Talk:Pre-nominal letters

From VfD:

I suppose this may be a valid subject for an article, but I'm absolutely sure it's not at the correct title. Is there really a difference between this and...er..."Title"? Deb 19:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I created the article, their is a post-nominal letters article and whilst pre-nominal are not as common they do exist eg Eur Ing (using pre-nominal ensures that people don't confuse it with post-nominal- they often do), this is not a title in the traditional sense of social titles, similarily other titles such as professional are properly called "pre-nominal letters" or "pre-nominal designations" - most people use just "title". Ultimately I think a redirect would be better than a deletion. Djegan 19:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Using "pre-nominal" is just more specific than "title" which can be either "pre" or "post" Djegan 19:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * But post-nominal letters are not the same as titles, whereas pre-nominal letters (or at least, the way the article is written at present) are. Deb 21:07, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This proposal can probabilty be solved by creating a redirect to title and in the opening paragraph explaining that some titles are "pre" and some are "post". My reason for creating the article was primarily because the Eur Ing title is often mistaken as a post-nominal title whilst it is not and to have a formal pre-nominal article - in time the article may expand or simply remain a stub - ultimately its simply a better way of classifying "Doctor", "Lord", "Professor" and such - but is it neccessary to delete such a new article which reduces disambig, does wikipedia include the total sum of human knowledge already - maybe titles should be classified into pre and post articles. The post-nominal article already has many of the titles and many of these titles have extensive articles on them. I say keep?. Djegan 21:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Aren't these called "honorifics?" They're sure not pre-nominal letters. Geogre 21:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Another thing known by many different names! Djegan 21:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That's as may be, but by Wikipedia standards the article should normally be at the most common name for the subject, which "pre-nominal letters" isn't. (I searched on Google; both pre-nominal letters and prenominal letters got no hits whatsoever. That doesn't necessarily prove that the term doesn't exist, but it does prove at minimum that it's a far less common term than honorific.) I'd propose that anything useful in this article which isn't already in honorific or title should be merged into one of those two entries. Bearcat 23:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * On closer examination, honorific seems to be written in such a way as to imply that honorifics only exist in Japanese. Major cleanup needed there, since that's emphatically not true. Bearcat 23:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't worry pre-nominal does exist - search a little deeper, title is a very common term, pre-nominal is specific and includes professional not just social and such. (i have not contributed over 6 months of rubbish, i set my standards very high) Djegan 23:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. "Pre-nominal" and "prenominal" appear to be used in grammar to mean "before the noun" (in a sentence). The term "pre-nominal letters" is idiosyncratic. Title already covers the stuff in pre-nominal letters, so no need to merge. Also need to clean up links and redirects to pre-nominal letters. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: Inaccurate and neologism. As an aside, someone needs to fix up honorific, as that's what "doctor," "master," "lord," "sir," "saint," and all the rest represented by initials before the name are. Geogre 13:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - as long as the previously existant articles make it more clear as to pre- and post-, less ambiguity, their is already to much duplication anyway! Djegan 18:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Pre-nominals are a valid description for abbreviated honorifics - eg HM for "Her Majesty", HE for "His Excellency" etc. --Gene_poole 05:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Prenomial titles are also frequently used by clergy, and within Roman and Anglican Catholicism there are separate forms depending upon whether the usage is written or spoken. Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican priests are addressed, in writing, as 'The Rev.' (or 'The Rev'd'), or as 'Father', but are never called "Reverend" verbally-- so you'd address the envelope to "The Rev. John Smith", but address the priest as "Father Smith" (or, if being formal/archaic, you may write use the written form "Reverend and Dear 'Reverend' (which is wrong for those in Apostolic Succession, but apparently allowed within Protestant tradition), 'Brother', and even 'Preacher', among others.

I'm going to stick from here on with Anglicanism, as I have no expertise in other parts of the Church. In the Anglican tradition, when writing to a Canon, you write "The Rev. Canon John Smith", but call him 'Canon Smith' or 'Father'. Archdeacons are adressed "The Venerable John Smith", but called "Archdeacon Smith" verbally. Deans of cathedrals or seminaries are "The Very Reverend" in writing, and "Dean Smith" verbally. Bishops are "The Right Reverend" in writing, and "Bishop Smith" verbally. Archbishops (or in some nations, presiding bishops) are "The Most Reverend", and called Archbishop or Presiding Bishop. [The exception is if they're British and in the House of Lords, in which case they may be addressed as "My Lord" or "My Lord Bishop" if you're from their Diocese, or Your Lordship" if you don't fall under their jurisdiction.] As postnomials, Anglican priests may put the sign of the cross (or a typed 'plus-sign') after their signature, while bishops place it before their signatures. Archbishops use two such crosses, while the right to have three crosses before his name is limited to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Anglican clergy with doctorates may be addressed in writing as "The Rev. Dr. John Smith", "The Venerable Dr. John Smith", "The Rt. Rev. Dr. John Smith", and more rarely "The Rv. Canon Dr. John Smith", or the doctorate may be used as a postnomial. Earned theological/ministerial doctorates are usually Ph.D., D.Theol., S.T.D. or D.Min., while the D.D. degree is, within the United States, almost always an honorary award, given, for example, to newly-consecrated bishops by their seminaries. Ph.Ds and D.Theols are usually more academically focused, while D.Mins are more praxis-focused, although there are many exceptions.

Anglican clergy who are members of religous orders utilize the Order's postnomial, just as Roman Catholic clergy do (OFM for the Order of St. Francis, for example, or OSH for the Order of St. Helena). Many Anglican clergy, particularly Anglo-Catholics, utilize the initials of devotional societies as postnomials when appropriate, particularly members of the Society of Mary (S.M.), the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament (CBS), the Priests of the Holy House of our Lady of Walsingham (OLW), or the Society of King Charles the Martyr (SKCM).

Francis C. Zanger+ The Rev'd Canon Francis C. Zanger, D.Min. 83.132.38.63 (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

the pre-nominal title "ir." should always have a lowercase "i", at least in belgium

Sir etc in sequence
In the UK, those with both a knighthood and rank in the armed forces (or clergy, or academic titles) put the Sir after the other title.

Same goes for Lord/Lady ("Dr. Lady Jane Poshname") or Hon. ("Maj. Hon. James Bellamy"), right? —Tamfang (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You would think so - but this example states otherwise: " 'Professor Lord Robert Winston' or 'Lord Robert Winston' are incorrect in British usage though used elsewhere in the world." (from Robert Winston) Norman21 (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That example actually supports my point: immediately above the quoted sentence is the style Prof. The Lord Winston. "Lord Robert" would be a younger son of a &ge;marquess, which he indeed isn't; see also Lord Peter Wimsey (younger son of a duke), Lady Sarah Chatto (daughter of an earl). —Tamfang (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct - the "incorrect in British usage" is referring to the inclusion of his first name, not the sequence of the titles. Norman21 (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Common titles
The article treats the titles Mr, Mrs, Ms etc as an afterthought, but seems to imply that they are members of the class of prenominals. Given that these are vastly more common than the higher-status titles listed in the article, they should be given more prominence or else distinguished by saying something like "these common titles are not usually considered as prenominals" JQ (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)