Talk:Bachelor

Definition
"Thus, a broad grey, unnamed status has emerged between the concepts of "bachelor" and "married man.""

Cohabitation, common-law. These are two names off the top of my head. Can something that has existed for the history of humanity be said to have recently emerged? Can a "status" exist between two "concepts?" This sentance is weird and I submit it be striken, or at least modified.

Conflicted Bachelor?
Someone explain or delete "Chris Bartlett, conflicted bachelor." 71.156.37.155 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Love Shy
Not applicable to Marriage Strike. The Strike is about the reaction against the persecution of men via misandristic draconian pro-feminist societies.

Not all bachelors are homosexual
Most of us don't care - just accept that you're gay and be happy with yourself. Seriously. 130.54.130.229 12:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. Edited that one out. 213.84.29.60 07:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I am happy, but how can I accept that I'm gay when I find myself bringing home women to my bachelor pad? Nice try, however I could accuse someone of being a closet homosexual hiding behind their matrimonial status, but that would be hitting too close to the truth. Seriously. Capper01 04:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many thousands of bachelors who are 100% straight. There are thousands of homosexuals who marry, often to try to pretend to people that they are straight. Whether or not a person is or was married to someone of the opposite sex does not prove their orientation. That some people use the term 'confirmed bachelor' as a euphemism for a homosexual man gives the false impression to some that a man who has never married, especially one who does not want to, must be a homo. Michael Winner is 100% straight, has had lots of women throughout his adult life; he has never married. Werdnawerdna (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * At the same time, the term "confirmed bachelor" has long carried connotations (accurate or not) of homosexuality, and ignoring the connotation of a word essentially drags Wikipedia down to the level of a dictionary that contains only the literal meanings of a word and not the more subtle and complicated social and cultural implications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepha (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary
I mean, one doesn't go to an encyclopedia to find out the meaning of the word "bachelor"; one uses a dictionary for that. So, is there anything else we can say about bachelors or bachelorhood that might properly go in an encyclopedia? --LMS
 * Yup. 68.101.130.214 (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See also the Encyclopaedia Britannica entries. — Llywelyn II   23:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Knight bachelor
Should not be restricted to historical as knights bachelor still exist. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Restrict to marriageable?
I added "but marriageable" since, in modern usage, a monk, Catholic priest, or underage boy cannot be a bachelor. This of course makes "eligible bachelor" a pleonasm. The category "bachelor" is also fuzzy at the edges: is a man in a long-term committed relationship a "bachelor"? One would normally say no. See http://www.d.umn.edu/~dcole/bachelor.htm --Macrakis 06:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but society knows that not all bachelors are worth marrying, hence the qualifier. A rich man and a homeless guy might be equally available, but that doesn't mean they're both eligible -- or fit -- for marriage, if you're a woman. 69.239.236.37 15:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To restrict the definition by a man's wealth is ludicrous. Whether or not a man fits the description of a bachelor has nothing to do with how much money he has. It does have a major bearing on how many women would want to marry him, and although it is a major factor, it is not the only one. Thousands of poor men marry every year. In any case, different people have different opinions as to where the line is drawn between poor and not poor. In addition, it is not rare for poor people's finances to improve significantly, nor for rich people's to decline considerably. Werdnawerdna (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been argued that 'marriageable' is part of the connotation, rather than denotation of 'bachelor'. Is the Pope a bachelor? Probably, but he's hardly a good example. This approach would be a prototype-style cognitive linguistic approach. Western Philosophy has traditionally had problems with defining this kind of word, exactly because of its fuzzy edges. Perhaps, "but marriageable" could be replaced by, "but of marriageable age" following the OED. But then, this isn't a dictionary. --Peter 12:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

30th Birthday Custom in Germany
Someone has written in the wiki: "In some cultures, the 'punishment' of bachelors is no more than a teasing game. In small towns in Germany, for example, men who were still unmarried on their 30th birthday were made to sweep the stairs of the town hall until kissed by a virgin. This 'punishment' has now died out."

I don't think this is entirely true, because I observed this custom in Münster in May 2006.
 * I agree. This custom is still in use. I personally know it from Braunschweig and Göttingen. Therefore it is also not limited to small towns. I would transfer the whole paragraph into present and would delete the last sentence. --68.76.79.86 01:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been removed. I'll add it back but it needs a citation. — Llywelyn II   23:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

how do you say this word?
I would find it helpful if Wikipedia would include a phonetic pronunciation of the word. Recently I and some others were discussing this word and were unable to agree as to how to say it. I got out my copy of "the New Lexicon Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language - Canadian Edition(1988)) but could not even find the word Bachelor in it! Is it pronounced [bache]-[lor] 2 syllables(silent 'e'), or [bach]- [e] - [lor] 3 syllables? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.252.69 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Both versions are in current usage. You can't really say that one is right and the other is wrong,   since they're both acceptable, like "farther" and "further". 69.239.236.37 15:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * More importantly, Wikipedia . You're looking for Wiktionary. (We do include pronunciations if they have one correct form but it's odd—e.g., Chalcis—but that doesn't apply here.) — Llywelyn II   23:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Bachelors
I have some problems with this section. For one, it's very long and little more than a list. Second, it's a big target for vandalism/misinformation. Finally, the word "famous" is very subjective and very broad. Is this section really necessary? I'm thinking it should be removed, or perhaps if anyone feels it's important it can be turned into a category into which the men listed can be filed instead. Diabloman 17:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely. It should be removed.  There is no point to this list; it serves no informative purpose.Busillis (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. I was under the impression that it was for deceased men who never married, and yet Matthew McConaughey and Matt Dillon are listed in it? Must have been vandalism. Chantessy 15:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think men who died bachelors deserve to be listed, as the vast majority of adults do get married at some point. However, I believe that no one currently alive should be here as there is always the possibility that they will get married in the future.  There is also the problem of some living people appearing in the "lifetime" section and others appearing in the "living" section, which is clearly inconsistent.76.241.88.94 (talk)
 * I agree. "Famous" dead bachelors should be listed here but there is no point in putting living ones here, since they may get married at any time.  And those who died unexpectedly and young (such as Heath Ledger) are not relevant because they might have married had they lived a long time.  Those of interest are those who lived to old age and never married. 68.101.130.214 (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Section needs major cleanup. Chantessy 17:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The section's name has been improved to notable bachelors, and everyone on the list has their own Wikipedia page. Therefore, they are all notable in Wikipedia's opinion; that's what matters here. The new title also prevents any disputes as to whether or not they qualify as famous. Both living and dead bachelors are, and should be, listed; they fit the description. In the event of any of the living bachelors on the list marrying, they should be removed from it. To restrict the list only to the dead, and/or to the elderly, should not happen. A 30 or 40 year-old never-married man is just as much a bachelor as a man aged 70 or 80 who has never married. To speculate as to whether an unmarried man will marry in the future, or whether a person who died relatively young would have, if he had lived considerably longer, is redundant. In every case of a man dying a bachelor, that fact can never change; he should be on the list. In the case of unmarried, living men, they should be on the list, and each one only removed from it if he marries. Werdnawerdna (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why has the list been put into alphabetial order of first name? They should be listed alphabetically by surname, as is standard and expected for a list of names. It is also the way in which the list of names on the bachelorette article are listed. Werdnawerdna (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's historical. They should be listed chronologically. — Llywelyn II   23:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"citation needed"
What is up with all the "citation needed" refuse cluttering this article? How can one cite the colloquial usage of a word? The citation is the entire library of current-era texts. How's that for a citation? :P --Ayeroxor 15:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ a bachelor?
Whilst the official line is that he never married, many people, including some experts, claim that Mary Magdalene was his widow. Evidence for this hypothesis is her close presence to him for so much of the latter part of his life, and her presence near him during and shortly after his death. It is unlikely that one woman, other than his wife, would have spent so much time around him, and for him to still be a hugely and widely respected rabbi in that era, in that part of the world. In addition, it would have been rare in that era and area, for a thirtysomething rabbi to be a bachelor - it would have been 'frowned upon'. The official line that Christian organisations state is that he definitely never married, and he was definitely celibate. They explain it by saying that he was a unique case, and never had any sexual relationships, in order to entirely devote his life to religion. However, he had an ordinary life until he was about 29, only spending the last (roughly) four years of his life doing what made him well-known. That contradicts not only that, but their obviously (scientifically proven) false claim that he was the son of God. Werdnawerdna (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As you say, it's the official line, with many, many . — Llywelyn II   23:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As for me, I'm surprised that we allow characters of fiction to be allowed on the list. Should we add every made up people we create for tv series and books over the years? This is ridiculous, the list shouldn't exist in the first place. Whatever you do, I&#39;m probably not interested. (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are those who consider him to be non-fictional and also believe that he was the groom at the wedding at Cana, as why else would he have been responsible for the food for guests? And as aforementioned, an observant Jew would have married. WordwizardW (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The List
What is the point of this list? This is ridiculous. There is a huge, huge list of famous bachelors, but more importantly, this list serves zero purpose. You can incorporate a few of these people in the discussion and the list section should be removed! I think this kind of list is inherently unencylopedic. Busillis (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Great Men Who Never Married
Stupid list. Also, not all unmarried men would be considered "bachelors" - Thomas Aquinas (on the list) - was a monk. Roman Catholic clergymen are not bachelors.2.103.42.88 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed Bachellor
I'd be good to elaborate on that term. I find it surising that it was used to refer to gay men in the Victorian era. I thought confirmed bachelor always meant a straight man who won't marry soon, specially in past eras. I also thought that whenever it was used to describe a gay man, it meant the person saying it is somewhat hiding that person's homosexuality. I'm confused.--201.155.3.160 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought confirmed bachelor always meant a straight man who won't marry soon
 * Which is what the homosexuals during that era pretended to be. That doesn't mean there weren't people who knew the truth and used it with a wink and a nod... or a scowl.


 * The new history section on punishments for bachelors could use sourcing and discussion of how punishments of bachelors was effectively a way to force cads and gays to marry someone. — Llywelyn II   23:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

pair bond
is this a zoology article? why this term? is it an attempt to be PC? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The etymology part seems a bit ill.
It states that "Bacca" = old irish for "farmer"... That's severely doubtful, why a half-irish half-latin term "bacca laureus" to be used all over the continent as well as britain? And then "bacca laureus = laurel berry" (in other words, where did the Irish farmer go?). 77.99.246.115 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)All the more because "bacca" = "berry" in Italian, and probably in Latin too.
 * It's from baccalari(u)s "tenant of a baccalaria", and baccalaria is "a grazing farm (for cattle)", from bacca "cow". So, basically a medieval term for "cowboy". --dab (𒁳) 13:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not sure about that part. — Llywelyn II   23:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Gulf countries?
The sentence on Gulf countries appears to be supportedd by the source, but I wonder if it's incomplete or misleading. I believeas per our article on Talk:Women's rights in Saudi Arabia that in Saudia Arabia where sexual segregation is widely practices, 'bachelor', is generally used to refer to a section, like in a restaurant, for men by themselves (or with other men). These men may or may not be married with families, the point is the family (or at least female members) are not with them so they can use the bachelors section as there is no concern about inappropriate mixing and the term is obviously not perjorative nor only used for immigrants. I wonder then whether the may be used to refer to men by themselves withouth any family they may or may not have and fhe use higlighted in the sources arises from that. Nil Einne (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Punishments for bachelors as a pressure to wed
Adding the following links as they contain source material that may be useful for the main article - shows punishments for men who preferred to remain unwed: The danger of celibacy (1707) An attack on bachelors – and their reply.

And this tangential one on the Western marriage construct: The origins of Western wedding rituals/Forget the Ring. —added by 202.173.170.85 on 05:48, 31 December 2013‎
 * Well, yep, those could go in. I added a section on the history of treatment of bachelors per EB. — Llywelyn II   22:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Uwe F. Schmidt
It is likely that the citations here are for the same book: sources, see Schmidt, reprinted by Lang. }} Europäische Hochschulschriften is a monograph series; Italienische Sprache und Literatur is likely to be a subseries of it.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Lolita
Under "Etymology" it says "Further information: nubile" which then links to "Lolita (term)". Perhaps the connection might be clarified. Are bachelors considered likewise sexually precocious? Mannanan51 (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. "Nubile" literally means "marriageable" (cf. connubial) and isn't at all etymologically related to "bachelor." It may have sneaked in on the coattails of the "Eligible bachelor" mergefrom, which also doesn't belong under Etymology (I've moved that to the top).  At any rate, there is no article for "nubile" or "nubility" apart from the grossly inappropriate (in my opinion) "lolita" redirect.  Eastcheap (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

list
I question whether the list is appropriate. Whilst it is not overly common for a man to be a bachelor their entire life, it's not uncommon enough to be notable. There are many famous people in history who were bachelor. As a percentage of the population, there are more bachelors than there are redheads, but the wikipedia page for "red hair" doesn't have a list of every notable redhead in history, because that would obviously be obscene and would be a ridiculous task to carry out. The same, therefore, applies to bachelors. There are too many notable people from history who were bachelors, so the list should not be there. If it was a list of bachelors who were notable for being bachelors, then sure (although there are probably still more of those than it would be reasonable to list still). Farleigheditor (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There's also the fact that listed among bachelors from the ancient period, there's jesus, whose historical existence is controversial and remains unproven, besides if we started included characters from religions, that list would never end. Whatever you do, I&#39;m probably not interested. (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

An archaic termalogy for single people
First off, 'Spinster[ does have negative conotations. But Bachelor- I've had call centre people from India refer to me as 'bachelor' when I'm just Single, %28 of Australian women will never get married- Bachelor is most defiinatly a euphemism for being a gay man with wealth!!! 124.170.115.129 (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Bachelor is most defiinatly a euphemism for being a gay man with wealth" Nothing prevents a gay man from marrying. Either to a woman which he does not love, or to a man in a country having legalized same-sex marriage. Dimadick (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Men who never married (listed chronologically by date of birth)...
Can we please just delete this and stop talking about how to fix it? This is one of the dumbest things I've seen on the site. Gave me a good laugh but uh... there's no salvaging this idea. 2601:C1:400:DAB0:D834:791B:8756:8CB1 (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

List of bachelors is superfluous and badly formatted
I've tried to remove this list several times because it is highly unnecessary. The reasoning I've gotten for maintaining the list was to show that "great figures of intellectual history are disproportionately bachelors". If that is true, the list is superfluous, because this is already mentioned several times in the article. Look at Francis Bacon's quote that wives and children are "impediments to great enterprises". Look at Nikola Tesla's quote saying that most great inventions are made by unmarried men. Look at the reference to Kenyan psychologist Florence Wamaitha saying that unmarried men have a deeper connection to the world. The point the list is trying to make is already made within the article, and the list is merely a superfluous, trivial, and unnecessarily long addition. Personally, I propose removing it entirely for those reasons, and instead perhaps turning into a category.

If it were to be kept, it should be at the least drastically reduced and reformatted. Note other articles that list people. Polyamory's article is succinct and names only the most prominent people who practice polyamory, with others moved to a dedicated list made for that purpose. A list of notable Stratford-upon-avon residents is longer, but still takes up far less space than this article's list, and has a meaningfully motivated division between people who reside there because of Shakespeare's history within that town and other unrelated residents. Christianity in Japan has a list of Japanese Christians. This is different in format from the other two in its first section, using paragraphs to discuss each person in detail. However, a bulleted list is used for Meiji period Christians and for Christian prime ministers, who again have a meaningfully motivated separation in the article based on the abnormal prominence of Christian Japanese prime ministers. Using these articles as a guide, I see several problems with how this list is formatted.

1. It is a giant, space-taking section that could easily be formatted as a bulleted list or as several paragraphs with added description of each figure. (Do we really need a picture gallery and a big chart for this?)

2. The divisions between different sections are arbitrary and unmotivated. Why does it matter whether a bachelor was born in Antiquity vs the Medieval period? Is the article trying to make a distinction between these different groups, or was it just organized this way because a long list with no divisions takes up an utterly ridiculous amount of space?

3. All of the other lists use the person's full name when describing someone. Why is it just one name each here? You could easily add people's full names, this will just confuse readers who don't know who some of these people are.

4. There is no description of who any of these people are. Every other list takes care to describe why each person is important and listed on the article. If you're trying to show that these are great intellectual figures, then that point is totally lost on the reader if they don't even know what any of these people did!

5. The examples should probably be limited to the most important people in this category, and others can be moved to either a category or a separate list article, as the article for polyamory does.

If these changes were made, I would find the list at least palatable, though still ultimately unnecessary. As it stands, however, this list is in need of some dire work, if not removal. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * To me, the table (which has been in place for many years) is a very concise way to see the list of bachelors. We can certainly edit it down a bit (I'll do that) so that it doesn't take up too much space.  Also, we seem to have lost the entire Gallery!  I see no reason to remove the entire Gallery, do you? J.B. (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would please ask of you to look at the examples I have given. There are other articles that have this same format for listing people. I've even seen a lot of other examples outside of those I've given, and I've never seen this particular format anywhere except here. I feel like this is a lot of space being taken up when the format that is most used is just a standard bulleted list that is simpler, cleaner looking, offers better context and takes up less space altogether.
 * While the table has been in place for many years, there have been several complaints on the talk page about it for those many years (see here, here, here, here, and here). It is not just me complaining about this list, there have been several complaints about it. I feel like that should be grounds for at least some sort of change to it, surely.
 * I removed the gallery because I thought it was undue weight to a rather trivial part of the article. Maybe if this article were a list of bachelors it would be appropriate, but as it stands it's just clutter that gets in the way of the rest of the article. None of the other examples I used for my analysis used a gallery format, I see no reason to use it here for something that is, in my opinion, quite trivial.
 * Also, why was it reverted back to this format when it still doesn't address some of my primary problems with it? Problem 2 on my list above is still valid. Why is it organized like this? Is there a valid reason to arbitrarily divide this by time period other than conveniently cutting down the length? Problem 3 is also still a problem. While making my edit, I had trouble finding da Vinci on the list because he was listed as Leonardo! Using one name for everyone is confusing and altogether highly avoidable by just listing people's full names. Problem 4 is still a main problem and is another very good reason to move off this format. Someone just glancing at this list may still not know who some of the people on it even are, making it's ostensible purpose of showing that "great figures of intellectual history are disproportionately bachelors" become incoherent. Not every average person will know who Arthur Schopenhauer is, and fewer still why he is considered an important figure in philosophy. Giving context inherently improves the stated purpose of the list, and you cannot do that very well using the table as currently formatted.
 * Though, if you are indeed planning on cutting the list down a bit, that would certainly be a great help. I just ask that you look at some of the other examples I have given you, understand the problems I have found in my analysis, and hopefully work to make this list better-formatted, more encyclopedic, and more useful to readers. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Disagree vehemently with ALL of your points. I disagree that a descriptive list is the same as the table which, by its format, shows that the number of notable bachelors has increased in every age.  The divisions between the ages (Ancient, Medieval & Renaissance, and Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment) are not arbitrary, but are in accord with common practice in the division of history.  It appears to me that there is A LOT of personal preference in your critique.  So it seems entirely reasonable to me to add your edits alongside the table and gallery.  I'd be happy to do that for you if you struggle with the editing. J.B. (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying. I'm glad to finally understand why the table is divided like this. Regardless, I think this could still be accomplished using the list format by just adding a date of when each person lived.
 * I don't think using a person's full name is just personal preference, though. It was actively confusing trying to look for names within the list (see my example of confusion trying to find da Vinci above). I think that this is objectively a bad user experience for the reader, and considering it's very easily fixed by just adding one or two more words to each box, I think it is well worth fixing. I will be implementing this edit after I post this message.
 * As for adding in my edits, I am in favor of it if you feel you can implement my additions in an elegant way. Personally, I don't think I can make the edits for this as I do not see how to add the additional context I added within this particular format, but if you see a way, go ahead! I'd be happy to be proven wrong that this is a bad format for providing this context. Do note, that since I cut down my list, there will need to be added context for every figure on it if you are not cutting it down like I did. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was attempting to add a little description of each person within this format, but it got reverted. Rightfully so, as it was terribly formatted and made the space problem even worse, but I was trying to work within this format and there is no real way to add this change in an elegant way without changing to a simpler text list, as I was saying earlier.
 * Now, the reason I got for reverting was that "you can't summarize a person's life in a short description". Which is a nice sentiment, but ultimately when virtually every other similar list on Wikipedia has at least a few words to tell who people are, it doesn't really make sense in terms of an article, especially since a layman reading the page might not know who these people are. I know you can just go to the article to find out who these people are, but a reader should not have to click off the article for every single person on this list to get an understanding of why they are on there. Again, this is just a bad user experience.
 * Ultimately, since the point of the list is to show that "great intellectual figures are disproportionately bachelors", if there isn't a description of these people's significance as great intellectual figures, it is not doing a good job of pursuing this goal. If there is to be no description of anyone on here, I would ultimately just be in favor of removing the list outright, as it fails at what it sets out to do. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Men in this list are famous and very well known (every man in the list is in Wikipedia). What is less commonly known is that these men were bachelors.  So the purpose of the list is to make known that the men were bachelors, not to explain who the men were or what they did (since there are separate Wiki articles on that).  I mean, do we really need a summary of the life of Jesus?  Of Plato?  Of Galileo?  Of Copernicus?  Of Newton? ... J.B. (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The examples you gave are all fairly well known, but not all of the list entries are like this. Not every layman has heard of Evangelista Torricelli, Josiah Willard Gibbs, or Emil Cioran. Either the list needs to be tightened up to be names that absolutely every layman will know, or descriptions are necessary. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've decided it would probably be best to seek some help to resolve this discussion using WP:3O. For the ease of the third opinion editor, considering this issue is a very visual one, I have some links to various revisions to help the editor see what each revision of this list looks like.


 * 1. Table with full names. This should be the page as it is now, barring any other edits that may have happened.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bachelor&oldid=1223548625
 * 2. Table with a single name each.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bachelor&oldid=1223532005
 * 3. Multiple tables, with a description for each entry. This is the revision that we both mutually agreed was "terribly formatted", as I said above.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bachelor&oldid=1222286385
 * 4. Abbreviated text list, with added descriptions of each figure. No gallery.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bachelor&oldid=1219820720
 * 5. Full text list, divided like the tables are. Has a brief description along with the years when each figure was alive.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bachelor&oldid=1223515025


 * Personally, after all this discussion, I am still in favor of outright removal of the list, as I still see it as a trivial addition, or at best, something that should be its own list or category. If there were to be a list, I would prefer formats 4 or 5 (and I would prefer format 5 without the gallery), as both revisions have detailed descriptions of each figure which aids in the stated aim of the list and is consistent with other lists on Wikipedia while also maintaining adequate formatting. If I had to choose between the two, I would choose number 4, as I do not think we need every single historical figure to prove the list's point, and the dates in which each person lived can easily be added to show the increase in bachelors over time. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have sent out my WP:3O request. I reached out to User:J.B. on their talk page to ask if they wanted to add any additional thoughts, but they didn't respond as of this posting. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @IAmACowWhoIsMad, J.B.
 * Additional input: I also came from WP:3O, and as such inputs are already shared by User:AirshipJungleman29. Prima facie I would have similar opinion but I would not mind giving a little closer look in couple of days if both the parties do not mind. Mean while I do have following observations and suggestions:
 * Avoid any further Edit war especially J.B. need to avoid edit war since WP:ONUS tradition generally rests responsibility to achieve consensus on the user who wishes to add / retain content before restoring/ adding. Article history seem to suggest slow edit war but since more than long enough.
 * Please provide synopsis specially so either of the user intends to use further WP:DR. Would advice to use tips from Too long; didn't read.
 * Always try to state include specific appropriate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Happy editing &#32;Bookku   (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your observations. I did realize I was starting to get into an edit war at the beginning of this when the warning for it popped up on my user page, and I tried to keep that to a minimum after that. Every edit I made after that was done after discussion on the talk page, giving time to J.B. to read it and respond there, and when that didn't happen, actively pointing out the talk page to them in edit summaries. I'm not happy with how I started this with edit warring, but I'll try to redirect to the talk page earlier next time.
 * I did attempt a little bit of summary at the end when I made my WP:3O request, but Too long; didn't read has a lot more things I will take into account to make my talk page discussion more brief and more easily legible to an outside observer. Thank you for showing it to me.
 * I must confess, while I've technically been editing for nearly 10 years now, most of my time I was editing intermittently and I only recently have been more active on Wikipedia, so I am still learning a lot of the specific policies. A fair bit of my knowledge comes from what other pages I have read have done (hence why I cited other articles to explain my reasoning for changing the formatting). I'll do my best to cite policies I know whenever relevant.
 * I will strive to do better in future discussions. Thank you for your feedback Bookku! IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll just add my two cents and say that I also think it's superfluous, and that's putting it mildly. I'm about to revert the edit-warring editor and warn them. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually this whole thing is ridiculous: they reverted twice already today, and this goes back years. I blocked them from editing the article, indefinitely. Let's move on. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your third opinion, as well as the other editors who showed up to give their opinions as well. And also, thank you for dealing with J.B. The only time that they ever came to the talk page was when I specifically requested they did so in an edit summary. I tried to give ample time for them to read the talk page and respond each time I wrote there, but it was only when I made an edit that they actually came over to the talk page, which needless to say lead to a long and arduous process of trying to get any discussion whatsoever from them. If you are reading this J.B., please instead of trying to edit war, go over to the talk page and discuss your reasoning if something like this happens again so that you and your fellow editors can attempt to reach a consensus in a much easier way. Thank you to everyone once again. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

My opinion (detail)
As earlier discussed above even after having a re-look at the article and the policy guidelines specially WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE I continue to feel that, in a directory of notables, notables are common (i.e. ordinary) and Wikipedia is not a directory. Hence a list of Bachelor would be non-notable in this article, other than handful of extra ordinary examples, if any. For example a notable king being married many queens or an ascetic being unmarried are common; an unmarried notable king and an ascetic having too many sexual escapades or relations may need to be taken note of in respective articles. I suggest WP:DYK criteria may be useful to decide on examples to be selected.

In case marriages some marriages can become notable for their impact on political relationships etc. Even instances notable couples getting apart for various reasons may have notable impacts at times on individuals and events. In case of unmarried status of any gender do not seem to make extraordinary notable impacts by virtue of their unmarried status. But 'in groups', people of 'unmarried status' -voluntary or involuntary- may have or may have had impact on societies hence in social sciences perspective there may be notable cases. Present article scope in Short description is Unmarried man; plain reading of history section of the article suggests the meanings of the word 'Bachelor' seem to have changed over the centuries that too is an impediment unless scope of the article is formally discussed. Policy side this case would have come under (now inactive) project WP:LAUNDRY; see Template:Handling miscellanea WP:ROC, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE,  MOS:EMBED Essays: Avoid data-hoarding, WP:DISCRIMINATE, WP:EXAMPLES, WP:OLIST &#32;Bookku    (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Scope for encyclopedic expansion
As of now article seem to have covered more of historical linguistic aspects of the term, and that is okay. Only some encyclopedic aspects seem to have been covered that too with more focus on west. Asia has distinct historical traditions and article seem to have scope to expand.

I am sharing following part of sourced paragraph for inclusion in the article from the article Brahmacharya.


 * Suggested article summary for above paragraph to take care WP:Copy Right policy:
 * Copy pasting from Brahmacharya ; Pl. see history of Brahmacharya for attributions.

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)