Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 2

Wachowskis
See extensive discussion at Talk:The Matrix. That article uses The Wachowskis and this one should too. I would also support changing the infobox on both articles, but at the very least it's way past time for the first sentence of this article to change. Franciscrot (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Philosophical?
As a student of philosophy, I thought I should point out that I encountered no philosophical elements in the 'reloaded' episode. I know the word 'philosophy' has received many alternate meanings (one of the most irritating of which is companies thinking that their marketing scheme can be called 'a philosophy'), but that is no excuse to misuse the word in an encyclopedia, even if the article is not about philosophy but about a film. And especially, of course, if the word is linked to the philosophy article. Sorry about being so stuck up. :) DirkvdM 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, speak your mind, the matrix is not really "philosophic" per se, but rather takes several elements from philosophy (usually the shallow ones) and places them here and there. Now if there was a brand new philosophy that the movie would present, that would be another story. (unknown author)


 * Shallow? Have you ever studied Philosophy? While I can't say that I am familiar with Reloaded, I know that in the first movie alone, there are numerous philisophical citings. Most of them are anything but shallow. Take, for example, the book in which Neo keeps the disks at the beginning of the movie. It is a book called "Simulacra and Simulation" a book written by a French man, (Beaurillard). Further, the chapter in which the disks are kept is one about Nietszche's Overman. Now, I am not particularly fond of Nietzsche or his Philosohies, but it is not possible to call them shallow in anyway. There are also examples of Christianity, Buddhism, Hiduism, and many refrences to such philosophies as The Allegory of the Cave. Further, the refrences are not placed 'here and there', but are a fundamental part of the movies, or at least the first of them. Nira 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Nira

I'd say the Matrix is "philosophy for dummies", and not in any real sense philosophical. Saying that the story is specifically "complex" is arguable, and saying that the story is "incorporating many philosophical elements" is really giving it too much praise. Of course, Nietsche isn't shallow but every "use" of philosophy (everything about the oracle, for instance) in the films are fairly shallow, and the ideas pondered over in them could have been written by anyone fairly bright. This has always been my main objection with the films. //Swedish philosophy student.


 * I'm sorry, but I have to say the reaction that the Matrix is "Philosophy for Dummies" is like saying The Tao Te Ching is "Just a collection of metaphors" and has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. I'm sure a student of philsophy such as yourself can see that it is far beyond "Shallow" I mean...The ties between the movie and as Nira mentioned above Simulacra and Simulation are just basic examples of how the philosophy in the movies goes beyond general "Common-place abstract thought." Not to mention the fact that the movie shadows many ideas from Beaurillard, Neitszche, Buddhism, Christianity, and Taoism in general. Hell, Morpheus even quotes Beaurillard when he says to Neo "Welcome to the Desert, of the Real."...Another example being the Nebuchadnezzar, Morpheus' ship, it's power core reads "Mark III No. 11", Mark 3:11 reads "And whenever those possessed by evil spirits caught sight of him, they would fall down in front of him shrieking, 'You are the Son of God!" Not to even mention the relationship between so many Babylonic references throughout the movie, beyond simply Nebuchadnezzar being named after the King. Shallow? Please, spare us that foolishness, I do hope they aren't teaching you all such close-minded bollocks. --CylonSix 13:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's more like introductory philosophy. It covers a broad range of topics, and is designed to skim the surface and make you think. That's the heart of philosophy, so this definitely isn't "shallow." Complaining that it doesn't go in depth enough is ridiculous when there's so much going on and the purpose of the films wouldn't allow. That's part of the reason the first one was so great, there's enough there for the more intelligent, thoughtful person to consider afterwards, but there's not too much like in the later ones that it's hard to understand, or restrictive on the imagination. If you want a movie that goes in depth in philosophy you either need to be watching highly intelligent, little-known indie films or READING A BOOK. Don't expect a popular film to talk about the semiotics of a developing civilization. Jjmckool (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

People occasionally confuse "philosophy" and "superstition" (i.e. the Oracle). While there's some overlap, they deviate at reality's end. Liberty5651 (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , this conversation is more than 10 years old. &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  20:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed. Does my reading it and replying 1) make me a time traveled, or 2) just confirm written words' usefulness? Liberty5651 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Matrix (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807055343/http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?event=cmp.cst.ebooks.datasheet&id=14609 to http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?event=cmp.cst.ebooks.datasheet&id=14609

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Auto-archiving?
Any objection to my setting up auto-archiving on this page for threads older than, say, ten years? If I hear no objection within a week or so, I'll put it into effect. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Has my support, and I think you'd be fine with a bold move implementing it now. Instead of older than 10, I'd go with older than 2 years (at most). --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I'll give it at least 24 hours from this comment for anyone to object, then. May not happen for a few days as I have some craziness inbound. DonIago (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I say we do 365 days as a minimum. Good idea! &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖
 * Er...I was just about to do this, but looks like I was beaten to it. Suits me! DonIago (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, has something gone wrong? Stuff has been archived but I don't see a link to it in the archive box. Wandering Wanda  (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't notice this section before starting autoarchiving. Just seemed awfully long with some old threads. Not typically controversial in such circumstances. Don't know why the archive wasn't showing up in the archivebox, but the talk header might be more appropriate for this page anyway. Replaced. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis
How should the Wachowskis be credited in articles about films/media they worked on before they came out as women? (The main point of contention is how they’re credited in leads and infoboxes.)

A: Reflect their preferred gender identity and avoid referring to them as “brothers” (except in footnotes and references.) For example, the Matrix Revolutions article should say that the film was directed by "The Wachowskis" in the lead and infobox.

B: Reflect how they were credited when their films were released. For example, the Matrix Revolutions article should say that the film was directed by "The Wachowski Brothers” in the lead and infobox.

C: Reflect the credit as it is currently recorded on the work in question. (Added by Betty Logan (talk))

OTHER: Please specify. (Added by WanderingWanda (talk))

(Previous RfCs: here and here. Previous discussions: here, here, and here.) WanderingWanda (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: The most recent discussion that prompted this RfC can be found at Talk:The Matrix. To my knowledge, there hasn't been an RfC covering how the Wachowskis are presented in the infobox, but there was one in 2016 that already covered its presentation in the lead (Talk:The Matrix/Archive 5). Ultimately, the consensus supported "The Wachowskis", and further discussion settled on using a hidden footnote (added later), that when hovered over would read, "Previously known as The Wachowski Brothers". The current implementation of this can be seen at The Matrix. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: Option C and OTHER were added after voting began. See record of changes below. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: To reply to someone's vote, rather than cluttering up the survey section, you can create a new subsection in the discussion section with a title like "Responses to so-and-so's vote" Wandering Wanda  (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * A is my vote.


 * What does the Manual of Style say about this? The MoS says their gender identity should be respected.
 * "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources... Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman') that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise."


 * The Wachowskis are sisters now, but didn't they used to be brothers? It would be inappropriate to refer to them that way, even if you're talking about a period where they weren't yet out as women. This is for the same reason that you would not generally say a gay person "used to be straight", even if there was a period where they weren't out as gay. See also the MoS quote above. (If you’d like a primer on gender identity, see the APA’s guide or wiki/Transgender.)


 * Shouldn't deference be given to how people are credited on their films? Not always, no. Incorrect or pseudonymous credits are often ignored or treated parenthetically in Wiki articles. The end credits for the film Fargo, for example, list the editor as "Roderick Jaynes", a Coen Bros. pseudonym. However, the Wiki article ignores this and the infobox names the editors as "Joel Coen / Ethan Coen". Many films list the pseudonym Alan Smithee as the director, but infoboxes in articles about those films never indicate that they were "directed by Alan Smithee".


 * Doesn't the guidance on film infoboxes say they should not be altered to accommodate name changes? Those guidelines don't currently talk about gender identity one way or the other. A person coming out as transgender is not at all analogous to a cisgender person changing their name. If in doubt, we should always err on the side of respecting gender identity. See also the note above about how infoboxes usually treat pseudonyms.


 * Shouldn't the original credits be preserved in some way? If it is deemed necessary, footnotes could be added that do this. For example, the Matrix articles could have a footnote that says “The Wachowskis were credited at the time of the film’s release as ‘The Wachowski Brothers’.”


 * Isn't this erasing history? I would argue the reverse - that misgendering the Wachowski sisters is erasing trans contributions from film history.


 * Will this cause confusion? No one is going to be confused by the directors of the Matrix being called "The Wachowskis" instead of the "The Wachowski Brothers". We're talking about a pretty small and conservative change.


 * What do reliable sources say? Reliable sources no longer refer to the Wachowski sisters as "brothers", even when cataloging their past work. The latest release of the Matrix trilogy, for example, refers to the directors as "The Wachowskis" on the cover. Netflix and a recent New York Times piece both list the writers of V for Vendetta as "Lilly and Lana Wachowski", even though they were credited as "Brothers" on the credits of that film. In addition, mainstream style guides like the AP's advise that people's gender identity should be respected whenever possible. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * [Addition: Flyer22 Reborn and GoneIn60 have made a compelling argument that I interpreted the MoS guidelines on gender identity too broadly and that, currently, they only apply to "main biographical" articles (see below.) I really appreciate their input. But even if the articles in question are technically outside MoS:Identity's remit, I think the guidelines are worth keeping in mind. Their guidance is reasonable and fair for all the reasons outlined in Gender_identity, and they're in line with how mainstream style guides now advise writers to talk about transgender people in all cases. Also, pointing to the MoS was just one of many arguments I made. I stand by my vote: Option A is the best and most neutral way to credit the Wachowskis. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)]
 * Support "A" [in the body of the article and support C in the infobox] because "Wachowskis" is respectful of gender to the siblings since it is actually gender neutral, but it also gives proper name credit them for prior works so it is perfectly suited for both purposes. [Option "C" provides for the actual verifiable credits] Huggums537 (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In light of Betty Logan's addition of a new option, I would like to partially modify my vote to match the rationale provided by GoneIn60. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This combination of A and C is also my vote. Ofwaterfall (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I vote A as well. Any controversy about their gender transition aside, "the Wachowskis" is a neutral term that was used (at least casually) to refer to them even before their transitions. It applied to them back then, it applies to them now, and it seems like the simplest and most uncontroversial way to sidestep any gender-related editor conflicts. Insisting on calling them "Brothers" seems pointy to me; even if one did deny their gender identity, "the Wachowskis" would still be an applicable term, and insisting on the "Brothers" just seems like it's insisting on starting a fight about their gender identity. ETA: Footnotes, maybe some repositories of technical credit information, possibly including infoboxes, noting that they are credited as "The Wachowski Brothers" is fine by me. But any further belaboration (even in footnotes etc) of the change from "Brothers" to not seems like pointy starting a fight over their gender identity again. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Addendum to note that my !vote remains the same after the changes to the options. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Option C – When the Wachowkis are discussed as people they should be identified using their current names and gender pronouns; however when they are referenced as authors of a particular work they should be identified using the name that is credited on the work itself. This is not a gender/identification issue, this is an identification of authorship issue. There are two good reasons for this:
 * Revisionist alteration to a name that is not actually credited has bibliographic consequences for referencing. For example, if an academic changes their name due to marriage you still reference their work using the name on the paper, unless of course they re-publish under their new name. This a long-standing bibliographic tradition. One notable example I can think of is George Eliot—a woman who adopted a male pseudonym. The British library logs her work under the name "George Eliot" (see ), not "Mary Anne Evans", because "George Eliot" is a key identifier for the bibliographic record.
 * To the best of my knowledge the Wachowskis have not changed their authorship credits on their earlier works. Certainly no evidence has been put forward in this discussion. It is presumptuous to alter their authorship credit on their behalf: they could have just being credited by their names, but they chose the credit "The Wachowski Brothers" i.e. they explicitly decided to express their authorship through this name. If it mis-gendered them, they chose to misgender themselves, but no more than say The Scissor Sisters, for example.
 * So in conclusion, the credit the work carries is an important bibliographic record. The Wachowskis chose their publication credit which should be retained unless the work is re-distributed carrying a revised credit. To be fair, I haven't seen the latest releases so I couldn't tell you if the credit has been revised or not; if the credit has been updated then it would be reasonable to change it here, but if the work still bears the credit "The Wachowski Brothers" then this is simply a case of Wikipedia editors being presumptuous and not taking account of the verifiable facts, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to record. Betty Logan (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * OTHER * I prefer "The Wachowskis, writing as the Wachowski Brothers, ..." in the lead. Same idea for the infobox, but as a parenthetical. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * * I added the word OTHER so this vote is not overlooked. Wandering Wanda  (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support "C" for the reasons provided by Betty. If and when there is information to suggest that the Wachowskis would want their prior film credits to be revised, that may be worthy of discussion, but as this discussion may be establishing a precedent that might be used going forward...no, I don't think Wikipedia editors should be taking it upon themselves to "update" historical credits because they feel they know the intentions of those credited. DonIago (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Some cleanup: Option B and Betty Logan's added Option C were similar and, in the interests of keeping things simple and clear, I incorporated language from Option C into Option B and moved Option C off the top of the page. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: This change has since been undone. Record of Changes. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support "A" as WanderingWanda makes a lot of good arguments. I think that adding a footnote or parenthetical about the discrepancy between past and present will suffice. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support "A" per WanderingWanda's arguments made above. The fact that the studio is using "Wachowskis" on the most recent home media release, plus the fact that periodicals widely call them the Wachowskis, show that Wikipedia can follow suit. Wikipedia is dynamic and can be flexible. A film database may enter the credits at the time and not have that flexibility to make clarifications. Wikipedia has that flexibility. While I think Betty's counter-example of George Eliot is worth considering, that has a heavy retrospective element to it. Here, we have a "live" career of these two where they were credited as The Wachowski Brothers for older works and now The Wachowskis for recent works. And in regard to utilizing the infobox, it is not supposed to reflect the official credits exactly as they are. It is only incidental that the infobox names match the credited names, which is most of the time. There are matters like transgender identity, pseudonyms, or director-credit changes that we can accommodate by providing fuller context. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Option C for the infobox (per Betty Logan's response), Option A for the rest of the article body – I think most editors in past discussions have been open to using footnotes that, when hovered over, add additional clarification. And regardless of the outcome of this RfC, there isn't language in the description that prevents its continual use. The main article body of The Matrix already reflects this compromise, and all mention of "The Wachowski Brothers" (aside from source titles) have been changed to "the Wachowskis" appropriately in accordance with the last RfC. Does the infobox need to reflect this as well? There are good arguments on both sides, but I think the easiest way to take the subjectivity out of the argument is to reflect the actual screen credits of the film. Much of the infobox's content is clearly modeled after this behavior already, reflecting exact usage in the primary work, whether intentional or not. Deviating from this behavior may cause confusion among the novice editor or drive-by reader that knows it doesn't match like the other parameters do.If the publisher/distributor/creator/etc., decide that a change is warranted, then it will be reflected in re-releases of the film allowing us to act accordingly. For now, I recommend adding a hovering footnote specifying that "The Wachowski Brothers" are now known as "the Wachowskis" (the reverse of what we see in the lead), and then if a re-release changes that, we flip it around to match the lead. The primary text should match the latest film version. Let the source material dictate that for us. Seems like a simpler approach, but then again, nothing around here ever is! My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A for much the same reason as Pfhorrest: it's accurate regardless of time period, it's compliant with the identity guidelines, and insistence on using "Brothers" seems pointy especially when other articles show no similar fixation on credited names (as with the example of "Roderick Jaynes" Wanda points out). -sche (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Other/comment: Why not Lana Wachowski and Lilly Wachowski? A footnote can list their original credit/gender. Many times a film credit is credited under a different name and may even be something along the lines of: Lana Wachowski (as "Laurence 'Larry' Wachowski"....). Just a thought.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A. just gave an exhaustive list of reasons why one should support Option A. I am pretty sure they have satisfied every single point of MOS:IDENTITY, MOS:GENDERID, and MOS:NEO . Well, that last one is a joke because it's the Matrix.Get it? In all seriousness, I would not say that we need to make exceptions to MOS:GENDERID for any reason including the points  articulated. All these concerns are addressed in points 3, 5, and 6 of her +Wanda's initial comment. I guess I can add that we are not in the business of preserving records on Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, and all information given should be accurate, concise and consistent. Readers should not walk away with an impression of anything less from us. I cannot understand *understate my expectations for this RfC here; the wrong result should be considered a mistake. What that hypothetical result is rests on current consensus (even if previously hashed out most of these arguments at length). Thank you all for remaining civil. It's very important to be respectful in debates of this subject matter. Kindest Regards, &#8213; MJL  -Talk-☖  21:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Optin C - just use what the cites have, anything else fails WP:V. I would say option B as historically correct that it was then 'brothers', but period references may be hard to implement so 'C'.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: WanderingWanda, GoneIn60, Huggums537, Pfhorrest, Betty Logan, Argento Surfer, DonIago, Secundus Zephyrus,  Erik, -sche, DisneyMetalhead, MJL and Markbassett, I feel that I need to make the following clear since MOS:GENDERID is sometimes misinterpreted. The first part of MOS:GENDERID is specifically titled "Main biographical article on a person whose gender might be questioned." In other words, it pertains to the biography article on that person, not related articles. And it clearly states that "The MoS does not specify when and how to present former names, or whether to use the former or present name first." Then, under that, we have the "Referring to the person in other articles" section, which currently states, "Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned." I think the previous wording for that section is clearer. But either way, the part of MOS:GENDERID that pertains to the infobox matter is the second section. Per legal documents, in the infobox of the Kris Jenner article, we do not state that she married Caitlyn Jenner; we state "Bruce Jenner." She didn't marry a person named Caitlyn Jenner. And per WP:BLP, we don't want to imply that she knowingly married a woman or that she is a lesbian (or bisexual). This is what the "Referring to the person in other articles" section means by "context." In the lead of the Kris Jenner article, we note "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn)," and lower we note "Jenner married her second spouse, retired Olympian Bruce Jenner, who publicly came out as a transgender woman in 2015, taking the name Caitlyn." But that is context with information that need not be in the infobox. Nothing at MOS:GENDERID says or indicates that we should be removing "The Wachowski Brothers" from the infobox of Wikipedia articles. So this hidden note that WanderingWanda added to the Bound (1996 film) article after Pyxis Solitary's edit needs to be changed or removed entirely. All that stated, WanderingWanda did give context reasons for going with "The Wachowskis" instead of the "The Wachowski Brothers." So I'll leave this matter up to you all and others. I'll also leave a note at Template talk:Infobox film about this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Responses moved to the Discussion section below. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Option B which is also effectively Option C. What User:Flyer22 Reborn explained above is correct. "The first part of MOS:GENDERID is specifically titled "Main biographical article on a person whose gender might be questioned." In other words, it pertains to the biography article on that person, not related articles." This is an article on a work, not an individual. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We respect history and use the name as credited in the work. As pointed out before, The Wachowskis have not said that they want the name "The Wachowski Brothers" retroactively changed on their earlier films, and in fact that name remains on all of them. A write-up on an Amazon page is not an official credit and does not overcome the credits seen in the film itself, which remain the same as seen in the original release. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Option B. I would have chosen Option C except that I take nothing for granted and "Reflect the credit as it is currently recorded on the work in question" needs to also state that WP:VERIFY is required. Otherwise it's open to interpretation and there will be conflict between editors who will claim they watched the latest DVD/Blu-ray release of a film, and editors who have not seen the alleged version with updated credits. And if a DVD/Blu-ray cover is going to be used as a source, the cover needs to specifically show "directed by", "written by", or whichever credit is the subject. Pyxis Solitary   yak  09:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

My latest comment and a response have been moved below by request. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Option B. I would have chosen Option C except that - as discussion shows - verifying what may be printed, on what may or may not be the most recently published DVD release from whatever part of the world, and distinguishing 'blurb' on packaging from 'official' film credits, is not a viable basis for WP:V. I endorse the logic of Betty Logan and Flyer22 - specifically that biog articles should be distinguished from articles about created works, and that a film credit is a form of 'brand name', not subject to revision simply because the owner changes, nor to be interpreted literally (the Mamas and the Papas weren't parents!). There is no good reason why "the Wachowskis" (note small 't') should not be used in running text - since it is no different to referring to "the Clintons" - however anything which specifically refers to role (directed by X. etc) should use the 'official' credit, which in almost all cases is going to be the original credit. Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A per reasons given by Wanda and Pfhorrest. Also modern sources discussing movies like The Matrix refer to the directors as the Wachowskis, see for example this Guardian article, Business Insider, Globe and Mail, and Deadline. Wikipedia generally weighs more current sources heavily when there is a change in how we talk about the subjects of articles. It'd be absurd after all if Wikipedia only considered the oldest sources but that seems like the argument being made here by many supporters of options B and C. I don't know any policy that would support that kind of reasoning. Rab V (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Mostly A. The standard way of referring to a credit under a previously-used name is "Current Name (as Old Name)". For the Matrix films, this would be "The Wachowskis (as the Wachowski Brothers)". This conveys to the reader everything they might need to know, and is concise enough to fit in leads and infoboxes.--Trystan (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * A is fine, because our encyclopedic job in mentioning these people is to address them as people (biography subjects) of further reader interest, not to robotically regurgitate the exact formatting of names as they appear in film/TV credits (which is what option B is, and far too many WP editors with a single-minded focus on pop-culture writing here behave as if WP is IMDb Mark II; they need to stop). Option C is just ridiculous, since it means our content would be randomly dictated, without any rationale of any kind, just by the pure coincidence of whenever some media product was last copyedited before re-release in one format or another. I.e., if a crappy movie isn't re-released on DVD and then Blu-ray and then online download services and then whatever comes next, and only exists in citable form as VHS, then WP would be "mandated" to use whatever appeared on a video tape in 1989. That's just stupid. (If this sounds implausible to you, it's because you only pay attention to really popular movies that are being re-re-released; if you look at, say, a list of movies about pool, billiards, snooker, and other cue sports, only about 20% of them have ever even been released on DVD much less Blu-ray and streaming services, and that's just talking about the English-language ones.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support B - explain in lead that it was the name used when the film was produced and released. This survey does not affect film infobox. To change the instructions for infobox credits there needs to be an RfC solely for the infobox and it should be publicised in WP:FILM and Infobox film because it will have an effect on all film articles. 2600:1700:C820:D610:B892:C100:47C7:2C04 (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support A (vote changed) - State things straight to the point. Just go for something like "Wachowski brothers, later to be known as..." or "Wachowski sisters, then credited as...". All of this "gender diversity consideration" thing getting in the way of being able to write an article that reflects facts as they happened, requiring whitewashing of facts to avoid hurting people's feelings revolts me. Let's go to the Caitlyn Jenner article and delete she used to be a guy from there too. VOTE CHANGE: As I said below, I find it monumentally childish that we need to whitewash the fact that they identified as male and keep it hidden in a footnote, but whatever, guess I'll live as long as mention of it is made anywhere. --uKER (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A - While I sympathize with the points made by Betty Logan regarding retaining bibliographic accuracy (and, to a lesser extent, with others' concerns about removal or whitewashing of facts), I think that adding a note with the original credit is sufficient to address those concerns. Beyond that, I don't really see the point in continuing to primarily use the outdated name in our listing - a change in self-identified gender is not the same as other kinds of name change, and existing policy regarding name changes should not be considered an absolute authority in these cases. I am especially swayed by the range of reliable sources produced by WanderingWanda, Secundus Zephyrus and others, which simply use "The Wachowskis". disgruntledGM  ❮talk / contribs❯ 05:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support of option A. I agree completely with WanderingWanda's thorough reasoning. To highlight a point made already, it's simply not correct to refer to "the Wachowski Brothers" in any context (except direct quotations) because the pair were not brothers and are not brothers. I take issue with 's claim of what the "facts as they happened" were. The Wachowskis were never male, in the same sense that a closeted gay person is never straight. They were simply mislabelled as male for a long time. It's not somehow factually correct to maintain a misconception about the pair just because reliable sources at the time knew less than we know now. It's also not that Caitlyn Jenner "used to be a guy", but "used to be called a guy". This sort of language suggests to me that you don't really have much experience with trans issues because that's not the sort of description that the medical community accept, definitely not the language that trans people use and not even accepted in contemporary newspaper style guides. Your argument rests on the fundamental misconception that trans women were at some point male, rather than just described as male by other people, but that's just not how trans issues are presented in reliable sources (read: not what the facts are) so it shouldn't be how Wikipedia does things. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Responses moved to discussion section below. Wandering Wanda  (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A - Essentially every single manual of style and other guideline by reputable establishments recommend that trans people are always referred to by their current gender identity in every context. Nobody will be confused by using "The Wachowskis" instead of "The Wachowski Brothers". Using "Brothers" is simply disrespectful and unprofessional. Trebuchette (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A, but with an exception: I do think we should acknowledge the name used in the credits once in the body of the article, with careful wording (e.g. not "directed by the Wachowski Brothers" but "directed by the Wachowskis, credited as 'The Wachowski Brothers'"), but in all other instances we use the Wachowskis. Unless we say "credited as" or some other similar formulation, we're not making statements about the words next to "directed by" in the credits, but about the directors -- people, not credits. The people who played the role are the Wachowskis. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A, which follows WP:GENDERID, as stated succinctly by many others above. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 01:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan's vote

 * Option C – When the Wachowkis are discussed as people they should be identified using their current names and gender pronouns; however when they are referenced as authors of a particular work they should be identified using the name that is credited on the work itself. This is not a gender/identification issue, this is an identification of authorship issue. There are two good reasons for this:
 * Revisionist alteration to a name that is not actually credited has bibliographic consequences for referencing. For example, if an academic changes their name due to marriage you still reference their work using the name on the paper, unless of course they re-publish under their new name. This a long-standing bibliographic tradition. One notable example I can think of is George Eliot—a woman who adopted a male pseudonym. The British library logs her work under the name "George Eliot" (see ), not "Mary Anne Evans", because "George Eliot" is a key identifier for the bibliographic record.
 * To the best of my knowledge the Wachowskis have not changed their authorship credits on their earlier works. Certainly no evidence has been put forward in this discussion. It is presumptuous to alter their authorship credit on their behalf: they could have just being credited by their names, but they chose the credit "The Wachowski Brothers" i.e. they explicitly decided to express their authorship through this name. If it mis-gendered them, they chose to misgender themselves, but no more than say The Scissor Sisters, for example.
 * So in conclusion, the credit the work carries is an important bibliographic record. The Wachowskis chose their publication credit which should be retained unless the work is re-distributed carrying a revised credit. To be fair, I haven't seen the latest releases so I couldn't tell you if the credit has been revised or not; if the credit has been updated then it would be reasonable to change it here, but if the work still bears the credit "The Wachowski Brothers" then this is simply a case of Wikipedia editors being presumptuous and not taking account of the verifiable facts, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to record. Betty Logan (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Although I don't know of any instance of the Wachowskis talking about their old credits, in the speech Lana Wachowski gave when she received the HRC Visibility Award, she talked about 1. not wanting to be seen as a one of "the Wachowski Brothers" and 2. wanting her gender identity to be visible to young people.

-

-Lana Wachowski (speech) (transcript) Wandering Wanda (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Erik's vote

 * Support "A" per WanderingWanda's arguments made above. The fact that the studio is using "Wachowskis" on the most recent home media release, plus the fact that periodicals widely call them the Wachowskis, show that Wikipedia can follow suit. Wikipedia is dynamic and can be flexible. A film database may enter the credits at the time and not have that flexibility to make clarifications. Wikipedia has that flexibility. While I think Betty's counter-example of George Eliot is worth considering, that has a heavy retrospective element to it. Here, we have a "live" career of these two where they were credited as The Wachowski Brothers for older works and now The Wachowskis for recent works. And in regard to utilizing the infobox, it is not supposed to reflect the official credits exactly as they are. It is only incidental that the infobox names match the credited names, which is most of the time. There are matters like transgender identity, pseudonyms, or director-credit changes that we can accommodate by providing fuller context. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I wasn't aware that current releases of the film(s) had updated the credits, and I'm not sure how many other editors are aware of this. This may beg the question of whether different films by the same people should use the same naming convention, or whether we should still use the most recent credits for that specific film. In other words, if V for Vendetta is not re-released, should we update our article in accordance with a decision based on a re-release here? DonIago (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The cover art has been updated, but does anyone know if the actual screen credits were in the 4K releases? It's only one of many factors to consider obviously, but I'm curious. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to find source that says one way or the other if the screen credits have changed (and I admit I am not willing to buy a UHD player and UHD discs just to resolve a Wikipedia dispute :) ) I also think it's worth noting that changing the credits on their films would take a certain amount of time and expense, especially considering the credits on the Wachowskis' films typically are effects shots where things move about the screen. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead's vote/comment

 * Other/comment: Why not Lana Wachowski and Lilly Wachowski? A footnote can list their original credit/gender. Many times a film credit is credited under a different name and may even be something along the lines of: Lana Wachowski (as "Laurence 'Larry' Wachowski"....). Just a thought.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I would have no problem with, say, the infobox on The Matrix crediting “Lana and Lilly Wachowski” but one thing “The Wachowskis” has going for it is that it’s how they are credited on recent work like Sense8. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22's comment

 * Comment: [...] I feel that I need to make the following clear since MOS:GENDERID is sometimes misinterpreted. The first part of MOS:GENDERID is specifically titled "Main biographical article on a person whose gender might be questioned." In other words, it pertains to the biography article on that person, not related articles. And it clearly states that "The MoS does not specify when and how to present former names, or whether to use the former or present name first." Then, under that, we have the "Referring to the person in other articles" section, which currently states, "Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned." I think the previous wording for that section is clearer. But either way, the part of MOS:GENDERID that pertains to the infobox matter is the second section. Per legal documents, in the infobox of the Kris Jenner article, we do not state that she married Caitlyn Jenner; we state "Bruce Jenner." She didn't marry a person named Caitlyn Jenner. And per WP:BLP, we don't want to imply that she knowingly married a woman or that she is a lesbian (or bisexual). This is what the "Referring to the person in other articles" section means by "context." In the lead of the Kris Jenner article, we note "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn)," and lower we note "Jenner married her second spouse, retired Olympian Bruce Jenner, who publicly came out as a transgender woman in 2015, taking the name Caitlyn." But that is context with information that need not be in the infobox. Nothing at MOS:GENDERID says or indicates that we should be removing "The Wachowski Brothers" from the infobox of Wikipedia articles. So this hidden note that WanderingWanda added to the Bound (1996 film) article after Pyxis Solitary's edit needs to be changed or removed entirely. All that stated, WanderingWanda did give context reasons for going with "The Wachowskis" instead of the "The Wachowski Brothers." So I'll leave this matter up to you all and others. I'll also leave a note at Template talk:Infobox film about this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. thank you for pinging me. It's much appreciated. In response to your comment, I will invite you to take a look at Talk:Kris Jenner. It's completely full of people questioning the logic of that. Honestly, if I didn't feel like it would result in an edit war, I'd change it. I mean, look at this diff. There is also no policy on Wikipedia that states legal documents should have preference for infoboxes. So when you say Per legal documents..., I have no clue what you mean. Honestly, bringing it up is just another can of worms. Movie credits are not in anyway legal documents. If you are looking for a good essay on interpreting MOS:GENDERID, I recommend Gender identity (WP:GENDERID). It more accurately encapsulates the sentiments of many editors in this thread including myself. Therefore, context for the infobox would generally be up for interpretation.
 * I really have to go back to this diff though. It keeps bugging me. The edit that was reverted was linking the mention in the Kris Jenner infobox directly to the article on Cait Jenner without changing what the user even sees. It's so telling that the user cited WP:NOTBROKEN. Though I am irritated by that revert, I will not assume you support it.
 * I honestly do not see keeping the old names of people who are referred to something different publicly in any infobox is appropriate. It makes it seem we are endorsing the idea that the old names are somehow "official." What matters is only two things: (1) what people actually call a person, and (2) what they refer to themselves as. An official statement by an individual saying "THIS IS MY NAME." cannot be more reliable.
 * It might be worth noting this one sentence by User:WanderingWanda: The latest release of the Matrix trilogy, for example, refers to the directors as "The Wachowskis" on the cover. "The Wachowskis" is accurate. Regardless of the logic you choose to use. &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  00:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I went over the whole back (and front) cover of the The Matrix UHD as seen on its Amazon page, and I could not find "written and directed by The Wachowskis" anywhere. The back cover is an informal collection of items, not a list of credits, much less official. It says there is a "written introduction by The Wachowskis" in the special features. It does not even identify them as directors or screenwriters. This is in no way an official film credit or analogous to the WP Film infobox. The Wachowskis have not asked for their name to be changed on the official credits of their earlier films, and indeed their credit remains the same as on the original release. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * MJL, the Bruce Jenner/Kris Jenner matter was extensively discussed. As seen at Talk:Kris Jenner/Archive 1, I mentioned the big RfC that took place on it: Village pump (policy)/Archive 121. Are you saying that it's best to state that "Jenner married her second spouse, retired Olympian Caitlyn Jenner" and that "Bruce" shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all? If so, why, given the confusion it can cause at some point in time? Caitlyn Jenner is very famous now, but, in the future, she may not be very famous to newer generations. And there are no doubt some people who haven't heard of her. The English Wikipedia isn't only for Americans. And as mentioned in the Wikipedia discussions about this topic, Caitlyn has referred to herself as "Bruce" when speaking of her past gender presentation. No, I don't support a faulty WP:NOTBROKEN reasoning. I do support "Bruce Jenner" being in that infobox, stating "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn)" in the lead and stating "Jenner married her second spouse, retired Olympian Bruce Jenner, who publicly came out as a transgender woman in 2015, taking the name Caitlyn." in the Personal life section. Do you oppose the leads of articles on transgender people including the previous names when the previous name is notable and is the name the person was widely known under before the new name? As you can see at articles like The Wachowskis and Caitlyn Jenner, we include the older name. Well, in some related articles, the old name should be mentioned as well. Again, the Kris Jenner article is one of those. I know of WP:Gender identity, but it's an essay. It's not a policy or guideline. I mentioned the legal aspect because it's been noted before with regard to Kris Jenner. It is a solid point that she did not marry a person named Caitlyn Jenner. The marriage information in our articles is based on what reliable sources state, but those reliable sources are often based on legal information...similar to birth names. In this case at the Hailey Baldwin article, for example, we don't just go by Baldwin changing her last name on Instagram. Legal names have been considered many times with regard to WP:NAMECHANGES (concerning article titles) and in cases simply concerning the lead or infobox. On a side note: Since I'll check back here for replies, there's no need to ping me to this page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Reborn, I appreciate the link to the RfC. I will note it's conclusion below:
 * In conclusion: there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article. This particular discussion does not support the broad and "retroactive" application of any "new" gender in the way suggested by WP:Gender identity. All of which helps us for this particular article but does little to solve the more general problem of how to properly describe a changing world. And it seems to me that this discussion does indicate we need to revisit the discussion in MOS:IDENTITY, since the support here for proposal 1 is really broad and suggests, more or less, the rejection of the formulation in MOS:IDENTITY. Do NOT read this as "MOS:IDENTITY is rejected"--it is a suggestion, and thus an incentive to have a broader conversation.
 * It is clear in closing that the result was not meant to have any bearing on the application of Mos:GENDERID nor MOS:IDENTITY to articles outside the Caitlyn Jenner-related articles. My point was that Bruce Jenner (a direct link to Caitlyn Jenner) should be preferred over (a redirect).
 * In regards to your arguement, Caitlyn Jenner is very famous now, but, in the future, she may not be very famous to newer generations. I will refer you to WP:CRYSTALBALL.
 * Hopefully, that clarifies everything. &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  14:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * MJL, regardless of what the closer stated about "broad consensus for this article," that RfC is about how to refer to Jenner in different articles. We can see that there is Option 1, which states, "In articles outside of the biography itself, the timeframe of which only covers the period when the person self-identified as one gender, with a particular name, default to the historic name and gender." And then there is Option 2, which states, "In every article across Wikipedia, all mentions of the transgendered person should use their current name and gender identity." Using Jenner's birth name in the historical sense with regard to Olympics is employed on Wikipedia for obvious reasons -- the historical aspect and not causing confusion. Some of the articles likely state "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner)," or something like that. You stated that "it is clear in closing that the result was not meant to have any bearing on the application of Mos:GENDERID nor MOS:IDENTITY to articles outside the Caitlyn Jenner-related articles." And I did not point to that RfC in a "we must do what was done in that case with The Wachowskis-related articles" way. I pointed to the Kris Jenner article as an example and noted that such formatting seen at the Kris Jenner was discussed in that RfC. Regarding this edit by Geraldo Perez, his WP:NOTBROKEN argument is actually correct. How would bypassing that redirect help anything (whether for Wikipedia or being respectful of Jenner)? The name "Bruce Jenner" is in the lead and infobox of the Caitlyn Jenner article. And either way, I was focused on your "I honestly do not see keeping the old names of people who are referred to something different publicly in any infobox is appropriate" argument and similar. As for WP:CRYSTALBALL, I don't need to be pointed to that policy that I am familiar with. It is not like I violated that policy. I did not insert my opinions or analyses into any article. WP:Recentism is a supplement page, but what it states about how we are supposed to think long-term when it comes to articles is a fact, which is why it is referenced in the WP:MEDDATE guideline. It's why WP:Primary topic speaks of "long-term significance." That is what I was doing -- thinking long-term with regard to the topic. And I clearly also stated that "there are no doubt some people who haven't heard of her. The English Wikipedia isn't only for Americans." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for linking Gender identity,, I hadn't read it before and I recommend it to everyone. I'll quote this part, which I agree with: "Many people consider questioning or disregarding a person's gender identity — including by intentionally using a former name of theirs or by using pronouns which do not correspond to their current gender identity — to be transphobic and dehumanizing."
 * I get where the other side is coming from on this, though. I get it because I used to be on the other side. I didn't know much about what science said about gender, and I didn't know any transgender people personally, but I sure had opinions about trans issues anyway. And then I wound up spending some time with trans folks. I started to understand how many trans people are disowned by their families just for being who they are. I learned how much more likely trans people are to face violence or commit suicide. I started to realize how happy transitioning could make someone, and how much of a punch to the gut it is to be intentionally misgendered.
 * There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that refer to trans people incorrectly but the way the Wachowski sisters are misgendered feels especially egregious because of how it easy it would be to gender them correctly. We're not talking about changing someone's credited first name or their last name. Dropping the "Brothers" from the end of "the Wachowkis" is such a small change and it's one that could never cause any confusion. Right now, articles about the Wachowskis' work often feel like they're bending over backwards to misgender them. We can do better. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a really important point that's not getting enough attention here. There's undoubtedly a lot of back-and-forth that can be had over things like how to refer to Jenner in articles taking about different time periods, but none of that kind of argument has to happen here on these articles, because we're fortunate enough to have a situation analogous to if Jenner had been born "Christopher" and then transitioned to "Christina" and gone by "Chris" for short both before and after transition. If that were the case, then you would just write "Chris Jenner" everywhere and completely avoid the argument, and people insisting on writing "Christopher Jenner" would be obviously just starting an argument that doesn't need to be had. With the Wachowskis, they were called "the Wachowskis" even back when that was short for "Wachowski Brothers", and they're still called "the Wachowskis" now that they identify as sisters rather than brothers, so we can just call them "the Wachowskis", not mention gender at all, and completely avoid the whole argument. Insisting on the "Brothers" just seems like insisting on having an argument we don't need to have. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're being fair, we should acknowledge that this is NOT a discussion about editors' opinions regarding gender identification. We should be careful not to imply that the reason for an editor's position has to do with their feelings toward transgender or genderqueer people. This is first and foremost a discussion about current policies and guidelines, and debate surrounding their interpretation. There are two that are specifically related, and they are both guidelines. The first is MOS:GENDERID. As Flyer points out, "MOS:GENDERID" primarily directs its attention to biographical articles about a person. Since the articles being questioned in this RfC are not biographical articles, the bulk of that guideline does not apply. The only sliver of that section that does apply, is the part about how to refer to these individuals in non-biographical articles. And here, the guideline is pretty vague. It tells us to determine the name on a case-by-case basis according to context, and then goes on to say that details surrounding gender and name changes should be avoided unless relevant to the passage. So the problem here is that this guideline doesn't explicitly deny or support what's being discussed in this RfC. Therefore, we need to look elsewhere for clarification.Enter MOS:BIO. This guideline specifically states:
 * If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention. However, see MOS:IDENTITY. For example, Pope John Paul I was known as Albino Luciani before he was elevated to the papacy. Any reference to him before he became pope should use the name Albino Luciani.
 * The position many of us share about the infobox, is that we are simply using the name at the time of the film's release. Almost every parameter in the infobox is based on this premise, and the practice is clearly in line with the advice we're given in this guideline. Now if we apply this additional clarification to the vague recommendation given at MOS:GENDERID, we can reasonably interpret that "The Wachowski Brothers" is being used in the proper context. So one could argue that using that designation actually has the support of two guidelines.Then there is the other angle mentioned in previous discussions that "The Wachowski Brothers" is a trademark. Referring to a trademark that used to exist, as opposed to a person, cannot violate either guideline I just mentioned. It can be debated whether or not the gender concern can be tossed out, but regardless of the outcome in any such debate, it either has the support of two guidelines or it simply doesn't apply. In neither case is "The Wachowski Brothers" a violation of existing policies and guidelines.--GoneIn60 (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like the entire point of my previous comment was missed, as the last line of your comment really hits home. I'm saying that it's possible to sidestep the argument over whether "The Wachowski Brothers" violates any policies of guidelines entirely. You're arguing it doesn't, other are arguing it does, I'm arguing that we don't need to have that argument at all, because "The Wachowskis" definitely doesn't violate any policies or guidelines one way or the other, so we can just use that completely safe option and not even have to come to a decision on whether or not including "Brothers" would be acceptable. And, given that we have such a definitely-acceptable option like that available, insisting on arguing that "Brothers" would also be acceptable seems kind of pointy, even if good arguments can be made in favor of that position. One option is definitely acceptable no argument either way; another option is arguable acceptable too. Why bother arguing for the only-arguably-acceptable option when there's an uncontroversially-acceptable one available? --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The last line was a culmination of several points that shouldn't be overlooked. At best, "The Wachowski Brothers" actually has the support of two guidelines, as well as the infobox template's documentation. At worst, there's no violation. On the other hand, "the Wachowskis" contradicts MOS:BIO as well as the template's recommendation. I didn't originally have a horse in this race, but looking at this objectively, the one with support would have the edge. As I stated in the Survey section, it ultimately doesn't matter which option wins out, since we can use a hovering footnote for clarification. However, I felt the need to interject when the idea surfaced that "The Wachowski Brothers" is somehow a violation or that editors supporting it are unknowingly being insensitive. My position is based on guideline interpretation and has nothing to do with an opinion toward the subject matter. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, GoneIn60. Advocacy has no place on Wikipedia. What I've stated on this talk page has nothing to do with what I personally feel about gender identity. As many know, I am well-versed on gender topics. And I will also go ahead and note that the science behind gender identity is still subject to debate. As for the matter at hand, I do not mind the sisters being referred to as the Wachowkis in the infobox. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I based my opinion on how we treat books by authors using pseudonyms, such as Roadwork. It's not completely analogous, but I think it's close enough and a good middle ground. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "The position many of us share about the infobox, is that we are simply using the name at the time of the film's release." This is a deceptive statement. We only do this incidentally because in the vast majority of cases, the names do not change. The infobox template's documentation merely states this obvious approach for most films and figures and does not at all deny taking alternative approaches like with this and other such cases. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point that the statement could have been phrased with more clarity: "The position many of us share about the infobox, is that we are simply using the name that appears on the work itself, which just so happens to be at the time of the film's release ." Yes, since names don't typically change, we haven't had a lot of these discussions. However, I disagree about the template's documentation. It states, "Credits in the infobox should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date. A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made." If that isn't denial, then I'm not sure what is. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not denial. Recent reliable sources that talk about these two and The Matrix in the same breath say "The Wachowskis". We can be of one of two minds here, to follow these reliable sources as a "living" and dynamic encyclopedia (with the flexibility to make clarifying statements), or to be a "dead" and unchanging encyclopedia and stick to strictly the contemporary details. In general, name changes aside, film articles can change over time in how it was received. Maybe it was well-received at the time, and now it isn't, or vice versa. A print encyclopedia published shortly after a film's release would not reflect the present nature of the film as well as a print encyclopedia that is published decades later. We are an encyclopedia that can change, and considering how sources are approaching this name change, Wikipedia can change to follow suit. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating for a stale encyclopedia. I'm saying the context within the infobox has typically followed what is present on the current work in question, whether that be film, books, or other forms of media. Though it may be incidental that we are quoting the work itself directly, doing so is a natural, common sense tendency. This approach takes subjectivity out of the equation, but I understand the reasoning that we should take updated secondary sources into account. Should this practice be more dynamic and have the ability to adapt to new, secondary source interpretation? It's an interesting question that lends this RfC reason to exist, and perhaps a change here would be beneficial, maybe not. Regardless of the outcome, I just want it to be clear that at the heart of my position is the assessment that the proposed change isn't mandated by current policies or guidelines. No change is needed if we stick with the status quo. If there's reason to make an exception here, then a wider discussion to look at a policy or guideline update may be in order. We can certainly be flexible in this regard, as nothing is set in stone. This is a definitely healthy discussion we should be engaging in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The most compelling part of WanderingWanda's argument to me were the numerous sources which all credit The Matrix to "The Wachowskis". I just found another example to add: this article from the Guardian covers the topic of that film pretty narrowly, and exclusively uses "The Wachowskis" to refer to the past when the film was being developed (e.g. "Reeves had been required by the Wachowskis to read the book..."). It seems there is already a clear consensus about this outside of Wikipedia, and I think we ought to follow suit. As others have noted, the term "The Wachowskis" is neutral to gender, so it wouldn't be confusing to an uninformed reader, and I think a note in the infobox can mention that the original screen credit was different. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, and I have no doubt there are many more examples. I think we all agree that secondary sources have changed the way they are referencing the directors. It all boils down to whether or not the official credit on the work trumps an updated preference in secondary sources. It is correct to frame "The Wachowski Brothers" in the proper context, and the advice we have in existing guidelines supports that as well. Up for consensus is the proposal that we make an exception. It's not the end of the world if we do, and like you said, we can always add a note for clarification. Good point to consider, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think framing this in the context of gender identity is particularly helpful. It seems to me we are arguing to make name changes due to a sex change or a new gender identity a special case. I agree that gender pronoun changes should be applied retrospectively, and I have no objection to referring to them informally as the "Wachowskis" in running commentary on the Matrix articles, but that is about as far as gender consideration needs to go. When it comes down to it this is a simple name change issue; it is only problematic because the gender politics make the discussions so heated. There is precedent for revising historical credits, but so far on film articles this has been reserved exclusively for cases where the credits were demonstrably wrong at the time and have been fixed. Perhaps the most notable example of this is the blacklisted writers having their credits restored: it is entirely correct Wikipedia follows suit because we shouldn't perpetuate a historical falsehood. Most name changes occur through marriage and I can't think of a single example where we retrospectively altered film articles to accommodate this (and if there are cases where this has occurred then I would not advocate it). Betty Logan (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrectly calling a pair of sisters "brothers" is also, in my view, "demonstrably wrong" and "perpetuating a historical falsehood." WanderingWanda (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not incorrect by the definitions yielded by decades of empirical science: mother, father, brother, sister—these all have exact scientific definitions based on genetic proximity. There are millions of organisms on the planet and only one can self-identify, so self-identification clearly does not work in the context of scientific discovery. And while I believe a civilised society should be accepting of a transgender person's life choices and identity, it shouldn't be chucking out decades of empirical science in deference to self-labeling. However, I don't think any of this is particularly relevant to the issue at hand. This is principally a name change debate, which is not exactly uncommon: if the Wachowskis had simply changed their name without adopting a new gender identity I seriously doubt we would be having this debate; nobody would be seeking to revise their earlier credits, just like nobody seeks to remove the "Kilmer" bit from Joanne Whalley's mid-career credits. Betty Logan (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it is appropriate to use science in this argument over how we should refer to the Wachowski's; it smacks of OR, is not tied to wiki policy, and Betty IS not citing any sources to back up that science doesn't support a transgender person's 'self-labeling.' If anyone is interested in what actual top tier scientific journals or major medical organizations say about trans people's identities though, the support for trans people's identities is consistent. Of the top of my head I'll pull up this link from Nature (the last couple paragraphs in particular), but if I had more time I could pull articles from the AMA, APA, WPATH, the American Academy of Pediatrics... Rab V (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not stated anywhere in this discussion that science does not support gender self-identification; I was specifically refuting the OR argument put to me that I was "incorrect" to refer to the Wachowskis as "brothers". Even our own articles support my assertion: "brother" is defined as a "male sibling" and "male" is defined as the "physiological sex that produces sperm", which are pretty much universally accepted definitions within biology, so how can it be "incorrect" to refer to them as brothers? Just because WanderingWanda doesn't agree with me and decades of science doesn't make it wrong! Secondly, the argument I have put forward in this discussion in relation to how the Wachowskis should be credited (clearly indicated in the "survey" section) is how they are currently credited in relation to the work. The Wachowskis chose to be credited as "The Wachowski Brothers" and so far nobody has put forward any compelling evidence to the contrary. The best anybody has come up with is some cover art: no evidence that the credit on the film itself has been changed, or that they have applied to the DGA to have their creditation changed (as the blacklisted writers did with the WGA), and the Copyright Catalog still has the films credited to "The Wachowski Brothers". It seems to me the OR arguments are all coming from those seeking to change the credit to The Wachowskis. Personally I view all the gender stuff as a red-herring. If they had simply changed their name to "The Wachowskis" without all the gender stuff attached then everyone would be happy to leave their older credits as they are. This situation can be easily handled in the same way we handle any other name change, which is to leave it. Wikipedia shouldn't be taking revisionist steps to "fix" their credits unless the Wachowskis themselves clearly take revisionist steps to officially "fix" their credits. Betty Logan (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you say that a cisgender man who has lost his testicles (due to cancer or whatever else) "isn't really a man?" Even if he identified as one? After all, he isn't able to produce sperm.
 * I don't think, in any case, that the Wachowskis have ever publicly commented on what reproductive equipment they were born with or what their chromosomes are. If anyone asked, they might say: it's none of your damn business (as well they should.) A lesser known fact is that one or two out of every hundred people are born intersex - that is, their chromosomes, reproductive hardware, etc are ambigious in some way. That is a lot of people. By some estimates there are more intersex people than there are redheads in the world, and you (yes you!) have encountered some intersex people in your life, whether you know it or not. The sex researcher Alfred Kinsey said "It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."
 * But chromosomes and body parts are beside the point. There is a generally held distinction between the words sex and gender. Sex refers to, according to the dictionary definition, how we distinguish male or female "especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures". Gender, meanwhile, refers to how we distinguish them "especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior". Merriam-Webster says "gender" can mean "gender identity" which in turn means "a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female". When we talk about who the Wachowskis are, we aren't talking about their bits and bobs - this isn't really a conversation about their bodies - but, instead, about who they are as people. That is, we're talking about their gender and not their sex. And the gender they are is the gender they say they are, by definition. You don't get to tell me what my gender is, was, or will be - it's my gender, not yours, and you don't have one ioata of a claim on it.
 * The Wachowskis are women, for the simple reason that they say they are women. To say otherwise is to deny a fundamental part of their identity as humans - to dehumanize them.
 * Is their gender a red herring? I'm not so sure. If it's unimportant why do you keep bringing up your opinion on it? Whether the original credit is in error about their gender seems like an important piece of context to consider as we try to decide the correct way to credit them. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I could find no evidence that the term "Wachowski" is a trademark or a part of one. Please cite that source; thank you. &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  18:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , It's possible that the phrase isn't a registered trademark/entity. I thought I remembered several editors identifying "The Wachowski Brothers" in a past discussion as being more than just a stage name or unofficial brand, but perhaps I'm wrong, because now I'm unable to locate the discussion. It's not a position I'm advancing, so feel free to disregard. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , gotcha. Thank you for clarifying that. &#8213; MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  21:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Response to this comment:
 * I agree that we should not assume what other people's opinions about gender identity are, and if I painted with too broad a brush the other day, I apologize. I know everyone here has good intentions and appreciate everyone's contributions.
 * I would disagree, however, that the subject of gender identity is off topic. Who the Wachowskis are, how they identify, what it means to be transgender, etc. are important pieces of context in determining the best way to credit them. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not assume what other people's opinions about gender identity are, and if I painted with too broad a brush the other day, I apologize. I know everyone here has good intentions and appreciate everyone's contributions.
 * I would disagree, however, that the subject of gender identity is off topic. Who the Wachowskis are, how they identify, what it means to be transgender, etc. are important pieces of context in determining the best way to credit them. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Gothicfilm's vote

 * Option B which is also effectively Option C. What User:Flyer22 Reborn explained above is correct. "The first part of MOS:GENDERID is specifically titled "Main biographical article on a person whose gender might be questioned." In other words, it pertains to the biography article on that person, not related articles." This is an article on a work, not an individual. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We respect history and use the name as credited in the work. As pointed out before, The Wachowskis have not said that they want the name "The Wachowski Brothers" retroactively changed on their earlier films, and in fact that name remains on all of them. A write-up on an Amazon page is not an official credit and does not overcome the credits seen in the film itself, which remain the same as seen in the original release. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your vote. A note that we weren't talking about a write-up on Amazon - the latest, official releases of all the Matrix films print the credit "The Wachowskis" on their covers. An exact quote from the The Matrix UHD back cover: "written and directed by The Wachowskis". WanderingWanda (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. I went over the whole back (and front) cover of the The Matrix UHD as seen on its Amazon page, and I could not find your "exact quote" of "written and directed by The Wachowskis" anywhere. The back cover is an informal collection of items, not a list of credits, much less official. It says there is a "written introduction by The Wachowskis" in the special features. It does not even identify them as directors or screenwriters. This is in no way an official film credit or analogous to the WP Film infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's on the |The Matrix UHD packaging, not the Matrix Trilogy packaging. I don't agree that it's unofficial or informal. This isn't a Matrix fanzine - it's material released by Warner Bros., and the packaging is subject to all sorts of guild rules and legal requirements. If you look through a Director's Guild agreement you'll see they treat credits on packaging seriously just like credits at the end of the film. Here's an excerpt from one of their standard agreements: "The Director of the film shall receive credit on the containers of all videodiscs and videocassettes which are shipped by the Employer. Such credit shall be in size of type no less than fifteen percent (15%) the size of type of the largest title on the container..." WanderingWanda (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The guilds place the highest importance on the onscreen credits seen in the film, because they are much more consistent. There can always be a new DVD cover. And official credits are not given in the middle of prose paragraphs, as seen in your link. That is more analogous to the article prose. A billing block would be analogous to the infobox, but unfortunately one was not put on that cover. Closest to it found using that link is the Amazon "Product details", which credits "Directors: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski. Writers: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski". Note I have often seen later DVD covers and websites use unofficial and/or casual credits, controlled by who-knows-who, especially decades after the first release. They are not consistent, and are thus much less reliable than the film itself. In any case a prose paragraph is not an official credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary's vote

 * Option B. I would have chosen Option C except that I take nothing for granted and "Reflect the credit as it is currently recorded on the work in question" needs to also state that WP:VERIFY is required. Otherwise it's open to interpretation and there will be conflict between editors who will claim they watched the latest DVD/Blu-ray release of a film, and editors who have not seen the alleged version with updated credits. And if a DVD/Blu-ray cover is going to be used as a source, the cover needs to specifically show "directed by", "written by", or whichever credit is the subject. Pyxis Solitary   yak  09:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * To be clear, though, the link that WanderingWanda provides above does specifically say "written and directed by the Wachowskis". Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Secundus Zephyrus what that link says for me (on an EU server), is "Directors: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski" Writers: ditto, for the whole UHD box-set. This is going to be the problem with using Amazon sale sites as refs. Pincrete (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Pincrete I also see that text on the Amazon website (I'm located in the US), but I'm not referring to that text, and I presume WanderingWanda isn't either. I'm talking about the text that is on the actual back of the cover of the Blu-ray, which can be seen in the image at that link. I think the Blu-ray cover is a much more reliable (and consistent) source than Amazon's description. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As said above, official credits are not given in prose paragraphs, as seen on that cover. That is more analogous to the article prose. The film itself is the most consistent and reliable source for film credits, and the film itself is used by the best secondary sources, like the AFI. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Rab V's vote

 * A per reasons given by Wanda and Pfhorrest. Also modern sources discussing movies like The Matrix refer to the directors as the Wachowskis, see for example this Guardian article, Business Insider, Globe and Mail, and Deadline. Wikipedia generally weighs more current sources heavily when there is a change in how we talk about the subjects of articles. It'd be absurd after all if Wikipedia only considered the oldest sources but that seems like the argument being made here by many supporters of options B and C. I don't know any policy that would support that kind of reasoning. Rab V (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it is worth reminding everyone that the question is how do we credit individual films in articles about those films, not about how do we talk about two individuals, either on their own biog articles - or on their partnership page. We hardly need any kind of reference, new or old to write about 'the Wachowskis' (note no capital 't' - which is how the above sources refer to them), anymore than we would need a reference to write about 'the Clintons', to mean that partnership or 'the Coens' to refer to theirs. These are all generic terms used to refer to a body of collaboration - their use tells us nothing about who was credited with writing, directing or producing any specific film (nor who was President and Governor and who was First Lady, Sec State and Senator). The newer sources don't indicate that different people are now believed to have made any of these films (if they did I would be in favour of using them), they simply tell us that the creators have changed their private and/or professional names since making the films. No sources offered even imply that the people officially or widely credited with making the films has changed, merely the names those people are now known by.

Using anything other than original credits (supplemented by the, very rare instance, of new info having entered the public sphere about who did what) will inevitably lead to anachronism, ''(Prince Philip) did not marry Queen Liz in 1947. Julius Caeser's troops didn't occupy France. Finding news sources that imply either, because they are assuming the reader is not going to interpret the content literally, does not make the impossible factual)''. If not anachronistic, then incomplete info will be added by using the generic, where specific credits were originally used. Finally, I think that when we are reduced to looking at the (very brief) 'blurb' on the packaging for a specific box-set, to establish exact credits for specific films, we are on very shaky ground. Pincrete (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Trystan's vote

 * Mostly A. The standard way of referring to a credit under a previously-used name is "Current Name (as Old Name)". For the Matrix films, this would be "The Wachowskis (as the Wachowski Brothers)". This conveys to the reader everything they might need to know, and is concise enough to fit in leads and infoboxes.--Trystan (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "The Wachowskis (as the Wachowski Brothers)" would be preferable to what we have now, but it strikes me as awkwardly repetitive. If we went with that sort of construction, drawing a sharper distinction between the out-of-date credit and the current credit would probably read better: "Lana and Lilly Wachowski (credited as the Wachowski Brothers)". (This is similiar to how IMDb currently handles it.) WanderingWanda (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish's vote

 * A is fine, because our encyclopedic job in mentioning these people is to address them as people (biography subjects) of further reader interest, not to robotically regurgitate the exact formatting of names as they appear in film/TV credits (which is what option B is, and far too many WP editors with a single-minded focus on pop-culture writing here behave as if WP is IMDb Mark II; they need to stop). Option C is just ridiculous, since it means our content would be randomly dictated, without any rationale of any kind, just by the pure coincidence of whenever some media product was last copyedited before re-release in one format or another. I.e., if a crappy movie isn't re-released on DVD and then Blu-ray and then online download services and then whatever comes next, and only exists in citable form as VHS, then WP would be "mandated" to use whatever appeared on a video tape in 1989. That's just stupid. (If this sounds implausible to you, it's because you only pay attention to really popular movies that are being re-re-released; if you look at, say, a list of movies about pool, billiards, snooker, and other cue sports, only about 20% of them have ever even been released on DVD much less Blu-ray and streaming services, and that's just talking about the English-language ones.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then why does the documentation for the infobox state, "Credits in the infobox should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date. A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made"? It seems to me that this is stating pretty clearly that the infobox should present, if not the credits as used in the film, at least the name that the credited person was operating under professionally at the time. This of course doesn't address the lead, but as I've stated before, I feel commingling the lead and infobox in a single RfC was ill-advised. DonIago (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your "then why" question is already answered by my original comment: "far too many WP editors with a single-minded focus on pop-culture writing here behave as if WP is IMDb Mark II".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The regurgitation serves a fundamental purpose. It relieves editors of the nuances of selectively picking one secondary source over another when they conflict. Of course, recent secondary sources in this situation seem to agree, so that's a moot point, but one premise of listing the credits as they appear on the work itself is to avoid conflicts. It is much harder to dispute quoted material as opposed to determining trends in secondary sources. As for re-releases, I would tend to agree, except when it's obvious that a major redistribution occurred and was noted by primary and secondary sources. If a credit was intentionally changed during the process and received ample coverage, then we could reflect that accordingly. The chances of that qualifying for ANY film are probably less than 9999 out of 10,000. That's why option C here is nearly identical to option B. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not buying it. These terrible burdens of nuanced source reading you speak of are what we are here to do: weigh and interpret source material to produce content that actually makes sense to our readers. (And exactly the same kind of weighing of conflicting source treatment of how to refer to the subject is what we do every single time we have a WP:COMMONNAME discussion at WP:RM – literally daily.  It's kind of like saying "We should pull your teeth out, to save you from the dreadful drudgery of having to brush them.")  When we say who was in Freejack, it should include "David Johansen (as Buster Poindexter)" not just "Buster Poindexter", a name that means less to our readers and is less relevant to the subject's present-day notability [also, in his case, to his earlier pre-Internet notability in his rock-star phase, but him having been DJ then BP then DJ again is purely incidental, and doesn't affect the analysis]. This has nothing to do with whether it's in the infobox, in the lead, or in a cast list.  I'm not arguing for suppressing the name-as-credited entirely, in case I somehow gave that impression.  I've already strongly opposed such a notion when it comes to transgendered people's name (e.g. the interminable VPPOL RfC several years ago about excising the name Bruce Jenner and then writing confusing gibberish like "She won the men's gold medal in ..."). We do not rewrite history just to make people feel more comfortable about their identity shifts (much less just to satisfy third-party "language-change activism" busybodies). But we also mustn't write media history intentionally confusingly just to make film-credits nerds happier.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The only reason we are having this discussion is because the Wachowskis are transgender, not because they have changed their name. How many creators of artistic work have changed their name down the years? How many times is there a concerted effort by Wikipedia to keep track of all these alterations? I don't see this as a case of IMDB-ing Wikipedia, but rather a bibliographic methodology whereby a consistent approach is applied to documenting the creators of artistic works. Editor-driven revisionism makes it very difficult (if not impossible) to adopt a standardised approach to keep abreast of name alterations; in the end that would invariably descend into coverage monopolised by the sensibilities of the editors working in a particular area. What happens if we get a bunch of militant feminists who want to revise the credit of every divorced woman? Where does it end?Ultimately we are discussing a professional credit they chose for themselves, not some secondary context where it was applied to them without their consent. If the credit on the work is decisively changed in later years (such as was the case with the McCarthy blacklist writers) then that should probably be reflected here so we don't perpetuate falsehoods and misrepresent history, but outside of that small window I think we are best served by keeping things simple, having a standardised approach, and just respecting the decision the person made at that stage of their career. Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't deny that TG stuff tends to attract special pleading, but this is really the same core analysis as a name-change situation (since this discussion is not about pronouns in running prose, etc.). They were originally professionally know as "the Wachoswki Brothers" as a production unit, and are now known as "the Wachowskis" for the most part. From WP's perspective this is precisely the same as the Johansen/Poindexter change (which wasn't actually a name change, strictly speaking, but adoption of a professional pseudonym).  I don't disagree with the general thrust of your post, or any specifics in it I would want to argue about. I also favor being consistent about this, but I'm not sure we agree on the exact consistency to aim for.  For example, Ricky Schroeder has been know by that name since his days as a child actor. And he uses it now.  For a brief few years he tried "Rick Schroeder" to distance himself from his child-acting days, and then changed his mind. It's not helpful for us to credit him as "Rick Schroeder" at Pool Hall Junkies (except perhaps as "Ricky Schroeder (as Rick Schroeder)"), because the shorter name is meaningless to nearly everyone, and is apt to even suggest to most readers that it must not be Ricky Schroeder but someone else with the same surname. It's especially important to remember WP:REUSE; our content be written in a way that makes sense only when links work and people follow them; it has to stand on its own when printed out on paper.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous vote

 * Support B - explain in lead that it was the name used when the film was produced and released. This survey does not affect film infobox. To change the instructions for infobox credits there needs to be an RfC solely for the infobox and it should be publicised in WP:FILM and Infobox film because it will have an effect on all film articles. 2600:1700:C820:D610:B892:C100:47C7:2C04 (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Although I favor option C for the infobox (which is very similar to option B), the documentation page for infobox film templates is several notches below the other guidelines and policies brought up in this RfC. It is in the template namespace under the scope of project content guidelines, similar to the MoS but with less visibility and community support. Therefore, if option A wins out (which would extend to The Matrix films and possibly other films from the Wachowskis), it does NOT necessarily mean a change must occur at Infobox film. I think it would warrant further discussion at WT:FILM, but an exception here wouldn't depend on it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I intended the RfC to extend beyond just The Matrix films. The question is framed broadly: How should the Wachowskis be credited in articles about films/media they worked on before they came out as women? And I advertised it to the talk pages of any of their films I could think of (including Bound, Speed Racer, and V For Vendetta.) (Note that "media" can encompass videogames and comics too.)   Wandering Wanda  (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The anon's idea of the "authority" that an RfC has is nonsense. WP:CONSENSUS can form anywhere, and it's standard operating procedure for decisions (that come to a firm consensus) to result in conforming edits to other relevant materials, to implement that consensus change. This is a WP:NOT and WP:GAMING policy matter. The idea that a template cannot be touched except by a template-specific RfC is pure fantasy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Bilorv's vote

 * Strong support of option A. I agree completely with WanderingWanda's thorough reasoning. To highlight a point made already, it's simply not correct to refer to "the Wachowski Brothers" in any context (except direct quotations) because the pair were not brothers and are not brothers. I take issue with 's claim of what the "facts as they happened" were. The Wachowskis were never male, in the same sense that a closeted gay person is never straight. They were simply mislabelled as male for a long time. It's not somehow factually correct to maintain a misconception about the pair just because reliable sources at the time knew less than we know now. It's also not that Caitlyn Jenner "used to be a guy", but "used to be called a guy". This sort of language suggests to me that you don't really have much experience with trans issues because that's not the sort of description that the medical community accept, definitely not the language that trans people use and not even accepted in contemporary newspaper style guides. Your argument rests on the fundamental misconception that trans women were at some point male, rather than just described as male by other people, but that's just not how trans issues are presented in reliable sources (read: not what the facts are) so it shouldn't be how Wikipedia does things. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The Wachowskis created films under the "Wachowski Brothers" name. They chose that professional name. And the name they worked under before they transitioned has not been changed in these films. Altering facts to accommodate activism is a slippery slope, and what becomes acceptable in Wikipedia in order to please one faction today will eventually have to become acceptable wiki-wide. Pyxis Solitary  yak  15:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What facts do you believe I'm "altering" and what "activism" do you believe I'm doing? The only thing I'm proposing is that in some sentences, clauses and metadata, the subject [Lana Wachowski and Lilly Wachowski] should be described by the phrase "the Wachowskis" rather than "the Wachowski Brothers". It's a syntactic change, not one of factual content. As I implied (though perhaps not as clearly as I should have), the phrase "the Wachowski Brothers" can still be used in quotation marks when referring in a meta-way to the phrase itself e.g. The pair were known professionally as "the Wachowski Brothers" during the production of the movie. And of course I'd object to the removal of any such encyclopedic content, as it is information relevant to the topic. I'm simply saying: in the voice of Wikipedia we should not be referring to two women as "brothers"; to do so is to implicitly if not explicitly purport a falsehood. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a previous RfC where it was decided to refer to the pair as "the Wachowskis" in running text. For the most part, I don't think this is being challenged in this rehashed discussion (and if anyone is, it's a small minority). This RfC lumped in the infobox, which distinguishes it from past discussions. Here, a common argument is that many infobox film entries (particularly those dealing with credits) are essentially quoted pieces of information from the work itself. If I'm reading your position correctly, it seems you actually would support "The Wachowski Brothers" listing in the infobox but would prefer "the Wachowskis" in running text (i.e., Wikipedia voice). It probably would have been clearer had this RfC simply focused solely on the infobox, as I don't think there was a movement or desire to challenge the 2016 RfC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did slightly misread the RfC, yes (and thanks for the clarification), but that's not my position—I want "the Wachowskis" listed both in running text and in the infobox. The latter is still Wikipedia's voice—presenting information as fact—and it's what I was referring to when I said "metadata". Wikipedia infoboxes are not presented as a direct quotation of any primary source, and often amalgamate several sources. My position is that it's not correct to say "the Wachowski Brothers" except when making direct commentary on the term itself, and the infobox falls under this case. I would not be opposed to the infobox saying the Wachowskis and then having a footnote reading something like The pair were credited as "the Wachowski Brothers" at the time., but I wouldn't mandate such a footnote either. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well for the clarification. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)




 * If the infobox credits are supposed to be quotes this isn't made clear to the reader (or even the editor). Infoboxes don't contain quotation marks or any other indication of quotation. In any case they do not consistently replicate screen credits exactly. We've already discussed the "Alan Smithee" pseudonym extensively, but another case I've brought up is how the screen credit "written and directed by so-and-so" is often broken up to read "written by so-and-so" and "directed by so-and-so." An insignificant change? Maybe, maybe not, but it's a good example of how infoboxes aren't actually treated like exact quotes.


 * Bilov is correct when he says that "in the voice of Wikipedia we should not be referring to two women as "brothers" Regardless of intention, by flatly saying that The Matrix was "Directed by The Wachowski Brothers", it feels like Wikipedia is saying that, well, the film was "Directed" by a pair of "Brothers". Which is a statement that is biased and factually incorrect.


 * There are various ways infoboxes could avoid this error. The most obvious and elegant solution, in my view, is just to drop the word "Brothers" from the credit. But there are other solutions that would be less-than-ideal but still preferable to what we're doing now. I would not be vehemently opposed to the infobox saying something like Written and Directed by Lana and Lilly Wachowski (originally credited as "The Wachowski Brothers"). It's a less elegant and more awkward solution, and perhaps it would still give off the uncomfortable sense that the article was going out of its way to use the word "Brothers", but it would be a step in the right direction.


 * In the end I don't understand the desire to treat screen credits like Holy Writ (and I'm someone who treats films quasi-reverently and never leaves the theatre before the credits are finished!) It makes sense for Wikipedia to have a moderate preference for adhering to the screen credits. Can't decide between crediting Plan 9 From Outer Space to "Ed Wood" or "Edward D. Wood Jr."? Sure, let's just go with what's printed on the film itself. But if there are strong contextual reasons to credit someone a little differently? If doing so would make Wikipedia's credits better and more accurate? There is no reason to robotically copy and paste the screen credits in that case.




 * The infoboxes aren't the only subject of contention. It's true that editors seem to have more-or-less come to a consensus on how to refer to the Wachowski sisters in the bodies of articles, but there's also the question of how they're referred to in the ledes/opening sentences. The RfC you linked for the Matrix article did determine that the lede should credit them as "The Wachowskis". But when editors tried to apply what was agreed on there to articles about other Wachowski films, they were stymied by editors who felt that the RfC applied only to the article on the original Matrix and nothing else. And so articles on The Matrix Revolutions, Speed Racer, etc, etc, still refer to the sisters as "Brothers" in their infoboxes AND ledes.

Have the Wachowskis, themselves, made it known that they wanted to, or intend to, change how they are credited in their past films now that they are no longer "brothers"? I have searched but not found any evidence regarding it. So who are we to change the attribution the Wachowskis ascribed for themselves in their past works? Until GoneIn60 mentioned it, I wasn't aware that how the siblings are referenced in leads — and by virtue of same, in other instances within the text — had been settled in the RfC closed on 7 July 2016. So this RfC, for all intents and purposes, is about changing the guidelines of the film infobox template. Pyxis Solitary  yak  16:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In any case, should I have formulated the RfC differently? Maybe, I don't know. I actually have a draft of a much more thorough RfC on my harddrive. It gives five options for the lede, five options for the infobox, and two options for the body, plus an additional question with three options. That seemed like too many dang choices so I followed your advice and simplified things. I boiled it down to a binary choice. Maybe I went too far in the other direction? Maybe I made the RfC equivalent of one of those MacBooks that only has one single port? Oh well, too late to change it now. :) Wandering Wanda  (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I never said it should be said that they were men at the time, which is a rhetorical subject. I just said it should be said that the individuals now known as the Wachowskis or the Wachowski sisters, were then credited as brothers. That is fact. Undeniable. That said, I don't see why you'd need to say any more or any less. I didn't take the time to read through the whole thing but FWIW, I fully agree with Bilorv's proposal. --uKER (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi uKER, let me see if I understand you. :) You'd be OK with the infobox and lede crediting "The Wachowskis" as long as there was a footnote that said "credited as The Wachowski Brothers"? Option A does allow for this. Would you consider changing your vote to something like "option A as long as the original credit is preserved in a footnote" or "no preference as long as the original credit is preserved in some form"? Wandering Wanda  (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, yeah. I'd like things to be treated normally, ie, as they were before all this gender identity hipersensitivity came along. I don't have any issue with them identifying as women now, but the way they were credited at the time should be present in some form. I find it kinda childish that the reference to them being male has to be buried in a note for people to keep quiet about it, but I'll change my vote if that helps. --uKER (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You asked: "What facts do you believe I'm "altering" and what "activism" do you believe I'm doing?. My answer: (1) Change how credits appear in the infobox for the pre-transition films created under their "Wachowski Brothers" name, and you are altering facts; (2) The root of this RfC is transgender ideology that seeks, in the case of the Wachowski siblings, to obscure the past identity of transexual individuals in Wikipedia's coverage about their works. This RfC includes the following rationale: " What do reliable sources say? Reliable sources no longer refer to the Wachowski sisters as "brothers", even when cataloging their past work. " What kind of reliable sources are they? Because the films should be the primary sources and they have not changed how the Wachowski siblings are credited in them; therefore, twisting the facts about them in Wikipedia in support of identity advocacy is activism.


 * I would point out that, in claiming that the majority of reliable sources are misrepresenting the facts by not citing them as "brothers," and by making that claim based solely on the fact that they do not cite them as "brothers," we would be making an evaluative claim based solely on our interpretation as Wikipedians of the primary sources. Per WP:SECONDARY, we should not be making that sort of claim in an article, regardless of our own opinions of what is an unacceptable alteration of facts (and, implicitly or explicitly, going against reliable contemporary sources due to a personal opinion on what is 'activism' is making a claim). I agree that we should keep a note that they were originally credited as "The Wachowski Brothers," as doing otherwise could lead to confusion - indeed, most of the sources mentioned below do the same. However, to stubbornly persist in keeping only the exact original wording in the infobox (which, I must point out, does not specifically say that it is comprised only of data quoted exactly from the original material anywhere that is visible to the average reader), and especially to claim that the majority of otherwise-reliable contemporary secondary sources are invalid because of a personal belief among editors that crediting "the Watchowskis" instead of "The Wachowski Brothers" is an unacceptable alteration of the facts, is to deviate from Wikipedia's policies on sticking to a neutral synthesis of reliable sources, and I don't think that this devation is justified in this case.


 * Further, it is this exact sort of evaluative claim based on interpretation of primary sources which leads to this sort of conflict in the first place - many editors (myself included) do not see any significant factual difference between  and  . Neither I nor (I believe) any of the other contributors to this RfC are here to do any sort of activism. Our (or at least my) intention here is not to "obscure the past identities of transsexual individuals," and I do not see how the above change does so (I am genuinely confused about this - if you could clarify how this change amounts to a corruption of the facts, I invite you to please do so). In my view, this is simply a change to bring us more into line with contemporary reliable secondary sources, without removing any information. In fact, there are a number of secondary benefits to this beyond WanderingWanda's points, including a reduction in the amount of good-faith reverts that we regularly need to do on the articles (see these three diffs in the past two days alone) because of IP users who notice that Wikipedia is not in line with contemporary secondary sources. (P.S. - this thread is getting a bit long. Should it be moved down to discussion? Sorry, but I'm a bit new at this.)  disgruntledGM  ❮talk / contribs❯ 19:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "I am genuinely confused about this - if you could clarify how this change amounts to a corruption of the facts, I invite you to please do so." You didn't comprehend my comment? (Or others I've contributed to this RfC?) All I can say to you is: you either get it, or you don't. Pyxis Solitary   yak  10:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but without clarification on this, I don't. This is not an ideological debate, it is an attempt to reach consensus on how Wikipedia should treat a difficult issue, and it is impossible to reach consensus if we don't make an effort to understand one another and to be understood. I do not see how the slight change in wording from  to   amounts to an alteration or removal of facts - indeed, I would argue that this presentation is more clear, as "The Wachowski Brothers" is no longer in common use (as evidenced by the sources mentioned below). Please help me understand why you believe that this change, which seems to better-reflect the contemporary secondary sources on which Wikipedia articles are supposed to primarily rely, is instead a harmful change based upon "transgender ideology that seeks, in the case of the Wachowski siblings, to obscure the past identity of transexual individuals in Wikipedia's coverage about their works" - at the moment, I simply do not see evidence of this obscurement, nor do I see a reason why the change would not benefit the encyclopedia. I believe that your viewpoint is valuable, and I hope that you continue to contribute to the discussion.  disgruntledGM  ❮talk / contribs❯ 17:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Quote: The avada kedavra: a secondary source is an author's interpretation of a primary source. The primary source doesn't change. It is only analyzed, evaluated, reviewed, and ... interpreted.
 * WP:SECONDARY is also a can of worms.
 * "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."
 * "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them."
 * The abracadabra:  "...own thinking based on primary sources."
 * What if a secondary source is biased? Or influenced by rationalization? Or promulgating a contemporary bandwagon fallacy?
 * How about this idea: turn   and    around to     as a more accurate explanation in the infobox for the film credit.  Pyxis Solitary   yak  13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I say above, we're not changing the credits of anything, merely our infobox description of an attribute of a film. Nowhere on Wikipedia is anyone claiming that the infobox is a carbon copy of the official credits of a product and nowhere am I trying to remove any information. You simply ignored my point that the change is syntactic and not factual. You're using a very different meaning of the word "activism", than I am—activities and campaigns intended to create political or social change. I'm doing nothing more and nothing less than promoting a syntactic change to some internet changes.


 * I assume from your wording of some of your comments that you've not really met any trans people, which is of course not your fault, but to someone who has there's a quite obvious answer to the question: "Do the Wachowskis want to be described as 'Brothers'?" No they don't. Of course every person is different but by and large the trans community regard deliberate misgendering as a slur. Knowing that someone is a woman and calling her a word used only to describe a type of male ("brother") is very much not the correct thing to do, and as I said goes against modern style guides in any case.


 * To end on one thing I very much did not think I'd have to clarify, I am not attempting to "obscure the past identity" of anyone. Hence my clarifications above that I regard it not only acceptable but necessary to mention in prose that the Wachowskis were known as "The Wachowski Brothers" during the production and release of the film. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "I assume from your wording of some of your comments that you've not really met any trans people, which is of course not your fault, but to someone who has there's a quite obvious answer to the question:...." I see. Well, that settles it. As far as the subject is concerned, it would be foolish of me to imagine that my knowledge could possibly compare to a mastery based on 'I know trans people -- you don't'. I'm just gonna take my li'l ol' lesbian bindle and go back to my homo den. Pyxis Solitary   yak  09:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that's neither what I said nor what I meant. Of course you don't have to continue participating in the discussion but if you were to do so, responding to any of the points I made would be the way to go, rather than mock indignity. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I agree that it's necessary to list the "Wachowski Brothers" credit in the article. I put forward (and am willing to accept) the idea of a footnote that lists the original credit in the spirit of compromise, but if the article contents were entirely up to me? I don't think I would include any footnote. The exact wording of the screen credits does not strike me as very important and, on the other hand, avoiding any (intentional or perceived) bias or animus towards transgender people (or any other group) strikes me as quite important. I'll note that currently the Hamlet article does not mention that the first known printed version of the play (Hamlet Q1) listed the title as "The Tragicall Hiſtorie of HAMLET Prince of Denmarke" or that this first quarto styled Shakespeare's name as "William Shake-ſpeare" with a dash (and an archaic form of the lower case s). Wandering Wanda  (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hamlet is a rather different case, due to the language differences at the time (particularly non-standardised spellings of names). I think in the Production section, a single mention of "The Wachowski Brothers" is necessary as it was (I understand) a major name under which the pair were known at the time and for many years. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll concede a four hundred year old play is a little different from a 20 year old movie. :) (God has it really been almost 20 years?) Anyway: I hear you, but my position is that if their old credit needs to be retained for reference purposes, OK, but that doesn't mean it needs to be brought up repeatedly. Look at how the "Wachowski Brothers" footnote is currently handled in The Matrix article: it's literally the first footnote in the article, and it's in the lede, and its superscript is different than the superscript for other references, and the section where the original credit is listed is set off by itself above the clutter of the "reference" section. That footnote alone feels a little excessive to me! Anything more would be giving the subject undue weight.  Wandering Wanda  (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to register my agreement with pretty much everything said before the mention of the Hamlet example. &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  15:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Bilorv - To clarify my position, I might be fine with mentioning their old credit in the body of the article if it was done instead of a prominent footnote. But having both would feel excessive to me. And I think it might be hard to come up with a way to talk about their old credit in the article proper without it feeling forced or factually dubious. I would lean against, for example, the sentence you've put forward: The pair were known professionally as "the Wachowski Brothers" during the production of the movie. Any mention of what they were "known as" or "known professionally as" strikes me as fraught. I believe Lana Wachowski has said she started presenting as a woman on the set of one of The Matrix sequels, for example, which is a professional setting.  Wandering Wanda  (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Questions and comments

 * Comment: By adding Option C, Betty Logan specified that what mattered to them wasn't the credit as-of-release, but the credit as-of-now. The C position is that if the credit on the work changes, then the credit on Wiki infoboxes should change too. At first I thought the difference between B and C was, practically speaking, negligible, to the point that I tried to merge them (before people let me know that was a bad idea.) But now the difference strikes me as a little more crucial, because, I've realized, the credits on The Matrix films have been updated...on the packaging. Three points:
 * 1) Any notion that back-of-the-box credits are less "real" or "official" seems arbitrary to me. Cover credits are more visible than credits buried at the end of a film. And as noted above, credits on packaging are taken seriously by film guilds. The Warner Bros. corporation no doubt has their legal department (and plenty of other departments) go over the wording on the back of any Matrix film packaging with a fine tooth comb. They don't view the movie cover as unimportant, so why should we?
 * 2) The credits on the packaging are more likely to reflect the filmmakers' and studio's current wishes. Practically speaking, updating the end-of-title credits would likely be difficult. The Matrix films' credits are done up with animation, and there's a good chance the original animation assets are lost. Redoing them might be impractical even if the Wachowskis wanted to.
 * 3) Some people have expressed the opinion that the capitalization used in the credit "The Wachowski Brothers" is important - arguing that the capital "The" and "Brothers" means the title should be considered more official and less alterable. I don't know if I agree, but I'll note that in the latest Matrix releases, the "The" in "The Wachowkis" is capitalized, even when it's not at the beginning of a sentence.
 * Which leads me to a...

The Wachowski Brothers is how they are billed on the front & back of the Blu-ray cover (© 2012 Paramount Pictures). [Also available at Amazon]. The Wachowski Brothers is how they are billed on the movie poster. I own the DVD released in 2014 (© Paramount Pictures) and " Brothers " has not been changed in the credits on the cover, nor the film itself. Altering how film credits are listed in Wikipedia articles so as to accommodate personal agendas is a denial of the history of the creative team that made a film. Worth noting: there is no evidence that the Wachowskis attempted to change how they should be credited in a re-release of their film, and in any DVD, Blu-ray, VOD releases — nor that they intend to do so. Pyxis Solitary  yak  10:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC) edited 06:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Question for supporters of C: are the updated credits on the latest Matrix releases good enough for you? If not, why not? WanderingWanda (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Were the credits of the film itself changed? Not the packaging, but the film? DonIago (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not as far as we know. Perhaps you could say the credits on the film have changed, but the credits in the film have not. :) WanderingWanda (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If the credits of the film itself were not changed then there is no way I will support changing the infobox. There is more flexibility with regards to the lead, which is why I feel combining them within a single RfC was a misstep. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: My name was dropped in this discussion regarding how the Wachowski credit is listed for their 1996 film Bound. As an editor, I am not a revisionist. I don't suppress, revise, or erase history. The "Wachowski" billing for Bound is "The Wachowski Brothers".
 * Question for Option C !voters. Do any of you feel that we should include non-notable individuals in the Infobox? Also, as stated, do you feel it is appropriate list a name other than Alan Smithee (which is a pseudonym) in productions he directed? What are we also to do with with all the articles with an infobox that explicitly state someone as uncredited? I highly encourage everyone to look at The Invasion article for its film infobox that's directly related to this discussion. &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  17:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Still kind of waiting on an answer... I worked decently hard on that question. &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  22:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of film articles that have non-notable people in them. Not everyone who makes a film is notable! The Alan Smithee credit has been discussed in the past and it was agreed that it was a special case. Since it is not tied to any single person it doesn't adequately identify who is being credited, and it is effectively the abstention of a credit. When somebody uses the Alan Smithee credit the consensus was to use the professional credit for the person and note that they were credited as Alan Smithee. This is not the same as revisionism though because it would be recorded contemporaneously. Better analogies are Joanne Whalley and Courtney Cox who have both altered their professional name due to marriage (and divorce!). As for uncredited people this is usually dependent on the circumstances. I generally only advocate adding uncredited personnel to the infobox if the person in question verifiably did the bulk of the work. For example,Gone with the Wind got through three directors but Victor Fleming shot around two-thirds of the picture so we don't add the uncredited directors to the infobox and just discuss them in the prose. Betty Logan (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , So... if there are exceptions to the infoboxes-must-appear-the-same-as-the-credits rule, then why can't this be one? If we need to change the guidelines to reflect latest consensus, so be it. I also can't imagine we are going to begin requiring people to comb through every film infoboxe to make sure the listing there is exactly how it appeared in the credits. If we did then we would find out useless information such as the filmbox for You've Got Mail lists the actors out of order or Pandemonium (1982 film) lists Paul Ruebens as an actor. I would not see the purpose in doing that. &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  18:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the "Alan Smithee" credit is an anomalous situation. It actually has more in common with adding uncredited people to the infobox which is taken on a case-by-case basis, and even in that situation we are still crediting people as they were known professionally at the time. It is not necessary to revise credits in the case of name changes. This is a common occurrence and does not require a unique solution IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:GENDERID, Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. This would seem to fit that exact standard. I fail to see the distinction between preserving credits only on a case-by-case basis and using the correct GenderID on a case-by-case basis. &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  19:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We are applying context here. For their "Wachowski Brothers" era films the articles should refer to them as the "Wachowskis" when they are specifically discussed in a biographical context; when we are primarily referring to their creditation the article should us their official credits for that work. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I can say the same pretty much the same thing in support of my statement. Applying context, we should use the most gender neutral name available before they started being referred to as the "Wachowski Sisters," and we should provide a small footnote in cases they were officially credited as something else. I do not see why one is more valid than the other. A footnote works just as well and satisfies all concerns in my view. (I will note for any future closer that my own preference is against any mention of the phrase "Wachowski Brothers" since I don't buy into the "official credits" logic.). &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  22:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Primary vs. secondary sources
I have noticed several commenters have used primary sources such as the DVD covers, promotional posters and credits. WP:RS is clear that secondary sources are to be preferred over primary sources. Nothing I find in MOS:MOVIE seems to contradict that guidance. In this case, modern secondary sources tend towards referring to the directors as The Wachowskis and secondary sources are favored when there is this kind of conflict. Rab V (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Modern secondary sources may tend towards referring to the directors as The Wachowskis in their articles and blogs, etc., but that is to be expected after their name change. Modern articles are not where we get official credits from. Not for old or new films. Long WP practice is to use the official credits from the film itself or the billing block of the poster. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are lots of exceptions, though. The case of the Coen Brothers' pseudonym is interesting. The film infobox guidelines say: As professional editors, the Coen Bros. always use the name "Roderick Jaynes", and it is how, for example, the Academy Awards credit them when they are nominated for editing. You could make a strong case that it is how they should be credited in the infobox, according to the guideline. But instead they are currently credited as "Joel Coen / Ethan Coen" in the infoboxes for all their films except one (one film does list the pseudonym, but even there, editors felt a need to add a footnote explaining that Roderick Jaynes is not a real person.) Why has that consensus emerged after all these years? Perhaps because, in the end, Wikipedia is about reflecting fact not fiction. "Roderick Jaynes" feels like a fictional construct, not a cold, hard fact, and so poor Roderick is tossed to the side. That seems fair enough. But, what, then, does it say that Wikipedia still clings to the credit "The Wachowski Brothers", even though mainstream sources no longer do, and even though the Wachowskis have come out as sisters, making the credit demonstrably incorrect? Intended or not, it's hard not to read an unstated message into that: that the Wachowskis' gender is somehow not factual. That it's merely a fiction, like Roderick Jaynes.
 * Anyway, here's another source to add to the pile: 100 Greatest Cult Films has this credit: "SPEED RACER (2008) Director: Lana Wachowski, Lilly Wachowski". WanderingWanda (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to say whether a consensus does exist to dispense with the Roderick Jaynes credit without tracing the history of how it got there. Different editors work on different articles and apply the MOS to varying degrees. I have just looked up a couple of Coen articles and the Roderick Jaynes credit was in place on the first two I pulled this time last year (see No Country for Old Men, Fargo). Personally I would advocate for restoring it. However, a strict interpretation of the guideline makes it clear that the Coen film articles are the ones at odds with the guideline, not The Matrix articles. Betty Logan (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "WP:RS is clear that secondary sources are to be preferred over primary sources."
 * Yes, there is a general preference for secondary over primary in most situations, but not all. A primary source can be the best source when its material is being directly quoted, and the credits would fall under this jurisdiction. See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.
 * This isn't an issue of using a direct quotation though and in cases where there are discrepancies between sources, secondary sources should still be prefered according to wiki policy. I see some argument prior to this relies on infobox templates, but those are not the same as wikipedia policy and I don't think should be seen as superseding wikipedia policy. Rab V (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're stating the obvious here. The policy supplement describes direct quotations as simply one example, but others like it should be taken into account as well. If we're pulling the credits directly from the work itself, then it applies in a similar fashion. Keep in mind that secondary sources typically trump primary sources when we're talking about analysis, evaluation, and interpretation. That's not the case here. And to your last remark, I don't believe I've seen anyone argue that infobox template documentation should supersede policy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what best practice normally is for credits, how to credit the Wachowskis is highly contentious[*] and deals with complex issues of gender and identity. Looking at how mainstream secondary sources handle it strikes me as a good way to ensure we're dealing with the issue in a neutral, advocacy-free way. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * * source: this entire RfC :) WanderingWanda (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Another interesting point to consider is that mainstream sources (e.g., news, magazines, press, etc.) aren't the only secondary sources carrying weight here. Don't forget we also have AFI and BFI, which I didn't check until now. Interestingly, they actually list the directors individually (Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski). --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful to create a list in a new section of how various sources credit them. But if our goal is to determine how reliable sources choose to credit them as-of-now, printed sources or other sources that have clear date stamps would be better choices. With an online database the data is inserted who-knows-when and reviewed who-knows-how-often. When searching Google Books for recent books that credit them, I found one other book (besides the one already mentioned) that uses their current names when talking about their old work (Transgender Pioneers: Lana Wachowski by Jeff Mapua ). And, in the interests of full disclosure, I also found one recent book that does credit the two sisters as "Brothers" - however, the book was likely finalized before Lilly came out in 2016, and it credits The Matrix under both "The Wachowski Brothers" and "Andy and Lana Wachowski") (Raising Mixed Race: Multiracial Asian Children in a Post-Racial World by Sharon H Chang ). WanderingWanda (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines
A response to these two guidelines that have been brought up:

-

Crediting the Wachowskis as "The Wachowskis" does not, to me, seem to violate either guideline. They were known personally and professionally under the last name "Wachowski" when all their films were released. We're not talking about changing a credited first name or last name. Some people have compared the term "The Wachowski Brothers" to band names like "The Beatles", but this comparison strikes me as dubious (unless you're going to argue that John, Paul, George, and Ringo are all giant insects.) Things might be different if the Wachowski sisters went under a more fanciful moniker like "The Razzmatazz Brothers", but as it is? Yes, the words may have been written in title case, but we're still just talking about a credit that combines their actual last name with a common plural noun.

In conclusion, how to apply the two guidelines in question in this specific case seems very ambiguous at best. And perhaps it goes without saying that Wikipedia gives us wide latitude to interpret guidelines broadly and even to ignore them where appropriate.

One other point: if you read through the MoS, there seems like a general consensus that transgender subjects should be treated judiciously and respectfully. For example, regarding biographical articles, it says:

This rule has no direct relevance to the issue at hand, but if one were to draw a general principle from it, it might be don't go out of your way to misgender or deadname trans people.

One last, lighthearted, note: in the world of The Matrix, if you don't respect someone else's identity, you are one of the bad guys, not one the good guys. :)

WanderingWanda (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

List of sources
Let's construct an overview of how recent sources credit or refer to the Wachowskis when discussing their older work. This is just FYI - how much weight, if any, to give to give these sources can be (and is being) debated above. Please feel free to add to this list. For reference, Lana Wachowski came out as a woman around 2010 and Lilly came out in 2016. (Note: many sources that I'm adding were found by other editors above.) WanderingWanda (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course we can find 'generic' articles that discuss film output in general terms, or use the lowercase 'the Wachowskis'. I could almost certainly find articles or festival blurbs that credit Powell and Pressburger output to both Pow & Press as if that was their joint official name, ditto the Coen's. This does not alter the historic fact that films were originally creditted in a particular way. The BFI, I believe always credits according to original/official screen credits (unless new info is available which contradicts/alters that orig info), so that undated source is never going to change. Why should we? We are not discussing how to write about these two individuals, but rather about how to write about works published under earlier names. What good reason is there for pretending that the works were published under other names than we know they were? Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * unless new info is available which contradicts/alters that orig info - that's exactly what happened in this case! New info has come out about the Wachowski sisters' gender. We now know that they are women and aren't "brothers". How do we know they're women? Because they say they are. (Self-identification is the only reasonable way to determine someone's gender.) No, it doesn't matter that they weren't public about their gender until recently - someone coming out as transgender is best thought of as a gender reveal not a gender change, unless the person in question specifically says otherwise. Lana Wachowski, for example, was already out to some friends and family while the sisters were working on the Matrix sequels, and both sisters were grappling with their gender as early as childhood. But, you ask, didn't they pick the moniker "The Wachowski Brothers" for themselves? Maybe - what does it matter? If they chose it, that doesn't mean it's accurate or appropriate. All those "Alan Smithee" directors chose that moniker for themselves - so what? Actually, one could argue that ignoring "Alan Smithee" credits in infoboxes is far more "revisionist". Directors don't take their names off movies lightly. An "Alan Smithee" credit likely signifies that a director feels that the work isn't theirs in some fundamental sense - that they lost control of the movie. That information, apparently, isn't important enough to convey in infoboxes, but dropping a single incorrect gendered common noun is somehow profoundly revisionist and wrong? No matter what, Wikipedia's infoboxes aren't going to match the screen credits exactly. Look at the infobox for The Matrix. It lists the credits as "Directed by...Produced by...Written by..." but that's not how they're broken down in the movie! The movie says "written and directed by". Ultimately, the important thing here isn't exactitude but accuracy. In this specific case, dropping the incorrect gendered term in question will make the infobox less of an exact copy, but it won't make the infobox less accurate.
 * We are not discussing how to write about these two individuals, but rather about how to write about works published under earlier names. I'll point to one specific entry above - the book 100 Greatest Cult Films, published by Rowman & Littlefield. It isn't a biographical work but a compendium of broad overviews of various films, like the Wikipedia articles in question. And the author, the copyeditors, and the publisher apparently think that copying the Wachowskis' old and incorrect screen credits is not the best or most accurate way to credit them, even in the bibliographic references at the end of the book. Why does Wikipedia disagree? WanderingWanda (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how many contemporary sources refer to the two individuals as "the Wachowskis", or separately as "Lana Wachowski" and "Lilly Wachowski", the fact remains that in a film infobox the credits must be the same as the credits that appear in the film itself. The professional names they go by today do not change the films released under their former professional name. As a homosexual woman, I get the why and what of sex and gender activism, but here, in Wikipedia, it should not come at the expense of accuracy. Pyxis Solitary   yak  13:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Trans Q+A
In any discussion about how to refer to trans people it is, I'd argue, important for everyone to have a basic level of trans knowledge. Many of you will know a lot of this already, but I hope some will find the below Q+A useful.

Note: I don't claim to have an expert level of knowledge about this topic, but I consider myself fairly well informed. (If you want to dig into my personal life, I identify as queer and have been in a long term relationship with a trans man.) If I get anything wrong below please correct me.

Q: Is it really that offensive to misgender a trans person?

A: Yes. In the trans community it is generally considered very hurtful and offensive to say anything that implies a trans person isn't the gender they say they are, or to use their old (dead) name.

- The Washington Post

- Laverne Cox

'Q: Wait, how can misgendering be a form of violence? Aren't words, by definition, not violence?'

A: That depends which definition you use. Dictionary.com says violence can mean "an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power" or "rough or immoderate vehemence". Perhaps misgendering is sometimes linked with the word "violence" because the trans community faces a disproportionate amount of physical violence.

Q: How much physical violence?

To quote Wikipedia's article on transphobia, according to one survey, "9% [of respondents] had been physically attacked for being transgender. 10% had been sexually assaulted during the previous year, and 47% had been sexually assaulted at some point in their life." Also "40% had attempted suicide at some point in their life, compared to 4.6 percent of the American population." According to another study, "Over 80% of transgender teens report feeling unsafe in a school environment, more than 40% report having been physically abused".

The high rates of suicide and violent assault both stem from society's basic lack of acceptance of and respect for trans people.

Here is a list of trans people who were murdered last year in the U.S. - take a moment to look through the names: https://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-transgender-community-in-2018

Here's a moving speech by Lana Wachowski where she talks about, among many other things, a time she almost jumped in front of a train as a teenager because she couldn't see herself ever being accepted by society: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crHHycz7T_c

Q: When is it appropriate to use a trans person's old/dead name?

Anecdotally, the response to this question from most trans people is: approximately never. You should just use their chosen name and pronouns even when talking about the past. Deadnaming generally feels like a punch to the gut.

'Q: But what if you're talking about a trans woman's old bar mitzvah? Or the time she won silver in the men's 100 meter dash? Surely it would be ridiculous to use a female name when talking about specifically male activities?'

Would it be ridiculous to say that "Michelle Obama attended elementary school"? After all, she's an adult and elementary school is for kids... and she didn't even have the name "Obama" when she was a kid! And yet that sentence sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn't it? Sometimes something can seem "ridiculous" just because you're not used to it. That doesn't mean it actually is. Young white kids sometimes have trouble with the term "black person" - "they're brown, not black!" But once someone gets used to it any sense that calling someone "black" might be weird or ridiculous fades away.

Q: So you're saying Wikipedia should never, ever use someone's deadname?

I'm just trying to give some background info. I'm not going to comment on what Wikipedia should or shouldn't do in this Q+A.

Q: If someone didn't transition until recently, why change history?

A: Just because a gender transition seems "recent" from the outside doesn't mean it feels like a recent change to the person in question. Before a person comes out publicly there was probably a period where they were out to a few people but not everyone, and before that they probably knew but weren't out to anyone, and before that they might not have understood their gender identity but knew something was up with their gender. What might feel like "changing history" on the outside is really just honoring someone's experience and identity.

Lana Wachowski only came out publicly recently, but she has talked movingly about how her gender has been something she's been grappling with since childhood. Here's an excerpt from the speech I linked above:

- Lana Wachowski {{end hi


 * So you're explicitly saying that trans people cause a situation in which it's necessary to whitewash facts to preserve sensitivities. Now, as it was asked but not properly answered, what happens when you're to talk about an event in the person's past that makes their previous gender identity obvious? Let's say a male model wins Mr. World award and later decides to switch his gender identity and identify as a female. What are you suggesting that should be done then? Omit the fact to preserve the person's emotional sensitivity? Distort it until it becomes vague enough to make the gender transition not be implied? What if this event/stage in their lives constituted the whole notability of the person in question? --uKER (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you know fully well that no-one is trying to whitewash facts. Both WanderingWanda and myself have used the analogy of a gay person not being called "formerly straight"—they were gay their whole lives, no matter when they came to realise this, and the same is true of trans people and their real gender. A trans woman can't have been a man who won Mr. World—they are by definition a woman who formerly competed in the male category of Mr. World. Consider as an analogy the eponymous character in Mulan—Mulan is not a man who goes to fight but a woman who is treated by others as a man. I can't speak for WanderingWanda about the answer to your question, but the problem is not in mentioning facts but in stating something in Wikipedia's voice. In fact I am proposing that we have a footnote or propose to clarify that the Wachowskis were known as "The Wachowski Brothers" at the time in the relevant film articles. But that's not the same as stating in Wikipedia's voice that the directors were [deadnames], or deadnaming a person throughout an article. (From all my experience with trans people, they're perfectly happy with someone alluding to their transition in a respectful manner and a context where it is relevant; what they don't want is for someone to refer to them by their former name or incorrect pronouns, even in past tense. Of course every individual is different.) — Bilorv{{sub|(c)(talk)}} 18:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything Bilorv said above. I'll just add that I don't necessarily have some grand theory about how Wikipedia should handle trans figures' names in all cases. Do I think, for example, that the the main biographical article on the Wachowskis needs to mention their deadnames somewhere? Yeah, probably. How and where specifically should those names be listed? I'm not prepared to offer an opinion right now. Wandering Wanda  (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It took a while, but there you have it. Activist edits by any other name is still activism. Never mind slippery slopes, if touchy-feely edits becomes the norm in Wikipedia we'll all soon be looking down camel noses and eating boiled frogs. Bon appétit! Pyxis Solitary   yak  10:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * People discussing in good faith make steel man arguments rather than straw man arguments. Note that my arguments and my opinions are predicated purely on facts, not on this "activism" boogeyman. The only touchy-feely edit here is by the editor so sensitive they can't handle someone disagreeing with them without resorting to yelling "WIKIPEDIA IS GOING TO HELL!!!" — Bilorv{{sub|(c)(talk)}} 10:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Whose facts? You can watch The Matrix movies on Amazon Prime right now -- the credits have not been changed. And as I said in my comment regarding Bound, I own the most recent release of the DVD and film credits are the same as they were in 1996. The decision to refer to the siblings as "the Wachowskis" in the lead and text was made over two years ago. There's no "good faith" behind edits based on political and personal agendas.  Pyxis Solitary   yak  11:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia infoboxes aren't film credits. They report the substantial aspects of the subject—which in the case of a film overlaps with but neither contains nor is contained within the scope of a film's credits. SMcCandlish explains further above why we don't base our style guides off official credits. I'm working off two simple facts: All brothers are men. The Wachowskis are not men. Hence the Wachowskis are not brothers. Which of these two facts do you contest? — Bilorv{{sub|(c)(talk)}} 16:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a discussion group at an LGBT Center. Pyxis Solitary   yak  14:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that I'm pushing for Wikipedia to be activist. Within the confines of the Q+A above I explicitly wasn't advocating for anything specific, apart from greater understanding: {{tq|I'm just trying to give some background info. I'm not going to comment on what Wikipedia should or shouldn't do in this Q+A.}} In this conversation I think everyone needs a basic understanding of what it means to be transgender, how offensive deadnaming is to the trans community, etc. Being neutral does not mean being blind to context. Quite the opposite! Wandering Wanda  (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * While I wouldn't go as far and label it veiled activism, it begs the question who is asking these questions. Are these common misinterpretations based on your experience and interactions? While it's not entirely out of line, I do find it wholly unnecessary in the context of an RfC. None of the participants in this discussion seem to need the clarification, which, by the way, I hope is obvious to all involved. I propose collapsing this lengthy subsection, as it doesn't seem to be adding any real value at this point. If anything, it's inviting unconstructive feedback, putting some editors on the defensive, and overall becoming a general distraction. The conversation has remained fairly civil up to this point, and I'd hate to see it take a dive in its final hours. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Wandering Wanda  (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And it is activism. I'll repeat that TG people are not a hive mind and do not all approach these matters in lock-step.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

Mockup
A concrete mockup of what The Matrix Revolutions article (and other Wachowski film articles) could look like in the near future:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WanderingWanda/sandbox&oldid=885132247

In this mockup, the Wachowski sisters are listed as "The Wachowskis" in the infobox and the lead sentence, and there is a footnote saying Credited as "The Wachowski Brothers".

A note on the footnote: Personally, I have mixed feelings about it (and I'll note that option A does not, as written, mandate the addition of one.) One could argue it feels like its putting an asterisk on the Wachowskis' womanhood, and contemporary secondary sources seem comfortable completely omitting the "Wachowski Brothers" credit and just using the sisters' current names. However, enough editors have said that preserving the original credits is important that I'm willing to accept footnotes that credit them as "Brothers" in the name of consensus building.

With the above mockup I tried hard to honor people on all sides of this debate. Yes, it reflects 'Side A' and all the arguments we've made about how contemporary secondary sources credit the Wachowskis, and what contemporary style guides say, and how film infoboxes often do not quote screen credits exactly, and how implying that the Wachowskis are "brothers" may be considered biased and factually inaccurate, etc.

But the mockup also honors the perspectives of 'Side B' and 'Side C'. Betty Logan eloquently pointed out that ...the credit the work carries is an important bibliographic record. The addition of a footnote with the original credit preserves this bibliographic record.

I also took a cue from GoneIn60 and the other two editors who voted for 'C in the infobox and A in the lead'. I had a choice of putting the footnote in either the lead or the infobox, and I chose to put it in the infobox in response to the perspective that the infobox should be more attuned to the exact wording of the screen credits.

I'd like to ask everyone who voted for option B or C to look over the above mockup and see if it would be acceptable to you. Note that the "Wachowski Brothers" credit is the very first footnote in the article. Note that the credit is set off by itself, above the clutter of the reference section, and surrounded by white space - even someone who isn't reading the article that closely is likely to see it. In order to help us reach a consensus, uKER was open and generous enough to change their vote from B to A (adding the stipulation that they thought the article must contain a footnote with the original credit.) I humbly ask others who voted for B or C to consider doing the same.

I'd like to ask everyone else who voted to look over the mockup as well. If you are an option A voter who feels the "Wachowski Brothers" credit should not be listed anywhere in the article, even in a footnote: please let us know and edit your vote to reflect this.

Thank you for your input, everyone. :)

Pings: Betty Logan, Argento Surfer, DonIago, Secundus Zephyrus, Erik, GoneIn60, -sche, DisneyMetalhead, MJL, Markbassett, Flyer22 Reborn, Gothicfilm, Pyxis Solitary,Pincrete, Rab V, Trystan, SMcCandlish, uKER, disgruntledGM, Bilorv, Rhododendrites, Mooeena -  Wandering Wanda  (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This looks reasonable to me. disgruntledGM  ❮talk / contribs❯ 17:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Something like this will work for me as long as it does not contain any history-rewriting stuff like "Lana and Lilly completed the script for The Matrix in ...". I don't agree with hand-wringing qualms about having "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers" in a footnote (and don't put names in quotation marks, including professional aliases).  It does not question their current self-identification in any way, it simply reports the fact of how they were credited, so people who aren't American-celebrity-watchers don't think we're confusing two sets of Wachowskis or making some other kind of error.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there would be anything wrong with a sentence like "Lana and Lilly completed the script for The Matrix in ..." and I think most mainstream publications would disagree, too. Just an hour ago, I happened to be reading IndieWire's article "The 100 All-Time Greatest Films Directed by Women", only to find this listing: 20. The Matrix (Lilly and Lana Wachowski, 1999)" (Personally, I'd have ranked it higher than 20!)
 * However, I don't think any of the articles about the Wachowskis' films currently refer to the sisters individually - instead they just repeat the phrase "the Wachowskis" over and over. I'll accept that. Sometimes it's best not to rock the hovercraft. Wandering Wanda  (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with it is that it falsifies historical facts and timeline. No one then named Lana or Lilly Wachowski worked on that script. And WP doesn't refer to people by first name anyway (MOS:BIO). Even if we presented a quotation that said this (and it was encyclopedically relevant to include it), we should have already indicated in the prose, not long before that quote, who these names refer to and that an identity/name shift occurred in the interim. Given that this will be off-topic in many articles, it's best not to include such material at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To say that it "falsifies historical facts" strikes me as extreme. Using someone's current/preferred name when talking about their past is a valid stylistic choice. When The New York Times did a profile of Michelle Obama, they mostly avoided using her birth name and captioned a pre-marriage photo as "Michelle Obama as a college student at Princeton." But like I said, this is all mostly theoretical and I'm not about to go in and edit a bunch of references to Lilly and Lana into the Matrix articles. Wandering Wanda  (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Guess I'm OK with it too. I also adhere to what was said by SMcCandlish. --uKER (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Not a footnote. At minimum the lead and infobox need to say "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers". The original and still-standing credit - which the Wachowskis have not asked to be changed - needs to be maintained where people will see it. Not relegated to a footnote. Encyclopedias need to respect history. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment - This section is going to complicate things, I think, because it's moving on from the RfC into specific implementation, which should be a next step. Combining them may make closure of this whole thread more difficult. FWIW, I don't have a strong opinion of whether acknowledgment of how their name appears in the credits goes in a footnote or in the body. Disinclined with regard to the lead/infobox, but again, this RfC didn't get into much nuance about implementation, so maybe let's nix this section and wait for the closure. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 04:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This sounds fair enough. I'm not super familiar with how these things usually go, so sorry for any missteps. Wandering Wanda  (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks great to me. The fact that the filmmakers are trans-women now, is significant and is an event that should be updated on each of their film articles. Good work.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Two of the filmmakers later became trans women. How/Why is that an inherently significant feature of the film? It clearly IS a significant feature of their biogs, but I fail to see the important relative to each and every one of their films. Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I'm sorry, but the draft does nothing to address the central objection, which is that altering original credits (except in very rare instances) is 'time-bending' and inherently WP:OR. Suits did not have a character played by the Duchess of Sussex, Muhammad Ali did not win the Boxing Gold medal at the 1960 Olympics. Of course, for brevity and clarity, it may be simpler on Meghan's or Ali's biog page to phrase as "won as C M Clay" or similar, but why would we complicate the 'Suits' article or the '1960 Olympics article' because of a later name changes by single individuals - changes which have no direct relevance to either of those articles.

This particular instance seems especially silly, I'm UK and have never seen most of the Wachowski's output - but even so, I know them to be trans. If I go to see one of their films on TV or in the cinema - original (gendered) name/s will be credited. If I own, borrow or buy a DVD, ditto. If I read any contemporary reviews ditto. And any database, such as the BFI (and probably the AFI?), (even Amazon), is going to use original credits. Millions of uses of whatever name the Wachowski's chose at the time will be recorded around the world - but we should not use credited names? I'm sorry, but that is so silly, regardless of how honourable the motives may be. Jan Morris is a fairly well known UK trans figure, almost all of the books she wrote were written as 'James', her male name. The subject of her transition can and should be treated sensitively on her biog article - but would be almost entirely irrelevant to any articles about her books (unless anyone had described them as 'trans books' - which is not the case). Pincrete (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is well-stated and exactly at the heart of the issue. The guidelines we have now (that have been brought up numerous times in this discussion) primarily focus on biographical articles for their jurisdiction. We have very limited and vague advice for actions outside of that domain, and you've just illustrated perfectly why that's likely the case. When we are specifically talking in the context of one's accomplishment, work, or some event they were involved in, we don't need to let politics, personal preferences, and other issues around sensitivity get in the way. We are simply stating a fact as perceived during the time it occurred, and as documented extensively in reliable sources over time. There's no reason to change that in most cases (aside from a short footnote or parenthetical clarification). The biographical article is where the name change focus should remain. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that I do believe this specific instance is rare, particularly because changing from "The Wachowski Brothers" to "The Wachowskis" is not a drastic change that would lead to confusion. The change is easier to swallow this time around. The bigger concern for me is setting a precedent that this would justify drastic name changes in other situations. Exceptions made like this should remain rare and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems obvious to me why the 1960 Olympics article would indicate that the gold medal winner was later known as Muhammad Ali: because the person reading the article is not in 1960, and may well know the individual described only by the later name. Without making that plain in the text, we are left with an Easter Egg link that the reader has no reason to click on. The current wording in 1960 Summer Olympic Games does give both names. It’s concise and clear, and omitting it would be unhelpful to the reader.--Trystan (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I, personally, have no issue with the way it's presented now in that article as a secondary mention giving precedence to the original name. But that is not what this mockup proposal suggests. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected about the details of the 1960 Olympics page - my substantive point remains though, "Cassius Clay, later known as Muhammad Ali," won the medal, not M. Ali, who did not meaningfully exist in 1960. The 'Suits' article doesn't of course give the current name of Ms Markle, to that extent the link is an 'easter egg'. Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * not M. Ali, who did not meaningfully exist in 1960. This strikes as a rather bizarre claim. Our article on name begins "A name is a term used for identification. [...] A personal name identifies, not necessarily uniquely, a specific individual human." A name is not an object in itself (unless it has quotation marks around it), but an identifier for an object. Thus it's correct to say "Ali won the 1960 Olympics" or "Clay won the 1960 Olympics" or, in context, "He won the 1960 Olympics", because we understand [Ali], [Clay] and [he] to refer to the same semantic object—a human being born in 1942, who under any of those names did exist in 1960. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course a sportsman existed in 1960, who later adopted the Ali name. However it would be misleading to imply that the 1960 winner was known by that name at the time - just as it would be misleading to imply that titled members of the British or Monaco royal families went and worked as actors (rather than actors joining such families). To some extent, a credit name (in any creative industry), IS a thing. It's a 'brand name' governed by industry/union rules and conventions. So it is largely true to say John Wayne, George Orwell, George Eliot etc. did not meaningfully exist until those names were chosen and used in public credits. Pincrete (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It simply doesn't imply that the 1960 winner used that name at the time. This is the object/identifier distinction I'm making. An identifier is not the subject unless it uses special formatting denotation (e.g. italics or quotation marks). See Use–mention distinction. To use a programming analogy, we might have the same object referred to by the variables  and , and the code   would produce the same results as   ("use"), but the code   and   are different ("mention"). But here, it's clear from a linguistic and syntactic standpoint that we're talking about contexts in which we're using words, not simply mentioning them. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment - As this is not a bio article, the guideline we should be following comes from Infobox Film: ''Credits in the infobox should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date. A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made.'' That means if "The Wachowskis" is used, the lead and infobox also need to say "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers". - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC meta discussion
I believe it's dubious to bundle the lead and infobox together. Personally I believe the infobox should reflect the credits while there may be more flexibility with the lead, but as written the RfC doesn't allow for that. I also find it problematic that after Betty added an Option C it was diminished by the RfC poster with what appears to be a unilateral claim that it was identical to option B; a claim that I'm not sure I agree with. I would like to hear from Betty regarding their views on this as well. As-is, I feel I've been pushed perilously close to believing that this RfC is malformed, or at least is being manipulated after the fact. DonIago (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was trying to follow RfC guidelines, which say to keep the opening statement "short and simple". That's why I wanted a simple, clear choice between "The Wachowskis" and "The Wachowski Brothers". If you or Betty Logan want to undo my change and restore Option C to the top of the page, though, go ahead, I won't object again. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll add that I don't think Betty Logan's option was bad, but I do think it rendered option B redundant. It struck me as a correction to option B - 'no, no, you got our position slightly wrong, so let me rephrase it'. That's why I thought the two should be merged. I was just trying to make things less messy. Of course, in trying to make things less messy, maybe I just made them more messy, instead. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's important not to modify the original RfC description after a response has been made. It appears to have been remedied early enough in the RfC process, however, so the overall outcome shouldn't be impacted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's a consensus that I shouldn't have tried to merge B and C (people keep voting for C.) I'm reverting B to its original text and C to the top of the page, and won't make any more changes. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to do it because I don't want to be accused of demoting an opposing viewpoint farther down the page, but if we're moving all the responses to Flyer22's comment down to Discussion I think things would be more readable if Flyer's comment was also moved down. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * GoneIn60 has made some good points to me about this and I retract this request. :) WanderingWanda (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My initial comment is best left where it is. That comment is meant to bring attention to the wrong application of a guideline. It's not an opposing viewpoint. I was clear above that I don't mind the sisters being called "The Wachowkis." But am I going to vote? No. Where my initial comment is placed makes it more accessible to readers/editors. It is not like we never include non-vote comments in the Survey section. GoneIn60 moved the responses down so that they would not clog/cloud the Survey section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I shouldn't have used the phrase "opposing viewpoint" - and I genuinely appreciate the clarification about what the identity guideline says. I just thought it was a little confusing to split up your comment from its replies, and since the comment wasn't a vote, I thought it might be a slightly better fit for the discussion section. GoneIn60 messaged me with a note arguing that RfCs work best when everyone gets one vote or comment in the 'survey' section but then put any further discussion in the discussion section. I thought that was fair, and that's why I said I retracted my request. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone else here feel like this RfC has been going on for eternity? I feel like we keep discussing the same 5 points over-and-over again... Just me? &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  22:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note I will leave short and neutrally worded notice in LGBT studies wikiproject since some editors involved there may have experience with issues similar to the one brought up in this RFC. Rab V (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A list of places I have posted this RfC is below. I've tried to advertise it in a broad, balanced and neutral way.  Wandering Wanda  (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Media: Requests_for_comment/Media,_the_arts,_and_architecture, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Science Fiction, Talk:The Wachowskis‎,Talk:The Matrix, Talk:The Matrix Reloaded, Talk:The Matrix Revolutions, Talk:V for Vendetta (film), Talk:Speed Racer (film), Talk:Bound (1996 film)
 * LGBT/gender: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Gender Studies, Talk:Transgender, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality
 * Style: Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_style_and_naming, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style
 * Other: User:WanderingWanda
 * I don't think it's even been a month yet? DonIago (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey all, I've made a draft of a reorganized version of the RfC on my Sandbox page. I tried to make everything more readable and organized by 1. splitting the discussion section into subsections and 2. moving the long back-and-forth that's sprung up under Bilorv's vote down to the discussion section. I'll implement this soon unless anyone has any objections: User:WanderingWanda/sandbox Wandering Wanda (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And done! Wandering Wanda  (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh my. When I was reorganizing the RfC I considered moving the vote responses en masse to the discussion section like Pyxis Solitary just did, but I decided to be more conservative. I'm not opposed to the change, but I suggest we 1. put all the responses directly underneath the survey section (so they're less removed from what they're responding to) and 2. order the responses oldest-to-newest. I'll start working on this. Wandering Wanda  (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (And done.) Wandering Wanda  (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

In 24 hours it will be 30 days since this RfC began, which, I believe, is the standard RfC length. Should we extend it at this point or close, and would it be best to get an administrator to do a formal closure? Wandering Wanda (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They aren't typically extended in any official and/or technical sense. There's just the time between the end of 30 days and when some uninvolved editor comes along and closes it. A request can be placed at WP:ANRFC, but it's optional. That's where you would specifically request an admin (RfCs can be closed by any editor in good standing otherwise). If it's particularly complicated and/or heated, I tend to prefer an admin do it and might post at ANRFC. Otherwise I just wouldn't worry about it unless a week goes by after the 30 days and it's still not closed. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 05:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll give it another few days and then request an admin closure if it's still not closed. Incidentally, by my count, so far about twice as many people voted for option A than the combined total of B and C, and slightly more people voted for option A than the combined total of all other options. (But I understand that with RfCs, the raw vote total is not everything.) Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 23:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * When the focus is narrowed on the infobox, the survey is much closer (15 for A, 10 for B/C), but yeah, the A's pretty much have it at this point. Quite a few votes also specify support for parenthetical and footnote clarifications, so that will have to be weighed as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , when you do (as I am sure you already know), please place the request in WP:ANRFC, under the section "RfCs." If you need help, I am around; but the instructions there are pretty comprehensive. Cheers, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The close has been requested. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Record of changes to survey
The Wachowski survey options may have changed a bit since you voted. Please look over the survey again when you get a chance. Thank you very much for your input. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)