Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:25, 10 September 2007 editTvoz (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers28,635 edits →John Edwards: please don't misrepresent me - again← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:28, 22 December 2024 edit undoPaora (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users87,266 edits →MOS:POSTNOM: my 5c worth
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{talk header\|shortcut=WT:MOSBIO\|noarchive=yes}}
	{{talkheader}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|

			{{WikiProject Manual of Style}}
	{{Archive box\|
			}}
	*]
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	*]
			\| algo = old(45d)
	*]
			\| archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography/%(year)d archive
	*]
			\| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
	*]
			\| minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\| minthreadsleft = 4
			}}
			{{archive box\|age=45\|bot=lowercase sigmabot III\|search=yes\|
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*{{hlist\|]\|]\|]\|]\|]\|]\|]\|]\|]\|]\|]\|]\|]\|]\|]\|]\|]\|]}}
	}}		}}

			== can popularity eclipse any other information from lead? ==
	==Honorific prefixes No.2 ==
	This guideline is absurd and should be reversed. It is relevant almost only to people in UK who are not ]. Peers who are members of the ] are described in the first line as Peter Rabbit, Lord Rabbit of Garden, PC, MBE. But before he was elevated to the peerage he was described as ] Peter Rabbit, MP, MBE. Rt Hon as a prefix is instead of the post-nominal PC which is only used by peers. Yet this guideline quite wrongly does not even allow him to be described as Peter Rabbit, PC, MP, MBE (which is worse than Rt Hon and not used but is better than omitting this important recognition by the society in which he lives). - ] 22:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Reverse it'''. - ] 22:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Reverse''', as above. It is not correct form for post-nominal PC to be used for commoners. The way of expressing it should be via Rt. Hon. Peter Rabbit should, therefore, be known as the Rt. Hon. for clarity purposes.--] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Reverse''' so that such offices can be shown correctly. --] (]) 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Reverse'''. I agree with Kittybrewster, Couter-revolutionary and Ibagli. ] ] 23:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Reverse''': all proper encyclopaedias use Correct Form. ] 09:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Keep'''. Where in the guideline does it say that PC cannot be used as a postnom? Nowhere that I can see. In addition, I have seen a lot of claims that PC is incorrect for commoners, but no proof. It is used in ''Who's Who'' and other publications. I have provided an example of where it has been used in an official government publication (on the order of service for Ernest Bevin's official memorial service, where he is described as "Ernest Bevin, PC"). So that's two unsubstantiated claims in one proposal! -- ] 10:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Reply''' Quote from ''Debrett's Correct Form'': "'The Rt Hon' is always placed before the name both in formal and social usage. There is no need to add the letters P.C. after the name, since 'The Rt. Hon.' is sufficient indication of membership of the Privy Council." I am therefore arguing for '''The Rt Hon''' and against '''PC'''. Quote from ''The Correct Guide to Letter Writing''; Superscription of the envelope "The Rt Hon ------ ------, P.C." - ] 10:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
	::All that says is that it is not necessary to add PC if Rt Hon is used. What it ''does not'' say is that PC is incorrect. We do not use honorofics on Misplaced Pages, plain and simple. What we would do when addressing a letter and what we do here are two different things. If it was so wrong to omit Rt Hon would the government really have done so on Ernest Bevin's memorial service programme? Somehow, I think not. -- ] 11:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::Why does Wiki. not use them? Is there any reason? I doubt Bevin cared very much, or that the government composed the memorial service programme for that matter!--] 11:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::"'The Rt Hon' is '''always''' placed before the name both in formal and social usage" - ] 11:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::Sir Winston Churchill’s Memorial Programme (a state funeral) correctly describes him as '''The Rt Hon Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH''' so I think Necrothesp is arguing ] - ] 11:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Please don't make assumptions as to what I like and do not like. I'm a firm supporter of the use of honorifics in most circumstances. But I do not believe they are necessary on Misplaced Pages (although I have argued for the use of ''titles'' on many occasions) and if we make an exception for Rt Hon then there will be calls for the addition of "Honorables" and other honorifics to every tom, dick and harry to whom they're granted in other countries (where "the honorable" is often used merely as an indicator that the individual has some vaguely official office). I find it interesting that you are happy to take Churchill's programme as proof of the validity of your own point of view and disregard Bevin's as proof of mine! Note that I have never said that use of "Rt Hon" is incorrect - it most certainly isn't - but only that the use of "PC" is also acceptable. And I believe that it is the better option here. -- ] 13:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I think Kitty. was pointing out Churchill's was a state funeral, therefore definitely official.--] 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::As I said, I'm not arguing that Rt Hon is incorrect in any case. Of course it's correct. My argument is that the use of "PC" is also perfectly correct, that claims it isn't have not been substantiated in any way (and indeed, I have provided an example of its usage on a government document), and that it is preferable here for the reasons I have stated. -- ] 13:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Reverse''' if Misplaced Pages is to have credibility. We should be insisting upon what is correct, not whatever we like or approve/disapprove of. ] 10:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Reverse''' so that non-noble Privy Councillors are "The Right Honourable". This is clearly an exceptional situation to the general situation of disliking honorific prefixes. ] 10:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Keep''' I do believe that having '''The Right Honourable''' before all members of the Privy Council is unnecessary and unsightly, and I don't think most encloypedias put it before people's names like that. Misplaced Pages is not Debretts, and I think that having a simple "]" after the persons name is quite sufficient. Kittybrewster quotes that it is always used in "formal and social usage", maybe (although I could dispute the social) but Misplaced Pages is not formal or social, it is an encloyopedia. --] 11:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Keep''' due to the arguments of Berks105 and Necrothesp <span style="color:darkgreen">~~ ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ </span>
	*'''Reverse''' - I agree with the remarks on this page which refer to Correct Form. It is not for hostile editors to deny, via Wiki, the proper forms of address. ] 08:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
	**Hostile to what? Nobody's denying anything. I suggest you read the comments above. -- ] 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Reverse''', I guess, although I don't think it's a big deal. It seems weird that we indicate in the header when peers are members of the privy council, but not when commoners are, and it's more or less wrong (or, at least, really odd) to add "PC" as a postnominal for commoners. ] 21:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Keep''', in agreement with the comments that both Necrothesp and Berks105 made. Also please note that a number of editors that have !voted to "Reverse it" have been invloved in canvassing and have acted in "lock step" on a number of AfD's and !votes, as outlined by an administrator comment --] 23:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Reverse''' - I never understood how this came to be policy in the first place. --] 11:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

	===Canvassing of this discussion===
	] has posted notices on 13 user pages drawing attention to this debate. This is an unacceptable way of trying to influence the outcome. The users are ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. They are not to blame, but actions of this kind are likely to upset fair means of working towards consensus. Canvassing done 21:10, 13 March 2007 – 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC) ] 00:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	*'''Keep''' One reason we added this, IIRC, is that thousands of U.S. politicians would have "honorable" attached to their names. This rule is also needed to maintain uniform treatment for all honorific titles. -] · ] · 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	**'''Comment''' Then some kind of distinction should be made. In the UK, ''Rt. Hon.'' (at least when used to refer to a Privy Counsellor) is used to distinguish a select class of politicians who are entitled to perform a number of functions, including sitting as the supreme court for a number of overseas British territories. The title is not merely an honorific, but representative of actual function. I would suggest that this may be a sensible line to draw across the use of such prefixes. ] 23:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:*No, they don't sit as the supreme court for the overseas territories. That process is often referred to as "the Privy Council" but it is actually only the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that sits -- these people are judges and, I think, the same people in practice as the Law Lords. That excludes the vast majority of members of the Privy Council. ] 22:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Reverse''', in accordance with JulesH's comment and Correct Form. ] 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Reverse'''- per Kitty's arguments. ] 09:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Keep''' per Berks105 and Will Beback. A postnominal ] coveys all the necessary information in a more concise form, and avoids endless explanations over the precise distinction between the "Rt. Honourable" PC members and the "honorable" US Congressmen. --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Reverse''', in accordance with 'Correct Form' and usual practice. ] 13:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - It may be correct for 'Correct Form', but this is an encyclopedia, not a formal document or similar. And I disagree with ususal practice, '''The Right Honourable''' is not normally used, you never see it in newspapers, history books, etc etc when refering to a person. --] 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Keep'''. We don't want to go back to having all honorific prefixes, so we shouldn't make an exception for this one. The reason peers use PC is because they are automatically entitled to ''Rt Hon'' simply for being a peer. As we don't include prefixes for peers, I don't actually see a reason for listing PC at all. We don't list all postnominals, and there's no reason for all honours and achievements to be described in first line. It can be mentioned in the body, in the image caption or in a later "Titles from birth" section. So to summarise: keep this guideline, and maybe consider stopping using "PC" for peers. ''']''' (]) 14:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	**I'm sorry, but what is this about? I got a message on my talk page. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

	===Discussion===
	The section now reads:
	*''Styles and honorifics which are derived from political activities, including but not limited to ] for being a Member of the Privy Council, should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.''
	Is the intent to delete the entire section? Or is to make this change:
	*''Styles and honorifics..., ''with the sole exclusion'' of ']'...''
	] seems to be arguing for the latter but I'm not sure exactly what ] is proposing.-] · ] · 10:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	:*'''Response'''. That would be a great improvement on the status quo. PC as a postnominal for a commoner is just plain wrong. - ] 12:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	::*'''Response''' I don't think it is plain wrong. Kittybrewster and others must remember this is an encylopedia and not a peerage website, or a formal document. '''The Right Honourable''' is not '''normally''' used, it is only really used in the House of Commons, and on formal documents or invitations etc. It is not used in other encylopedias, or books etc. --] 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::*"The Right Honourable" is normally used when giving someone's formal name. If the Prime Minister gave a ministerial broadcast he would be introduced as "The Right Honourable Tony Blair, M.P.". In most biographical guides, it is used. No-one ever uses postnominal PC for non-noble Privy Councillors. I suspect the problem here largely derives from the fact that 'The Right Honourable' is a prefix and not a suffix, but in that, it is clearly an exception. Most honours are placed as abbreviated suffixes, but this one gives the holder an honorific prefix. We accept "Sir"/"Dame" and Peerage titles as prefixes inline. ] 14:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::: It's more general than that, ] and many other shows certainly caption as you say and sometimes use the spoken form. Of course that's not decisive to the issue ] 15:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	Deleting this section would be a poor idea. Time and again, people have argued over honorific prefixes; time and again, they've been excluded because they're NOT encyclopedic. I'm tired of seeing this come up continually. The answer is no, people shouldn't have honorifics. They're POV, they're not encyclopedic, and they make biography intros less consistant. ] 19:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	*Of course they are not POV. They are fact - like VC. The one is postnominal, the other is prenominal. As for being consistent and wrong, better to make an exception in this case.. - ] 08:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	::What is PoV is to say; "people shouldn't have honorifics" --] 10:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

	I am bemused to see that this discussion is apparently based on the usage recommended in Debretts. More than 20 year ago, I had occasion to write to a few hundred MPs. Seeking advice on how to address them, a colleague checked Debrett's, so we sent off the letters addressed as recommended ... and I was later teased about it by parliamentary staff who found the styles comically antiquated. I have yet to find any MP who is the slightest bit concerned about not being addressed as "The Right Honourable", but plenty who are embarrassed to have that degree of formality in anything except highly formal situations (such as in the chamber of the Commons). Debrett's may well be accurately recording the formal conventions, but actual usage has moved on: or good or ill, Britain has become a much less formal country, where "correct" forms of address are rarely used.

	I have just checked the Dictionary of National Biography. Here are a the opening words from a few articles on MPs:
	*Thatcher, Sir Denis, first baronet (1915–2003), businessman and ...
	*Churchill, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer (1874–1965), prime minister ...
	*Attlee, Clement Richard, first Earl Attlee (1883–1967), prime minister,
	... and I can't find ''any'' entry where DNB uses the honorific.

	If such a reputable publication as the DNB doesn't use "Rt. Hon", why should wikipedia feel obliged to do so? And if ''Who's Who'' use the postnomial PC, I don't see how it makes wikipedia look silly to use it too. --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Denis Thatcher was neither an MP nor a Privy Councillor. - ]<small>]</small> 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

	::And Winston Churchill was knighted, and Attlee raised to the peerage- so the lack of Rt. Hon. is entirely understandable. ] 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

	==Common name versus fullname for disambguation==
	*Robert Smith (editor)
	*Robert Smith (baseball)
	*Robert Smith (musician)

	Is it proper to make them into their full name to aid diambiguation, even though its not their most common name: Robert Smith (editor) --> Robert Edward Smith. --] 16:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
	:I think it is more logical to use a full name if it is known (and if they had more than two names, of course), but only if it is necessary for disambiguation. At the very least, a redirect should be made from their full name. -- ] 17:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
	::I certainly agree that a redirect from the full name is needed, and I try to always provide it, regardless of whether the article title includes a disambiguator. However, I think that the current formula of ''"name best known as"+(disambiguator if needed)'' is better than the full name, because it sticks most closely to the convention of "name best known as". If, for example, there were several other equally notable people called ] and we therefore needed to disambiguate them all, then "Tony Benn (politician)" is much more intuitive than "Anthony Neil Wedgwood Benn" or "Tony Neil Benn" or "Tony Neil Wedgwood Benn". --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

	*comment I have no idea what this is about really, having just recieved a link (without so much as a message) to it on my talk page. However, looking briefly at the arguments presented, I think we should most definately use Right Hon. for UK M.P.s, as it is the correct (if no longer the usual) term. Just because other encyclopædias no longer do so, I see no reason for Misplaced Pages to lower its standards. ] 13:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

	== Honorific prefixes ==

	'''(Note that honorary knights and dames are not entitled to "Sir" or "Dame", only the post-nominal letters.) Example: "Dame Ellen Patricia MacArthur, DBE (born July 8, 1976) is an English sailor..."''' Is this just my being dim, or should that "Dame" in front of "Ellen Patricia MacArthur" disappear? ] 22:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Why should it disappear? Dame Ellen isn't a honorary dame. --] 09:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	4. The honorifics Sir and Dame should be included in the text inline for baronets, knights bachelor, and members of knightly orders whose rank grants them that dignity, provided that they do not hold a higher dignity, such as a peerage, which trumps that usage. No baronet should be shown with the postfix but without the prefix, e.g. John Smith, 17th Baronet is wrong, the correct style being Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. (Note that honorary knights and dames are not entitled to "Sir" or "Dame", only the post-nominal letters.) Example: "'''Dame Ellen Patricia MacArthur''', DBE (born 8 July 1976) is an English sailor..."<br>Then why use her as an example immediately after a statement about honorary knights and dames???? ] 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
	:The statement about honorary knights and dames is in brackets, whereas the example is not. Therefore the example clearly does not refer to the note in brackets (otherwise it too would be inside the brackets), but to the previous text not in brackets. The usage is perfectly correct. -- ] 01:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

	::Wouldn't the example be much better coming immediately after the text to which it refers, and the note about honorary dames and knight go last? -- ] 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

	==Uppercase "The" in TV show titles.==
	I have a question about the use of the uppercase 'The' when writing about the titles of TV shows, musical groups, or organisations. If these pages/links use the the uppercase article, are they right or wrong? I thank you. ] 18:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

	On TV:
	]
	],
	]

	Bands:
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],

	Newspapers:
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	]

	External links:
	,
	, , , , ] 18:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

	:As far as newspapers are concerned, doesn't it depend on what the newspaper calls itself? For instance "The Times" and "The Guardian" include the "the" on their masthead, so it is part of their actual name, whereas the "Evening Standard" and the "Daily Mirror" don't, so I should have thought a capital T would be inappropriate in those cases. ] 23:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

	::This issue has been discussed at length in regards to the ] article/wikiproject. Based on input from professional print editors from the U.S. and U.K., the policy has been set to use ''the'' (lowercase) within the article text, except of course at the beginning of sentences. That's the way it's done in the vast majority of professional publications. (It seems to me any wikilinks should not include the ''the'' in such cases, but that's debatable.). I think Misplaced Pages needs an official policy on the issue. --] 06:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

	==Revoked/rescinded Knighthoods==
	There’s a discussion going on over at ] as to whether or not it’s appropriate to refer to him in the lead para as "'''Sir''' Roger Casement '''CMG'''", or just "Roger Casement". The discussion centres on the facts that he was knighted in 1911, but his knighthood and CMG were revoked in 1916 after being convicted of treason.

	Some participants refer to a naming convention whereby the person’s highest bestowed title and postnominals should be used. Others are arguing that, if a title/postnominal that normally remains for life has been revoked, it becomes inappropriate to use them in the person’s full name and titles in the lead para; the text of the article will reveal both the knighthood/CMG and their revocation.

	I declare my hand: I’m in the latter group.

	Revocations of knightood are very rare, and are only done in the most extreme circumstances. The only ones I’m aware of apart from Casement are ], ] and ]. For this reason, and given that this issue seems never to have been discussed here before, it’s likely that no thought has ever been given to a guideline/policy about such cases.

	The "Honorary prefixes" section (point 4) addresses the case where a knight later becomes a peer. It doesn’t address the case where the knighthood is revoked. One suggestion (admittedly favouring the position I support) would be to add the words highlighted below:

	* ''The honorifics Sir and Dame should be included in the text inline for baronets, knights bachelor, and members of knightly orders whose rank grants them that dignity, provided that:
	:* ''they do not hold a higher dignity, such as a peerage, which trumps that usage, '''or'''
	:*'''''the knighthood was not revoked/rescinded'''.

	I’d appreciate some discussion of this, and some direction, so that we can have a consistent approach to these very unusual subjects and not have to recreate the wheel more often than is necessary.

	There doesn't seem to be an article or category that lists all such cases. This should also be corrected. ] 04:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

	:According to , there have only been 14 people since the 14th century to be stripped of a knightood. So, it's a small list, but sufficient to have a policy on how to refer to such people. ] 05:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Ethnicity in opening - Asimov example contradicts guidelines? ==

	The guidelines on the opening paragraph say, "''Ethnicity'' should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." But later in the article it gives the opening sentence on ], saying in part, "was a Russian-born American Jewish author and biochemist". Doesn't the example contradict the guidelines, because Asimov's notability is irrelevant to the fact that he was Jewish? (Declaration of potential conflict of interest: this arose because the example is being used in a discussion at ]). ] 02:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

	p.s. Editors at ] seem to concur with me, because "Jewish" was removed from the article's lead sentence ago, except that it was re-inserted today as a side effect of the discussion at ]. ] 04:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Lead names ==

	My apologies if there has been a prior discussion on lead names that I missed out on.
	Has it become standard to put the subject's common name in quotations, i.e. '''Joseph "Joe" Smith''', even if that common name is simply a general, English short form of the subject's first name? Because to be honest, '''Joseph "Joe"''' is unnecessary - ostensibly Joe is short for Joseph. It is also a universal understanding that Bob is Robert and Bill is William, and so forth - "Bill" is not unique to William Jefferson Clinton, neither is "Al" to Albert Gore, nor "Dick" to Richard Cheney. Only if the subject has an obscure nickname, like '''Craig "Speedy" Claxton''' does it make sense to put the nickname in quotations. At nearly 2 million articles, thousands of which are biographies, Christopher "Chris" and Edward "Ted" starts to look untidy - throw on middle names and you start to see my point. Why can't they all just be like ]. ]'''<font style="background:red">(])'''</font> 00:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support''', should we do a clarification about this issue, telling to avoid '''Craig "Speedy" Claxton'''? ] 13:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

	==Honorific Prefixes (again...) ==
	A few months ago, a TfD for ] was withdrawn because it should have been discussed here first, apparently. So my question here is; why do we have this and other similar infoboxes, which are rather clear violations of ] a how-to guide (as they only say how you should, according to protocol, address these people). The titles used to address e.g. a member of a royal family contain no information whatsoever relevant to that individual, so I don't see why we should have these infoboxes (as an example, what would be lost except a how-to if we removed the infobox from ]?). Anyone has a convincing argument to keep these boxes? ] 07:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

	::As I see it, this homonymic use of the phrase "how to", meaning "correct form of address", has nothing to do with the use of "how to" in WP:NOT (i.e. method or procedure for doing something). There are similar uses of the phrase "how to" in "how to pronounce", meaning "correct pronunciation, not "procedure for achieving a particular pronunciation". These are completely different meanings of the phrase "how to", having nothing in common with the "instruction manual" use, as in "How to drive a car", "How to build a bridge" etc. In my opinion, this is clear from the wording of WP:NOT, but perhaps the phrase "how-to" should be removed there. --] 18:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::I don't see the distinction you make. We have an article about a car, but we don't explain how you should start it, change its cooling fluid, ... We have an article about a king, but we don't explain how you shuold address him. The words used to address a king (at least if you want to follow protocol, nothing says you can't just say "mister") are of no value in an article about that king, and gives us no information regarding that king whatsoever. It would be different if a king insisted on being called "God above all Gods" or somesuch, as that could be a good indication, an example, of his delusions of grandeur. But in that case, the information gives us more knowledge about what kind of person that king is / was. I fail to see how the general hrhstyle infobox gives us any more info or knowledge about the royal in question though. ] 19:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::When you talk about WP:NOT and "how to", I assume you are referring to the section about instruction manuals: <blockquote>'''Instruction manuals.''' While Misplaced Pages has descriptions of people, places, and things, Misplaced Pages articles should not include instructions, advice (], ], or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.</blockquote> I interpret this to include advice and recommendations about how to produce something, acquire a skill, or achieve a result, especially by step-by-step instructions, as in the examples given at ]. I would not interpret details of forms of address as covered by this -- not any more than information about aliases, noms de plumes, etc. Just because you can use the phrase "how to" to describe something does not put it into the same category as a recipe or tutorial (where "how to" has a completely different meaning, i.e a series of instructions or recommendations aimed at achieving a purpose). Similarly, one could claim that including "Botanical name: ''Digitalis purpurea''" in an infobox tells us how to refer to the common foxglove when observing scientific conventions, but that does not make it a "how-to" within the meaning of ].--] 21:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::A pseudonym, alternative (sientific) name, ... all are other, distinct names by which the subject is defined. "His royal highness" tells us absolutely nothing about any specific king, prince, ... but tells you how to address kings in general. What is the point of such a general infobox in a specific article? The pseudonyms used by a writer give us more information about that individual writer and thus belong in that article. The different ways to address a royal give us no information about that specific person and thus do not belong in that article. ] 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::::It helps to create an understanding of that individual's life, and their interactions with others. ] 04:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

	== Subsequent use of names ==

	Currently, it says to use the surname when talking about the subject later in the article. But, it does not list any exceptions for stage names (especially, singular names). Judging by ], ], and ], it looks like concensus is already to use the stage name. But, it would probably be good to put it into the MoS; unless there is still some debate to be had about it. I think that enforcing the surname rule would be more professional and fitting of an encyclopedia, but, I don't think we could pull it off here. Opinions? ] 14:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Agreed. It would read in a very stilted way to use the surname for these people. ] 04:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

	:We should be using the surname-equivalent for people who go by a stage name. So, "Jolson" for ] and "Madonna" for ] (since she goes by a single name), but "Presley" for ] (since he did ''not'' go by a single-name stage name, he's just well-known).--] 04:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

	::OK, I've added a few words to this effect in the 'Subsequent uses of names' section.--] 05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

	:::My question isn't restricted to biographies, but I'm unsure where else to raise it (please inform me if there's a more suitable forum). In the currently topical article ], I deleted a repetition of the entire phrase ''Minister for Public Order, Vyron Polydoras'' in one ]. In the subsequent ] it was clear that the original author thought of Mr Polydoras' function in the same way that we would think of the title "Dr". Similarly, Costas Karamanlis is never mentioned in this article without the epithet "Prime Minister". Are there any clear WP guidelines on this matter? --] \| ] 11:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Pseudonyms ==

	Just because the article doesn't explicitly state this; If say an author goes by a pseudonym that is more well known than their actual name then the article's name should be the pseudonym? I ask this because somebody keeps going around to some of these pages about authors and changing them from their well know (and published) pseudonyms (eg. ]) to their less known 'real' names (eg. ]) which is even debatable because she's been married a few times so in reality it would be ], which the person has already created a redirect from. I personally believe that the article, and probably most of the others that the person has moved needs to be back at the more popular pseudonym but I want to me sure that I'm reading this right before doing anything. Thanks --] 13:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:That editor needs to read and understand ], and to take note of the example about Pelé. I am no expert on Nora Roberts or her work, or her various legal names or pseudonyms, but just looking at the number of links to Nora Roberts from other articles leads me to believe that its choice for the original placement of the article was well reasoned. Unless editors who come along later can explain why they think that choice was an error, and can also convince others, they should not take it upon themselves to overturn it. In this case the move was disruptive. At the very least, the proposed move should have been discussed on the talk page, as this article appears to be highly visible. ] 16:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Spouses ==

	Is it appropriate to add birth date and place information in a parenthetical when a spouse is mentioned in a biography?--] (]) 05:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	== Changed birthname to real name ==

	In "Pseudonyms, stage names and common names" I changed birth name to real name as it confuses people. Some people thought because of this formation that if the person has legally and officially changed his/her birth name, you should still state their birth name as the main name which, as we all understand not right. Northern 13:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

	== How to deal with lists within articles / notable achievements ==

	A number of biographies, especially those of professional athletes, incorporate lists into the articles themselves. Is this stylistically appropriate? For example, Michael Jordan, there is a ] displayed in the article. However, that list also has its' own article ]. Should athletes' pages incorporate awards in list format? I think that is a bad idea. If a person has such an extensive amount of accomplishments that warrant a list, then, like the MJ article, that information can be displayed in its' own article. If not, it would seem likely that the information should just be incorporated into the "meat" of the article. I think that this article needs to address what to do with "lists". Thoughts? //] 04:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
	:I don't see any problem with that article. It's a format in widespread use. It's easy to see the main achievements summarised in list form (much easier to see than if the same material was in the main text) and anyone wanting all the details can go to the separate list on its own article. ] 04:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
	::You mean you don't have a problem with the Michael Jordan page having a list of his information or you don't have a problem with his accomplishments having it's own article? //]
	:::Both. His page has a summary of (presumably) the most important achievements, while the complete list has its own article - for space reasons. ] 04:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::*Okay, well that sort of gets to my other point. I think that this Manual should account for what is and is not acceptable according to the "consensus". So what do we do? And are we sure that the consensus is that small lists of athletic accomplishments should be provided in text format when they have not been communicated in other places within the article? //] 05:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

	== Is it necessary to state ''Florence, Italy'' or ''Danzig, Poland''? ==

	Is it necessary to add the country every time a city is mentioned, to make sure nobody associates the wrong country with a city name, like ''], ]'' to make clear that Firenze in Italia is not a French city?

	Or should the link to the city article be enough, especially in controversial cases like ]? Many historical bios related to the town were/are affected by edit warring, see the history of those on the ], and also others who once worked or traveled there.

	I'd say that a biography should focus on the person, not the history and political background of the place she/he was born, lived or died, and thus the country name should be left out especially if it leads to endless edit warring, like at this stub which has seen few content additions other than reverting, which was resumed after more than a year of peace -- ] ]  ]    03:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
	:As discussed elsewhere , I picked randomly an entry from ] and found that in ] ("was a Polish (later a naturalized French citizen) harpsichordist"), no country is mentioned next to a city name. It says "Landowska was born in Warsaw", not "Landowska was born in 1879 in Warsaw, ]". She later studied in Berlin and Paris, yet no mention of the countries involved (BTW, I choose not to comment on POV etc. in the last section). If Russian, German or French editors were as eager as some Poles, then Russia, Germany and France would have been written all over this bio (and many others). Next pick, ], same story, a stub about a "Polish composer" born in 1884. Both articles somehow forget to state that those persons were born as subjects of the Russian Czar. Without further inquiry I dare to say that most other bios of people born in the same time and place probably are written in the same way, with the prominent ] being the exemption to this rule due to international attention. -- ] ]  ]    15:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
	::I don't think it's necessary to put the country every time a city is mentioned. This is an American convention (probably due to the number of American cities with the same name and therefore the necessity to list the state) that most non-Americans don't follow. For instance, most Europeans would never say Paris, France or London, England. It's just assumed that's where you're talking about unless you specify otherwise. -- ] 13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::I think that this depends on context. I notice a lot of American biographical articles which don't specify the subject's nationality at all, just saying "John Smith (1901-1902) was a infant prodigy musician who…". This can be amended to "John Smith (1901-1902) was a infant prodigy Canadian musician who…", but isn't also acceptable to use the format "John Smith (1901-1902) was a infant prodigy musician from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada who…"? It's probably better as "John Smith (1901-1902) was a infant prodigy Canadian musician from Edmonton, Alberta, who…", but is tieing the country to city deprecated? --] <small>] • (])</small> 14:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::I always favour putting nationality in the first line if possible. "John Smith (1901–1902) was a Canadian infant prodigy musician." And in the next paragraph "He was born in Edmonton, Alberta." There does seem to be a bit of a presumption that the person is obviously American unless otherwise specified and that should definitely be deprecated. As for cities, I think the point is that some cities are just so famous they don't need further clarification. Even in America: why on earth do you need to say Chicago, Illinois? It should be obvious unless you specify another state that it's the very large city in Illinois you're referring to.

	::::Mind you, I do recall some years ago (pre-Misplaced Pages) having an internet discussion with a Canadian when we were referring to "London" and it was some time before it dawned on us that I was talking about my capital city and he was talking about London, Ontario. It's just the natural presumption to most people, I think, that London is the capital of Britain; but obviously people from Ontario think differently! -- ] 15:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Dates of birth and death duplication.==
	Please see ] -- ], 2007-08-13]10:59z
	:Please don't go there. This is the correct forum. The question posed by Jeandré was "If the biography has an infobox, can we have the dates in there only instead of duplicating it after the name?" ] 15:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Biography subheading==
	In biographical articles, is it ever appropriate to have a "Biography" subheading? If the whole article ''is'' a biography, such a subheading seems redundant - and makes me wonder what the ''rest'' of the article is all about. See: ] for an example. I saw no reference to this on the project page or the Manual of Style. ] 21:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Revisiting people normally known by their middle name ==

	This is a followup to a brief and inconclusive discussion earlier in the year: see ].

	I had been using the format "(Samuel) James Smith" for people known by their middle names, but this format has just been removed (and when I restored it) by another editor who insisted that the MoS deprecated this, which surprised me, because parenthesising the first name is a widely-used practice in British biographical articles, and I had seen nothing to deprecate it.

	It turns out that a change to the MoS was made in , and although here was a subsequent edit war over this and other changes, I can find no relevant discussion at the time -- the only discussion I can find is that ].

	It seems to me that there the best solution here would be flexibility, allowing several different approaches, and that the parenthesised first name should be one of the options. Any thoughts? (I will notify participants in the previous discussions). --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I disagree with the idea of flexiblity - there should be one standard approach, having more than one would lead to many edit wars. I believe the current MoS is how it should be. Having brakcets looks messy and is unnecessary. People can tell from the article title and the article itself that the person was known by their middle name, we do not to put the first name in brackets to tell them. And if necessary, as "known as ..." after the birth-death brackets could be inserted. --] 12:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Article titles can take many different formats, particularly with people who held one or more titles, and are frequently a poor guide to naming. The brackets are a simple and unobtrusive way of making it clear that there was an unused first name, without leaving the reader to infer it.
	::This is the format used by ]. For example, the (subscription required) opens "Chamberlain, (Arthur) Neville (1869–1940), prime minister, was born …", which seems to me to be much less messy than the wikipedia article ], which opens "Arthur Neville Chamberlain (18 March 1869 – 9 November 1940), known as Neville Chamberlain, was a …".
	::There are several other issues in the MOS which allow flexibility without causing edit wars, such as in the formatting of dates, where the guidance is that is more than one option is applicable, use that adopted by the first major contributor to the article. That guidance seems to work very well. --] <small>] • (])</small> 13:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::Yes, but there is no reason to use brackets on one article and not on another. How would people decide which is best of a particular article, I don't believe the first major contributor is either fair or just. It would also create a differance on articles, which makes Misplaced Pages looks stupid. We need a definate policy, and I think the current one works fine. The opening line for Neville Chamberlain to me is fine and a lot better than it would be with brackets, which are messy. And the DNB do things very diferantly to Misplaced Pages as shown by their opening line, so what they do is immaterial. --] 13:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	::::On the contrary, I believe that parenthesising uncommonly used first names looks messy and can be confusing. Just a personal opinion of course, but I prefer to give the full name without parenthesis, then the dates, then the name by which the individual was actually known. I consider this far less confusing, particularly for people whose first language isn't English and who may not understand what the parentheses mean. You are correct that the DNB does it your preferred way, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the best way - the DNB was written by scholars who assumed everyone understood such conventions, and its consumers are probably primarily similar people. Misplaced Pages, on the other hand, is more a general encyclopaedia than a scholarly work and its consumers are not necessarily versed in scholarly conventions. I do, however, believe that the common name should always be listed for the sake of clarity, even if it's the article title. -- ] 13:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Having different approaches doesn't necessarily make WP look stupid (we do fine with the different date formats), but I do think it's a problem that whereas ] opens with one method of explaining a name, an editor who think's that's fine edits ] to remove any indication of the use of the middle name. We need a better solution than one where an apparently unilateral change to the guidelines is used to justify that inconsistency. In any case, surely the current guidelines deprecate the format used on Neville Chamberlain just as much as the parenthesied format?
	:::::If the bracketed format is to be deprecated (I'd prefer it wasn't, but that may be the consensus, and Necrothesp has a good point abut the difft audience), could we at least amend the guidelines to permit (or require, I don't mind) the format used on Neville Chamberlain? --] <small>] • (])</small>
	::::::I would have no problem with that. I should have done so with Ruth Dalton. --] 13:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Yes, I agree the guidelines should be amended. -- ] 14:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	How's this for wording:

	:Where the subject uses one of their middle name rather than their first name, that should be indicated by including a "known as" phrase after the dates of birth and death. The style of placing unused first names in brackets should not be used;
	:;Correct
	:*(from ]): '''Lewis Brian Hopkin Jones''' (] ] – ] ]), known as '''Brian Jones''' …
	:;Wrong
	:*'''(Lewis) Brian Hopkin Jones''' (] ] – ] ]) …

	--] <small>] • (])</small> 14:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Looks fine. -- ] 15:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	::I suggest that having apparently reached agreement between three editors here, that we leave it a few days before implementing the changes, to see if anyone else wants to contribute. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::It looks good to me. ] 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

	=== Hold on a minute... ===

	:Thanks for drawing my attention to this debate, which I believe is missing the point. It appears that a significant number of people are under the impression that there is something uniquely important about a person's first forename, and that it should be accorded special status. To me, the sight of ]'s name with 'Lewis' in brackets but 'Hopkin' not is bizarre and indefensible. He had three forenames, one of which was the main one. 'Nuff said. Similarly, to say that Brian Jones was known as Brian Jones strikes me as unnecessary. That was his name. It's the article's title. I'm genuinely puzzled as to what information this recently added assertion is intended to convey.

	:What I am trying to say is that, whatever convention Misplaced Pages follows, it should not discriminate between and schizonyms. If we say "'''James Paul McCartney''' (known as '''Paul McCartney''')" then we have to say "'''John Ono Lennon''' (born '''John Winston Lennon''', known as '''John Lennon''')", and do the same for every person who is not known by their full name – i.e. the vast majority.

	:P.S. Is it purely coincidence that you recently edited '']'', whose ] carries my most extensive and impassioned plea for resistance to schizonymacentricity (the very set of assumptions responsible for such misleading phrases as "known by their middle name")? ] 12:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Grant, I'm not sue who the "you" is that you refer to in your PS, so I can't help you on that point, but it seems to me that you are missing something here. The issue, as I see it is that in English-style naming, most people have two or more given names and a surname, and are known for most purposes by the first given name and the surname; those who other combinations (such as middle name+surname or first two names+surname) are the exception. Presented with a name like "Eric Alfred Theodore William FitzRoy", readers know that unless told otherwise that person can be assumed to use for most purposes the name "Eric Fitzroy", or (e.g. in North America, where the middle initial is widely used, as "Eric A. Fitzroy".
	::The purpose of spelling out the use of a middle name is simply to clarify to reader from the start that the disparity between the article title and the list of names is a) not a mistake, and b) is a customary usage rather than the result of a change of name. In most cases, this adds only four words to the lead para, so it's hardly cluttersome; and as above, it will apply only to a fairly small minority of articles.
	::I think that with the example of Brian Jones, you may misunderstand what is being proposed: it's not matter of saying (tautologically) that "Brian Jones was known as Brian Jones", but rather of saying that "Lewis Brian Jones was known as Brian Jones", concisely clarifying an apparent inconsistency. That's all.
	::BTW, there seems to be consensus here not to use brackets, but to describe it as an "indefensible" practice seems odd: the ] is a highly-respected publication which uses it. The less current ] uses the "known as" format: see, for example . --] <small>] • (])</small> 16:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

	::::For a detailed response, see subsection below. ] 00:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

	:::I actually came here, following a message left on my talk page, to say pretty much exactly the same thing as Grant has above. I think names in brackets look terribly ugly, especially as the very first word in an article, which is what the brackets-policy would result in. I also fail to see the point of saying "John William Smith (born XYZ), known as William Smith...". It's completely obvious from the article title that he's called that. I really can't imagine ''anyone'' coming across such an article and thinking "The article title says William Smith, but William's his middle name! What's going on???", and I also can't imagine anyone thinking such a situation is due to a mistake on our part ("Ha ha! His name was John Smith but those fools at Misplaced Pages have called the article William Smith! What idiots!"). And you mention people known by both first names: surely we aren't going to put "John William Smith, known as John William Smith"? "George Walker Bush, known as George W. Bush"? I really don't see why the article title (combined with the person's usual name as the caption of a picture in appropriate cases) isn't enough in all these cases. "Known as..." should be reserved for people whose usual name is totally unrelated to their full name ("known as Bono" and what not), not overused in obvious cases. ] ] 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

	::::The Misplaced Pages convention for biographical article titles is that they use the the name someone is most commonly known as. Therefore I agree with Proteus that no further explanation is necessary unless there are exceptional circumstances (for example, being known as a completely different name). This is certainly how I've always read articles on Misplaced Pages, e.g. ].

	::::If we were going to use parentheses, '''all''' parts of a name that aren't commonly used should be in brackets – for many articles, that would be the person's middle name. On the other hand, if we are always going to put "known as..." in cases where someone doesn't simply use their first given name and surname, we should include it for articles where someone uses both forenames, e.g. ] (otherwise, by some people's reckoning, readers will think it's Sarah Parker, right?) Using the article title and any captions to give the preferred form of a person's name is the best solution. Let's save "known as..." for when we really need it as it does clutter up the opening. ''']''' (]) 20:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Once again I make the point I made above. You're coming to this as native English speakers who don't need clarification. I believe it ''is'' a good idea to make things as unambiguous as possible. It would also only work if the article title ''always'' reflected the name by which the person was commonly known. In many cases it doesn't, particularly where full names have been used as article titles in order to disambiguate people with the same first name/surname combination. -- ] 21:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

	::::::That shouldn't be done. John (William) Smith and John (Henry) Smith should be disambiguated as "John Smith (astronaut)" and "John Smith (musician)" or whatever, both to avoid the possible confusion you mention and because the disambiguation system has been expressly designed to use bracketed disambiguating terms to allow ease of linking using the pipe trick. And I really don't see how it's a language issue. How is knowledge or lack thereof of the English language going to affect whether someone realises that article names correspond to the common name of the subject of the article? ] ] 22:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Whether it should or shouldn't be done (and no policy says it ''shouldn't'' be done), it has been done. I fail to see why piping is any easier with a bracketed disambiguator than with a middle name. I also think you are forgetting that not every language constructs names as ours does. When is clarification ever a bad thing? -- ] 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::When it clutters up articles and is unnecessary for the overwhelming majority of readers. If "it might clarify it for someone" were an incontrovertible argument for putting stuff in articles, even the simplest thing would become ridiculously long: we could have a bracketed definition after non-simple words in case someone doesn't know what they mean ("he entered into a contract (a legally enforceable agreement) with..."), the British English equivalent of every US English term after it (and vice versa) ("he put the body in the trunk (or boot, if you're in the Commonwealth)", a summary of historical events to remind people what happened in them whenever they're mentioned ("he fought at the Battle of Waterloo (the one where Napolean was defeated by Wellington)"), and so on and so on. At the end of the day, we're writing an encyclopaedia, and so we have to assume the reader has a certain amount of basic intelligence, or the whole thing just wouldn't work. The ability to work out that if an article begins "John William Smith" followed by a date or dates and "William Smith" is written in big letters just above that then it's about a chappy who used his middle name is, I would say, something we can expect people to have. As for disambiguation, ] allows you to link with <nowiki>]</nowiki> whereas ] requires <nowiki>]</nowiki> (and, of course, requires whoever's linking to check the article to see whether he is "John Smith" or "William Smith"). ] ] 23:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::Er no, because those things should be linked, allowing clarification with a single click of the mouse. That's why we link in the first place. As to piping, good grief, you mean it takes a few extra characters? Woe! Woe! Very few people use that way of piping anyway - I'm not actually sure I've ever seen anyone use it. I don't quite understand your last point - if the article's entitled William Smith then <nowiki>]</nowiki> wouldn't link to it anyway. If a disambiguator is used then the person doing the linking is still going to have to check to see exactly what disambiguator has been used - they're rarely 100% obvious. -- ] 23:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I agree with Proteus, putting known as is stating the obvious and is not necessary. --] 07:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
	::UpDown, this looks like the direct opposite of what you wrote . It's a Good Thing™ to be ready to chnage ones mind, but maybe you could clairify what prompted you to change your mind here?
	::For those who say that this isn't necessary, why do the biographical dictionaries do it? The ODNB etc have been publishing biographical articles for a lot longer than wikipedia has existed, and as far as I can see they all agree that is a need for some form of clarification, though they differ about which form to use. Doesn't that usage tell us something about the need for this? --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

	:::From what I've seen of the ODNB, they don't have what we have (a main title before the subject's full name), meaning further clarification of the actual name used may be needed. Any need for that in WP is eliminated by the article title. ] ] 11:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	:::BrownHairedGirl what I said was I would have ''"no problem with that"'', I did not say I liked the idea (hence why I had never inserted in personally, and hence what I did at Ruth Dalton). At the time it looked like a small discussion between 3 people, and with me the only one against the idea I thought it was best just to comprimise and not argue further. Since the discussion has enlarged and I discovered I am not the only with the view that "known as" is unnecessary, so I thought I could set the record straight with my views. --] 12:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

	=== Response to BrownHairedGirl's initial reply to my 'Hold on a minute...' ===

	Rather than break the flow of what BrownHairedGirl has written above, I've copied it below, and given my responses at the appropriate points.

	:Grant, I'm not sue who the "you" is that you refer to in your PS, so I can't help you on that point...

	::It was you. On ] ], you changed "]" to "East ]". But given the thousands of edits you've made since then, I'm not surprised you've forgotten about it. Looks like it ''was'' pure coincidence, then. But the point is... I beseech you to read the ], because it goes deeper into many of the points I'm trying to make here.

	:... but it seems to me that you are missing something here. The issue, as I see it is that in English-style naming, most people have two or more given names and a surname...

	::How you see it? Hmmm... Most people? Possibly. But many people have only one given name. Probably more than you imagine.

	:... and are known for most purposes by the first given name and the surname...

	::Well... it's probably true that more people have their main forename placed first, than have it placed second, third, etc. But it's not an overwhelming majority. "Most people" are right-handed, but we don't structure Misplaced Pages articles about left-handed people differently from those about right-handed people.

	:... those who other combinations (such as middle name+surname or first two names+surname) are the exception.

	::Well, no, actually... It's hard to get accurate figures, and representative lists giving full names ''and'' main forenames are somewhat thin on the ground, but let's take British prime ministers of the last hundred years as a case in point. By my reckoning, only eight out of nineteen conform to your stereotype of normality. The other eleven are juxtonyms – three with only one forename, and eight known by the second of two. Hardly an exception, then.

	:... Presented with a name like "Eric Alfred Theodore William FitzRoy", readers know that unless told otherwise that person can be assumed to use for most purposes the name "Eric Fitzroy", or (e.g. in North America, where the middle initial is widely used, as "Eric A. Fitzroy".

	::Why on earth would they 'know' that?

	:The purpose of spelling out the use of a middle name is simply to clarify to reader from the start that the disparity between the article title and the list of names...

	::What disparity? I suspect you only see one because you are unaware just how common juxtonymy is. Take a look at the quaintly named ] before they delete it (ironically, on the grounds that it's too long to signify anything unusual). The fact that ] isn't known as Joseph is no more a 'disparity' than the fact that ] isn't known as Joseph. 'Most people' with more than one forename have one that is used for everyday purposes. There is no reason why that needs to be the first one. And no reason to comment on it, either way.

	:... is a) not a mistake, and b) is a customary usage rather than the result of a change of name. In most cases, this adds only four words to the lead para, so it's hardly cluttersome;

	::Alternatively, you could insert the words "Clutter, clutter, clutter, clutter," into the first sentence of any article. It's only four words, but it's still clutter.

	:... and as above, it will apply only to a fairly small minority of articles.

	::No... a very large minority, at least.

	:I think that with the example of Brian Jones, you may misunderstand what is being proposed...

	::Really?

	:... it's not matter of saying (tautologically) that "Brian Jones was known as Brian Jones", but rather of saying that "Lewis Brian Jones...

	::Do you mean Lewis Brian ''Hopkin'' Jones? You appear to have omitted one supplementary forename but not the other. Was there a reason for that?

	:... was known as Brian Jones", concisely clarifying an apparent inconsistency.

	::No. Merely perpetuating the ] that led you to assume it was an inconsistency in the first place.

	:... That's all.
	:BTW, there seems to be consensus here not to use brackets, but to describe it as an "indefensible" practice seems odd: the ] is a highly-respected publication which uses it...

	::They don't use it consistently, though, do they? , for instance, gives no indication that ]'s first forename ].

	:... The less current ] uses the "known as" format: see, for example .

	::In fact, it uses "always known as". I can almost see the adverb edit wars now... But, as other people have already pointed out: Because the article's title is "BOYD, THEODORE PENLEIGH", there is at least an excuse for establishing what name Boyd actually used. In Misplaced Pages, that is not necessary. The question is: Why do they not also establish the usual names of those who manage to get through their daily lives without recourse to a second or third forename. The answer, of course, is rampant schizonymacentricity. Were I numbered among the editors of one of these august publications, I would argue my case fiercely in that forum. As it is, I can at least endeavour to ensure that Misplaced Pages does not fall into the same trap.

	Sorry if the foregoing seems like a rant, but this matters to me. ] 00:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Naming of female relatives ==

	I have noticed a tendency to "revert" female relatives to their maiden names in biographical articles. Articles often say something like "John Jones was born in 1938 to Bob Jones and Nancy Smith", even though "Nancy Smith" did not go by her maiden name. This is probably a result of some genealogical tables which use maiden names, but is certainly misleading for biographical purposes. I first noticed this in an article on Congressman Ron Paul, where both his wife and mother were referenced solely, and inaccurately, by their maiden names.

	Since this may be due to confusion from looking at raw genealogical tables, should something be added to the manual to clarify that relatives should not be reverted to names which they themselves do not use? ] 10:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	:I agree. I've always found it odd when somebody's mother is referred to by her maiden name, thus implying that the subject of the article was illegitimate. -- ] 10:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

	From the Franz Liszt article: "His parents were Adam and Maria Anna Liszt (née Lager)". I see nothing offensive in this. Is it a suitable model? ] 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	:That's fine, although "His parents were Adam Liszt and Maria Anna Liszt (née Lager)" is better, as the other form implies his father too was born Lager - it may be obvious what it means, but it still isn't very good English. But it would be confusing (and incorrect) if she was listed just as Maria Anna Lager, which wasn't her name when her son was born. I also dislike "the former" (e.g. "His parents were Adam Liszt and the former Maria Anna Lager"), which seems to be a common American form and suggests that his mother was dead when he was born, had changed her forenames as well, or had become nameless! She's not the former Maria Anna Lager, but Maria Anna Liszt, formerly Lager. - -- ] 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

	::I have to admit that I do this "the former" thing quite a lot, but then I tend to edit articles on peers, and saying "his parents were the 7th Earl of York and the Countess of York" seems to me to be rather unhelpful, whereas "his parents were the 7th Earl of York and the former Lady Isabella Plantagenet" actually says what his mother's name was. I would tend to agree it's not appropriate in articles on commoners. ] ] 17:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

	Upon further examination, this practice appears to be quite rampant. I was surprised to see otherwise well-edited articles on major figures affected by it. Though I am sure that most cases are honest mistakes, I imagine that this could be viewed by some readers as patronising or politically motivated. Could someone with more experience please write up an addition to the Manual, if I am correct that this practice is inappropriate for biographical purposes? ] 17:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Postnominal letters ==

	I would like to suggest that the manual of style indicate that postnominal letters to indicate knighthoods and similar honors (such as ]) should not be included in the lead sentence if the subject was not associated with a country where such postnominals are normally used. (I'm not sure exactly how to phrase that.) I don't think that a United States president like ] should have his article begin "'''William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton''', ]" in reference to an honor he received from Papua New Guinea, as it once did. --] 18:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

	I agree with the above proposal. Including a string of postnominal initials in the body of an article makes it rather difficult to read and destroys the flow for instance the article on ] begins "'''Robert Keith "Bob" Rae''', PC, OC, OOnt, QC, BA, LLB, BPhi, LLD (honoris causa) (born August 2, 1948) is a Canadian politician." When there is an infobox, I would like to propose listing the postnomials in the infobox only instead of in the body of the article. ] 22:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
	:But that's not the proposal at all, since the first four postnoms are applicable to Mr Rae's country and the last three shouldn't be included anyway, since they're degrees. Postnoms applicable to the individual's own country should most certainly be included - the proposal was referring to foreign honours. -- ] 22:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::The non-inclusion of postnominal letters indicating degrees is not clear in the policy. I've added the following to the section on Academic titles in accord with Necrothesp's statement above: "Postnominal letters indicated academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name.". ] 13:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

	::Ah, well I'll expand the proposal then. I'd like to propose that if an infobox exists, the postnominals should go there rather than in the body of the article. ] 22:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::I disagree. Postnominals signifying domestic honours should always be added in the body of the article. -- ] 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

	::::Why? As long as the postnominals are mentioned in the infobox, why interrupt the article with a recitation of the alphabet? ] 01:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Because in the Commonwealth these postnoms are frequently used and are if anything a more important part of a person's name than unused middle names, which we wouldn't dream of removing. It's no more an "interruption" of the article than listing birth and death dates. I personally dislike infoboxes anyway, which I consider to be ugly and unnecessary, and if they must be used I certainly wouldn't consider them a place to which to relegate important information. -- ] 13:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	::::::Reginald Perrin, are you aware that the word is spelled "postnominal", not "postnomial"? -- ] 14:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::Postnomial sounds better:) Thanks for the correction. ] 17:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	'''Support''' the original proposal. To me, having the postnominals as the second thing in the article seems a bit excessive, at least for people who are from countries where postnominals are never used. There are some issues with people who changed nationalities ], but I think the original proposal is a reasonable guideline.

	I don't have a strong opinion on post-nominals in countries where they matter. From an outsider's point of view, I think it's weird that the intro-paragraph puts the recognition of notability (post-nominals) before the reason why someone was notable in the first place... but I realize some people argume post-nominals are an inseparable part of the name. — ] (]) 14:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	Generally, I support the original proposal, although I think exceptions should be made for people like Bob Hope who would have continued to hold British nationality (and therefore would have been Sir Bob) if he'd been born later. -- ] 14:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	:Maybe not a perfect example; if he had been born 5 years later, he wouldn't have been British at all, but American by birth. ;-) ] 16:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	==Changing name legally vs otherwise==
	Per this what is the community's take on this and also see ]. Thanks --] 06:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

	:I disagree with to this Manual of Style. If a person changes his or her name, then Misplaced Pages should not require proof that court papers have been filed, in order for Misplaced Pages to recognize the name change.] 06:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
	::How about reliable sources ]? We should have reliable sources that say the person has "changed" their name? --] 06:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

	(undent) The paragraph of this Manual of Style in question says (with your proposed change in bold italics):

			Following ] with @] I would like this guideline to be more clear regarding a specific case that I've noticed to be prominent in leads of popular biographies.
	{{cquote\|It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name '''''legally'''''. Therefore: "'''Johnny Reid "John" Edwards''' (born ], ]) ..." is preferable to saying that John Edwards was born with the name Johnny Reid Edwards.}}

			Should a vast amound of prizes on body be able to eclipse any other relevant piece of information on lead?
	If we have a reliable source that a person has changed his or her name, then we should not require additional legal evidence (i.e. we should not require a reliable source that the person has filed court papers). All that should be needed is a reliable source that the name has been changed.] 07:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
	:That actually doesn't sound to bad. Maybe we can reach ''some'' consensus here :) --] 07:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
	::Whats the difference between Edwards and Thompson?--] 07:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::Why do you want to Edwards to Thompson? Could it possibly be to influence the outcome of ongoing discussion at the ] article???] 07:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

			According to ] the space for "prominent controversies" is guaranteed, and the lead should "cultivates interest in reading on". Looking at the leads from ], ] or ] this is far from true. The lead is basically a collection of releases and prizes, accomplishing the role of excluding any potential controversial information from a first read regarding the subject. I would have expected a similar approach regarding politician pages, but the issue is extremelly prominent in the entertainment ones as well. This is in stark contrast to a multi faced developed lead as in the ] page.
	::::To piss you off?:) j/k No seriously, what do you see the differences as?--] 07:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

			My question is, how can this be by design in an encyclopedia? And if it isn't, shouldn't the Manual of Style appropriatelly put a limit to the amount of lead paragraphs exclusivelly reserved to records and awards? ] (]) 13:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I see a need not to change a Manual of Style unless there is a valid reason.] 07:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::::So I guess we should take this back to the Thompson page?--] 07:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Yup.] 07:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

			:Hmm. Perhaps it's hard to write and maintain a rounded summary when the subject persists in living and creating - you happen to have contrasted three articles about living, active artists/creators with one dead one. Casting around, I notice the engaging lead of ] would serve as an obituary with a few tweaks of tense, but that would be a grim guideline to include in ]. ] (]) 14:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
	But now you do see a reason to change the Manual of Style, Ferrylodge? <strong>] </strong>\|<small>]</small> 05:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
			::you surelly have a point about living persons being more difficult to summarize, define and such. But isn't that the whole point of wikipedia, to try to look for consensus for edits? Conceding flat out doesn't seem appropriate to me. Jagger page is also a better exemple as you note. ] (]) 14:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
			::What I am noticing is that this issue is presented on body of articles as well. I got an editor telling me that some fully sourced and relevant material should not be added because (not precise quote) "it is not what makes the group notable". Doesn't this transforms BIO pages in promotional tools? Shouldn't this be addressed in the guidelines? ] (]) 16:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::] since we are discussing the ] section I would like to know your opinion on this one, if you got the time, as well. ] (]) 14:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::I can't really say (though for lack of patience I spent little time trying...) but I'll make two points. A gray area not often acknowledged is that editors have a great leeway in selecting and organizing material - that's what writing is about, and good writing necessarily sparks the readers interest, is clear, and quickly states the point. I do object to blinding following whatever guideline. Elsewhere, (Trump's "hush money" case) there was a conflict between popularity and the use of the term "hush money", and accuracy of what the case was actually about (not hush money, but election fraud). There are times when popularity (and sources) ought to be overruled in the interest of better accuracy. This is an encyclopedia where the 2nd interest is paramount. Perhaps all off point, but these thoughts came to mind (since you asked). ] (]) 15:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Guidelines should not indeed be something to follow blindly, but for exemple the case you are mentioning is on the opposite side. The Trump lead is almost exclusivelly full of criticism, I was very surprised to not even find a basic phrase that explained how/why he won an election. You were able to go into details of terms to use for criticism, that's great.
			:::::In the exemples I am refering to, pages of popular artists (I noted this in Kpop but then discovered that it also applies to Taylor Swift etc) get a lead which is almost fully composed of prizes and records. Almost no analysis, let alone criticism. The reasoning from editors to defend this has been "only notability matters", which basically means that a popular person that has a strong PR team can dilute any info that they don't like. That's what a guideline should make clear is not an desirable writing approach. ] (]) 22:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::: We're just talking here (or rather at least I am...disinterested...). The situation you describes strikes me as relating to what I mentioned above - that gray area of writing that is the author's selection of material and how to present it. You describe what seems to me to be poor writing. Other than to highlight that a biography should perhaps start with interesting text that would capture and maintain the reader's attention. I can't think of guidance that would do away with poor writing, or, rather as you seem to suggest, a writer's invested interest in spinning an article a certain way. Though what you also describe is a conflict of interest - writing by the subject's PR team. That's explicitly a no no. I hope my random comments are worthwhile. ] (]) 11:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Surelly it's poor writing, I think that the root of the problem may be on the not sufficient limits given to the "weight" concept itself. No need for a PR team in most situations, fans do the job instead. ] (]) 13:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::{{tq\|I can't think of guidance that would do away with ... a writer's invested interest in spinning an article a certain way.}} That is ] policy, and if the OP can make a clearly evidenced case that this is what's happening, the place for it is ]. It's a neutrality policy issue, not a style matter. The ] process can also be used to get at such a problem. But both NPOVN and RFC expect a good-faith effort to work matters out on the article talk page and/or in user-talk before firing up processes that suck up other editors' time (see ] for the gist). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::@] I am not sure I understand your point. As I tried to explain this is not about editors "trying to spin an article", but about pages where legitimate sources focus by default on prizes and achievements, because of a weighted media landscape where only those are predominant. Those sources don't have to be neutral, and they can focus on prizes as much as they want, but an encyclopedia should not rigidly follow them to establish weight.
			::::::::With this in mind, this is clearly a style issue for me. ] (]) 20:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I see what you're getting at. However, if you are running into "page ]" who revert you trying to include reliably sourced critical and non-critical material that doesn't have to do with awards, just because various pop-culture sources gush on and on about the awards, that's still a ] problem more than style one. ] policy means not giving undue weight to fringe or other minority viewpoints; it doesn't mean hiding facts that are reliably reported but not as frequently as flattery. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::What is important here is the subject's notability and the reasons for it. If the awards are themselves the reason for the subject's notability then by all means mention the award. (see ] for example). The lead is ''not'' the place for minor details or critique. I would not normally bother with controversies in a lead either, but that is an issue of ] . ] ] 04:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::@] Yea, but I would have appreciated some new section on guideline (maybe DUE as you note) to make this clear.
			::::::::::@] see, that's the issue. There is a big difference from "mentioning the awards" and a lead section beeing exclusivelly awards. I am also not refering exclusivelly to critiques on lead.
			::::::::::I brought the ] vs ] leads as exemples of a lead that gives various informations and a lead which doesn't.
			::::::::::If someone gets a lot of awards, of course they will be known for awards, but if that becomes a reason to not give space to anything else it means transforming an encyclopedia into a PR tool. Such a prominent design flaw. ] (]) 08:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
			:] says: {{tq2\|The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person}} It's subject to consensus what content is considered due for the lead. —] (]) 05:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Obviously consensus is core to Misplaced Pages. Guidelines are a tool to generally shape this consensus around broaded goals to fit the project. ] (]) 08:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::Sometimes I read a complaint like this and then I read the corresponding article and end up bewildered, scratching my head and wondering if the OP and I have read the same article. Supposedly, the lead of ] is dominated by an excessive focus on her awards. Supposedly, her {{tpq\|vast amound of prizes}} has served to {{tpq\|eclipse any other relevant piece of information}}. This is belied by the ''actual lead of the article'' which consists of thirteen, count 'em, thirteen sentences, before any awards or prizes are mentioned, and her many awards are succinctly summarized in just one sentence. Was the article totally rewritten in the last few hours? If not, what is the problem? Or, as ] plaintively asked five years before Taylor Swift was born, "Where's the beef?" ] (]) 08:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::I've read it now, again. As I said in my OP it's a bullet point list of releases and prizes. So yes, we have indeed different opinions. But if we can agree that a lead should not be only prizes, that's already something. ] (]) 09:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I agree with Cullen328 that I do not understand what the problem is. Speilberg and Swift, for example, appear to be some of the most awarded people in their fields. The mention of these accolades appears to be less than 20% of the lead. I could see trimming a little of the Blackpink article, but it does not seem close to a serious enough issue with any of these examples to create new policies or guidelines. Local consensus based on reasons and discussion of sources in consideration of ] seems more appropriate to me. – ] (]) 19:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Have you read the Kubrick lead? Do you see a difference from the Spielberg lead? Do you think that a bulletpoint of releases and achievements "cultivates interest in reading on"? ] (]) 00:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::To at least try to understand "what the problem is" for me, you can read again what I wrote against strictly following sources quantity to establish WP:DUE in this kind of pages. ] (]) 00:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Making up false claims about what is in the leads of other articles isn't helping your argument. And ] has never been based solely on quantity of sources. – ] (]) 00:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::But still a balance and neutrality (]) matter, not a style matter – not in the sense of the WP:Manual of Style. In the very broad vernacular sense, I suppose it's a matter of "writing style" in a vague way. But it's one covered by neutrality policy here, not by our text-formatting and article-layout guidelines (MoS). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 02:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Formatting post-nominals examples ==
	:Please stop playing games. I said that there was no valid reason for the change proposed by Threeafterthree. I did not say that there is no valid reason for any change whatsoever in this article.] 06:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

			Since ] now says (after the 2023 RFC) "post-nominal letters may be included in the main body of the article, but not in the lead sentence of the article", why are the examples in {{slink\|MOS:BIO\|Formatting post-nominals}} formatted with boldface names, as they would appear only in the lead sentence of the article? Can we maybe find some actual article where a post-nominal is properly "included in the main body of the article" but not in the lead, and copy the formatting from there? —] (]) 20:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
	==John Edwards==
			:Good grief. How did I miss this RfC? This is yet another example of cultural bias on en WP, something which was explicitly not taken into account by the closer. But in answer to your question, it actually now makes it awkward to explain what a post-nominal is when they haven't been introduced in the lead sentence with the name (where they belong, frankly). For example, in the body you might say, "In January 1927, Fooist was made a Companion of the Distinguished Service Order (DSO)." But then why is the (DSO) there? It essentially requires an additional sentence or explanatory footnote like "This award entitled the recipient to place the initialisation DSO after their name, or some similar formulation if it could be written generically to apply to all awards the person received that came with a post-nominal, which would be particularly important in the case of highly decorated Commonwealth generals, for example, who might have six or more postnominals, where you wouldn't want six separate notes. Talk about a solution in search of a problem... ] (]) 03:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
	This article says about Edwards:
			::Even as an anti-royalist and anti-classist, this doesn't make much sense to me. It's conventional to give post-nominals after the name of the person to whom they pertain, on the person's first mention in biographical materials about that person (or, I guess, about them in substantial part, e.g. if the article were about a band and its members, or covered both a person and the company they founded). What's not conventional is to keep repeating the post-noms in the same article, or to pepper other articles with them where they are not pertinent because the person to whom they pertain is being mentioned only in passing. The RfC alluded to must have happened while I was off doing something else, since I would have opposed this extreme result. The RfC is over at ], and the conclusion is "There is consensus in support of moving post-nominals outside of lead sentences." So, that equates neither to "removing from the lead section" nor "removing from the article". While I don't think that the practicalities of this were thought through at all (thus the current thread), and would support revisiting this as a ] matter, I would think that in the interim, the most sensible approach would be to have the lead sentence read something like "Dame '''Amelia de Groot''' was a prominent underwater basketweaver, who ..." or whatever; then at the beginning of the first non-lead section, start with something like "Dame Amelia de Groot, <small>], ]</small>, was born Marie-Amelia van Phluph in ...", and progressively lay out her life and achievements in the course of the article. At that spot, use the same template, links, and (when deemed appropriate) footnotes with regard to the post-nom. abbreviations as we formerly used in the lead sentence. In other words, treat the non-lead first mention of the subject as the first mention for post-nom. purposes. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::Someone is going around removing the post-nominals from the article. It is a shame, because this is very important information, and sums up a career very well. But it is more important to assert American control over the internet lest the United States pull the plug on our servers. ] ] 19:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::Postnoms should be retained in the infobox. The big problem is that some editors are going around removing postnoms from the first line and either not adding them to the infobox if they are not already there or not adding an infobox where there is none. This is deleting information and is a very bad idea. -- ] (]) 11:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::G'day {{u\|SMcCandlish}}, I entirely agree with your anti-royalist and anti-classist position, but I'm not sure about putting postnoms in the first sentence of the "Early life" section or whatever, because that bit is about the person at the time of birth, who their parents were, where they were born etc. It seems incongruous to put postnoms on their name at the point in the narative that they were born. Cheers, ] (]) 23:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Fixable with sensible writing. Start the "article proper" with an introdutory sentence that nutshells who they were in life, then have a second sentence that harks back to their birth. Or put the post-noms in the first sentence of a "Career" section, or whatever. Or even later in the lead. My point was that "don't do it in the lead sentence", as a rule we're stuck with until this is re-RfCed, doesn't mean "don't do it anywhere in the article". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Is a "re-RfC" on the horizon?] (]) 20:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Not from me personally, since it would probably be more ]tic that I can stomach right this moment, and I have my head deep in several ongoing projects, so am not around WP a lot for the short term at least. But see ] below, where the subject has been raised again; that could potentially be where to develop a followup RfC about this. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Proposal to import a line-item from ] into ] ==
	{{cquote\|It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name. Therefore: "Johnny Reid "John" Edwards (born June 10, 1953) …" is preferable to saying that John Edwards was born with the name Johnny Reid Edwards.}}

			One important element of what will shortly be at ] is a line-item, targeted by the shortcut ], which is entirely correct and addresses a frequently recurring and sometimes disputatious WP writing issue, but has nothing to do with Judaism, really hasn't been seen by much of anyone, and actually belongs in ].
	I think this is incorrect. First of all, the phrase "John Edwards was born with the name Johnny Reid Edwards" does not imply that he has actually changed his name. Likewise, "John Edwards (born as Johnny Reid Edwards)" would not imply that he had actually changed his name. So, I don't see anything wrong with writing in the lede "John Edwards (born as Johnny Reid Edwards)." This is more in accord with , since it does not begin the article with a name that the article's subject disfavors or may have rejected.

			I propose importing that line item about use of "Christ" into that guideline, though with more guideline-appropriate wording:
	Incidentally, , Edwards "changed his name, although not legally. In law school, he started referring to himself as John. He believed that sounded better for his new career." This is another independent reason not to treat Edwards' name any differently from ]'s name. Surely, a man can change his name without filing court papers, just as a woman can, right?] 03:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

			{{tqb\|] should not be referred to in Misplaced Pages's own voice as "Christ" or "Jesus Christ"; the word '']'' is an honorific title ('The Anointed'), used by those who believe specifically that Jesus is the son of God and is the Davidic-line messiah, in ] and some related doctrines including ]. Misplaced Pages asserting this term would be against the ] policy. Jesus should be referred to simply as "Jesus" or, when more clarity is needed, "Jesus of Nazareth" (or "Isa" in the context of Islam, in which he is considered a prophet).}}
	So, I propose to change the above-quoted sentences to the following:

			Having a locus for this in that section of MOS:BIO will also provide a place for whatever is eventually decided about Muhammad and "the Prophet" or "the prophet" (used alone or with his name), a subject of some continuing dispute. (An RfC about it earlier this year failed to come to a clear consensus, and it will probably come up again sooner than later.)<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 08:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
	{{cquote\|It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. Also, care must be taken to avoid starting the lead paragraph with a name that the article's subject may have rejected or changed, and such name may be added parenthetically. Therefore: "John Edwards (born Johnny Reid Edwards on June 10, 1953) …" is preferable to "Johnny Reid 'John' Edwards (born June 10, 1953)." However, "James Earl 'Jimmy' Carter, Jr. (born October 1, 1924)", is acceptable because Carter has not rejected or changed his birth name.}}

			:I've thought for years it's absurd that we go on at such length about never using "PBUH" while completely ignoring the much more common NPOV issue of "Jesus Christ". To be clear for anyone unfamiliar, this isn't just a technical etymological "gotcha". Many Jews—and, I assume, many other kinds of non-Christian person—actively avoid using the word "Christ" to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, because it is an explicit statement of faith, even if some non-Christians do use it without meaning that due to cultural osmosis. I didn't know there was guidance on this in WikiProject Judaism's style guide, but now that you've raised this, yes, I definitely '''strongly support''' adding this to MOS:HONORIFIC, although it probably can be pared down a bit. I would suggest just {{tq2\|] should not be referred to in Misplaced Pages's own voice as {{!xt\|Christ}} or {{!xt\|Jesus Christ}}; the word '']'' is an honorific title ('The Anointed') which expresses the belief that Jesus is the messiah. Acceptable names include {{xt\|Jesus}}, {{xt\|Jesus of Nazareth}}, and, ], {{xt\|Isa}}.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 02:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	Any objections?] 03:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
			::Maybe trivially obvious but I think the difference in practice is mostly that secular usage totally memory-holes that ''Christ'' is a title. If I have ever run afoul on this, I'm guessing that's just me having that blind spot. It's clearly a perfectly equivalent situation upon examination though, and I'm glad you brought it up. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:If "Christ" is a POV title, is "Buddha" as well? "]" would be a name which doesn't take a position from within the belief system, and (thinking specifically about article titles, though this is about running text as well) is one which "{{tq\|someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize}}" (the ] of Recognizability) – so it's not as if no such option is available. ] (]) 10:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Every title expresses a POV. The issue is Christ very specifically refers to the fulfilment of a concept within Judaism. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 11:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Title link or no? ==
	:That doesn't quite do it for me. As far as I can tell, neither Johnny Reid Edwards nor James Earl Carter have changed their legal names, but are both generally known by other names (John and Jimmy, respectively). The only difference I can see is that Carter is often given his full legal name in presidential lists etc, whereas Edwards is almost never referred to as "Johnny" anywhere, except in places like the intro to biographical articles, just as Carter is introduced as "James Earl (Jimmy) Carter". If Edwards ever makes it to the White House, there will be many references to "Johnny Reid (John) Edwards". -- ] 05:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

			Hello there. There is bit of a dispute over at the article ]'s talk page, about whether or not to link the title. My view is that, as a rule, the title should not be linked - e.g. King ], as oppose to ] - as that would be consistant with what is written in ]. However, there is no clear policy there and its led to misunderstandings.
	:::JackofOz, why must formal court papers be filed before Misplaced Pages will recognize a man's name change? If a woman decides to drop her married name, or start using her married name, then Misplaced Pages will immediately change the first words of an article accordingly. But if a man stops using his first name, and uses another instead, then Misplaced Pages now insists on starting out an article with the rejected first name.

			Can there be a policy made on this to avoid such disputes or at least clarified? Much appreciated. ] (]) 12:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::"Jimmy" is Carter's nickname. Obviously, "John" is not a nickname of Edwards. The differences seem plain to me. Don't you think it's important not to start out an article with a name that the subject of the article has changed or rejected? This seems like an important and obvious principle for a biography of a living person. Why can't that birth name be put afterward in parentheses?] 06:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

			:@], you seem the most active on here. Pinging you first. Please ping others if you know who is most active here. Regards. ] (]) 12:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I object to the proposal. We're rarely if ever in possession of definitive documents regarding legal name changes, and may or may not know whether a subject has rejected a name or just started using a different one as he or she got older or what. Common sense should prevail of course, but I see no reason to change this facet of MOSBIO which is in effect all over the encyclopedia. Some examples: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc. ] is in fact a different situation - he changed his surname which is more complicated than changing one's first name or adopting a new first name - it is extremely likely that Bill Clinton's name change was a legal change, and that his official legal documents use "Clinton" not "Blythe" so the way it is rendered in the article is correct and also makes sense. But it is not clear whether John Edwards or Fred Thompson (the reason Ferrylodge is raising this question - see ]) actually had their first names legally changed from Johnny and Freddie, or if they merely took on a more mature version of their original birth names, not unlike how Jimmy Carter took on a more informal version of his. In all three cases, it seems to me that the correct model is ] not ], and I think the way MOSBIO reads is correct, clear and shouldn't be changed. Likewise, I think Fred Thompson's name should be rendered the way John Edwards' is - their situations seem virtually identical. And this wording is shorter and simpler than the ungainly "'''John Edwards''' (born as '''Johnny Reid Edwards''')" , which implies a legal name change. We don't have to take care that there's an implication that someone uses a version of their birthname, as in using "Bill" or "Jimmy" instead of "William" or "James" - it's uncontroversial and clear that people use nicknames, and we render them in quotes. The cases of Edwards and Thompson are a little odd because the name in quotes, the name they use, is the more formal name, but otherwise it's exactly the same as all of the many many articles that have nicknames in quotes. MOSBIO is correct as it stands. <strong>] </strong>\|<small>]</small> 05:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
			::Also pinging @], @], @], @]. They took part in a previous survey on ]. ] (]) 18:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Don't link to the title, please. I'd say the same with President ], for example. ] (]) 16:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I'm afraid its another user who is being VERY adament in linking the title. I think you found the initial talk page as well where I gave this example, along with others. ] (]) 17:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I can't see anything in ] that is relevant to this. All that is saying is don't change it from including the "Sir" to omitting it, of vice-versa, as both are equally correct. It doesn't mention whether to include the "Sir" in the link text, or not. -- ] (]). 17:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I know that "Sir" is USUALLY not linked in the event it is mentioned, which is where I'm coming from here. There isn't really a policy otherwise on whether a title should be linked in the name. That is partly why this should be clarified here, so there isn't any dispute/confusion about it going forward. And yes, this policy may not be the exact one but it is related to titles and I'm just making an argument based on what it says about titles in general as well as other policies on here. ] (]) 17:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:What's the reasoning for not including ]'s title in the link text and writing it as "King ]"? We don't write "Pope ]" instead of "]" or "Princess ]" for "]", or "General ]" for ]. -- ] (]). 18:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I already explained that but I will repeat it here: because "Princess" and "Pope" are both part of the article names - it it is part of the article name then it should be linked. I wouldn't link General based on that; I'd write General ] if I had to, same as I'd write President ]. ] (]) 18:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Also, I've explained before to you specifically on the Victoria Starmer talk page, and I don't want to repeat everything all over again on this one - just see if you want to see my stance fully. Regards, ] (]) 18:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::This is a different discussion though, with a potentially very different audience. All relevant detail needs including as a matter of courtesy. -- ] (]). 18:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::If anyone asks for my opinion, then I'll given them my opinion. You already know it, however, and I don't feel the need to explain it to you in detail again. ] (]) 18:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::You cannot assume that I'm the only reader of this though, and should write it so that others know where you are coming from. -- ] (]). 19:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I began this convo so others can chip in and give their opinions. My view is that it should not be in the link which I made clear at the start and, if someone wants me to elaborate further, I will do so when asked. Since you know already, I don't feel the need to as of yet (and I've also put in the link). ] (]) 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::So you think the link text should match the article name? Wow. What would be the purpose of redirects then? Or even pipes? Surely the link text should be in keeping with the article prose flow, style and English variant. Editors should not have to compromise the prose to incorporate the exact article name.
			:::You would have fun trying to write prose in an article that referred to the ]. -- ] (]). 18:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Well, given that this discussion is related to TITLES only and my response was clearly in relation to titles in article names, I clearly meant it in relation to that. I would have thought that was fairly obvious. Please refrain from twisting what I actually meant; I was pretty clear and conscise in my reply. ] (]) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Would redirects for articles about people become redundant then if we adopt your idea? How about pipes, would they be allowed? -- ] (]). 19:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::: shrugs I don't see how that is relevant to this conversation. I think I spelt out to you I'm just not in favor of the title being included in the link when the full name is being used - e.g. King ] or President ] - unless its part of their common name and/or article title, like ] or ]. If you want to a pipe/use or redirect where it is appropriate, go ahead. I'm not at all against piping ] to simply ] or using the redirect ] in place of ], nor have I ever said so. ] (]) 19:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::You obviously haven't made it clear. And now you've made it even more confusing. So you're ok with piping ] as ], but not with using the redirect ]? Is that correct? How about piping ] as ]? -- ] (]). 20:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::If you still think its confusing, I'm afraid that's not my problem. ] (]) 20:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Now I think it is best to wait for others' opinions on this matter as well. I've pinged a fair few people who partake in this talk page regularly and I hope we can hear from them soon. One other, @], has already shared theirs on the matter. ] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::You didn't answer the questions, especially the one about piping ] as ]. -- ] (]). 20:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::I did. ] (]) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Where? -- ] (]). 20:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Again, it's not my problem. And I already said I won't repeat myself to you. You don't seem to be interested in understanding either so its a waste of my time. Good night to you. ] (]) 20:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::I'm interested in trying to understand your objection to using redirects to link articles directly from vocabulary used in prose. At the moment, your arguments seem to wobble, and appear inconsistent to me, and I'm trying to unravel the confusion. -- ] (]). 21:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I'd say that the answer depends on the wording from which the link is being made. If it is more natural to include the word 'King' in the prose, then it should be part of the link per ], and it should not be piped per ]. But if the context means that 'King' is not needed, linking to ] is preferable. ] (]) 08:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Certainly is quite wording dependant, agreed. ] (]) 08:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The title doesn't need linking by itself (e.g. not <nowiki>] ]</nowiki>), but I would argue that it is far better, mostly for aesthetic reasons, to link the whole name, including the title, either by using a redirect (e.g. <nowiki>]</nowiki>) or a pipe (e.g. <nowiki>]</nowiki>). The latter is not necessary here, but it is useful for titles like "Sir" that are not likely to have redirects. -- ] (]) 17:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			::@], I think the first one would be a ] issue so definitely no. Weirdly, part of my objection is aesthetic reasons too. I wouldn't link "President" in "President Joe Biden" in any way for example but I guess that differs from what type of title it is, would you agree? ] (]) 19:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Neither would I! But I would link titles and military ranks. -- ] (]) 17:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Don't link the title as if part of the name. Just overlinking, extra blue for no reason. Few titles actual appertain to a person life-long anyway, so doing the links that way will often be contextually erroneous. E.g. ] doesn't go, as some would quite reasonably expect to, ], i.e. the topical intersection of ] and his presidency; it goes to ], which is about him as a person. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Reading the original post without context, at first I thought it was referring to ]'s own title of ], but I see it's actually about the title in ]. Until this discussion I would have written (in the few cases where using the titles at all would be the best choice) "{{xt\|King ]}}", "{{xt\|President ]}}" and "{{xt\|Sir ]}}", essentially linking the article titles. But this discussion has persuaded me otherwise – if the title "Lady" is linked ("{{xt\|]}}" not "{{xt\|Lady ]}}"), and "Pope" often is because the article titles include it, and also "{{xt\|General ]}}" and {{xt\|Princess ]}}" don't look right, the most consistent approach is to link all honorific titles. If that creates an unwelcome amount of blue, it should be an opportunity to question whether "{{xt\|]}}" as opposed to just "{{xt\|]}}", "{{xt\|]}}" as opposed to "{{xt\|]}}", etc., etc., is the best choice of phrasing in encyclopedic prose anyway. ] (]) 09:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

			==]==
	:::Tvoz, is there any substantial reason to believe that ], ], ], ], or ] has rejected or changed their birth names?] 06:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
			The removal of postnoms from the lead under these new guidelines has started to create some problems. While I am not opposed to this in principle, I ''am'' opposed to the removal of information. Some editors are "enforcing" these new guidelines by removing postnoms (often on dozens of articles at a time) where there is no infobox showing them. If there is no infobox then the postnoms should remain in the first line until an infobox is added. It doesn't matter if the honours are included in the body of the article - it is extremely useful to have an indication of what the person's correct style is at the top of an article where it can be seen at a glance. This problem is compounded by the sniffiness of some Misplaced Pages editors about infoboxes, especially those involved in projects relating to cultural figures. An example of this can be seen on the article for ], where his CBE has been removed from the first sentence but an editor is resisting the addition of an infobox (and, indeed, deleting one that has been added) showing his CBE. Postnominals are important in the UK and other Commonwealth countries and removing useful information like this is not helpful. -- ] (]) 14:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::And, this Manual of Style currently says, "in all cases, a woman should be called by the name she is most widely known under." Why should we begin articles about men with incredibly obscure names that the men have rejected as embarassing, but fully accomodate women's naming preferences?] 06:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
			:Agreed. I don't think the changes have been thought through very well, to be honest. -- ] - ] 17:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			:+1. In Commonwealth countries, every publication includes a person's post-nominals like KBE, AO, at first mention. It's defining, and having to include a clumsy phrase in the lead to convey that information is a backwards step: it leads to more clutter and verbiage, not less. This should be discussed again. -- ] (]) 19:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Completely reject''' the proposal. The current standard has worked fine for every single article until of ]'s full first name -- "Freddie." ] invokes John Edwards as his example here, but the real meat of this discussion is based on Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson's article. Other editors should be aware of that context when participating here. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
			:Agreed with {{u\|Michael Bednarek}}. In Commonwealth countries, the post-nominals are defining; we should not be losing information from articles. ] ] 19:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I don't really see what purpose removing the information achieves assuming it is sourced properly. Post-nominals take up little space and putting them after the name is an easy way to naturally introduce them into an article. Mass removal of content based on a MOS guideline shouldn't happen as the MOS is only a guideline.
			:Although if it is being removed because it is unsourced that is a different matter. ] (]) 20:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			:I would support reversing the previous decision about removing these from the lead sentence - that seems a reasonable place for them to be. ] (]) 00:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Editors should also be aware that this is not some kind of sinister plot. In a biography of a living person, it is poor form for the first words of an article to be a name that the subject of the article has rejected or changed. Does anyone wish to ackowledge that principle? If not, then there is no point in further discussion.] 06:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
			::Same, though in the opposite direction we need to undo ] and ]'s usurpation of infobox fields for pre-nominal titles and for names, to instead hold salultations and peerage/nobility titles, respectively. It's just unbearably bad. See ] for typical example. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Agreed that ''some'' post noms should be in the lede, and also agree that not all need to be in the infobox. ]] 08:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:See also ], above, for related recent discussion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Yes, a poorly thought-through decision which should be reversed. I suggest anyone interested read the thread Stanton linked above. ] (]) 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Yes, I couldn't agree more with all of the points made by {{u\|Necrothesp}} and {{u\|Michael Bednarek}}. ] (]) 20:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Appropriateness of using given names in bio ==
	::::Ferrylodge, I really wish you would try to get your facts straight when you quote me - this is not the first time you have misrepresented my comments to you: I did '''not''' suggest that you come here to revise MOSBIO, I asked if you were going to visit ] and apply the same passionate argument regarding the silliness you seem to see in Freddie to the presumed silliness you would see in Johnny. You chose to bring it here, and it was not at my suggestion. <strong>] </strong>\|<small>]</small> 07:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

			I just ran across an article about a retired US Navy admiral ], who in the second paragraph, it said "In 2017 or earlier, Mike served as a vice director of Joint Chiefs of Staff at Pentagon....". I changed this to his last name citing WP:BIO in the edit summary due to the fact that a bio of an adult like this shouldn't refer to the subject by his/her given name, as I had recalled seeing that it was part of the MoS from several years ago. I now can't find it in the MoS. Was it removed at some point in the past? I still consider it inappropriate. ] (]) 21:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Editors should simply know for the sake of context that when discussing this change ] is the subject you are most immediately concerned with, not ]. No one said anything about a "sinister plot," no need to take a disagreement so personally. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

			:Surname should be used. ]] 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::I am immediately concerned here with John Edwards. Perhaps you can discuss John Edwards now, instead of misrepresenting what I said about Fred Thompson (I have never had any objection to mentioning Thompson's birth name "Freddie" parenthetically in the lede).] 06:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
			::] ] ] 21:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It can be used in certain situations in order to differentiate from other family members who share the same surname who are being mentioned in close proximity. For example, after explaining who someone’s mother was, starting the next sentence with “Mike …”. But other than that, there is rarely justification for it, and it is too informal for an encyclopaedia. ] (]) 21:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Thanks! ] (]) 21:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I quite agree. ] (]) 21:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Yes, I knew that, I was just looking for the operative policy. Thanks! ] (]) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:28, 22 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Biography page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:MOSBIO

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style

	This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
	This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
	For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

can popularity eclipse any other information from lead?

Following a discussion with @Haukurth I would like this guideline to be more clear regarding a specific case that I've noticed to be prominent in leads of popular biographies.

Should a vast amound of prizes on body be able to eclipse any other relevant piece of information on lead?

According to MOS:LEAD the space for "prominent controversies" is guaranteed, and the lead should "cultivates interest in reading on". Looking at the leads from Spielberg, Swift or Blackpink this is far from true. The lead is basically a collection of releases and prizes, accomplishing the role of excluding any potential controversial information from a first read regarding the subject. I would have expected a similar approach regarding politician pages, but the issue is extremelly prominent in the entertainment ones as well. This is in stark contrast to a multi faced developed lead as in the Stanley Kubrick page.

My question is, how can this be by design in an encyclopedia? And if it isn't, shouldn't the Manual of Style appropriatelly put a limit to the amount of lead paragraphs exclusivelly reserved to records and awards? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps it's hard to write and maintain a rounded summary when the subject persists in living and creating - you happen to have contrasted three articles about living, active artists/creators with one dead one. Casting around, I notice the engaging lead of Mick Jagger would serve as an obituary with a few tweaks of tense, but that would be a grim guideline to include in WP:BLP. NebY (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

you surelly have a point about living persons being more difficult to summarize, define and such. But isn't that the whole point of wikipedia, to try to look for consensus for edits? Conceding flat out doesn't seem appropriate to me. Jagger page is also a better exemple as you note. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

What I am noticing is that this issue is presented on body of articles as well. I got an editor telling me that some fully sourced and relevant material should not be added because (not precise quote) "it is not what makes the group notable". Doesn't this transforms BIO pages in promotional tools? Shouldn't this be addressed in the guidelines? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Bdushaw since we are discussing the MOS:CRIMINAL section I would like to know your opinion on this one, if you got the time, as well. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't really say (though for lack of patience I spent little time trying...) but I'll make two points. A gray area not often acknowledged is that editors have a great leeway in selecting and organizing material - that's what writing is about, and good writing necessarily sparks the readers interest, is clear, and quickly states the point. I do object to blinding following whatever guideline. Elsewhere, (Trump's "hush money" case) there was a conflict between popularity and the use of the term "hush money", and accuracy of what the case was actually about (not hush money, but election fraud). There are times when popularity (and sources) ought to be overruled in the interest of better accuracy. This is an encyclopedia where the 2nd interest is paramount. Perhaps all off point, but these thoughts came to mind (since you asked). Bdushaw (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines should not indeed be something to follow blindly, but for exemple the case you are mentioning is on the opposite side. The Trump lead is almost exclusivelly full of criticism, I was very surprised to not even find a basic phrase that explained how/why he won an election. You were able to go into details of terms to use for criticism, that's great.

In the exemples I am refering to, pages of popular artists (I noted this in Kpop but then discovered that it also applies to Taylor Swift etc) get a lead which is almost fully composed of prizes and records. Almost no analysis, let alone criticism. The reasoning from editors to defend this has been "only notability matters", which basically means that a popular person that has a strong PR team can dilute any info that they don't like. That's what a guideline should make clear is not an desirable writing approach. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

We're just talking here (or rather at least I am...disinterested...). The situation you describes strikes me as relating to what I mentioned above - that gray area of writing that is the author's selection of material and how to present it. You describe what seems to me to be poor writing. Other than to highlight that a biography should perhaps start with interesting text that would capture and maintain the reader's attention. I can't think of guidance that would do away with poor writing, or, rather as you seem to suggest, a writer's invested interest in spinning an article a certain way. Though what you also describe is a conflict of interest - writing by the subject's PR team. That's explicitly a no no. I hope my random comments are worthwhile. Bdushaw (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Surelly it's poor writing, I think that the root of the problem may be on the not sufficient limits given to the "weight" concept itself. No need for a PR team in most situations, fans do the job instead. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't think of guidance that would do away with ... a writer's invested interest in spinning an article a certain way. That is WP:NPOV policy, and if the OP can make a clearly evidenced case that this is what's happening, the place for it is WP:NPOVN. It's a neutrality policy issue, not a style matter. The WP:RFC process can also be used to get at such a problem. But both NPOVN and RFC expect a good-faith effort to work matters out on the article talk page and/or in user-talk before firing up processes that suck up other editors' time (see WP:RFCBEFORE for the gist). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish I am not sure I understand your point. As I tried to explain this is not about editors "trying to spin an article", but about pages where legitimate sources focus by default on prizes and achievements, because of a weighted media landscape where only those are predominant. Those sources don't have to be neutral, and they can focus on prizes as much as they want, but an encyclopedia should not rigidly follow them to establish weight.

With this in mind, this is clearly a style issue for me. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at. However, if you are running into "page owners" who revert you trying to include reliably sourced critical and non-critical material that doesn't have to do with awards, just because various pop-culture sources gush on and on about the awards, that's still a WP:NPOV problem more than style one. WP:DUE policy means not giving undue weight to fringe or other minority viewpoints; it doesn't mean hiding facts that are reliably reported but not as frequently as flattery. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

What is important here is the subject's notability and the reasons for it. If the awards are themselves the reason for the subject's notability then by all means mention the award. (see Timothy Ian Britten for example). The lead is not the place for minor details or critique. I would not normally bother with controversies in a lead either, but that is an issue of WP:UNDUE . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish Yea, but I would have appreciated some new section on guideline (maybe DUE as you note) to make this clear.

@Hawkeye7 see, that's the issue. There is a big difference from "mentioning the awards" and a lead section beeing exclusivelly awards. I am also not refering exclusivelly to critiques on lead.

I brought the Kubrick vs Spielberg leads as exemples of a lead that gives various informations and a lead which doesn't.

If someone gets a lot of awards, of course they will be known for awards, but if that becomes a reason to not give space to *anything* else it means transforming an encyclopedia into a PR tool. Such a prominent design flaw. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LEADBIO says:

The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person

It's subject to consensus what content is considered due for the lead. —Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously consensus is core to Misplaced Pages. Guidelines are a tool to generally shape this consensus around broaded goals to fit the project. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes I read a complaint like this and then I read the corresponding article and end up bewildered, scratching my head and wondering if the OP and I have read the same article. Supposedly, the lead of Taylor Swift is dominated by an excessive focus on her awards. Supposedly, her vast amound of prizes has served to eclipse any other relevant piece of information. This is belied by the actual lead of the article which consists of thirteen, count 'em, thirteen sentences, before any awards or prizes are mentioned, and her many awards are succinctly summarized in just one sentence. Was the article totally rewritten in the last few hours? If not, what is the problem? Or, as Clara Peller plaintively asked five years before Taylor Swift was born, "Where's the beef?" Cullen328 (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I've read it now, again. As I said in my OP it's a bullet point list of releases and prizes. So yes, we have indeed different opinions. But if we can agree that a lead should not be only prizes, that's already something. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328 that I do not understand what the problem is. Speilberg and Swift, for example, appear to be some of the most awarded people in their fields. The mention of these accolades appears to be less than 20% of the lead. I could see trimming a little of the Blackpink article, but it does not seem close to a serious enough issue with any of these examples to create new policies or guidelines. Local consensus based on reasons and discussion of sources in consideration of WP:DUE seems more appropriate to me. – notwally (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the Kubrick lead? Do you see a difference from the Spielberg lead? Do you think that a bulletpoint of releases and achievements "cultivates interest in reading on"? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

To at least try to understand "what the problem is" for me, you can read again what I wrote against strictly following sources quantity to establish WP:DUE in this kind of pages. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Making up false claims about what is in the leads of other articles isn't helping your argument. And WP:DUE has never been based solely on quantity of sources. – notwally (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

But still a balance and neutrality (WP:NPOV) matter, not a style matter – not in the sense of the WP:Manual of Style. In the very broad vernacular sense, I suppose it's a matter of "writing style" in a vague way. But it's one covered by neutrality policy here, not by our text-formatting and article-layout guidelines (MoS). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Formatting post-nominals examples

Since MOS:POSTNOM now says (after the 2023 RFC) "post-nominal letters may be included in the main body of the article, but not in the lead sentence of the article", why are the examples in MOS:BIO § Formatting post-nominals formatted with boldface names, as they would appear only in the lead sentence of the article? Can we maybe find some actual article where a post-nominal is properly "included in the main body of the article" but not in the lead, and copy the formatting from there? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Good grief. How did I miss this RfC? This is yet another example of cultural bias on en WP, something which was explicitly not taken into account by the closer. But in answer to your question, it actually now makes it awkward to explain what a post-nominal is when they haven't been introduced in the lead sentence with the name (where they belong, frankly). For example, in the body you might say, "In January 1927, Fooist was made a Companion of the Distinguished Service Order (DSO)." But then why is the (DSO) there? It essentially requires an additional sentence or explanatory footnote like "This award entitled the recipient to place the initialisation DSO after their name, or some similar formulation if it could be written generically to apply to all awards the person received that came with a post-nominal, which would be particularly important in the case of highly decorated Commonwealth generals, for example, who might have six or more postnominals, where you wouldn't want six separate notes. Talk about a solution in search of a problem... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Even as an anti-royalist and anti-classist, this doesn't make much sense to me. It's conventional to give post-nominals after the name of the person to whom they pertain, on the person's first mention in biographical materials about that person (or, I guess, about them in substantial part, e.g. if the article were about a band and its members, or covered both a person and the company they founded). What's not conventional is to keep repeating the post-noms in the same article, or to pepper other articles with them where they are not pertinent because the person to whom they pertain is being mentioned only in passing. The RfC alluded to must have happened while I was off doing something else, since I would have opposed this extreme result. The RfC is over at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies, and the conclusion is "There is consensus in support of moving post-nominals outside of lead sentences." So, that equates neither to "removing from the lead section" nor "removing from the article". While I don't think that the practicalities of this were thought through at all (thus the current thread), and would support revisiting this as a WP:Consensus can change matter, I would think that in the interim, the most sensible approach would be to have the lead sentence read something like "Dame Amelia de Groot was a prominent underwater basketweaver, who ..." or whatever; then at the beginning of the first non-lead section, start with something like "Dame Amelia de Groot, MSW, POEE, was born Marie-Amelia van Phluph in ...", and progressively lay out her life and achievements in the course of the article. At that spot, use the same template, links, and (when deemed appropriate) footnotes with regard to the post-nom. abbreviations as we formerly used in the lead sentence. In other words, treat the non-lead first mention of the subject as the first mention for post-nom. purposes. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone is going around removing the post-nominals from the article. It is a shame, because this is very important information, and sums up a career very well. But it is more important to assert American control over the internet lest the United States pull the plug on our servers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Postnoms should be retained in the infobox. The big problem is that some editors are going around removing postnoms from the first line and either not adding them to the infobox if they are not already there or not adding an infobox where there is none. This is deleting information and is a very bad idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

G'day SMcCandlish, I entirely agree with your anti-royalist and anti-classist position, but I'm not sure about putting postnoms in the first sentence of the "Early life" section or whatever, because that bit is about the person at the time of birth, who their parents were, where they were born etc. It seems incongruous to put postnoms on their name at the point in the narative that they were born. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixable with sensible writing. Start the "article proper" with an introdutory sentence that nutshells who they were in life, then have a second sentence that harks back to their birth. Or put the post-noms in the first sentence of a "Career" section, or whatever. Or even later in the lead. My point was that "don't do it in the lead sentence", as a rule we're stuck with until this is re-RfCed, doesn't mean "don't do it anywhere in the article". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Is a "re-RfC" on the horizon?Halbared (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Not from me personally, since it would probably be more WP:DRAMAtic that I can stomach right this moment, and I have my head deep in several ongoing projects, so am not around WP a lot for the short term at least. But see #MOS:POSTNOM below, where the subject has been raised again; that could potentially be where to develop a followup RfC about this. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to import a line-item from WP:JUDAISMSTYLE into MOS:BIO

One important element of what will shortly be at WP:WikiProject Judaism/Style advice is a line-item, targeted by the shortcut WP:JESUSCHRIST, which is entirely correct and addresses a frequently recurring and sometimes disputatious WP writing issue, but has nothing to do with Judaism, really hasn't been seen by much of anyone, and actually belongs in MOS:BIO#Honorifics.

I propose importing that line item about use of "Christ" into that guideline, though with more guideline-appropriate wording:

Jesus should not be referred to in Misplaced Pages's own voice as "Christ" or "Jesus Christ"; the word Christ is an honorific title ('The Anointed'), used by those who believe specifically that Jesus is the son of God and is the Davidic-line messiah, in Christianity and some related doctrines including Theosophy. Misplaced Pages asserting this term would be against the neutral point of view policy. Jesus should be referred to simply as "Jesus" or, when more clarity is needed, "Jesus of Nazareth" (or "Isa" in the context of Islam, in which he is considered a prophet).

Having a locus for this in that section of MOS:BIO will also provide a place for whatever is eventually decided about Muhammad and "the Prophet" or "the prophet" (used alone or with his name), a subject of some continuing dispute. (An RfC about it earlier this year failed to come to a clear consensus, and it will probably come up again sooner than later.)
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I've thought for years it's absurd that we go on at such length about never using "PBUH" while completely ignoring the much more common NPOV issue of "Jesus Christ". To be clear for anyone unfamiliar, this isn't just a technical etymological "gotcha". Many Jews—and, I assume, many other kinds of non-Christian person—actively avoid using the word "Christ" to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, because it is an explicit statement of faith, even if some non-Christians do use it without meaning that due to cultural osmosis. I didn't know there was guidance on this in WikiProject Judaism's style guide, but now that you've raised this, yes, I definitely strongly support adding this to MOS:HONORIFIC, although it probably can be pared down a bit. I would suggest just

Jesus should not be referred to in Misplaced Pages's own voice as Christ or Jesus Christ; the word Christ is an honorific title ('The Anointed') which expresses the belief that Jesus is the messiah. Acceptable names include Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, and, in Muslim contexts, Isa.

-- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 02:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe trivially obvious but I think the difference in practice is mostly that secular usage totally memory-holes that Christ is a title. If I have ever run afoul on this, I'm guessing that's just me having that blind spot. It's clearly a perfectly equivalent situation upon examination though, and I'm glad you brought it up. Remsense ‥ 论 02:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

If "Christ" is a POV title, is "Buddha" as well? "Siddhartha Gautama" would be a name which doesn't take a position from within the belief system, and (thinking specifically about article titles, though this is about running text as well) is one which "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize" (the WP:CRITERION of Recognizability) – so it's not as if no such option is available. Ham II (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Every title expresses a POV. The issue is Christ very specifically refers to the fulfilment of a concept within Judaism. Remsense ‥ 论 11:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Title link or no?

Hello there. There is bit of a dispute over at the article Victoria Starmer's talk page, about whether or not to link the title. My view is that, as a rule, the title should not be linked - e.g. King Charles III, as oppose to King Charles III - as that would be consistant with what is written in MOS:SIR. However, there is no clear policy there and its led to misunderstandings.

Can there be a policy made on this to avoid such disputes or at least clarified? Much appreciated. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish, you seem the most active on here. Pinging you first. Please ping others if you know who is most active here. Regards. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging @Bagumba, @Tcr25, @Rosbif73, @Jerome Frank Disciple. They took part in a previous survey on MOS:JOBTITLES. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't link to the title, please. I'd say the same with President Joe Biden, for example. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid its another user who is being VERY adament in linking the title. I think you found the initial talk page as well where I gave this example, along with others. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't see anything in MOS:SIR that is relevant to this. All that is saying is don't change it from including the "Sir" to omitting it, of vice-versa, as both are equally correct. It doesn't mention whether to include the "Sir" in the link text, or not. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I know that "Sir" is USUALLY not linked in the event it is mentioned, which is where I'm coming from here. There isn't really a policy otherwise on whether a title should be linked in the name. That is partly why this should be clarified here, so there isn't any dispute/confusion about it going forward. And yes, this policy may not be the exact one but it is related to titles and I'm just making an argument based on what it says about titles in general as well as other policies on here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

What's the reasoning for not including King Charles III's title in the link text and writing it as "King Charles III"? We don't write "Pope Paul VI" instead of "Pope Paul VI" or "Princess Margaret" for "Princess Margaret", or "General de Gaulle" for General de Gaulle. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I already explained that but I will repeat it here: because "Princess" and "Pope" are both part of the article names - it it is part of the article name then it should be linked. I wouldn't link General based on that; I'd write General Charles de Gaulle if I had to, same as I'd write President Joe Biden. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, I've explained before to you specifically on the Victoria Starmer talk page, and I don't want to repeat everything all over again on this one - just see here if you want to see my stance fully. Regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a different discussion though, with a potentially very different audience. All relevant detail needs including as a matter of courtesy. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If anyone asks for my opinion, then I'll given them my opinion. You already know it, however, and I don't feel the need to explain it to you in detail again. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You cannot assume that I'm the only reader of this though, and should write it so that others know where you are coming from. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I began this convo so others can chip in and give their opinions. My view is that it should not be in the link which I made clear at the start and, if someone wants me to elaborate further, I will do so when asked. Since you know already, I don't feel the need to as of yet (and I've also put in the link). Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

So you think the link text should match the article name? Wow. What would be the purpose of redirects then? Or even pipes? Surely the link text should be in keeping with the article prose flow, style and English variant. Editors should not have to compromise the prose to incorporate the exact article name.

You would have fun trying to write prose in an article that referred to the Buddy Holly airplane accident. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, given that this discussion is related to TITLES only and my response was clearly in relation to titles in article names, I clearly meant it in relation to that. I would have thought that was fairly obvious. Please refrain from twisting what I actually meant; I was pretty clear and conscise in my reply. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Would redirects for articles about people become redundant then if we adopt your idea? How about pipes, would they be allowed? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

*shrugs* I don't see how that is relevant to this conversation. I think I spelt out to you I'm just not in favor of the title being included in the link when the full name is being used - e.g. King Charles III or President Joe Biden - unless its part of their common name and/or article title, like Pope Francis or Prince Harry. If you want to a pipe/use or redirect where it is appropriate, go ahead. I'm not at all against piping Charles III to simply King Charles or using the redirect Prince William in place of William, Prince of Wales, nor have I ever said so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You obviously haven't made it clear. And now you've made it even more confusing. So you're ok with piping Charles III as King Charles, but not with using the redirect King Charles III? Is that correct? How about piping Charles III as King Charles III? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If you still think its confusing, I'm afraid that's not my problem. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Now I think it is best to wait for others' opinions on this matter as well. I've pinged a fair few people who partake in this talk page regularly and I hope we can hear from them soon. One other, @GoodDay, has already shared theirs on the matter. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't answer the questions, especially the one about piping Charles III as King Charles III. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I did. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Where? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, it's not my problem. And I already said I won't repeat myself to you. You don't seem to be interested in understanding either so its a waste of my time. Good night to you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in trying to understand your objection to using redirects to link articles directly from vocabulary used in prose. At the moment, your arguments seem to wobble, and appear inconsistent to me, and I'm trying to unravel the confusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that the answer depends on the wording from which the link is being made. If it is more natural to include the word 'King' in the prose, then it should be part of the link per MOS:LINKINNAME, and it should not be piped per MOS:NOPIPE. But if the context means that 'King' is not needed, linking to Charles III is preferable. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Certainly is quite wording dependant, agreed. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The title doesn't need linking by itself (e.g. not ] ]), but I would argue that it is far better, mostly for aesthetic reasons, to link the whole name, including the title, either by using a redirect (e.g. ]) or a pipe (e.g. ]). The latter is not necessary here, but it is useful for titles like "Sir" that are not likely to have redirects. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Necrothesp, I think the first one would be a MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue so definitely no. Weirdly, part of my objection is aesthetic reasons too. I wouldn't link "President" in "President Joe Biden" in any way for example but I guess that differs from what type of title it is, would you agree? Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Neither would I! But I would link titles and military ranks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't link the title as if part of the name. Just overlinking, extra blue for no reason. Few titles actual appertain to a person life-long anyway, so doing the links that way will often be contextually erroneous. E.g. President Joe Biden doesn't go, as some would quite reasonably expect to, Presidency of Joe Biden, i.e. the topical intersection of Joe Biden and his presidency; it goes to Joe Biden, which is about him as a person. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Reading the original post without context, at first I thought it was referring to Victoria Starmer's own title of Lady Starmer, but I see it's actually about the title in King Charles III. Until this discussion I would have written (in the few cases where using the titles at all would be the best choice) "King Charles III", "President Joe Biden" and "Sir Keir Starmer", essentially linking the article titles. But this discussion has persuaded me otherwise – if the title "Lady" is linked ("Lady Starmer" not "Lady Starmer"), and "Pope" often is because the article titles include it, and also "General de Gaulle" and Princess Margaret" don't look right, the most consistent approach is to link all honorific titles. If that creates an unwelcome amount of blue, it should be an opportunity to question whether "President Joe Biden" as opposed to just "Joe Biden", "King Charles III" as opposed to "Charles III", etc., etc., is the best choice of phrasing in encyclopedic prose anyway. Ham II (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

MOS:POSTNOM

The removal of postnoms from the lead under these new guidelines has started to create some problems. While I am not opposed to this in principle, I am opposed to the removal of information. Some editors are "enforcing" these new guidelines by removing postnoms (often on dozens of articles at a time) where there is no infobox showing them. If there is no infobox then the postnoms should remain in the first line until an infobox is added. It doesn't matter if the honours are included in the body of the article - it is extremely useful to have an indication of what the person's correct style is at the top of an article where it can be seen at a glance. This problem is compounded by the sniffiness of some Misplaced Pages editors about infoboxes, especially those involved in projects relating to cultural figures. An example of this can be seen on the article for Michael Hordern, where his CBE has been removed from the first sentence but an editor is resisting the addition of an infobox (and, indeed, deleting one that has been added) showing his CBE. Postnominals are important in the UK and other Commonwealth countries and removing useful information like this is not helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think the changes have been thought through very well, to be honest. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

+1. In Commonwealth countries, every publication includes a person's post-nominals like KBE, AO, at first mention. It's defining, and having to include a clumsy phrase in the lead to convey that information is a backwards step: it leads to more clutter and verbiage, not less. This should be discussed again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Michael Bednarek. In Commonwealth countries, the post-nominals are defining; we should not be losing information from articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see what purpose removing the information achieves assuming it is sourced properly. Post-nominals take up little space and putting them after the name is an easy way to naturally introduce them into an article. Mass removal of content based on a MOS guideline shouldn't happen as the MOS is only a guideline.

Although if it is being removed because it is unsourced that is a different matter. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I would support reversing the previous decision about removing these from the lead sentence - that seems a reasonable place for them to be. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Same, though in the opposite direction we need to undo WP:ROYALTY and WP:NOBILTY's usurpation of infobox fields for pre-nominal titles and for names, to instead hold salultations and peerage/nobility titles, respectively. It's just unbearably bad. See Margaret Thatcher for typical example. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that some post noms should be in the lede, and also agree that not all need to be in the infobox. Giant Snowman 08:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

See also #Formatting post-nominals examples, above, for related recent discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a poorly thought-through decision which should be reversed. I suggest anyone interested read the thread Stanton linked above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't agree more with all of the points made by Necrothesp and Michael Bednarek. Paora (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Appropriateness of using given names in bio

I just ran across an article about a retired US Navy admiral Mike Dumont, who in the second paragraph, it said "In 2017 or earlier, Mike served as a vice director of Joint Chiefs of Staff at Pentagon....". I changed this to his last name citing WP:BIO in the edit summary due to the fact that a bio of an adult like this shouldn't refer to the subject by his/her given name, as I had recalled seeing that it was part of the MoS from several years ago. I now can't find it in the MoS. Was it removed at some point in the past? I still consider it inappropriate. rogerd (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Surname should be used. Giant Snowman 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SURNAME Schazjmd (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It can be used in certain situations in order to differentiate from other family members who share the same surname who are being mentioned in close proximity. For example, after explaining who someone’s mother was, starting the next sentence with “Mike …”. But other than that, there is rarely justification for it, and it is too informal for an encyclopaedia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! rogerd (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I quite agree. rogerd (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that, I was just looking for the operative policy. Thanks! rogerd (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)