Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 3

Thomas
You're adding a new paragraph, Francis, and your wording sounds to me like it goes against the "most common" principle which is why I made that slight change. Maybe you can explain why you prefer your original wording. - Haukur 10:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * From naming conventions (common names):"For articles on people some minor practical exceptions are contained in Naming conventions (people)"
 * This is one of these practical exceptions:
 * For avoiding e.g. Thomas Becket vs. Thomas à Becket discussions (both have around 200.000 Google hits);
 * For avoiding e.g. Jean de Berry vs. John, Duke of Berry discussions: see "exceptions" regulations in Naming conventions (names and titles) ("If a person is overwhelmingly best known [...] by a name that doesn't fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name.") - I don't want to rewrite that guideline.
 * --Francis Schonken 10:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so it's an exception from the "common names" principle. But what makes it a "minor and practical" one? Can I call my Norse mythology guideline a minor practical exception too? :) - Haukur 10:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that I don't use the Duke of Berry as example in the "people" NC - the Duke of Berry is Nobility, so part of Naming conventions (names and titles), as mentioned in the common names NC:"For articles on people some minor practical exceptions are contained in Naming conventions (people) - these are however hardly sufficient to cover the complexities for naming royals and other nobility: hence Naming conventions (names and titles), and several other nobility-related Naming Conventions guidelines, contain many detailed exceptions."This doesn't mean that the people NC should deliberately choose a formulation that is in opposition to the "names and titles" NC. --Francis Schonken 11:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well, then. I'm throwing in the towel in this revert war. But I don't agree that exceptions like this are minor so I'm removing that word from the link here. - Haukur 11:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguators
I put in a request that Thomas F. Bayard (1828-1898) be moved to Thomas F. Bayard, Sr.. In Talk:Thomas F. Bayard (1828-1898), stilltim opposed this and wrote that:


 * There were many Bayard's, even in Delaware, and it's very hard for many people to keep them straight. I have just finished correcting several articles confused between father and son. Sr. & Jr. would seem to work in this case, because right now I know of only the two Thomas'- but there are more than two with other names, and I would prefer a consistent way of dealing with this problem. The only clean, consistent way is clearly to use dates. That's what the published encyclopedias do. The convention was written by people thinking of a smaller encyclopedia and not focused on the issue of many (say) James Smith's that were lawyers in California (for example). So why not bite the bullet and understand we need to just use dates. This concept is not original to me, see William Bradford, but would ask that everyone seriously consider it.

I think that stilltim has a point, especially when you deal with political families in which you need to distinguish between several individuals with the same name and nearly the same occupation. We can still have occupational disambiguators as redirects—as somebody has written, redirects are cheap—but the article itself should use the dates of birth and death as the parenthetical disambiguator, if one is needed. Moreover, it avoids clashes when an individual has engaged in several occupations, and it's not certain which one should dominate. In short, I propose the following rule to replace the current rule on parenthetial disambiguation:


 * If a parenthetical disambiguator is needed, use the dates of birth and death. The dates should be connected by an en-dash character.

Comments?

— DLJessup (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This should certainly not be unconditional policy. The Bayards were mostly Ametican politicians, so occupation does not disambiguate them well. But consider the essentially occupational split of William Morris (disambiguation), which is much clearer than dates. (I'm sure there are better examples.)

For the Bayards, I would prefer, and seriously recommend, doing what is customary for non-royal English families: find a good complete genealogy, and distinguish by (parenthesized) roman numerals. Dusambiguating by dates should be the last resort, not the first, if only out of kindness to the readers. Septentrionalis 06:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, in the present wikipedia context, I don't think a fixed rule on non-noble/royal persons is possible:
 * We have George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush (uses abbreviated middle name as disambiguator - I don't see that change to either George Bush (1946), nor to George Bush II for the younger one).
 * We have John F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy, Jr. (I don't see the first of these change to John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), nor to John F. Kennedy I - nor to John F. Kennedy, Sr. for that matter)
 * We have Martin Luther King, Sr., Martin Luther King, Jr. and Martin Luther King III (I don't see the first of these change to Martin Luther King (1899–1984), nor to Martin Luther King I)
 * We have Johann Strauss I, Johann Strauss II, Johann Strauss III (I don't see the first of these change to Johann Strauss (1804–1849), nor to Johann Strauss, Sr., nor to Johann Strauss (father) - which would be the "English" translation of de:Johann Strauß (Vater))
 * There are too many fixed & very common habits in this respect: so I'd always look for how persons like the Bayards are usually disambiguated in literature, and then apply the English "people" naming conventions to the best of your abilities. If there is a real problem, like e.g. the two Roger Taylor (drummer)'s, then you can always notify here, if you can't get it figured out. (note that the Roger Taylor's were solved without needing additional help from this guideline).
 * Further re. using date of birth/decease: then you'd have the inevitable discussion over which separator should be used: - or – or &mdash; Which is a ludicrous discussion (I know, you'd probably find hundreds of wikipedians prepared to fill hundreds of talk pages on the desirability of the one or the other): Dates are IMHO, as said by Sept/Pmand, only last resort; and in that case, I'd say, don't add another layer of complexity by not using what most people have as a separate key on their keyboard, i.e. standard hyphen. --Francis Schonken 09:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * PS, see also Naming conventions (numbers and dates) --Francis Schonken 09:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Another PS: Thinking further about it I'd *specifically* avoid using ordinals for non-monarchical rulers, think e.g. George II of the United States would be so POV/confusing (while implying something monarchical), that it couldn't even be used as a redirect IMHO, per Redirect; similarly George Bush II doesn't seem very suitable to me for a content page (and as a redirect page, after all the issues that have been over the naming of George W. Bush's page, nobody seems to have ever *suggested* that as a possible alternative, not even as a redirect candidate) --Francis Schonken 10:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Basis for this being approved as a guideline?
I see several objections on this page, and absolutely no support from anyone except its creator. That clearly isn't a consensus. Nor is it clear what its intended scope is with regard pre-existing NC pages that overlap with it. More plausible descriptors for this would seem to be "proposed guideline", "rejected guideline", or "essay". In full anticipation of a reponse freely using the word "nonsense", Alai 04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention for Dutchmen
I don't know if this is the right venue to discuss this, but I have noticed two problems with the naming convention on wikipedia for Dutchmen whose family name starts with the word "Van" (eg Marco van Basten):


 * 1) The letter "v" in "van" is invariantly spelt with a lowercase; however from my knowledge and experience many Dutchmen do have names with a capital "V" in "Van".
 * 2) When being categorised "van" would invariantly be treated as part of the given name (ie Marco van Basten would be categorised by means of, say,  ).  However from my understanding the word "van" is part of the family name, not give name (ie "Mr. Van Basten", not "Mr. Basten").

Please let me know where shall we have the above issues resolved. Thanks. --Pkchan 16:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As for your first point: I don't know if the English language has capitalisation rules for Dutch names, but in Dutch, the "v" in "van" is not capitalised when it is preceded by (a part of) the given name. So: "Marco van Basten", "M. van Basten", "Van Basten", "Mr. Van Basten".
 * On your second point: "Van" is not treated as part of the given name, but as part of the surname without any effect on alphabetical ordering. This is the standard way of ordering surnames in the Netherlands.
 * Note that in Belgium, even in the Dutch speaking part, the "v" is (almost) always capitalised, and taken into account in alphabetical listings. Eugene van der Pijll 17:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, sorry, if this repeats most of Eugene's answer:)
 * If I remember well, in Dutch standard use for names that have an independent "van", "vande", "vanden" or "vander" starting the last name is to write it lowercase when preceded by the first name. When the surname is used independently, or followed by the first name, the "v" becomes an uppercase "V".
 * So, in Dutch one would write:
 * ... het feit dat Van Basten zes doelpunten scoorde ...
 * ... was Marco van Basten sinds het begin van zijn aantreden ...
 * (copied that from nl:Marco van Basten)
 * Also "Van Basten, Marco" could be written when sorting by last name.
 * In fact, in Dutch there are two systems for ordering alphabetically:
 * The way phonebooks do (at least in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, can't speak for Holland, nor for Italian phonebooks, when living in Milan), under "V": "Van Basten, Marco"
 * The way archives and so do, under "B": "Basten, Marco van"
 * Dutch wikipedia apparently chose the second system for their "category sort keys", but I wouldn't follow that for English wikipedia (don't know whether that's in a guideline somewhere or not).
 * Just checked Britannica also (printed edition), as usual, a mess:
 * "Van Buren, Martin" (8th US president, but a quite Dutch last name)
 * "Van de Graaff, Robert Jemison" (20th century US inventor, also quite Dutch last name)
 * "Van Depoele, Charles Joseph" (19th century Belgian, moved to US)
 * "Van Dyck, Anthony" (16th century Flemish painter, lived and worked in England for a part of his life)
 * "van 't Hoff, Jacobus Henricus" (from the Netherlands, 19th/20th century chemist, lived in several European countries, ultimately in Berlin)
 * "Waals, Johannes Diederik van der" (19th century, from Holland)
 * This doesn't seem workable for Wikipedia to me. If following this system when trying to find someone in an alphabetical list one first has to know from what country the person is; then, whether or not he's still associated with that country (is Van Basten associated with Italy or with the Netherlands?), and it supposes native English speakers are all aware of the different sort key for those still associated with the Netherlands... where would that end...
 * So, I'd advise in English wikipedia, whatever the habits on Dutch wikipedia.
 * Anyway whether written "van" or "Van", that word is part of Marco's last name, no doubt about that. --Francis Schonken 18:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a few remarks:
 * in Dutch phonebooks (i.e. in the Netherlands), names are sorted like "Basten, Marco van". Most Dutch people would be very surprised to find Van Basten listed under the "V", and would correct that, I think.
 * most of the people you mention have an uppercase "V", which means they are either Belgian, or "foreign" (i.e. not Dutch anymore). That Van Buren and Van de Graaff are listed under the "V" is appropriate. The only inconsistency is between Van't Hoff and Van der Waals, which may be explained by the typo in one of the names. In the online edition, the name has been corrected ("van 't Hoff", with a space), and is listed as "Hoff, Jacobus Henricus van 't". Eugene van der Pijll 18:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tx for the extra clarifications! Of course, in English wikipedia the "principle of least surprise" is best applied for what the majority of the visitors of the English encyclopedia would expect.

As far as the upper case/lower case v's are concerned Belgium and the Netherlands apply *exactly* the same rules (it's only the sorting that is different), apart from maybe the old rule that nobility have a lower case - that applies to, for example, "d'Udekem d'Acoz" (nobility) or "D'Hondt" (no nobility), but I think the system is no longer in use, and even don't know whether it ever applied to van/Van. As I said some Belgian archives use the Dutch sorting system (I assisted in designing a database system for an archive in Antwerp once, they required *two separate fields* for the last names, one for the "van"/"vanden"/"vander"/"van de"/... etc., if applicable; the sorting was done on the other surname field.

See also the three points I just added to Categorization --Francis Schonken 19:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Having taken notice of Eugene's explanation of the convention in the Netherlands, I am nevertheless inclined to agree with Francis that sorting rules in the English Wikipedia may better depart from the original Dutch rules and adapt the rules of Belgium instead. To most English speakers, who aren't aware of the Dutch sorting rules, it would be an even bigger surprise to find Van Basten listed in an alphabetical listing under "B" rather than under "V".
 * As to whether the capitalisation of "V" in article names and contents, I am also inclined to think that in the English Wikipedia we may have to devise a naming convention which is different from the native Dutch usage and more in line with the current English usage. The rule that the capitalisation depends on whether it follows a first name (or part of it) or not is obviously a rule not found in the English grammar.  And as far as I know the English media seldom follow this rule -- see a rather liberal piece of capitalisation here, though this one  appears to have gotten it right.  If we are to follow the Dutch rule we may have introduced some new rules into the English grammar.
 * One extra point I would like to seek extra clarification here: do the same rules as elaborated above apply to other common multi-word Dutch family names ("van der" &c.) as well? --Pkchan 19:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But wouldn't finding "Van Beethoven" under the "V" be a surprise as well?
 * The Dutch rules apply to all Dutch names with prefixes, including "van der" and "de". Eugene van der Pijll 19:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I added Beethoven as an exception to Categorization - yeah, how did that come? I've no clue whatsoever: he came from Belgian descendance, and is generally associated with Germany; no reason to apply Dutch rules afaik; just it happens to be that way that he's known as Beethoven rather than van Beethoven or Van Beethoven.
 * Beethoven was Low German, from Bonn; doubtless the same name element as the Dutch. Often capitalized in his case to make clear that it is not the ennobling von. Septentrionalis 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't know whether there would be other examples in this sense, but at the moment I can't think of any. --Francis Schonken 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Compare, for example, for the former Dutch prime minister, one would never speak about him as "Agt", that would always be "Van Agt"/"Dries van Agt" (nonetheless: alphabetical sorting on "Agt van" in the Netherlands) - so for Beethoven it's just something that happened for other reasons I suppose. --Francis Schonken 20:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The information that Francis Schonken and Eugene van der Pijll provided about the Netherlands is correct (I dunno about Belgium) and I have nothing to add, except that, as a Dutchman, I find it unnatural and even somewhat repulsive to find e.g. the Dutch name "Marco van Basten" sorted under the "V" instead of under the "B", though I understand of course that this is the English Wikipedia. Andries

Martin Van Buren was New York Dutch, and alphabetizing him under B is violation of established usage. The same should apply to other American names of the same class, even when written separately, whatever is done about Belgian or Dutch names; and usually, as with Vanderbilt, they are written solidly. Septentrionalis 17:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing was already settled in Categorization, as mentioned above, also mentioning some notable exceptions like Beethoven and Montesquieu. --Francis Schonken 22:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * NB - This guideline has since been changed. See Categorization_of_people and the extensive preceding talkpage discussions. Johnbod 17:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

About given names not usually used
Many people are baptised and given more than one christian name (or similar for people of other religions), but then only one of the names are acctually used together with the surname. In the article about the person, all the names ought to be mentioned, but what is the best way of presenting them?

One example: Swedish olympic skier Anja Pärson's full name is Anja Sofia Tess Pärson, but noone calls her that (with the possible exception of letters from the Tax Authority). The article's name should of course be Anja Pärson, since this is what she is known as, but what is the best way of presenting the other names? I suggest the best way is to begin the article with the full name but with only the used names in bold letters, like this: Anja Sofia Tess Pärson. And Tony Blair should then be presented not as Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (as he is now) but as Anthony Charles Lynton (Tony) Blair on the page about him.

That's my opinion. What do you think? John Anderson 10:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi John, the naming conventions series of guidelines is only about article names, not about article text. The Manual of Style series of guidelines is probably where you should direct your question, for example Manual of Style (biographies) is about the topic you raise here. Maybe move your question/suggestion to the talk page of that style guide? --Francis Schonken 13:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but article texts about a person always starts with the name of the person, so I don't think it would be wrong to discuss it here too... but I see that the topic has already been resolved there... John Anderson 16:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames
After a recent (friendly) dispute over an article name, I think this guide could use a little more clarification about widely used nicknames being okay for article titles. It seems that we name articles after a public person's nickname if they are almost exclusively known by that name, e.g. Prince (artist) and Madonna (entertainer). These are not exactly pen or stage names, as is kind of already adressed, it just left me a bit confused. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this page doesn't seem to explicitly say what to do with nicknames... it lead to some confusion with a less obvious example.

So uh, maybe I still sound a bit confused. I'll take a stab at improving the examples after I think about it a bit more, but I'd like to hear people's thoughts first. --W.marsh 23:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (same guy answering)
 * Had a look at the Dr. Drew example. Dunno what I'd do (don't know the guy). But something came to my mind: maybe ask yourself: if the guy would publish a book, or would put his name under a newspaper article: what's the name he would use (of course in the assumption he wants people to know that it's the Loveline host who publishes the book/article)?
 * One rule for all will be quite difficult. Still don't know what name to put on the Contamine article used as example. Wrestlers (they got me involved in that with similar questions) are even more difficult: some of them have half a dozen very well known nicknames/stagenames. So, then, it's sometimes easier to resort to the real name, that is often not very well known.
 * So "widely used nicknames" can be OK for article titles. The general rule is to use the most common name and hope that that name can be written down in an unambiguous " " format. If that isn't the case: use your common sense to the best of your abilities. The guideline points to a lot of things that can be done to come to acceptable solutions, using real examples as much as possible. Of course that doesn't cover everything yet, and examples of good solutions to particular problems are welcome.
 * --Francis Schonken 00:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal on spacing of initials in names
Dozens of famous people of Indian origin have been known by two initials plus their last name, where those first two initials are used in place of the first name. Just a few examples include P.C. Sorcar, V.S. Naipaul, and A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. In each of these cases, the official spelling and punctuation of their names does NOT include a space between the first two initials. That is, P.C. Sorcar is correct, while P. C. Sorcar is not. Becuase of this usage amongst so many notable persons, I would propose that the Manual of Style specifically allows the correct usage in article names and articles. Thanks. Abpatak 05:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (people of India and Sri Lanka) was maybe what you were looking for. That is a proposal (not a guideline yet). I was planning to dunk it to historical if activity on that proposal remains as low as it is now (1 person, apart from me adding the "proposal" tag, and that was three months ago). So feel free to expand that proposal. If it works there, I don't see why we shouldn't link it from the "people" and/or "names & titles" NC guidelines.
 * But there's work on the proposal... the "people of India & Sri Lanka" proposal proposes things that are not nearly followed overall in wikipedia. E.g. "The main article should make plain which parts of an individual's name are honorific, and what they mean in English.", I couldn't find anything of the kind in the A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada article - and by the BTW, why isn't he just called "Swami Prabhupada", isn't that how his name would be most easily recognised by most people? and isn't it "unambiguous"?
 * What I didn't like about your question (or was it meant as an "instruction"?) is the way you are slamming with "official"... recognisability is "official" naming policy in wikipedia (see "policy in a nutshell" at the naming conventions policy page). I wouldn't know what kind of "official" supersedes that? The swami's "official" name is also Abhay Charan De, or was that a kind of "official" not to your taste? No, the "official" game doesn't lead anywhere, apart from of course "official" policies at wikipedia, for wikipedia content. --Francis Schonken 12:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, when I said "official", I meant the generally accepted spelling of the most commonly used version of that person's name. Thus, "William H. Gates III" may be his official name, but the encyclopedia entry should be, and IS, titled "Bill Gates".  As for Naming conventions (people of India and Sri Lanka), I've commented on that and think it's a good guideline, but it's a separate issue.  I think one of the reasons there's little feedback is because the suggestion is pretty non-controversial, so I'm planning on adding it to the guideline unless someone objects. Abpatak 04:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Tx! - Re. the issue of whether to write "X.Y. " or "X. Y.  " I maybe should clarify a bit: So, --Francis Schonken 08:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Without space between two abbreviated letters is also my preference (and is I think most common practice after all);
 * Nonetheless I had put the "with space except for well-accepted nicknames that also leave out the periods" in the present version of the guideline. The thing is, "with space" had resulted from prior discussions (I had drawn that from naming conventions (common names) which used to include the "H. G. Wells" example); The nickname exception I had added resulted from the "B. G. James"/"BG James" article naming discussion.
 * I suppose a very broad consensus would be needed to change the people NC guideline on this point. It would also involve moving several pages to a new name, which can't be done unless there is consensus to do so.
 * I wouldn't object to inscribing the "without space" version in the Naming conventions (people of India and Sri Lanka) guideline, if this is indeed the most spread fashion to write these names. If that guideline proposal gets accepted, it already settles the issue for pages on people of India & Sri Lanka;
 * Neither would I object to attempts to find consensus to adapt the general people NC accordingly. I'm not going to take a lead in these efforts for changing the general people NC (I don't think the change is all that vital to justify a major effort). But whatever rewriting of the guideline is proposed, I suppose I'd give my opinion whether I think it a good idea or not, and hope others do so too.
 * Changing the general guideline would maybe be easier, and take less effort, if the principle is accepted for the people of India and Sri Lanka NC first.

Page moves I've been moving pages that are titled "X.Y. Lastname" and "X.Y. Lastname" to "X. Y. Lastname" for two reasons:
 * For articles that are well-written and edited by many users, they are in the form of "X. Y. Lastname" (e.g. C. S. Lewis and H. G. Wells)
 * There is already a naming convention about this.

I'm going to continue unless I get a compelling reason to do otherwise. Let me know what you think. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that there is no consensus for such naming conventions, indeed I think that A.B. Foo is far more common, easier to read and more logical than and A. B. Foo. Since there is no consensus, there should be no moving of pages unnecessarily because you prefer one or the other since that would create chaos and violate WP:POINT.  &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I rarely if ever see spaces added. I always see J.F.K. never J. F. K., F.D.R. not F. D. R. Similarly Irish people write of W.T. Cosgrave, not W. T. Cosgrave. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What was the result of this discussion? There should definately be a mention of this in this naming convention page, which should also clarify that South Indian initials are not the same as Western initials. South Indians do not generally use surnames, but instead the two/three initials denote name of birthplace and father, and the full name is the personal name. --Soman 13:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no logic in NOT presenting a name the way it is actually used. I've been debating about a Tampa Bay Devil Rays pitcher, J.P. Howell. He is not known as J. P. Howell. Anywhere. It is always J.P. Howell, anywhere you see it. Except here. This makes no sense to me. Name of MLB players should be taken from the official league website, and on there it is J.P. Howell, like it is anywhere else. This "style" should not overrule the way his name actually is.Chris Nelson 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Autobiographical request for lowercase name
Hi, does anyone know of a precedent for this particular issue? There's a researcher by the name of Danah Boyd (or depending who you ask, danah boyd), who when interviewed or quoted in major media (NY Times, USA Today, NPR, Fox News, etc.), has her name spelled as Danah Boyd. However, she is requesting (in rather strong terms) that her Wikipedia bio have the spelling that she personally prefers, which is "danah boyd". So, which version should the Wikipedia article title use? --Elonka 22:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * you could do what wikipedia did with EE Cummings, where the article name is capitalised, then the lower-case usage is mentioned in the article, first paragraph. 82.93.133.130 15:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of common titles within articles
Though I am sure that there is one somewhere, I cannot find any concrete recommendation on the use of regular titles (e.g. Ms., Mr., Fr., Rev.) within articles. I came to think of this when I found these articles: Nevermind that these articles are likely to be in breach of other guidelines. It does not seem very attractive to list names with titles in the manner that has been done. rxnd ( t | &#8364; | c ) 10:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Salesian High School (Richmond, California)
 * Punarnirmaan
 * I suppose Manual of Style (biographies) comes closer to what you're looking for (although not exactly the issue you mention).
 * The "Naming conventions" series of guidelines is, conventionally, only about the naming of articles, not really about how naming happens in article text (for which there is a lot more freedom). Regarding the "Rev."s and "Fr."s you seem to allude to I can't really see a problem in the Salesian High School article you mention (if extending the biographies MoS that a first mentioning of a person in an article can always include a reference to the title); Maybe the Fr. should be omitted from the second time Fr. John and Fr. Pallithanam are mentioned in the Punarnirmaan article (again, if extending that other MoS guideline beyond its current borders).
 * The "Mr."s are maybe a bit redundant, even in lists, and not at all usual in wikipedia practice, but I couldn't exactly name a MoS guideline that contradicts the use of "Mr." in such case. Maybe there is one, but I didn't see it yet. --Francis Schonken 11:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Most articles do not have "Mr."'s etc. but I too could not find a MOS guideline. I personally prefer the "Mr." or "Ms." or other title format as opposed to just the last name in subsequent references -- Samir   धर्म 05:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of Ordinals
The guideline states

Ordinals Examples: * Henry VIII (for monarchs this is usually combined with the previous, so the page name is actually Henry VIII of England) * Henry Ford II (Grandson of Henry Ford) * Martin Luther King III Disambiguation: only when naming the ordinal explicitly is the commonest way to refer to the person.''

However I've encountered several cases when ordinals are used when the individual in question never used such format in their lives. For instance see the Josiah Wedgwood (disambiguation) page. As far as I know none of the Josiah Wedgwoods ever used ordinals and note that they aren't even in strict father son order (and the first and most famous Josiah Wedgwood doesn't have an ordinal). The same happens with the Joseph Frys and Joseph Storrs Frys (see Fry Family (Chocolate). Admittedly most of these don't yet have separate articles (and may never do so).  In both cases many of the people with the same name are in the same business (pottery for Wedgwoods and chocolate making for Frys) so occupation disambiguation doesn't help.  Yet I don't think wikipedia should be creating an usage that doesn't already exist.  I would prefer dates in such cases.  Do others have other suggestions?
 * The question is: do other people commonly use numerals when referring to them? I don't know the answer about the Wedgwoods, although I would be surprised if a historian of the firm had not done so. For the Bernouillis, and the Berkeleys, the usage and numeration is clear, although WP diverges from it with the Lords Berkeley. Septentrionalis 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For the Wedgwoods, those are the commonly used term. Ordinals are usually restricted to monarchs, but as you can see Josiah Wedgwood II, it is generally used when referring to them.  As far as that is generally appliable, you would have to take each case as it comes. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 19:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * JWII I'll accept but not JWIII or JWIV or JWV or JWVI (JWIII isn't even the ancestor of the latter three). It was also usual for the Josiah not to be the eldest son (the only one that was is JWIII) and add in that other Wedgwoods also used Josiah, for instance Ruth Wedgwood's husband and son are both Josiah (she is a fairly prominent apologist for the Bush administration).--Erp 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually that's again common use, the son of ho was the son of Josiah Wedgwood II was Josiah Wedgwood III, but then they skip two generations to JWIII's great-nephew Josiah Wedgwood IV who is better known as the 1st Baron Wedgwood, and then his son Josiah Wedgwood V. AFAIK the numerals are reserved for descendents of Josiah Wedgwood I who are also involved in the Wedgwood pottery firm which would rule out any use by somewhat distant American cousins (and I think they are cousins who have just latched onto the name) .  I think the JW-VI is still alive, btw.  I'd like to see the geneaology though, btwII. But I emphasise that this is a special case. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Correction, Ruth Wedgwood is née Glushien, her husband is a great-grandson of Josiah Wedgwood V but his father is Ralph J. Wedgwood, and I don't know through which of the three nay, two sons of Josiah Wedgwood V he is descended. Quite what number he would be assigned therefore in this numbering scheme, I don't know, nor whether it is worthwhile to continue it now that Wedgwood is not family-owned. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have the family tree on me and the copy I have access to only goes up to births to 1960 (with a few penciled later additions). Without looking things up I think her husband is a grandson of the fifth Josiah and not great grandson (Ralph was publishing medical papers in 1953 so must have been born in the 1920s or early 1930s at the latest).  BTW I note that as far as company connections, the fourth Josiah had no active role in the company.  Terms like fourth Josiah or fifth Josiah seem to be used but ordinals after seem rare until wikipedia came along (I note the Dictionary of National Biography does not use ordinals for the Josiah Wedgwoods).  The Wedgwood museum web site does in places but I'm not sure how recent that is.  In any case what might be true for the Wedgwoods does not apply to the Frys so I should change Joseph Storrs Fry II back (and probably put a merge suggestion for that article back in the Fry Family article since there isn't much in the article)--Erp 23:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Afaik, the family tree issue is non-relevant. Compare Johann Strauss III, Sextus Julius Caesar I etc... only the format of the name that is usually used for disambiguation between people with the same name. If it's an ordinal, then it's an ordinal; if it's something else, then it's something else; if there's no *usual* disambiguation format, then use a parenthical disambiguator. --Francis Schonken 07:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Stage Names
I would suggest revising the current section on nicknames, stage names, et. al. Specifically the sections relating to wrestler B.G. James. B.G. James is incorrectly listed as a stage name, when in fact it is really a character name. The characters on wrestling shows are generally trademarked by the companies, and most wrestlers are forbidden from portraying that character for another company. WWF (now WWE) actually sued WCW over this multiple times. Proper practice here should be to index the individual wrestlers under their real names, NOT their character names, especially since most wrestlers portray multiple characters over the course of their careers. Character names should generally redirect to the wrestler who plays the character, unless there is a particular reason for giving the character its own page separate and apart from the wrestler (c.f. Doug Ross, George Clooney). Indeed, in the example given, B.G. James is indexed under his real name (Brian Gerard James), which makes it that much more strange that the guideline seems to suggest using the character name instead.

Jr. and Sr. - comma or no comma?
I wanted to mention (half of you probably saw it already via your watchlists to some extent) that I sort of went on a rampage just now changing as many NJ-related names with "Jr." or "Sr." in them to not have commas. Therefore, Thomas Kean, Jr. became Thomas Kean Jr.. I did this for two main reasons: I hope this isn't a big deal, but it just seems more fitting, and I think it looks better. One other thing to keep in mind is that when doing it in reverse name order, use the comma. Kean, Thomas, Jr., not Kean Jr., Thomas. //MrD9 04:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The comma is falling out of disfavor, and logic, Chicago proof, and Strunk/White (Elements of Style) all support not having the comma.
 * Half of the articles said stuff like "Thomas Kean, Jr. is involved in politics." The comma freak that I am, this is wrong (look at my Chicago proof link above), as there should be a comma after Jr., too, in this case, becuase it's being used as nonrestrictive. Rather than correc this, I figured I'd just get rid of them (and, like I said, logic suggests that the Jr. is restrictive (aka no commas) because Jr. and Sr. are two different people.)


 * I'd suggest this be brought up at Manual of Style (biographies) and Naming conventions (names and titles). I'm not sure there is a policy on this yet, and if you feel strongly about it, perhaps it should become policy.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I had also tried to go through the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and I was quite surprised to find no clear policy on how to handle suffixes (Jr., Sr. III, etc.) in names in general and particularly in the titles of articles. Among some notables who meet this criteria are Martin Luther King, Jr. and Albert Gore, Sr., where in both cases the article title does include the comma. (Al Gore is a junior, but chooses not to go by his full name, a la Bill Clinton and Thomas Kean, so that doesn't provide any evidence either way). I have always leant towards use of the comma as a separator (including a comma after the nonrestrictive Jr. when preceded by a comma), but I recognize that the Chicago Manual of Style and Strunk & White are strong arguments for the alternative. I would suggest that this issue be raised as a Manual of Style issue and that any existing pages remain as is until we have more definiitive Wikipedia consensus for elimination of the comma. Alansohn 13:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have seen it both ways on Wikipedia, and ironically, William Strunk Jr. has no comma (well, maybe it's not that ironic... I will, however, submit it to MOS (prob. tomorrow). I simply thought removing them would be much easier than trying to go thrhough them adding commas, and if anyone's strongly opposed, I'll go back and revert/remove/add-in-commas. //MrD9 23:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I ended up having time today, so the proposal. //MrD9 00:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Has anything become of this discussion? Naming_conventions_%28people%29 still notes "In the case of senior/junior the most common format, that is, adding ', Sr.' or alternatively ', Jr.' after the name, is preferred." (Among other concerns listed above, according to whom is this "the most common format?") Alan smithee 20:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming of sports biographies
It may also be useful to point out in the policy that the titles of most of our articles on baseball players from Latin America retain the accents on the accented letters in the players' names. Our ice hockey articles, like the Petr Prucha example already cited in the policy, tend to use more Americanized spellings. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal on middle names
My proposal is to permit middle names to appear in the title when the article for that title has not been created yet (red title). It doesn't have to be in the title itself, it could just be shown in the pop-up window. That could provide an instant disambiguation or knowledge of a fact that otherwise could not be found elsewhere on the Wikipedia. This is specially useful for sports database, where the chance for two names to coincide is extremely high. --Arinsau 09:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this can lead to creation of articles with middle names in titles which would have to be moved. If you need to store information without creating the article, you can do so using an HTML comment ; but I think that information like middle names is generally readily available in case someone starts an article. Conscious 10:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But what about pop-up labels? Would it be so messy to state it there? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in that case, wouldn't the link stay ok, with no need to be moved? --Arinsau 10:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Subarticles' titles
Could we agree on a convention concerning the naming of sub-articles for people. For example should we use the format "... of someone" (like Early life of Jan Smuts) or "Someone's ..." (like Isaac Newton's early life and achievements)? CG 19:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't know whether Naming conventions (common names) would help? Currently the only rule is "if you can't find a really "common name" for a subarticle, an exception to the "common names" rule is permitted" - a bit tautological, the idea is that you make a navigational template connecting the "main" article and the "sub-articles", as also described in summary style: since practically the only way to arrive at the subarticle (not counting in the "random article" function) is via the navigational template, the naming is not all that important to impose complex and hard-to-agree-upon detailed rules for the sub-article naming. There are less redundant problems to solve regarding article naming.
 * Category sorting (insofar categorisation in the same category is needed), would be numerical I suppose. Something in the vein of -  - etc..., listing the subarticles chronologically. --Francis Schonken 20:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions are necessary for some kind of consistency. And, the one I'm proposing in neither controversial nor complex. We just need to agree on one format, maybe by a vote. As for the categorisation you proposed, I liked it, and it could also be included in the guideline. CG 09:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jadwiga of Lithuania
Suggestions if and to what we should rename this article would be appreciated. The person, from royal family, was never given any surname or nickname, and was the daughter of King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania - but Jadwiga of Poland is already taken...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Pseudonyms: is Wikipedia about marketing or correctness?
What is Wikipedia's purpose? To be an adjunct of a famous person's marketing arm? To tell the facts as is?

I'll go for the second option, that factual accuracy is important at Wikipedia.

If so, why do we play into marketing efforts and use incorrect names for famous people for article titles? For example, why is the article named Paul Reubens but not his actual name, Paul Rubenfeld? How about Tom Hanks versus Thomas Jeffrey Hanks? Or Demi Moore versus Demetria Gene Guynes?

If someone types the stage name into the search engine, a simple redirect can direct the person to the proper page.

Nova SS 02:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When a person is almost universally known by one form of their name, that is the one we use. - Jmabel | Talk 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? Nova SS 20:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Because our policy is to make it easy for people to find pages. Also, people can change their names.  Someone's birth name is not necessarily their "correct" name. john k 23:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That policy is easily satisfied by redirects. Isn't it also Wikipedia's policy to be accurate? What's more accurate, a made up name or the person's current legal name? Nova SS 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A made up name is more accurate, of course. It's the name that is most widely understood, and therefore most clearly describes the subject. Eugène van der Pijll 23:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What makes you say that "Demetria Gene Guynes" is Demi Moore's current legal name? Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim? john k 10:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's in the Wikipedia article. Are you saying that Wikipedia would be incorrect? ;-)
 * Do you even understand what other people are saying to you? The wikipedia article says the "Demetria Gene Guynes" is Demi Moore's birth name.  I asked what makes you say it's her current legal name.  She took the surname "Moore" due to her marriage with Freddy Moore, and kept it after their divorce.  It's not a "made up name" - it's her married name, and there's a decent number of women who keep the surname of their first husband, even after they marry again.  "Demi" isn't a "made up name" either - it's a nickname, and we have tons of articles of people at the nickname they're best known by.  Jimmy Carter, for instance.  Not including the middle name is also standard practice.  Is our non-inclusion of James Garfield's middle name due to our desire to be an adjunct to President Garfield's omnipresent marketing team?  The example you've chosen is completely inappropriate.  Demi Moore's name is "Demi Moore."  "Demi Moore" is not some marketing derived name that we made up.  It's her actual name, that she derived in the way normal people derive their name - using a shortened form of her given name, not using her middle name, and using her first husband's surname.  As far as I can gather, your opinion is that everyone is stuck with the name that they have on their birth certificate.  Are you suggesting that we have our article at Margaret Hilda Roberts, too? john k 16:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, that was a bad example. Take Tom Cruise vs. Thomas Cruise Mapother IV. It seems that the latter is his real name. Nova SS 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, that was his birth name. You have no evidence that he hasn't legally changed his name to "Cruise".  His kid's name is "Suri Cruise."  That would suggest that he has legally changed his surname to Cruise.  People are allowed to do that, and do do it. See Name change.  Note particularly the following:
 * In California the usage method is sufficient to change one's name. In states which allow the usage method, any person or agency with whom one does business must be notified of the new name, and the new name must be used exclusively, by the person changing their name, once the name is changed. 
 * Do you really think that Cruise's current legal name is "Thomas Mapother"? Could you present any evidence to back up such a claim? john k 11:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That specific issue is a diversion from the argument. If the real name of a person is known, then I think that should be the article title. A bridge from the better known but incorrect name can be built to the correctly-titled article with a redirect. Nova SS 15:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So you've said; there is long-standing consensus the other way. We write to be understood, not to be "correct"; correctness often involves somebody's PoV about what is correct. Septentrionalis 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is documentation of this consensus?
 * Si documentum requiris, circumspice. to paraphrase Christopher Wren. Septentrionalis 22:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's also Naming conventions (common names). john k 12:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If correctness is not Wikipedia's goal, then what is it? To make up whatever suits us? Nova SS 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Verifiability, not truth. Septentrionalis 22:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You have no idea if what you are advocating is "correct." You have made no effort to determine if any of these people have legally changed their names.  One of your original examples was of somebody who took her husband's name.  Some commitment to accuracy. As Septentrionalis notes, wikipedia is based on verifiability rather than truth.  Someone's birth name is verifiable, as is the name someone is commonly known by (and referred to by in major media publications.  The New York Times used to refer to Meat Loaf as "Mr. Loaf."  Who are we to think ourselves better than the paper of record?)  Their current legal name is often much harder to determine - I have no idea how one would go about this. john k 12:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly wrong but what is right?
We have an article about a Swedish nobleman with the obviously inappropriate article title of Axel von Fersen, Jr., but I have no idea what the article should be called. Can someone who knows how Scandinavian nobles called themselves help out? - Jmabel | Talk 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * According to sv.wikipedia: sv:Axel von Fersen d.y.; "d.y" stands for "den yngre" if I may believe the redirect. I think this is usually translated, as "the younger". See for example Willem van de Velde the younger. -- Eugène van der Pijll 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed ammendment for "conjoined" nicknames
I have witnessed several debates about the people whose nickname is so "conjoined" with their real name to the extent that they're seldom if ever referred to without it. See:

etc.
 * Talk:Joe "King" Oliver
 * Talk:Benjamin "Pap" Singleton
 * User talk:Duja/Archive 2 (related with Vladimir Petrović "Pižon")
 * Steve "Static" Garrett

I think that an addition to section "Nick names, pen names, stage names, cognomens" is called for, in order to justify that, relatively common but also relatively opposed practice; current wording of the section is not clear enough. I suggest ammendment along the lines:


 * When the person's nickname is "conjoined" with his real name to the extent that he or she is almost always referred to with it, the article title should contain the nickname as well, preferably embedded in quotes: Joe "King" Oliver. Use the most common ordering, which would typically (but not necessarily) be Name "Nickname" Surname. This should apply only in conjunction with "use common names" principle, i.e. artificial titles should be avoided.

Note, however, that many pages in scope of Wikiproject professional wrestling don't match it; they may be listed as exception or changed to fit. Opinions welcome in any case. Duja► 10:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Murat Bernard "Chic" Young, Julius Henry "Groucho" Marx and John Birks "Dizzy" Gillespie don't use quotation marks in their titles... -24.18.245.105 06:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * John Birks "Dizzy" Gillespie fails WP:NC(CN) for a lightyear. That's out of the scope of my proposal, and I'd like it clarified if it's not clear. I'm talking only about the people known under both the real name and nickname used together. Duja► 20:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder
Does the article Helmuth von Moltke the Elder follow with the Elder/Younger guidlines? The elder was not referenced in his time as the elder. Should the article be moved to "Helmuth Graf von Moltke", since he is more renouned as a Count than as an Elder? Xlegiofalco 22:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How on earth is he more renowned as a Count than as an Elder? What are you talking about?  He is best known as "Moltke the Elder," in order to distinguish him from his nephew, "Moltke the Younger."  This has been the case for the last century, or thereabouts.  The fact that he was not called this in his own lifetime is no more problematic than the fact that the Edward the Black Prince was not called that in his lifetime, or that Charlemagne was not called that until after his death, or whatever other posthumously applied name you want to mention. john k 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, granted the merits of your arguments, and that Im not quite so sure of the topic, but I was wondering if being called the elder in Moltke's case has become formal. I'm convinced of your point of view, but i was wondering if historians have been referencing the older Moltke as the elder in essays since his time or if it is a case of, for example, referencing George Herbert Walker Bush as the father to George W Bush instead of by his name (like calling him Father Bush). Xlegiofalco 07:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ever snce Moltke the Younger became well known, his uncle is called "Moltke the Elder" when it is needed to distinguish between the two. Helmuth von Moltke the Elder is the most natural way to disambiguate between the two, imo.  john k 14:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Guidance lacking when known under several versions of name
This page is woefully lacking in guidance with regard to those huge numbers of people known by various versions of their names, whether this occurs in different fields of activity (stage names, pen names, etc.), in different times (after a change of residence), and in different languages or whatever, and especially names that have been Anglicized. This is very common, something that applies to thousands of articles on Wikipedia and needs much more than what is available now.

People move. They often use different versions of their name after they move, adapting to the conventions, the language, and the alphabet or other writing system in the place to which they have moved. Other people are known because of competitions in which they participate, because of books they write, and so on. Sometimes an author's name will appear differently on books translated to another language than it did in the original publication. The English-language versions will have the greatest effect on how a person is known in English.

Usually it is the last version used for the person's name, not the first, which will be most relevant to how they are generally known, especially for people who lived in the past two or three centuries.

Up above, there are many people who take issue with both User:195.70.32.136's and Novasource/Nova SS's ideas about "birth names" and some magical "correctness" inherent in them. The notion that this would automatically be the proper choice for the one slot available for an article's title has been resoundingly rejected not only in the discussions above, but in many other discussions spread throughout Wikipedia. Many have made it clear that this is not supposed to be the Wikipedia policy, including, it looks to me, like the following editors at least:

 
 * User:Shimgray
 * User:bodnotbod
 * User:Tempshill
 * User:Jmabel
 * John Kenney/john k
 * User:Eugène van der Pijll
 * User:Septentrionalis

It is time for those who follow this page to get out of their ivory towers, get off their duffs and get out in the trenches where real editors such as User:Mibelz are making real moves of articles on the same nonsense notion of some "correct" name being the person's birth name (but in the spelling conventions common in some 20th century version of some foreign language, not necessarily any spelling ever actually used).


 * Árpád Élő → Arpad Elo American, Mibelz edit summary "Hungarian form of his name." Note subsequent moves by Gene Nygaard and Calton, ending up where Mibelz moved it. There is no verified, credible evidence from any reliable source that anything other than "Arpad Elo" is the correct name for this person, that anything other than "Arpad Elo" was ever used by the man himself or by even by any contemporary in discussing him, despite repeated requests for anyone to provide that information.
 * István Fazekas → Stefan Fazekas British, summary "Hungarian form of his first name."
 * Iossif Dorfman → Josif Dorfman French, summary "French form of his first name."
 * Michał Waszyński → Michael Waszynski American, summary "Polish form of his name", was moved from Michal Waszynski but article says in the United States, he was known as Michael Waszynski (he died 1965), no spelling Michał in article itself
 * Stanisław Ulam → Stanislaw Ulam American, moved from Stanisław Marcin Ulam without edit summary
 * Povilas Tautvaišas → Paul Tautvaisas American, summary "Lithuanian form of his name."
 * Elmārs Zemgalis → Elmars Zemgalis American, summary "Latvian form of his first name."
 * Kārlis Ozols → Karlis Ozols Australian, summary "Latvian form of his first name."
 * Géza Füster → Geza Fuster Canadian, summary "Hungarian form of his name."
 * Lucijs Endzelins → Lucius Endzelins Australian, summary "Latvian form of his first name."
 * Luděk Pachman → Ludek Pachman German, author of English-language books as Ludek Pachman, summary "Czech form of his first name."
 * Pál Benkő → Pal Benko French-born American, summary "Hungarian form of his name"
 * Vladimir Vuković → Vladimir Vukovic author of English-language book as Vladimir Vukovic
 * Gedeon Barcza → Gideon Barcza competed as and best known in English as Gideon, summary "Correct Hungarian form of his first name."

Reverting these moves is under discussion at Talk:Árpád Élő. Is anybody ready to back up the platitudes discussed here with some work out in the trenches to see that standard naming conventions practices are followed? Gene Nygaard 20:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to delete page or rewrite IAW de facto standards

 * Oh, well. I tried.  Guess we might just as well write this page off as dead, and nominate it for deletion.


 * There are far too many like User:195.70.32.136, Novasource/Nova SS, Mibelz, Husond, Valentinian, etc. pushing for a notion of correctness of someone birth name. spelled in some foreign language, and using that for the name of the article if the language is written in some variant of the Latin alphabet.


 * So let's either delete this page, or rewrite it in light of the developing de facto standard. Here's a rough draft of some suggested wording, something along these lines:
 * Always use a person's birth name for the name of the article. Use either the language of the country the person was born in (pick one at random if the country has more than one official language), or a language other than English spoken by at least one of the person's parents.  If you do not know exactly how it was actually spelled at the time of the person's birth, invent a spelling based your best guess at what the proper spelling would be in modern spelling practices in that language.  If the language isn't written in some variant of the Latin alphabet, then Romanize the spelling according to current practices in scholarly journals in the field of history.
 * With respect to the need for including the part about the language of the parents, see Pál Benkő and the discussion at Talk:Árpád Élő. Gene Nygaard 18:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For another parent's language discussion and with respect to people pushing for the latter part of inventing new Romanizations, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/More macrons discussion (who does, however, remain at Apolo Anton Ohno so maybe that part can be omitted from the rewritten rule).
 * Does anyone have any suggestions for improving the language of this rough draft before I make a more formal proposal, or a preference for deletion instead?
 * Note that if a closing administrator of the discussion at Talk:Árpád Élő closes it as "no consensus", then the moves by Mibelz stand as the de facto standard. If that happens, our guidelines ought to reflect that.  Gene Nygaard 18:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You forgot to include people born in one country, who worked in another: Andrea Meldolla, Giulio Clovio, Giorgio Orsini etc (names have been changed to confuse the innocent) Johnbod 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames appearing in quotation marks
I did not find this addressed on this page or on the main naming conventions page (the closest thing I found was a related discussion on this talk page that did not come to a conclusion). I am wondering if it is ever appropriate to have a nickname appear in quotation marks, and if it is sometimes appropriate, when. I think that when it is decided, it should be added to the naming conventions page for people. My opinion is that the nickname should not appear in quotations unless the person's name is almost always written that way. I think that very few names would qualify. Finally, I think that double quotes (") should be used. -- Kjkolb 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried to straighten that out above, but didn't receive any input from the community. Basically, I agree with you—maybe I should have been bold and ammend the page. There is some existing practice, but there's also the question of wording the policy: as far as I get your opinion, we want to preserve the nickname-in-quotes only for a few cases where "the person's name is almost always written that way", thus discourage editors from overdoing it. Duja ► 14:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Accented names
I have come across two articles about famous people who either have heritage or birth in non-English speaking countries, who are not known to use accents in their names currently, but in whose articles editors have chosen to spell their names with accents. Richard Ramírez and Roman Polański. There isn't much question that in their ancestral languages the names would be spelled with accents/diacriticals. Nor is there any question that they do not use them now. Should Wikipedia correct subjects who "misspell" their own names? Should we add some language to the guideline to cover these types of cases? -Will Beback · † · 01:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: I see there has been some discussion on this matter at Talk:Jennifer Lopez. -Will Beback · † · 01:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions (people) is, like any Naming conventions guideline, only about article names (not about whether or not variants of that name are to be used in the body of an article). The orthography within the body of an article is a Manual of Style issue, e.g. Manual of Style (biographies) or Proper names, in particular for the accents issue: Proper names.
 * See Naming conventions (use English) for current guideline on accents in article names.
 * See Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) for a guideline proposal that aims at solving the "disputed issue" of use of accents in article names.
 * For the particular issue you mention, see also the table in Naming conflict: if both "Most commonly used name in English" (#1), and "Current self-identifying name of entity" (#3) are for the version without accent, the Wikipedia article should be at that version, e.g. Arnold Schoenberg, and not Arnold Schönberg (the latter being a redirect). --Francis Schonken 10:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguator, revisited
Generally I have used, for example, (actor), (musician), (politican), (footballer) or (cyclist). That is, a word describing what the person IS (or what they are best known for being.) I have seen people use (baseball) and (basketball) lately. This would imply that the person is a baseball etc. I have never seen a musician or politician disambiguated by (music) or (politics). For consistency, shouldn't we use (baseballer) or (basketballer) ?? -- Chuq 04:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Asian people
I'm sure this is a FAQ, but if somebody who knows these guidelines inside out could help save me trawling through page after page:

Asian people known in their country by Lastname Firstname are nonetheless named Firstname Lastname on the English Wikipedia? i.e. Lee Ji-hyun (family name Lee) should actually be Ji-hyun Lee.

Correct? Incorrect? Not as simple as all that? :) --kingboyk 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that on Wikipedie generally Chinese people (Such as Mao Zedong) are listed with their surname followed by their given name as is the convention in China. However the Japanese people that I looked up (such as Akira Kurosawa) are listed with their given name followed by their family name despite the fact that in Japan the family name is always given first. Does anyone know why this is? Is it because the Japanese names are more recognisable to English readers in that format?

Stage/Pen Names and Capital
If the stage or pen name has capital or lower case letters that do not fit standard English do we use there capitals and lower cases or do we use standard English ones? and also do we use the same conventions when its not a page name and just refering to the person as we use when it is a page name in this contextShimonnyman 22:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Belgium names
As Justine Henin-Hardenne is now divorced and goes by Justine Henin, is there an alternate example for the one currently used on the page? --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Examples not as indicated
The section "nick names, pen names, stage names, cognomens" might need some updating/correction. Two of the examples currently differ in citation and reality. ENeville 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"(actor)" vs. "(actress)" for female players
There seems to be some dispute about whether we should use "actress" as a parenthetical for people who have to be disambiguated (examples: Savannah (actress), Grace Park (actress), Jane Seymour (actress), Kate Walsh (actor), Jane Kennedy (actor), Anne Lockhart (actor)). Both conventions are used in modern English, but I think "actor" might be gaining ground. Should this be treated as an American/British English sort of issue? I'm worried that needless page move disputes might result without a clear rule here. Cool Hand Luke 03:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Uzbek names
I see there's no single rule for writing Uzbek names in Wikipedia articles. Names of Uzbek persons are transliterated from Russian, but Uzbek language uses latin script, so there's no need to transliterate. --Abdullais4u 08:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Real Names
I understand the reasoning behind naming articles by the most common name. However, isn't this an encyclopedia? Shouldn't we use real names instead of stage names? For example, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's page is currently titled The Rock (entertainer), but I think it should be Dwayne Johnson, because that's his real name. I understand that we want more people to find wikipedia, but isn't seeming more like an encyclopedia more important? I thought that was the goal of Wikipedia. 70.109.106.170 19:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Compulsory dotting and spacing of name initials
I see this guideline, and think that it is US-centric:

"For abbreviated names (if these are the most used) every abbreviation is followed by a point, and every point is followed by a single space. Punctuation marks are generally discouraged in article names (see below): if the version with the first and middle names written in full is used nearly as often as the version with abbreviated names, prefer the version with these names written in full."


 * 1) There's a clear disparity between the preferred formatting in article titles and this order to dot and space in the text of the article, which is an awkward situation.
 * 2) There has been a clear trend in English to lose the dots in acronyms and abbreviations (although many North Americans still prefer to dot name initials).
 * 3) In some varieties of English, the dotting of name initials, and certainly their internal spacing, is now giving way to dot-free space-free.
 * 4) Some house styles, notably that of Oxford University Press, insist on no dots and no spaces (BS Jones, and in a bibliography, ''Jones BS").
 * 5) It's not hard to find undotted, unspaced name initials on WP.

Manual_of_Style is flexible on dots, and I think this submanual should reflect that by not insisting on dots and spaces in name initials. Tony  (talk)  13:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Then, of couse, whether it is a different factor covered under Manual of Style or just a matter of the competence of some Wikipedia contributors, we have many India-related articles using (more often in text than in titles, which may have been moved) dots, but no spaces not even between the abbreviation and a spelled out portion of the name. Gene Nygaard 15:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In view of the current debate at MOS talk, I propose that the text here be changed to soften the insistence on dots and spaces. I will do so next week, unless compelling arguments are put against such a move. Tony  (talk)  00:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Consistency I'm basically indifferent what the standard is (aesthetically, I prefer it as is, but that's hardly a persuasive argument), as long as it is consistent. I think it would be ridiculous to have pages at titles like "X. Y. Lastname," "X.Y. Lastname," and "X.Y.Lastname" among other permutations. The only real exceptions would be in cases like Harry S Truman, where the letter was his name or when someone deliberately chooses a stage name with particular punctuation, capitalization, etc. Otherwise, they should all conform to one standard, whatever that is. Furthermore, I'm intrigued by this point: "There has been a clear trend in English to lose the dots in acronyms and abbreviations (although many North Americans still prefer to dot name initials)." What makes you think this? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm indifferent as well, but I suspect people (such as Koavf) who are renaming pages to fit one of these "standards" or another are just causing thrashing.dm 05:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I think the guideline the way it is currently phrased is abominable. There is something to be said for consistency, but when it leads to mindlessly renaming pages for no other purpose than simplistic consistency -- and extending the rule to apply not only to people to also to things that only incidentally contain the names of people--even when those things explicitly eschew dots and/or spacing (e.g. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia). older ≠ wiser 01:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * J.R.R. and R.J. If there was any evidence that these were deliberately named "J.R.R." and "R.J." rather than simply incorporating the names of their founders, I would be happy to move it back. Otherwise, it seems like they simply used a different style manual (or none at all.) If the main article is at J. R. R. Tolkein, it is silly to have this book at "J.R.R. Tolkein Encyclopedia" without a compelling reason. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, apart from the spacing being ugly and unnecessary in names of people--at the least in the case of RJ Reynolds, it seems pretty clear that the company deliberately does not include spaces. older ≠ wiser 03:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Deliberately or not, more important is what is used. Gene Nygaard 15:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Naming conventions (abbreviations) says that "Abbreviations in names of persons, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names - abbreviations of names. It does not except things named after those people, that is something entirely different and sometimes more specific.  Gene Nygaard 15:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the consistency, too. But the most important consistency we need is to make sure that links and searches work by creating the appropriate redirects.  As long as we accept petrol and petrol, millimeter and millimetre, and the like, we should not insist on imposing a onvention here either.  I would certainly howl and scream if it called for undotted (spaced or not) abbreviations in people's names in order to achieve consistency.  I'm used to the standard of dots and no spacing between successive initials.  Gene Nygaard 16:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So the guideline should be reworded to allow for dotted or undotted, spaced or unspaced. One issue I haven't yet raised is the fact that spaced was originally thin-spaced, and still is in decently edited text, not the extraordinarily ugly J. R. R. Tolkein, but J.&thinsp;R.&thinsp;R. Tolkein. Makes it more acceptable. But the guideline doesn't even mention that. And it still leaves the ugly dots. So please don't lay down the law about this. Within-article consistency, however, should be retained. Tony   (talk)  16:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I thing the general WP:MoS or one of its subpages deprecates use of thin-space; too many browser-related problems, sometimes even resulting in larger rather than smaller spaces. Gene Nygaard 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC) And too much clutter on the edit screen for marginal and debatable benefit at best.  Gene Nygaard 17:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also have less problem with insisting on dots than I do with insisting on spaces. Gene Nygaard 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep a minimal version at least. In the interest of consistency, I would very much like to see the project page specify that the format with spaces and dots (or even some other one for that matter) be a format that should always exist, either in the article name or in a redirect or disambiguation page going to the article. Gene Nygaard 18:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree with insisting on either dots or spaces. I wasn't suggesting above that thin spaces be used (Internet Exp. 6 is the big problem), but was pointing out why insisting on (big) spaces is ludicrous. Tony   (talk)  00:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But wat about my main point in my last comment? Do you agree that there should be one format that we should expect to be there, either in the article name or in a redirect, so that if an article does exist we can get there by using that format in the search box or in a wikilink?  Gene Nygaard 12:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm being dumb: isn't it wise to put a redirect in for the two of "JS Bach", "J.S. Bach" and "J. S. Bach"? I think that is often done already. Are you suggesting that this recommendation (direction?) be written in here? It makes sense, given that many readers out there won't know which form an article uses. Tony   (talk)  12:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The section clumsily entitled "Middle names - abbreviations of name" is quite a problem and has a dispute tag (I certainly dispute some of its substance, and much of its prose).

"Examples: John F. Kennedy, Thomas John Barnardo, Annie M. G. Schmidt"

"For abbreviated names (if these are the most used) every abbreviation is followed by a point, and every point is followed by a single space. Punctuation marks are generally discouraged in article names (see below): if the version with the first and middle names written in full is used nearly as often as the version with abbreviated names, prefer the version with these names written in full."

"An abbreviation of a first or last name (or omitting punctuation marks and spaces as described above) is only possible if this can be considered as a well established and generally used subject's name or nickname, see section about pen names, nicknames and cognomens below. In all of these cases, use forenames (whether middle name, first name or another given name) as most usual: for some people not the first name, but another forename is usually written in full, for example, F. Scott Fitzgerald."

"Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (that is: if this format of the name is not the commonly used one to refer to this person) is not advised."


 * Why are three "examples" stuck up the top without explanation? Not the easiest structure for the reader.
 * What does "if these are the most used" mean?

I suggest the following as a replacement for this confusing, disorganised and disputed text:

"In deciding whether to use initials or words—and if initials, their formatting—three matters should be considered, in this order: (1) the preferences of the named person; (2) standard usage in the literature; and (3) the acceptable formattings in the variety of English used in the article. The possible formattings on Wikipedia are as follows." "*Pointed and spaced (M. P. K. Halliday)." "*Pointed and unspaced, except that the last initial is followed by a single space (''M.P.K. Halliday)." "*Unpointed and unspaced, except that the last initial is followed by a single space (MPK Halliday)."

Punctuation marks are generally discouraged in article names (see below): if a version with the first and middle names written in full is used nearly as often as the version with abbreviated names, prefer the version with these names written in full. Tony  (talk)  09:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's quite a while now, and no feedback. Therefore, I intend to implement this change. Can anyone think of a better section title than "Middle names"? Surely "Abbreviations" or "Name initials"? Tony   (talk)  00:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer real-life examples (H. G. Wells, B.G. James, MC Hammer), instead of virtual examples that don't clarify anything (...uniformity of style of the guideline page);
 * I wouldn't want to lose the connection with the Nick names, pen names, stage names, cognomens section: e.g. the "K." in J. K. Rowling is not a middle name abbreviation. For the page name the discussion of whether it is would be loss of time: if the section on middle names and the section on pen names connect, such trivial discussions can be avoided.
 * Don't want to lose the "use for disambiguation purposes" paragraph: uniformity of style of the guideline page (see also intro in second paragraph of When it seems difficult to follow the " " format section). --Francis Schonken 16:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you both; I'll address these points when I have time to deal with this proposal. Tony   (talk)  23:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Should someone discuss these moves first? User:Koavf is going around and moving EVERY page on someone who uses initials in their name, and reverting anybody who moves it back. From what I can tell, he hasn't discussed any of these moves at all. Personally, I think it looks better without spaces (i.e., "B.J. Whitmer" looks better than "B. J. Whitmer", and should not) and should be that way unless it's clear that the person used spaces in their name.  TJ   Spyke   03:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The spaces are just intolerable. Is Koavf removing the initials altogether, or what? Tony   (talk)  04:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He's adding the spaces (just take a look at his contributions). I wouldn't have noticed if he hadn't moved the article on "T.J. Perkins" to "T. J. Perkins".  TJ   Spyke   05:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OMG, can someone stop his lunacy? Tony   (talk)  08:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lunacy? I have, in fact, discussed this several times with several editors in several places (including here.) There has never been any consensus to change the naming convention, the vast majority of the articles are at "X. Y. Lastname," and I have posted dozens of requests on WP:RM for moves and never had anyone object (barring unique examples, such as stage names that are deliberately "X.Y. Lastname.") Calling consistency and application of the MoS lunacy is itself lunacy. Again, there is not now, nor has there ever been any serious objection to the actual standard. As far as reverts go, the last time that I did initials-related moves was concurrent with several thousands sports page moves I did. Those all got reverted together, even though it was only the latter group that was to be moved. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 10:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lunacy2 Here's another example of some "lunacy:" on the one hand, TJ, you claim that the moves are "controversial" and the standard is "disputed" and then you go about moving the pages yourself. Why? If you have some kind of proof that T. J. Perkins' stagename is literally "T.J. Perkins" and not "T. J. Perkins," please let me see it. I really have no idea why you moved J. W. B. Gunning, since that is not even a stagename. Why would it be any different than C. S. Lewis or J. E. B. Stuart? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 11:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a horse in this race. Generally, I think that some default convention (e.g., blanks required, or blanks deprecated) would be a good thing. My current understanding is that such a convention does not exist as a WP policy or guideline. Given this, I feel that a campaign of enforcement of some particular style guideline (particularly if the edit summaries justify it by saying "naming conventions" is improper. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a dispute tag on the relevant section here (which I did not place, but agree with). I strongly disagree with any practice to enforce either dots or dots and spaces. I think the matter is best left to the editors of each article—like which variety of English is used—as long as it is consistent within each article. Tony   (talk)  12:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Convention Bill, there is one. It is disputed to the extent that anyone can dispute anything. I could put a dispute tag on WP:3RR; that does not make it disputed. There are occasional editors who complain about the standard with varying degrees of seriousness (e.g. the "it looks ugly to me"-style arguments), and then it dies down. Why articles should have such inconsistent styling is beyond me, especially when you end up with situations where "X. Y. Lastname" and "X.Y. Lastname" are both articles referring to the same person and they were both started because of precisely what you are describing. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. I have to say, though, that I found it more confusing than useful. That section says, "Abbreviating names of people: H. G. Wells and not H.G. Wells or HG Wells", but the wikilinked/cited supporting source for that (Naming conventions (people)) doesn't support it and, in fact, contains a counterexample (MC Hammer) and contains a contrary explanation which clearly does not deprecate dotted-but-unspaced initials: "Better not use this for disambiguation, unless it's the name by which this person is known best. For example, B. G. James the politician and B.G. James the wrestler need explicit disambiguation (for example by a top of the page disambiguation notice on both pages, or a disambiguation page): "implicit" disambiguation by using one format of the abbreviation for the one, and another abbreviation format for the "B" and "G" initials for the other is not sufficient." (I note that the snippet which I requoted there is confused by piped wikilinks which actually point to pages other than the page name which they display, and also I note that some movement due to the dotting and spacing of initials has taken place in those pages used as examples regarding the dotting and spacing of initials.) -- Boracay Bill 00:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * MC Hammer? You're welcome. Those two examples prove my point: MC Hammer is not a name - "MC" is short for "master of ceremonies" - and "B.G. James" is a stagename. I have no problem with stagenames that are deliberately formatted in a particular way (e.g. C.C. Chapman.) Barring those examples - non-names and names that are explicitly in a particular fashion - there are no compelling reasons to ignore the rule as written. If there was consensus to move all of the articles to "X.Y. Lastname," I would be the first to sign up and do my part. Since that is not the convention, I have decided to move articles to conform with what is actually already a standard. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My variety of English has dropped the spaces and decreasingly uses the dots. If there is freedom to use a variety of English consistently within an article, I don't see why there's a frenzied insistence on disallowing unspaced and undotted/unspaced initials, whether in article titles or main text. No one is advocating wholesale changes of existing article titles (or text, where it's internally consistent). My entries here arose from the insistence of a new contributor on dotting and spacing all initials in an article text, which were until then undotted and unspaced. S/he referred me to this page. Tony   (talk)  10:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not merge this page with WP:Naming conventions?
It's not long and the talk page is moribund—it would benefit from being subject to a larger talk page. Tony  (talk)  00:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NC is a very long page. I don't agree with "It's not long" (if you're saying that about Naming conventions (people)) either. In sum: not a good idea. I'm not sure about what you mean by "the talk page is moribund"? Maybe it's just a good guideline, not needing much additional explanation. ;) --Francis Schonken 00:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole of the naming conventions part of the MOS is chaotically organised. Why is it that we have in the (central) page sections for:

"2.34 People
 * 2.34.1 Monarchs and nobility
 * 2.34.2 Ancient Romans
 * 2.34.3 Western clergy

and Mormons, and Old Norse, and Legistlation in the UK;

yet much more significant aspects are cordoned off into subpages? Doesn't make sense. Tony  (talk)  01:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It would make sense to combine more of the people-pages. However some are quite long. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 01:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Is length an issue in these Wikispace pages? It is in articles, for the sake of readability, but here, the TOC saves the day. Tony   (talk)  06:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you used "length" as an argument, "It's not long [...]".
 * Readability is an issue for policies and guidelines: I've encountered complaints that policies and guidelines aren't read enough: readability issues is something we want to avoid as a cause for people to give up on reading these pages. --Francis Schonken 10:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your theory alone. And to rebut your attempt to use my query against me, I meant "length" in terms of "too long", not "too short". Tony   (talk)  11:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not his theory alone. It is a common complaint about wikipedia policies and guidelines that they are an impenetrable morass of confusing and contradictory advice. IMO, short, focused, topical guidelines with navigational apparatus (both to related guidelines for individual pages and higher-level overviews) are preferable to long pages attempting to cover a wide range of disparate specific details. older ≠ wiser 14:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not if well structured and written: this one is neither. Tony   (talk)  15:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)