and never used otherwise. Kaldari (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Kaldari: How on earth would that make it significant? Or did you mean “not significant enough”? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  Sorry, I meant not significant enough. Kaldari (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose any blanket rule such as this that any former name, even a non-notable one, must be included in the (first sentence of the) lead. Such information is often more appropriately placed in the article body rather than the lead. -sche (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - no automatic need to put this information in the lead. That said, I think it's vital to remember that we owe it to our readers not to confuse them. And it is confusing in articles such as that of Jack Monroe (at the moment) that without ever discussing their gender it midway through the article talks about them attending Westcliff High School for Girls without giving any hint that this person wasn't born male. While this kind of topic must be attended with sensitivity, we have to remember that an article has to introduce a person to people who have no idea who they are - if someone identifies as a gender (or none) that's not what they were born as, it's best to be explicit about this. Blythwood (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously, for the reasons given in the first section. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per my detailed comments under Prop. D. There is no automatic one-size-fits-all rule here; it's a matter of source reliability and encyclopedic relevance.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Include birth names only if widely published (proposal G)

The style guidelines here should explicitly defer to policy: WP:BLPPRIVACY. Include the birth name in the lead only if that name has been widely published; otherwise, Wikipedia policy prevents us from including it anywhere. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The trans examples used in the current guideline support this change—Chelsea Manning’s birth name is widely reported, whereas I can only find that Laverne Cox “doesn’t want to reveal her first name pre-tranisition.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Redundant/tautological, and will not address the issue. BLPPRIVACY is about whether the article can include the alleged fact at all. That's not what any of this discussion is about. It's about what appears in the lead, so Prop G is simply off-topic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: If it satisfies BLPPRIVACY, why shouldn’t it appear in the lead? The only compelling argument I’ve seen against it is that the name would be easily found if in the lead, which wouldn’t be a concern if the name’s already been widely and reliably published. As for calling it redundant, that’s kind of my point; any reasoning we might introduce here in the MOS, if in line with policy, would be redundant with policy, so let’s not. It’s the “we already cover this elsewhere” option, and I maintain that it’s a viable one. I’m not saying we should give no guidance here. I’m saying the guidance should be to include names in the lead if they’re in line with BLPPRIVACY. (Maybe this is redundant with the more inclusive “include birth names” proposals, but those could be interpreted as ignoring BLPPRIVACY or being ignorant of it. This one explicitly invokes it, since I believe it’s the most important factor to consider here.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

  Well, obviously, MOS:LEAD is why. If "satisfying BLPPRIVACY" equalled "should appear in the lead", then every single fact in a BLP article would in the lead. QED.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

  And MOS:LEAD has said to include full names and widely known alternative names in the lead for, as far as I’m aware, forever (or at least, it’s always been the practice) This proposal lines up with the guidance on that page, which is nowhere near as broad as you suggest. So yes, for such names, “satisfies BLPPRIVACY” equals “should appear in the lead.” I’m merely proposing we keep it simple, use the longstanding guidance we already have, and remind editors to exercise judgment with respect to privacy. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

  I already addressed this, and you're simply not getting it. No one is supporting this, so I'm just moving on instead of re-re-re-explaining it to you again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification log

• Messaging Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to form a broader consensus. NottNott|talk 23:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Messaging WP:LGBT and WP:BIOGRAPHY projects as they have direct relevance to the question at hand. Diffs: [25] [26]. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Added discussion to WP:Cent. The issue is about balancing articles between reducing offense caused and improving factual detail. It's not purely a technical matter, but instead a bit more about ethics in handling with the subject, touching WP:NOTCENSORED and as well as WP:BLP. That's grounds for large-scale relevance to the community. NottNott|talk 09:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Notifying WP:POLITICS and WP:LING - clearly of relevance to these two WikiProjects. The discussion is both political regarding this decade's ongoing debate about gender identity, as well as about how language influences the article. NottNott|talk 10:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Mass-Pinging @RGloucester, 79.158.212.99, Seraphimblade, Finnusertop, Dicklyon, Blueboar, Od Mishehu, Only in death, Funcrunch, SMcCandlish, Irn, Maplestrip, Mangoe, Sir Joseph, EvergreenFir, Godsy, Abjiklɐm, Collect, Sandstein, Fdssdf, Woodstone, and Wugapodes: i.e everyone (may have missed people by accident, sorry) who has been involved in the discussion. Bringing their attention to a potentially concluding proposal I raised in a new section in this discussion and asking for feedback. -NottNott|talk Notify me with {{re}} 19:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Notified WT:MOS, since many editors of the Manual of Style watchlist the main page and its talk page, and miss discussions on its subpages' talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion (RFC for using former names)

Does this debate even belong here? Isn’t the question one of content rather than style? MOS pages are not content guidelines. (Incidentally, since when was it not standard practice to include birth names in the opening sentence?) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the discussion is about where to bring up deadnames rather than whether or not to bring up deadnames at all. There is a good consensus on the latter: mention deadnames somewhere in the prose if they are reported by reliable sources in a somewhat meaningful (read: not purely insulting) way. With some wiggleroom, I suppose. The question is whether to put such names in the lead section in bold as well, in every situation where it is possible. ~Mable (chat) 15:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

A lot of comments in this whole discussion sound like we’re talking about including the name in the lead, or leaving it out of the article altogether. We’re not. This is about where to put the name if it belongs in the article in the first place. If BLP policy would prevent us from including a name in an article, it doesn’t matter what the MOS says about where to put it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There are basically a few options we can take:

1. Always list former names and deadnames in the lead section in bold if it is possible to reliably source them.
2. Only list former names (deadname or otherwise) if the person is reasonably well-known under that name. Otherwise, leave such trivial names for early-life sections.
3. Always list former names, though only list deadnames if the 2 applies.
4. Same as 3, except never bold deadnames.

These will vary a bit depending on wording and I may have missed something, but these may give an idea of what we're dealing with here. In most situations, former names/deadnames are described in the article prose if it is possible to reliably source them. This is a MOS issue because the question is whether or not to list them in the lead as well, but this is also a BLP issue because we're dealing with ethics. I hope this helps to clear up all the above discussions. ~Mable (chat) 07:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have perhaps a stupid question: What is the functional difference between “former names” and “deadnames”? They’re both names that a person used previously and has decided to no longer use, aren’t they?

Second perhaps-stupid question: Why are there different concerns around each? Why didn’t existing policy about former names cover this? Surely there have been notable non-trans people who wanted their original names forgotten and deserve the same respect. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The main difference is that deadnames are frequently used to deny the gender identity of the individuals. For example, I know a professor who refused to call a trans man by his name (let's say Pierre) and instead always used his deadname (let's say Monica). For a whole semester, calling him Monica because it was what was "on the roster". It was mocking, mean-spirited, and meant to humiliate him. That's not the same case with other former names. No one would try to mock Hillary Clinton by calling her Hillary Rodham. Or try to humiliate Jay Z by calling him Shawn Carter. It might be meant to annoy them, but it doesn't deny their personhood, their identity, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Whatever your gender identity, a name is part of your identity. If Jay Z doesn’t want to be known as Shawn (i.e., he considers it a deadname), how is it any less of a denial of his identity to call him Shawn? Speaking hypothetically here, as I have no idea if he has strong feelings about that name. Likewise, if Pierre simply doesn’t care whether people call him Pierre or Monica, how is that an attack? Why treat one case differently than the other? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

But it's not a deadname for Jay Z. Pierre cares very very much. He's Pierre, not Monica. I can't think of a decent parallel for cis people, but it's sorta like if someone kept calling you "she" when you go by "he". There's the whole issue of "outing" too; it's is literally life-threatening for some people to be outed as trans. This is not the same with divorcees and stage names. If you're really interested in it, I'd recommend searching some resources from trans folks on the issue. The community is clear though that deadnames are beyond insulting. It's akin to a slur. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

How can you, or anyone else, say “it’s not a deadname for” anyone? How do you know he doesn’t consider it a slur? That’s not something that can be determined by any person but the subject. Generalizations are not true for everyone, and they absolutely should not be codified in project space. If a current or former name is offensive to its bearer, it’s offensive, period. And if that name (or any other bit of information) would “out” the subject—for any reason—it shouldn’t be in Wikipedia in the first place (WP:GOSSIP). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"Deadnaming" is most commonly associated with trans people (and the term originated from a trans person describing the practice, as cited in the Wikitionary entry). Trans people, unlike cisgender people, nearly always experience some amount of gender dysphoria when they are misgendered, and deadnaming is a form of misgendering. Some cis people might experience distress when referred to by their previous names, but it is much more common for trans people to be hurt by doing this, whether or not it is intentional and whether or not they are outed by the information. This is what EvergreenFir, BrownHairedGirl, and I (a trans person) are trying to explain to the editors on this RfC who object to trans people being given "special treatment". Funcrunch (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

A "former name" is any name someone used in the past and no longer uses. A "deadname" is a subset of former names where the subject specifically desires a break with the former identity: they might say "I am a new person, the person known by that name is dead." A deadname could exist for a person for many reasons, but one of the most prominent (and politically charged) reasons currently is among transgender people who begin expressing a gender identity different from their previous expression, in no small part because persisting in use of transgender deadnames is used by people opposing transgenderism. As you point out in a later reply, this also creates a situation where transgender people are sometimes assumed to consider their former name a deadname unless they've explicitly stated otherwise (and sometimes even then), even to the point of opposing the use of the name when discussing time periods when that was their only name. Anomie⚔ 12:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This was the definition I was assuming, and this is exactly what I was saying—that anyone could have a deadname for any number of reasons. @Funcrunch: I for one am not objecting to the “special treatment” of giving transgendered people that kind of respect. I’m objecting to the idea of denying anyone that same respect and acting like no one else could possibly have that same problem. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

merged from [27] by 67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I was getting increasingly annoyed at how many section there are where people try to achieve consensus, while there hasn't been any possibility to discuss the issue in a more neutral light (preferably a place where !votes are irrelevant). So I'm just going to create yet another section with the hope that people may get a better understanding of the situation.

I've seen pages such as WP:DOP and WP:CENSOR being brought up above. I was wondering how these apply to the current discussion and how these may balance one another out. Perhaps both guidelines are irrelevant in this discussion as deadnames will be described in the article either way. After all, removing content only from the lead section isn't actually really removing said content. The question is about prominence of information: whether something that is technically public knowledge should get less prominence for privacy reasons. In cases of material that may be offensive to readers (such as images of genitalia or gore), this is not done, but BLP guidelines are much more strict (for good reason!). Any thoughts on this topic? ~Mable (chat) 13:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the question of whether other types of former names should be listed in the lead section (as they may be considered trivia) is also still open. If so, all of the above is rendered irrelevant. Are there thoughts on that topic that do not relate to specific wordings as they are listed above? ~Mable (chat) 13:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually there is an existing discussion section below the notifications section; maybe move your comments there? Funcrunch (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe that discussion is specifically intended for the question of whether this is a MOS issue at all... I'd rather have an actual discussion section, anyway, as the section below isn't really used that way. ~Mable (chat) 13:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is a discussion section for this RFC. That’s why it’s labeled “Discussion” (followed by some DAB text to give it a unique #link from any similarly titled subsections of other sections). And by no means do I WP:OWN that section. Go ahead and discuss, that’s what it’s there for. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Question: What purpose does it serve to have an obscure name in the lead? Deadname, former name, nickname, whatever sort of name, I’m talking about a name that basically no one ever really uses when discussing the subject. Is there a reason to include uncommon names in the lead? I’m not going for a proposal here, just want to know the rationale. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

In case of a former name/deadname, I suppose it could be to give the readers an idea of how different their current name is from the name their parents gave them? It may also give an impression of what their parents were thinking at the time of the person's birth. Lastly, it may be used by childhood friends of the subject who do not know the subject's current name. The latter two reasons are far beyond the scope of Wikipedia, I believe, while the first one could be addressed equally as well in an early-life section and seems rather trivial for the lead. There's also the vague idea that a former name is "more official" in some way. ~Mable (chat) 07:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like there aren’t really any compelling reasons to specifically include them in the lead, then. So now I’m confused why there’s so much disagreement here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Surely if we were to expand the guideline beyond LGBT/non-binary people to "former names" in general, the focus on "birth name" and "former name" is misplaced? The criteria should be whether the subject of the BLP should be considered to have disassociated themselves from their previous names. The criterion of disassociation is a more reasonable guide. Examples: Maiden names of women who adopted their husbands' surnames can generally be included. Personal names of artists who perform under a professional name are probably fine. Deadnaming is generally inappropriate unless the subject was notable under the former name etc.. Deryck C. 13:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I like this idea of disassociation, but I'm not totally clear on how it would work. I imagine we could automatically use a presumption of disassociation for trans people and then a presumption of not-disassociation for maiden names, but what about everyone else? Err on the side of privacy until proven otherwise? That feels a little too blunt for me, and I think I'd like a little more nuance, but I'm interested in hearing other thoughts on this. -- Irn (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Warning: (copied from above discussion) This discussion is being brigaded by an off-site hate group who is actively encouraging people to create meatpuppet accounts to rig the "vote" (which shows they don't understand Wikipedia). They are a notorious transphobic hate group who have a history of participating in doxxing, harassment, and threats of violence against trans people. This is the post from the hate group, where they explicitly instruct people to "Vote SUPPORT". MarleneSwift (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: with that warning has to come a Caution... don't assume that anyone who thinks deadnaming has no place in Wikipedia came here because of that post, or is part of a hate group. Yes, the warning is valid, but don't over react to it. See: WP:Assume good faith.

In reality, I don't think we need to be overly worried about the redit post... First, if you follow the link to the post, you will note that several of the follow up messages to the post strongly advise people against trying to meat-puppet, and urge people to leave the arguments against deadnaming to experienced Wikipedians. Second, this RFC will be closed by an experienced Wikipedia (probably an admin) and those of us who are experienced Wikipedians can easily tell who might be a SPA meat-puppet. Finally... I would caution those who favor deadnaming in Wikipedia against responding in kind... don't rush off to the on-line LBGT support groups and call in your friends (it is just as wrong to meat-puppet to support deadnaming as it is to oppose it). Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

MarleneSwift: Thank you for the warning. Blueboar: "Gender-critical" feminists are well-known to the trans community and our allies, who describe them as trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs). I understand the caution to assume good faith, but this is a group that is specifically anti-trans. Agreed that it would be wrong to meat-puppet or otherwise canvass trans-friendly people in retaliation though. Funcrunch (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who they are: if they make a good point, it can be noted and discussed. If they repeat what others say, it can be ignored. It's just good to know that there may be more meatpuppery going on than usual (rather than simply wondering where all those !votes come from). ~Mable (chat) 21:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of anti-trans brigading here so far, though I admit I haven't read every word of what is quite a long discussion. All of the support/oppose pers, in fact, seem to be coming from the other side of the debate. Vashti (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal. Any competent closer will give little if any weight to comments made by accounts that suddenly appeared after this discussion started and which haven't done any productive editing. Meatpuppets are very easy to detect.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The "Consensus" section is so long that my browser slows down heavily when trying to edit it. I was wondering if something could be done about that, before I become unable to edit that section entirely. ~Mable (chat) 21:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A #Procedural Break has been introduced to prevent that getting out of hand.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

An analogous situation?

One of the problems we seem to be having in reaching a consensus is that the concept of "deadnaming" is almost unique to the Trans community. I say almost, because there is one other group of people that frequently "deadname" (even if they don't call it that)... divorced women.
It is not uncommon for a divorced woman (assuming she changed her name upon marriage in the first place) to return to her maiden name upon divorce. When that occurs, she likely wants nothing to do with her former husband... and the name change (returning to her maiden name) is an indication of that desire. She is effectively "deadnaming" her married persona. Indeed, if the divorce was particularly messy... mentioning her married name may be emotionally hurtful. (ie there is a potential BLP issue)
While I do understand that the two situations are different, I do think they are close enough that we can make an analogy between birth names in the Trans community, and married names in the divorced community.
If so... some questions arrise. First: How does Wikipedia currently deal with married names when it comes to divorced women? Do we menion them (or do we not)? My guess is that the answer to that first question is not clear cut... it is probably one of those "it depends" answers ... in which case, we have to ask further questions: When do we mention them?... And also: where and how do we mention them? Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, interesting question. Without doing any research, I would assume that such names are only included in the lead section if deemed highly relevant to the topic at hand. ~Mable (chat) 15:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is very much an "it depends" situation. Assume hypothetical person Ann was born with Surname1, changed to using Surname2 when they got married, and then used Surname3 (the same as Surname1) after getting divorced.

• If Ann first became notable after her divorce, then I would expect the article to be at Ann Surname3 with no mention in the lead of Surname2.
• If she first became notable as Ann Surname2 then that will be mentioned in the lead, and may even be the article title if the divorce came after her principle period of notability.
• If her primary period of notability was as Ann Surname1 but she wasn't very notable as Ann Surname2 then it may or may not be mentioned in the lead depending on how relevant the marriage is to the content of the article.
• If the marriage and/or divorce are significant to her notability, then it is quite likely that Ann Surname2 will appear in the lead (particularly if Surname2 is not identical to her now-ex husband's (e.g. if it was hyphenated)) but not guaranteed.
• If she never used the name Ann Surname2 professionally then there is less cause for it to be mentioned than if she did (and her professional life is the reason for her notability)
• If the divorce happened before her Wikipedia article was created there will likely be less pressure to include mention of Ann Surname2.
• The greater the proportion of her life she was known as Ann Surname2 the greater the likelihood of it being a significant search term as well.

I think one additional difference with trans* people is that the assumption we need to make if we have limited knowledge is roughly opposite - i.e. we should assume that trans* people do not want to be publicly associated with their birthname unless we have evidence in reliable sources to the contrary, but we should not assume that all mentions of a divorced person's former married name will cause them mental harm unless we have knowledge (or reasons to suspect) that it will. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think a lot of your ideas for when a person's former name should or shouldn't be included in the lead in bold works for trans people as well, though. Even assuming trans people generally don't want their deadname in the lead section, if they first became notable under that name, it is likely that it should be. Similarly, if they were never really known under that name, the deadname shouldn't be in the lead. Sure, there are some differences, but I think we should handle them somewhat similarly. ~Mable (chat) 07:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• INTERRUPTION - Could we take a step back please... I think we are getting ahead of ourselves... my question was not asking for opinions on what we should do regarding names of divorced women... I was asking for an examination of what we actually do (currently). I was hoping for some examples of our current practice. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thryduulf appears to have done that, as an overview rather than a pile of examples. I think we all read and edit enough of WP to know that his summary of how these decisions get collectively made about divorced women's articles is pretty accurate. I concur with Maplestrip that the bulk of it is applicable to TG cases. It's also applicable to others, e.g. adoptees, people who escaped abusive families and abandoned their original surnames as constant reminders of the abuse, etc., etc. I can think of quite a number of actual, real reasons that people I personally know have "deadnamed", that don't have anything at all to do with gender identity or a divorce. The entire problem with this RfC mess is that some people are looking desperately for an excuse to engage in special pleading, to have a unique rule all about them, when there is no need to do that at all, but the RfC was framed with this in mind, instead of a more neutral approach. Making it apply to two groups instead of just one doesn't really improve the matter.

    I do agree with your raising the issue of the similarity between some TG people's experiences and reasons and feelings, and those of divorcées, but it doesn't really end there. Aside from the examples above, I know people who have deadnamed because a) their surname, through linguistic accident, sounds like something vulgar in English; b) their surname combined with their given name coincides with that of someone notorious (including a serial killer, and a cult leader); c) they were subject to discrimination in ways affecting their life and career for having a stereotypical name of a particular ethnicity that was not a popular group of people where they lived at that time; d) for spiritual reasons, having chosen a new name that was meaningful to them and being philosophically opposed to the idea of being saddled with a name assigned at birth; e) they just didn't like their original name for being too long, too hard to pronounce or spell, etc.; f) their birth name was dangerous for them to have where they lived due to it being that of a local crime family; g) to not be seen as riding on the coat-tails of a parent or other prominent relative; h) to get out from under the burden of a criminal record or other old history (e.g. after being outed in sex work); i) to escape years of dedicated stalking. I could go on. The "it depends" and "it's a case-by-case thing" is what to walk away with here, tied to WP:UNDUE – the amount of source coverage that mentions the former name, surely. I can't really see any other practical result coming out of this.
     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Compelling reason?

I’ve asked before to no avail, but: Is there any compelling reason to include a lesser-known name in the lead for any subject, let alone one who has problems identifying with that name? Is there a compelling reason to have “Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz” or “William Jefferson Blythe III” at the top of the article at all, rather than just “Fidel Castro” or “Bill Clinton”?

If not, why is there even a debate here? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

For me the compelling reasoning is that Wikipedia is a source for information. If someone is notable, then the inclusion of information regarding who this person is, whether they were named as such in the article at time of notability, or not, is absolutely relevant, insofar as it is relevant to any other person of note. The question you seem to be asking is why is it relevant at all, is it included in the lead in, even when notability occurs after the name change. I believe that for the sake of conformity and standardization it makes sense. The no longer used name is very much a part of the person's history. So why included it in the lead in, instead of in a historical section? The same reason that the person of note's birthday is included within the lead in. The birth of the notable person itself is a notable event that is shared across the board and is part of the standardized formatting used. Including the birth name makes sense. If someone was born with a middle name, Paul McCartney for example, who was born James Paul McCartney, who if one were to say "do you know who James McCartney is?" would not result in the same as asking of Paul McCartney. Unlike the birth name's that have changed, we see that his full name and full title are included, as this combines both birth name and current name within a single element, in this case, Sir James Paul McCartney. To say this is relevant while birth name is not is faulty logic as this is as much birth name as it is contemporary identifier. It is necessary for the sake of formatting and conformity to include birth names and identifying names in full in all cases without special clause. e75.76.55.126 (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the birth name and birth date are important biographical information, but how are they so notable (or factor so much into the subject’s notability) that they must be included in the very first words of the lead? The lead is supposed to summarize the important contents of the article—in the case of a biographical article, to give readers a sense of who a person is and why this person is notable. A question of “Do you know who James Paul McCartney is?” would likely be answered with, “Do you mean Paul McCartney? His name isn’t James.” (Yes, it is his name, but not one he’s generally known by.) So what makes the information surrounding the person’s birth, or a full name that is never used, relevant enough to be included in the very first words? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Include birth names we do so in virtually every article otherwise and no different if someone wants to renounce their prior identity or adopt the name of someone they care about. It's done all the time by spouses, most popes, some kings, many actors, musicians, artists, people on the run, etc. Don't abandon fact for some perceived POV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• There are certainly some instances where a transgender person's prior name is notable, encyclopedic and verifiable — most commonly, because they were already encyclopedically notable under that name before coming out as transgender. Laura Jane Grace was already known and famous as "Tom Gabel" before she came out; Alec Butler had already been nominated for notable literary awards as "Audrey Butler" before changing his name; Chaz Bono was already famous as "Chastity Bono" long before identifying as transgender; Caitlyn Jenner was already famous as "Bruce" and is linked to from many articles in which her name has to be represented as the name she was using at the time that's contextually relevant to the link. In instances like that, it would be misrepresenting the context of their notability for us to omit the former name, so we have to be able to mention the prior name in those cases. However, in many other cases a transgender person attained their notability only under their current name — and, in fact, their birth name is quite often entirely unverifiable in any reliable source coverage at all, and could be added only on the basis of original research or user-generated discussion forums engaging in a doxxing campaign. For people in this situation, the name should absolutely be omitted under WP:BLPPRIVACY as not properly sourced. The only place there's really any room for discussion about whether to include or exclude it is in the case of people who attained notability under their current name, but their birth name is still reliably sourceable in real media coverage nonetheless — and, in reality, that's actually a rare situation that genuinely applies to very few transgender people. In those rare instances, there may be room for a discussion about whether it warrants mention in their particular case — but the overall rule can't be either "always include" (because it's not always properly sourceable) or "never include" (because sometimes it's necessary due to preexisting notability under that name) — it has to be contextually dependent on the circumstances of that particular case. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I should also mention that when it comes to a transgender person's former name, we also have to watch out for WP:CIRCULAR referencing issues. Sometimes, what happens is that somebody ORs or USERGs or just HOAXes an old name into Wikipedia, whereupon a media outlet reports that name because they got it from us — and then once the original source is stripped from the article for unreliability, somebody then tries to salvage the name by referencing it to that very same followup news article. I've seen this happen more than once, so we have to be careful when the issue of a transgender person's prior name is up for discussion to ensure that we're not unwittingly CIRCULARing to ourselves through a source that used us as its source. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

New discussion?

I have a new sort of proposal: I propose that this whole section be scrapped and we simply have a discussion about it. No voting, no proposals, just discuss the issues so we can work out what to propose. Because this is a fractured mess. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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

KC or QC

There's a pretty substantial number of people who have been both King's and Queen's Counsel - appointed under George III, George IV, or William IV and dying under Victoria; appointed under Victoria and dying under one of the kings between Edward VII and George VI; or appointed by one of those kings and dying under the current reign. Currently, articles seem totally inconsistent as to whether they use KC or QC here. My understanding is that which is used changes with the reign. I'd propose that anyone who died under Victoria or Elizabeth II, whoever appointed them, should be QC. Anyone who died under Edward VII through George VI should be KC, even if appointed by Victoria. But there's no guidance on this. john k (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

What you're proposing is what I believe to be the de facto guideline (and is what I have always done). Graham (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's also what I've done, but it's not applied at all consistently. john k (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• My only caveat would be to say "context matters". In a biographical article about a particular KC/QC, what is outlined above makes good sense. In some other article (Such as an article about an historical event) which might mention a particular KC or QC in a historical context, we should probably go with whatever title the person had at the time being discussed. Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Certainly! I should have specified that I meant "at the beginning of their own biographical articles and in the infobox (if applicable)". Even within those articles, if Sir Robert Barnacle was made a Queen's Counsel in 1893 and died in 1935, we'd say he was made a Queen's Counsel, even if the top of his article says "Sir Robert Barnacle, KC." john k (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Continued references to someone with a purely alias stage name: where to draw the line

When we have someone whose stage name has no resemblance to their real name--or at least is not typical of a human name--such as "Sting," "Snoop Dogg," "Sinbad," "50 Cent," or "Flavor Flav;" or when their stage name is more like a typical human name but still not much like their real name (such as "Jason Alexander" for Jay Scott Greenspan), where do we draw the line on how to continue to refer to them throughout the article?

And if the unusual stage name has two parts ("Snoop Dogg,"50 Cent," and "Flavor Flav," for example) and we're supposed to keep referring to them with their atypical stage name, then do we still just say the whole thing, or just say the last part as if that were their surname ("Dogg," "Cent," and "Flav")?

2600:100E:B135:BAE3:7F12:1ED8:71D3:7A68 (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I can guarantee that we won't treat that last word as a surname. As for the rest, here's one man's opinion.

• I'd use "Sting" in an entertainment context (i.e., in most of the article, for an entertainer) and "Sumner" in other contexts.
• I'd use "Alexander" throughout, except for the first sentence. It would be very confusing to use both Alexander and Greenspan depending on context, as it would be less clear that we were talking about the same person. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Snoop Dogg is generally shortened to "Snoop". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC).
  

We should follow what reliable sources do. john k (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Implementing the "Jr." RfC

WP:VPP#RfC: Amending MOS:JR on comma usage has closed and people are already disputing how to implement it. Three points:

• Whether the closer bothered to mention the BLP matter or not, we clearly have to make an exception for self-identify of living bio subjects, per WP:BLP, WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:ABOUTSELF, and MOS:IDENTITY, as various RfC respondents noted. We can interpret the consensus of any RfC or other discussion by looking at the actual discussion, not just by the wording of the close (per WP:BUREAUCRACY; closes are an optional formality, and many discussions do not have them, yet reach a consensus we can rely on).
• Whether old sources use the "." or not is irrelevant. The entire point of the RfC was that usage has changed (its poster can correct me if I'm wrong). Formerly the "." was common in American sources, now it no longer is (in any genre or register, from academic, to journalistic, to Web posts). The only sensible phrasing will refer to current (or modern, or whatever) sources, not all sources, or it's as if the RfC never happened, because the combined mass of all RS published before ca. 1995 will outnumber RS published since then, for generations.
• As a consequence of the above, what the preference was of a dead subject is no longer relevant; BLP concerns are not present, and the longer ago they died, the less relevant their own ABOUTSELF primary sourcing is, and the less relevant then-contemporary sources about them are, for a current-English-usage matter like this. By the same reasoning as "use the 'Jr.' spelling he used when we was alive", we'd be referring to Thomas Malory as Thomas Malleorre, and Julius Caesar as JVLIUS.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, there's not much to implement. Both styles (with comma and without) are still acceptable. If an article has one or the other, it should remain as is, as long as each article is consistent. This is what the main WP:MOS page tells us right up front: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable." Dohn joe (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"Both styles (with comma and without) are still acceptable" is not what the conclusion was, either in the discussion or in the closer's summary of it: "the discussion concludes that our MOS should express a preference toward not using commas". When MoS expresses "a preference toward" [sic] something, i.e. a preference for something, it says "use this, not that". The closer continues: "Grandfathering older articles, FAs, etc., is recommended"; that has nothing to do with MoS, but is up to venues like WP:GAN and WP:FAC if they want to push compliance at articles that were using the old style for a long time. I think we all know that eventually what MoS recommends is what gets done (either by people conscientiously complying, or gnomes fixing later), even if take 5 years to work its way through all the articles (often less; date delinking and species common name lowercasing only took about a year each, despite affecting many, many more articles). The rest of the close is just statement of the obvious (a guideline is a guideline, etc.), and opinional observation, and editorializing that a closer should avoid. We can determine from the rest of the discussion that another point was clear, like respecting BLP's preferences. There were only three opposers. The first asserted that sources show MLK is an exception because sources still mostly use the comma for him. I extensively proved that wrong; the only argument I got on that was from one of the supporters, for whom I did most of that proving. The second just made a sort of drive-by comment about WP:CREEP, but we already had a (wishy-washy) rule about "Jr.", and having a less wishy-washy one is not instruction creep, but actually reduces complication and conflict. The third claimed that American publications still favor the comma, and I disproved that too. So, there's really not a lot of room for doubt about any of this. Mandruss put it best: "the less time we spend debating whether to use the commas or not in a given article, the more time we have to spend on content. The common sense thing to do is to choose a house style and use it." We're on the way to doing that, just allowing for a BLP/IDENTITY/ABOUTSELF variance, as we would for just about anything as long as RS consistently go along with it (see, e.g. k.d. lang and Dadmau5). We could actually drop the BLP exception, because if you do that research, you find that the RS do not in fact go along with it; virtually all of them consistently apply their own house style, mostly without not with commas, to everyone, regardless of the subject's own preference. SMcCandlish 21:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No... A "preference" does not mean "do this, don't do that". It means "we recommend you to do this, but that is allowed". Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In a guideline giving advice, every single word of it is a preference, and MoS's standard operating procedure is to firmly advise one thing or another, not say "maybe", except in the rare case (and usually temporary, cf. the bird capitalization waffling that was in MOS:LIFE in 2013) that consensus cannot be established for anything other than to affirmatively state that consensus has not been established, (It really is rare; usually we're simply silent on the matter, and leave it up to editorial discretion; this is why we have no line-item about aesthetic vs. esthetic, indexes vs. indices, etc., etc., etc., nor any note that there's not consensus about such matters, or any note about them at all). There is nothing inconclusive about "the discussion concludes that our MOS should express a preference toward not using commas". Quite notably it was closed that way by an admin who actually opposed the consensus viewpoint, just as in the species common name lowercase RfC. So, please stop trying to re-legislate the already and recently closed proposal. It's pointless and redundant for MoS or any guideline to say anything like "we recommend you do this, but that is allowed". Every single line-item in MoS could equally have such disclaimer wording, since all guidelines are essentially optional, not being policies. The fact that we're recommending something but the recommendation can be chucked in favor of some alternative is implicit in what a guideline is. Despite a now-banned editor's frequent histrionic and prevaricating claims to have been "punished" at WP:ANI for not following MoS (it was actually for editwarring to revert others complying with MoS) no one is punished for entirely ignoring this guideline when they write here; we know most new editors don't know it (or any other policy or guideline) exists, and that many long-term editors ignore it and any other rules or "rules" people don't badger them into compliance with. Someone created bogus WP:UWT "warning" templates about MoS compliance failure, and I TfD'd them yesterday myself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Dohn, given the wide agreement on the preferred style among editors and among modern grammar and style guides (back to what we had preferred for several years until it got changed nearly a year ago), it seems odd that you want to interfere in implementation now. Nobody is suggesting that you have to adopt, use, or prefer this style; just ignore it, rather than interfering with those who want to move a few articles toward the preferred style. A year ago, I fixed a bunch of article to the no-comma style that the MOS said was preferred at that time; when you got it flipped to say no preference, you undid many of those, which seemed like an odd move given that the MOS said no preference when you did that. Now that the preference is clear again, there's even less reason for you to be interfering with those who want to clean up WP style. Of course, if I ever do move one where the person or their biographers consistently use the comma, I do want to hear about that; we need a good example, and I haven't been able to find one. Certainly it's not MLK Jr nor any of these guys whose pages you've moved recently. Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The example Neil Brown, Jr. for "someone who is living and whose official website tells us he uses that spelling" is not good here. The referenced official page has his name both with and without the comma on the same page (2 times with, 4 without). Like most people, he probably doesn't care if we omit the comma. Let's see if we can find someone who says they care, or at least someone who is consistent. Dicklyon (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not seeing the broad requirement to move all articles (eg Harry K. Daghlian Jr.) under this RfC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. MOS recommendations are not requirements. I moved that article since it made it more in agreeement with our recommended style, and because modern sources do it that way (e.g. this nonfiction book and this one and this one and this novel). But I don't understand why you put commas back into it. What's requiring or recommending that? Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, in this edit your summary seems to accuse me of "mass changes". As fas as I can tell, I've moved exactly only 4 articles to do away with the comma in the last week; is this too much for you? In what sense is this more than what's "allowed" by the MOS recommendation? Are any of these moves questionable in light of modern usage? Let me know. Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talkpage, moving from one accepted style to another is against MOS and WP's ethos. From WP:MOS: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." WP:JR still explicitly allows for both styles. Moving/editing because of one's preference is also against Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan#Preferred_styles and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk#Optional_styles. Moreover, modern sources use the comma all the time. Dohn joe (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Moot point: "the discussion concludes that our MOS should express a preference toward not using commas". So, more than one style is not acceptable. Though the closer didn't note it, the discussion did, that we need to permit an exception for BLPs with a clearly proven preference for the commas. That's all. As I said to Blueboar above, I'm pretty sure you know better than to try to re-legislate an RfC that just close; that's forumshopping. If you actually want to challenge the close as invalid, or unclear, you now where WP:AN is. I'm confident that it would be upheld on validity grounds, and that if clarified it will be to not use vague and ungrammatical language like "express a preference toward", but simply "state a preference for". I'm of a mind to go file a clarification request myself simply to put an end to the present wave of wikilawyering.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Not moot at all. The close also clarifies that "Grandfathering older articles, FAs, etc., is recommended, and one should remember that the MOS is a guideline, not a policy." The page on Harry_K._Daghlian, Jr. could very well be grandfathered, and if there are people who think it is best to do so, then that seems to be the preferred style. On pages going forward it seems fair to remove the commas, but not on older pages which apparently are going to become a consistent disagreement, which is likely why the closer, in a wise close, put that line in. The Daghlian page, by the way, is quite an interesting read. Randy Kryn 3:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There was one guy who suggested grandfathering Good Articles and Featured Articles, but this is not about that. Older articles, nobody brought up, because that would be silly, sort of like saying we don't care about improving style at all. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That quote came from the close, and says that grandfathering older articles, feature articles, etc. is "recommended" (see Grandfather clause). Randy Kryn 13:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The closer's note that "Grandfathering older articles, FAs, etc., is recommended" is just an irrelevant restatement that one editor recommended something like that (nobody actually said anything about "older articles", that's just the closer's hallucination). I think we can ignore that; closer admitted his bias in the close ("based on that evidence I would have spoken out against the proposal" – indicating that he probably didn't actually look at the evidence, even – or if he did, and formed a negative opinion, why does he think he's still neutral enough to do this close of a potentially somewhat problematic RFC?). Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not irrelevant. The inclusion of "Grandfathering older articles, FAs, etc., is recommended, and one should remember that the MOS is a guideline, not a policy" is a major and directly stated part of the close. You might like it to be irrelevant, or, as you say, "I think we can ignore that" (??), yet grandfathering is a very real concept. Randy Kryn 23:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Closers don't get to invent new rules that don't reflect the actual consensus in the discussion. There is no provision, anywhere in policy at all, for any reason, for treating older articles as exempt from from guidelines simply by virtue of being old. WP does not work that way. The closest thing to any "grandfathering" that can happen under our editorial policy system is that independent processes like WP:GAN and WP:FAC can choose whether to require compliance with particular guidelines or not when it comes to handing out GA/FA badges. I've decided not to challenge Drmies's close at AN, and I've made peace with him, but there simply isn't any operable interpretation of that close that permits a magical "my article doesn't have to comply with guidelines because it's a day older than yours" WP:GAMING loophole.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Back to Neil Brown, Jr. This is not an example of "someone who is living and whose official website tells us he uses that spelling". This illustrates one reason we took out the personal preference exception a year ago: nobody has been able to find any evidence of a personal preference for what style should be used with respect to comma in their own names. If I'm wrong, I'm hoping someone will provide at least one example that we can use to sensibly illustrate why we again have such an exception. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• I too dismiss the personal preference argument... That is simply a variation of WP:Official name... However, I don't dismiss the WP:COMMONNAME argument. When the majority of sources that are independent of the subject present the name with a comma, so should we... As that is the most recognizable variation. Blueboar (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that this comma will affect recognizability, and there's no other case where we turn over style decision for an outside vote. That would not be consistent with having a preferred wikipedia style. Dicklyon (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections to removing the BLP thing if we don't think it's a real BLP matter. I argued for it as consistent with MOS:IDENTITY and WP:ABOUTSELF, and with our approach to stylized names, within reason, at MOS:TM that are both preferred by the subject and accepted by the vast majority of independent RS (e.g. it's Deadmau5 not "Deadmaus", but it's "Pink" (the singer) not "P!nk" despite her marketing efforts). I don't feel strongly about it. I was mostly trying to provide what Drmies wants to call a "grandfathering" path for subjects with a proven preference for the comma spelling, and I really don't feel strongly about it. There's no point in throwning a bone that's not wanted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Changed my mind; this relates too strongly to too many other naming conventions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

And I have no objection to keeping it if we can find a genuine example of a person with evidence of having a preference. Not just that they write or sign their name with the comma, but that they actually object to leaving it out, or state that they prefer it in, or something sort of explicit like that. I doubt we'll find it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't just consistent personal usage be sufficient? We don't require of Micheal Haley a statement by him that yes, he really, really does spell it that way and gets mad if people spell it Michael. I'm also thinking of other parallel cases, like Asian name order for Asians and Asian-hyphenateds who prefer it, e.g. the recent RM at Utada Hikaru, based on subject's consistent usage in their own materials, without any statement "By the way, don't spell my name 'Hikaru Utada'." (In fact, for a brief span in the 2000s, the singer actually did insist on that spelling in Western media, and then reversed herself, making the WP:COMMONNAME kind of hard to figure out. Anyway, I would just like to see us approach all these matters consistently. Either we respect that people determine their own names (k.d. lang, Jennifer 8. Lee, Genesis P-Orridge) or we don't. This also has implications for diacritics. The fact that Neil Brown, Jr. (or maybe it was another case I found, I forget) has been consistently using the comma spelling would seem to be good enough. If they're not, then it's not good enough, especially given that many of them are likely to change their preference on this over the next 1–10 years, as virtually all the remaining publishers abandon the comma.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

We respect those name styles based on consistent use in reliable sources, because we don't have spies to go see how they write their name, or to ask them how they prefer to see it in print. I agree that it's a potentially useful exception, but I'm going to remove the example name for now, since it's not a valid one. Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent RM discussions at Talk:Larry Mullen Jr.#Requested move 20 March 2016 and Talk:Desi Arnaz Jr.#Requested move 20 March 2016 seem to put an end to Dohn joe's objections based on claiming that both styles are still "acceptable". Yes? I have moved a few more articles, mostly racing drivers who seldom use the comma themselves or in news coverage of them, but if anyone sees a case among them that seems to over-reach and remove a common where there's evidence that it would really be preferred, please do bring it up and let's look at it. Still looking for a good example... Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I would look in categories of American and Canadian actors, singers, authors, etc., and look for living subjects under 40. That's how I scared up a few test cases in a few minutes. They're liable to have personal websites and other online media we can check, either directly managed by them or by their staff with direct input from the subject. Maybe even just googling "my name has a comma in it". Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've spent considerable time looking, with such strategies; I do find articles titled with comma where the ELs and sources have nothing but comma-free. And I notice that IMDB never uses commas (though I can't search deep enough to see if they make an exception for anyone; just like findagrave always uses comma; having a house style is a good thing). Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course both styles are still acceptable, not everyone objected or commented on the Arnez change, etc. If someone objects to a change in long-standing pages then the comma style has been grandfathered in. Randy Kryn 21:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"If somebody objects" might be a good reason to talk about it, but is not the threshold condition for keeping the non-preferred style, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

What's all this about grandfathering? Randy Kryn has advanced some theories about it at Talk:Robert_Downey_Jr.#Requested_move_04_April_2016 and at Talk:Arthur_Ochs_Sulzberger,_Jr.#Requested_move_2_April_2016, but I must admit I do not get his point, and can't see why he'd want to grandfather a comma into the name of the one person who most exemplifies never using a comma, Robert Downey Jr. Any other ideas for when it would be a good idea to leave a comma? Is what we say in WP:JR not adequate? We'd still like to find a suitable example of a name that's usually done with a comma. Dicklyon (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

We may have found an example of a living person who (usually?) prefers the comma: RFK Jr. Please comment on this and the other Kennedy Jr and Sr titles at Talk:Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Sr.#Requested_move_6_April_2016. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Progress implementing WP:JR

A few categories have a lot of Jrs. and no commas now, like Category:Mexican male professional wrestlers. This one should have been easy; shouldn't even have been necessary, actually, since most of the articles had been made without commas in the first place, but someone had gone in and added them, thinking commas were standard (in Mexican wresters, comma-free is more standard than almost any other group I've seen). Some were still fixed from when I worked on them a year ago, and some had to be re-done thanks to some intervening comma enthusiasts. But now it's good.

Most categories have many fewer Jrs. Racing drivers such as Category:American Speed Association drivers and Category:20th-century American racing drivers have quite a few Jrs, and I've fixed a lot of those, but a few need work (i.e. either a technical move or an RM discussion). Most NASCAR-related sites and driver sites don't use commas, but most editors still don't know that, so it's some work. Politicians tend to have dynasties, too, so I've been doing some of those. Other than these areas, names with Jr. and Sr. are pretty sparsely spread.

I've moved an average of about 2 per day for the last month (higher in the last few days). Every now and then there's isolated pushback from an editor surprised to learn about WP:JR. That slows things down, but is part of making progress. So far, no RM or other action has found us a name for which there is a consensus to include a comma. I look at every name before moving it, to see if it's consistently done with comma in sources. None are, so far. Still looking...

By the way, Randy, I notice that MLK Jr. doesn't use a comma in his signature. I'm wondering still where people got the idea that he needs a comma. Another like that is Harry Connick, Jr.; about a half dozen of his album covers show his name without a comma, so it's obviously not a hangup that comes from him. Should we try an RM there? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That would make sense, yes. Tony (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• A few categories have a lot of Jrs. and no commas now - yeah, no kidding. You've been going around removing them all. - ^theWOLFchild 07:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus...?

@SMcCandlish, Dohn joe, Blueboar, Hawkeye7, Randy Kryn, and Tony1:
Dicklyon has repeatedly claimed that all the page-moves, the comma-removals, the re-writing of WP:JR of MOS:BLP, and all his... persistent... behaviour in repeatedly enforcing these actions is supported by a "broad consensus" at this discussion. From what I can see, only the 7 editors I have pinged here have participated in this discussion and the "broad consensus" isn't quite as clear as Dicklyon made it out to be. I propose that all the editors who participated here take part in a straw poll, indicating whether you "support" or "oppose" Dicklyon's actions; all the edits and page-moves to remove commas from articles when found preceding "Jr." or "Sr.", and any other actions in furtherance of these goals. Of course, I would like to see others participate as well, to achieve the "broadest consensus" possible. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 22:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Oppose - as proposer - ^theWOLFchild 22:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Can not comment... At least not without more information. My view has consistently been that we should adopt a similar standard to COMMONNAME when it comes to issues like this. Our usage should be based on source usage. This will mean that some names will use a comma before Jr. and others won't. What I don't know is whether Dick based his actions on source usage or not. If he did, then I support his actions... If not, then I don't support. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

In other words, you are not part of this so-called "broad consensus". - ^theWOLFchild 00:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

When sources are mixed, I go with the recommendations of the MOS, as with caps, dashes, and other things where the MOS shows a preference. On the particular case that got Thewolfchild ticked off, the USS Frank E. Petersen Jr., there are only two known sources that mention the new name of this ship; neither uses a comma, but Thewolfchild asserts that those are "misspelled". Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

"Asserts"...? They both spell his name as "Peterson". If you read the sources, as you claim, you should know that. (oops!) - ^theWOLFchild 00:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that clarification. Where you said misspelled before, I thought you meant by leaving out the comma. Sorry I misinterpreted you. So this leaves us with exactly zero sources for the name of the ship? Dicklyon (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, it is a stub for a newly announced, not-yet-constructed ship. What. part. of. that. don't. you. get? Prior to the announcement just a few days ago, there was no such thing as the "USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr.", so how many sources are you expecting? More will come in time. If indeed there is no comma, then the page can be moved back... then. For now, the guidelines support it remaining at the original title. - ^theWOLFchild 00:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines at WP:JR say to prefer without the comma. And the sources don't use commas (now the news has spread to at least 5 copies of the same misspelled comma-free name). And the article at Frank E. Petersen has never used commas (it has the Jr in the article, just not in the title). No guideline says to insert a comma where no source uses a comma, nor to turn over style decisions to the stub creator. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

However, Dick, the guidelines do say that commas can still be used, they say that pages should not be moved from one acceptable style to another, and they that when page-moves are contested, they go back to original title. Oh, and Dick, almost every article here was created by a "stub creator". - ^theWOLFchild 22:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – This page isn't really for complaining about people; let's talk process and guidelines instead. Thewolfchild didn't get a lot of traction at his ANI complaint, so he's trying here. His very unbalanced canvassing there did bring in a couple of dissenters, and his new ping is not much better. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You're the one that introduced this discussion to the ANI, claiming there was a "broad consensus" here to support your actions. As usual, that turned out be not quite the truth. Don't start attacking me just because you got caught in another lie. The only people I pinged were editors that already contributed here. So you're "canvassing" claim is just another falsehood. - ^theWOLFchild 00:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You missed about a dozen from the WP:VPP RFC, and at least one or two from this section. Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

One is not a "dozen". He's been added, but if I missed any other contributors to this discussion; Implementing the "Jr." RfC, then by all means, feel free to list them here. - ^theWOLFchild 00:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC).

The relevant RFC is now archived at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_125#RfC:_Amending_MOS:JR_on_comma_usage. You might want to balance your canvassing by inviting RGoucester, Mandruss, Masem, Graeme Bartlett, AgnosticAphid, Aoziwe, Checkingfax, Nyttend, Ironholds, Tony1, DGG, and Fdssdf; and maybe previous supporters of this idea in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies/2015_archive#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr., such as sroc, Herostratus, Atsme, FactStraight, and Collect. I can understand why you wouldn't, but then you shouldn't be canvassing just the dissenters, either, like you did at ANI. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Dicklyon's comma-removals, including the the page-moves. Reject the notion that when Wolfchild and Dicklyon fight over commas only one of them is at fault. Evidence, please regarding the claim that Dicklyon re-wrote WP:JR and MOS:BLP to support his position -- I want to see diffs. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm mainly trying to determine if there was already a consensus among the editors in the discussion above. I see you're not one, but thank you for participating. The sooner we have true consensus on this the better, (either way). Dicklyons contributions to WP:JR/MOS:BLP can be seen here. I'm not sure is you've completely grasped the entire situation, but it would take a lot of reading for that. For me. I believe Dicklyon made an improper page move (which the guidelines say he did). I quickly found out that he has made dozens and dozens (hundreds even?) of such moves and many more edits, resulting in numerous complaints and conflicts. He claimed there was a consensus to support these actions, but as it turns out, there isn't. One might think Dicklyon would stop his behaviour and allow for the situation to be sorted and a true consensus determined, but he has continued on anyway. He's not new this behaviour, just coming off a recent on page-move-ban and an indef block by way of standard offer. Like I said, there's a lot to this. Have a nice day. - ^theWOLFchild 01:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a hundred yet, but as I said above, "I've moved an average of about 2 per day for the last month (higher in the last few days)." There have been very few that attracted any pushback. Perhaps you'd like to list them and we can talk about those. Or find any that you think were improper. I don't think my quantity of editing is itself a problem, so be specific. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 

(edit conflict) Everyone is free to move pages that can be moved if they believe it will not be controversial and they have a cogent rationale for doing it. A couple of "never stop, never surrender" die-hards about keeping the comma, who keep recycling arguments that have already been refuted into the ground, and who keep playing the WP:IDHT game, forum-shopping the same "proof by assertion" in RM after RM – and getting nowhere at any of them because the refutations have not magically disappeared – does not constitute actual controversy, but tendentious battlegrounding. WP has thousands of editors, and they just do not believe that the commas are better. Consensus does not have to be unanimous. Massive tacit acceptance, and consistent explicit support at ongoing RMs, of Wikipedia using the style we all see when we read modern off-WP source material, is orders of magnitude more evidence of consensus that a few WP:IDONTLIKEIT-style dissenters are any kind of evidence that there's no consensus.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Wolf, you speak about "broad consensus", which, of course, is the bedrock of most, if not all, Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However, what is the threshold for when consensus goes from "local" (?) to "broad"? The requests for comment ping all the editors who want to be pinged about those topics, which, here, are about style rules. The initial RfC, in 2014, resulted in an impromptu tally, with seven editors participating. The RfC in February drew votes from 16 editors. In my mind, neither qualifies as "broad consensus", but what would, if not the editors who are pinged about style RfCs? This may speak to the idea that the subject at hand isn't interesting enough to draw support for its RfCs, but that is a corollary topic. I support Dicklyon's efforts because I am a proponent of the no-comma style. I wish to reproduce an argument from sroc from the 2014 RfC, which was echoed at the time by another editor, in lieu of my own (I hope sroc does not mind):

Why should a subject's consideration be taken into account on a question of style? Do you think other encyclopedias, newspapers and publications consult the subject's preferences? Making allowance for the subject's preference (if they have one) or a preponderance of sources (which likely use their own style rules regardless of the subject's views):

• is irrelevant, as the subject's style (or sources' styles) should not determine Wikipedia's style;
• needlessly takes up editors' time checking sources and debating preferences;
• can only lead to arguments over which style should apply in individual cases;
• makes the guideline more involved than it needs to be;
• lends to inconsistency if different subjects are formatted differently and discussed together, say, in a list of famous Americans that mentions "Sammy Davis, Jr." and "John F. Kennedy Jr.";
• leads to arguments amongst editors over whether a comma should also appear after the "Jr." (it most definitely should, although some editors find this hard to believe).

Option 2 is a bad idea. Option 1 is a simple solution that avoids all these issues. —sroc 💬 09:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if it seems like I'm re-litigating the issue here. Wolf, you are right that the manual of style allows multiple acceptable styles — there is no doubt. I just wish the comma would disappear. Hell, if it meant never wasting another second on this topic, I would reluctantly embrace the commas (both of them). Fdssdf (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fdssdf: Um... thanks for your reply, but it was Dicklyon who spoke of "broad consensus", not me. He claimed he already had broad consensus here in this discussion, to defend his page-move-warring, edit-warring and general disruptive behaviour. I looked here to verify that and found that it wasn't true. The discussion wasn't even closed, only 7 editors had participated and there was nothing close to consensus. Look, if you want to remove commas, that's one thing. But we have guidelines here; if your moving a page, simply to remove a comma and that page move is contested, you stop and discuss. You don't keep warring-on. And WP:MOS clearly states if the page move is contested, then the original title stays. Some of you anti-comma people are conveniently over-looking these facts. This comma nonsense has been going on for over a year. There needs to be a clear, widely-participated debate, with an equally clear consensus and a clearly written guideline. Until that happens, Dicklyon and Co. need to stop the disruptive behaviour, and the anti-comma faction need to stop cheering him. You're not doing the project any favours here. - ^theWOLFchild 06:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean for that to sound even remotely inflammatory (I'm not certain you perceived it as such), but labeling someone as a seeker of "broad consensus" is not a bad thing at all. Back to the topic: You said, "There needs to be a clear, widely-participated debate, with an equally clear consensus and a clearly written guideline." This was my point entirely: What qualifies as "broad consensus", if not the participation of the February RfC? I think this is what Dicklyon points to when he says there is a "broad consensus" — that is, broad enough given the audience who cares at all about minutiae of style. Aside from that, Wolf, just what type of Wiki venue exists that would capture a larger audience than an RfC? (I am genuinely curious if one exists.) Would it be something like Wiki-wide poll, as done for stewards and other high-level overseers? I would love that, but I don't think it would garner too much attention; likely, it probably would draw scorn from those who viewed it as too trivial for a major site-wide poll (if one exists). I don't know. However, I do agree that it will be more helpful once the MoS has an "X, not Y" statute, whichever style it favors. To your final point, "Dicklyon and Co." must feel the need to spur debate through BOLD edits and the BRD process, and it sure is working. Wolf, you say it's a detriment to the project, but I disagree, at least for now. As to the overall tone of this Jr./Sr. comma spat, in multiple venues, I don't think it's helpful. There needs to be more good will on both sides of the discussion because, after all, we're all in this together. Fdssdf (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Broad consensus" doesn't mean "873 editors voted for it", it means it was very broadly advertised in an RfC (Village Pump, with notices elsewhere, and it was on WP:CENT, too), and the consensus that emerged was clear (it was in fact much more clear than the supervoting closer made it out to be). Breadth is of the number of editor made aware of the discussion so they could comment on if it they wanted to it. It doesn't means diversity of opinions provided, or head-count of posts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I see. So you hold that "broad", here, represents the number of people alerted and not necessarily to the number of people who participate? I had not thought of it that way (correct me, if I misinterpreted your meaning). It's intriguing. Fdssdf (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fdssdf: It's the only thing it could mean in a system in which RfC participation is not compulsory. If you launch an RfC to turn all WP pages pink, and post notices about it on 100 major pages, and almost everyone ignores it as pointless noise, except a handful, and consensus closes against your proposal, you can't later claim with a straight face that there is no consensus against your making pages pink because the RfC wasn't broad enough WP doesn't work that way. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I agree 100 percent. Fdssdf (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You can't possibly equate a lack of participation with affirmative consensus. If indeed you were to try and "turn all WP pages pink", and gave the wide-spread notice mentioned, that kind of proposal would catch people's attention and there would be a huge response. But when an RfC simply says "let's talk about the comma"... of course you didn't get a large turn out. People figured it was a minor issue... and it should've been. That is, until guidelines started to be arbitrarily re-written, and there were hundreds of controversial page-moves made... then it became an issue and there was a response, albeit a piecemeal one. Different people reacting and complaining about different articles, but all tied to same mass-comma-removal-effort. No matter how you try to spin this, you do not, in fact, have "broad consensus" in support of all these changes... just a community largely caught off guard. If anything, this effort has "broad apathy" supporting it - on the part of those responsible for regulating this kind of behaviour. But, even I'm now past the point of caring and won't be participating in any more RM debates.* I just don't have the same... 'passion'... for saving commas as some people do for removing them. - ^theWOLFchild 18:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read what I actually wrote, then go read WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not going to respond to this incoherent straw man rant in any detail. But thanks for letting us know that you took your final administrative warning seriously and are electing to avoid this topic henceforth.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, relax, the warning was to not "personalize" anything (and could easily apply to you as well) and I haven't in my last post. I just addressed your comments that somehow people not showing up to an RfC equates to broad consensus. (I've read WP:CON, but I couldn't find that part) My last comment is an impersonal, point by point, response where I ask you to explain the logic behind the "absenteeism consensus". You could just directly answer a question for once, without the (constant) personal attacks-via-blue-links (They're completely unnecessary and getting a little old). But, don't bother answering now, I don't need anymore "you're WP:STUBBORN and just trying to score WP:TOUCHDOWNS with your posts!"... or whatever other blue-linked insults you can think up. Anyway, I started this section looking for the "broad consensus" claimed at ANI. So far it just seems to be you and DL,(maybe a couple others). But, whatever... I've seen all I need to see here and I think I'll be moving on now. - ^theWOLFchild 01:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The way to stop talking about something and move on is to stop talking about it and move on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss, Masem, Graeme Bartlett, Aoziwe, Checkingfax, Ironholds, and Sroc: – Thanks Fdssdf. Some of the other supporters of those RFCs have still not been notified by Thewolfchild who pinged the dissenters to here and to his thread about me at ANI. Here's a ping of some (only works for 7 at a time, I'm told). Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, stop your bullshit already. I only pinged the editors who participated in this discussion here, regardless of their opinion on the issue. You claimed there was consensus here, I asked the participants to verify their support or opposition, that's all. - ^theWOLFchild 06:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As the diff of mine that you linked shows, I said there is "broad consensus as expressed at WP:JR". That's the guideline page. The relevant discussions that established that broard consensus are the RFCs. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend, Agnosticaphid, DGG, Herostratus, Atsme, FactStraight, and Collect: might want to know, too. They could read the sections above for some context. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And who are you canvassing now? - ^theWOLFchild 06:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Support removal of the commas, in content and title, except where local consensus says otherwise. Any further debate should be on article talk pages, and specific to those articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: – That has started. Thewolfchild and his pinged friends have started to show up at places like Talk:Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Sr.#Requested_move_6_April_2016. There are actually some interesting questions in that one. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Who did I at the Joe Kennedy page? (and why is it you feel you need to continually lie?) You keep claiming you want to discuss this, but all you do is post nonsense. I'm just waiting to see if anyone is stupid enough to believe you. But keep going, it is entertaining... - ^theWOLFchild 06:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Calidum and Dohn joe showed up to oppose there shortly after you did. I didn't say you pinged them to there, just that you pinged them about such commas. Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ping anyone to the JPK, Sr. page and I didn't ping Calidum here. I only pinged Dohn jow here because he participated here. So, >bing!<, >bing!< ... that's the bell on the bullshit detector racking up a couple more of your lies. Is this all I can expect from you? - ^theWOLFchild 07:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say "here". You pinged Calidum to your AN/I complaint alleging a "war on commas". Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support – I have used the comma all my life but now see the light and the freedom not using a comma allows. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not see the close as supporting removal: As Drmies said, "there is no consensus outside of Wikipedia". The only need we have is to for consistency within an article, and to make every form searchable. And I think to follow the preferences of living people--though I think most living people couldn't care less and accept whatever the editor chooses to do. We have real problems in WP, and this is not one of them. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

And yet this has grown into quite a significant problem... - ^theWOLFchild 10:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 

Except there clearly is a general consensus outside of Wikipedia, both in a general shift in usage (across dialects, genres, and registers), and in mainstream style guides, with few keep-the-comma holdouts, plus some observing that two styles exist without analyzing their currency, but the rest dropping it. The sourcing I did both before and during the RfC showed this clearly, whether the "voting closer" chose to acknowledge that or not. The community is not bound to accept the closer's assessment as holy writ, especially since the bulk his close is his own opinions about keeping the comma. Closes are a summarizing function, and we're free to read the actual discussion; consensus coalescing after an RfC (which exists as a straw poll of editor views, not a parliamentary bureaucracy process) is standard operating procedure and frequently moves beyond an RfC and its closer's impressions. Even if this were not true, and even if "here is no consensus outside of Wikipedia" were true, it wouldn't matter anyway. WP:POLICY is not subject to WP:CCPOL sourcing requirements of articles. External sources do not tell us what we are permitted to decide internally as Wikipedia's editors what is best for Wikipedia editorially. Virtually no style matters of any kind in English are universal across all sources on the topic (not even "sentences begin with a capital letter"), yet we have a style guide. WP consensus is formed internally, weighing relevant external sources (when they exist and are relevant), experience with what works and does not work well here, understanding what our readers needs are, and the considered views of the editors who bother to participate in asking and settling the question. Even if there were a 50/50 split in modern usage regarding "Jr."/"Sr." (there definitely is not), we'd still be free to pick one over the other, and we regularly do for various matters, to prevent longer-term, broader disputation. Even MOS:ENGVAR only applies when the choice between multiple styles is arbitrary and WP has no reason to prefer one over the other (not the case here), and ENGVAR wouldn't apply anyway, since the shift is international. Have you actually looked at the RMs about this? They're pretty close to flat-out snowballing for comma removal (except one involving some of the Kennedys, since it mingled deceased, BLPs with differing evidenced preferences, and a ship named after one of them, all of have to be assessed separately).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support the comma-removal cleanup. I'm the one who did the initial large pile of source research (for forthcoming use in a section in an article on commas in English), which someone else decided also happened to make the basis for a good MoS-related RfC. With more sources obtained over the last month-plus (fortunately mostly at used prices, and with Amazon Prime when not), I could triple that citation pile and it should still show exactly the same thing: 21st-century English is abandoning that comma rapidly, and everywhere, across all genres, dialects, and registers, while it is not quite totally extinct. It's rather like writing "Web site" instead of "website"; in 1996 that didn't look pedantic, now it does. This things change (toward increased simplicity) all the time. When's the last time you saw "rôle" for "role" or "cöoperate" for "cooperate", or "A.F.L.-C.I.O." for "AFL-CIO", or "S.C.U.B.A." or "SCUBA" for "scuba"?
  Oppose attempting to re-legislate the RfC right after it closes just because it didn't go the way you like. The turnout in the RfC was not enormous, despite being at WP:VPPOL for a long time, well-advertised, and attracting the ire of a few people who really, really, really love this comma. The numbers did not become a big editor festival for one obvious reason: Most editors just WP:DGAF about minutiae like this, especially when a pile of sources (missing from the 2015 RfC) removes all subjective doubt. The commas are error-prone and an impediment to reading. They are not "more correct", but now the clearly less accepted option in the real world, and no one but half a dozen editors is losing any sleep over that natural transition in the language. WP has no reason to continue pretending that the comma-laden and comma-free usages are equally acceptable. They're provably proven not.
   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• View the idea that all commas be removed as a splendid example of "the hobgoblin ..." In short, if a person uses a comma in real life, use the comma, If they do not use a comma, don't use a comma. And on a scale of 1 to 10 in importance, this is slightly below zero. Really. Strunk insists on a comma still in its latest edition. Chicago MoS gave a choice starting in 1993, but still requires a comma before "Jr." when the last name is given first. Casagrande says to use the comma for "academic style". That position would state that since Wikipedia is an "academic" creature, that commas should be used. As near as I can determine, the change coincided with the prevalence of electronic media, and the fact that computer programmers will elide any characters they can elide (recalling connections at 110 baud). YK. <+g> Collect (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Collect, you are mistaken about The Elements of Style. A number of less-than-scrupulous publishers have taken Strunk's 1918 first edition, which is in the public domain, and re-published it with a modern date, pretending that it's a current edition (some, like this one, go so far as to put White's name on it, too). The actual current edition is the 4th, by Strunk & White. Since the 1979 3rd edition, E. B. White has advised dropping the comma. The real one is here; you really ought to get one. Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if you had pinged me before insinuating that I in any way sought to mislead anyone at all. Casagrande is not "bogus" for sure. Nor is Chicago MoS bogus. And my comment about the changeover being concurrent with the prevalence of electronic media still stands. I note that clearly my "hobgoblin" comment is spot on. Collect (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it worth noting that Strunk himself was a Jr., and that early editions of the book always used the comma ("William Strunk, Jr.")? I don't really care about this very much, but it does feel odd to me to use the modern, comma-less, orthography for people who would certainly have used the comma. john k (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• We've done this already. The RfC with the greatest participation (around 40 editors) found - less than a year ago - that commas or no commas are both acceptable, as long as an article is internally consistent: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_119#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr.. Six editors shouldn't be able to overturn that recent rough consensus, and certainly can't claim that the latest RfC is a "broader" consensus than last year's. Dohn joe (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not sure why I got asked to come here, but since I did...Strong oppose any attempt to force anything on pages in general. The last thing we need is more rule-creep from MOS. Let editors at each page decide things, and don't attempt to force them to bend to your will. Remember that the number of people who come here is tiny compared to the general population: when there's wide discrepancy in usage, a few editors at an MOS talk page have no right to imagine that they can dictate everything to everyone else. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Collect, Dohn joe and Nyttend. Your answers are both enlightening and interesting. Not quite the same as what Dicklyon has been feeding everyone as of late... - ^theWOLFchild 14:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• How about a moratorium for a while -- a year, lets say -- on moving pages and rewriting article text? It's not really all that important an issue. Bikesheds, hobgoblins. There's so much to do here! Take a look at Wikipedia:Backlog, people, and dig in. We can meet back here in a year and cogitate together on the next step. Herostratus (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Why? A grand total of I think four editors making noise about this is not a big deal. There're about a dozen RMs running concurrently on this issue, and they're all landslides in favor of removing the comma, not on the basis of heated argument about "correct" English, but simply sourcing. Ergo, the community itself has no problem with this change, and has apparently been expecting it, based on current usage patterns in the real-world material they read. The last time there was anything like a MoS-related moratorium, it was over capitalization of common names of species, involved dozens of editors, canvassing, organized disruption of RfCs, threats of an editor strike, eight years of constant fighting, and an off-WP conflict about the real-world acceptance level of a proposed formal standard. There's nothing like that going on here. The only heat on this issue is coming from the same handful of individuals, recycling the same arguments no matter how many times they're refuted. They never bring anything new to the table, and don't have any objective facts to back them up.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• I would suggest a very simple way to determine broader community consensus... An examination of RMs over time. First, Since the goal is to find out what the community consensus on these commas actually is, we should Temporarily remove WP:Jr from MOS completely (don't say anything on the issue one way or the other). For one year, all comma related page moves should be submitted to RM. Those for and against the commas can make their case, and let the community decide on an article by article basis (Yes, this will be repetitious for both sides... But we can live with that on a temporary basis). After a year, we should have enough actual OUTCOMES to assess community consensus, and write guidance that reflects that consensus. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar, I have repeatedly asked for people to examine my actual moves, and to say if any of them of are not good. In the very few cases where such examination has happened, the community consensus was that the moves were OK. Let's stop talking like I'm doing "mass moves" and "controversial moves" and when I'm not. If I'm doing too many, tell me what rate is OK. If some are controversial, point them out. Otherwise, it seems the processes are working, with broad consensus and a few anti-MOS dissenters. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Blueboar's proposal. Essentially, that's "taking the Village Pump on the road", which defeats the purpose of the Village Pump as a commons area to determine and document community consensus. If an editor chooses not to participate at VP and other public venues, they choose to accept whatever community consensuses are established there. These venues are not hard to find within a few months of starting, and at least that much experience is needed to become minimally competent to participate.
Oppose anything that serves to kick the can down the road, costing yet more editor time, about a fricking inconsequential punctuation character that has been chosen by a few as an ideological battleground. Enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

We have already had a number of RMs. In addition to the currently pending/recently closed ones, we have this multi-RM from December, which was well attended and closed with no consensus. Dohn joe (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Dohn, that big multi-RM on the racing drivers was back before the relevant RFC that changed WP:JR to again say that no comma is preferred (like it had said 2009–2015, but this was when it said both were OK). In spite of both being OK, it was 8–7 in favor of removing the commas, since in the racing business those commas are seldom used. So the "no consensus" close has little bearing on what the current consensus is, after the big RFC that again fixed WP:JR to favor no comma, relying on SMcC's huge pile of evidence from all modern style and grammar guides. Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar, the wording we had in January already was no preference either way. Because we don't make moves based on whim – there's has to be a legit reason for the move – lack of a preference either way is not a basis for one. Historically, a small camp of editors hugely in favor of the comma got their way through WP:FAITACCOMPLI on the basis of false claims that its use was "standard" in "American English". While this has since been disproven, if MoS did not express a preference, there would be no basis to correct it at RM, not even WP:COMMONNAME (it is not a style policy). It's a moot point anyway; the RfC concluded with a consensus to favor removal of the comma; a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of half-a-dozen people at WT:MOSBIO can't overrule that and say "screw the RfC, there is no preference".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

the RfC concluded with a consensus to favor removal of the comma - which RfC was that again? - ^theWOLFchild 10:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The one everyone else understands.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you certainly seem to think so... - ^theWOLFchild 10:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I use the comma in my personal writing, but have no strong feelings about its use or non-use in Wikipedia prose or article titles, as long as both forms are searchable. Let the MOS as altered in the light of recent RfCs determine what to do about new articles, and be considered when a page move is considered anyway, but in my view wholesale page moves are disruptive, and the presence or absence of a comma, when the MOS says and practice demonstrates that both forms are acceptable, even if one is preferred, is not a sufficient reason for wholesale page moves. If such moves are to occur there should be clear consensus not just for the style rule but for the moves. DES ^(talk) 13:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but it makes zero sense to re-litigate this issue at every article that uses the comma. Community consensus has been established, and the local consensus burden should be on those who wish to deviate from the community consensus, not the other way around. The word "preferred" needs to mean something, procedurally; if not this, then what? Actually I'm very surprised to see this position from the editor who created the essay Wikipedia:Process is important back in aught 6. "Process is a fundamental tool for carrying out community consensus..." (emphasis mine) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• OK... Both sides in this round of debate are claiming that consensus supports their view, and does not support the view of there opponents. There have been so many discussions and RFCs that an outside observer can't make heads or tails of who is right. It would help if someone would list all the recent RFCs on the issue (with links). Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Closed May 2015 - contains links to 9 prior discussions. Some say this one represents community consensus because it had a higher turnout than the following RfC.

2. Closed March 2016 - Others say this one represents community consensus because consensus is not merely about numbers and a far stronger case was presented than in the above RfC.

I know of no other RfCs.

Yet others are not concerned with which RfC represents community consensus; they feel WP:IAR is all they need to use the commas, or not, depending on the personal preferences of those who show up in article talk. For them, community consensus really doesn't mean much at all. "Do I feel that the commas improve the encyclopedia? Yes, I do. Therefore IAR says I can (and should) use the commas. Full stop." (Wouldn't it be nice if, after 15 years, we could nail down some fundamental ground rules like this? Process should not be a matter of editor opinion.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. It helps to read both closures together, and treating the second as a slight clarification of the first. Given the "grandfather" statement in the second, it's definitely not an indication that we should go out and remove commas from existing articles... At best, it is an indication that we should not add commas to new articles (except in specific situations). Both closures were attempts to find middle ground, somewhere between "use commas" and "don't use commas". Blueboar (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

But the actual consensus in the discussion was not for any such compromise. It was for deprecating the commas, except where the current RS make a consistent and particular exception in the real world. Even the 2016 RfC closure got that part right. It supersedes the old RfC, which was emotion- not source-based. Whether the closer wants people to not remove the commas from extant articles is ultimately irrelevant. When content guidelines change, the content changes with it; that's just how it works, otherwise a confusing, inconsistent mess would result.

The ongoing RMs will, as usual, take the community's temperature on how it feels about renaming these articles; RM is essentially a long, slow additional RfC. So far, virtually no one cares. I'm told hundreds of articles [false claims my Thewolfchild] a bit under 100 were moved (zero by me, BTW), but less that a dozen RMs are open about it (and I can see they favor dropping the comma, consistently).

I agree that more bulk moves right this very moment are probably ill-advised, but that's not because there's a problem at the policy level, it's because there are four angry editors recycling the same failing arguments at RM after RM, and there's no reason to pour fuel on their localized fires. All of this talk of "grandfathering", whatever that was really intended to mean, is just stalling. The only purpose of stalling is to let a few individuals cool down. The way to do that is to move more slowly until tempers settle – not to make up weird "grandfather" rules that are incompatible with policy. I'll cover the "grandfathering" stuff's policy faults under separate cover.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not going to pretend I read all of the comments above and clearly I'm not super active on wikipedia anymore. I also won't say that I unreservedly support Dicklyon going around and (seemingly?) militantly enforcing the rule we decided on; I would prefer that the MOS be magically absorbed into all the articles in a somewhat organic fashion. Of course, that's not really realistic, but given that a lot of people sort of reflexively oppose the idea that we have an MOS with actual rules, it doesn't help the cause to be ham-handed in enforcing those rules. That being said, "no comma" is the rule we decided on, and it makes sense for the reasons discussed in the RFC. For me, the best reason to ditch the comma is to not have to fight about whether a second comma is required after Jr.... that gets really old really fast. There also isn't really much of a reason to include the comma (I guess the best argument is that some people really would consider omitting a comma in your name to be the same as a spelling error in your name, but I think those people both are wrong and need something better to worry about!). So, with the five hundred reservations I just listed, I support Dicklyon. AgnosticAphid talk 23:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This "grandfathering" idea is not an MoS matter, but a major new policy proposal no one's actually proposed

A little of the above disputation is about the wording in the RfC closure that reads "Grandfathering older articles, FAs, etc., is recommended". This simply isn't a MoS concern. It's an expression of the closer's opinion about desirable post-RfC comportment.

Here are some things it does not and cannot mean, because there is nothing anywhere in MoS or in any other guideline or policy that supports such notions:

• That a result to deprecate the comma means "do not add it to new pages but leave it forever in existing ones". [Actual practice: WP either prefers something or it doesn't (or has no preference, but even this RfC closed with a preference).]
• That some articles are exempt from guideline compliance just because they're older than some other articles.
• That applicability of guideline changes must be delayed based on article age.
• That guideline changes only apply to newly-created pages.

Application of any of these ideas would create terrible confusion and an inconsistent mess. It would also lead to an order of magnitude more dispute, because everyone would wikilawyer about article creation dates; which date to use in case of a merge; whether a guideline change added at date X, removed, and re-added on date Y could be said to date to X or to Y, etc., etc. No one would be able to keep it straight other than WP:NOTHERE people who spend 90% of their time looking for policy fights to get into or create instead of working on content; normal editors would be perpetually confused and WP:GAMEd-against any time they tried to make any edit complying with anything. If we'd actually had a policy that supported such any such approach, we would now have all old articles with linked and auto-formatting dates; old articles on species of birds and various other things would capitalize the common names, and newer ones would not; old articles could retain sections named "Trivia" full of junk; and so on. We have no such policy, for very good reasons.

The closer was asked by multiple parties, on his talk page, and here, and at the RM, to clarify what he meant and how he thought it might be implemented, or to remove that from the close, and he refused. The close didn't make sense, and we're all just going to have to move on. RM is demonstrating that we are in fact moving on. If GAN and FAC want to "grandfather" things, we'll find out. It's not up to MOS whether GAN/FAC seek compliance with particular line items in MOS before promoting an article, and it's not up to GAN/FAC if other editors want to seek it via direct edits or RM or whatever. This is not a bureaucracy, remember. We do have some WP:PROCESS, though.

If people actually want a WP:GRANDFATHER policy, we all know where WP:VPPRO is and how WP:PROPOSAL works. Good luck with that. Here's a draft for you, to speed you on your way: "No change to a non-WP:OFFICE content policy or guideline applies to pre-existing articles until an assessment, 6 months after the change, of its effect on new articles reaffirms consensus to keep it." Let me go get some popcorn first.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Well said, and in my experience contrary to popular "wisdom" which seems designed to promote conflict and kill efficiency. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Post-RfC cleanup of MOS:JR

MOS:JR reads:

Omission of the comma before Jr./Jr/Jnr or Sr./Sr/Snr is preferred. The comma can be used where a living subject's own preference or its use in current sources is clear and consistent. Articles should be internally consistent in either use or omission of the commas.

The presence of Articles should be internally consistent in either use or omission of the commas is directly self-contradictory, and it has to come out. We cannot remove all commas from all Jr./Sr. names in a article on the basis that one doesn't use it, if the "a living subject's own preference or its use in current sources is clear and consistent" criteria apply to someone else mentioned in the article. Likewise, we can't wrongly add commas to the names of those who don't use them and for whom sources do not support using them, on nothing but the basis that the article elsewhere mentions someone for whom that condition is actually true. Either result would be pursuit of typographic consistency to the point of insanity.

I removed the contradictory "internally consistent" sentence, but someone who has been pursuing disputes with me across a variety of topics, from punctuation to what makes a good RfA candidate, reverted it and told me to "go get consensus". Well, okay; WP:FILIBUSTERing doesn't really faze me.

Is there any rational objection to removing the self-contradictory "should be internally consistent" instruction with which our editors cannot actually comply?

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic venting

Thank goodness you bolded that entire sentence, else we would never have noticed it! - theWOLFchild 23:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC) It's standard operating procedure to boldface the RfC question or actual proposal when something is put up for discussion with a fair amount of explanatory material. Was there something else you wanted to uncivilly rant about for no reason, or did you perhaps want to go read WP:BATTLEGROUND, and try to think of something more constructive to do?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I see no problem... Since we can use piped links, a name can appear with a comma in one article, and without a comma in a different article. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Blueboar and disagree with SMcCandlish here. Piped links allow internal consistency on this matter, and within-article consistency is a virtue, although not an overriding one. DES ^(talk) 13:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not at all a virtue when it forces changing names directly against the very rationale for any of the names being variant from the preferred default to begin with, and against the sources! That's backwards reasoning. It's exactly the same thing as saying "a) We should hyphenate compound adjectives, but b) with the sole exception of not doing so in the title of a published work that doesn't do it (e.g. "The Long Awaited Stranger"); however c) in any article in which there is such a title, remove hyphens from every single compound modifier, despite this being against the majority of reliable sources on English-language writing norms." We would never do that in a million years, so why on earth would we do something like that in this case? Shall we next say that in any article in which "iPod" or "Deadmau5" appears that all wild and wacky trademark stylization must be accepted without question? I think you're forgetting that the rationale for allowing an occasional exception for comma-Jr. was for the rare case that it's nearly universally applied to (and used by) a specific individual.

    If we were to really value paragraph-by-paragraph consistency above all else, then we would eliminate that exception, and also eliminate various parallel exceptions like for trademarks beginning with lowercase, names with number-for-letter substitutions, and other oddities that we accept when the sources tell us everyone else does for specific instances (exactly as we are for comma-Jr.). We can't have it both ways. Either we're allowing flexibility to follow the sources, or we're rigidly imposing a house style for absolute consistency. We can't make it rigid when editor A is going to pitch a fit when it's not consistent enough, then make it flexible when editor B is going to fight forever because they can't get the variance they want. That way lies never-ending, tendentious, style-warring madness, like piping [[Deadmau5|Deadmaus]] and squabbling about that in a zillion article-by-article disputes. As always, we need a consistent rule that is a guideline not a law, and allows for exceptions that RS tell us are exceptions, not for whim-based exceptions, and is otherwise followed as a best practice and is reliable upon in RfCs, RMs, GAN, FAC, etc. Otherwise we would not have developed a style manual at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• DES, you wrote: "within-article consistency is a virtue, although not an overriding one" (my italics). Are you sure? Take a look at the start of the MOS: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article". It is a governing feature of so much of our stylistic choices. Tony (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

And yet SMc seeks to remove the very same premise from WP:JR, just a few paragraphs down... - ^theWOLFchild 14:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

My view is that within-article consistency is indeed a virtue, but there may be other reasons that override it in specific cases. SMcCandlish argues above that this is such a case. He may be correct. His arguments in his reply to me are more through, and to me more persuasive, than his original reductio-ad-absurdum argument, which I thought was unpersuasive. I don't think that the presence or absence of the comma in such name is a really vital matter, I wouldn't have objected to guidance that said "Do whatever you like, as long as you don't edit-war and particularly don't page-move war over it". Nor would I object to establishing a single house style on this issue, one way or the other. DES ^(talk) 16:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree there's a potential contradiction here. If we make an article that's partly commaless, but we refer to a name that we agree should use a comma, it's not obvious what this provision suggests we do. However, I'm not inclined to argue about it until we have a definite case to discuss. We don't even have a single example yet of where the comma would be preferred, or an article where doing something about that would cause an inconsistency. When we have one, we can talk about how to fix it, and document the decision. Dicklyon (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the latest change of position of DES as stated above, I'll go along and favor dealing with this in the way that SMcCandlish proposed, which is to remove the extra statement of consistency that seems to override the exception of including a comma when justified. Dicklyon (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is the even more overriding if not-spelled-out principle of use the style that is appropriate for the contextual item in question. We would not apply the general principle to be consistent within the article to force the capitalization of k.d. lang, just because Billy Bragg is capitalized in the same paragraph, after agonizingly coming to the conclusion that k. d. lang is a rare special exception – its own micro-context. Way more to the point, we would never, ever say "if you're going to use 'k.d. lang', then in the same article you must use 'billy bragg', and 'wisconsin' and the lord of the rings. I really don't think it's a reductio ad absurdum; it's a directly parallel case. If we're generalizing from the IDENTITY and ABOUTSELF principle that if someone says they're "k.d. lang" or "Deadmau5" or that their product is an "iPod" – or their name is darned well "..., Jr." with a comma – and the real world goes along with them, then these are all micro-contextual exceptions that don't affect the style of surrounding content and are not overridden by it, either. Maybe we should say something like that specifically toward the top of MOS. It might actually forestall a lot of pointless future debates over such trivia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I made an edit to the consistency-within-article sentence that I think captures the intent. Please review. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course you did. Heaven forbid you actually wait until the community has discussed how a guideline should be written and then have any changes implemented by consensus.
sigh... Just another day here at Dickipedia... - ^theWOLFchild 23:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It's entirely normal to try implementing something and seeing if it sticks, if the problem is clear and the solution is simple. This is a wiki not a government agency, after all. How many more snide, baiting comments should we expect from you on this page today? Two back-to-back seems like more than enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the irony (is that number 3?) It's one thing to "try implementing something"... that's what WP:BOLD is about. But the way you guys persistently try to cram your own personal preferences down everyone's throat, with the gaming of the system, the bah-zillion page moves, the edit-warring, the disingenuous and misleading comments, the constant re-writing of guidelines to suit your purposes, the giant walls of text on every discussion to steer it off the rails or simply bore people into submission... that is not collaboration. And it's no way to build and maintain an encyclopaedia. - ^theWOLFchild 06:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Projection.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd actually missed this, but here's a superb example of why this sentence has to go: See thread at Talk:USS Frank E. Petersen Jr.#Requested move 7 April 2016 for <ahem> someone in this discussion WP:GAMING the wording here as an excuse to falsify the titles of sources to look like they're using the comma syntax when they're not, as a really WP:LAME attempt to support an RM to move the page title to have a comma in it. Things like this are why it is important we do not create loopholes in WP:P&G pages, and do close them swiftly and firmly when they're found.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh the hypocrisy (is that number 4?) This whole comma debacle has been going on for over a year, with multiple RfCs, RM-discussions, ANIs, debates and complaints with still no consensus in sight and it has your mucky paw prints all over it. You've had your say, ad nauseum, and what you want and why you want it is clear, but the way you're going about is disruptive. What would be best for the project is if you guys took a step back and allowed the community to come to an organic resolution on this by consensus, without your constant interference. Failing that, then ArbCom can always step in and sort it out. Don't think that you're making anything better here with all this, because you're not. - ^theWOLFchild 06:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Read: "I got caught falsifying sourcing to try to WP:WIN a WP:LAME editwar, so after numerous blocks and warnings for editwarring and incivility, I'm going to hand-wave with unsupported aspersion-casting and personal attacks, and suggest going to ArbCom, who would remove me from the project indefinitely." Whatever you say, man. [Diffs: [28], [29]]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Projection. - ^theWOLFchild 09:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent RfC versus old RfCs

At this point, we have one RfC that said both styles are acceptable, and requiring consistency within an article; one RfC that said a second comma is required if the first one is used; and one RfC saying that no comma is preferred. We don't have any consensus beyond that. The MOS should say no more and no less than what has come out the RfCs. Dohn joe (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

New RFC with good sourcing, and equally advertised, trumps old RfCs with poor sourcing. Consensus can change and it did. By your reasoning we would not bother to ever have RfCs again except for all-new issues, because new RfCs on the same issue wouldn't matter, only the old ones would.

Anyway, I made the wording better match the close (the BLP thing is now given as a statistical likelihood, not a prerequisite). Shouldn't that resolve the issue now?

The "grandfathering" stuff in Drmies's close is up to GAN and FAC; it's not an MoS matter. We can't magically invent a new "old articles are somehow exempt from guideline compliance" policy out of thin air. That would be bedlam, if anyone ever took it seriously. All that can happen is that the volunteers who do GA/FA reviews can decide not to demand compliance with a particular part of a particular guideline as a condition of passing the article or not. And they've already always done that. That's out of MoS's hands, and more power to them. Does anyone here really care whether a common is in Martin Luther King, Jr. so much that they would deny it promotion? Didn't think so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether Dohn joe has even read the RFC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_125#RfC:_Amending_MOS:JR_on_comma_usage, or the collected research on modern style and grammar guides on this issue that you collected at Talk:Comma#In_English:_Commas_used_with_.22Jr.5B..5D.22_and_.22Sr.5B..5D.22. These data were compelling enough that RGloucester changed his position and opened an RFC, and Randy Kryn changed his position (and wrote "SMcCandlish's research on updated and current usage puts this baby to bed."), and most others who previously argued for commas being OK just stayed away. If Dohn joe had come to that RFC, what argument might he have offered? Just that it's not what we decided a year ago? Maybe he should read it and report back. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Haven't changed my position much, just that some pages should be grandfathered and others, like RFK Jr., are personal choices of living persons. Exceptions are the spice of life. Randy Kryn, Jr. 18:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, good. But in the previous RFC you very clearly opposed saying that we prefer no comma; that's all I meant. Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It's really pretty simple. Look at any "Jr." in Google Books, and you'll find the comma 30-60% of the time. This is standard, acceptable, modern usage no matter how you slice it. Claims that the comma is no longer used, or "obsolete" as SMC has done elsewhere, are not founded in reality. WP should not deprecate a style that is perfectly acceptable. Doing so, in fact, is harmful to WP, as it lowers morale of editors who see their perfectly correct contributions reverted. Dohn joe (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is saying it's not "acceptable usage" and nobody is getting contributions reverted because they used a comma. It's just that WP has a house style, like most other publishers, and it's generally considered a good thing to edit toward compliance with house style. And we chose our house style to be in agreement with the vast majority of modern guides and publishers, respecting the very good reasons that the guides cite. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

What Dohn joe means by "acceptable usage" is MOS lead section's "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason", but this is a summary of WP:ENGVAR, and obviously means acceptable under the MoS, as arbitrary variations WP that neither prefers nor deprecates. It does not mean "acceptable to someone somewhere" or we would have no MoS, since just about any typographical atrocity can be found in print somewhere. It's the "maybe this can be wikilawyered to seem like an ENGVAR issue" angle that's already been refuted at the RfC and at all the RMs, so this is just rehash. It's a common tactic (it was DF24's favorite in trying to go after LQ), so the wording probably needs to be tightened to put an end to the fallacies and confusions. There is no strong national tie with comma-Jr, and the distinction between the two usages is not arbitrary and hasn't been in the real world since the mid 1990s – one is proven to be strongly preferred (and not on a nationalist basis).

Dohn joe's pseudo-stats would not be valid even if they were made precise, because a Google Books search just coughs up matches for every book in the GBooks database (based on number of times the exact search phrase appears, from what I can determine, though paid placement by publishers is also rumored), and is not limited to current sources.

It's much more useful to use Google News for this, which only provides hits from the 4 years or so, mostly just the last year, unless you force it to do otherwise. Let's take some real cases, and produce real statistics (see next thread).
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not an ENGVAR issue, at all - and where you got the notion that MOS's lead section is limited to ENGVAR situations I don't know. Neither is this trying to champion some obscure, quirky usage. This is simply an effort to allow editors to use accepted, mainstream style. And real cases show that using the comma is an accepted, mainstream style - see below.... Dohn joe (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Demonstration of obsolescence even in American publications

Google News search on "Ed Begley, Jr." (in quotes, and with the comma just for kicks) [30] Include &gl=us parameter to limit results to US sources, to test (yet again) the claim that American sources prefer the comma. Count every single source, once each, that appears on first dozen pages of results, sorted by usage, and only counting occurrence(s) visible in search results (no following links and digging around).

Key: WC = with comma; NC = no comma; ?? = both in same source; SO = spelled-out "Junior"; NJ: no-Jr (i.e. just "Ed Begley")

     1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12  totals
-----------------------------------------------
WC:  5  8  7  2  3  4  1  2  5  2  3  2     44
NC: 19 13 15 19 17 14 17 14 10 13 11 13    175
??:  2           1     1                     4
SO:              1                           1
NJ:           1     1                        2

Result: 80% preference for no-comma over with-comma.

Repeat same test, for "Robert F. Kennedy, Jr." [31]

     1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12  totals
-----------------------------------------------
WC:  5  1  0  4  2  2  2  6  2  1  2  6     33
NC: 17 21 20 17 23 19 17 15 18 14 16 10    207
??:     2     3        2                     7
SO:                                          0
NJ:           1     2  1     2  1            7
Plus 1 case of no-junior in headline, no-comma in text.

Result: 86% preference for no-comma over with-comma.

The slight difference between the two results is normal statistical variation in a sample this size.

Notes: "Jr" with no dot is virtually unknown in American publications, even in headlines. Of those that were inconsistent on comma-or-not, there was no consistent pattern to the inconsistency, e.g. "use comma in prose but not headline" or vice versa; it was just random. One minor exception that that in 3 cases I saw sources use comma in text but "RFK Jr." (the abbreviation I mean) in headline (I counted these in the "??" row). "Jnr[.]", "Jun." and other variants did not occur in the Americans sources. There's no point trying to do a search like this on non-US sources, since the comma is even less common in British, etc., sources.

So, 14-20% survival of the comma usage in current American sources means "this is obsolete, and a few publishers just haven't caught up"; it's like NYT not dropping "Web site" in favor of 'website' until 2015.

PS: This is consistent with results in the RfC discussion itself, where I proved that the comma usage for Martin Luther King Jr, supposedly the poster-child for using the comma, showed that it's not the majority usage any longer in current publishing.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Demonstration of widespread current usage of the comma

SMC has a weird definition of "obsolete." It should be obvious that all kinds of current publications continue to use the comma. Seriously - go to Google Books. Search for 21st century books with an available preview. Search for particular names:

• Ed Begley Jr."
• "Desi Arnaz Jr."
• "Robert F. Kennedy Jr."
• "Ken Griffey Jr."

Search generic names:

• "Smith Jr."
• "Johnson Jr."
• "Williams Jr."
• "Brown Jr."

Search any name with Jr. and you will find between 35-60% usage of the comma - with an average of around 40%. 40% is acceptable, mainstream, proper, whatever you want to call it. A few determined WP editors want to essentially ban a mainstream style. This is bad for WP. Dohn joe (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if that's true, which I think it's not for most names based on my own counts of books, it's odd to see you arguing that we should follow the minority of sources. You've usually argued to follow the majority of sources; both are at odds with us having our own manual of style to follow. Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Update on implementation progress

Continuing at an average of about 3 comma removals per day, I'm up to nearly a hundred now over the last month or so. No new pushback since Thewolfchild, and his noise settled down after a number of warnings from admins and he decided to take a wikibreak.

There are still a few older RM discussions open, however. In its fourth week for unknown reasons, Talk:Harry K. Daghlian Jr.#Requested move 20 March 2016 still has very thin participation, as K. Daghlian Jr.&diff=715296433&oldid=715285096 Dohn joe noted there after I posted the fact that all the RM precedents agree with the RFC and WP:JR. It would be a pain for progress if any such RM ever closed as "no consensus" due to thin participation. So far it hasn't happened—we keep re-affirming the consensus that we're better off without the commas, so I'll keep moving along, slowly, as I continue to also do moves to fix errors with dashes, case, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's the status of related RM discussions since the RFC and JR rewrite:

Closed in favor of following the preference expressed in WP:JR

• Talk:Andrew L. Lewis Jr.#Requested move 04 April 2016
• Talk:Robert Downey Jr.#Requested move 04 April 2016
• Talk:Feodor Chaliapin Jr.#Requested move 2 April 2016
• Talk:Benjamin O. Davis Sr.#Requested move 2 April 2016
• Talk:Larry Mullen Jr.#Requested move 20 March 2016
• Talk:Desi Arnaz Jr.#Requested move 20 March 2016
• Talk:Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.#Requested move 2 April 2016
• Talk:USS Frank E. Petersen Jr.#Requested move 7 April 2016

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs) 17:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've lacked the energy to hunt down all of these. If the obstructionism continues, it would be useful to have a page in your user space to track it. Or mine, it wouldn't matter to me as long as I don't have to be the main person maintaining it. Damn shame that a few people make something like that necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It will probably all blow over; and it will be here if we need to trot it out. Dicklyon (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned on one of those talkpages, these RMs all involve the same eight or so !voters (about five anti-comma and three pro-choice), so I don't know how valuable they would be going forward. And yes, it will probably resolve at some point, at least to a degree (see LQ and USPLACE for "resolved" issues that crop up perennially). It's an unnecessarily editor-unfriendly rule and a waste of resources - we will now be "fixing" perfectly well written articles. But it's not going to cripple WP or anything, I guess. Dohn joe (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

More closed in favor of following the guidance of the MOS

• Talk:Harry K. Daghlian Jr.#Requested move 20 March 2016 finally closed, again in favor of the recommendation of the MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Talk:Dale Earnhardt, Jr.#Requested move 17 April 2016 – Last four racers fixed, over Dohn joe's objection that "it ain't broke". Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Talk:Alan Hale, Sr.#Requested move 18 April 2016 – a technical request challenged by George Ho, though he took no position on it.
• Talk:Barnett McFee Clinedinst Jr.#Requested move 24 April 2016 – opened by Richard Arthur Norton in response to one of my recent moves.
• Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. Day#Requested move 22 April 2016 – opened by me because I knew treating is as uncontroversial wouldn't fly with Randy Kryn. Another editor notified a massive number of wikiprojects to comment; it will be interesting to see what they think (answer: not much).
• Talk:Harry Connick Jr.#Requested move 04 May 2016 – Calidum asserted "Connick always includes the comma in his name, which can be seen on his website and on album covers" but the evidence showed and consensus agreed was that this was not the case.
• Talk:Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.#Requested move 6 April 2016 – Consensus was to move 4 Kennedy articles to comma-free form per WP:JR, after 5 weeks of waiting.
• Talk:Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Library#Requested move 4 May 2016 – Consensus was to follow WP:JR in spite of the sign on the building; many sources agree.
• Talk:Dwight L. Bush Sr.#Requested move 4 May 2016 – By the time I noticed this one, it was relisted, unopposed, so I went ahead and closed it.
• Talk:Barack Obama Sr.#Requested move 13 May 2016 – Opposite proposed by George Ho, unanimous in favor of following WP:JR
• Talk:Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.#Requested move 13 May 2016 – Proposed by George Ho, unanimous in favor of following WP:JR
• Talk:Roy Simmons, Jr.#Requested move 13 May 2016 – Proposed by George Ho, unanimous in favor of following WP:JR
• Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr.#Requested move 13 May 2016 – Proposed by George Ho, unanimous in favor of following WP:JR

Still no exceptions have been identified (or even credibly proposed besides RFK Jr.).

I've removed a bunch more commas; up to near 500 now, with very little pushback. Reviews of my work would be appreciated, in case I've done anything wrong. Mandruss has also recently been doing a lot of work in this area, and a few other editors including the occasional IP have helped, too. It appears to be going smoothly, without controversy, except where Randy Kryn and Martin Luther King are involved. Dicklyon (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hiccups

A comma before Jr. or Sr. is like a hiccup – it leaves you wondering if and when the next one will come. We have some titles with isolated hiccups between parts, like in Robert N. C. Nix, Sr. Federal Building. I tried fixing this per the preference expressed in WP:JR, but my move got reverted by Beyond My Ken, with edit summary "The GSA lists it with a comma, see http://www.gsa.gov/portal/ext/html/site/hb/category/25431/actionParameter/exploreByBuilding/buildingId/0813." [32]. Now, for this building, the law that named it, and probably most sources, used the 2-comma version (and sometimes the longer name with "and United States Post Office"). But the GSA and some sources do use the 1-comma non-grammatical version, sometimes. However, the GSA and other sources also use the no-comma version, as here. And sometimes there's a space in "N. C." and sometimes not. Given all the flexibility that government and other sources show, I don't think it would be a stretch at all for us to use wikipedia's own house style on the comma this one, as we do on the space in the initials. Yes? Dicklyon (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The GSA is the owner of the building (as it is of all Federal buildings), and that's what they call it, therefore that's what we should call it. Wikistyle should never prevail over the real-world name of something, and the GSA is about as real as you can get. Other than that statement, I'm not getting involved in this typically loopy Wikidiscussion. BMK (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

My link above showed that they also call it by the no-comma name. Dicklyon (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

After BMK cut off conversation here, and here, I went ahead and moved it back to the no-comma form, which the GSA also uses. BMK claims to have moved it "from a name they do not use"; this is not true. So I went ahead and moved it per the preference of WP:JR again, and marked the redirect as R from modification so he won't move it back as threatened. And he can't request a revert as undiscussed move after cutting off discussion with a falsehood, I presume, so this is settled. Dicklyon (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Progress

In the last few days I fixed comma-imbalanced disambiguators such as "(Ray Parker, Jr. album)" and "(Hank Williams, Jr. album)" and "(Harry Connick, Jr. album)" and and "Grover Washington, Jr. song)" and "(Sammy Davis, Jr. song)", along with corresponding artist names, for all such things that I could find. Also categories such as:

• Category:Sammy Davis, Jr. live albums
• Category:Phineas Newborn, Jr. albums
• Category:Hank Williams, Jr. songs
• Category:Hank Williams, Jr. albums
• Category:Hank Williams, Jr. compilation albums
• Category:Hank Williams, Jr. live albums
• Category:Sammy Davis, Jr. albums
• Category:Harry Connick, Jr. albums
• Category:Harry Connick, Jr. video albums

which now all have "soft redirects" to the moved category name without comma. I'm also editing and moving contained and related articles, templates, etc. Everything is going over smoothly, except that Calidum reverted all the Harry Connick Jr.-related moves, and in the process we got a new RM discussion at Talk:Harry_Connick_Jr.#Requested_move_04_May_2016. There's also another imbalanced-comma fix being challenged by Randy Kryn at Talk:Dr._Martin_Luther_King_Jr._Library#Requested_move_4_May_2016. Nothing new at these, relative to the long list of precedents. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

About 110 of these old empty cats with commas have now been deleted. Dicklyon (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

About done

All WP:JR-related RM discussions have closed, all upholding the no-comma preference:

• Talk:Andrew L. Lewis Jr.#Requested move 04 April 2016
• Talk:Robert Downey Jr.#Requested move 04 April 2016
• Talk:Feodor Chaliapin Jr.#Requested move 2 April 2016
• Talk:Benjamin O. Davis Sr.#Requested move 2 April 2016
• Talk:Larry Mullen Jr.#Requested move 20 March 2016
• Talk:Desi Arnaz Jr.#Requested move 20 March 2016
• Talk:Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr.#Requested move 2 April 2016
• Talk:USS Frank E. Petersen Jr.#Requested move 7 April 2016
• Talk:Harry K. Daghlian Jr.#Requested move 20 March 2016
• Talk:Dale Earnhardt Jr.#Requested move 17 April 2016
• Talk:Alan Hale Sr.#Requested move 18 April 2016
• Talk:Barnett McFee Clinedinst Jr.#Requested move 24 April 2016
• Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. Day#Requested move 22 April 2016
• Talk:Harry Connick Jr.#Requested move 04 May 2016
• Talk:Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.#Requested move 6 April 2016
• Talk:Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Library#Requested move 4 May 2016
• Talk:Dwight L. Bush Sr.#Requested move 4 May 2016
• Talk:Barack Obama Sr.#Requested move 13 May 2016
• Talk:Douglas Fairbanks Jr.#Requested move 13 May 2016
• Talk:Roy Simmons Jr.#Requested move 13 May 2016
• Talk:Samuel Goldwyn Jr.#Requested move 13 May 2016
• Talk:John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway#Requested move 15 May 2016

There are still two open issues re implementation:

• Dealing with User:Randy Kryn and his hangups about the Martin Luther King, Jr. comma.
• Revisiting the personal preference clause, since we find no examples of where it applies and it just causes a lot of trouble.

I'm am not in a rush on either, but stand ready to move forward when people are ready. Dicklyon (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the option we mulled over will be the best. If the name doesn't become Martin Luther King, with no comma or Jr.'s in sight, soon it will be something like 'Dr Martin Luther King Jr' as those pesky "periods" will give way to the European style "no periods" (and maybe should, has a discussion taken place?). Many of the articles above, the wholesale moves, are sad in that they have changed the names of many long-standing articles and the people they represent, and I'm sure I don't stand alone in that thought. Randy Kryn 15:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Randy, I'm wondering if you do stand alone on that thought, or are there others who think that the inclusion or omission of a comma before Jr. changes the name of a person, or of a place. Yes, we have changed the "names of many long-standing articles" if by "name" you mean to include punctuation, but changed the names of the people they represent? Hard to imagine. Why does the lack of comma make you sad? Were you sad in the '60s when magazines printed "Martin Luther King Jr."? I doubt it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's Randy_Kryn and Johnbod, so a "diumvirate" of sadness that WP will be following the same usage as most of the rest of the modern, English-language publishing world. This is not appreciably distinguishable in any way from wringing one's hands in anxiety about the loss of the circumflex over the "o" in "role" [33], pining away in tears that "today" and "tomorrow" are no longer spelled with hyphens [34], or bemoaning the fact that "cooperate" (or "co-operate", per ENGVAR) is no longer spelled "coöperate" by much of anyone [35]. All of these changes happened within living memory (barely, in the case of to-morrow → tomorrow), and virtually no one cares to see them undone. (I agree with the New Yorker piece that using the diaeresis on words that are often mispronounced wouldn't hurt, e.g. mistaking of the zoo- and noo- as single syllables each in zoological and nootropic. But it's not something I'd push on Wikipedia.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Randy is asking that we go ahead an do an RM on the base name Martin Luther King, Jr., so we should probably do that soon. See open RM discussions that he opposes at Talk:Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.,_National_Historic_Site#Requested_move_28_June_2016 and Talk:Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Avenue#Requested_move_01_July_2016. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Two more have now closed in favor of following the advice of the MOS, with only Randy Kryn objecting.

• Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site#Requested move 28 June 2016
• Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue#Requested move 01 July 2016

Finally done:

• Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.#Requested move 10 July 2016

Please take more care in implementing this change

I just had to repair two broken links in Paul Tibbets, a featured article. [36] These changes were not made properly; new redirects were not created, and red links resulted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That would seem to have been a WP:RM admin error; when a regular user moves a page, a {{Redr|R from move}} redirect is auto-created by the system. So, I would talk this concern to WT:RM.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this problem was related to the comma styling issue at all. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I see my error; I editted that article and didn't notice the redlinks I created. This was an odd case in that a redirect with comma was being used to an artice without Jr. I do usually watch for redlink creation, but missed those. Very sorry. Dicklyon (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about applicability of new "Jr." guideline to non-biographical article titles

I have opened a discussion about the applicability of MOS:JR to the titles of non-biographical articles at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Question about applicability of MOS:JR to non-biographical article titles. Any input from editors who follow this page would be much appreciated. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Post-nominal letters

I have removed "Use a comma between the name and first (or only) post-nominal; it is not necessary to use commas between additional post-nominals." I have no idea who added this, but it is absolute and complete drivel. Who on earth uses a comma first off and then doesn't divide each post-nominal thereafter with a comma? I have never, ever seen it done and it looks appalling. Post-nominals, as retained on Wikipedia (i.e. not degrees), are mostly used in British and Commonwealth countries, and this is most certainly not what we do. We use all commas or no commas, but not this ridiculous mixture of both. Seems to have been an undiscussed, unilateral edit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thats how it is commonly written in some areas, I see hundreds of formal names/titles a week and it appears often in that format. Admittedly I see the comma version more. It is how the template outputs it (if you use the template) if you look at the section below. (I have no particular pref, but if the standard is to use commas, the template needs to be altered.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have done so, as this change was undiscussed. I'm not sure where you're looking, but in my experience it's all commas or no commas. Anything else looks plain weird. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be a misguided application of the Oxford Calendar's style - Post-noms from the same institution should be separated by a space, with commas for different institutions/titles. Post-nominal letters has a breakdown. "A Postgraduate Diploma is indicated by the post-nominals PgDip. Someone with a BA, MA and postgraduate diploma could write "BA PgDip MA"[38] or (following the Oxford Calendar's style) "BA MA PgDip"." and "Someone with a BSc from Cardiff, an MSc from London and a PhD from Cardiff could write "BSc PhD Card, MSc Lond", or "BSc Card, MSc Lond, PhD Card"; alternatively they could choose to omit the lower degrees and simply write "PhD Card"." - I see a lot of personal documents from graduates, which would probably explain why I am seeing people rigidly following the guide. Of course it doesn't help that in the examples at post-nominal they do not even consistantly follow the same style... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly misguided. No official source should do it. But, of course, we don't include degrees as postnoms on Wikipedia anyway. No reliable source would write "John Smith, CBE DSO MC". It would be "John Smith, CBE, DSO, MC" or "John Smith CBE DSO MC", either of which is acceptable. Now, unfortunately, we seem to have some editors slavishly following the MOS before I removed this section. How anybody would ever think this was correct I have no idea. The other issue, of course, is that the postnoms template insists on defaulting to small caps. Also ridiculous. Also almost never done in genuine sources. But unfortunately closely guarded by those who wrote the template, who will accept no change to it. This too is being followed slavishly by some editors, who insist on removing the 100% size added by those of us who actually do know something about the British honours system and correct style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no "correct" style. There are different styles, all as "correct" as each other. It is merely a personal/institutional choice. DrKay (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find almost every reputable source uses full-sized post-nominals, which makes it a nonsense for us to default to another size, since our usual policy in all things is to use common usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

From some brief digging the template does support commas, it appears it does not do it as standard because nowhere else (including our own article on the subject) can agree on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can add commas and you can add 100%, but they're not the default and some editors delete them if they're added to a template within an article. I would agree that's there's no standard usage of commas (all commas or no commas, as I said), but there certainly is as far as font size is concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You've been banging on about this for years, but the fact is, you're the only one. Nobody else seems that bothered, and there's nothing wrong with having them at a smaller size, for the reasons that were given in the previous discussions on this subject. DrKay (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been "banging on about this for years" because the small caps are bloody ridiculous, defaulting to them in a template we didn't even need in the first place is even more bloody ridiculous, and editors using that template to justify changing large caps to small caps is beyond ridiculous. I do a lot of work on British biographies and continually having to change postnoms to the form that's actually used in real life is exceptionally annoying. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I've never seen post-nominal letters preceded by a comma without being separated by commas (outside of Wikipedia, that is). That should probably be changed. Graham (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Concur it should be no commas or all-commas. All-commas is preferable, being much more clearly understood.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

This MOS deals only with biographies, but it is considered an authority for all articles. Martin Luther King Jr. is quite commonly referred to as "Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.", due to his Ph.D. Is it the policy of Wikipedia that we should only refer to him as "Martin Luther King Jr." or "King" in articles beside his biography? (Excepting, I assume, quotations). Felsic2 (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Pinging @Graham11:, who inspired this question. Felsic2 (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Naturally quotations are excepted, but otherwise, I see no reason why WP:DOCTOR wouldn't apply, especially as the lead of this guideline makes clear that it applies not only to biographies but also to "biographical information in other articles". Graham (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It just sounds odd, but I guess that isn't reason enough to object. Carry on!

(FYI when I saw this edit pop up on my watchlist I thought you might be removing "Dr." as in "Drive". [37] Sure enough, there's a " Dr. Martin Luther King Drive". Anyway, it caught me eye and started me thinking). Felsic2 (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, MLK is not a magical exception to MOS:DOCTOR. Otherwise we'd be calling him "Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.", and if he'd held a professorship and been knighted, we'd be calling him "Rev. Sir Dr. Prof. Martin Luther King Jr." There are actually people in the world who have more prenominals than that that, plus loads of postnominals. We omit these things for real reasons. (Some others are that they are a WP:NPOV problem, and they can often be misleading – there's a big difference between someone with a proper doctorate, someone who received an honorary degree, and someone who used a mail-order degree mill, etc.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be strictly accurate, only British and Commonwealth citizens get to be referred to as "Sir" after receiving knighthoods - it's strictly honorary for Americans. So Colin Powell isn't "General Sir Colin Luther Powell, K.C.B.", even though he is an honorary Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath. </pedant> john k (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure; it was just a "what-if" to illustrate the point. I my alternate universe scenario, maybe MLK had dual citizenship. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Knights

I recently made this edit to add "Sir" before Angus Houston's name as he has been knighted. I was reverted by Abraham, B.S. as "he wasn't a knight at this time". I'd welcome advice on whether titles like Sir should be included in descriptions of actions occurring before an individual is knighted as MOS:HONORIFIC does not answer my question, as far as I can see. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

They usually aren't in my experience. It is standard practice for example to say "In 1999, she met Senator Obama" or "In 1999, she met Barack Obama, the future president" rather than "In 1999, she met President Obama". Similarly, we don't say things like "The Earl of Guilford was prime minister in 1778"; we use the contemporaneous name, Lord North. See the related guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Changed names. DrKay (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. Someone isn't knighted until they're knighted. Use their rank and title as it was at the time, not as it later became. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Two stage names

What happens when a person has a two-names stage name, for example Luis Miguel (born Luis Miguel Gallego Basteri) or Juan Gabriel (born Alberto Aguilera Valadez). I'm asking this because it first caught my attention when Romance (Luis Miguel album) was a TFA back in November. At Talk:Romance (Luis Miguel album)#"Miguel" I asked this, and I was pointed that it was a SURNAMES guide. I couldn't reply on time so I let it be, but today I was curious again with the article about Juan Gabriel, as in some parts "Gabriel" alone is used. In both cases they are known as "Luis Miguel" and "Juan Gabriel", not "Miguel" nor "Gabriel" (consult most sources and they will use both names and not one--not even "Luis" or "Juan" alone). So my question is, should these cases use the "last name" of their stage names when referring to them, or they should use their full stage name? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: It's been nearly a month since you've posted this and no one has commented. I think you should start a RFC for this. Erick (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

A slight expansion of MOS:JR

Passed

 – and implemented.[38] ―Mandruss ☎ 01:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

First, this is not about the comma-before-Jr controversy, per se, although some of it follows logically from that part of MOS:JR. Further, this does not affect article titles.

There are two questions that I think should be addressed at MOS:JR:

1. Doe Jr., John or Doe, John Jr. ? (MOS:JR logically precludes Doe, Jr., John and Doe, John, Jr., with local exceptions)
2. When the given name is omitted, Doe or Doe Jr. ? (MOS:JR logically precludes Doe, Jr., with local exceptions)

I feel the answers to both questions follow from the answer to this question: Does the Jr. (as well as Sr. and III) modify the surname, or the given name?

I have no easy access to hardcopy style guides, and I'm too ignorant to find those that are online, so perhaps someone else could see what they say. With any luck, there isn't wide disagreement between the style guides on this.

I do find some other web guidance that says the modifier suffix disambiguates the given name, not the surname, despite its position in a full name of the form First Last Jr.. And that is what makes sense to me. The son generally has the same surname as the father, and he is called Jr. when his given name is the same as his father's. Therefore I'm proposing the addition to MOS:JR of language similar to the following:

When the surname is shown first, the suffix follows the given name, as Kennedy, John F. Jr. When the given name is omitted, omit the suffix—Kennedy, not Kennedy Jr.—except where the context requires disambiguation.

Aside from the comma before the modifier suffix, which is actually a completely separate issue, I don't see the need for local leeway on these two questions. It would make no sense to deviate on these matters of form on the basis of a perceived "preference" by the subject. As for reliable sources, their treatment of a specific individual, as to these two questions, generally comes from their own manuals of style, not from anything specific to that individual. So, likewise, we don't need discussion at Talk:John F. Kennedy Jr. about whether reliable sources prefer Kennedy, John F. Jr. or Kennedy Jr., John F.. Thus, I feel this change should prevent far more battleground than it creates. While MOS, and guidelines in general, do not usually indicate "amount of leeway", I think an informal consensus in this discussion should be enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

In the DEFAULTSORT spec, the Jr; usually follows the given name, as {{DEFAULTSORT:Davis, Sammy Jr.}}. The ones that aren't like this, I've been fixing. Good idea to put it into the guidelines, I agree. But omitting the Jr. after the surname really depends on whether or not the meaning is clear without it; sometimes it's used contrastively vs Sr. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hence, "except where the context requires disambiguation". ―Mandruss ☎ 05:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, you did say that already. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone opposes as "a solution in search of a problem", I can produce a couple of examples that I've run across in the past couple of days, and I haven't been paying much attention to the questions prior to that. I simply omitted that for the sake of brevity, per TL;DR. Bear in mind that this should affect citations, not just body text, as |author=Kennedy, John F. Jr. versus |author=Kennedy Jr., John F.. That's real, and significant. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree; I've seen and fixed a bunch of "last = Kennedy, Sr." type cites. But mostly I've overlooked them. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

In my proposed text, I am changing the term "modifier" to the more correct term "suffix", per Suffix (name). For conciseness, the guideline should be updated to briefly define what the term means in this context, and then use it instead of phrases such as "Jr. / Jr / Jnr or Sr. / Sr / Snr"; but that issue is separate from this proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I find that a number of DEFAULTSORT specs follow the name with 1 and 2, or 01 and 02, presumably to get Sr. alphabetized before Jr. Not very consistent, though. Seems like just using Jr and Sr, and letting Jr. come before Sr., is more normal, and we ought to just accept it as standard or recommended practice. Is it worth saying so in the guideline? Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not this guideline imo. As for the DEFAULTSORT guideline (wherever that is), it seems a bit creepy. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

!Voting as to whether to add the text in the blue-green box above to MOS:JR. Support for "do that", Oppose for "don't do that". As proposer, I don't consider my comments about "amount of leeway" to be part of this Survey, but rather just separate musing with no other interest, and I expect that question would remain unaddressed for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Oppose the two-comma alternative discussed below, due to the lack of convincing arguments given for it to date. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support as it agrees with typical usage, and what I have been moving toward for consistency. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support as this indeed follows standard English usage. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, can you please reword or summarize whatever this survey is on in clear language at the start of this 'Survey' section. Thanks. Randy Kryn 4:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is to add the text in the box the MOS guideline section: "When the surname is shown first, the suffix follows the given name, as Kennedy, John F. Jr. When the given name is omitted, omit the suffix—Kennedy, not Kennedy Jr.—except where the context requires disambiguation." I suggest we add something to say that this applies also in a DEFAULTSORT spec. Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose in this circumstance a second comma would be de riguer. "Kennedy, John F., Jr." just as in "Trousers, white, officers, for the use of". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC).
  

  To my eyes, that second comma is the same comma already precluded by MOS:JR, as I said at the top of the parent section. It is not "comma-after-surname", but rather "comma-before-suffix". As I've indicated above, that comma is a question that has already been decided, and it is a separate issue from this proposal. If you assert that "Kennedy, John F., Jr." is de rigueur, then you're also asserting that "John F. Kennedy, Jr." is de rigueur, and the community already has a consensus against that form as default. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think the comma is needed in last name fist situations. "Kennedy, John F. Jr." would indicate that his name is "John F. Jr. Kennedy" (as if "Jr." was a middle initial). To conform to the preclude we would have to style it "Kennedy Jr., John F." Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as written, but Support with the second comma, per several above commenters. The sensible form is Surname, First Middle, Jr.. While, yes, you can find publications that do other things (including "Surname, First Middle Jr.", "Surname Jr., First Middle", "Surname, Jr., First Middle", "Surname (Jr.), First Middle", and "Surname, First Middle (Jr)", probably among others), none of those are the majority usage, and they do not make much sense. They generally only arise when a publisher has an indexing back-end that is hardcoded in a not-so-great way and they have little choice but to use some odd option. Or they just didn't think about it very much. Our own system is smarter. What works best on WP, and what will be least confusing to readers are the only two matters we need concern ourselves with, and "Surname, First Middle, Jr." fits the bill in both cases. PS: The argument 'If you assert that "Kennedy, John F., Jr." is de rigueur, then you're also asserting that "John F. Kennedy, Jr." is de rigueur' has no basis at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  Mandruss and I have been changing DEFAULTSORT entries per his proposal, which as far as I can see is probably an improvement over the bizarre range of variations we had there before. As for the second comma, it appears to me that it is unlikely to make a different, as long as we do it consistently one way or the other. The only thing affected is sort order on things that are the same up to the point where that comma might be, right? Does anyone use default sort some other way, such as for metadata? Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  I suppose that is true, so I won't object further. I really thought this had more to do with (e.g. in tables) presenting names in "Surname, First., Jr." order.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support. My earlier partial objection was based on data-separation principles in the abstract, but on closer inspection there is no actual use-case for doing it on Wikipedia, that would be affected in any way, and Mandruss, below, is correct that trying to explain why to use a comma in one circumstance but not another would be too complicated for MoS to get into. We really just don't need the comma.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Seems to make sense. LK (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support On the basis that the surname as commonly understood is "Smith", not "Smith jr" (with or without the comma). Almonaster (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended discussion of the expansion proposal

• Comment - Ok, I didn't know there would be this much disagreement, with everyone applying their own personal reasoning to the question. With that much disagreement, this is not a good way to make this decision, and it probably wouldn't be very durable. In my opinion it's time to suspend until someone can survey major style guides. Per MOS:JR, we should limit that survey to style guides that favor no comma in "John F. Kennedy Jr." ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Would you have any interest in doing this? Clearly, you're already somewhat familiar with those guides, where to find them and how to navigate them. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

 Declined. I'm only doing detailed source research on this stuff for mainspace. MoS is based on editorial consensus on what makes most sense for the WP context and readership. That may be informed in part by style guide compare–contrast, and by surveys of what different genres and registerd of publishing are actually doing on average, but it is not the primary concern. WP:ISNOT#PAPER and is not bound to do exactly what any external publications, or any grouping of such publications, is doing. The principle of least astonishment is generally in play, per WP:COMMONSENSE, so we are not going to adopt something unique and confusing, when the intent is to adopt something that will be non-confusing, for readers and secondarily for editors. We had about 7 years straight of constant strife caused by someone rattling a quixotic "source the MoS!" sabre all the time, and virtually nothing ever good came of it, just increasing MoS rigidity and WP:CREEP, compounded by cyclical rehash of the same issues over and over, and a huge drain on editorial productivity, with people devoting time to sourcing, and writing multiple pages to keep track of the sourcing, for an internal guideline that is not subject to WP:V to begin with. The entire fiasco was ridiculous. I do in-depth source research for mainspace. If it occasionally also helps resolve an MoS issue, that's great (and that was the case with the MOS:JR RfC), but spending hours and hours going through style guides just to settle a question we should collectively be settling with editorial judgment, is not on my to-do list.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Re: "everyone applying their own personal reasoning to the question" – That is precisely how consensus discussions work and are supposed to work.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  Fine. I believe that my personal reasoning, "that second comma is the same comma already precluded by MOS:JR", is stronger than the other personal reasoning. Your comment about "unique and confusing" is at odds with the experience of at least the first three !voters here, who do not find it unique or confusing at all. Are we too ignorant, uneducated, or uninformed to be properly confused? Your argument is thorough and articulate as always, but not all that convincing in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  Except you haven't actually provided any reasoning for that view, just stated it, and I see no basis for such a belief. The two comma rationales (in index-reversed and normal name order) are clearly unrelated, and you haven't established a relationship between them. It would seem that by your reasoning, because the name is written "Smith, John J." in index format, it would have to be written "John J., Smith" when unreversed. Does not compute, ha ha. The commas in the reversed, index format exist for the sole purpose of separating types of name elements, and have nothing to do with how the name is normally spelled/punctuated.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  The trend away from "John F. Kennedy, Jr.", toward "John F. Kennedy Jr.", which you documented, is based on simplification, elimination of an arbitrary and unnecessary comma, an archaic historical artifact. Likewise the British elimination of the full stop in Jr., Dr., etc., which I'm confident the U.S. will eventually adopt for the same reason it has eliminated that comma. Accepting your argument for the sake of discussion, "Kennedy, John F. Jr." also eliminates an arbitrary and unnecessary comma. There is nothing remotely "confusing" about that form; I look at it and I know exactly what it means. Surely you're not suggesting that we need to show that Jr. is not part of the given name, as if the number of people with names like "John Jr. Doe" is large enough to be considered.
  Even if we did that, what would a reader infer when they saw "Doe, John Jr." for that extremely rare John Jr. Doe? I'm fairly certain they would infer "John Doe Jr." Thus we would have accomplished nothing but satisfying our own nitpicking, pointless pedantry. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: This seems to put me in the position of repeating myself, but I'll try to re-explain beyond rehash: The use cases are totally unrelated. The visual simplicity of "John F. Kennedy Jr." versus "John F. Kennedy, Jr.", where the comma in the second case serves no actual reader-useful purpose and just makes visual scanning more difficulty in a tiny way, has nothing to do with the use of commas to delimit formatted data like "Kennedy, John F., Jr.", which clearly delineates three forms of associated but not identical data that, as Checkingfax notes below, we may need to code differently for COinS purposes. Since I'm evidently not being clear (so far, anyway), I'll explain it another way: It's operator overloading. The comma in the context of plain English and in tabular data is parsed (both by the human brain, and by software agents) completely differently and conveys different information (basically null in the prose case, and something meaningful in the data case), the same way that you know that the × in "4×4 lumber", "Felis catus × F. chaus", and "4 × 4 = 16" all denote something different, even if you somehow managed to put them all in the same sentence. Anyway, a fluent English reader can parse the meaning of "Kennedy, John F. Jr." (and even "Kennedy, John F Jr" for that matter) with no difficulty, but this is not the only scenario we have to deal with.

  All that said, as I indicated to Dicklyon in the subthread above this one, I'm actually going to yield on this matter, as long as it's constrained to category sort keys, and doesn't affect actual content (like names in alpha-by-surname tables in articles) or metadata export of name parts in COinS, so maybe we needn't argue any further about it.  ;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: I have never intended for the comma to be omitted only in DEFAULTSORT and in fact I referred to |author= in the parent section. Only Dicklyon brought up DEFAULTSORT, and it's not clear to me that was what he meant anyway. DEFAULTSORT is never seen by readers, so that is not a style question and is independent from MOS. If anything were said about this with respect to DEFAULTSORT, it should be in the DEFAULTSORT spec, wherever that is.
  Based on your comments above, and as a compromise to help pass the main improvement of the proposal, I'll concede the comma question. Where given name is omitted, it's not clear whether you would prefer Kennedy Jr. or Kennedy, Jr., but I'll go either way; just let me know. That leaves only the question of whether a revised proposal and another round of !voting are required, or whether we can call this a pass with those one or two added commas. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  I will note that the reasoning behind the comma will not be apparent to many editors, for precisely the same reason it was/is not apparent to me. It's not hard to imagine repeated ongoing heated debates at article level about this, where editors are not aware of this discussion. There may well be occasional attempts to "correct" the guideline by removing the comma, and without discussion. Will there forever be people watching who are aware of the outcome of this discussion? Doesn't seem very likely. I wonder whether the guideline therefore needs some clarifying language added to explain the apparent "discrepancy", and I wouldn't know what that should be. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  It would be "Kennedy Jr" in regular prose. The distinction I've been trying to draw is between regular prose usage and tabular data. Having had time to sleep on it, I'll just drop the matter, because in a table of athletes or whatever that was arranged by surname (something we don't do often anyway), we wouldn't be generating any metadata directly from the article, and in a context where we are generating it, like template-formatted citations, we have no consistency anyway, so the preservation of name data as clearly separated Surname, Given name(s), Suffix CSVs is a lost cause on Wikipedia. Even if we were to have a consistent citation system, it could be coded as |first1=John F.|last1=Kennedy|suffix1=Jr. and still render as "Kennedy, John F. Jr." with no violence to the metadata, so I've had my undies in a twist for no reason but lack of coffee-induced focus, I guess. It would require more explanation than MoS can get into, so I'll jump ship to the "just drop the comma" crew, and apologize for wasting time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

  Rarely seen in the wild, a debate between editors who both wish to concede. In the interest of moving this forward, I am prepared to magnanimously concede to your concession. The question, then, is whether we have reached a consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

  The hold-out is Rich Farmbrough. Rich, given that I took (I think) the same position you did at first, but came around to the conclusion that there's no actual on-Wikipedia use case for teasing out Jr/Sr/III etc. from given names in a surname-first construction (even if we would necessarily do so in, say, a genealogical database), what say you?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

  Also Blueboar, although we obviously don't need unanimity. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with either way, or even with continued inconsistency, since this pretty much shows up only in citations and sort order. In the DEFAULTSORT specs, I found the no-comma version common even when articles used the comma before Jr. otherwise, so it looked like going commaless was going to be the easiest thing (also it works best with global replace, making fewer commas needing to be put back). And citations are pretty much a messy inconsistent area, so I don't worry about them much. Probably this discussion should go where citation styles are discussed. Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – I feel this is a Wikipedia:COinS discussion; how will the metadata be harvested in the most useful manner. Let me know and I will !vote on this. Maybe templates need to have new parameters for Suffix (and Prefix)? Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Checkingfax: I did some pondering on it and (to save you the trouble of wading through my theory-based stance-taking and later self-reversal) concluded that in the citation templates 'it could be coded as |first1=John F.|last1=Kennedy|suffix1=Jr. and still render as "Kennedy, John F. Jr." with no violence to the metadata'. I.e., the change contemplated here does not appear to have any COinS implications, and is only about display, avoiding WP:CREEP and unnecessarily complication in MoS, and (per Dicklyon) simplified category sort keys.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what I'm the holdout against. But I am prepared to throw some examples around and see where and when commas are useful.

1. Running text, normal order

• "...John Peter Jr went shopping..."
• "...John Peter, Jr., went shopping..."

all are equally readable.

2. Table entries

John Peter Jr

Peter John Jr

John, Peter Jr

Peter, John, Jr

John Peter, Jr

Peter, John, Jr.

I am confused here as to who is the son of John Peter Sr, and who the son of Peter John Sr. Moreover "John, Peter Jr" could be two people or one person. In this context only a forwards name John Peter Jr or a comma delimited "reverse" Peter, John, Jr make sense. (The commas are essentially parenthetical.) I see very little cause for reverse naming in Wikipedia content, we have no need of paper indices, we don't do it in article names, and I wish we didn't do it in other content. However where we do, it needs to be clear.

3. Sorting We need to decide how we want things sorted. Then we have a number of options on what sort key system we use - in every case I would espouse the simplest system that gives us the sort order we want.

The standard wiki ASCII sort order is space, apostrophe, open parentheses, comma, dash, dot, 0-9, a-z, A-Z - case insensitive for categories.

We might imagine that we would like the following to be the sort order:

• Joe Smezzle
• John Smith
• John Smith Jr
• John Albert Smith
• Jane Smith Jones
• John Albert Smith-Smythe

in this case the sort keys might be:

• Smezzle , Joe
• Smith , John
• Smith , John , Jr
• Smith , John Albert
• Smith Jones, Jane
• Smith Smythe, John Albert

This is neither what we currently do, nor what is being proposed. Currently "Smith Jones" as a last name sorts before "Smith", whereas Smith-Jones sorts after.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC).

Or to address the point more directly, there is a need to tease out suffixes, unless we want Fred Smith Jr to sort between Fred John Smith and Fred Juan Smith.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC).

Correct wording of words "former" or "retired" in the opening paragraph

Not sure if this was asked in the past as I couldn't find anything regarding this, but I want to know about the correct usage of "former" and "retired" in the opening paragraph. Recently one user challenged me and stated that "former" or "retired" should be written in front of nationality, while another user in different article had the opposite opinion. After looking on the internet it turns out that both variations are used in books. So my question would be – should "former" or "retired" be written in front of nationality or after it? Examples from those challenged articles:

• Manon Rhéaume (born February 24, 1972) is a former Canadian ice hockey goaltender.
• Manon Rhéaume (born February 24, 1972) is a Canadian former ice hockey goaltender.
• Ronny Turiaf (born January 13, 1983) is a former French professional basketball player.
• Ronny Turiaf (born January 13, 1983) is a French former professional basketball player.

Here we can see that "is a former American ice hockey player" is used, while we can see that here – "is an American former basketball player". Any thoughts would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm almost positive that both of those books are Wikipedia mirrors. Lizard (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Since "former" doesn't modify the nationality, it seems odd to place it directly in front of it. Without knowing that we include nationality as a matter of formula, would read the first example as referring to "Canadian ice hockey" as the activity (cf "Joe Namath is a retired American football quarterback"), or saying he is a former Canadian. "Retired" would be different, since a retired Canadian is still a Canadian.--Trystan (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "former" should come after nationality (although in American football we normally don't include nationality in the opening sentence, to avoid the repeat of "American", e.g. Joe Namath is an American former American football player). My rationale for using "former" and not "retired" is that they may have picked up another profession after their sports career, and so saying they're retired may imply that they're out of work completely. Lizard (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

But they are "retired" from the sport, so a phrase like "an American retired baseball player" would still be accurate. To me "retired" is the appropriate word if they were a professional. Rikster2 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, nationality, then former or retired. But my question is this, how does "Insert Name (born October 45, 2745) is an American for American football player" sound? ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 15:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Silly, which I think is why we avoid it. The vast majority of American football players are American anyway, unlike basketball or baseball, which sees a good portion of foreign players. Lizard (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought as much, but it couldn't hurt to ask. :D ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 15:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Former coming after nationality creates an extremely awkward sentence. Since former, nationality, and ice hockey are all adjectives of the word goaltender then the most appropriate order would be for former to go first because we are trying to say she is a former "Canadian ice hockey goaltender" not Canadian former "ice hockey goaltender". If that makes sense. One wording is treating the two things as separate and the other is treating it as one entity. To do it in a mathematical type notation it would be former(Canadian(ice hockey goaltender))). If you read the sentence out loud you very quickly can see putting former in the middle is not a good sentence. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it definitely creates a flow issue. I always just figured clarity was more important. Lizard (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Djsasso: It's less awkward than it being ambiguous if "former" modifies "Canadian" (i.e. now an American goaltender) or the entire "Canadian ice hockey goaltender" (i.e. no longer a goaltender). "Former" after the nationality makes it clear that the nationality still applies. Order matters to make it accurate what adjectives modify what. If someone got a sex change, "American former man" and "former American man" would not be used interchangeably without a loss of clarity. What makes former players any different?—Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Order certainly does mater which is why adjectives follow a math like order of operations. The first modifies the group of everything that follows and the next does the same and so on. There is no ambiguity because American is being used as an adjective and not a noun which is immediately clear from the sentence. If it was being used as a noun it would be followed by an and. Not to mention no one would think we would use the old nationality instead of the new one. That is thinking far too little of our readers intelligence. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• I have always fixed entries of "former American hockey player" because the wording implies the person is no longer American, not no longer playing hockey. "American former hockey player" is my preferred, and flows logically. Resolute 19:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop doing that. We don't have a rule for it, so its not your job to "fix" other editors constructions to a format that pleases you personally. It's just roiling the text for no gain. (On the merits, English is a human language, not a programming language, and everyone understands what is meant by "former American hockey player".) Herostratus (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Since there isn't a rule, I believe that the operative procedure is:

1. Do what you think best, using your wit and sense for the English language.
2. And give other editors the same courtesy. Do not change other editors constructions, and do not "correct" other editors to match your personal predelictions. It just leads to pointless roiling of the text, unnecessary bad feelings, and pointless sterile edit warring.

As for setting a rule, we could do that with an RfC, but I wouldn't recommend that, for a couple of reasons. One, it would probably be a lot of work ending in no consensus. Two, give editors a little room to breathe, shall we? We don't need to micromanage every possible clause construction. The project will survive if we write this two different ways. Herostratus (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Go with "...is a nationality former player..." version. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it should be "former/retired nationality profession" - when you retire from your profession you do not retire from your nationality. GiantSnowman 08:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like every formation is correct and is just a matter of personal preference. Three more examples – 1, 2 and 3. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeh, this whole conversation has pretty much confirmed Herostratus' belief that an RfC would end in no consensus. Everyone's got convincing arguments so I'm on the fence myself now. Lizard (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not go with "...is a retired ice hockey player from Canada...", for example. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, having said -- and sticking with -- the notion that either is fine, and that we needn't micromanage the the question, and even if we wanted to an RfC would probably fail, I also can't resist a bit of good-natured language arguing, so let me explain why for my part personally I'm in "former American" camp, why I write that way and am personally pleased when others do.

First of all, I don't overly worry about logic. Human language is not fully logical; from "ass backwards" to "couldn't care less" and beyond, it is inhabited with swarms of idioms that can't be parsed by formal logic. There's nothing wrong with this.

Rather than formal logic, human language is governed by rules that we unconsciously follow but can't even consciously describe. This is why we can say "A great green dragon" but not "A green great dragon" -- not if we want to sound like a native speaker. According to Mark Forsyth (quoted here):

[A]djectives in English absolutely have to be in this order: opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose Noun. So you can have a lovely little old rectangular green French silver whittling knife. But if you mess with that word order in the slightest you'll sound like a maniac. It's an odd thing that every English speaker uses that list, but almost none of us could write it out.

(And the term for disobeying this rule is "hyperbaton".)

I submit that "American former hockey player" is hyperbaton. To an admittedly more minor degree than "Old green big car" or whatever, but still. It doesn't sound quite right. It sounds just a little like you learned English in a classroom. There's no entry for "status" in Forsyth's list, but if there was, I suspect that it would come after "origin"; as test, try a different status: "....is a legendary American hockey player" (sounds OK) versus "...is an American legendary hockey player" (sounds stilted). (It occurs to me that this could be a British-vs-American thing.)

If "former American hockey player" was actually confusing so some non-trivial number of readers, that'd be one thing; but I don't think it is.

Anyway, so that's why I write "former American hockey player" and I think you should too. But it's OK if you don't; I'm not going to change it. I believe in letting the person who (after all) did the actual writing work be given a kind of stare decisis privilege in minor matter like this. Herostratus (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Great write up. That is exactly what I was trying to describe but I could not for the life of me remember the term for it. I should have looked up the quote as I am familiar with it as well, that would have explained it better. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove exception clause from MOS:JR

MOS:JR: The comma can be used in cases where it is clearly and consistently preferred for a particular subject in current, reliable sources (most likely a living subject whose own preference is clear and consistent).

• To date, not one case has been found to clear this threshold, and not for lack of trying.
• A challenge to the removal of the comma from the title of a creative work failed.[39] I am not aware of any that has succeeded.
• An editor argued for an exception to the no-comma house style for non-biographical article titles. They were specifically interested in the titles of articles about legal cases, where the names of cases include Jr. or Sr. The consensus was that no exception was justified.[40]

The community consensus seems clear: Removing this comma is equivalent to changing curly quotes to straight quotes, or to converting a source's all-caps style to mixed case. Would we use curly quotes where that is "clearly and consistently preferred for a particular subject in current, reliable sources"? I have not seen that exception clause in any guideline.

In other words, regardless of context, the comma is a completely trivial matter of style, full stop. Thus the exception clause in MOS:JR serves no good purpose, generates more heat than light, and should be removed. Nota bene: Obviously this will not make MOS:JR immune to WP:IAR.

• Support as proposer. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, to stem the tide of some removals, such as changing the article title of Hank Williams, Jr.'s first greatest hits album which contains a comma. While some editors believe the comma is a "trivial matter of style" that comma is part of many names and titles. We are an encyclopedia, and if an album or book title includes the Jr. comma its corresponding Wikipedia page should include the full and correct name. This also goes for people who prefer the comma in their name, as Martin Luther King did on the author attribution on all of his book titles (although unfortunately that issue has been resolved). Randy Kryn 12:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose MOS:JR ranks the lowest of low on the MOS totem pole, and certainly below MOS:QUOTE, MOS:TITLE, MOS:COMMA and MOS:STRONGNAT. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  In which case this change would be inconsequential, which is not a good reason to oppose it (in my opinion). ―Mandruss ☎ 08:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. We should use the format set out in reliable sources, in each case, and not try to impose our editorial opinions in relation to consistency. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I invite any actual reasoned responses to the points of my argument. Leaving them uncountered only lends the argument credibility. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support removal of the exception, as there's no evidence that we'll ever have reason to use such an exception. And it's contrary to the idea of house style. Dicklyon (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. There are several points I would like to raise about this proposal:
  • Procedural Issue 1: WP:MOSBIO is really only supposed to apply to biographical articles (or biographical information); it should not be used to decide the names of books, places, and monuments, etc. Those title are not "biographical." Although MOS:JR has been used in the past to justify title changes for some monuments and creative works, that was an improper application of this guideline.
  • Procedural Issue 2: Assuming, arguendo, that MOS:JR applies beyond biographical article titles, this is not the proper forum for proposing this kind of change. Because this proposal would potentially affect titles for books, movies, legal cases, monuments, roads, and other items that involve the names of humans, this broad-reaching proposal should be widely advertised and should likely be proposed at WT:MOS or WT:TITLE.
  • Procedural Issue 3: This proposal would conflict with the longstanding policy at WP:TITLE, which states that article titles should be "based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." Moreover, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA specifically contemplates maintaining consistency with "similar articles' titles", not Wikipedia-wide consistency. Because this proposal attempts to apply MOS:JR to all articles, with no regard for how reliable sources refer to a topic, it would cause MOS:JR to conflict with WP:TITLE. We should not endeavor to create guidelines that conflict with policies.
  • Procedural Issue 4: WP:TITLE specifically contemplates variety among style conventions for titles by delegating style decisions to topic-specific naming conventions. If local consensus prefers internal consistency within the subject, MOS:JR should not take precedence.
  • Substantive Issue 1: As a practical matter, commas in titles are more than a "trivial matter of style." In many cases, it is an integral component of the title. For example, in The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., the comma appears in the show's on-screen credits and is just as much part of the title as the exclamation point in Whaam!
  • Substantive Issue 2: There are many titles on Wikipedia that don't comply with relevant style elements, but we usually defer to the conventions of the person, group, or institution that created that title. See, for example, Aaahh!!! Real Monsters, Ooooooohhh... On the TLC Tip, is 5, anyone lived in a pretty how town, etc. When making decisions about the comma before "Jr." or "Sr." we should defer to the conventions of (1) how reliable sources describe the subject or (2) the intent of the original creators of that title.
  • Substantive Issue 3: When Drmies closed The RfC regarding comma usage before "Jr." and "Sr.", he noted that a consensus of editors wanted to preserve flexibility in the application of MOS:JR, and that it should not apply to all articles. If we establish MOS:JR as a rigid, unbreakable rule, then we would undermine that consensus.
  • Substantive Issue 4: The nominator states that the comma "generates more heat than light" but has not identified any specific harms that have been caused by the existing language in MOS:JR. If a comma is such a trivial item, then what's the harm in leaving it in titles when a majority of reliable sources use a comma? There is nothing wrong with the existing language; it poses no danger or threat.
  • Substantive Issue 5: The nominator suggests that the commas serve "no good purpose". On the contrary, by using the style that is found in other reliable sources, we avoid WP:SURPRISE situations and we teach readers about the way in which the title is depicted by the rest of society.

TL;DR: There is nothing wrong with the existing language of MOS:JR, the proposed change would conflict with existing policy at WP:TITLE, and the proposed change would undermine existing consensus. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• I just want to wish you all well. If I'm allowed to speak paternally and possibly patronizingly: please don't get too caught up in this. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Philip "Phil" Chess

I think this issue has been discussed before, but the guidance does not seem to make it clear if a consensus was reached. I was reverted here by Wash whites separately, on the basis that nicknames - even simple contractions such as in this case - should be included within the first mention of the subject's name. My opinion (discussed on that editor's talk page) is that, frankly, that is just silly. "Phil" is an obvious contraction of "Philip", and there is no need to "explain" the article name in that way. If there is a consensus here over such obvious cases, what is it, and should it be more clearly set out in the guidance? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The same with Tom Smith (American football). ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 09:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:QUOTENAME states that "if a person has a commonly known nickname, used in lieu of a given name, it is presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial". People have been pointing to WP:LEGALNAME saying that "it is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name", but that policy is clearly referring to stage names (which substitute for the entire given name), not nicknames (which blend into the rest of the given name). The MOS makes it quite clear that any familiar name used in lieu of a given name should be placed in quotes, no matter how obvious or silly you think it is. We're building an encyclopedia; it does no harm to be lucid. —Wash whites separately (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You do realize in may case it's insulting to say Phillip..." and have "Phil" in as a nickname, when the article's name is "Phil...". It's like saying "Hey stupid, if you didn't know the guy's name is Phillip and his nickname is Phil." It's like no duh, countless guys with the name Phillip go by Phil. I'm just using him as an example. It's insulting and a clear case of WP:COMMON. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 09:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

So we should detract from the clarity of an encyclopedia because some readers get their feelings hurt? WP:QUOTENAME is set in stone about what to do, whereas WP:COMMON just sounds like an excuse to push your own agenda—any editor can cite WP:COMMON for anything they personally disagree with. In my opinion, it is common sense to include nicknames in quotes. How does it improve an article to make it less clear? —Wash whites separately (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Well... looking at the guidance and examples at WP:QUOTENAME, it seems clear that we would indeed include a nickname that is not a hypocorism of the birth name in parens, e.g. Roland Bernard "Bunny" Berigan. However, what about hypocorisms? Well, it says at Jack (given name) that "it is traditionally used as the diminutive form of the given name John", and the example at WP:QUOTENAME has John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy. If [John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy], then by analogy [Thomas Eric "Tom" Smith] and [Philip "Phil" Chess] and etc. etc. -- case closed, and if you want to change it lobby for a change to WP:QUOTENAME via RfC.

Except... the "Jack" Kennedy thing is not a good example. Thomas -> Tom and Philip -> Phil etc. is obvious, and most people know Robert -> Bob and Elizabeth -> Betty etc., but John -> Jack I did not know. Do most people? I always assumed Jack Kennedy was like Bunny Berrigan's -- not actually based on his legal first name.

If the people who constructed WP:QUOTENAME really wanted [Thomas Eric "Tom" Smith] -- a construction that is often not used in practice, and that I personally find annoying and silly -- they should have used an example that made that manifest. For all I know they were under the same impression that I was, that "Jack" is is not based directly on "John". (This is further indicated by the fact that at WP:QUOTENAME they call "Jack" a nickname. It is not. It is a hypocorism (or diminutive if you prefer), which is a different thing. "Bunny" is a nickname.)

Well, so WP:QUOTENAME is a dog's breakfast. IMO this lessens its authority considerably. It's not entirely clear what the original framers wanted. What I would recommend is:

• Editors doing what their common sense and their ear for the language tells them is best.
• And other editors respecting that and leaving alone constructions that they themselves might not have chosen, and not getting in sterile arguments about it.
• And we ought to clean up WP:QUOTENAME via an RfC asking the community, giving clear examples -- "Bunny" and "Tom" and not that debatable "Jack" -- what they think is best. (I'm not up to doing this right now.) Herostratus (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree. It's ridiculous to include the contraction in the first line when it's in the article title and is a clear contraction of the first name. I've argued this many times. Wikipedia is not written for morons. We don't have to explain every blatantly obvious thing. This is also fully mandated in the guidelines. See MOS:FULLNAME (do you see any contractions inserted in quotes there? Bill Clinton, for example?), which contradicts WP:QUOTENAME! Therefore, it is not "set in stone" at all! This is an encyclopaedia, not an idiot's guide to the world. If clarification is needed then the contraction or nickname can be included after the dates. It should not be included within the full name, which is highly popularist and not the way an encyclopaedia should be written. The Kennedy example is a terrible one in any case, since it implies he is commonly known as Jack Kennedy, whereas in fact most people know him as John F. Kennedy or just as JFK. This illustrates the whole problem with adding nicknames or contractions in quotes like this. It's better to add them afterwards and explain when, how and by whom they were used (e.g. "sometimes known as Jack Kennedy", which provides far more accurate information). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• I also agree it's redundant and unnecessary to include common diminutives in quotes. It'd be nice to get some consensus on this, because it's been debated for a while now. Lizard (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Commenting so it won't be archived yet. We really need consensus on this already. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 12:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I have initiated a formal RfC, see below. I hope I wrote it right. If not, please make suggestions soonest and I can make corrections while its still very fresh, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Photos in biographies

Is there a guideline (or should there be one) about the main photo for a person in their biography having them be the main or only person in the image? I find the main images in the articles for Carol Huynh, Cheryl Pounder and Vicky Sunohara to be quite off putting. Is there a guideline for this or is it just a matter of opinion? Air.light (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably don't need to a guideline. Why don't you go ahead and make derivative images and see if anyone objects? Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

J. J. Watt or J.J. Watt

The discussion currently active at Talk:J. J. Watt#Requested move 2 December 2016 features arguments for either variation. Greater participation is invited. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)