Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2017 archive

RfC: Clarification and/or change in how common hypocorisms (diminutives) are handled on first use of name
(non-admin closure) It has been suggested (above, at ) that the example and wording WP:QUOTENAME regarding the presentation of nicknames and hypocorisms (diminutives) is not entirely clear, thus leaving open whether an article such as (for instance) Tom Petty Should begin Thomas Earl "Tom" Petty is... or just Thomas Earl Petty is... (with the "Tom" being implied by the article title and the fact that it's an obvious and very common shortening of "Thomas").

To avoid endless confusion and discussion and contention, let's clarify what is intended here and nail this down one way or another. (I used underlines to show both additions and changes.)

The current wording of the operative paragraph in Manual of Style/Lead section is:
 * The name of a person is presented in full if known, including any given names that are not included in the article's title or are abbreviated there. For example, the article on Calvin Coolidge gives his name as John Calvin Coolidge, Jr. If a person has a commonly known nickname, used in lieu of a given name, it is presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for John F. Kennedy, which has John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy. The quotation marks are not put in bold. A nickname that comes in place of the whole name should be presented after the full name, in parentheses. Also acceptable are formulations like "Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi, better known as Sandro Botticelli", when applicable.

Proposal 1 is to clarify that both common hypocorisms (diminutives) and nicknames are to be included (in quote marks) in the initial presentation of the name:
 * The name of a person is presented in full if known, including any given names that are not included in the article's title or are abbreviated there. For example, the article on Calvin Coolidge gives his name as John Calvin Coolidge, Jr. If a person is commonly known by a nickname or hypocorism, used in lieu of a given name, it is presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Tom Petty, which has Thomas Earl "Tom" Petty . The quotation marks are not put in bold. A nickname that comes in place of the whole name should be presented after the full name, in parentheses. Also acceptable are formulations like "Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi, better known as Sandro Botticelli", when applicable.

Proposal 2 is to differentiate between common hypocorisms and other nicknames, and to proscribe writing the hypocorism (diminutive) when it is common and obvious:
 * The name of a person is presented in full if known, including any given names that are not included in the article's title or are abbreviated there. For example, the article on Calvin Coolidge gives his name as John Calvin Coolidge, Jr. If a person is commonly known by a nickname that is not a common hypocorism, used in lieu of a given name, it is presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Bunny Berigan, which has Roland Bernard "Bunny" Berigan . The quotation marks are not put in bold. If a person has a well-known common hypocorism, used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Tom Hopper which has Thomas Edward Hopper. Also acceptable are formulations like "Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi, better known as Sandro Botticelli", when applicable.


 * For Proposal 2, it is also suggested to include a footnote in the Notes section, with the link at "commonly used hypocorism" above: As a guide to what is a "common" hypocorism, consider consulting the Hypocorism subsections "Shortening, often to the first syllable" and "Addition of a diminutive suffix..."; consider treating names listed in the in "A short form that differs significantly from the name" subsection as non-hypocoristic nicknames, depending on the particular case (a few short forms that differ significantly from the name are well known common hypocorisms, such as "Bob" for "Robert", but most are not. Herostratus (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey on diminutives

 * Proposal 2 (RfC author here.) It's silly to write David "Dave" Smith, especially in an article that is already titled "Dave Smith". It slows down the reader and really is almost a parody of pedantic style. Herostratus (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Herostratus. (talk page stalker)  Crash Under  ride  14:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Neither really. I do not believe a name should ever be included in quote marks in this way. It's always confusing. Does it mean they were always known by that name? Sometimes known by that name? Known by that name to their family and friends but not to the world at large (e.g. see John F. Kennedy - the current lead construction suggests he was commonly known as Jack Kennedy, whereas in fact that was only a name used by his friends and family and he is known to the world as John F. Kennedy or JFK)? What? Far better to put alternative names after the name and the dates (e.g. John Smith (1920–1997), commonly known as...), which negates all confusion and looks much more professional to boot. But for common and/or blatantly obvious diminutives even that is not necessary per Proposal 2. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but within that context, do you have an opinion whether hypocorisms (diminutives) should be handled different from other nicknames, that is should
 * Alexander Joe Smith [commonly] known as Sandy Smith... and
 * Alexander Joe Smith [commonly] known as Alex Smith...
 * be handled the same -- the argument against being that they're different in that "Alex" devolves naturally and obviously from "Alexander", and "Sandy" does not, and it matters. That's the argument, I'm not saying it is necessarily right... do you have an opinion on that question?
 * Sandy, while not strictly a shortening, is a common English-language name for someone called Alexander. I don't have a problem with it being spelled out, but I don't think it's completely necessary or should be mandated. This is, after all, English Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I never heard of "Sandy" used for "Alexander", but that's me. So then I gather that your position is Alexander Joe Smith [commonly] known as X...}} is valid for any value of X. Assuming that's not adopted here, are you OK with Alexander Joe "X" Smith for any value of X, and if you are, wouldn't it maybe be better to clarify that by voting for Prop 1 rather than leaving the (perhaps unclear) current wording? Herostratus (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the former and not with the latter, as I quite clearly said (to quote myself, "I do not believe a name should ever be included in quote marks in this way"), so why would I in any way be agreeing with Proposal 1? I agree with Proposal 2, but covering all nicknames, diminutives, hypocorisms and other common names; I do not believe quote marks within names should ever be used, e.g.:
 * Proposal 3: The name of a person is presented in full if known, including any given names that are not included in the article's title or are abbreviated there. For example, the article on Calvin Coolidge gives his name as John Calvin Coolidge Jr. If a person is commonly known by a nickname that is not a common hypocorism, used in lieu of a given name, it is presented as "Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi (c. 1445 – May 17, 1510), better known as Sandro Botticelli". If a person has a well-known common hypocorism, used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Tom Hopper which has Thomas Edward Hopper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well, I understand. After some thought I elected not to add Proposal 3 to the above list (leaving it as a "write-in" as it were) for a couple of reasons. One being that changing our biographies to the "X better known as Y" format would be a really big change and would be best be served by a WP:CENT discussion that focused just on that. This doesn't mean your proposal isn't better on the merits. If there's enough grassroots support for Proposal 3 (another editor has also suggested it) we can look that down the line. That's my take. Herostratus (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, that form of words is very widely-used and always has been. The insertion of nicknames in quotes within names is something that seems to have grown recently. I've only noticed it taking over in the last year or two, so in my opinion that is the big change. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But the rule goes back to at least 2011 (I didn't check further). And I think for non-hypocorisms, the Walter "Killer" Kowalski format has been in regular use. Not the David "Dave" Smith version. But the rule does say to do that. And some editors are enforcing it now. As is proper, I guess. You could look at it this way: most people, by far, who don't use their full-length first name use a hypocorism (diminutive). Exempting hypocorisms from the quotation-marks format will have the virtue of removing most potential uses of that format. Herostratus (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Proposal 2. I agree that it is wholly over-pedantic and silly to use formulations like David "Dave" Smith or Philip "Phil" Chess'.  The suggested rewording seems to me to improve the guidance.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposal 2 makes much more sense, however I am wondering what the standard for common would be for nicknames.  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't one -- "If a person has a commonly known nickname..." just means "If a person has a nickname by which s/he is commonly known", which is probably a better construction, so I changed it. Herostratus (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Proposal 2, but footnotes are not necessary. Lizard  (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the additional clarity of Proposal 3 and generally dislike this use of quoted nicknames inserted in a person's full name. That said, Proposal 2 is still an improvement.--Trystan (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for including a second choice! That is helpful and functional IMO. At this point I have elected to not add Proposal 3 to the above list (leaving it as "write-in") because I think its such a big change that a WP:CENT RfC focusing just on that would be best. We can do that later. For now, if Proposal 3 supporters would add a second choice, I think that would be helpful. Herostratus (talk)


 * Strongly support Proposal 3. It is not always clear whether an abbreviated name is an additional part of the subject's full name, so I think that full names should be given uninterrupted, followed by an explanation for any other more common forms by which they are known. Proposal 2 as second preference. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposal 2 or Proposal 3. Articles starting David "Dave" Smith or Philip "Phil" Chess or William "Bill" Clinton and the like are all excessively pedantic, and make Wikipedia look ridiculous. You won't see this in Encyclopaedia Britannica. We could even try to keep the pedants happy by starting a list of hypocorisms where a Philip "Phil" construction is not required. Edwardx (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, part of the proposal is indeed to add a footnote to the effect "As a guide to what is a "common" hypocorism, consider consulting the Hypocorism subsections "Shortening, often to the first syllable" and "Addition of a diminutive suffix..." Herostratus (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops - missed that. Thank you, that is an extensive and very useful list. Edwardx (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Just to point out, there are apparently obscure technical differences between the terms "nickname", "diminutive", and "hypocorism". It is for this reason that I used "hypocorism" in the text, in the interest of precision, figuring that since the audience is serious Wikipedia editors they can look it up via the link. If people want to swap in "diminutive" for "hypocorism" we can do that.

Also, IMO while "No change needed, it's already clear" is a valid vote, keep in mind that it is apparently not already clear to everyone, since "John -> Jack" is non-obvious and "Jack" is called a nickname but it may not be (its a hypocorism which may or may not be a subset of nickname, depending on who you talk to). A number of editors are balking at having to write David "Dave" Smith and if we really want to make them do that I think we ought to make it clear that that is what the community expects. Herostratus (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Well... crickets so far. But FWIW above at we have 4 people clearly favoring the change to Proposal 2 (User:Ghmyrtle, User:Crash Underride, User:Necrothesp, and User:Lizard the Wizard) and one opposed (User:Wash whites separately). Add me in and that's 5-1 4-1 favoring the change to Proposal 2 to this date. Whether that's enough to be a quorum (if there are no more comments) I don't know...

Just looking at how others do it: Britannica has Tom Petty, in full Thomas Petty, which is different from both our current format and what I've proposed. The Canadian Encyclopedia has Tom (b Thomas Dale) Jackson, also different from both our current format and what I've proposed, but then also just Charlie Major, so they are maybe not consistent... Citizendium has Thomas Gerard "Tom" Tancredo but also just Tom Whitmore, so they are maybe not consistent... Googling at random here, 100 Greatest African Americans: A Biographical Encyclopedia has just Hank Aaron... the The Biographical Encyclopedia of Jazz has AARONS, AL (ALBERT W.), which is different from both our current format and what I've proposed. Some fields like philosophy and classical music, everyone uses their full name. Biographical Encyclopedia of American Radio has just Allen, Fred... Yadda yadda. There are lots of biographical dictionaries and anyone is free to peruse them; my quick survey seems to indicate that people do it lots of different ways, which I guess means we are on our own here. Herostratus (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure I like either proposal but think (Proposal 3) we should just use Alexander Joe Smith known as Sandy Smith for all cases as the "quotes" always look a bit contrived. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, for MilborneOne's example I think it should be Alexander Joe "Sandy" Smith. (talk page stalker)  Crash Under  ride  15:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Right... MilborneOne is suggesting a (very reasonable and valid) different way to handle names generally, but not answering whether hypocorisms (diminutives) should be handled different from other nicknames, that is should
 * Alexander Joe Smith known as Sandy Smith... and
 * Alexander Joe Smith known as Alex Smith...
 * be handled the same -- the argument against being that they're different in that "Alex" devolves naturally and obviously from "Alexander", and "Sandy" does not, and it matters. That's the argument, whether it's right is what we're trying to decide. Herostratus (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Herostratus for better explaining what I meant, the editor doesnt have to think if we have a different solution for Sandy and Alex as they would be the same, sometimes simple is better. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, it would be helpful to bring MOS:LEGALNAME (part of MOS:BIO) and WP:QUOTENAME (part of MOS:LEAD) into agreement. MOS:LEGALNAME says:
 * ''It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. However, provide a short explanation if a person uses a non-standard contraction of their name, for example "Timothy Allen Dick, known professionally as Tim Allen ..." or "Prince Rogers Nelson, known mononymously as Prince ...".

...which I would interpret in line with Option 3 above. QUOTENAME, as discussed above, advises to provide all nicknames in quotes.--Trystan (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Can I alert everyone that there is another part of the MOS which has been written to require any common name to be given in quotes in the middle of the full name: Manual of Style/Lead section. When this discussion is concluded, this page needs to be brought into line with the decision here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. That's exactly the part in question here. Lizard  (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's correct. The actual wording we are talking about changing is in Manual of Style/Lead section (also called the WP:ALTNAME section of WPLMOSLEDE and pointed to directly by WP:QUOTENAME). It affects biographies specifically so I placed the RfC here in WP:MOSBIO (also my guess is that MOSBIO is watched a bit more) with a note at WPLMOSLEDE pointing here. But further notes and calls for participation are fine. Herostratus (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

So, do we have a consensus here yet? I'm willing to keep commenting as many times as it takes so that this doesn't archive before a consensus is reached. The vagueness of this guideline has been the source of heated arguments for years, and it should be easy to fix. Lizard (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added my vote above, and would say that we have consensus. Only one vote against, and their supporting argument is weak. Edwardx (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it's been thirty days. So it's good to go. Since the rule says "if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion" I'll do it. Herostratus (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Surname use at Katherine Johnson article
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Katherine Johnson (permalink here). The issue is whether or not we should use Johnson's maiden name for some parts of the article and her surname for other parts of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the issue is larger than just at the Katherine Johnson article. Women are born into particular families and often have lives, sometimes of many years, in which they have achievements and records under their birth names. Such records may include advanced academic degrees, publications, or any variety of things. Women may marry and later become known by their married surnames, if they take their husband's name (before the late 20th century, that was the general practice). But, I think the encyclopedia articles should recognize and use the names an individual woman used at different periods of her life, rather than folding everything under the last name (often a married surname) by which she was known.Parkwells (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the issue is larger than just at the Katherine Johnson article. Women are born into particular families and often have lives, sometimes of many years, in which they have achievements and records under their birth names. Such records may include advanced academic degrees, publications, or any variety of things. Women may marry and later become known by their married surnames, if they take their husband's name (before the late 20th century, that was the general practice). But, I think the encyclopedia articles should recognize and use the names an individual woman used at different periods of her life, rather than folding everything under the last name (often a married surname) by which she was known.Parkwells (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

People who are retired from a role
At National Security Advisor (United States) we've got: "The current Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs is Lt. General Michael Flynn." Flynn is retired from the military, so is that correct? Should that be "...retired Lt. General Michael Flynn" or just plain "Michael Flynn"? I checked the various MOS pages and couldn't find anything. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Retired military officers, especially more senior officers, usually keep their ranks and continue to be addressed and referred to by them as a matter of courtesy. In Britain this usually only applies to officers with the rank of major (or equivalent) or above, although there are exceptions. I'm not sure about the USA, but retired generals or admirals certainly usually continue to be referred to using their ranks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with statement "Retired military officers, especially more senior officers, usually keep their ranks and continue to be addressed and referred to by them as a matter of courtesy. I do not have any references to support, but this has been my understanding of this issue.  -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 16:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Do surnames like "von N" or "de N" need a non-breaking space?
The MOS doesn't appear to touch on this, and I've searched its archive, so I thought I'd ask here – should there be a non-breaking space between e.g. "von" and "Ribbentrop", or "de" and "Gaulle"? After a quick look I note there seem to be none at Charles de Gaulle, for example, but what about when such a name is not the subject of an article? It seems unsatisfactory to me that "von" or "de" might appear at the end of a line of English text at the name's first occurrence, since at first sight von might look like gibberish, as might de. And, come to think of it, what about names like Sammy Davis Jr.? Nortonius (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC) 2. Since you ask, I prefer Nowrap for two reasons. a) It uses well-known template syntax instead of that weird thingy that has to begin with ampersand and end with semicolon. It didn't take me long to memorize that, but I think new editors have enough of a learning curve without unnecessary complexity like that. And each use requires the editor to locate two rarely-used characters on their keyboard, one requiring Shift (no idea how hard this is on a mobile device). b) I feel that  is more readable in the edit window than. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that MOS covers this, and I don't feel it needs to, per WP:CREEP. I would do what I felt was best and see if I got any objection (and I would be very interested to read an argument that that needs to be allowed to break). If I were doing it, I would use Nowrap instead of nbsp, for reasons that I won't go into here, but that's just me. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that feels like very sound advice. I understand about WP:CREEP, but wonder if it would hurt to add something along the lines of what you just said to the MOS, descriptive rather than prescriptive. But that's just me wondering, I find myself feeling stuck on this kind of issue sometimes, and it helps to seek an answer or advice. I'd be interested in the argument you suggest too! I've also used Nowrap on occasion, but for now my logic for having done so escapes me. Thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - 1. MOS does not need to state that MOS does not take a position on this, so editors should use their best judgment. I don't know what else you would have it say.
 * Thanks, that feels like very sound advice. I understand about WP:CREEP, but wonder if it would hurt to add something along the lines of what you just said to the MOS, descriptive rather than prescriptive. But that's just me wondering, I find myself feeling stuck on this kind of issue sometimes, and it helps to seek an answer or advice. I'd be interested in the argument you suggest too! I've also used Nowrap on occasion, but for now my logic for having done so escapes me. Thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - 1. MOS does not need to state that MOS does not take a position on this, so editors should use their best judgment. I don't know what else you would have it say.
 * - 1. MOS does not need to state that MOS does not take a position on this, so editors should use their best judgment. I don't know what else you would have it say.
 * - I've been known to Nowrap all dates in a relatively small article, as, and all times-of-day, as  . I have never seen anybody else doing that, but I have never had an objection either. There is a difference between what editors would do themselves and what they would object to. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  17:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Belatedly, we do have the Nbsp template, which eliminates my argument 2(a) above. The choice between Nbsp and Nowrap is pretty much a wash in my view, but I wouldn't use. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  19:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update, . It occurs to me to say that, about your point 1 above, I have recently seen that the MOS does sometimes take a position that is not entirely prescriptive. For example, at MOS:BRACKET, it describes how to use brackets, but then notes that instead "[i]t is often clearer to separate the thoughts into separate sentences or clauses". This leaves room for differing practice, which I think is perfectly acceptable, and is the sort of "advice" I had in mind when I used the word earlier. But I'm happy with what I'm taking away from this discussion, and am very grateful for the time and effort you have taken to share your thoughts here. Nortonius (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I always shake my head when I see guidelines of the form: "If you think x is a good idea, do it. If not, don't." I call that non-guidance and a waste of space. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rest assured, whatever else I might think, the sort of guidance you would prefer is what I came here seeking. I suppose the dilution of that is a predictable product of the nature of this project. But I'd have been happy if you or anybody had been able merely to point me to specific instructions. In the meantime I'll follow the advice you first offered, in effect to trust my own judgement. Nortonius (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I always shake my head when I see guidelines of the form: "If you think x is a good idea, do it. If not, don't." I call that non-guidance and a waste of space. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rest assured, whatever else I might think, the sort of guidance you would prefer is what I came here seeking. I suppose the dilution of that is a predictable product of the nature of this project. But I'd have been happy if you or anybody had been able merely to point me to specific instructions. In the meantime I'll follow the advice you first offered, in effect to trust my own judgement. Nortonius (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rest assured, whatever else I might think, the sort of guidance you would prefer is what I came here seeking. I suppose the dilution of that is a predictable product of the nature of this project. But I'd have been happy if you or anybody had been able merely to point me to specific instructions. In the meantime I'll follow the advice you first offered, in effect to trust my own judgement. Nortonius (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A request for opinion on use of names on reality/competition TV shows
We are interested in having a consistent approach in naming participants in reality/competition TV shows, and it is proposed that they should be treated as acts or characters instead of using surname after the first occurrence of the full name as suggested in MOS:SURNAME. The names used after their first appearance in the cast list would be how the participants are called in the show, which can be their first names, surnames, full names or stage names. Discussion here - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Cast and characters section, opinions are welcome and would be appreciated. Hzh (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: "survived by"
Should "survived by" and similar formulations be discouraged in biographical articles? Eg. "He was survived by his wife." 03:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * 1) Support - this is an encyclopedia not a memorial site. See this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Absolutely. Just like euphemisms like "passed away" or the even worse "passed" should be banned. This is an encyclopaedia, not a eulogy or memorial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per User:Smccandlish here: If their family members were pertinent enough to mention in the article, they should be mentioned before the part about the subject dying. Family members can be mentioned in a Family section or wherever most natural in the body of the article. Which of a subject's family members were still alive at the time of the subject's death is typically not encyclopaedic and the survived by formulation seems like lazy obit copying likely to introduce future errors when the "surviving" family members start dying. Snuge purveyor (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Not Encyclopedic.  -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 15:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose – I have some difficulty understanding how this phrase is related to euphemisms or how it is not encyclopedic. It's used in almost every obituary, which indicates there is value in this information. It has been used as a matter of course in thousands of articles; do we now engage a new Bryan Henderson to eradicate it? I think adoption of the proposal is unnecessary instruction creep. Gifted writers will find a less platitudinous phrase, but continued use will not harm Wikipedia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need any phrase. Marriage and children can be mentioned earlier in the article. Nobody is saying the information isn't notable, only that the phrasing is poor. The point is that Wikipedia is not an obituary site, and encylopaedias do not use the phrase. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't they? What's https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22He+was+survived+by%22+encyclopedia&tbm=bks then? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Opppose. (striking my vote, see below - Herostratus (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)) First of all, the question is poorly formulated. By "be discouraged" do you mean "the style guild shall deprecate it, and thus if you write it and someone comes along and changes it (citing the style guide), you are SOL and sucks to be you", or what? Please specify the wording you want and where you want it, and then we can see.Second of all, it's outside the scope of the style guile to manage the exact wording used in sentences, to this level. If their family members were pertinent enough to mention in the article, they should be mentioned before the part about the subject dying is entirely one person's personal opinion about how they personally are pleased to write. It's objectively false as a blanket statement, and trying to make stuff like this into a rule is not needed for making the encyclopedia, so stop.By all means, if one personally does not like to use the formulation "survived by", then don't. No one will make you. Do other editors the courtesy of similarly allowing them to construct their articles as they think best (subject as always to reasonable constraints), thank you. Herostratus (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS already does "manage the exact wording used in sentences", insofar as it discourages certain phrasings - that's the entire point of WP:W2W, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, right, Words To Watch (WP:W2W). OK forgot about that... yes if you do want to include "survived by" that would be a reasonable place to do it. The problem is, "survived by" is not a euphemism, it's not biased, it's not any of the categories the WP:W2W warns against... where would you put it? "Clichés and idioms"? Doubtful...
 * It's very typical to include basic family vital info in an article, say in a Personal Life section: "Pruddle married Dolores Pigbottom in 1947. The couple had three children, Pickney, Wee Willie, and Proudfoot. He died on April 1, 1983". Or you could say "Pruddle married Dolores Pigbottom in 1947. He died on April 1, 1983, survived by their three children, Pickney, Wee Willie, and Proudfoot". What difference does it make? The latter provides the information that the kids were alive when he died, and thus that none of his children died young... not very useful information but not necessarily completely useless either. I guess my question is why do you care if I prefer the latter formulation? Can you not leave me alone about minor stylistic preferences like this?
 * We need reasonable constraints. It is reasonable to abjure editors from using "joined the choir invisible" or "went to his eternal reward" instead of "died" and so forth. Does "survived by" rise to this level? Hmmmm... I would say, not. Herostratus (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While there may be a difference in type, I don't see a difference in intent between "Pruddle was survived by his wife Dolores" and "Pruddle passed away in April 1983" - both are, to my mind, phrasings more appropriate to an obituary than an encyclopedia. The former also creates discontinuities in chronology and has the potential to cause other problems in clarity of information (in your example, what if one of his kids had died young?). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Passed away" is a euphemism. "Survived by" is not. That's the difference. If you personally believe that "survived by" is "phrasing more appropriate to an obituary than an encyclopedia" then I strongly recommend that you not use the phrase. I won't make you, I promise! If one of the kids had died young then say so: "Survived by four children; a son had died in childhood" or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've struck my vote and no longer oppose (don't necessarily support either). For two reasons: some of the Support arguments here are cogent, and in my recent research I've come across "survived by" a few times, and I've realized how unhelpful it is -- "survived by" three children, but how many did he have in toto? I realize I can't use "survived by" in my biographies here, since I want to say "he had X children" and "survived by" doesn't tell me that. Since it's not useful in my sources, I realize it's not useful to our readers here. ("Survived by three children, a son had died in World War II" would be fine though since it does tell how many total children.) Herostratus (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support in some form. Manual of Style/Words to watch may be a better place to implement this. I come across this phrase occasionally when changing occurrences of passed away to died. It is generally used to introduce inappropriate information in an unencyclopedic style as described by Snuge purveyor above. A mention of relatives in e.g. a family section or if they've also done something of note is generally okay. The mentioned of related individuals solely because they've lived longer than a subject is not. Wikipedia isn't for memorializing. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support – Which family members are still alive at the moment of a person's death is extraneous information that serves no encyclopedic purpose. It makes sense in an obituary because readers might want to know who is grieving the death if they are sending their condolences, but that's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If a person's spouse or child dies before them, and it's relevant, that should be discussed at the appropriate place, but it's generally not relevant to that person's death if their loved ones are still alive, and there's no reason to include it when discussing the death. If, for some reason, that information is particularly relevant (say someone died in a carcrash but their spouse survived the crash), it could be mentioned in regular prose without the “was survived by” language. -- Irn (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support There are two issues being raised here. One is the use of euphemisms. These should not be used. The other is whether to give information about who was alive in a person's family at the time of their death. While that information might be useful in a daily newspaper where it is found, but considering that Wikipedia is a perpetually read encyclopedia, news that is written to be announced for one particular day is less relevant to Wikipedia's readers who are not here for daily news.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia essay on British nationals
I have removed a link in the opening paragraph section which linked to the essay on British nationals. The essay in question is deeply flawed and disputed, it was written many years ago, there is no evidence it still has consensus, and such a essay should not be given semi official status by being prominently linked on an official Manual of Style page.

Reading the above discussion some way up the page, i do not see any consensus for Nationality of people from the United Kingdom being added. Again it is a flawed essay that is responsible for arguments about what correct terminology should be used. It is about time a new discussion took place to try and reach an agreement on what is and isnt appropriate for British national articles. SenMar (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Add clarity and some examples (of what not to do) to Opening paragraph section?
The organization of this section is not ideal. I propose the examples be moved to the end of the section. This interrupts the flow between the list and the items below. Makes it disjointed and confusing, especially when dealing with similar terms like birth place, nationality, and ethnicity. I highlighted a few other minor moves and the addition of the UK nationality essay. The underlying meaning of the section has not changed, I'm just creating some repetition and reorganization to make it read a little easier.Dig Deeper (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

{|style="border:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;"
 * [[Image:Searchtool-80%.png|15px]] Proposed change to Opening Paragraph section:
 * style="padding-left:0.6cm"|
 * style="padding-left:0.6cm"|

Opening paragraph
MOS guidelines for lead paragraphs should generally be followed; the opening paragraph should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context. The opening paragraph should usually have:
 * 1) Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also Naming conventions (royalty and nobility));
 * 2) Dates of birth and death, if known (for dates of birth see WP:BLPPRIVACY, which takes precedence) deleted MOS reference, too wordy for a bullet point and it was repeated below anyway
 * 3) Context (location or nationality);
 * 4) The notable position(s) the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played;
 * 5) Why the person is notable.

Birth date and place
The opening paragraph should usually have dates of birth and death. Birth and death dates are important information about the person being described, but if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context. For living persons, privacy should be considered (see WP:BLPPRIVACY, which takes precedence).

Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can be in the lead if relevant to the person's notability, but they should not be mentioned in the opening brackets of the lead sentence alongside the birth and death dates.

Context
See also the essay WP:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom

The opening paragraph should usually have context. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.

Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

Positions and roles
The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph.

Examples

 * Cleopatra VII Philopator (December 70 BCE/January 69 BCE – c. August 12, 30 BCE) was a queen of ancient Egypt. She was the last member of the Macedonian Ptolemaic dynasty to rule Egypt ...
 * Francesco Petrarca or Petrarch (1304–1374) was an Italian scholar, poet, and humanist, who is credited with having given the Renaissance its name and inventing the concept of the Dark Ages ...
 * Cesar Estrada Chavez (March 31, 1927 – April 23, 1993) was an American labor leader and civil rights activist who, with Dolores Huerta, co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers (UFW) ...
 * François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand (26 October 1916 – 8 January 1996) was a French statesman, who served as President of France from 1981 until 1995.
 * }


 * On first look I'm not really sure I like the head of the context leading us to an "essay." Guidelines and policies sure... but an essay? Those can range from good to garbage, so putting it in a guideline like MoS seems wrong to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback . It is not uncommon to see essays referred to (in a see also) within the guidelines and MOS. Even in this article there is a see also to There is no credential policy in the credentials section. This essay is frequent cited in discussions, I believe it I'd of acceptable quality and useful here. please let me know if you have additional concerns.  Dig deeper talk 06:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Made a few changes to the article as per my suggestion above. The meaning has not changed, it just reads a little easier. I held off on adding the essay wikilink and on shortening the bullet point on Dates of birth and death. Babysteps.  Dig deeper talk 14:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the inclusion of that extremely flawed essay on the Manual of Style page. It gives a disputed essay semi official status by giving it such prominence. I have started a new discussion at the the bottom of the talk page to discuss this specific issue and removed the link from the page. SenMar (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Article titles for people known by their initials
Is there consensus as to whether to leave a space between the two initials in names like J. P. Morgan? We seem to be doing it both ways; we have J.J. Dillon and J.J. Newberry but also J. J. Johnson and J. J. Daniels. It looks odd to me without the space, but anything that saves a keystroke is worth considering. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The current consensus is to use a space unless there is a reason not to: MOS:INITIALS. DrKay (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Biography headers
... specifically "Biography". In biographical articles, it appears to be entirely redundant to include a section titled "Biography" and then place parts of the article within it. Since the entire article is a biography about the subject such a header makes no sense and renders doubt about the purpose of the remaining sections. It would be like adding the header "Corporation" to an article that is specifically about a corporation or "Music" for an article about a song. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but what does this have to do with MOS:BIO? Are you suggesting that we should include guidance about it? The other lazy section heading – "Life" – is only marginally better (most, but not all, things relating to a person happen during their life). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And not all the material in a biography is "Biography" -- you could have "Biography" and "List of awards" and "Filmography", and fine. Point taken though: "Biography" does sound a little off. Agree with above editor though that I'm not included to prescribe it though. My suggestion is if you come across it, change it, if you're inclined. Very short articles do not need sections (except "References"). Herostratus (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct. It always bugs me when "Biography" or "Life" is added as a header in a biographical article. Completely unnecessary. If it's long enough to split then it can be split into sections detailing parts of the person's life. If it's a short article then it doesn't need any headers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Survivors
I wasn't really following the "survivors" discussion. The MOS has been changed to say we shouldn't say "survived by" but doesn't say what to do instead. I gather from the discussion that we shouldn't list survivors. Can we change the wording to better say that? Something like "Do not list survivors." Also "Out-of-date material" doesn't seem like the right section to put this in. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that "what to do instead" is either 1) say nothing or 2) change the wording.
 * I took the liberty of writing WP:SURVIVEDBY into Manual of Style/Words to watch and you can read that. Editors are of course invited to make improvements. If you have an obituary which says "survived by two sons" and you don't know for a fact that the subject didn't have any children who didn't survive her, you need to avoid mentioning her offspring at all. If you do know for a fact that the subject didn't have any children who didn't survive her, just say "she had two sons".
 * My understanding (see the RfC) that the admonition against "survived by" should go in Manual of Style/Words to watch, where the details can be aired out. Since I think this, and since User:Kendall-K1 also kind of objects to the detail of the change, I've removed the addition of "'Survived by' and similar phrasings should also not be used" from the main body of WP:MOSBIO, which should be a concise as possible. Maybe it should be here also, we can talk about this.
 * On thing I realized when writing WP:SURVIVEDBY is that, for children, fine, it's a fine rule. But for spouses, it's actually common (and, I think, reasonable) to describe when and how the subjects marriage(s) ended, and "the subject's death" is a common one. So now rather than saying "Smith died in 1954, survived by his wife Edna (Pruddle)" we have to say "Smith married Enda (Pruddle); the marriage ended with his death" which is no shorter and more awkward.
 * I mean, in WP:SURVIVEDBY, it says "Smith was married to Jack Smith and had two sons. She died on such-and-such date" is preferable to "Smith died on such-and-such date, survived by her husband Jack and two sons" but entropy is actually increased by the preferred example, since the (reasonably useful and common) info of when and why her marriage ended is lost. We could change the preferred example to something like "Smith was married to Jack Smith; the marriage ended with her death. She had two sons. She died on such-and-such date" but that is tantamount to saying "you should add extra unnecessary verbiage to articles to avoid this proscribed term" and I'm reluctant to do that.
 * Oh well. The law is a blunt instrument. I'm not sure people thought this out before making this rule. Suggestions on how to fix this are solicited. Should the admonition against "survived by" not be applied to spouses? Herostratus (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Now I'm even more confused. Are we avoiding the wording, or avoiding including a list of survivors? If we're avoiding the wording (why?) then what should I say instead? If we're avoiding listing survivors, why is this a MOS issue? I don't really care one way or the other, just trying to understand. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We are avoiding the wording, for both children and spouses, per the arguments presented in the RfC earlier on this page. And since this is a bio issue IMO it should at least be mentioned here. (I don't agree that it's necessary to specify that the marriage ended with the death of the subject). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we are avoiding the wording, which sounds too much like obituary-speak and, when found, is often copied in from an obituary, and we don't want it. My reading of the RfC is that we are not necessarily proscribing a list of survivors, if there's some reason for it. (Some commentors were against this, but most were mainly against the particular phrasing.)
 * IMO if, in some particular instance, you want to discuss which of the subject's children were alive when the subject died -- this would be unusual, but who knows -- avoid the "survived by" phrase. Instead say "He had seven children; four died in childhood and two in the war, so only was still alive when he died" or whatever. (Or, hey, use "survived by" if you think its best in an instance like that, all of this is just suggestion hedged around with "generally" and "recommended". Make your case for that on the talk page of the individual article, if challenged.)
 * That's how I read the thrust of the comments in the RfC. If, for some bizarre reason, we want to say "Never indicate in any form how many of a subject's children outlived him. That is something that we do not want our readers to ever know" that'd require a separate RfC I think.
 * I think "Survived by" and similar phrasings should also not be used. says this perfectly well -- it proscribes phrasings, not material. But User:Kendall-K1 is confused by this and so probably others will be too. (He also thinks it doesn't belong at "Out-of-date material", but where else? that seems the least-bad place to put it.)
 * So maybe "Survived by" and similar obituary-like phrasings should also not be used. If for some reason it is desired to indicate which or how many members of a subjects family were alive when she died, use a different phrase. This is 1) clearer but 2) a lot of extra verbiage. So I dunno. Anybody else have an opinion? Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we are avoiding the wording, which sounds too much like obituary-speak and, when found, is often copied in from an obituary, and we don't want it. My reading of the RfC is that we are not necessarily proscribing a list of survivors, if there's some reason for it. (Some commentors were against this, but most were mainly against the particular phrasing.)
 * IMO if, in some particular instance, you want to discuss which of the subject's children were alive when the subject died -- this would be unusual, but who knows -- avoid the "survived by" phrase. Instead say "He had seven children; four died in childhood and two in the war, so only was still alive when he died" or whatever. (Or, hey, use "survived by" if you think its best in an instance like that, all of this is just suggestion hedged around with "generally" and "recommended". Make your case for that on the talk page of the individual article, if challenged.)
 * That's how I read the thrust of the comments in the RfC. If, for some bizarre reason, we want to say "Never indicate in any form how many of a subject's children outlived him. That is something that we do not want our readers to ever know" that'd require a separate RfC I think.
 * I think "Survived by" and similar phrasings should also not be used. says this perfectly well -- it proscribes phrasings, not material. But User:Kendall-K1 is confused by this and so probably others will be too. (He also thinks it doesn't belong at "Out-of-date material", but where else? that seems the least-bad place to put it.)
 * So maybe "Survived by" and similar obituary-like phrasings should also not be used. If for some reason it is desired to indicate which or how many members of a subjects family were alive when she died, use a different phrase. This is 1) clearer but 2) a lot of extra verbiage. So I dunno. Anybody else have an opinion? Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think "Survived by" and similar phrasings should also not be used. says this perfectly well -- it proscribes phrasings, not material. But User:Kendall-K1 is confused by this and so probably others will be too. (He also thinks it doesn't belong at "Out-of-date material", but where else? that seems the least-bad place to put it.)
 * So maybe "Survived by" and similar obituary-like phrasings should also not be used. If for some reason it is desired to indicate which or how many members of a subjects family were alive when she died, use a different phrase. This is 1) clearer but 2) a lot of extra verbiage. So I dunno. Anybody else have an opinion? Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So maybe "Survived by" and similar obituary-like phrasings should also not be used. If for some reason it is desired to indicate which or how many members of a subjects family were alive when she died, use a different phrase. This is 1) clearer but 2) a lot of extra verbiage. So I dunno. Anybody else have an opinion? Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So maybe "Survived by" and similar obituary-like phrasings should also not be used. If for some reason it is desired to indicate which or how many members of a subjects family were alive when she died, use a different phrase. This is 1) clearer but 2) a lot of extra verbiage. So I dunno. Anybody else have an opinion? Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at about folding this material into WP:EUPHEMISM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Surprised by OPENPARAGRAPH "Context", and don't think I agree
MOS:OPENPARAGRAPH, in the "Context" subsection, says
 * The opening paragraph should usually provide context. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.

Patrick Byrne Magrane, who came to America from Ireland at age 18 or 19, I described as "Irish-American". Edward Everett (artist) came over around age 22, and I said he was "Anglo-American". I mean, I figured of course. But according to this I'm supposed to describe them as just "American". Huh.

I see Charlize Theron is described as "a South African and American actress" but I guess by this rule that should be changed to just "American" (her career was all in Hollywood). And so forth.

I don't think I agree. I mean, the person grew to adulthood in another country, and this obviously shaped them. Why would knowing that not matter to the reader? This seems like a basic vital-statistic datapoint.

Is the point of the rule to avoid arguments, maybe? (Which is a valid reason for a rule.) Is there any support out there for changing this? Or would it open a can of worms? Or maybe I'm wrong on the merits. I'm gauging -- if some of you my colleagues agree with me, I might maybe open an RfC on the matter? Or not. Herostratus (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Toward a MOS:NICKNAME
I've written an essay (after getting tired of explaining the same things over and over again) at Using nicknames (WP:NICKUSE). I think it can and should be adapted into a section at MOS:BIO instead of being an essay, though it may need some additional input before such a proposal. Please use its own talk page for suggestions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Place of birth -- changed names of places
Some cities have had their names changed in recent years. (For example, Bombay → Mumbai.) For MOS purposes I suggest we add guidance on what version to use. For example, if the article subject says "I was born in X", we use that name. Same holds true for what biographers say. Comments?? – S. Rich (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be shocked if we don't have a rule on this, somewhere. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd seen this somewhere but can't find it now. I would give the name in use at the time, with a parenthetical if it has changed; "Joe was born in Bombay (now Mumbai) in 1955." I'm not convinced we should be using the subject's preference if it's different from the name in use at the time. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's what I would do. (Even if there is a rule, who can remember all that stuff? I usually do what seems best or I've seen as common practice, I figure if someone wants to come by with "fixed per WP:RULEYOUVENEVERHEARDOF" then they're my guest.) Herostratus (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also sure we had guidance on this, which was that we use the historically accurate name of the city/country (i.e. what it was at the time). We should not use parentheses with the current name - do you know how ridiculous it looks to say e.g. "Julis Caesar was born in the Roman Empire (now Italy)" or similar? GiantSnowman 08:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a name change. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, Italy != the Roman Empire. I don't see what's wrong with "born in Italy, then part of the Roman Empire". It conveys useful information. I believe we do say "Pruddle was born in Lviv in the Austrian Empire (now in Ukraine)" or conversely "...in Ukraine (then in the Austrian Empire)". I don't know as there's a rule about which of these to use, its up to the editor I think. Herostratus (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether there's a name change or the change in politics/leadership/whatever, it's the same principle. Also Italy was never in the Roman Empire. Also what happens when the 'current' place is subject to conflict? We're asking for trouble - whereas if we have a blanket "do not mention current location or name, it's irrelevant" rule, we avoid all that. GiantSnowman 20:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If we have a blanket "do not mention current location or name", its ridiculous, since the reader will have to click around to figure out where the person was born. Herostratus (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Err no they won't. They can click on the link and get taken straight to where they were born e.g. "Born in Bombay, he was..." GiantSnowman 08:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Heretofore, stuff like this was determined by reference to WP:Commonname and WP:Consensus. It's not a style issue. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Users searching for that guideline might be thinking of Manual_of_Style/Proper_names. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To quote an example from Place_names: "An article about Junipero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico not the U.S. state of California because the latter entity did not exist at the time of Junipero Serra." I think this makes a lot of sense. However, I also agree with the proposal above that the modern place name should be placed in parentheses after the original place name when necessary to make the location more clear to the reader. All things considered, I think the parentheses should almost always be included. Rklawton (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We need to separate these two different things: political entities such as nations, empires, and provinces, which do go in and out of existance or change boundaries (as well as sometimes change name, but that's rarer), and cities which don't move and generally stay in existance, but often having different primary names as they move through history. (The Mughal Empire has ceased to exist. We do not say in the same way that Bombay has ceased to exist. We do not say "Bombay was destroyed in 1995" (when the name was changed). It's different.)
 * OP was asking specifically about cities. Apparently (to my surprise) there's no rule.
 * Manual_of_Style/Proper_names provides little useful guidance here; the two examples it gives concern Alta Mexico vs California, and Republic of South Africa vs Cape Colony -- both political entities not cities. (Cologne is mentioned, but not in a way that helps us here.) (FWIW he second example is silly, because no one would write "Thabo Mbeki was the president of the Cape Colony", and the first example is quite odd because the Wikipedia recognizes no such place as Alta Mexico even as a redirect (instead we use Alta California).)
 * So what do we do? For instance, Instanbul was Constantinople but now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople. So for Yaqut al-Hamawi do we say:
 * "Born in Constantinople, Yāqūt became a slave..."
 * "Born in Constantinople (Istanbul), Yāqūt became a slave..."
 * "Born in Constantinople (now called Istanbul), Yāqūt became a slave..."
 * "Born in Istanbul, Yāqūt became a slave..."
 * "Born in Istanbul (Constantinople), Yāqūt became a slave..."
 * "Born in Istanbul (then called Constantinople), Yāqūt became a slave..."
 * Something else?
 * I think the answer is "there is no rule, so do what you think best". Common practice is a good guide, and leaving alone what someone else has written is a good idea.
 * On the merits, I personally think that #3 is best. #1 doesn't help the reader; they'd have to click on the link to find out where the person was actually born (assuming they don't know about naming history of the city). #2 is a little unclear, it could be taken either to imply that Constantinople is a city in the province or nation called Istanbul, or that Istanbul is a secondary alternative name for this city. #4 isn't exactly true. #5 combines the worst of #2 and #4. #6 is OK; its merits could be reasonably argued.
 * As to #7 I can't think of anything better. (Incidentally the article Yaqut al-Hamawi uses #1, and fine.)
 * I like not having rules. However, we could have an RfC with these 7 choices and hash it out and make a rule. Fun! But I'm not going to do it. Herostratus (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is not about historical figures such as Yāqūt. (In that article Constantinople does not re-direct.) My concern is more about contemporary figures; e.g., those born in cities which were once colonies. – S. Rich (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Same deal, right? ""Born in Bombay (now called Mumbai)" or "Born in Mumbai (then called Bombay)" if you prefer, right? Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no need. The former is unnecessary; the latter is revisionism (since there was no Mumbai then). We say "Born in Bombay" and link to it. Anyone who's interested can follow the link and see what it's called now (if they don't already know). There really is no need to jump through these hoops. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. If you think there's no need than don't do it. Other editors (like me) may want to do it differently. In my opinion "Anyone who's interested can follow the link" is not a service to reader, and by that logic we could replace all our articles with "Go Google it". Herostratus (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I like not having rules. However, we could have an RfC with these 7 choices and hash it out and make a rule. Fun! But I'm not going to do it. Herostratus (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is not about historical figures such as Yāqūt. (In that article Constantinople does not re-direct.) My concern is more about contemporary figures; e.g., those born in cities which were once colonies. – S. Rich (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Same deal, right? ""Born in Bombay (now called Mumbai)" or "Born in Mumbai (then called Bombay)" if you prefer, right? Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no need. The former is unnecessary; the latter is revisionism (since there was no Mumbai then). We say "Born in Bombay" and link to it. Anyone who's interested can follow the link and see what it's called now (if they don't already know). There really is no need to jump through these hoops. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. If you think there's no need than don't do it. Other editors (like me) may want to do it differently. In my opinion "Anyone who's interested can follow the link" is not a service to reader, and by that logic we could replace all our articles with "Go Google it". Herostratus (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no need. The former is unnecessary; the latter is revisionism (since there was no Mumbai then). We say "Born in Bombay" and link to it. Anyone who's interested can follow the link and see what it's called now (if they don't already know). There really is no need to jump through these hoops. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. If you think there's no need than don't do it. Other editors (like me) may want to do it differently. In my opinion "Anyone who's interested can follow the link" is not a service to reader, and by that logic we could replace all our articles with "Go Google it". Herostratus (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we should be guided by standard practice in reliable sources. In this case it seems to be to use the spelling Mumbai retroactively. It's not a name change it's a change in the English spelling. TFD (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We should use the spelling that was current at the time of the event (i.e. Immanuel Kant was born in Königsberg, Dinesh D'Souza was born in Bombay). Bombay/Mumbai was a name change, not a spelling change. The official English name was Bombay, and it was changed to Mumbai in 1995. It's no different than Petrograd/Leningrad/St. Petersburg. Genealogizer (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The goal of this discussion is to establish guidance which will work in most/all cases. For historical figures, such as Kant, the historical POB would certainly work. For others, though, we can't just say "born here or there" without RS to support the description. The question complicated more when non-English-using places (like China) have transliterated place names. Perhaps WP:CK can provide help. Or, if a hard-and-fast rule is desired, we could use the city in which the subject's POB is listed by Category. (See: Category:People by country and city.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that we should always use the name that was current at the time of the event. Mumbai was "Bombay" when Dinesh D'Souza was born, for example, and the official English name has changed since then. D'Souza wasn't born in "Mumbai" because no such place existed. It would be like calling Chichen Itza a "Mexican" city. For Chinese cities such as Peking/Beijing, it's less clear-cut, because all that changed was the style of Romanization - English has never been an official language in China. Genealogizer (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Manual_of_Style/Proper_names does provide some guidance, but needs tightening up. "Born in Constantinople (now Istanbul)" or "born in Leningrad, USSR (now St Petersburg, Russia) is generally the best formulation, and adding "called" seems redundant. There is extensive discussion of these issues at items 2, 3 and 7 of Talk:Mohamed_Hadid, although the chronology of the debate itself is somewhat muddled. The RfC was, in my view incorrectly closed as "Nazareth (now Israel)", when "Nazareth, Israel" would have been the better choice, and subsequent events suggest that such a wording just encourages Israel/Palestine edit warring. Edwardx (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

MOS Shortcut
Why is MOS:LEGALNAME a redirect to the whole page when it's given as a shortcut to the "Pseudonyms, stage names…" section? Esszet (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone updated the target section name without either fixing the redirect or leaving behind an anchor. I fixed the redirect, but if there are other links to the old section name they will still be broken. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of governors of dependent territories in the 21st century

 * Over at Talk:List of governors of dependent territories in the 21st century we have a discussion on use of honorifics in a non-biography, in lists.
 * Wikipedia used to list the policy on avoiding honorifics in a general part of the WP:Manual of Style. It currently (seems to be) only listed under biography section of the Manual of Style. I do not think the policy has changed at all, but this now seems unclear where it is. Am I missing somthing? Is honorifics discussed anywhere else? tahc chat 22:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As has been stated on the relevant talkpage, you're misunderstanding the MOS and the definition of an honorary knighthood. Wikipedia has never avoided titles such as "Sir" and "Dame", since they are a correct part of a recipient's name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Nationality
The biography section for the style manual doesn't include advice on writing nationality. A birth place doesn't necessarily mean someone is of that nationality. If someone is born and raised canadian but later takes american citizenship, (without taking dual Canadian american citizenship), should they be described as canadian-american ro jsut american? If someone is born in england to english parents but is aised in scotland and is notable for their work in scotland, should they be described as Scottish or English (or just British?) 212.98.122.70 (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't a style question. Nationality is primarily a factual issue (although often ones POV can influence how the facts are interpreted).  As far as nationality goes, what we should call an article subject should be determined by what reliable sources call him/her. Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to add note about roles in lead sentence
I recently had to clean up the lead of of the article on Frank Zappa. I think we can agree that it is not appropriate to have a lead sentence like: "Frank Vincent Zappa (December 21, 1940 – December 4, 1993) was an American musician, bandleader, songwriter, composer, conductor, record producer, activist, filmmaker, actor, and author, whose work was ..." This is just the latest example of a problem that seems to be getting worse over time. Fans and admirers of a person will add more and more roles into the lead sentence in a misguided attempt to 'glorify' their hero until, who a person was, or what the person is known for, is completely obscured. I propose adding a note [nb 1] to MOS:OPENPARA, specifically addressing this issue. Perhaps a rule like, do not add a role if it is auxiliary to the main role of the person (e.g. do not add textbook writer if the person is named as an academic). Does this sound OK? Any suggestions about other possible rules? LK (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This has been annoying me too recently. One defense is to insist on following WP:LEAD; if there is no text in the body of the article that says these things, then they don't belong in the opening paragraph. These should all have proper sources too. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'ld like to propose adding this to a note appended to MOS:OPENPARA. As a general rule, a role should not be in the lead paragraph if:
 * 1. The role is otherwise not discussed in the lead.
 * 2. The role is not significantly covered in the body of the article.
 * 3. The role is auxiliary to the main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic).
 * How's that sound? Any other rules we should add? LK (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is already covered by "avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable". There is no need for anything extra. DrKay (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish this were so. But if you've ever tried to trim overwrought lead sentences like the one for Frank Zappa above, and met with dogged resistance from a fan, you'll see that it's better to spell things out.  For example, see the response when I did this, and the ensuing conversation I had with the editor on his talk page after he had reverted me three times on different edits I made to try to accommodate his arguments. I think a brief note will go a long way to clarifying things. To keep things trim in the main text, I suggest adding it as a note, so that it's at the bottom of the page. LK (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Linking nationality
It is normal, and suggested by this guideline, to include the nationality in the lead section, often in the lead sentence. The style i learned some time ago was that this should always be linked to the article about the country, or if the "nationality" did not refer to a country,m to the most appropriate article available. More recently I see a number of bio articles with no such link. Are such links now considered normal, optional, or discouraged? It seems to me that they help give context, and should be encouraged. In any case, i think this should be mentioned on the page if one of these alternatives has consensus. DES (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That practice would present conflicts with other parts of MOS, particularly OLINK. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, do not link to the country per WP:OVERLINK. GiantSnowman 06:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Order of content in biography articles.
IN Teahouse wrote:   After some search, there appears to be no MOS item codifing this very common practice. The only thing I could find was a comment in the essay Narrative flow, and other aspects of that essay are far from universally accepted here.

I would like to add a note to this page, Something like: "In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order." Does anyone object? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for removal of year of birth
Sad to say, a common request at OTRS is from a subject requesting that there date of birth be removed due to age discrimination. This particularly involves people in the entertainment field.

Our current guidance states: If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year.

While this permits the removal of the month and day, presumably to help thwart the use of the full date in an appropriate way, it obviously doesn't address the concern of someone whose age is an issue.

At a minimum, this guideline need some additional clarity. I think it is based upon a presumption that a reliable source for the full birthdate exist and we are providing guidance that the month and day can be removed while retaining the year. However in many articles, possibly even the majority, a year exists without a reliable source. A naïve application of the guidelines suggests that the year should be retained in an article even if not supported by a reliable source. I don't think that's what we intend to say. I'm quite sure any entry can be removed if contested and not supported by a reliable source, but that doesn't quite work here. In my specific case, the subject isn't contesting the year but simply does not wanted included. Presumably, they could claim they are contesting it but I don't want to encourage lying.

Obviously, step number one is to be clear about our policy and step number two is to craft wording that clearly expresses our policy.

At a minimum, I suggest that a birth year not supported by a reliable source can be removed upon the request of the subject.

Separately, we need to debate whether we would accede to such a request even if supported by a reliable source. I suspect we will answer in the negative but I'd like to make sure we are all on the same page. I hope it can be taken as obvious that source means reliable source and a mere entry in IMDb or some bloggers fan page does not constitute a reliable source.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is my view that a year not supported by a reliable source can and should be removed, just as any unsourced fact may be if challenged. Whether we should remove cited years of birth in response to a request I am less sure about. Perhaps the same "widely published" standard which WP:DOB uses for the inclusion of the month and day should be used for this also? DES (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your contribution to the discussion but you didn't answer the key question. I have no problem supporting the removal of a piece of information if it's challenged, but this specific situation involves the request for the removal of a year of birth for privacy reasons. The person making the request isn't challenging at, i.e. they are not claiming it is wrong they are claiming they prefer that it not be included. I cannot rely on the "removed is challenged" guideline. The guideline is written suggests it should not be removed. Is that really our policy?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Our basic policy is, as I understand it, that sourced and apparently accurate information is not normally removed just because the subject objects to it. However, when the information is not highly important to an article, and has not already been widely publicized, it may be removed on request for reasons of privacy, or because it is judged to be irrelevant trivia. Now the year of birth is always relevant to a biography article, it gives context. However, it may invade privacy, as mentioned above. Currently WP:DOB says: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." I am suggesting that a similar standard be used when the subject of an article requests removal of the year of birth: That it be retained if it has been "widely published by reliable sources", or apparently published by the subject him- or herself, (such as on a personal web site) but removed otherwise. It may be that this should only apply to articles about "people who are not well known" as WP:NPF puts it.
 * Are my views clearer and perhaps more helpful now, ? DES (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, your position seems clear which means you are in agreement that the guideline needs revision because it is inconsistent with your position. As you stated "it should "be retained if it has been widely published by reliable sources…" But "removed otherwise" [if requested]. I agree with you, but my point is this is not what the current guidelines says so are you on board with a change to the guideline? If so, we need to craft revised wording and probably get some broad support for it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes i would be willing to have such a change made,, but only if there is an advance consensus supporting it, I don't think this is a case for a bold edit first. Also, I am unsure whether this change should apply only to "People who are not well known". Oops, I overlooked that you were already callign for a broad consensus, so my note on that was redundant and might seem disrespectfull, Sorry. DES (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I did edit the guideline just now to address your lesser point above: "I think it is based upon a presumption that a reliable source for the full birthdate exist and we are providing guidance that the month and day can be removed while retaining the year. However in many articles, possibly even the majority, a year exists without a reliable source." This edit I think clarifies but does not change the meaning, so I felt free to be bold in this matter. DES (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No disrespect registered.


 * I do think we might need to list cases. It occurs to me that me might distinguish between Living (and recent deceased) versus Not Living. The current wording distinguishes between barely notable and others. That leaves me queasy. We clearly have to distinguish between sourced and unsourced, and may need to further distinguish between weak sourcing and solid sourcing. We need to decide whether removal requires a request from the subject (including authored representative) or can be done on the initiative of any editor. I may try to put together a table.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point, although I somewhat dread the resulting multi-dimensional table. I will add that my view is that removal of a sourced year of birth should require a specific request from the subject, probably via OTRS, or otherwise verified to be from the actual subject. None of this should apply except to living persons. non-living persons should always have full dates if there are sources to confirm them. DES (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm also concerned about making it overly complicated. Sometimes an issue arises, and the best thing to do is address it as narrowly as possible to fix the specific issue. Other times, an issue arises and it points to the need for a more comprehensive review. The problem with more comprehensive reviews as they can get bogged down. I'm honestly not sure which situation best applies here. I don't think there's any rush; I'll give it a little thought.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source is available for a birthdate, then a request for removal should be refused. End of discussion. --Khajidha (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"Jr." in running prose
When writing about "[Name] Jr." in the article prose, where there is no "[Name] Sr." present, is the suffix included on each subsequent mention, or does it get dropped after the first? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The answer would depend on specific context... whether the reader would become confused as to who we are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the context I'm referring to, "[Name] Jr." would not be confused with anyone else. But does the suffix still get repeated? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert, but I think it's pretty safe to drop the suffix after the first mention (and easier to read) if there's little chance of confusion with someone else. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Update: Here's all I could really find on the topic; most it was just on whether or not to include a comma before the "Jr.". It's just a blog, but she's got pretty good advice in general.  The gist seems to be to use the suffix for the full name, but not when just using the last name (although as you mentioned, if both people are under discussion, then I think it should be kept either way).  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A good example of this is our article on Martin Luther King Jr. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks clearcut to me. I'll take it. Thanks. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good example: Sammy Davis Jr. is usually called "Sammy Davis Jr." in long form, not just "Sammy Davis". It's fine to just refer to him as "Davis" on subsequent mention in a clear context, like an article on a Rat Pack movie. In such an article, calling him "Davis Jr." over and over again would be pedantic, because there's no other possible referent.  In Sammy Davis Jr.'s own article, he's just called Davis except in the lead sentence and the first sentence of the early life section.  Another case to look at would be Marvin Gaye.  His father, Marvin Gaye Sr. became world-famous overnight for killing his legendary son, but no one refers to the singer as Marvin Gaye Jr., so it's never necessary to call him by "Jr." except in a sentence or couple of linked sentences discussing him and his father at the same time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Should we use forenames or surnames for children?
There's a debate going on at the Charlie Gard case page about how to refer to Charlie Gard, who was still an infant at the time of his death.

Several editors feel that referring to a child by the surname (as per MOS:SAMESURNAME) is odd or inappropriately harsh or formal. It's been pointed out that some newspaper style guides for newspapers specifically recommend using first names for children. For example, Telegraph style guide: "Children under the age of 18 are referred to by their forenames and surnames at first mention and by their forenames later." Guardian: "Under-18s should normally be referred to by their first names."

Should we update the MOS to recommend using first names for children? (For the record I don't really have an opinion here, but I think it's interesting.) Popcornduff (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a question about a child or someone under the age of 18. The issue concerns an 11-month old baby. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But we want to determine how to refer to children generally. If we were to change the MOS to refer to children by their forenames, we'd presumably have to agree a cut-off age, too, be it 18 or something else. Popcornduff (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No one is wondering whether MOS:SAMESURNAME is a good guideline—it obviously is. No one wants to use a forename to refer to, say, Thomasin McKenzie (born 2000). The actual issue is whether the guideline should be applied to a baby who died aged 11 months. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Rather than create a "one-size-fits-all rule, I would suggest "follow the sources"... if they use the forename so do we... if they use the surname so do we. Blueboar (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It should not be imagined that a guideline covers all situations. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's acceptable to use forenames for kids, I'd like to mention it in the guideline. Because that isn't obvious to all editors, including me. I had presumed the fact that it wasn't mentioned meant we should probably use the surname. Popcornduff (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We can't cover every situation in our guidelines... use common sense and (where appropriate) WP:Ignore all rules. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Guess I'm lacking in common sense, then, because it wouldn't occur to me to have used the forename in the first place, in an encyclopaedic context. Popcornduff (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * IMO, the concern about being "inappropriately harsh or formal" is irrelevant. We're here to write an encyclopedia article and we should be formal. Resolute 14:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. We also have the issue that use of the given name is a news style thing, a "pull the heartstrings" style, typified by "JonBenét". WP is not written in news style, as a matter of policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with following the sources. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't suggest using first names for all under-18s. But for babies, it seems obvious not to use surnames. We don't need a rigid cut-off point. When in doubt, follow the high-quality RS. SarahSV (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To add to the Guardian and Telegraph style guides above, The Associated Press Stylebook (2017), p. 48: "In general, call children 15 or younger by their first name on second reference. Use the last name, however, if the seriousness of the story calls for it, as in a murder case, for example. For ages 16 and 17, use judgment, but generally go with the surname unless it's a light story. Use the surname for those 18 and older." SarahSV (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and to that could be added participants in junior competitions (such as sporting events). Tony   (talk)  03:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't much care either way here, but what specific sources do is irrelevant. This is a question of style for Wikipedia, which sets its own guidelines for style.  And frankly, this question has wider implications than just this one article, so at the very least some sort of rule-of-thumb would be appropriate for inclusion into the MOS.  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest adding something like: "Unless there is a strong editorial reason to do otherwise, use first names for infants under five years old. Where there is disagreement, follow the preponderance of high-quality reliable sources." I added the part about "strong editorial reason" because I can think of one case where Wikipedia uses a surname for a young child for good reason. SarahSV (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems following the "very reliable" source for a BLP is a good fall back, but 's point is the best option I see here. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Quick side note: "infant" generally refers to someone much younger than 5 (up to 6-24 months according to wiktionary). But more importantly, that's an unrealistic suggestion.  Suddenly we have to debate which (reliable) sources are "high-quality" or not, and when in doubt, to bother counting up which sources do what.  We're not talking about using the most common spelling for a transliteration of a name from a non-Latin alphabet or something.  This is a style question, and what other sources do in this one particular case is .  It's fine to use other style guides as inspiration when deciding on a style for Wikipedia, but this is ultimately a style question and not a content question, and so what sources do doesn't matter.  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that style guides and sources don't matter. If we find that we're the only publication in the world to do something, it might signal that we have a problem. SarahSV (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They do matter, in that we use them to write our own style guide (and depart from them as we deem necessary for our own project and audience). But we have our own style guide for a very particular kind of writing, an unusual kind.  It includes many unique things, and necessary does so, and they are not problems. E.g., there is no third-party source that can tell us better than we can determine for ourselves how WP's leads should be written, or how to format an infobox, or how to balance ENGVAR conflicts, since these are WP-specific matters.  How to write about small children isn't WP-specific, but how to write about them in an encyclopedic manner is a very, very encyclopedia-specific one, there appears to be no other style guide but ours that is specifically about encyclopedic writing.  So, we're on quite solid ground in coming to our own collective, informed, careful consensus on this particular matter. Journalism style guides – the only ones mentioned so far – are terrible for almost all WP style questions for the obvious reason that news style has very little in common with encyclopedic style, other than being more formal than love letters, Internet spam, and gamer blog posts.  Our writing has much more in common with academic style. We take almost nothing from journalism style guides; about the only clear example I can think of where we have is MOS:IDENTITY because we had to do, and the academic style guides most of MoS is based on were not addressing the issue yet, and (for once) the journo style guides actually were all pretty consistent with each other on writing about transgender people.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No new rule needed: We already use first names (for adults) in any context in which we need to, e.g. when multiple family members are under discussion in the same paragraph. When such a child is mentioned in an article here, they're likely to be in such a context, so we're already free to refer to them by first name when it seems awkward not to, and such a contextual condition applies. There are plenty of contexts, however, were this will not be the case. For example, the witness to a crime was a child, and this person is mentioned by name, and their family is never under discussion; or the aforementioned children's sports. We would not use first-name-only in such cases.  This is all WP:Common sense, and we do not need yet another WP:CREEP rule, especially an unworkable one like a "use first names for infants under five years old" blanket proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Using two different surnames for a subject throughout the Mary Kay Letourneau article?
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not to use "Letourneau" for some parts of the article and "Fualaau" for other parts of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Relevant discussion
See WP:Village pump (policy). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Add explanatory note to guideline about lead sentence
The guideline on the lead sentence for BLPs states: "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources." I would like to add the following, into an explanatory footnote: " Roles in the lead sentence should be cited to reliable sources. It is not enough to establish that a person has performed an activity; reliable sources must regularly should commonly refer to the person in that way." Checking community consensus on this issue. --LK (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'ld like to explain a bit more about why we need this in the guideline. Quite often, an editor adds a role to a lead sentence, justifying it with a source that establishes that it is true. For example: "Jack Kerouac is an American novelist and artist ..." – here are sources that say he sketched portraits. Emily Blunt is an actress and singer" – here are sources that she sang in the movie, Into the Woods. If the lead sentence can contain anything which is verifiable, we'll end up with leads like: ""Glenn Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is an American television and radio host, conservative political commentator, author, television network producer, filmmaker, entrepreneur, rancher, and CEO, owner and founder of Mercury Radio Arts, the parent company of his television and radio network TheBlaze." ..."

This was actually the lead in the the Glen Beck article until I changed it yesterday. I'ld like to clarify in the guideline, that the lead sentence should be based on how reliable sources refer to the person. --LK (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * Oppose – I don't like it. First, WP policy is that everything must be verifiable, and I see this as more a policy issue than MOS. Second, per WP:LEADCITE I don't think we should be suggesting putting citations in the lead. Third, what constitutes "regularly"? Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Kendall-K1, I've removed the first sentence. I've also changed "must regularly" to "should commonly". I hope that satisfies? LK (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I still think more policy is not needed. The remainder of that paragraph sums it up: "However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." Agreed that "role overload" is a problem but I don't think more policy will help. I have fought these battles myself. WP:V already requires sources, and if there is no source that says Glen Beck is a firefighter or whatever, you can remove it on BLP grounds and escalate normally if needed. Note that "Beck fought a fire once" is not the same as "Beck is a firefighter", and you may have to point this out to the other editor. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose If there is enough to establish notability for somebody doing something, than it belongs in the lead whether or not they are referred by it in sources. For example, most sources just refer to George Clooney as an actor. So should we just ignore his work as a producer in the lead, despite the fact that he won an Oscar for it? JDDJS (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't ignore notable activities, they should be mentioned in the lead, perhaps even in the lead paragraph if notable enough. However, following general Wikipedia practice, we should refer to people as they are referred to by reliable sources. See the lead in Winston Churchill for example. The lead sentence describes him as a "British politician and statesman" – as that is how sources refer to him. He is not described as "soldier" or "writer" in the lead sentence, even though he fought in several wars and won the Nobel Prize in Literature. Instead, his other notable activities are described in the rest of the lead (as suggested by MOS:LEADSENTENCE). LK (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose How much to include in the lead sentence should be decided through editorial judgment and consensus instead of a cookie cutter formula. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the guideline the OP cites already states: "...commonly described in reliable sources" (emphasis mine). Is this not sufficient? If it's not common for RS to describe the subject in this way, don't include it, no? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Cullen hit it right on the head, IMO. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  18:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Cullen - It is an editorial thing and IMHO the current wording/footnote is better than the one suggested. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think the explanatory note in place already tell the user not to describe less important roles, although the note says lead paragraph and not lead sentence: However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk  ♪• look 14:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I concur with Mysteriumen.  We just don't need a new rule about this, even one buried in a footnote.  The Beck article's crap lead was the result of poor writing, not lack of rules.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Cullen. Sometimes it is easy to find sources that treat a subject as "whole" - e.g. Churchill (who was copiously written about as a complete subject - so it's really just a copy-paste/merge from the more notable RSes' summaries). In other occasions subjects might be treated separately for different phases of their life - e.g. (per a bio I worked on recently) you might have a whole bunch of sources covering 1861-1865 referring to a person with one title (military) and sources covering his death at 1869 as something entirely else (trader) with many not mentioning his 1861-5 activities. People change careers - later coverage doesn't always cover previous activities (if we have a swimmer turned business executive - would later sources cover his swimming activities? Maybe a brief mention, maybe not at all). This should be a matter of editorial discretion.Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I understand and find quite legitimate LK's worries about the lede often being unwieldy. But that's encyclopaedias for you, as opposed to mass media. We should be listing all notable-per-reliable-sources attributes. The order of their presentation remains somewhat an open issue, which should be getting resolved "through editorial judgment and consensus." -The Gnome (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for changes to "honorific prefixes" in infoboxes
Current Wikipedia policy is for "honorific titles" (e.g. Sir) to immediately precede names in infoboxes, while "honorific prefixes" (e.g. The Right Honourable) come before the name and honorific title on the line above.

Honorific prefixes vs honorific titles are a semantic distinction without a difference. Generally, both are simply called "honorifics" in English (see Wikipedia's own page on English honorifics), or more accurately "pre-nominal honorifics". Mr, Mrs, and Miss are in fact titles, just as Dr, Rev'd, and Sir are.

Even if there were a meaningful difference (the only difference is what the title signifies — marital status, knighthood, academic achievement, etc. — not its linguistic categorisation as a pre-nominal honorific in all cases), Dr, Rev'd, and Sir remain an honorific of some kind, not a name, so wherever they belong, it is not as part of a name as though they were forenames. Sir John Major's forename is John, not Sir.

I propose that:


 * 1) "honorific_prefix" be changed to "prenominal_honorific" in infoboxes; and
 * 2) pre-nominal honorifics such as Dr, Rev'd, and Sir be noted in the line currently entitled "honorific_prefix" rather than as part of the substantive given name ... because they are honorifics.

Vabadus91 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds sensible to me. [Aside from disagreeing that Mr./Mrs/Ms/Miss "are in fact titles" in modern English – they clearly are not, but are customary gender and sometimes marital status indicators, used in registers with more formality than casual chats or a note left for a co-worker.] WP is already making too many PoV concessions to royalist/classist stuff. The way I see it, a knighthood in the UK is akin to the Congressional Medal of Honor (military) or Presidential Medal of Freedom (civilian) in the US, and similar national-hero awards in various countries (Russia has a huge system of them, inherited from the USSR), and in many places they are direct conversions from former systems of knightood, sometimes continuing the same Order of [Whatever] names (lots of that in Germany).  Abbreviations for these would not be used as if part of a name in the same kind of entry in the templates at issue here.  If "Dr[.]" and "Rev./Rev'd" and "Rt Hon" are put in the "honorific prefixes" parameter separate from the name, "Sir/Dame" should get the same treatment.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No. When describing its position in the honours system, it may be fair to describe a knigthood as equivalent to a Congressional Medal of Honor, but when we are talking about style they are completely different. "Sir" or "Dame" becomes, in essence, a part of the person's name, not a mere prefix. This is not about "royalist/classist POV" (which is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard) but the proper usage - at least in the countries that use these titles, per WP:NATIONALTIES. There are cases where a person may not use their title (a number of actors, for example) where this may not apply, but the thought of applying this historically in particular is appalling. And how would you propose to deal with the spouses of knights under this system? Sir John Smith's wife Mary is no longer Mary Smith, she is Lady Smith (or, alternatively, Mary, Lady Smith). There is obviously no way to extract the "Lady" part for the prefix box. And I can only assume this attempt to deal with "royalist POV" will eventually extend to the peerage, and can scarcely imagine what a mess that would be. The current way this is done is correct and should not be changed - in fact frankly it doesn't go far enough and should be extended to article titles, but that's an argument for another day. Frickeg (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP doesn't care about styles of address (except in an article about styles of address). From an encyclopedic perspective, "Sir"/"Dame" has definitely not "become, in essence, a part of the person's name" any more than "Dr." or "Prof.", which we also do not attach to names in our writing. The comment below that "Professor Dame Jane Smith is never called Professor Smith or Jane Smith" is patently false in encyclopedic writing (and many other forms, for that matter, outside the jurisdiction of the knighthood).  As a stark obvious example, Sir Francis Drake is regularly referred to as Francis Drake in innumerable publications (just typically not British ones).  What's happening here is a confusion between a) how would you address or introduce this subject in person and/or write about them in a polite manner to an audience expecting the deference, versus b) how do you write about the subject in a neutral and distant manner (neutral even with regard to the government or figure who conferred the title and about how much of an honor it might be).  Wikipedia must do the latter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there's no confusion here whatsoever. Apart maybe from yours as to what is part of the name and what is merely an honorific form of address. Neither is there anything non-neutral or deferential about using someone's title in the first line or infobox (or when referred to in an article other than their own). It's purely a statement of fact. Elsewhere in the biographical article we merely use the surname, as with anyone else. But the title is as much a part of someone's name as the suffixes "Jr" or "III" are in American names. They're bolded too, if you hadn't noticed! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No. The present careful wording of MOS:HONORIFIC is the result of much discussion over the years. For a start, read the 2008 discussion on honorific prefixes, linked at the top of this talk page. Some of the participants in that discussion are still active on Wikipedia, so I'm pinging them:, , . The reason why the British (and Commonwealth) honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are treated differently is simply because they are different: they do become part of a person's name, in the sense that people with those titles are always called by them formally, even if informally they may drop their titles. I'm talking here about Sir for a knight; Dame for the female equivalent of a knight; Lord and Lady for a son or daughter of a duke or earl, as in Lady Antonia Fraser (Lord/Lady [placename], or Lady [surname] (wife of knight or baronet), are different). Being knighted or damed is a legal process, and a knighthood or damehood can only be taken away by another legal process, which is very rare. Professor Smith can also be called Mrs Smith or Dr Smith or simply Jane Smith; Professor Dame Jane Smith is never called Professor Smith or Jane Smith. A newspaper (and Wikipedia) may introduce her as Dame Jane Smith and subsequently refer to her simply as Smith. The authority on this is Titles and Forms of Address – my link is to a public-domain edition – more recent editions may be available in your public library. Of course there are exceptions. Two formal exceptions: a clergyman or -woman who receives a knighthood or damehood is not called Sir or Dame; honorary knights or dames (non-citizens of the awarding country, such as Bob Geldof) also are not called Sir or Dame. Celebrities such as Sir Elton John or Sir Tim Berners-Lee are often mentioned, especially by foreign media, without their titles. — Stanning (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. This has been discussed many times before. "Sir", "Dame", etc, are titles, not honorific prefixes, and the difference to countries that use the former is very real. Sir John Major is always referred to as Sir John Major or Sir John; it has effectively become part of his name. Before he was knighted it was entirely optional as to whether he was referred to as Mr John Major or not. Using his knighthood, however, is not optional. Anyone who argues differently really does not understand how the honours system works or has some sort of anti-title agenda as one poster here clearly does have. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant; they are a fact and this is an encyclopaedia and not a soapbox. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Too much discussion over this in the past with a strong consensus and I think this suggestion misses a few points.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Usage of "Committed suicide"
It seems that consensus is needed for the use of this term. I see two discussions claiming consensus and. I have no concrete preference (I do lean towards "died by") except for, which way to go on usage. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The main objection of those who oppose the phrasing "Committed suicide" appears to be the implied connotation to having committed a crime. While I recognize the sensitivity in addressing mental health issues, the verb "commit" has multiple meanings and, while I can't speak for anyone other than myself on this issue, I have never inferred any criminal connotation with this phrase, and therefore I don't see a strong enough reason to change it. However, in the spirit of compromise, I will point out I've only seen one alternative that I can agree with, and that would be something like this, where the phrases "[Person] was found dead," and "death was ruled a suicide" are used instead. I strongly oppose to the phrase "died by suicide," however, because of the obvious redundancy. Davejohnsan (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally agreed, though "death was ruled a suicide"-type wording only applies when the sources indicate this, e.g. a coroner's report, and we often don't have that level of specificity, especially regarding historical subjects. It is certainly true that "commit" has multiple uses and meanings, so the assertion that it makes suicide a crime is nonsense.  I commit fully to that analysis. (Just to provide an example.)  A general principle at MoS, and in good writing in general, is to use plain, understandable English, not contorted wording.  Everyone understands "commit suicide" without any weird implication of criminal intent.  The only people who rebel against the usage are "on a mission", and Wikipedia does not exist for, or permit, language-change activism.  Even MOS:IDENTITY took years to formulate, based not on TG activists' demands (many of which have in fact been outright rejected here), but on a close analysis of real-world style guides and what they've evolved to say and do about such matters over the last generation. WP is never to be on the bleeding edge of language usage. And the "stop saying 'commit' with regard to suicide" activists are way, way fewer in number and public mindshare than the TG activism crowd.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't buy the 'multiple meanings' argument: a look in the dictionary confirms there are only two, and, when there is no possibility of the verb being ditransitive, its object is invariably a "mistake, crime, or immoral act". Given that there are other ways to put it, "commit suicide" is a form of words I generally avoid. Plain "hanged himself", "jumped from a window", etc, is always available. In the absence of evidence from other style guides, MOS should probably stay silent at this stage.William Avery (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If only we could banish "hung himself". Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * While I (personally) would prefer to use more explicit phrasings ("Killed himself", "shot herself" etc.) I do agree that "committed suicide" is not wrong. So... this isn't something that the MOS should go into.  Leave it up to local consensus. Blueboar (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Linkin Park article currently uses the phrase "suicide by hanging", which seems appropriate given we have an article by that title. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't Wikipedia's place to try and change common usage of words and phrases. "Committed suicide" is the most common way to describe someone committing suicide so there is and should be no issue using it generally.  Resolute 13:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But it most certainly is Wikipedia's place to say common words and phrases are preferred here.  "Passed away" is a very common euphemism, but Wikipedia style prefers "died".  In this case, "killed oneself" is also quite common.  Your claim of "committed suicide" being the most common is without evidence. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I support avoiding the term. "Killed himself/herself" is clear and direct. This is also recommended by the Guardian style guide, I notice. Popcornduff (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Suicide was historically considered to be a crime, although of course one could not be prosecuted and attempted suicides were subject to prosecution. However, in England the law was changed in the Suicide ACt 1961 which read, "The rule of law whereby it is a crime for a person to commit suicide is hereby abrogated.
 * " So the meaning of "to commit suicide" is a clear reference to breaking a law.  I do  not think we should use the expression since it implies criminal guilt.  The word suicide is sufficient since it merely implies killing oneself without any connotations of criminality.  TFD (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid reason not to use the phrase (although there are some better ones listed above, and I'm not really taking a strong position on this one). But, simply because the law criminalizing the act used the phrase "commit suicide" doesn't mean that the phrase wasn't already in use, and it's easily possible that the writers of the law were simply using preexisting language.  Even if that  the origin, connotations change over time, and if that's not a common view of the users of the phrase, then it shouldn't stop us from using it.  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a valid reason not to use a term if it is no longer considered accurate and connotes wrongdoing. And yes suicide was considered a crime before the term "committed suicide" was coined, just as murder was considered a crime before it was codified into law.  "The law of England wisely and religiously considers, that no man has a power to destroy life, but by commission from God, the author of it: and, as the suicide is guilty of a double offense; one spiritual, in invading the prerogative of the Almighty, and rushing into his immediate presence uncalled for; the other temporal, against the king, who has an interest in the preservation of all his subjects; the law has therefore ranked this among the highest crimes." (Blackstone)  When you say "commit suicide," you are endorsing that view.  TFD (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. For example, when I say "commit suicide", I'm not endorsing that view.  To me in fact, it's simply an ever so slightly euphemistic version of killing oneself.  You can't bring up a nearly century-and-a-half old quote when we're talking about  connotations.  Not only that, but your quote doesn't even use "commit suicide".  It merely shows that this one dude considered it an especially heinous act.  The only person who could add to my thoughts is here. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Committed suicide" is the most common instance of the phrase, and of course, it was crime until quite recently, certainly here in the UK. It no longer means crime, and has nothing to do with criminal guilt. Its the standard way of reporting death by suicide. Why try and impose a WP defined statement that doesn't exist in common use in the English language. scope_creep (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Um,  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, there was a 2014 discussion about this and I invited WP:Med editors to comment: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 160. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * My preference would be "killed him/herself" in most cases, although I will admit upfront that I am definitely in the "commit implies crime" group, partly because suicide was still illegal in the time and place I was born. Also for this reason, I don't find the "commit has a number of meanings" argument convincing, as it clearly was originally meant to have the same connotation as "commit larceny" or "commit adultery", and in some English-speaking territories it still carries, or carried until quote recently, not only this connotation but very literal meaning. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Biographical articles that aren't really biographical?
I've recently come across Roger Fuckebythenavele and John le Fucker, two articles that are laid out roughly like biographical articles, but their subjects are not notable as people, and only pass GNG because of linguistic scholarship on their amusing surnames. I edited the former article to place everything that is known about the historical Fuckebythenavele in its own paragraph ahead of the linguistic discussion, but I'm actually a bit uncertain as to whether or not these articles should be written in a fashion that makes it clear they are not meant to be biographies. Say by, for example, changing the lead sentence of the le Fucker article to read John le Fucker is a name that appears in an English administrative record of 1278. The unusual surname "le Focker" has attracted attention. rather than the current John le Fucker was an Englishman who appears in an administrative record of 1278, and who has attracted attention for his unusual surname. (There's also the fact that it's not, technically, true that le Focker himself has attracted attention; his name has attracted attention, and no one knows or cares about the actual thirteenth-century criminal.)

Has this come up before? Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging into the article on the word Fuck... or an article where the topic is the scholarship on the names ... rather than a bio (Not sure what to call such an article, however). Blueboar (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If they're retained as stand-alone articles, I agree with the lead re-write suggestion above, since they're not really bios in the usual sense.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Section merge proposed
Please see "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style", a proposal to merge the perennial draft material at WP:Naming conventions (identity) to the WP:Manual of Style in one way or another (probably a section at MOS:BIO), since it is a draft style guideline with almost nothing in it that pertains specifically to article titles (i.e., it is not a naming convention). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Singers genres in lead sentence
Over the past few months, I've gotten into several debates on whether or not we include the genre of music in the lead sentence for singers primarily known for a single genre. Genre is always included in the lead for bands. However, as the current policy is written, it neither clearly supports or clearly opposes including it. For singers primarily known for a single genre, I strongly feel that it should be included in the lead because being a country singer is different than being a rock singer or being a pop singer (not saying that one is better than the others, just they're different). How do others feel about this? JDDJS (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Is anyone actually arguing we should not include this in the lead? Or is it just a question of whether it belongs in the first sentence? If the lead sentence is way long for other reasons (multiple aliases, complicated nationality, whatever) I wouldn't mind seeing it moved to the second or even third sentence. I would not want it moved any farther down. Can you give an example article where this has been a problem? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The most recent example is Tim McGraw. JDDJS (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am leaning towards saying yes to this... but just to play devil's advocate (and out of curiosity)... exactly how is a singer of (say) county and western music different from a singer of (say) death metal? Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The same way, for example, that a rock guitarist is different from a classical guitarist. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean one typically wears a tuxedo when performing while the other doesn't? Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a fine line between playing devil's advocate and trolling. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a bit snide... to address your response more directly: could you expand on your comment... I get that a classical guitarist needs a different skill set than a rock guitarist (the fingering required in each genre is different) but is there a comparable difference for singers?  Does a Country singer need a different vocal skill set from a Heavy Metal singer?  Blueboar (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the style of music being played, not the skill set or what clothes they're wearing. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 12:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok... so why is the style of music being played important to mention in the lead of a bio article? I could understand noting that "John Doe is a classical guitarist", because that information tells the reader something about the performer's skills and training (an analogy for singers might be "Jane Doe is an opera singer")... but I do question whether noting the specific rock genre (or rock sub-genre) conveys the same sort of information. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you discuss this on the article talk page instead of edit warring. I don't think we need any changes to the MOS to cover this situation. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the place for the discussion (unless there's some more specific subpage I'm unaware of) because it affects far more than just one article. It might be a good idea to start a new section on the talk page there and point to the discussion here, though.  And since it's apparently been a point of contention on multiple articles, it would be worth it to add a brief note to the MOS.  Personally, if a singer is primarily known for a particular genre or two, I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned.  I don't buy the complaint that Elvis or Ozzy don't have listed genres -- they can be added too. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * A discussion needs to take place here because this something that should be consistent throughout Wikipedia. I just messaged the two users that I have disagreed with me on this issue about this discussion. However, I'm likely going to start an RFC in order to get more editors involved in this discussion and form a stronger consensus on what to do. JDDJS (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not; genre isn't an occupation, and we shouldn't treat it like such in the opening sentence. It's especially bad for those who use multiple genres since listing only one incorrectly implies it's all they work with. Subsequent sentences in the lead would be far more appropriate for discussing the genre(s) someone uses (i.e. for albums with different genres, note each album's genre in the lead). Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From the start of this discussion, I specified that I was referring to singers primarily known for a single genre, so your concern about that is completely irrelevant. For example, Taylor Swift is equally well known for country and pop singing, so no genre should be listed in the lead for her. However, Tim McGraw is only known for country music (as far as I know he has never released a song that hasn't been country or a subgenre of it. He definitely has never released an album that wasn't mostly county music).


 * And I disagree that genre is not an occupation. Singer is the generic occupation while country singer (or rock singer or whatever) is the specific occupation. Just like for baseball players, we list their position because while their generic occupation is baseball player, their specific occupation which is the position in baseball that they play. I would say that the differences between a country singer and a rock singer are far greater than the differences between a left fielder and right fielder. JDDJS (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that a singer is a singer how you do that job is described by genres. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that other stuff exists is generally not considered a good argument to use, but can you explain how different positions in the same sport are more of a different occupation than different genres of singing? The genre is a very significant part of a singer's career. It affects what awards they are eligible for, what stations play their music, what type of singing ability they have (while many people can do both, singing country music requires very different abilities than it does to sing Jazz, for example) and what type of people listen to their music. With some genres, it can also affect what geographic locations that they are most popular in, and most genres also have a different type of image that they generally promote for their stars. JDDJS (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The only possible difference I could think of for commercial success would be eligibility for component charts (i.e. country chart vs. rock chart), but those charts of course are far less important than any nation's main overall charts. What truly matters is the fact that somebody makes music as a profession. Other stuff also is irrelevant and (by your own admission) a poor argument. Snuggums (talk / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 19:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I listed half a dozen differences genres can make in a singer's career, and you haven't addressed any of them. JDDJS (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should've been more explicit; genre by itself isn't likely to have much (if any) significant influence on overall commercial success. I highly doubt anybody purchases/streams a song or files a play request solely because it's a pop, rock, country, electronic, metal, etc. General radio stations (i.e. not limited to certain types of music) also won't play songs based on that trait alone. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 21:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While I understand what you're saying, I don't see how it's relevant. Sure, commercial success isn't based on what genre the singer is, but that is just one single similarity. It doesn't at all negate the major differences that I pointed out. JDDJS (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, given that commercial success is what drives one's professional career, the other points except for maybe certain types of radio stations playing tracks or categories of awards (if someone makes a new record for accolades/airplay received) aren't really defining features for a singer. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 02:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Clarification needed... does this question apply to all singers, or just solo artists? For the lead singers of bands, the genre really applies to the entire band, and not the singer... solo artists, however, are more likely to be associated with a particular genre. Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

RFC
Should the style of music be listed in the lead for singers primarily known for a single genre? And should the wording of the style guideline be changed to include what is agreed upon?
 * Option 1A Include the genre of all singers primarily known for a single genre in the lead sentence.
 * Option 1B Same as 1A, however we also change the wording on the style page to specify that the style guideline is to list genre in the lead sentence.
 * Option 2A Include the genre of solo artists primarily known for a single genre in the lead sentence.
 * Option 2B Same as 2A, but we also change the wording on the style page to specify that the style guideline is to list genre in the lead sentence for solo artists.
 * Option 3A Do not include the genre of singers in the lead sentence.
 * Option 3B Same as 3A, but we also change the wording on the style page to specify that the style guideline is to not list genre in the lead sentence.
 * Option 4 We set no rule, but rather decide it on a case by case scenario.

Please note the discussion that started above. JDDJS (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Option 1B For reasons listed in the discussion above and below. JDDJS (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 3B per my comments below <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 01:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 1B - With the caveats I described in the discussion section below. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Option 4 - I think there are too many unknowns to resolve this one way or the other. I could certainly see adding the genre for a solo artist (example: "Jane Doe is an Grammy Award winning R&B singer")... but not for the singers in bands.  In the latter case, I think it is the band (as an entity) that the genre applies to and not the singer. So... while I could see saying "Joe Foo is the lead singer for the Hair Metal band 'Nanodeath'", I would not say "Joe Foo is a Hair Metal singer". Blueboar (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. If your problem is with lead singers of bands being listed with a genre, option 2A and 2B only apply to solo artists. JDDJS (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Option 4 – The discussion above points to Tim McGraw, where the lead already clearly described his crossover genre history, yet proposer here wanted to put simply "Country" in the lead sentence. I think this is a good example of wanting to change the rules to rescue a lost argument.  I'd leave Tim McGraw as it is, and therefore oppose the changes suggested here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Country is the only genre listed in the infobox for Tim McGraw. While some of his songs are more country-pop than traditional country, they are all still considered country songs. Your accusation that I'm just trying to change the rules to rescue a lost argument is extremely ridiculous for multiple reasons. One is that I never "lost" that argument because there was never a real discussion there, it was just two editors reverting each other without any outside editors commenting on it. But more importantly, this is about more than just the Tim McGraw article. I have gotten into this debate on several articles, and realized that we were never going to get anywhere in this discussion because we both interpret the style rules differently, so I thought that clarifying the style with other editors was the best way to get a clear consensus on the policy. Option 4 does nothing to stop the constant edit warring and debating about this issue and makes this whole RFC pointless. JDDJS (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Option 4 For instance, if someone is known as a rock roll and singer, omitting the genre doesn't help them. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  13:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Some editors place far too much emphasis on genre, and most successful singers perform in a variety of genres. I oppose over-emphasis on genres. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  04:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that most singers perform a variety of genres. Most country singers stick to just country music (and its subgenres) for 99% of their music. JDDJS (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Option 4 If it isn't broken, it doesn't need to be mended. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Except it is broken. Editors edit war to have articles there way, and since the rule is unclear, there's no end to it. JDDJS (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, "genre warring" is a seemingly unavoidable consequence of work in the area of articles relating to the arts. I agree that this all-too-frequently leads to some truly silly and obstinate behaviour, but none of the other options presented above would alleviate that nonsense at all; each of these "one-size-fits-all" approaches would just make editors who are already inclined to be disruptive over the matter to alter the wording of their entrenched views some.  Indeed, those options could even encourage some to stick to their gun longer, insofar as they have a "directive" on whether or not to try to force the issue one way or the other.  In any event, edit warring is a behavioural issue that should be addressed on its own terms, to some degree independent of what the actual content arguments are in a given case; editors should always discuss, rather than edit warring and when they are unable to do so, it is cause to examine their behaviour, not particular content rules.  S n o w  let's rap 04:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Option 4. Such individuals and their biographies are going to be far too variable (both in terms sourcing and the nature of their notability) to set any hard and fast rule here that's going to do anything but spawn needlessly bureaucratic arguments.  Adding such "guidance" would only cause particularly entrenched parties to shift the semantics of their argument to focus on whether or not an individual was "truly" known for work that is "primarily" of one genre.  This is not an area that requires micromanagement from MoS; I trust that editors can resolve these matters via WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and in the best interest of the biographies in question.  In fact, it's arguably inappropriate to try to stretch our style guideline into areas that are already the appropriate purview of more important content guidelines, including WP:Verifiability and WP:WEIGHT.  S n o w  let's rap 04:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 2A default, but Option 4 is always open. It's correct that singers for bands, without a solo career, are usually given in "Joe Foo is the lead singer for the hair-metal band Nanodeath" format, and this makes sense, and we have no reason to change it. It's also true that if he were a solo artist, primarily known for a single genre, our standard operating procedure is "Joe Foo is a hair-metal singer". Or something to this effect that varies by context and facts, e.g. "Joe Foo is a rapper and an R&B musician and producer", or whatever; sometimes two genres are given if the person is notable for both, or both are linked and usually given together because of near-universal overlap; sometimes two related occupation are given like guitarist and songwriter.  What we don't want is a long list of genres, "micro-genre" hair splitting that people are going to fight about, confusing "Joe Foo is a hair-metal singer and the lead singer for the band Nanodeath" that makes these things sound unrelated when they're not (they could be for real though, e.g. a punk guitarist who is also in a orchestra as a cellist, or whatever), or litanies of "every role every played", like "six-string guitar player, twelve-string guitar player, bouzouki player, mandolin player, sometimes keyboardist, co-engineer, [barf]".  We also don't want "lead sentence shoe-horning" of material that is better explained in more detail in the lead.  Whether something is in the infobox is utterly irrelevant; infoboxes are summaries of key facts from the article; the tail does not wag the dog.  And Option 4 is  an option and always will be, no matter how this RfC closes, because of the WP:Ignore all rules policy, the WP:Common sense meta-policy, and the general way that Wikipedia operates; we're here to write good content, not to force good content to be worse in the name of fitting someone's idea of a simplistic one-size-fits-all content layout template [in the usual sense of "template", not the weird Wikipedia sense, of interpreted code snippets that everyone else in the world calls "scripts"].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Genre should be listed in the lead sentence only if it's what makes the singer notable, otherwise place the genre further into the lead where the editor can expand on why, if need be. How would you list an artist that starts out in a band in one genre, then sucessfully goes solo in another genre? It needs to be case-by-case. — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 17:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm leaning towards 1B as I feel the inclusion of the base/core genre (only) should be included in the opening sentence of the lead as it would be an immediate identifier of what type of singer you're reading about. In the event that the singer cannot be adequately described by one core genre such as country, gospel then the genre styles should be addressed further down in the lead and not in the opening sentence. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I explained in the original discussion why I feel that genre is important to a singer. I feel that we should also clarify the wording on the policy to save from having future unnecessary discussions. I extremely oppose option 4 (only included it to cover all my bases) because without a clear style, editors will just continue to edit war to have articles whatever way they prefer (I admit to doing that myself in the past). JDDJS (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 3B; for someone who works with multiple genres to any extent (it's hard to think of people who don't), even if one genre is unquestionably used more than others, including just one gives the misleading impression it's all they ever work with. Furthermore, it needlessly overfills the sentence when somebody unfamiliar with a subject looking for a quick description is much more likely looking for their general occupation rather than the type of material they make. We should keep lead sentences concise, and add any further details about a subject's career in subsequent text. Including genre in other sentences within the lead is fine (i.e. for someone who uses different genres for different albums, that can be noted in the lead). <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 23:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Jack Kevorkian lead
There a discussion on the Jack Kevorkian article about what to include in the lead. Feel free to join in the discussion. JDDJS (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion is at Talk:Jack Kevorkian but is not anything MOS:BIO editors need to be alerted about; it's a routine content dispute about trivia versus focus in the lead. This talk page is for improving MOS:BIO and for resolving issues raised about application of MOS:BIO; it's not a "link to every discussion that mentions MoS" page. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A better place to recruit editors in this case might be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Death dates
Should the death date of the article subject be given more than once in the infobox? Please comment at Template talk:Marriage. DrKay (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Name in different script
The example for Gadaffi in MOS:BIRTHNAME shows his name spelled out in arabic script in the lead, but has removed a similar addition to Abdul Karim (the Munshi) saying "rv, this is the English Wikipedia. Links to those articles in other languages are on the left". It would be helpful if the MOS included a positive statement about this situation, where the subject of a biography has a name which is not originally written in western script, so that we have chapter and verse to refer to in such discussions rather than just having to pick an illustrative example. Pam D  16:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede sentence, our chief opportunity to draw the reader in and get him to read on, should be as free of clutter as possible, and script that most users of the English Wikipedia cannot read, qualifies as clutter. I recall multiple discussions on this topic, but my internet is limited right now and I can't dig them up. To most people using the English Wikipedia, links in foreign script aren't helpful and shouldn't be in the first sentence. Interlanguage links are on the left, footnotes can be dropped, and the script can be reproduced in the infobox, if there is one. The objection is not to having it in the article, it's to having right at the top of the article. Examples include Nikita Khrushchev, a FA of almost a decade's standing where the matter is handled by a footnote and by placing the Cyrillic in the infobox for this very reason.
 * If you are going to make changes to the MOS here or how we practice under it, it should have very broad discussion, including at WT:FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article at Muammar Gaddafi does not match the example given at MOS:BIRTHNAME. I won't comment here on the merits of including or excluding the native script in the first sentence, because that wasn't the question. I think it's reasonable to ask that the MOS not include an example of something that we do not recommend. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * FAs are inconsistent: Looking at the first biographical category, Featured_articles, as a sample and looking for non-western-sounding names shows I. M. Pei with his Chinese script name in infobox only but El Lissitzky and Hu Zhengyan with their Russian and Chinese names respectively in their leads.
 * The Gadaffi example was added on 4 October 2015 by and no-one appears to have objected at the time. ... ah, but I now see that Muammar Gaddafi doesn't include the arabic spelling of his name in the lead, just at the top of the infobox. So our MOS example isn't followed in the real article. Hmm, some tidying up is needed here perhaps.  Pam  D  17:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The addition of foreign alphabets in the lead (of Indian-related articles in particular) is generally deprecated by WP:INDICSCRIPT (the result of 9 discussions) and WP:LEADCLUTTER. DrKay (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The MoS bit should just be updated to say it should be in the lead or the infobox, then. We want it . For one thing, the entire world's online resources are not all in English and Latin script; people need to be able to copy-paste such a name and search for it, so "just exclude it entirely 'cause USEENGLISH" is a bogus argument.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Surname only when there are multiple in the article with the same surname
section "Subsequent use" does not allow this an exceptionWakelamp (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand your concern. Is this not covered by the subsection MOS:SAMESURNAME? —Kusma (t·c) 12:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that seems to be quite explicitly covered; there might be a confusion potential if these sections were widely separate but the latter is a subsection of the former, so there's nothing to fix here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  13:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Distinctions section proposal
The term "Distinctions" seems to be the prevalent most WP:NPOV use for section otherwise titled "Honours" etc., since in fact not all readers necesessarly would consider dinstinction X conferred to subject Y by entity Z as an "honour". This section might for instance include orders of chivalry, orders of merit, academic distinctions (titles, prizes), and other encyclopedically relevant prizes and awards. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think a native English speaker would say that. I'd say something like "honors and awards". DrKay (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "Distinctions" is very ambiguous, and implies "things that make this person notable".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Although not unproblematic a term, other than "distinction", I have a hard time seeing the term "Honours" qualifying as WP:NPOV regarding recipients of distinctions of totalitarian regimes, etc.? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which ones qualify for that label is itself a PoV matter, and it's factual whether or not such a government honored someone with a knighthood, medal, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Some awards, like the Ig Nobel, may not be considered an honor. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems as though there is still a consensus on "Distinctions" in many important, normative biographical articles, including Jimmy Wales. Perhaps an Rfc on this would help? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Postnominals in lead section's first phrase
I have seen instances where post-nominals for distinctions are mentioned straight after the name similarly as often times presented in the infobox. Take for instance George Pell. When this usage occur, it seems to apply the post-nominals template. However, I can't see any comment on this matter in the manual of style. Would you mind introducing an instruction note in this? Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you mean ? --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 00:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, so it should be included right after the name in the lead section? Really? It isn't included in the case of Charles, Prince of Wales and several others. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * On that particular article, it seems that his full title would be ridiculously long to include in the first sentence (see ). As is commonly the case, exceptions are made to better serve the encyclopedia. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 01:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright. So I guess it's set. Would you lind altering the phrasing in the section in order to better clarify this routine? Chicbyaccident (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to change any wording, that's a-ok, but I think that what's already there – When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters, or seldom uses their post-nominal letters [... they] should be omitted from the lead, and their titles described in the main body of the article – is sufficient. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * OK. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this seems adequately covered. I have to suggest poring over the MoS in more detail before asking for changes to it.  E.g., the reverted stuff on postnoms in the lead and infobox which conflicted with actual practice, in earlier thread.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

A birthdate that is one of two possibilities
Reliable sources disagree (see Howard Hughes), but Howard Hughes almost certainly was born on September 24 or December 24, 1905. I am seeking a way to possibly end the slow-burn edit war around the treatment in the first sentence and infobox. I started an article talk discussion but there has been no response in 8 days so I'm not optimistic. RfC is an option, but there are so many possible ways to handle this that a consensus would likely be very difficult. I don't see guidance for this exact case in MOS; if any existed, it would be at MOS:APPROXDATE.

FWIW, (1) Hughes's gravestone shows December 24, and (2) Ava Gardner, in and out of Hughes's life for 20 years, was born on December 24. Take both as you will.

Any suggestions/comments? ― Mandruss  &#9742;  19:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC) Put differently, "there is no actual reference" supporting the 1941 affidavit birth certificate, either, just some unknown editor's statement that it existsexactly the same situation as the certificate of baptism. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that there is no actual reference supporting the certificate of baptism, I'd remove it and just keep with the December which is supported by the grave stone. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A "teach the controversy" option, if a source for the other date is found, is to just use the year in the lead and address the conflicting birth dates in the body of the article. This is pretty typical, and Hughes is hardly the only such case, though an unusually modern Western one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no significant difference between the two footnotes. Both refer to documents that would qualify as RS but are not accessible online. If the body prose "certificate of baptism recorded on October 7, 1906, in the parish register of St. John's Episcopal Church in Keokuk, Iowa" were copied to the second footnote, that wouldn't magically make that document a stronger source.
 * Sources do not have to be available online, and vital records are a matter of public record and are verifiable, under WP:Verifiability policy. This is completely different from assertion of, e.g., the existence of a book with no ISBN, no OCLC, and no record in any bibliographic database or other means of verifying the existence of the source and locating a copy (even at personal expense) in which to verify the claim(s). Anyway, I did not suggest that moving the citation around resolves all possible problems. I said "if" there's a source for the conflicting date.  A primary source anyone can verify, with effort, is good enough for vital stats likle this, even if we'd rather have a secondary one.  I actually don't feel strongly, however, that the alternative date must be included. If RS do not address the fact of a conflicting set of dates, the allegation of such a conflict may not rise to encyclopedic level.  This is ultimately a conflict between the responsibility to get the facts right versus the performance of original research (and that can run both ways – if an editor verifies the birth records but demands to exclude it anyway on the basis that the birth record is somehow unreliable, that's even worse original research, that the state's vital stats records are broken, that later writers' assumptions about Hughes's birthdate are somehow backed by better fact-finding, etc.). There's also a conflict here between a strict (stricter than actually written) interpretation of the core content policies and WP:AGF.  If we want to insist that paper sources are no longer valid, then WP:V would have to be rewritten.  We assume that when editors cite them they're doing so legitimately, and we need some evidence that they're faking a source before we conclude they are doing so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC) PS: This is not a MOS:BIO matter anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This actually could be related to MOS:BIO, if phrased a slightly different way. That is, "What is the best Wikipedia practice for demonstrating conflicting reports of the birth date?" In this case, it may be better to just leave out the alternative, but in other cases, no date may be the most published. I suggest modeling it after the article Muammar Gaddafi: write a simple circa in the lead, more expanded in the infobox, and then explain why there is uncertainty in the body of the article. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 14:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes
None of the recent incomplete draft of a new section on bio infoboxes (other than I-boxes being at the top) matched actual practice: Stubs regularly have infoboxes, many FAs do not (by per-article consensus), and honorifics regularly appear in the lead section. I would advise against adding anything about I-boxes to MOS:BIO without a consensus discussion. Some of the nastiest, years-long, ArbCom-involving (twice!) style-and-layout fights in WP history have been over infoboxes in bios. We need to say some basic stuff about them in this guideline since this is the obvious centralization location for it, but getting there is going to take discussion.

In my experience, the only real de facto consensus is roughly the following (and this can serve as the draft of a section outline, sans my thinking-out-loud material) That's what comes to mind right now. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  11:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC); revised: 23:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bio infoboxes go at the top, like any other infobox.
 * Infoboxes are optional.
 * Most well-developed bios do have one ; the default presumption is that one should be present, as they are frequently used by mobile readers to get an abstract even more compressed than the lead section . [ Update: The struck portions are probably true, but arguably unnecessary, and apt to raise objections.]
 * Nevertheless, after the stub stage of an article, one should not be added or removed without consensus; a bold addition or removal of one may be reverted per WP:BRD.
 * Wikiprojects cannot assert category-wide control (per WP:OWN); whether to include an I-box is often an article-by-article matter. (This was the result of an ArbCom decision, and was already clear from WP:CONLEVEL policy, too.) Virtually all bios are within the scope of multiple wikiprojects, so the "wikiproject control" idea makes no sense anyway.
 * However, many wikiprojects develop topical bio infoboxes and regularly deploy them by default. Removing one may introduce a reader-unhelpful inconsistency, like a single player in a national sport league missing an infobox that provides common sports statistics that readers use for comparison purposes. The converse argument does not really apply: most Classical composers have no infobox, but the few that do are not causing any problems for readers.
 * Parameters should be filled in only where especially pertinent: basic facts and additional material that pertains to the subject's notability. Do not strain to fill in every possible parameter with a trivial value (examples include non-notable relatives, non-encyclopedic employment-related details, misdemeanor convictions, and much else).
 * Various parameters may raise privacy issues with BLPs. This includes the signature parameter for any subject whose legal name is used. WP:BLP covers this, and we should cross-reference the section there. Some bits in it, in turn, may be generalizable to all bio infoboxes, and can "live" here, with WP:BLP's section cross-referencing the MOS:BIO section.
 * The lead and the infobox are the only places that honorifics are regularly used, though they are occasionally permissible in other contexts when especially relevant.
 * Do not include encyclopedically trivial post-nominals, like undergraduate and graduate degrees, honorary degrees, graduate degrees for those who possess post-graduate degrees, memberships in non-notable organizations, redundant orders (e.g. an MBE for someone who later became an OBE), routine military medals, or professional certifications in a field for which the subject is not notable. Typical inclusions are the upper levels of national orders (MBE or higher in the British systems, and other nation's equivalents), top-level national military and civilian medials (Congressional Medal of Honor, Victoria Cross, etc.), doctorate and post-doctorate degrees, royal and noble honours/titles/styles, and fellowships in notable societies and other organisations.  [Replaced by revised version below.]
 * Do not include encyclopedically trivial post-nominals, like academic degrees, honorary degrees, memberships in non-notable organizations, redundant orders (e.g. an MBE for someone who later became an OBE), routine military medals, or professional certifications in a field for which the subject is not notable. Typical inclusions are the upper levels of national orders (MBE or higher in the British systems, and other nation's equivalents), top-level national military and civilian medials (Congressional Medal of Honor, Victoria Cross, etc.), doctorate and post-doctorate degrees, primary royal and noble honours/titles/styles (detailed lists of these go in the article body), and fellowships in notable societies and other organisations.
 * Something similar for pre-nominals. ... "Dr[.]" is okay, maybe "Prof."? Do not include academic or honorary titles.  Not Mr./Mrs./Ms. or equivalent. May include Royal/noble styles and titles (within reason).
 * Generational suffixes ("Sr.", "III") are not post-nominals, and go in the name and/or full_name parameter, as appropriate, with the rest of the name.


 * I agree with your assessment. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 13:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems non-controversial to me. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that "most well-developed bios do have one", and that" the default presumption is that one should be present". Such language will be used a a bludgeon and a tool to renew the war(s). Kablammo (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on past history and demonstrated modus operandi, I share Kablammo's specific concerns, though I welcome this open and honest discussion, and agree with some of the general principals. The application I worry about, as there is looseness to allow the aforementioned swarming and bludgeoning. Ceoil (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * However, it's actually a provably true. So how would you word it differently without misrepresenting actual practice in the majority of non-stub bio articles?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did say that though didn't I though. The phrase "the default presumption is that one should be present" is obviously contentious. Ditto "Removing one may introduce a reader-unhelpful inconsistency" (first player advantage). Overall I fear that there are concessions being made on parameters, to mask a wider drive to find in roads for inclusion. To me it comes back to classes of biographys and the usefulness of sets. Specifically thinking of the humanities, where for eg, influence and influences are thorny branches. Ceoil (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words, you're assuming bad faith. See also Conspiracy theory. And please answer the question, which was not rhetorical.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No I'm speaking from experience across multiple pages over many years, and trying to frame the proposal in therms if how I have found many similar initiatives to have been applied. I have point out faults as I see them, so WP:AGF...the hell? Should I just shut up and accept from on high? Conspiracy theory is a cheap shot and very low blow from an aspiring arb. You seem totally unwilling to discuss, and rather defensive.  Ceoil (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's just start over. I have a right to object when you accuse me of "making concessions on parameters to mask a wider drive to find in-roads for inclusion", i.e. of having a hidden agenda and being in cahoots with "many similar initiatives" "over many years".  If you didn't really mean any of that, then let's move on. I asked you for preferred wording that doesn't distort the truth, and that seems compatible with what you say your objective is.  I think that can probably be done without finger-pointing and assumptions of motives.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see where we went wrong. SMcCandlish I wasn't at all initially accusing you of anything, it was how certain phrasing might be used, in practice. Overall I agree with the thrust of what you are saying. Yes lets start over!!!! Suggest we hat a part of this, and I will give another " "first reply". Ceoil (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A plan of goodness.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  11:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, what proof is there for the assertion that infoboxes "are frequently used by mobile readers to get an abstract even more compressed than the lead section"? Many infoboxes are gargantuan, due to the creation of templates with fields for every conceivable bit of trivia. Kablammo (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because mobile users tell us this, when ever people want to delete infoboxes, and by now almost all of us are mobile users at least some of the time, so we already know we use the pages the way we use them. If you are not among the mobile users, then please just listen to us.   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, both of the bits that apparently opponents of infoboxes are questioning above can be removed, and the central advice remains the same. Without it, people are apt to fight about it, though. For something like this, people want a rationale or they think there isn't one, that it's arbitrary, even when when it's not. E.g., we've learned this about most accessibility matters. You have to tell people it's an accessibility matter or they think it's bullshit WP:CREEP they should fight against. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Removal will help; I don't think people will fight about it (at least anymore than we are now). This discussion on 's talk page discusses both displays on mobile devices and infobox bloat. (For some reason it is thought important to have succession data within infoboxes — after all, who wouldn't want to know who preceded or succeeded a British PM in his prior office as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports?)  Kablammo (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Why would removal help? An assertion without a rationale doesn't progress the discussion. And I'm talking about years of fighting on an article-by-article basis; a discussion about what the wording should be is not a fight, it's a basic meta-process of WP:POLICY formation and all similar processes (on- or off-WP). Anyway, I have no disagreement with you on trivial succession data (though it  important who the prior and later PM were in such a case); but that's a different topic to address under separate cover.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  13:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * , you proposed that Most well-developed bios do have one; the default presumption is that one should be present, as they are frequently used by mobile readers to get an abstract even more compressed than the lead section. After objection, you said both of the bits that apparently opponents of infoboxes are questioning above can be removed, which I take at face value. We could discuss it further if you wish but I thought the matter was settled.
 * I agree that trivia in infoboxes can be discussed separately, but they are related. If mobile phone users (and yes, I use one) go to the infobox to get an abstract more compressed than the lead, then the proponents of infoboxes (and the members of this project) have a lot of work to do to cut down the wall of trivial detail which now appears there in many of our biographical articles.  Kablammo (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First para.: Fair enough; I struck the material in the above list. Second para: That's an argument for how to re-do infoboxes, not whether infoboxes should be used. Compare: "All the food we have is bland, and would be better with some spices." "True, but eat your dinner anyway in the interim."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The honorific prefix parameters of infoboxes shouldn't contain academic titles like Dr or Prof. This is already written into the template documentation. I also think we should consider advising against the inclusion of doctoral or post-doctoral degrees in the suffix parameter. It's more consistent to set a no academic degrees guideline than a guideline than says to include some academic degrees but not others. DrKay (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  13:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry
Regarding this revert. Please note that it is not bounding to use the template. However, the reverted description nevertheless reflected preeminent use, which would be clear to anyone who cross-checks it. In fact, I have yet to see any biographical article that applies an "Ancestry" section that doesn't use this specific template. Thus +1 on the motivation provided by. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't need to recommend any particular template, whether it's frequently used or not. Also, per the instructions in style-guideline, could you please stop making substantive edits to guidelines without first getting consensus for them? The whole Ancestry section was added without the type of discussion that might have settled this issue first. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, I didn't consider it a substantive edit but a mere descriptive adding reflecting preeminent use per WP:BOLD, for general manual of style intent clarification. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if your additions were a completely accurate description of practice, they're still substantive changes to the page requiring discussion. You may wish to review Be_bold. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I do agree that "more caution" is motivated in non-article namespace. Would you mind clarifying your objections, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It lacks clarity in general, and in particular around which articles should include such sections (most should not) and how they should be presented (possibly but not necessarily with a template, definitely with appropriate sourcing). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Although all sentences may be improved, I don't really see that problem. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * MoS quite regularly recommends specific templates. Especially for new editors, this is orders of magnitude more helpful than suggesting templates are just "out there" somewhere, and good luck finding them. Anywhere we're suggesting to use a template without actually pointing to the usual one for the case in question, that needs to be fixed. The fact that template documentation has see-also and categories is sufficient, when it comes to alternative templates for edge cases.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Substantive revision of "Pseudonyms, stage names, nicknames, hypocorisms, and common names"
I've WP:BOLDly made a substantive revision of MOS:BIO: before and after, based on actual practice at WP:RM and elsewhere, and various discussions we've had here, at WT:MOS, and otherwise. The summary (and examples of recent cleanup): — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  13:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC); "after" diff updated, to reflect later tweaks: 02:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixes confusing, obtuse, or blathery wording throughout, including moving some stuff to a footnote.
 * Merges redundant instructions, including a direct conflict between two sentences that were about the same thing.
 * Applies consistent styling and examples.
 * Consistency with MOS:CAPS, especially MOS:THECAPS (e.g. this sort of thing:, )
 * Clarity that actual nicknames go in quotation marks, including when the nickname is outside the name and is not also the WP:COMMONNAME (e.g. this sort of thing:, ), and that hypocorisms and professional aliases do not.
 * Nicknames are a not a magical exception to the rule that alternative names that are redirects to the article do not go in boldface (e.g.: )
 * Addresses various forms of redundant and otherwise terrible writing, especially in lead sections (e.g.:, )
 * Reorders the material for logical flow.
 * Adds cross-references to all the applicable guidelines and policies, for clarification and to avoid any further WP:POLICYFORKing.
 * Introduces additional clear examples.
 * Adds some more footnote material to forestall future disagreements or questions.
 * Addresses the common and serious problem (especially in sportsfigure bios) of inserting bogus "nicknames" that are OR and NPoV issues.


 * Looking good! Much more clear than it was before. I've moved the "Also acceptable, when applicable" examples so that they are below the "If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name" paragraph as that is what they are providing an alternative too. There is just one bit that leaves me confused; your additions about a "professional alias". I don't understand the "A nickname can eventually become a professional alias and lose the quotation marks" bit. I think what you are saying is:
 * formerly; Ruth "Dr Ruth" Westheimer
 * current; Ruth Westheimer, commonly known as Dr Ruth
 * Am I wrong? I think those two examples are more about MOS:CREDENTIAL than MOS:NICKNAME. I'm not sure what it "adds" to MOS:NICKNAME if my reading has been correct. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just avoiding repeating examples or similar examples. Those examples were originally included for credentialism purposes but incidentally illustrate when a familiar, casual nickname can transition into a professional alias (I think both of these are actually trademarks now). That said, it takes about as much room to make a cross reference as to give a single example, so we could do the latter, with any case that's distinct from Magic Johnson (i.e.: nickname used later on as a professional alias/pseudonym and thus no longer put in quotation marks, but is not the subject's WP:COMMONNAME).  Anyway, it's not so much a "formerly" matter; I don't think we'd want to use "Ruth "Dr Ruth" Westheimer", at all, because a) it scans as redundant, and b) it doesn't indicate that Dr. Ruth was used in a stand-alone manner as an alternative name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is fixed, without need of a new example, but merging two bits (the Magic Johnson and Dr. Ruth/Drew stuff) .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll leave a note at the WP:Manual of Style, Biographies of living persons and WP:Biography talk pages about the recent changes for further input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll leave a note at the WP:Common name talk page as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea; hadn't gotten around to it yet. After some initial input from MoS/AT regulars, was also going to draw attention to all these substantial revision blocks via WP:VPPOL. The fact that people haven't been freaking out about them is a good sign; I've had about a decade to mull this stuff over, and shiploads of practice at WP policy crafting, and think the gist of all these is reflective of actual consensus practice.  Hopefully most of it will stick, aside from copyedits.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Generally good, but I don't agree with "Nicknames and other aliases are not given in boldface in the lead unless they redirect to the article." It's generally been our practice to bold all common nicknames and aliases and I believe this should continue. This form of words would also rule out people known by common nicknames/hypocorisms (e.g. Jimmy Smith) which are obviously not going to have redirects but may appear on dab pages (although it's not clear whether you're including hypocorisms here or not). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  09:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this will resolve it, being: 1) more consistent with MOS:BOLDSYN, 2) based on frequency in RS, 3) respectful of the recent RfC that (while vague about what exactly to do) was strongly against piling up uncommon names in the lead, and 4) reflective of best practices (FAs really don't have a huge dump of boldfaced names at the start of them, especially when – as for many mobsters and royals – there are numerous sourced but infrequently used name variants).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer Joseph John Aiuppa (December 1, 1907 – February 22, 1997), also known as Joey O'Brien and later as Joey Doves, was a Chicago mobster. With bolding and without quotes, which has always been our usual practice. I agree the lesser-known nicknames don't need to be in there. But these ones should have redirects or hatnotes, so are consistent with WP:BOLDSYN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole reason we've arrived at anything like this section of consolidated and normalized advice is because there has been no unequivocal and consistent usual practice. I spent a whole lot of time over the last week or so going through gangster/mobster articles, and in the vast majority of cases all the nicknames and aliases are given in quotation marks, so if we had a standard practice it would be toward quotation marks. If this particular case should have boldfaced nicknames, then we need another example to replace Aiuppa.  I've been trying to find an example where we're saying some nicknames in the lead, but they are not typical of how the public knows of the figure in question. I think Aiuppa fits, because his between-mobsters nicknames, while known to some people outside that sphere (mostly Chicagoans, Vegasites, and people who are really into Mafia stuff), and occasionally mentioned in some press reports (mostly self-conscious "trying too hard to be hip" writing), in serious news and reporting he was generally referred to as "Joseph Aiuppa" or "Joey Aiuppa", with a nick name given – if at all – after the fact or interpolated into the name in quotes.  I.e., the average reader is not going to put "Joey Doves" or "Joey O'Brien" into our search box.  This isn't a strong case for boldfacing.  I picked Aiuppa specifically because he has multiple "classes" of nicknames, and in  case do RS or even his mob friends and enemies use them consistently. For every wise guy that called him "Mourning Doves Aiuppa", another called him "Joey Doves", and another "Joey the Doves", and so on.  We have too many complaints about too much bold in the lead to continue with the idea that  alternative name must be boldfaced.  It's an idea we actually abandoned a long time ago; I remember it coming up ca. 2008, when it was pointed out that some plants with many human uses have literally dozens of common names in English, varying geographically, which would result in pretty much an entire paragraph of boldface.  It probably has also come up in the cases of criminals with dozens of aliases, which is common among financial fraudsters.  If we start making a special exception for gangsters to not use quotes for their nicknames, and/or to boldface every known nick and alias, then we might as well just have no standards at all, since people would litigate endlessly for their own special pleading exemption (hop-hop stars, or gamers, or princes, or whatever).

Is there a specific order of sections?
I can't seem to find it. I've been editing BLP articles lately, adding cites and infoboxes, and I've noticed that there seems to be little consistency in the order or naming of sections. So, I perused the MOS, but I can't seem to find anything that says, for example, Early life and education should be first, Career should be next, Notable achievements should be next, etc., etc. Did I miss it? Or is there really no such description of section names and their proper ordering? Txantimedia (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is Manual of Style/Biographies not what you are looking for? Surtsicna (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. No, it's not. That refers to describing the person's life in chronological order unless there is a good reason not to. What I'm looking for is the order and naming of sections. Txantimedia (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:LAYOUT provides some of this, but there is no standardized layout of body sections for bios because not all people are the same. For example, a musician article would be expected to have a Discography section, but other bios would not. Some WikiProjects have suggested structures for articles within their scope, eg. WikiProject_Military_history/Content_guide. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Or look for a Featured Article which is a biog in the same field and use its layout as a model. Pam  D  05:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nikkimaria, that's helpful. I wouldn't expect a rigid description but something more general. For example, early life and education (if used) should precede career, accomplishments like books or discography should precede honors, References should be at the end of the article, etc. PamD, that's a great idea. I will poke around. Thanks for the tips. Maybe someone should write an article on this? Or maybe WP:LAYOUT already does that. I'll go check it out. Txantimedia (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with PamD in general, other than I don't understand the "a blog" part.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume "biog" is short for "biography". Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fuh. I officially need a new glasses prescription, and will file a complaint with the Time and Aging Department.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The rose tinted ones not working anymore? Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No; I wear my sunglasses at night.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Usage of names of minors under 18 (particularly those of crime victims/those who never became famous in adulthood)
In Murder of Megan Kanka the victim, a young girl, is referred to by her family name, "Kanka", instead of her given name, even though newspapers refer to her by her given name (while adults are referred to by their family names). See the discussion: Talk:Murder_of_Megan_Kanka

I thought of this when I read the Telegraph style guide, which states:
 * "Children under the age of 18 are referred to by their forenames and surnames at first mention and by their forenames later. Minors convicted of a crime are, in cases where the courts permit them to be named, referred to only by their surname"

Obviously many media organizations will have their own style guides, but based on this I do think the question of how to refer to children under 18 (especially those in cultures that use family names) should be addressed by the Manual of Style. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a style matter, this is a WP:BLP policy matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  16:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This doesn't always have to do with BLP as it can also refer to minors who are dead (and have been dead for over three years, and therefore are out of scope of BLP entirely) - For example Megan Kanka died in 1994 at age 7, and the question is how to refer to her in the article. BLP has no bearing on this. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Some university guides I found suggest usually using given names, but that is for people under 16 - However there are situations where using family names is more appropriate (for example if the minor in question was tried as an adult for a crime)
 * http://web.mnstate.edu/hanson/MC307/mc_307_AP_tips.htm ("AP Style Tips for PR Writers") - "After being introduced by their full names in a story, men and women are generally called by their last names for the remainder of the article. Children (under age 16) are usually referred to by their first names. Note, however, that this is subject to customary usage within organizations and some news media."
 * http://convergence.journalism.missouri.edu/?p=548 - "Children 15 or younger are usually referred to by both names (first and family) on first reference and first name only on later references. Children in “adult situations” — common examples are in international sports and serious crimes in which they are charged as adults — are referred to by last name only on later references."

There shouldn't be a hard and fast rule IMO, but instead present options for dealing with certain situations. If therefore this is more appropriate for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography this discussion can be moved there. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Still not an MoS matter, but a content guideline one, when it comes to dead minors. But dead minors have no privacy interest, so I'm skeptical any rule would apply; rather, whether to mention the name would be the same as it would for any other person: a matter of WP:NOT policy (is the inclusion encyclopedic or trivial?).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion wasn't intended to explore cases on whether one should mention a child's name, but how to mention a child's name. For example, in Murder of Megan Kanka, after her full name is stated, should the girl be referred to as "Kanka" (her family name) or as "Megan" (her first name)? In the discussion above I had argued around a decade ago that she should be called "Megan" because she was referred to by her first name in media reports. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Already covered:
 * Manual of Style/Biographies + WP:What Wikipedia is not ("Wikipedia is ... not written in news style") = WP doesn't follow the cutesy journalistic practice of referring to minors by first name, which is unencyclopedic, "human-interest story" style. As a murder victim, the encyclopedic way to refer to Megan Kanka on subsequent mention is "Kanka".   In the case of an intra-family event, use WP:COMMONSENSE; if everyone involved has the surname "McCandlish", it would make sense to refer to them by given name, after first mention of full name, when discussing who did what with regard to whom.
 * Very recently already re-re-re-discussed on this same talk page; see [we use forenames or surnames for children?] – among other discussions here, at WT:MOS, WT:BLP, WP:VPPOL, etc. This verges on WP:PERENNIAL. Consensus has not changed, year after year, to refer to children by their given names (except in constructions where this makes syntactic and repetition-avoidance sense, e.g. "Joe Blow married Jane (née Doe) in 1992, and they have three children, William, Amy, and Susan.").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In that case this principle should be stated in the MOS. If Wikipedia editors have chosen to generally use surnames for children despite university journalism schools indicating a different naming format for children in AP style, this should be clearly indicated as contradicting journalist practice.
 * I believe the journalist style guides regarding childrens' names apply to both schmaltzy "human interest" stories and to more serious, substantial stories (considering AP is known for being a no-nonsense news organization). I'd like to see if AP ever stated exactly why it had that general principle regarding children vs. adults. There was also a flashcard I saw (for a journalism school) stating that 16 and 17 year olds should be called by their family names unless it's a light-hearted human interest story, but I don't know who wrote it/where it came from.
 * I am interested in seeing the various discussions so I can link them from the Megan Kanka talk page (BTW the link "[we use forenames or surnames for children?] " is broken - Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies/2017_archive should be it) - These style guides were brought up, and it seems like there were various opinions on what to do but no consensus for any particular action.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I repeat that WP:NOT is clear: "Wikipedia is ... not written in news style".  We thus have no need to state that WP isn't written following the preferences of a journalism school or stylebook; that's already implicit. Virtually nothing in MOS is derived from AP Stylebook (perhaps only some elements of MOS:IDENTITY), and journo style widely diverges on many points from academic style, but we almost never annotate them.  It's just unnecessary verbiage.  If people really are frequently editwarring over children's names, we maybe should add a note about this, though we need not say anything about journalism.  An approximation of such a rule can be cobbled together from what I wrote above:  "Children are not an exception.  As long as confusion would not result, unnecessary repetition can be avoided; multiple people in the same family with the same surname may be referred to by given names on second and later occurrence in an article, or when the construction already makes the relationships and shared name clear, e.g. Joe Blow married Jane (née Doe) in 1992, and they have three children, William, Amy, and Susan."  Writing it isn't hard.  Do we really need it?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For a potential guideline it doesn't have to be installed right now but one can consider it if future naming issues arise. One other thing that I thought of is to check older encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta. Samantha Smith's article on Britannica uses her family name, so at least in her case (and perhaps those of child activists who never grow up) they should definitely go by family name https://www.britannica.com/biography/Samantha-Smith
 * In regards to murder victim cases it might be useful to check academic books in the criminal justice field to see how they refer to child victims. I started exploring the issue regarding Megan Kanka here: Talk:Murder_of_Megan_Kanka
 * As stated in my comments on the Kanka talk page, even though Wikipedia's not to be written in a news style, IMO usage of popular media still is a consideration (just not the only consideration) in style guideline usage. For Japanese names Wikipedia uses given name first for most people (even though in Japanese itself, family name first is used, and in many academic works focusing on Japanese studies or Japanese culture, family name first is used) partly because of the usage in popular media, including news articles.
 * After reviewing these books, I decided that I like the idea of the full name ("Megan Kanka") repeatedly. It acknowledges that in society a child isn't at the same level of formality as an adult, while at the same time keeps a more dispassionate voice in the article. Several of the more academic-style book sources seem to use this naming convention with young children.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * People are going to make the same NPoV-based arguments against using "Megan Kanka" over and over again, combined with a redundancy/browbeating objection. "[I]n society[,] a child isn't at the same level of formality as an adult" is subjective, and doesn't have any certain meaning to everyone.  It just isn't the case that encyclopedic coverage of and writing about a subject veers between formality levels based on the age of the subject, even if this is commonly the case in news writing and even some book writing (especially "true crime" type writing, which dwells on building an emotional story about victims)  As for Japanese and other family-name-first-in-native-language names (some of which are Western, e.g. Hungarian), we actually have a more complicated system, based on usage in English RS on a  basis.  E.g., Mao Zedong remains in family-first order, as do various pop-culture topics. For BLPs, WP:ABOUTSELF also has a strong impact; e.g. a move of Japanese-American singer Utada Hikaru to Western Hikaru Utada order was reversed because the subject clearly prefers the Japanese order, including in English and other Western contexts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "E.g., Mao Zedong remains in family-first order, as do various pop-culture topics. " - Mao is Chinese, and unlike Japanese names, Chinese and Korean names are often stated family name first in English (see page C4-2). There are exceptions like Utada Hikaru, but the general pattern persists. Even though Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Hungarian natively are surname first, they are generally treated differently in English.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What part of "Japanese and other family-name-first-in-native-language names (some of which are Western, e.g. Hungarian)" was unclear? [Other than that it had a typo in, since corrected.] My point remains: we examine this on a case-by-case basis. The fact that a case is more likely to remain family-first for a Chinese subject than a Japanese one has no effect on that fact.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  12:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I understood the message; I felt it was important to clarify the different treatments of names from those regions. I am aware that the guideline use the most common name form on a per subject basis is reflected in Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles and this was the reason for the Utada and Talk:Koda_Kumi moves. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's not a different treatment; or rather, it's just a difference of degree. See Naming conventions (Chinese). The article-titles material in Manual of Style/Japan-related articles is in the wrong page; it should be in an NC page, not an MoS page. This is a common problem with AT/NC- and MoS-related topical guidelines that originated with wikiprojects (sometimes it's even worse, e.g. WP:Manual of Style/Comics and WP:Naming conventions (comics) both have article titles material in them, and it's not entirely consistent; no one from the wikiproject (or elsewhere) has bothered to clean this up despite calls to do so for over two years.  Anyway, the point was that we still look at the particulars of the case at hand. For China, the default is to use family-first order and for Japan it's to use given-first order, but we don't use the default in numerous cases for both countries/cultures, based on treatment in the majority of reliable sources.  E.g., numerous Chinese sports figures are at given-first order because most sources that mention them in English use that order; meanwhile most sources that address military, government, and literary figures from China use family-first order. (A further complication is that some of the sport and other topical projects want to impose a specific name order regardless of nationality, though they don't seem to be having any luck with this.) Not everyone is happy with this inconsistent approach, but it's the price we pay for having a simplistic WP:COMMONNAME policy, which in turn effective dictates how the name is treated in running prose, because we don't like to have the article text conflicting with the article title. Not sure what this has to do with surname-or-given-for-children, though. Maybe we're wandering too far off-topic; probably my bad.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  07:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional considerations. [I'll just copy-paste this (with minor tweaks) from my recent posts at Talk:Murder of Megan Kanka, since having it in the WT:MOSBIO archive will probably be more useful that having it buried in an article talk page: Referring to minors by their given names is unencyclopedic, except to avoid a browbeating level of repetition, e.g. in a sentence naming a bunch of family members who all share the same surname. Depending upon one's personal take on the matter, habitual first-naming can be argued to be an infantilizing, patronizing, even programmatically ageist and disrespectful PoV. Regardless, it has the serious problem that age of majority/consent varies radically by jurisdiction (anywhere in a range at least as wide as 12 to 21, most commonly between 14 and 18), and various jurisdictions have within them different definitions of adulthood in different contexts. "Write about minors differently from adults" is just not a workable system in a global encyclopedia. What we presently have is WP:NOTNEWS and (probably more importantly in this context) MOS:SURNAME, which doesn't make any magical exceptions for children or post-pubescent minors. Nor does it draw some really heavily PoV-laden "juvenile offenders" dividing line favored by particular house styles of some news publishers.  So, whether someone would desperately like to impose news style's "first name for minors" approach in a misguided re-interpretation of "follow the sources" is irrelevant.  We have a rule, and consensus has not changed about it, despite repeated proposals to change it (one as recently as a month or two ago here at WT:MOSBIO).  The "I haven't heard anyone using [first name here] to refer to [some juvenile or child in the news lately]" reasoning: That's surely because it's journalism style to refer to minors (often, not always) by first name. WP isn't written in news style per NOT#NEWS; meanwhile most other encyclopedic works, which also would not use news style, will not yet (if ever) have any material about someone like Megan Kanka. When they do have articles on minors, they tend to use the encyclopedic practice of referring to them by surname (see, e.g., pointed out above).  See also Confirmation bias, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, and WP:CSF: It's fallacious to assume that "what I'm reading now" provides the only possible or the most preferable style (for anything), or that WP must  material the same way some other subset of publication does, or the way a numeric majority of other publishers do.  Majority matters for WP:COMMONNAME purposes, which is solely an article titles policy, about the practicality of finding articles; once the article is found, the concern no longer exists. For style matters, we have our own style manual, geared toward precision, clarity, formality (short of excessive academic style), and neutrality. That last is more of a concern here that many may realize. Patronizing attitudes toward notable minors is mirrored by a similar WP:Systemic bias attitude toward female subjects; we have numerous (though non-GA/FA) articles inappropriately referring to women in various places by their first names.


 * At the time I wrote "I haven't heard anyone using" (2007) I was still in high school (not yet exposed to large numbers of highbrow academic publications) and Google Books did not yet have the library of works that it has now. I definitely was influenced by journalism style, and a lot of readers will be too (especially those who are younger or less educated). That may explain why this is a perennial issue.
 * I did check to see how Britannica and Encarta referred to Anne Frank. They both used given name ("Anne", with Encarta using "Frank" on one instance to refer to the father), but I would imagine the necessity to mention other family members complicates this issue, so I'm not sure if they matter here. I would prefer using "Frank" anyway.
 * I would hope that minors notable for their accomplishments would be called by their family names (if they're from a culture with family names). Also I agree any instances of "articles inappropriately referring to women in various places by their first names" need to be corrected. Know any examples of this?
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Frank: I think the multiple family members with the same name thing would be a factor; it's why I tried to pro-actively address it in the draft material above. Notable minors: I saw this come up within the last few months with regard to high school athletes; there actually were multiple editors in support of referring to them by given names. Women and given names: I don't catalogue the cases I find, just fix them on-sight.  Given my editing range, I mostly encounter this in stub bios of female sports figures; I don't know how frequent it might be for actresses, politicians, scientists, etc.  I would expect it to be more common the more "pop culture" the topic is, but I can't empirically demonstrate that at present.  WP:WOMRED might actually already have a handle on this; I would ask at their talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah high school athletes should definitely be called by their last names. In the cases of athletes in the United States, many of them are 16 or older and would be called by their last names in newspapers using AP style, and therefore I am not sure why there is advocacy to use their given names. I just checked the Houston Chronicle website and pulled up this article using last names for HS athletes. What reasons were brought up in that discussion? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't really recall; I think it was just the same general "minors should be treated different" idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  15:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Honorifics sometimes meaningful
It would be useful to add something like this in the section that MOS:HONORIFIC redirects to:

Pre-nominal honorifics should not be used except where, in the body of an article, they concisely add information rather than being provided merely as a courtesy. For example:
 * The soldier's wounds were tended to by Dr John Smith (i.e., not a bystander, nurse, or first-aider)
 * But: The soldier's wounds were tended to by the eminent physician John Smith
 * The headmaster was Fr John Smith (he was a priest too. Br, Rev, may also be appropriate. Dr generally not, unless necessary to specify a medical man)
 * But: The headmaster was the parish priest, John Smith
 * Military rank titles identify a person as of the military, and rank

(Maybe something like this is in the text, but I missed it.)

Any opinions? Pol098 (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree with the sentence before the examples (we've needed something like that in there for a long time). However, it's not clear what distinction is being drawn in the examples and why. If we remove the PoV-problematic "eminent", the "But" examples appear to be more encyclopedic writing, and preferable to both the "Dr" and "Fr" cases.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * My idea in the examples is that we say "Dr", "Rev", etc. as a concise way of indicating a person's occupation. Otherwise we could always use wordier text to avoid the need for honorifics. But I won't push it; maybe others can draft better wording. Maybe just the following, with no examples: "Pre-nominal honorifics should not normally be used except where, in the body of an article, they concisely add information rather than being provided merely as a courtesy. Pre-nominals such as Dr, Br or Brother, Rev, indicate the occupation of a person, and military pre-nominals such as Maj or Major indicate occupation and rank. It may be preferable to use other wording, rather than pre-nominals, to indicate occupation."  Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem I can see is that everyone who's a big fan of peppering articles with honorifics will WP:GAME this by claims that it always adds information (at least at first occurrence); e.g. using "Mr. Chris Jackson", in this view, "concisely adds information" that Jackson is an adult male.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, in some cases such as sex-ambiguous names like "Chris", I don't object to Mr, Ms, Mrs if a person's sex is relevant. The alternative to this seems to be using a gendered pronoun later, rather than the clumsy "Chris Jackson, who is a man": "The general manager is Chris Jackson. She assumed office in 2010." What do others think should be said, if anything about the general idea of the guideline permitting meaningful honorifics? This is always going to be a slightly ambiguous area. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Honorifics in non-biographical articles
There's a lot of useful help in this guideline (Manual of Style/Biographies), particularly about honorifics, that applies to all articles, not just biographies. As it is, if one edits a non-biographical article to remove honorifics, citing MOS:HONORIFIC, it can legitimately be said that the guideline does not cover articles in general. Perhaps, at least, the wording here could be modified where relevant to indicate that it applies to all articles? Pol098 (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely: The idea that you can write biographical material in non-MOS:BIO compliant ways just by doing it outside an article that is a biography is obviously WP:WIKILAWYERING / WP:SYSTEMGAMING.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a note at the beginning of the "Names" section: While this guideline applies to biographies, text in this section, where applicable, applies to all articles that mention people, and a comment in "Occupation titles" Pol098 (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved it to the lead, since it actually pertains to the whole page, other than the title/lead stuff (which is covered by "where applicable").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. It all depends on the context. As stated above, honorifics can be useful when referring to people in articles. We wouldn't put "Dr John Smith" in the lede on his own article, but it may be useful to refer to him as "Dr John Smith" the first time he's mentioned in another article. And "Sir John Smith" should always be mentioned with his title the first time, whether in his own article or another article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not always. If the article is referring to an event before the knighthood was bestowed, then it needn't be included, in line with Manual of Style/Biographies. DrKay (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously. But then, he wasn't Sir John Smith before he was knighted, was he! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And not when the title isn't relevant in the context and might even seem biased. E.g., in reporting results of a snooker match, a player who is a sir or a count or whatever should not have that title prepended to their name in the tables, or in the general text, though it would be used in the lead in their own article, and be in other cases, e.g. when discussing funders of a charity (though in discussions I've observed so far, almost everyone except UK editors appears not to want to use in the latter sort of case, either; the general complain is classist PoV).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Mystifying, given anyone can be knighted. How on earth could it be called classist? To me, not including someone's title is as ridiculous as the American insistence on adding "Jr" and "III" after people's names and married women adding their maiden name as a middle name. So, do you see how what seems normal to one group of people can seem ludicrous to another? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: A great example is David Attenborough. He is virtually never referred to as Sir David Attenbourough outside the British press (who do not do that consistently), even in British publications. In brand new BBC materials he narrates, he's credited simply as David Attenborough. The real world simply does not use "Sir" and "Dame" the way certain WP editors want to impose it on our material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  19:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that, whether you like it or not, Britain is "the real world"! And we do. You might find the odd BBC news story where someone with a title isn't credited with it, but it's rare. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, last I looked the vast majority of his credits are in British productions and he's virtually never credited as "Sir". I don't think I've seen a single case where he was, and I watch piles of his stuff.  What's happening here is that some newspapers have a house style to prefix Sir/Dame, and you favour them, so you want to see WP do it, too, despite it being against our house style, and that of other news publishers that aren't the ones you prefer.  This isn't any different from The New York Times and a few other American newspapers always using Mr./Mrs./Ms. before people's surnames; most do not, and WP doesn't either.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Substantive revision of "Birth date and place"
I've worked on MOS:BIO (before and ) to centralize the basics on this, because editors expect to find this information, not scattered around randomly. The gist: — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC); "after" diff update, to reflect some revisions. 03:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Describe actual practice.
 * Make it agree with, and cross-reference, the brief mentions of some of this stuff at MOS:DATE
 * Also make it consistent with MOS:ABBR.
 * Provide good examples.
 * Discourage willy-nilly inclusion of birth/death details when not needed.
 * Indicate that using "b." and "d." in leads is deprecated (this was only found in MOS:DATE until now)
 * Distinguish lead-sentence use from other cases (without dwelling on the latter, since this is a subsection of the "Opening paragraph" section).
 * How long has it been definitively required (as the version you wrote states) that full dates should be included in the lead, when known? I would greatly prefer allowing as an alternative (but not requiring) that the lead include only the years of birth (the important part) if the dates are described more fully in the body of the article. I think that allowing a years-only style could be very helpful in decluttering our (long, filled with extraneous parenthetical details that only add noise to the start and make it difficult to remember how it even started and what it was about) lead sentences. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree (in general more efforts would be welcome to make the above said need) that specific dates are one thing that seems a bit superflouous in the first paragraph. Chicbyaccident (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't actually say that, but the opposite; it retains the wording that full dates are better in the body not the lead. Will replace an example, to show this style, though frankly it is not dominant. I just looked at 20+ 80+ WP:FA bios and 100% had full dates in the lead sentence. I, too, would like to see a reduction of this (it seems mostly just appropriate for stubs), but I'm not comfortable writing a rule into MOS effectively mandating "(1943–2001)" dates it the lead sentence, when it's not well-supported in actual practice (i.e., does not appear to represent consensus yet). See also the "we don't want to be micrmanaged" bit in the RfC mentioned below; I've tried to work this in terms of "usually", etc.  PS: I think this should clarify.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  03:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC); revised: 03:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a note that we recently had an RfC about parenthetical information in the lead; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 19. I don't think wording here should contradict the consensus found there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Will review and ensure it does not, if you don't beat me to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  03:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Update: I've gone over it again, and the four bullet points of consensus in it are not implicated in the revision I've done, other than a couple of them are actually reinforced. The "big change" ones, like limiting the number of non-English names and discouraging unnecessary pronunciation information in the lead, are additional points we could work in. I would think they should be worked into MOS:LEAD first in general terms (and one of them appears to need a follow-on RfC), then a summary, specifically as it pertains to bios, should be added here with a pointer back to the more general set of "rules" at MOS:LEAD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  03:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Open question: Should we use full birth/death dates in the lead?
I'm very busy at the moment, but I've swung by to say that full dates of birth/death are the standard in the opening sentence and this should be made clear in the MOS. There are only really three cases where YOB/YOD is preferable to DOB/DOD: if BLP privacy is considered; if the full dates are unknown/unreliable; or if the opening sentence is partially cluttered (this one would need addressing on a case by case basis as to what needs culling). Removing the full dates usually goes against the established standard; an editor's personal preference holds very little weight in the grand scheme of things. I think the Virginia Woolf example should be returned, as at the moment the first example is a YOB/YOD one which suggests (consciously or not) that that is the agreed standard.
 * "These specific dates are important information about the person being described, but if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context." This sentence needs rewording to clarify the infrequent nature of this; "may" is too strong as suggests it is a common occurrence. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 18:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * your argument sounds very circular to me: it seems to be saying "we should strengthen the MOS to state that full dates in the first sentence are standard because they are standard". We need a better rationale than that. Why are the full dates so important that they should come before even a description of who the subject is and what they're known for? We should put the important things first, and the month and day of birth or death are not important enough for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They are important. The current standard is to use full dates. The onus is on those who want to change this standard to year only to provide a counter argument. As stated above, there are some occasions when YOB/YOD is appropriate but the current wording suggests that those occasions are much for frequent than it is in reality. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Either they already are required by the standard (disputed by others here and if so what change are you requesting) or they are not required by the standard (in which case your claim that people are trying to change the standard is false and your argument that they should be included is lacking in substance). Which is it? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "The opening paragraph should usually have dates of birth and (when applicable) death." - This is the first sentence after the heading Birth date and place, therefore full dates (DOB/DOD) are the standard. I'm saying this needs to be supported with an example; the Virginia Woolf was fine.
 * "These specific dates are important information about the person being described, but if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context." - This is the next sentence. It suggests that YOB/YOD may be adequate in some cases. I'm saying that this needs to be strengthened to clarify that this is rare; perhaps "may occasionally". I provided three (rare/occasional) examples above when it would make sense to use YOB/YOD. As SMcCandlish, states above, every single FA article (the pinnacle of article writing) that he looked at uses full dates. In your (David Eppstein) comment above you used the phrase "I would greatly prefer": this is your opinion and is asking for a change to the MOS (I am not asking for a change, just a clarification).
 * This isn't something SMcCandlish has introduced. Its existed in one for or another for many years: it was worded "Opening paragraph .. Dates of birth and death, if known" in 2009 for example. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's correct that I did not introduce or substantively change that wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we are writing at cross purposes. You seem to be talking about the entire opening paragraph. I am concentrating on a specific part of the opening paragraph, the stuff in parenthesis that usually comes after the subject's name in the first sentence. I don't mind if the dates are later in the first paragraph; I would just prefer them not to clutter the first sentence. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on the matter, but have broken this out into a sub-thread. We definitely should be clear on this one way or the other, but this appears to be an ongoing dispute that's  ongoing for a long time without resolution.  We might need to RfC this in order to make a firm recommendation in MoS pro or con full b/d dates in the lead.  The current text is accurate in that it permits both styles and we know both are used, but there's also a clear historical preference for using full dates and this is conflicting with a non-silly observation that doing so when the information is elsewhere in the article might not be the best practice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For my part, I would not want to see both date formats done in the lead of the same article. Either put full dates in lead, or short dates in the lead and full dates in the body (perhaps especially if long dates also appear in the infobox).  Otherwise, we have a redundant structure of "Foo X. Bar (1934–1998) was a [whatever].  [Blah blah blah.] Born in [Wherever] on January 1, 1934 [yadda yadda yadda].  She died in [Somewhere] on December 31, 1998 of [something fatal].", with dates appearing in the lead twice.  While I'm habituated to full dates in the lead, I used short ones in William A. Spinks (a GA, and probably FA-able), because the exact details didn't seem terribly important in the overall context of "who was this guy and why do we care?" Full dates a probably more important in articles on bio subjects of very high notability like Benjamin Disraeli and Hellen Keller (i.e., likely to be the subject of kids' school papers, and the topics of trivia questions, and added to timelines, and so on). But I don't feel strongly about it.  Only about not being redundant  the lead.  (Its the function of the lead, and the infobox if there is one, to be "redundant" with the body, in being forms of summary/abstract. An argument can be made for avoiding excessive redundancy between the lead and infobox, because the IB is also a summary of body, not of the lead.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For my part, I would not want to see both date formats done in the lead of the same article. Either put full dates in lead, or short dates in the lead and full dates in the body (perhaps especially if long dates also appear in the infobox).  Otherwise, we have a redundant structure of "Foo X. Bar (1934–1998) was a [whatever].  [Blah blah blah.] Born in [Wherever] on January 1, 1934 [yadda yadda yadda].  She died in [Somewhere] on December 31, 1998 of [something fatal].", with dates appearing in the lead twice.  While I'm habituated to full dates in the lead, I used short ones in William A. Spinks (a GA, and probably FA-able), because the exact details didn't seem terribly important in the overall context of "who was this guy and why do we care?" Full dates a probably more important in articles on bio subjects of very high notability like Benjamin Disraeli and Hellen Keller (i.e., likely to be the subject of kids' school papers, and the topics of trivia questions, and added to timelines, and so on). But I don't feel strongly about it.  Only about not being redundant  the lead.  (Its the function of the lead, and the infobox if there is one, to be "redundant" with the body, in being forms of summary/abstract. An argument can be made for avoiding excessive redundancy between the lead and infobox, because the IB is also a summary of body, not of the lead.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I definitely think the full dates should be used in the lede. I might be the only one but whenever I come across a shortened date in the lede my mind first goes to the idea that the full date just isn't known. Nohomersryan (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC) My rationale: To my mind, the function of DOB/DOD in the first sentence is only to provide a very rough time context for the individual's existence. Did this guy live in the 18th century or the 19th? Including month and day in the first sentence makes as much sense as including places of birth and death there; i.e., very little. "Because it has always been done this way" never means much to me, in Wikipedia editing or anywhere else, because it inhibits innovation and progress. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, only because full dates have been so common for so long. Otherwise I don't think that would be your reaction; rather, it might be that the lead, by definition and of necessity, omits details that are provided later in the article. I'll come in on the side of recommending years-only in the first sentence, but such a dramatic, high-profile change won't happen without an RfC consensus.
 * Agreed that full dates should be used if known. GiantSnowman 14:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I prefer years-only in the lead, with no placenames. The dates (full if known) and places if known of both birth and death should be sourced where they appear elsewhere in the article. The dates in the lead are there to help the reader establish at a glance whether this is the article they are looking for or not (especially if they are seeing the lead sentence in a list of search results or by hovering over a link). Pam D  14:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Full dates should be listed in the lede (per standard encyclopaedic practice), but not places of birth and death. They should only appear in the body of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This should be left entirely to editorial discretion—the MoS should neither encourage nor discourage full dates. Sometimes the dates are disputed (as with Winsor McCay), in which case Wikipedia should neither take a stance nor overcomplicate the lead sentence with these disputes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the current situation is that it's left to discretion now, and this causes frequent conflict at articles and recurrent debate here. Meanwhile, a review of bio FAs shows an overwhelming preference for full dates (but not the places!) in the lead sentence.  It's not my preference when it comes to well-developed articles (even if I think it's also almost inevitable in stubs when we actually have the dates, because there are no "Early life" and "Later life and death" sections yet in most stubs). But the guidelines are supposed to codify best practice, and it seems pretty clear what consensus is on this, or FAs wouldn't be the way they are, one would think. (That reasoning can be taken too far, though – FAs from the 2000s that have not been edited much in the interim aren't evidentiary of current practice).  If there is such a consensus, and there seems to be, it should be recorded here, even if it's not stated as a rule but as the default to use absent a good reason to diverge. It's probably better to consider this matter apart from pronunciation, alternative names, post nominals, etc.; the thread below that's commingling them all as "too much" is failing to distinguish between different levels of consensus for completely different material that just incidentally happes to converge on the lead sentence. The recent RfC that failed to come to very clear consensus other than a vague "too much" also suffered this problem.
 * "frequent conflict"—so tell the people who can't leave the established style in the article alone to fuck off. That's what I did to the PoV-pusher who kept trying to insert their preferred birthdate into the Winsor McCay article—I didn't come whimpering to this talk page about it.  This is not a MoS issue. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

MOS:NICKNAME
MOS:NICKNAME is not currently clear about middle names. In the UK, almost every person only goes by their first and last names, with middle names only really used in legal contexts. Some people, however, decide to use a middle name and their last name as their known name. This is then further complicated if the are known by a hypocorisms of a middle name. For example, the British general John Nicholas Reynolds Houghton is known as Nick Houghton rather than John Houghton. Its not just the UK, with William Bradley Pitt being known as Brad Pitt rather than William/Will/Bill Pitt: the opening sentence did once read William Bradley "Brad" Pitt.

I have noticed in recent weeks that there has been a huge increase in editors removing "nickname" from the article openings while citing MOS:NICKNAME. While Jonathan Reginald Smith being known as John Smith is obvious and traditional, being known as Reggie Smith isn't. Articles don't have a word count limit, so I don't see why (barring the most obvious nicknames) slightly more obscure/non-standard are being removed. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in MOS:NICKNAME that says "Nick Houghton" and "Brad Pitt" should not appear in the first sentence of their respective articles. I suppose you could argue over whether it should say "William Bradley 'Brad' Pitt" or "William Bradley Pitt, better known as Brad Pitt." But it seems to me MOS:NICKNAME actually requires the nickname in the first sentence. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Should definitely be toward the start of the lead. There's nothing wrong with using two sentences if that works better, e.g.: "Alice Beeson Ceesdale (various parenthetical bits here) is n American painter, actress, musician, and local politician.  As an actress, she is usually credited as A. B. Ceesdale; in her band, The Snorkel Weasels, she performs as Lady ABC."  So, use common sense.  In most cases, it can be done one way or the other in the lead sentence without difficulty to the reader.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  21:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but in the case of "Brad Pitt", those exact words do not appear anywhere in the lead. That seems wrong to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. The issue is that people have been removing the examples above citing MOS:NICKNAME. The second to last sentence states: "If a person has a well-known common hypocorism used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Tom Hopper which has just Thomas Edward Hopper". This sentence is being used to remove any nickname that is vaguely obvious. So Lady ABC would be okay but someone would come along and delete A. B. Ceesdale. I have noticed in recent years there has been an increase in people following the "Law of Wikipedia" to the letter rather than using common sense. Perhaps this MOS needs a writes? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 15:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It also says "provide a short explanation if a person uses a non-standard contraction of their name". You might argue that "Bill Pitt" would be a standard contraction but "Brad Pitt" is not. Using MOS:NICKNAME to justify removing "Brad Pitt" from Brad Pitt's lead just seems wrong. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "someone would come along and delete 'A. B. Ceesdale'" – except that's an abbreviation not a hypocorism, so there's no basis to delete it. It can actually be quite important to retain things like this, especially for people best known in a particular context by a particular short name but sometimes also known by the long one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as readers can be trusted to understand that "Reggie" is short for "Reginald", they can be trusted to understand that some people go by their middle name. We often overload our opening sentences, which be the most accessible sentence in an article. Stopping to explain that "Brad Pitt" (appearing in large font as the title of the article) and "William Bradley Pitt" (appearing in bold at the beginning of the first sentence) are in fact the same person does more to harm readability than to aid it. Where there are unusual nicknames, those are best explained explicitly by providing context, as in SMcCandlish's examples above.--Trystan (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is an actual problem here (beyond middle names in particular). To continue with the Brad Pitt example, the world knows him entirely as Brad Pitt, and that's the article title and his name in the infobox, so it's not clear that there's any value to adding Brad Pitt in bold in the lead sentence or immediately after it.  The best argument for doing so is probably WP:REUSE: people may re-use the article text by itself, without the title and without the infobox, so the article (and especially its lead) should make sense in a stand-alone manner.  Presently the Brad Pitt article fails in this regard. We should probably revisit this section the MOS:BIO rules, since the end result is not desirable, and it is pretty much always ignored, except in the rare instance we get an "enforcer" at an article like Brad Pitt who is more interested in forcing compliance with a particular rule interpretation than with WP:COMMONSENSE and with serving the readership's interests.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS:NICKNAME says "If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of a given name ..." Isn't a middle name part of a given name? If not, maybe use the less ambiguous first name instead?—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Given name includes first and middle name(s). "First name" is not synonymous with "given name".  And none of these are nicknames.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So as the MOS is currently written, we should generally not write "William Bradley 'Brad' Pitt", as "Brad" is a common nickname of one of the given names.—Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet either that or "William Bradley Pitt, better known as Brad Pitt" is the editorial preference across our bio articles, site-wide and by a large margin. So, the operational consensus and what the guideline says have gotten out of sync.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the best way to deal with a nickname is First name Middle name "nickname" Family name, so "William Bradley "Brad" Pitt" - It goes after the middle name regardless of whether the nickname is derived from the given name or the middle name. BTW, Bagumba, I think the nikname should be included, as people from non-western cultures may not understand how Western nicknames work. Chinese people, for example, may not realize "Bobby" would be legally known as "Robert". WhisperToMe (talk)
 * This doesn't seem to pertain to the discussion, which is about people removing nicknames, hypocorisms, and initials completely. Anyway,  not everyone agrees with your preference here; many of us prefer the short form to come after the name part it is a shortening of, but nicknames per se immediately before the surname, and to use parentheses for things that are not nicknames, and to have aliases completely separate: William Bradley (Brad) Pitt, William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton, Earvin "Magic" Johnson, Dutch Schultz (born Arthur Simon Flegenheimer) or Arthur Simon Flegenheimer, better known as Dutch Schultz.  It's fine to separate any such case, e.g. William Jefferson Clinton, better known as Bill Clinton, etc., if that works better in the context.  Numerous cases have been forced into William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton format, which is wrongheaded for multiple reasons, and does a disservice to readers, especially non-native English speakers (for whom "Bill" is not obviously a hypocorism of "William").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  16:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Brad' is not a nickname - it is a shortening of one of his given names, Bradley. It should not appear as 'William Bradley "Brad" Pitt' per WP:ALTNAMES. Instead the wording for these kind of situations should be 'William Bradley Pitt, known as Brad Pitt', is an American actor...' GiantSnowman 09:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I strongly agree. I've been arguing for years that we should not be putting hypocorisms in quotation marks, but I keep seeing it in article after article, we have no rule saying not to do it, and when I've tried to fix the guideline to say not to do it, I get reverted on it. If you want to RfC this, be my guest, and I'll support.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  09:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Brad is a nickname: as per the wiki article on nicknames, "A nickname can be a shortened or modified variation on a person's real name", and there's a whole section on the different types. Including the nickname within parenthesis "William Bradley (Brad) Pitt" is wrong. The parenthesis section of WP:QUOTENAME refers to other names such as maiden names or foreign names that would appear in the parentheses eg "Prince Henry of Wales (Henry Charles Albert David; born 1984), known as Prince Harry". Parenthesis are sometimes used to show names that aren't used, eg "(John) Harold Francis" if he was only known as Harold Francis. So if you tried to introduce nicknames in parentheses that would be confusing. Using "William Bradley "Brad" Pitt" is a lot shorter than "William Bradley Pitt (born 1963), known as Brad Pitt". The latter way makes sense if it needs explaining, eg "William Bradley Pitt, known professionally as Brad Pitt", but could other make the opening sentence needlessly long.
 * The MOS states: "If a person is commonly known by a nickname that is not a common hypocorism (diminutive) of their name, used in lieu of a given name, it is presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial" and "Also acceptable are formulations like "Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi, known as Sandro Botticelli", when applicable." The latter is best used for complicated case but the MOS doesn't say that hypocorisms can't be included; just not a common hypocorism (this is where my argument stemmed from). Editors have been removing the likes of "William Bradley "Brad" Pitt" and "William Bradley Pitt, known as Brad Pitt" citing MOS:NICKNAME. I'm arguing that a hypocorism from a middle name isn't common and that uncommon hypocorisms should be included in quote marks. For the latter Kit Harringotn is a good example: being nicknames "Chris" is is obvious/common, "Kit" (though derived from Christopher) isn't. The Hypocorism article has a long list of English Hypocorisms. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah. Hypocorisms from middle names are extremely common. Not being the most common doesn't make them uncommon.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  12:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

More nickname ambiguity
I did not specifically see our MoS discourage or prohibit article titles like Jack "Basher" Williams and Frank "Buck" O'Neill though I think it should be decided. I believe it poor form, am I wrong?--John Cline (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If they are known as Basher Williams and Buck O'Neill, then per WP:COMMONNAME the articles should be located there. See for example William "Dixie" Dean. We should not have both given name and nickname in the title. GiantSnowman 09:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally true, but there are rare exceptions (a handful of people are actually know by names of the form Foo "Bar" Baz, quotation marks and all. I forget the examples, but they're real (I have no idea if Jack "Basher" Williams and "Frank "Buck" O'Neill"; haven't looked over their details and the sources for them). That said, article titles aren't an MoS matter, but a WP:AT one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  09:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will ask at WP:AT in the near term, but I don't think our MoS should take a free-ride on this matter; either.


 * Just as the way we use dashes, ampersands, and the suffix of a person's name, (as MoS prescribed), is reflected in how articles are titled, our MoS conventions that become, when appropriate, a name with an included nickname inside quotation marks, are potentially influencing increasing examples of biographical article titles in that form; as well.


 * What poor stewards would we be, (if it were so), choosing silence over mitigation by voice; in bureaucratic tribute alone? I prefer doing no such!--John Cline (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is Ed "Too Tall" Jones, who was hardly ever called just plain "Ed Jones".—Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If people are known as 'John "Nickname" Smith" then the article should be located there - but I don't think that applies to Basher/Buck above. GiantSnowman 09:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't already their WP:COMMONNAME (no opinion), I'm going to guess it was used for WP:NATURALDIS of Jack Williams and Frank O'Neill, respectively.—Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, Ed "Too Tall" Jones was the case I was thinking of. He wasn't regularly called just "Too Tall" Jones either, except in particular insider contexts. He really was called Ed "Too Tall" Jones.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  16:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent change to the guideline
SMcCandlish, regarding this edit, my concern is the following: "Common nicknames, aliases, and variants are usually given in boldface in the lead, especially if they redirect to the article, or are found on a disambiguation page or hatnote and link from there to the article."

Yes, we include J.Lo in the lead of the Jennifer Lopez article, but that is because she has adopted that nickname and has used it on her albums and/or brands. But what about cases like J.Law for Jennifer Lawrence, K-Stew for Kristen Stewart, or ScarJo for Scarlett Johansson? Lawrence is commonly called "J.Law," Stewart is commonly called "K-Stew," and Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo," but we don't include those nicknames in the leads of their Wikipedia articles. Johansson dislikes her nickname, and we mention this in her Public image section. I think that the new addition to the guideline needs tweaking because it might lead some editors (especially newbies) to think that a nickname should be included in the lead simply because it's commonly used. And what if the nickname is derogatory? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I see that the derogatory aspect is currently handled by the "and may also be against the neutrality policy if the phrase is laudatory or critical" piece. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd actually been thinking of sportspeople when working on that NPoV material, but it should also apply here. I think a key thing is that  sources don't usually treat "ScarJo", etc., as alternative names for these people; it's a tabloid and fandom writing practice.  Should probably be in the article somewhere (as sourceably existing) but probably isn't lead or infobox material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish, I'm stating that we need something in the guideline about this (when not to include these nicknames in the lead even when they are common), given your recent addition to the guideline. You know, other than the "laudatory or critical" aspect. I and many other Wikipedians have seen editors, especially newbies, add celebrity nicknames to the lead of celebrity Wikipedia articles. And these celebrities usually are not sportspeople. You stated, "I think a key thing is that sources don't usually treat 'ScarJo', etc., as alternative names for these people; it's a tabloid and fandom writing practice." But I and another editor (FrB.TG) demonstrated in the recent FAC for the Scarlett Johansson article that it's not just the tabloids that refer to her as ScarJo. We very likely would not even note the ScarJo nickname in Johansson's article if it were not for the fact that Johansson has spoken out against the nickname more than once. She wants the media and fans to stop calling her that.


 * The guideline, as written, does not restrict itself to sportspeople. And even in the case of O. J. Simpson, I don't see that the nickname "The Juice" needs to be there in the lead. If it's a case like "The Rock" for Dwayne Johnson, then, yeah, since that is his ring name and he is still better known by that name. Editors have also debated if "The Rock" should redirect to Johnson's article. But in cases like "J.Law," "K-Stew," etc., we don't want editors adding the nicknames to the lead. And there's currently nothing in the guideline discouraging such use. SNUGGUMS is one of our more prolific celebrity biography writers; so I'm pinging SNUGGUMS for thoughts on adding nicknames to the lead (celebrity or otherwise). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  09:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  09:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say nicknames should be included when it is something the subject commonly goes by (at least when first introducing full name in opening sentence). For example, Thomas Jacob "Jack" Black is something I'd recommend using for Jack Black. On the other hand, things that the press uses that the subject is commonly known by but doesn't seem to have actually used themselves (i.e. FDR for Franklin D. Roosevelt) would be better having a "commonly referred to as" or "often called" (thus "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, commonly referred to as FDR" is what I'd go with) so long as it's not degrading or something they've denounced. Derogatory things like "Slick Willie" for Bill Clinton or "Tricky Dick" for Richard Nixon should be left out of the lead entirely as Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place for demeaning article subjects regardless of our personal opinions on the people. "ScarJo" for Scarlett Johannson is definitely something I wouldn't add when she has never gone by it at any point, she's publicly denounced its use, and its usage isn't so prominent compared to things like "The Rock" for Dwayne Johnson or "RFK" for Robert F. Kennedy. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SNUGGUMS, thanks for weighing in. This will be my last time pinging you to this section since I assume you will check back here for replies...unless you prefer that I ping you here for replies. As you can see, a lot of changes are currently being discussed on this talk page, and I assume you will be interested in some of these discussions since you often work on biography articles. Are you okay with what SMcCandlish's wording in the guideline currently states about nicknames? My issue is that other than the "laudatory or critical" part, the guideline doesn't make it clear when frequently used nicknames should not be used. I know that you object to any mention of "ScarJo" in Johansson's article (I remember reverting you on that removal), but FrB.TG and I feel that its inclusion is important because not only is it a part of the "in the media" aspect of her life, Johansson has addressed it more than once and it's clearly something she wants the public to know she doesn't approve of. I've known people to state that they will no longer call her by that nickname because they now know she doesn't approve of it. If the name was meant in a derogatory way, I wouldn't support including it at all. I obviously agree that it shouldn't be in the lead, though. When it comes to "J.Law" for Jennifer Lawrence, "K-Stew" for Kristen Stewart, and others who have not addressed their nicknames or disapproved of them, I don't think we should mention those at all. Also, does "The Juice" in O. J. Simpson's article count as laudatory? I mean, after all, it came about as a way to praise him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with SNUGGUMS, and I'd tried to give that implication with mention of NPoV at the end of the section, but it might not really be clear enough. IIRC, it's attached to something about not using one-off descriptions by journalists as if they're nicknames, and the PoV concern goes a bit further.  An example that comes to mind is Steve "Interesting" Davis, a pejorative nickname (based on his expressionless tournament demeanor) that we might have avoided except in attributed quotations and not in the lead, but which Davis himself has "pwned" and used in two book titles (and he's become an electronica DJ and had a film made about that, and generally has become quite interesting and gets the last laugh). It started as something like "Slick Willy" or "Tricky Dick" and has become something like "Magic Johnson" and "Dr. Phil" – something the subject uses professionally.  O. J. Simpson seems to be the same deal as Oran "Juice" Jones; it's just an orange juice pun in both cases. The problem with things like "J.Law" and "K-Stew" is pretty much no sources use them except low-end entertainment press; while secondary sourcesin some cases, they are poor-quality ones (and much of their material is actually primary – first-hand reportage of gossip and so-and-so-was-see-with-you-know-who-at-some-place, which is eyewitness testimony on the part of the paparazzi).  It's different from JLo, which has actually been used by the subject and is more common. I had no idea about K-Fed, but a quick Googling so far shows somewhat broader usage, just as with JLo: Newsweek, CBS News, United Press International|UPI]], etc., plus of course all the dreck publications).  "ScarJo" is virtually all tabloids, pop-culture magazines, and blogs. Same with "J.Law" and "K-Stew": Local papers' gossip and reviews sections (primary), fashion and celeb rags, and entertainment pabulum like E! and Rolling Stone and Access Hollywood (mostly also primary material).  There are a few spotty exceptions, but the vast bulk of the usage (like 95%+) is in junk sources. Also, it looks to me like Flyer22 Reborn is arguing for retaining ScarJo in the article at all, while SNUGGUMS is concerned about its presence in the lead; they're different concerns.  Of course it can be in the article somewhere, since the controversy about the appellation and her loathing of it is well-sourced; we'd be remiss to omit it. But it doesn't belong in the lead, since it would be WP explicitly equating the term with her as an alternative name, yet (to quote Flyer) "She wants the media and fans to stop calling her that." WP continuing to do so just because we think we can get away with it on a sourcing technicality would be a WP:BLP and WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE policy problem. Putting it in bold in the lead, and having it mentioned somewhere lower in the article are not comparable in this regard.
 * See here and here. SNUGGUMS did not want the "ScarJo" aspect lower in the article. It being in the lead was never the issue, and I was clear above that I agree that it should not be in the lead. As for use of "ScarJo," respectable news or entertainment media (such as CBS News) have either acknowledged that she is called that and/or they have called her that. Sources like Rolling Stone are high-quality as far as entertainment media goes, and it is mainly entertainment media that covers celebrities. Try looking for scholarly book sources on celebrities, and you will mostly find unauthorized biographies, tell-all books, and other lower quality books. That stated, in the FAC for her Wikipedia article, I did point to this quality 2015 "The Oxford Handbook of the Word" source, from OUP Oxford, page 1019, which states, "A small set of public celebrity nicknames combine a forename initial with a truncation of the surname [...] Forms that combine forename and surname truncations, such as Cujo for Curtis Joseph or ScarJo for Scarlett Johansson, are also found." Because Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo," which is why she has even spoken out on the matter, and reliable sources have covered it, it is WP:Due and WP:BLP-compliant to mention this is in her Public image section. And, again, I have no issue with the nickname aspect being there. Not seeing how WP:ABOUTSELF applies in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I can't make SNUGGUMS's argument, only mine. I wasn't aware of the attempt to keep it out of the article at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  11:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to say about using "The Juice", but regarding SMcCandlish's changes, they seem fine as I agree that we should note well-known nicknames while obscure referrals aren't lead-worthy nearly as often (if at all). This and my above comments are all I really have to say on the matter. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "we need something in the guideline about this" – But the more things we add to the guideline the more people complain of micro-management of matters that could/should be left to editorial discretion and consensus on an article-by-article basis. Surely what we should provide is general suggestions like don't clog the lead sentence with alternative name after alternative name, and do leave out those that aren't regularly used by (not just admitted to exist in) reliable sources for the subject in question. "The guideline, as written, does not restrict itself to sportspeople." Well sure; it wasn't meant to. I just meant that constant squabbling about alleged "nicknames" of sportspeople is what came to mind for me with regard to that line about NOR and NPOV; I concede that the focus is too narrow, though the sportwriter example was explicitly intended to just be an example. I'll try to address that by de-coupling the sentences; the policy concerns are not just about falsely calling things nicknames.
 * I definitely agree that the lead should not be clogged with alternative name after alternative name. WP:Alternative name is also in agreement on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this will resolve the recently raised issue above. Pinging: {{U|Flyer22 Reborn|SNUGGUMS]]. Oh, and {{U|FrB.TG}}, previously pinged though not commenting yet.  I used Nixon as an example, being an FA, but it also addresses the Johansson case.  I also tied it more clearly to the core policy reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  09:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This and this are good additions. Thanks. I think we might still get someone wanting to add "J.Law" and "K-Stew" to the leads of their respective Wikipedia articles, but your "disputed appellations" piece takes care of cases like "ScarJo," and I'm sure that our significantly experienced editors will know to keep stuff like "J.Law" and "K-Stew" out of the lead (well, some will know better anyway). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is my fervent hope!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  11:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hypocorism of COMMONNAME
Related to MOS:NICKNAME, if a hypocorism is not a person's WP:COMMONNAME, but is nonetheless often used to refer to that person, should it be listed in the lead? The issue has come up at Talk:Stephen_Curry, where Stephen Curry's full name is "Wardell Stephen Curry II", and he is generally known as "Stephen", but references to him are often shortened to plain "Steph" (just not enough to be COMMONNAME). "Steph" is not currently mentioned in the lead. An existing example is Donald Rumsfeld, who is sometimes referred to as "Don", and the lead has Donald Henry "Don" Rumsfeld—Bagumba (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What has occurred to me is to look through other articles:
 * "Honest Abe" Lincoln: explained once in the body with context
 * Eugene Victor "Gene" Debs: used just at the start of the article
 * "Jed" or "Jerry" Colbath: explained in body
 * Sam Brannan: not mentioned, although some of the sources use Sam
 * There doesn't seem to be a standard about people's second-most-common name... Perhaps they should just be mentioned in prose? --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 14:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable on a case-by-case basis. Especially here, since Steph is really rare in English as a male short name for Stephen (it's mostly often feminine for Stephanie). Users might be confused if they came looking for  Steph they'd heard of and though was female and arrived at that article. Using "Don" in the other article is kind of iffy, since he's not commonly (just quite uncommonly) referred to that way. And the hypocorisms should be in parens not quotation marks; it's not a made-up nickname or alias.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  16:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you suggest this?: Wardell Stephen (Steph) Curry II Or is there something else? --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 17:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be, for an article about Jonathan Smith, 'Jonathan James Smith, also known as John Smith' or something. 'Don' and 'Steph' are nicknames and do not merit being in the opening name per WP:ALTNAMES, but are widespread enough to justify mentioning in the lede. GiantSnowman 17:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow you. John isn't short for Jonathan; Jon is. If that's what you meant, then that would work.  Some might prefer "'Jonathan (Jon) James Smith" or "'Jonathan James (Jon) Smith", but that works much better when there's just one given name and a surname presented (we don't want to imply he's known sometimes as "Jon James Smith", unless its' really true.  What we really don't want to see is "Jon" in quotation marks, because it's not a nickname or alias.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  19:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but with boldface markup and spaces fixed so the bolding is around the names parts, without spaces in them. It's also fine to do an "also known as" thing, though that is less concise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  19:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * One issue with your edit to change to "Wardell Stephen Curry II (born March 14, 1988), also known as Steph Curry" is that it might leave readers with the impression that "Steph Curry" is more common than the page's title of "Stephen Curry".  Already from the MOS:NICKNAME thread above, there was suggestions that people whose middle name is their common name should have a format like "Wardell Stephen Curry II (born March 14, 1988), better known as Stephen Curry".  Combined with your suggestion, we'd end up with "Wardell Stephen Curry II (born March 14, 1988), better known as Stephen Curry and also known as Steph Curry.—Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But that acurate;y reflects the position for that person? GiantSnowman 18:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ALTNAME, the length borders on "[needing] to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability." So is the point of adding "Steph" because someone that entered "Stephen Curry" must know that "Steph" is sometimes (but not commonly) used, or is it that someone entering "Steph Curry" would be terribly shocked that they ended up at an article named "Stephen Curry"?  I'd argue both cases are not that big of a concern.—Bagumba (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * One large reason for the inclusion of Steph is that there are quotations later in the article that use it. It also makes the page more useful as a reference (the current wording isn't ideal). Something like this could be done: --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 18:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but people are generally not going to scratch their heads when they see "Steph" in a quote in an article titled "Stephen". Otherwise, the WP copycats will start cluttering the lead with trivial things like "Timmy" to Tim Lincecum (just because there is a quote with the diminutive form), or the ever-present (and obvious) 1st-initial-with-1st-syllable-of-last-name nickname (e.g. "D-Fish" for Derek Fisher).—Bagumba (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking this is more like the page Iron Man. It currently says Anthony Edward "Tony" Stark, which is redundant, and though he is much more often referred to as just Tony Stark, the full name is included in the lead. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * PS whatever is decided, it should never be brackets...! GiantSnowman 17:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your concern about "Steph" being a rare male name can alternatively be addressed by showing in the first sentence that "Stephen" is pronounced as (and not like "Steven").—Bagumba (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Except no one reads those pronunciation things unless they've encountered something mystifying to them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * True, but entering "Steph" and seeing "Stephen" isn't incredibly shocking either.—Bagumba (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the point is of responding to my case outlining why it can be confusing to just assert "no it can't". That's not a rebuttal, it's just contrariness.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  19:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with "Wardell Stephen Curry II (born March 14, 1988), commonly known as Stephen Curry and sometimes as Steph Curry". It's clear and unambiguous. We need to get away from inserting hypocorisms and nicknames in the middle of the name; that's certainly not clear. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note
 * Agreed. GiantSnowman 14:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me, too, though I think "certainly not clear" is a stretch.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not clear because it's never obvious how common the nickname is. For instance, we used to have 'John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy'. That implies he is commonly known as Jack Kennedy, whereas in fact, of course, he is commonly known to the world as John F. Kennedy or JFK and was generally only known as Jack to his friends and family. And there are a lot like this. These things need to be spelled out. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll buy that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done this edit, which also moves the pronunciation. Improvement, I hope? --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for "common" hypocorisms
Who determines whether a hypocorism is sufficiently "common" to be removed from an opening sentence? For example, at Dolly Collins, born Dorothy Ann Collins, an editor has removed "Dolly" from the initial mention of the name on the basis of MOS:NICKNAME. And yet "Dolly" is not listed as a hypocorism for Dorothy at our article - Dotty is. Are these issues to be determined on a case-by-case basis, or does there need to be a list of "common hypocorisms"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  20:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly Dolly isn't a common hypocorism, definitely add it back. There really needs to be common sense used with MOS:NICKNAME, its getting pretty ridiculous. Perhaps "common" needs to be changed to "obvious" in the MOS. As someone has mentioned before, the English Wikipedia is not just British/American English, it includes Indian English, Caribbean English etc. Even if Dorothy Ann Collins was known as Dotty, it wouldn't be clear to some readers where that has come from. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The problems come when different editors have very different interpretations of what is "common sense", or "obvious". A list of common hypocorisms - or a link to the list at the hypocorism article - might help maintain consistency.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of our policy and guideline material is written this way; it's just the nature of the beast. Cf. parallel discussions at WT:Wikipedia is not a dictionary about neologisms and whether something qualifies as one, and many similar discussions.  Our WP:P&G aren't a legal code, but generalized rules of thumb we collectively interpret via application of WP:Common sense and consensus building. (Where a policy approaches legal rigidity, it's generally because there is in fact a legal issue at stake, as with WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:BLP and WP:THREAT; most of that policy material was imposed on the community, at least in its core elements, by WP:OFFICE.) As with any "style" (broadly defined) matter not enumerated in detail (as some things are, usually for technical reasons), it's up to editorial consensus at a particular article whether a hypocorism is common/obvious enough to need or not need mention.  This is largely avoided by just including a "better known as" line.  If someone named Christopher or Christine is not actually better known as Chris, then we have little reason to ever mention that hypocorism in our article.  Edward James Olmos is a great example; if you watch interviews and listen to DVD commentaries, you'll find he's regularly referred to as "Ed" or "Eddie" by people who personally know and work with him, but reliable sources about him do not do this, so WP has no reason to ever mention either hypocorism is relation to him as a subject here, at his own article or elsewhere.  Anyway, Dolly and Dottie (along various spelling variants) as hypocorisms of Dorothy are not "common" or "obvious" enough (especially given the lack of popularity of any of these names since ca. the mid-20th century) to do without something like "Dorothy Ann Collins ... better known as Dolly Collins" or "Dorothy Ann (Dolly) Collins".  We need to avoid making regional or generational assumptions about typical reader understanding.  As just one example, the female given name Gemma is extremely common in the UK and fairly common in some other parts of the Commonwealth, but only rarely unencountered in the US; the average American probably assumes it's a hypocorism of Jemima (Jemma is probably better attested in US English than Gemma), Gemini, Angelica, or some other name.  And not everyone called Dolly is named Dorothy; some people pick up nicknames for other reasons than hypocorism.

Merge bio material from MOS:LEAD to MOS:BIO
At Manual of Style/Lead section, there's a detailed footnote on common hypocorisms. There's also other bio material, including a summary at Manual of Style/Lead section. This material should merge to Manual of Style/Biographies, and just leave behind pointers from MOS:LEAD to MOS:BIO in the first instance and WP:BLP is a second. Biography is a topic, and we have have an entire MoS page about that topic; MOS:LEAD is not about a topic, but about a generalized approach to all articles, so it should avoid "hoarding" information on a topic about which we have a dedicated MoS page. As with ongoing cleanup to consolidate all the MoS material about titles of works/compositions, such merging is important because a) having it scattered around makes it very difficult to find all the details, and b) it also lends itself to WP:POLICYFORKing, resulting in different pages with inconsistent rules and and recommendations. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  08:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with merging in this case as long as the WP:LEAD page still has decent-sized content on the matter while pointing to MOS:BIO for further detail. You know, in a WP:Summary style way. WP:Lead concerns biographies as well. Editors wanting to know how to format a lead for a biography article might click on either WP:LEAD or MOS:BIO. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, that is the plan.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Dummy?
inter alia: do we have any links to good biographical articles of short, medium and longer content, examplifying more or less the essential contents of the manual of style and WP:CONSISTENCY? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. Recent WP:FAs and maybe WP:GAs are more likely than average to be completely compliant. William A. Spinks is likely to be, because I wrote almost all of it and few others edit it, but it could use a once-over; even I haven't done much with it in a long time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  19:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for an example. However, for one thing, I have the impression that the section "Private life" most often emerges as content within "Early life, and background", presented most often as the first section? Well, I hope this serves to explain what I am looking for in a dummy. What about Jimmy Wales or Tim Berners-Lee?Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't know you were asking about sectional layout stuff. Yes, I think that article could have that material split into "Early life" and "Later life and death" sections, though having all the private-life stuff in one section is hardly unheard of (many stubs begin with it that way), and it was more common when I first wrote the article. Anyway, dunno how compliant the other two articles you mention are, when it comes to MoS basics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  13:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it be convenient pushing a little bit more encouragement for WP:Consistency in sectional layout stuff where applicable, perhaps by referring to these mentioned articles? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Consistency is an internal disambiguation page; I'm not sure which one you mean (WP:CONSISTENCY is a titles policy, not part of MoS). MOS:LAYOUT wants consistency in the order of "stock", non-content sections like "See also" and "References" and "External links", but beyond that, it's generally been left to editorial discretion at the article and to wikiproject essays on suggested default layouts for articles on particular topics.  I think we'd get a lot of flak if we started trying to specify what bio sections had to be present, in what order, and/or with what names, since it would have a strong effect on the actual content, and might suppress a more effective presentation in one subject's case just to follow a prescribed template (in the general-English sense of that word) that resulted in front-loading the article with comparatively trivial details and burying the lead, as it were. A bio like Mark Twain is a detailed whole-life story, while one on a typical academic or local politician may completely focus on their career with little private-life material. Some bios are more chronological (usually), while less commonly they may be more topically focused, especially if the person's notable for something short-term, like a controversy, a crime, etc. Some editors are even upset about the idea of the lead sentence being pre-determined details in a particular order, so normalizing the sectional structure is surely off the table.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Actor vs. actress at Hong Chau
There is a discussion at Hong Chau about using actor vs. actress. Please see the discussion here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The proliferation of metadata on lead sentences (was Really?)
Are we honestly holding up this as an example of good practice? It looks dreadful. I would see it as an example of bad practice. I cannot recommend or follow this style. The inclusion of the full name, the full dates and the pronunciation makes it terribly cluttered, almost painfully so. I often use the MoS and advise others to do so, but advice like this brings the whole thing into disrepute.

What do others think? --John (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. And the comma is unnecessary. I would greatly prefer "", with the missing details provided elsewhere. Or maybe even better "" on the assumption that the readers who know what a statesman is will also know that being president automatically makes one a statesman. If someone wants a pronounciation they will be willing to look a little harder than the first line for it; it is unreadable to most and just serves as line noise delaying the punch line of the sentence. And I also prefer to put the full dates somewhere else than in the first sentence. However I'm still generally in favor of full names at the start. —David Eppstein (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Full name and full date of birth are essential. GiantSnowman 11:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why's that then? --John (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that wasn't much of an explanation, was it? But also, why are they essential to place before telling us that Mitterand was the president of France? Why are they so much more important that they should go earlier? —David Eppstein (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because things like 'names' and 'when they lived' tend to be important details about people... GiantSnowman 17:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Very true. But what we are actually talking about is never-used middle names and exact dates of birth and death. Why are they so important that they need to be in the very first sentence? John (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If I may, I have several reasons. One point is that it is what readers have come to expect. When a famous/widely known person's full name or full date of birth is not on Wikipedia, I assume that the information is unknown. Take Felix Mendelssohn, for example. Were it not for the full name at the start of the article, it would seem that his full name was just "Felix Mendelsson".
 * The IPA (or re-spelling) also is necessary for pronunciations that are not obvious. The article Matt Damon begins thusly: "Matthew Paige Damon (/ˈdeɪmən/; born October 8, 1970) is an American actor..." All three parts – full name, pronunciation, and date of birth – are at the very beginning, but it's not clunky and is very helpful to readers. There are ways to go overboard, like quite possibly on Fanny Mendelssohn, which has three names in bold and square brackets. All articles, of course, can gain consensus to start a different way if it is beneficial to the encyclopedia, but in most cases, First Middle Last (/ahem/; January 1, 1900 – December 21, 1999) was... is perfect. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * None of that explains why it needs to go in the first sentence before any information about what the person is notable for. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * An article doesn't need to start with what someone is notable for. It needs to provide context around whatever its subject may be, the most basic of which is the actual name of the person and when they, in a crude way, literally began and ended. You shouldn't start any biography by asserting its notability first, because otherwise it would begin something like this: "" --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but I don't think anyone is arguing for that. We are trying to make it better, not worse. --John (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I asked a similar question in the peer review for Felix Mendelssohn. Why feed the readers unexpected birth names and IPA before getting to the point that he was a composer, or President. The IPA could go to a footnote, and the full birth name could go to the first sentence in the body. How is it lead material that Mendelssohn was also named Jakob, which the reader will never need to know again. Similar question came up for Max Reger. Calling Smerus, with whom I discussed Mendelssohn, and Ewulp (Reger). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would love to get rid of the IPA (not completely, maybe move it to the infobox). If anyone wants to start an rfc I'll support it. I also think it would be nice to allow readable non-IPA pronunciation. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we are. Looks fine to me. If you "can't follow the style" then your edits are likely to be changed by those of us who can. Brings us into disrepute? What a load of rubbish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Gosh. Other than it "looking fine to you", is there a reason you are able to explain why you think this dreadful hen's breakfast is important to maintain on our articles? --John (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to realise that other editors completely disagree with you. Which is why we've used this style for many years. Just coming along and saying "I think it looks awful and of course I'm right" isn't much of an argument. Others don't think it looks awful. If we did we wouldn't have used and supported this style for so long. Simple really. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, the good old "silent majority" argument. Nice. Your failure to justify the current wording is noted. And with the greatest of respect, if you think this is "simple really" I'd say you probably don't understand what we're talking about. John (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * John, to quote Blazin Squad, let's flip reverse this. Why do you want to change, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? GiantSnowman 17:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Actually, let's not. I asked first, and the onus is on you to justify the current advice. I am looking forward to reading your response. John (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The onus is on the one proposing to change established practice, especially when the arguments offered so far have amounted to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and degrade the reading experience. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the onus should be on anyone to justify it. It's been used for years and if we had a problem with it we would have tried to change it. Essentially it's you who doesn't like it. But just because you don't like it doesn't mean everyone else should be forced to agree with you. Neither does it mean that most other people do agree with you but just haven't said so up until now. For myself, I think it's perfect as it is. It provides the information I want and expect to see in the first line of an encyclopaedia article and I'm not sure why you don't. So yes, unless you for some reason think your opinion is somehow more valid than the opinions of those who have shaped this guideline over the years (since it hasn't just sprung into being overnight), the onus is entirely on you to justify why it's a bad guideline. At the moment you're presenting things as though it's entirely self-evident that having full names, full dates and IPA in the lead is a bad idea. Well, not to me it's not. And obviously not to many others either. I'm not so bothered about the IPA (although it can be useful for more obscure pronunciations), but as far as I'm concerned full names and dates are vital and deleting them would be crossing the proverbial red line. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we get it, that you think things are fine, but you're not able to explain why you think that. As I said, your unevidenced claim that "many others" agree with you is a known logical fallacy. We pretty much argue using arguments here. If you've got any it's be great to see them. --John (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Without the IPA and pronunciation file, the original (minus the comma) is just fine, because though Mitterand is likely best known for his time as president, there were also other parts of his life. It's in the same vein as writing "singer-songwriter" to encompass many facets, it appears. As with my earlier comment, this can go too far, like for the article Arnold Schwarzenegger, which currently lists nine things and says "Austrian" and "American" twice in the first sentence. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Schwarzenegger article, like the Mitterand one, is an example of ugly and distracting lead-sentence inclusion creep. Next there might be a drive to include everyone's star sign and shoe size in the first sentence. Either of those is as significant as one's unused middle names. I believe some people consider blood types deeply significant. All of these things can be included in the article (and should be, if they are verifiable and significant). But none of them need to be in the first sentence of every single biography. --John (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The short, familiar version of the name is the article name and can't be missed, right at the top of the page. The first sentence gratifyingly provides more, and the bolding makes it easy to leapfrog past middle names if in a hurry. There doesn't seem to be any problem there, but a load of IPA can be alienating (see Diego Velázquez). Ewulp (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Like I mentioned in the discussion above, we recently had an RfC about parenthetical information in the lead; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 19. Yes, IPA was discussed. I don't think wording here should contradict the consensus found there. This is a lead matter and MOS:BIO should not be inconsistent with MOS:LEAD. I don't feel strongly about IPA (although I do think full birth dates should be retained in parenthetical in the lead, and that removing them will be futile since editors will always feel the need to add the full birth date). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I am indebted to you for your diligence in searching this out. I had a vague memory of this discussion, but for some reason thought it had taken place at the VP, which meant I failed to find it when I was searching last night. The RfC was malformed but provided some evidence there is an appetite to declutter our lead sentences. It derived from this op-ed from June, which has an interesting discussion under it (which I took part in) with a pretty solid consensus that we need to simplify. This probably needs a wider discussion as I recognise there is a significant minority view that everything is fine and dandy. But I don't think the status quo is really an option now. Thoughts? --John (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the RfC and what I noted in the "IPA" section below, I think that editors generally agree that IPAs are not necessary. But when it comes to birth dates, consensus seems to be for retaining the full birth dates. As for other stuff, I'm not as sure, but the closer did note that "many editors are sympathetic to the proposal of limiting the number of foreign names in the lead." The closer also suggested that further discussion may be needed. If a new RfC is started on one or more of these issues, we should definitely publicize it at WP:Village pump (policy). I will also ping the previous involved editors.


 * On a side note: Since I watch this page, it's not necessary to ping me to a discussion here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, I advertised the aforementioned RfC at policy pages, guideline pages, and WikiProjects. So I can see why some people might think it took place at WP:Village pump (policy). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it might be worth another RfC. Here's another cracker: Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell starts: Lieutenant-General Robert Stephenson Smyth Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, OM, GCMG, GCVO, KCB, DL(/ˈbeɪdən ˈpoʊ.əl/ BAY-dən POH-əl; 22 February 1857 – 8 January 1941) was a British Army officer, writer, author of Scouting for Boys which was an inspiration for the Scout Movement, founder and first Chief Scout of The Boy Scouts Association and founder of the Girl Guides. (I forgot about post-nominals.) Does anyone here think this is an example of good, clear encyclopedic prose for the first sentence? I don't. We get a total of nine names, five post-nominals, two pronunciation guides, and his full dates of birth and death (why not times as well?) Here is a clear statement of my concern, as I know I didn't use a very descriptive header:




 * Any thoughts? John (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While it is pertinent to have what someone is notable for out front, I don't think that it precludes the subject's full name or their full lifespan. Take, for instance, Glenn T. Seaborg. This, in my view, is a perfect example of how an article should begin. If the data were removed from the start, on the other hand, it would look more like Tory Christman. While I know that you would agree that this needs at least the birth year, the full date wouldn't hurt at all. Another good example, one that includes pronunciation, is Bach. Pronunciation is in a footnote and the full date is there (O.S., too!), and it still remains unobtrusive. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 23:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Powell's is an unusual case, and these unusual cases are being presented as an argument for removing this information entirely (including proposals to remove birthdates!). If Powell's lead has a problem, deal with it on Powell's talk page.  There's no reason for the MoS to discourage anything like the far, far more typical opening to John Wilson Bengough. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting forbidding metadata from lead sentences, just asking that our recommendations should more accurately reflect what is already good practice, that it should be proportionate for readability. When I worked on the FAC for Vincent van Gogh we ended up putting the pronunciations of his name into a footnote. It's a bloody interesting story, but it doesn't belong in the lead sentence. There's a potential for an RfC but here on this MoS discussion page we could agree that the Mitterand example could be improved? John (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Footnoting seems more and more common. That said, I'm not sure how we're supposed to encapsulate "it should be proportionate for readability" in MoS language.  We could just say pretty much exactly that, but I don't think it would resolve anything; the crux of the issue seems to be that there are editors with widely divergent ideas about what "proportionate" means when it comes to lead sentences and lead sections.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * John: again, van Gogh is an edge case, not an excuse to have the MoS recommend footnoting the pronunciation in John Wilson Bengough (a by far more typical case). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I've often thought that we make the first sentence in an article the least accessible one, when it should be the most accessible. Full names, birth names, dates of birth and death, postnomials, and pronunciations are better suited for infoboxes and the body of the article. Without all that, you end up with a simple, single sentence that sums up the subject quite neatly, even if that's the only thing the reader reads. At most, I'd leave in birth and death year immediately following the common name, to place the person in time. ("François Mitterrand (1916-1996) was President of France from 1981 to 1995, the longest time in office of any French president.") It's worth mentioning that in the Google previews of Wikipedia articles, they strip out all the parenthetical information, instead showing that information below, field-by-field.--Trystan (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And for those of us who consult the opening sentence to find things like pronunciation and full birthdates—we should just bow to aesthetics? We should have to hunt around the article trying to find this information, possibly in collapsed boxes, even though this information is often the only thing we opened the article for in the first place?  Wikipedia is a reference work—why make it more burdensome to use as a reference? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I agree with Trystan. If you are really only looking for the date of birth or pronunciation, I think it is ok to read a couple of paragraphs in, or look at an infobox or a footnote, which you may be able to read by hovering over it. I don't recall anybody saying anything about collapsed boxes, where did that come from? --John (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know you don't like it, but that's never been an argument for the MoS to recommend their removal. You're suggesting making large numbers of readers do extra work to satisfy your personal aesthetic.  You're not taking into account people's actual use cases.
 * You can't hover over a footnote on mobile, which is where most Wiki-reading happens today.
 * "collapsed boxes"—this discussion is not happening in a vacuum. You're surely aware—as a single example—of the disinfoboxers who insist on having infoboxes collapsed as a "compromise" when they can't win complete removal.
 * Birthdates and pronunciations are where they are on countless articles because that's where people want and expect them, and find them most useful. Given how many times proposals to remove them have failed over the years, the onus is on you to demonstrate that readers would benefit from having this information hidden away. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

IPA only?
Is there actually any policy or guideline that recommends using IPA and nothing else for pronunciation guide in the opening sentence of a bio? I assumed there was but I can't find it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We have RESPELL but it is even worse; many articles have both competing forms of pronunciation guide, an audio clip, full dates of birth and death, full unused middle names, nationality, before we even find out what the subject was famous for. All these things were doubtless well-intended, but the cumulative effect is neither useful nor beautiful. John (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree; these should be removed. Kablammo (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 19. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The IPA from W. B. Yeats was just removed, which I find very unhelpful. I had no idea his name was pronounced that way. Is there now a new policy/guideline in place to support the removal of non-obvious pronunciations? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Michael Bednarek, nope. And you can see that the RfC I linked to above shows that editors generally support IPA. At least in terms of that RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The removal was labelled "ce intro". Removing IPA is not a copyedit, and the attempt to disguise such an edit in such a dishonest way should be treated as a sanctionable disruption. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Michael Bednarek, my mistake. The RfC actually shows that most many editors feel that IPA is not necessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored pronunciation to William Butler Yeats, since the average reader will think it's pronounced "Yeets", due to "yeast", "beats", and the majority of other English words with "ea".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

What proportion of the public understands IPA? Kablammo (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just directly reading it, probably less that 0.01%. But 100% of those who are competent to read the encyclopedia at all are also competent to figure out the IPA we provide, because we help them with that; we don't just use the IPA and walk away. The "gap" is people who may be reading the articles on paper. I'm not sure we can do anything for them.  "American dictionary" respellings are ambiguous and inconsistent, and generally not understood by anyone but Americans and maybe Canadians.  And there are numerous WP features that are not available to paper readers; it's not a good reason not to use them.  Our pronunciation guides (where we actually need to have them) shouldn't even be marked up with, since they can in fact be used in paper form by anyone who does know IPA or who is willing to look it up in a book.  I would suggest this is the reason why proposals to put the IPA stuff into tooltips and otherwise "hide" the material have not met with consensus.  We could possibly get consensus to put them in footnotes, since those are still accessible to paper (and otherwise offline) readers.  I would suggest making something like that a WP:VPPOL RfC to get maximum editor eyeballs and buy-in, since it would affect all kinds of articles in any topic (not just bios). I'll try the footnote approach at Yeats and see if it sticks (also added  to the same footnote, since space in the footnote is not the concern that it is in the lead sentence).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "probably less that 0.01%"—don't fool yourself. The number of non-native speakers of English (and readers of en.wp) is enormous, and use of IPA is widespread outside the English-speaking world.  Even within the native English-speaking world its use is far more widespread than "0.01%"—anyone with a passing interest in linguistics, language instruction/learning, or a close relation with their dictionary will be familiar with it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that, then. I'm in favor of us using IPA because it's a real standard; if it's more familiar to more people than linguistics dorks like me after all these years, that's great. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  08:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I was more interested in whether there was a prohibition against non-IPA pronunciation guides. It sounds like there is not. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Names in non-English
And while we're at it, do we really need to add their name(s) in their home language(s)? Do we need Franz Joseph's name in eight of the languages of his empire? Kablammo (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, would be my answer. Again the onus would be on those wishing to retain it to justify it. If the best we can say is "it's been like that for a while", that means it can go. --John (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Only if his name was different in his native language from his common name in English (e.g. William I, German Emperor, who was known in German, and also often in English, as Wilhelm). Franz Joseph however was commonly known as Franz Joseph in German too and that was the common language of the empire and his own native language. For another common example, see Arthur Kennedy (governor): putting the names of British officials in Hong Kong in Chinese too; completely unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Necrothesp. Wilhelm would be foolhardy to remove, but we do not need to add other variants (Polish, yadda yadda). Including "German: Franz Joseph" after "Franz Joseph" is redundant. Giving Chinese for a non-Chinese person is pointless in English Wikipedia (not pointless for Mao Zedong, which is just an romanized approximation of his real name). PS: For Chinese and such, we're increasingly moving this stuff to a sidebar template, since it involves multiple script and romanization systems.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sidebars, infoboxes and footnotes are the way to go here. --John (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See below—these things are not user-friendly, especially on mobile, and they force readers to go hunting for pronunciations before even finishing the first sentence—significantly impacting the reading experience. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Emphatically yes—it's one of the major uses I and many others have for Wikipedia. In the case of Japanese (where romanized pronunciations map unpredictably to their Japanese representations) removing them would be a huge problem.  If individual articles include them in a problematic way, deal with it at those individual articles—don't cause the rest of us problems to serve your pet ideology. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Remember we are talking about the first sentence. Does it need to be there? I agree we need it in the article, but I strongly think the cumulative effect of full name, pronunciation guide(s), full dates of birth and death, and so on right at the start of the article, looks awful and is hard to read on a small screen. It seems a lot of participants in the recent RfC agree. It isn't fair to call it a "pet ideology", more like "obvious common sense". --John (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If it were "obvious common sense", the practice would not have survived so many of these discussions over the years. Infoboxes et al. are a terrible place to shove them.  Not all articles have them (and not just because of Disinfoboxers—plenty of articles do not lend themselves to infoboxes), and they are not all that accessible on mobile (sometimes they're collapsed or whatever).  The mobile folk keep changing the layout (and whether boxes are collapsed), which just makesthings worse.
 * Besides all that, think of how people read articles: typically, I'll open an article and the first thing I think is "How do I pronounce Penderecki"? How could it possibly serve the reader to go hunting around the article to find the pronunciation (which could be in an infobox, a sidebar, somewhere in the body, or in some collapsed box) before even finishing the first sentence?  How disruptive!  The very idea is infuriating.  Removing these things significantly degrades the reading experience.
 * Of course, those who promote this pet ideology will simply keep bringing it up until they manage to get a single RfC to "support" their decision—it's a matter of attrition. This kind of thing sucks the enthusiasm for WP out of me, both as a reader and editor. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Enthusiasm goes both ways. Just to give the opposing view... I don’t really care how “Penderecki” is pronounced.  I simply want to know who Penderecki is/was.  Having to wade through all sorts of parenthetical pronunciation stuff before I find out the answer sucks my enthusiasm (both reading and editing).  In fact, since I have no idea what all the pronunciation symbols mean, having the parenthetical is useless for me... even if I WAS curious about how to pronounce the name.  A link to a voice file (with someone actually saying the name) would be more helpful than a bunch of symbols I don’t understand.  Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: "I don’t really care how “Penderecki” is pronounced."—I'd wager this puts you in a minority. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard people stop mid-lead sentence (not just on Wikipedia) to ask how to pronounce the name of the subject.  A significant number of readers (including myself) open the article primarily to find the pronunciation of the subject.  And, again, the fact that this information has survived so many of these discussions is a strong indicator of just how many people find this information not only useful, but fundamental. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "A link to a voice file" would be a nice extra, but does a reader no good when they're at work, on the train, in the library, etc. A voice file should never replace a textual representation.
 * Nobody "forces" you to read the parenthetical (and few of them are anywhere near long enough to "wade" through)—skipping the parenthetical is trivially easy. If this is burdensome to you, a body has to wonder what isn't. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The solution suggested by two sections above, and implemented by  on the Yeats article, is a good compromise. An unobtrusive superscript letter immediately following the name links directly to the IPA pronunciation (and likely far more useful, to a common term with the same pronunciation).  Kablammo (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Kablammo: I've already responded to this. Aside from being unpredictable (why would someone guess that's where the pronunciation's hidden?), it's also less accessible, particularly on mobile. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked at that and various other articles like Nietzsche and Mao, on mobile and they're not problematic, regardless where the info is. The order users see is the lead, then the infobox(es), then the body. Navigation is very quick, either dragging the content up/down, or poking a link.  I think this really comes down to a personal preference and an individual philosophy of information architecture at the small scale. I would love to see WMF spend some of its tens of millions of dollars on a serious usability study, e.g. by the Nielsen Norman Group who are (IMO) the most practiced pros in the Web usability field.  Since that's not likely to happen, there'll likely be another RfC (or more than one): When do we want pronunciation information?  Where do we want it?  In what detail do we want it, and should the detail level vary?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What "they" are you referring to in "they're not problematic"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "That [the Yeats article] and various other articles like Nietzsche and Mao".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  15:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're calling "not problematic"—the IPA being in the lead? The positioning or collapse state of the infoboxes?  Etc? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This side discussion is getting weird. If I'd thought anything pertinent to this discussion was problematic at any of those articles, I would have said it was problematic and said was problematic. I would not have said the articles are not problematic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All I was saying was that I couldn't parse whatever it was you were trying to express. I still don't, but whatever. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As a start for reducing clutter without touching the controversial issue of foreign names themselves (which could turn into a very long no-consensus discussion): how about discouraging "Language:" and "Romanization:" labels before those names in the opening brackets? (Already de facto standard on Japan-related articles, despite advice in nihongo.) The language is usually obvious from context, and the romanization system's name is not top-priority information that belongs at the very start of the article.


 * E.g. cutting "Chinese:" & "Wade-Giles:" from the lead at Mao Zedong would alleviate some of the WP:SEAOFBLUE effect there. (zh has an option "labels=no" to remove those labels, but the default is "=yes".) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly support (and practise) this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Aye. These linguistic details are in a sidebar, under the infobox.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case of Japanese, they never were—but whether this clutter appears in the lead should not be dependent on whether it appears elsewhere. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip re no, 59.149.124.29. But while it works for lang-zh, it doesn't work for lang-ko (although does work...) Anyone know why and how to fix this? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Overview of the thicket of templates:
 * For Korean, MOS:KO suggests using korean. That template does support no.
 * The lang-xx family of templates always outputs a language label (because of how they invoke Module:Lang). Only option it supports is to turn off the links (no), or see #4. Or maybe put in a feature request for a labels option at Module talk:Lang?
 * lang-zh is an exception because it started out independently from the rest of that family of templates, so it has all sorts of non-standard options, including no.
 * never outputs a label (the no option has no effect there). So in theory you could switch to  to turn off labels, but in practice this probably isn't a good idea because many  templates also handle other language-specific details (e.g. turning on yes or adjusting the font) which you'd have to specify manually every time in.
 * Hope that helps. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Onwards
How would you like to proceed? An argument for the status quo is an argument for incomprehensibility, for Google translating our lead sentences to make them readable by normal humans. Pinging, the author of the op-ed. Here's a great graphic from it.

. Food for thought. --John (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Stripping the parentheticals from Christopher Columbus's lead completely gives a Flesch score of 32 ("difficult to read"), so it would be difficult to argue the problem stems from that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That would appear to be a huge improvement, if I believe the chart. Dicklyon (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope—with the parentheticals in, the score is still 33.2 ("difficult to read"). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. How would we look at just the first sentence though, which is more directly relevant? How would some of these examples that we've been looking at (Mitterand, Baden-Powell) look over time? --John (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Paste snippets into the form at http://www.readabilityformulas.com/free-readability-formula-tests.php.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It can't deal with single sentences. --John (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect it doesn't deal with these sorts of parentheticals at all. Look at the formula in the Flesch–Kincaid readability tests article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, boys, girls, cats, & dogs... but English speaking people frequently live, work, and play outside of Australia/Canada/UK/USA. Also, this isn't 1995...many websites use a combination of languages on the same page. Additionally, more sources are now available (online and easily translated/translatable into English) that use a person's name in the script of that language (including streaming videos, VOIP chatting and pidgin websites). Researching a popular Asian topic may require the use 3 or 4 different writing systems in order to accurately investigate it. It is important to have this sort of basic data immediately and obviously available in the article so that you can confirm that the subject of an article is indeed the one that you are looking for.

I strongly disagree with the author of the op-ed. I think that the main objection to IPA is simply from people who have never been exposed to a dialect or language other than their own native tongue. It is difficult for many people who have never been exposed to a strong regional dialect other than their own to understand how much of a challenge it can be to correctly spell a word from it's pronunciation and vice versa. IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) is a standard, much like country codes are for postal addresses UTF-8 is for emails. Removal of IPA information and alternate names in foreign scripts from the introduction significantly reduces the transmission of information. Don't forget that by hiding text (moving it to obscure footnotes or an infobox), you also make reading comprehension more difficult. And no, it is not obvious that a tiny little non-standardized footnote is where you can find pronunciation information.

If anything, I would support more instances of IPA in articles, with the addition of a text-to-speech tool for those who don't know how to read it (even though it's easy to figure out from the linked chart). Without IPA, you might use the wrong version of a homograph when reading the article aloud (or have the reverse issue of ghoti). If you compare the analysis of the entire introductory paragraph with and without the language stuff you will not have a major difference. However, if you compare it with and without specialized dating, there is a major difference. You can use the tests at http://www.analyzemywriting.com/index.html with the introduction on the page El Lissitzky to see what I mean. Vandraedha (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about whether to include "IPA in articles", so your entire argument is a non-sequitur. We are talking about IPA in the first sentence of the article, before any description of what the subject is notable for. What justification do you have for that specific placement of the IPA? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * David Eppstein: if you read carefully what Vandraedha has written, you'll see that "the first sentence of the article" is exactly what they are talking about—it's basic information that needs to be right there for a list of reasons. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * IPA is very basic information that identifies the subject. When you introduce yourself to someone at something like a hotel check-in kiosk, the first thing you usually say to identify yourself is "Hello, my name is Jean Doe... spelled J-E-A-N D-O-E". IPA is the equivalent of spelling out the name so that people can understand what you just said. Vandraedha (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hotel check-in clerks have very different needs than Wikipedia readers. When I introduce a speaker at an academic talk, I don't spell out their name, and I don't tell everyone their birthday; instead, I speak briefly about their accomplishments. I think that's much more closely analogous. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (You also kindly pronounce their name for everyone.) Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, not always correctly. And our articles kindly spell their name for everyone, just as automatically, in the process of saying who the article is about, without the interjection of UnReAdAbLeLiNeNoIsE. My not spelling out their name should be the equivalent, for here, of not sounding it out. If this were a spoken encyclopedia for the blind, then we'd be having the same argument about not spelling out their name after we say it and before we say why we should care. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your not spelling it out should be indicative of nothing at all. No proposal has been made to force IPA or birth/deathdates into the lead.  The strife arises from the vocal minority who propose banishing this information from the lead sentence (under the claim it is "UnReAdAbLeLiNeNoIsE"—?!?).  Most of us either find it useful (and most useful where it is), or just skip over it.  There's no evidence that it interferes with readers' ability to read the rest of the lead sentence, except in cases where the parentheticals are excessive—and the MoS already deals with those edge cases. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is indicative of the fact that I don't think that's what most of the audience wants to know first. As is the case with IPA here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have evidence that "most of the audience" deosn't care how to pronounce the name of the topic they're reading, I'd like to see it. That goes against a lifetime of experience on my end—most people I know would stop mid-sentence to ask or Google it.  A pronunciation guide right there that they don't have to fumble around for gets them back into reading quicker and thus is far less disruptive. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you're deflecting to "wants to know" from "wants to know first". Stop it. It's tiresome and it's a big part of why this argument is dragging on so long. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Wants to know first" is exactly what I am saying—how could you even read my comments any other way? What's tiresome is that you've now done this to both my and Vandraedha's comments, as if you can't be bothered to read them—you're reflexively disagreeing.  Stop it—it's obnoxious. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please adjust your caffeine intake and pay attention to my words. Yes, absolutely, yes, I want to see how to pronounce something unfamiliar when I first encounter it. Why wouldn't you want something that aids in reading comprehension at the beginning of an article? It aids me in properly retaining the information that is going to be displayed repeatedly in an article. It's quite jarring to discover that I'm mentally pronouncing something incorrectly after I have read through half of the text. It also makes it more difficult to absorb and retain information (both related to pronunciation, and immediately before the pronunciation change). I would estimate that, about 90% of the time, pronunciation is non-controversial and simple enough to deal with in just an IPA note in the intro. The rare times it needs an explanation are the edge cases where it should be elsewhere than the intro. It makes no sense to have pronunciation for simple non-controversial words buried down in the fourth or fifth or sixth section of an article. ***NOTE*** this does not necessarily include edge cases where pronunciation and etymology require detailed explanations and have their own sections linked in the TOC. Those should be dealt with in the same way as dates... put an uncontroversial summary in the intro and explain in detail further down the page. Vandraedha (talk&#124;contribs) 06:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Further arguing here is unlikely to be productive. If we want to make any change in the IPA recommendations, we should follow the advice from the rfc: "Many editors view IPA as the most non-necessary parenthetical addition to lead. An RFC could be developed and launched as to seek the community opinion and tackle this issue specifically." Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Our job is not to teach phonics. (Were it otherwise, why not convert the whole article to IPA?) ESL students clever enough to take on English can surely figure out what the superscript letter links to. My preference is to eliminate IPA entirely on these articles; I accept that it is important to others, which is why I agree with the compromise further up (footnote IPA pronunciations). Kablammo (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To my mind, the obvious half way point between these two extremists views is to place the IPA pronunciation meta data in an info box. It would then be prominent enough for those who desire to know how to pronounce the name... but without interrupting the textural flow of the lede paragraph. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Footnotes (as now used e.g. for François Mitterrand, although his needs a reliable source for its IPA transliteration) are also a reasonable way of decluttering the first sentence while leaving the information still available. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Kablammo: "Our job is not to teach phonics."—and non sequiturs are not arguments. You don't like IPA?  Then skip it—the effort is trivial.
 * Blueboar: as has been pointed out repeatedly, forcing the IPA into infoboxes is problematic because
 * many articles have none, for a wide variety of reasons (many having nothing to do with WP:DISINFOBOX)
 * it's unpredictable—the reader cannot be expected to know that it's there—particularly if:
 * the infobox may be collapsed
 * it may not even show up on the page with long infoboxes
 * it forces readers to break off reading in mid-first sentence to find out how to pronounce what they're reading about, disrupting the reading experience form the get-go
 * The disadvantages of IPA right next to the word or phrase to be pronounced?
 * many people haven't learned IPA yet
 * some people JUSTDONTLIKEIT
 * the first group can (and does) just skip those few symbols; the latter group exasperates the rest of us with years of debates.
 * David Eppstein: the problems of footnoting pronunciations has been discussed—please stop talking about it as if it hasn't. Also, you fail to mention that it was you who unilaterally moved Mitterrand's pronunciation to a footnote (calling it "line noise")—you mention it as though some sort of consensus were reached over this.  Are you going to disrupt Wikipedia by going around making more such changes?  How many of these changes have you made?  Do we have endless acrimonious RfCs to look forward to like those the DISINFOBOXers stalk? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is it relevant that I moved it? Are you going to ask only counterfactual questions, or do you have an actual point? Are you incapable of reading user edit histories? Are you going to respond to my point about IPA transliterations needing sources? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Why is it relevant that I moved it?"—what's relevant is the way you presented the move, as I said, and the fact that you present the move as unproblematic when you've already been presented with problems with doing it. That calls in your good faith.
 * "Are you going to respond to my point about IPA transliterations needing sources?"—assuming they do (and you haven't made a case that they do), it's easy to find in most cases. Random House gives the IPA for Mitterrand, for instance.  My John Wilson Bengough has had its pronunciation referenced for over two years. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting that Random House shows the readable pronunciation guide but hides the IPA. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Kendall-K1: It's a slider that opens on whatever pronunciation guide you used last—for instance, clicking that link opens it up with IPA for me. Other dicitonaries give IPA exclusively, such as Oxford,, as does the Routledge Dictionary of Pronunciation for Current English, and especially —English ones (including every Japanese–English dicitonary I've owned)—and the trend is strong towards switching from other systems (Oxford and Routledge obviously didn't use IPA twenty years ago).  The fact is that IPA is taught widely around the world—my children's junior-high English textbooks (we live in Japan) are chock full of IPA.  The fact that Americans tend to be unfamiliar with it means nothing—most English first- and second-language speakers (and Wikipedia readers) are not Americans.  This is why IPA has survived years of RfCs and talk page discussions trying to have it removed—people around the world, like myself, actually use it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Routledge is nothing but a pronunciation guide (no definitions are given), and the Oxford dictionary gives IPA pronunciations for only some of the terms (which would be unenforceable here). Wikipedia is neither a pronunciation guide nor a dictionary, but an encyclopedia.  This focus on IPA would be better directed at Wiktionary.  Kablammo (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Kablammo: The topic of discussion is not whether to force IPA into the lead, but whether to force its removal. "... but an encyclopedia ..." is a non sequitur that hasn't convnced the community in the well-over-a-decade that IPA has proliferated in Wikipedia's leads—in other words.  We ge that YOUDONTLIKEIT, but you haven't presented us with any reason we should care about your aesthetic preferences.  Why not write yourself a script that hides the IPA templates if it bothers you so much?  That's not sarcasm. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a script for you, Kablammo; plunk it into your User:Kablammo/vector.js‎, and feel free to tweak it to your needs. See how it obliterates that ugly IPA on an article such as Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario?  You're now free to mispronounce it as you please. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)