Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/Archive 6

message: This guideline is absurd and should be reversed. It is relevant almost only to people in  UK who are not peers. Peers who are members of the Privy Council are described in the first line as Peter Rabbit, Lord Rabbit of Garden, PC, MBE. But before he was elevated to the peerage he was described as Rt Hon Peter Rabbit, MP, MBE. Rt Hon as a prefix is instead of the post-nominal PC which is only used by peers. Yet this guideline quite wrongly does not even allow him to be described as Peter Rabbit, PC, MP, MBE (which is worse than Rt Hon and not used but is better than omitting this important recognition by the society in which he lives). - Kittybrewster 22:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply  Quote from Debrett's Correct Form: "'The Rt Hon' is always placed before the name both in formal and social usage. There is no need to add the letters P.C. after the name, since 'The Rt. Hon.' is sufficient indication of membership of the Privy Council." I am therefore arguing for The Rt Hon and against PC. Quote from The Correct Guide to Letter Writing; Superscription of the envelope "The Rt Hon ------ ------, P.C." - Kittybrewster 10:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All that says is that it is not necessary to add PC if Rt Hon is used. What it does not say is that PC is incorrect. We do not use honorofics on Wikipedia, plain and simple. What we would do when addressing a letter and what we do here are two different things. If it was so wrong to omit Rt Hon would the government really have done so on Ernest Bevin's memorial service programme? Somehow, I think not. -- Necrothesp 11:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does Wiki. not use them? Is there any reason?  I doubt Bevin cared very much, or that the government composed the memorial service programme for that matter!--Couter-revolutionary 11:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "'The Rt Hon' is always placed before the name both in formal and social usage" - Kittybrewster 11:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir Winston Churchill’s Memorial Programme (a state funeral) correctly describes him as The Rt Hon Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH so I think Necrothesp is arguing WP:IDONTLIKEIT - Kittybrewster 11:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't make assumptions as to what I like and do not like. I'm a firm supporter of the use of honorifics in most circumstances. But I do not believe they are necessary on Wikipedia (although I have argued for the use of titles on many occasions) and if we make an exception for Rt Hon then there will be calls for the addition of "Honorables" and other honorifics to every tom, dick and harry to whom they're granted in other countries (where "the honorable" is often used merely as an indicator that the individual has some vaguely official office). I find it interesting that you are happy to take Churchill's programme as proof of the validity of your own point of view and disregard Bevin's as proof of mine! Note that I have never said that use of "Rt Hon" is incorrect - it most certainly isn't - but only that the use of "PC" is also acceptable. And I believe that it is the better option here. -- Necrothesp 13:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Kitty. was pointing out Churchill's was a state funeral, therefore definitely official.--Couter-revolutionary 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I'm not arguing that Rt Hon is incorrect in any case. Of course it's correct. My argument is that the use of "PC" is also perfectly correct, that claims it isn't have not been substantiated in any way (and indeed, I have provided an example of its usage on a government document), and that it is preferable here for the reasons I have stated. -- Necrothesp 13:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *No, they don't sit as the supreme court for the overseas territories. That process is often referred to as "the Privy Council" but it is actually only the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that sits -- these people are judges and, I think, the same people in practice as the Law Lords. That excludes the vast majority of members of the Privy Council. Woblosch 22:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Response. That  would be a great improvement on the status quo. PC as a postnominal for a commoner is just plain wrong. - Kittybrewster 12:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Response I don't think it is plain wrong. Kittybrewster and others must remember this is an encylopedia and not a peerage website, or a formal document. The Right Honourable is not normally used, it is only really used in the House of Commons, and on formal documents or invitations etc. It is not used in other encylopedias, or books etc. --Berks105 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *"The Right Honourable" is normally used when giving someone's formal name. If the Prime Minister gave a ministerial broadcast he would be introduced as "The Right Honourable Tony Blair, M.P.". In most biographical guides, it is used. No-one ever uses postnominal PC for non-noble Privy Councillors. I suspect the problem here largely derives from the fact that 'The Right Honourable' is a prefix and not a suffix, but in that, it is clearly an exception. Most honours are placed as abbreviated suffixes, but this one gives the holder an honorific prefix. We accept "Sir"/"Dame" and Peerage titles as prefixes inline. Sam Blacketer 14:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's more general than that, Question_Time_%28TV_series%29 and many other shows certainly caption as you say and sometimes use the spoken form. Of course that's not decisive to the issue 86.134.78.14 15:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What is PoV is to say; "people shouldn't have honorifics" --Counter-revolutionary 10:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Denis Thatcher was neither an MP nor a Privy Councillor. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Winston Churchill was knighted, and Attlee raised to the peerage- so the lack of Rt. Hon. is entirely understandable.  Gabrielthursday 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Honorific prefixes No.2 

message: Kittybrewster has posted notices on 13 user pages drawing attention to this debate.              This is an unacceptable way of trying to influence the outcome. The users are Ibagli, Masalai, Gibnews, Weggie, Jcuk, JulesH, AnnabelBuxton, Just_H, Craigy144, Eamon76, Thesocialistesq, Pc1dmn,  JRawle. They are not to blame, but actions of this kind are likely to upset fair means of working towards consensus. Canvassing done 21:10, 13 March 2007 – 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, they don't sit as the supreme court for the overseas territories. That process is often referred to as "the Privy Council" but it is actually only the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that sits -- these people are judges and, I think, the same people in practice as the Law Lords. That excludes the vast majority of members of the Privy Council. Woblosch 22:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canvassing of this discussion

message: The section now reads:
*Styles and honorifics which are derived from political activities, including but not limited to The Right Honourable for being a Member of the Privy Council, should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.
Is the intent to delete the entire section? Or is to make this change:
*Styles and honorifics..., with the sole exclusion of 'The Right Honourable'...
JulesH seems to be arguing for the latter but I'm not sure exactly what Kittybrewster is proposing.-Will Beback · † · 10:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Response. That  would be a great improvement on the status quo. PC as a postnominal for a commoner is just plain wrong. - Kittybrewster 12:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Response I don't think it is plain wrong. Kittybrewster and others must remember this is an encylopedia and not a peerage website, or a formal document. The Right Honourable is not normally used, it is only really used in the House of Commons, and on formal documents or invitations etc. It is not used in other encylopedias, or books etc. --Berks105 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *"The Right Honourable" is normally used when giving someone's formal name. If the Prime Minister gave a ministerial broadcast he would be introduced as "The Right Honourable Tony Blair, M.P.". In most biographical guides, it is used. No-one ever uses postnominal PC for non-noble Privy Councillors. I suspect the problem here largely derives from the fact that 'The Right Honourable' is a prefix and not a suffix, but in that, it is clearly an exception. Most honours are placed as abbreviated suffixes, but this one gives the holder an honorific prefix. We accept "Sir"/"Dame" and Peerage titles as prefixes inline. Sam Blacketer 14:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's more general than that, Question_Time_%28TV_series%29 and many other shows certainly caption as you say and sometimes use the spoken form. Of course that's not decisive to the issue 86.134.78.14 15:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What is PoV is to say; "people shouldn't have honorifics" --Counter-revolutionary 10:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Denis Thatcher was neither an MP nor a Privy Councillor. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Winston Churchill was knighted, and Attlee raised to the peerage- so the lack of Rt. Hon. is entirely understandable.  Gabrielthursday 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *Robert Smith (editor)
*Robert Smith (baseball)
*Robert Smith (musician)
Is it proper to make them into their full name to aid diambiguation, even though its not their most common name: Robert Smith (editor) --> Robert Edward Smith. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is more logical to use a full name if it is known (and if they had more than two names, of course), but only if it is necessary for disambiguation. At the very least, a redirect should be made from their full name. -- Necrothesp 17:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree that a redirect from the full name is needed, and I try to always provide it, regardless of whether the article title includes a disambiguator.  However, I think that the current formula of "name best known as"+(disambiguator if needed) is better than the full name, because it sticks most closely to the convention of "name best known as".  If, for example, there were several other equally notable people called Tony Benn and we therefore needed to disambiguate them all, then "Tony Benn (politician)" is much more intuitive than "Anthony Neil Wedgwood Benn" or "Tony Neil Benn" or "Tony Neil Wedgwood Benn". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Common name versus fullname for disambguation

message: (Note that honorary knights and dames are not entitled to "Sir" or "Dame", only the post-nominal letters.) Example: "Dame Ellen Patricia MacArthur, DBE (born July 8, 1976) is an English sailor..."    Is this just my being dim, or should that "Dame" in front of "Ellen Patricia MacArthur" disappear? Paul venter 22:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should it disappear? Dame Ellen isn't a honorary dame. --Berks105 09:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The statement about honorary knights and dames is in brackets, whereas the example is not. Therefore the example clearly does not refer to the note in brackets (otherwise it too would be inside the brackets), but to the previous text not in brackets. The usage is perfectly correct. -- Necrothesp 01:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't the example be much better coming immediately after the text to which it refers, and the note about honorary dames and knight go last?  -- JackofOz 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The example shown here is still wrong as it refers to the same honour twice. If you use "Dame" you cannot also postfix the letters (DBE) that give her the honour of being called Dame.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TinyMark (talk • contribs) 18:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, I'm afraid, rubbish. It technically goes for Rt Hon and PC and for Dr and PhD, but it doesn't apply to knighthoods and damehoods, where it is correct form to use both the pretitle (which should never be omitted) and the postnom to indicate which order the knight or dame belongs to (except for Knights Bachelor, who don't belong to any order and thus have no postnoms). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorific prefixes 

message: I have a question about the use of the uppercase 'The' when writing about the titles of TV shows, musical groups, or organisations. If these pages/links use the the uppercase article, are they right or wrong? I thank you. andreasegde 18:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as newspapers are concerned, doesn't it depend on what the newspaper calls itself? For instance "The Times" and "The Guardian" include the "the" on their masthead, so it is part of their actual name, whereas the "Evening Standard" and the "Daily Mirror" don't, so I should have thought a capital T would be inappropriate in those cases. Woblosch 23:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been discussed at length in regards to the Beatles article/wikiproject. Based on input from professional print editors from the U.S. and U.K., the policy has been set to use the (lowercase) within the article text, except of course at the beginning of sentences. That's the way it's done in the vast majority of professional publications. (It seems to me any wikilinks should not include the the in such cases, but that's debatable.). I think Wikipedia needs an official policy on the issue. --emw 06:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uppercase "The" in TV show titles.

message: There’s a discussion going on over at Talk:Roger Casement as to whether or not it’s appropriate to refer to him in the lead para as "Sir Roger Casement CMG", or just "Roger Casement".  The discussion centres on the facts that he was knighted in 1911, but his knighthood and CMG were revoked in 1916 after being convicted of treason.
Some participants refer to a naming convention whereby the person’s highest bestowed title and postnominals should be used.  Others are arguing that, if a title/postnominal that normally remains for life has been revoked, it becomes inappropriate to use them in the person’s full name and titles in the lead para; the text of the article will reveal both the knighthood/CMG and their revocation. 
I declare my hand: I’m in the latter group.
Revocations of knightood are very rare, and are only done in the most extreme circumstances.  The only ones I’m aware of apart from Casement are Anthony Blunt, Albert Henry and Terry Lewis (police commissioner).  For this reason, and given that this issue seems never to have been discussed here before, it’s likely that no thought has ever been given to a guideline/policy about such cases.
The "Honorary prefixes" section (point 4) addresses the case where a knight later becomes a peer.  It doesn’t address the case where the knighthood is revoked.  One suggestion (admittedly favouring the position I support) would be to add the words highlighted below:
* The honorifics Sir and Dame should be included in the text inline for baronets, knights bachelor, and members of knightly orders whose rank grants them that dignity, provided that:
:* they do not hold a higher dignity, such as a peerage, which trumps that usage, or
:*the knighthood was not revoked/rescinded.
I’d appreciate some discussion of this, and some direction, so that we can have a consistent approach to these very unusual subjects and not have to recreate the wheel more often than is necessary. 
There doesn't seem to be an article or category that lists all such cases.  This should also be corrected.  JackofOz 04:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this, there have only been 14 people since the 14th century to be stripped of a knightood.  So, it's a small list, but sufficient to have a policy on how to refer to such people.  JackofOz 05:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revoked/rescinded Knighthoods

message: The guidelines on the opening paragraph say, "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." But later in the article it gives the opening sentence on Isaac Asimov, saying in part, "was a Russian-born American Jewish author and biochemist". Doesn't the example contradict the guidelines, because Asimov's notability is irrelevant to the fact that he was Jewish? (Declaration of potential conflict of interest: this arose because the example is being used in a discussion at Talk:Samuel Reshevsky). Peter Ballard 02:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity in opening - Asimov example contradicts guidelines? 

message: A few months ago, a TfD for Template:Infobox hrhstyles was withdrawn because it should have been discussed here first, apparently. So my question here is; why do we have this and other similar infoboxes, which are rather clear violations of WP:NOT a how-to guide (as they only say how you should, according to protocol, address these people). The titles used to address e.g. a member of a royal family contain no information whatsoever relevant to that individual, so I don't see why we should have these infoboxes (as an example, what would be lost except a how-to if we removed the infobox from Prince Laurent of Belgium?). Anyone has a convincing argument to keep these boxes? Fram 07:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it, this homonymic use of the phrase "how to", meaning "correct form of address", has nothing to do with the use of "how to" in WP:NOT (i.e. method or procedure for doing something). There are similar uses of the phrase "how to" in "how to pronounce", meaning "correct pronunciation, not "procedure for achieving a particular pronunciation". These are completely different meanings of the phrase "how to", having nothing in common with the "instruction manual" use, as in "How to drive a car", "How to build a bridge" etc. In my opinion, this is clear from the wording of WP:NOT, but perhaps the phrase "how-to" should be removed there. --Boson 18:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the distinction you make. We have an article about a car, but we don't explain how you should start it, change its cooling fluid, ... We have an article about a king, but we don't explain how you shuold address him. The words used to address a king (at least if you want to follow protocol, nothing says you can't just say "mister") are of no value in an article about that king, and gives us no information regarding that king whatsoever. It would be different if a king insisted on being called "God above all Gods" or somesuch, as that could be a good indication, an example, of his delusions of grandeur. But in that case, the information gives us more knowledge about what kind of person that king is / was. I fail to see how the general hrhstyle infobox gives us any more info or knowledge about the royal in question though. Fram 19:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you talk about WP:NOT and "how to", I assume you are referring to the section about instruction manuals: Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. I interpret this to include advice and recommendations about how to produce something, acquire a skill, or achieve a result, especially by step-by-step instructions, as in the examples given at WP:NOT. I would not interpret details of forms of address as covered by this -- not any more than information about aliases, noms de plumes, etc. Just because you can use the phrase "how to" to describe something does not put it into the same category as a recipe or tutorial (where "how to" has a completely different meaning, i.e a series of instructions or recommendations aimed at achieving a purpose). Similarly, one could claim that including "Botanical name: Digitalis purpurea" in an infobox tells us how to refer to the common foxglove when observing scientific conventions, but that does not make it a "how-to" within the meaning of WP:NOT.--Boson 21:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A pseudonym, alternative (sientific) name, ... all are other, distinct names by which the subject is defined. "His royal highness" tells us absolutely nothing about any specific king, prince, ... but tells you how to address kings in general. What is the point of such a general infobox in a specific article? The pseudonyms used by a writer give us more information about that individual writer and thus belong in that article. The different ways to address a royal give us no information about that specific person and thus do not belong in that article. Fram 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It helps to create an understanding of that individual's life, and their interactions with others. Tyrenius 04:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Honorific Prefixes (again...) 

message: Currently, it says to use the surname when talking about the subject later in the article.  But, it does not list any exceptions for stage names (especially, singular names).  Judging by Madonna (entertainer), Prince (musician), and Seal (musician), it looks like concensus is already to use the stage name.  But, it would probably be good to put it into the MoS; unless there is still some debate to be had about it.  I think that enforcing the surname rule would be more professional and fitting of an encyclopedia, but, I don't think we could pull it off here.  Opinions? Neier 14:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It would read in a very stilted way to use the surname for these people. Tyrenius 04:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We should be using the surname-equivalent for people who go by a stage name.  So, "Jolson" for Asa Yoelson and "Madonna" for Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie (since she goes by a single name), but "Presley" for Elvis Aaron Presley (since he did not go by a single-name stage name, he's just well-known).--Pharos 04:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've added a few words to this effect in the 'Subsequent uses of names' section.--Pharos 05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My question isn't restricted to biographies, but I'm unsure where else to raise it (please inform me if there's a more suitable forum).  In the currently topical article 2007 Greek forest fires, I deleted a repetition of the entire phrase Minister for Public Order, Vyron Polydoras in one section.  In the subsequent discussion it was clear that the original author thought of Mr Polydoras' function in the same way that we would think of the title "Dr".  Similarly, Costas Karamanlis is never mentioned in this article without the epithet "Prime Minister".  Are there any clear WP guidelines on this matter? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsequent use of names 

message: Just because the article doesn't explicitly state this; If say an author goes by a pseudonym that is more well known than their actual name then the article's name should be the pseudonym? I ask this because somebody keeps going around to some of these pages about authors and changing them from their well know (and published) pseudonyms (eg. Nora Roberts) to their less known 'real' names (eg. Eleanor Marie Robertson) which is even debatable because she's been married a few times so in reality it would be Eleanor Marie Robertson Smith Wilder, which the person has already created a redirect from. I personally believe that the article, and probably most of the others that the person has moved needs to be back at the more popular pseudonym but I want to me sure that I'm reading this right before doing anything. Thanks --ImmortalGoddezz 13:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That editor needs to read and understand Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), and to take note of the example about Pelé. I am no expert on Nora Roberts or her work, or her various legal names or pseudonyms, but just looking at the number of links to Nora Roberts from other articles leads me to believe that its choice for the original placement of the article was well reasoned. Unless editors who come along later can explain why they think that choice was an error, and can also convince others, they should not take it upon themselves to overturn it. In this case the move was disruptive. At the very least, the proposed move should have been discussed on the talk page, as this article appears to be highly visible. Chris the speller 16:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudonyms 

message: Is it appropriate to add birth date and place information in a parenthetical when a spouse is mentioned in a biography?--Vbd (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spouses 

message: In "Pseudonyms, stage names and common names" I changed birth name to real name as it confuses people. Some people thought because of this formation that if the person has legally and officially changed his/her birth name, you should still state their birth name as the main name which, as we all understand not right. Northern 13:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed birthname to real name 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death duplication. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-13t10:59z
:Please don't go there. This is the correct forum. The question posed by Jeandré was "If the biography has an infobox, can we have the dates in there only instead of duplicating it after the name?" Chris the speller 15:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates of birth and death duplication.

message: In biographical articles, is it ever appropriate to have a "Biography" subheading?  If the whole article is a biography, such a subheading seems redundant - and makes me wonder what the rest of the article is all about.  See:  Merv Griffin for an example.  I saw no reference to this on the project page or the Manual of Style. Rklawton 21:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography subheading

message: Rather than break the flow of what BrownHairedGirl has written above, I've copied it below, and given my responses at the appropriate points.
:Grant, I'm not sue who the "you" is that you refer to in your PS, so I can't help you on that point...
::It was you. On 4 August 2007, you changed "East Fife" to "East Fife". But given the thousands of edits you've made since then, I'm not surprised you've forgotten about it. Looks like it was pure coincidence, then. But the point is... I beseech you to read the corresponding talk page, because it goes deeper into many of the points I'm trying to make here.
:... but it seems to me that you are missing something here. The issue, as I see it is that in English-style naming, most people have two or more given names and a surname...
::How you see it? Hmmm... Most people? Possibly. But many people have only one given name. Probably more than you imagine.
:... and are known for most purposes by the first given name and the surname...
::Well... it's probably true that more people have their main forename placed first, than have it placed second, third, etc. But it's not an overwhelming majority. "Most people" are right-handed, but we don't structure Wikipedia articles about left-handed people differently from those about right-handed people.
:... those who other combinations (such as middle name+surname or first two names+surname) are the exception.
::Well, no, actually... It's hard to get accurate figures, and representative lists giving full names and main forenames are somewhat thin on the ground, but let's take British prime ministers of the last hundred years as a case in point. By my reckoning, only eight out of nineteen conform to your schizonym stereotype of normality. The other eleven are juxtonyms – three with only one forename, and eight known by the second of two. Hardly an exception, then.
:... Presented with a name like "Eric Alfred Theodore William FitzRoy", readers know that unless told otherwise that person can be assumed to use for most purposes the name "Eric Fitzroy", or (e.g. in North America, where the middle initial is widely used, as "Eric A. Fitzroy".
::Why on earth would they 'know' that?
:The purpose of spelling out the use of a middle name is simply to clarify to reader from the start that the disparity between the article title and the list of names...
::What disparity? I suspect you only see one because you are unaware just how common juxtonymy is. Take a look at the quaintly named List of people known by middle name before they delete it (ironically, on the grounds that it's too long to signify anything unusual). The fact that Kevin Keegan isn't known as Joseph is no more a 'disparity' than the fact that David Beckham isn't known as Joseph. 'Most people' with more than one forename have one that is used for everyday purposes. There is no reason why that needs to be the first one. And no reason to comment on it, either way.
:... is a) not a mistake, and b) is a customary usage rather than the result of a change of name.  In most cases, this adds only four words to the lead para, so it's hardly cluttersome;
::Alternatively, you could insert the words "Clutter, clutter, clutter, clutter," into the first sentence of any article. It's only four words, but it's still clutter.
:... and as above, it will apply only to a fairly small minority of articles.
::No... a very large minority, at least.
:I think that with the example of Brian Jones, you may misunderstand what is being proposed...
::Really?
:... it's not matter of saying (tautologically)  that "Brian Jones was known as Brian Jones", but rather of saying that "Lewis Brian Jones...
::Do you mean Lewis Brian Hopkin Jones? You appear to have omitted one supplementary forename but not the other. Was there a reason for that?
:... was known as Brian Jones", concisely clarifying an apparent inconsistency.
::No. Merely perpetuating the popular misconception that led you to assume it was an inconsistency in the first place.
:... That's all.
:BTW, there seems to be consensus here not to use brackets, but to describe it as an "indefensible" practice seems odd: the Dictionary of National Biography is a highly-respected publication which uses it...
::They don't use it consistently, though, do they? The ODNB's own list of British prime ministers, for instance, gives no indication that Bonar Law's first forename was rarely, if ever, used.
:... The less current Dictionary of Australian biography] uses the "known as" format: see, for example Penleigh Boyd.
::In fact, it uses "always known as". I can almost see the adverb edit wars now... But, as other people have already pointed out: Because the article's title is "BOYD, THEODORE PENLEIGH", there is at least an excuse for establishing what name Boyd actually used. In Wikipedia, that is not necessary. The question is: Why do they not also establish the usual names of those who manage to get through their daily lives without recourse to a second or third forename. The answer, of course, is rampant schizonymacentricity. Were I numbered among the editors of one of these august publications, I would argue my case fiercely in that forum. As it is, I can at least endeavour to ensure that Wikipedia does not fall into the same trap.
Sorry if the foregoing seems like a rant, but this matters to me. Grant 00:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search for "schizonymacentricity" shows precisely four hits, two of which are your uses on this page. I can see that schizonymacentricity is an important issue for you, but it doesn't appear to be so for anyone else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to BrownHairedGirl's initial reply to my 'Hold on a minute...' 

message: I have noticed a tendency to "revert" female relatives to their maiden names in biographical articles.  Articles often say something like "John Jones was born in 1938 to Bob Jones and Nancy Smith", even though "Nancy Smith" did not go by her maiden name.  This is probably a result of some genealogical tables which use maiden names, but is certainly misleading for biographical purposes.  I first noticed this in an article on Congressman Ron Paul, where both his wife and mother were referenced solely, and inaccurately, by their maiden names.
Since this may be due to confusion from looking at raw genealogical tables, should something be added to the manual to clarify that relatives should not be reverted to names which they themselves do not use?  Lnh27 10:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've always found it odd when somebody's mother is referred to by her maiden name, thus implying that the subject of the article was illegitimate. -- Necrothesp 10:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's fine, although "His parents were Adam Liszt and Maria Anna Liszt (née Lager)" is better, as the other form implies his father too was born Lager - it may be obvious what it means, but it still isn't very good English. But it would be confusing (and incorrect) if she was listed just as Maria Anna Lager, which wasn't her name when her son was born. I also dislike "the former" (e.g. "His parents were Adam Liszt and the former Maria Anna Lager"), which seems to be a common American form and suggests that his mother was dead when he was born, had changed her forenames as well, or had become nameless! She's not the former Maria Anna Lager, but Maria Anna Liszt, formerly Lager. - -- Necrothesp 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit that I do this "the former" thing quite a lot, but then I tend to edit articles on peers, and saying "his parents were the 7th Earl of York and the Countess of York" seems to me to be rather unhelpful, whereas "his parents were the 7th Earl of York and the former Lady Isabella Plantagenet" actually says what his mother's name was. I would tend to agree it's not appropriate in articles on commoners. Proteus (Talk) 17:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of female relatives 

message: I would like to suggest that the manual of style indicate that postnominal letters to indicate knighthoods and similar honors (such as GCB) should not be included in the lead sentence if the subject was not associated with a country where such postnominals are normally used. (I'm not sure exactly how to phrase that.) I don't think that a United States president like Bill Clinton should have his article begin "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton, GCL" in reference to an honor he received from Papua New Guinea, as it once did.  --Metropolitan90 18:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's not the proposal at all, since the first four postnoms are applicable to Mr Rae's country and the last three shouldn't be included anyway, since they're degrees. Postnoms applicable to the individual's own country should most certainly be included - the proposal was referring to foreign honours. -- Necrothesp 22:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The non-inclusion of postnominal letters indicating degrees is not clear in the policy. I've added the following to the section on Academic titles in accord with Necrothesp's statement above: "Postnominal letters indicated academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name.". Reginald Perrin 13:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, well I'll expand the proposal then. I'd like to propose that if an infobox exists, the postnominals should go there rather than in the body of the article. Reginald Perrin 22:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Postnominals signifying domestic honours should always be added in the body of the article. -- Necrothesp 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? As long as the postnominals are mentioned in the infobox, why interrupt the article with a recitation of the alphabet? Reginald Perrin 01:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because in the Commonwealth these postnoms are frequently used and are if anything a more important part of a person's name than unused middle names, which we wouldn't dream of removing. It's no more an "interruption" of the article than listing birth and death dates. I personally dislike infoboxes anyway, which I consider to be ugly and unnecessary, and if they must be used I certainly wouldn't consider them a place to which to relegate important information. -- Necrothesp 13:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reginald Perrin, are you aware that the word is spelled "postnominal", not "postnomial"?  --  JackofOz 14:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Postnomial sounds better:) Thanks for the correction. Reginald Perrin 17:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe not a perfect example; if he had been born 5 years later, he wouldn't have been British at all, but American by birth. ;-) Chris the speller 16:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postnominal letters 

message: Per this edit what is the community's take on this and also see Fred Thompson. Thanks --Tom 06:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your change to this Manual of Style.  If a person changes his or her name, then Wikipedia should not require proof that court papers have been filed, in order for Wikipedia to recognize the name change.Ferrylodge 06:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about reliable sources wp:rs? We should have reliable sources that say the person has "changed" their name? --Tom 06:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That actually doesn't sound to bad. Maybe we can reach some consensus here :) --Tom 07:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats the difference between Edwards and Thompson?--Tom 07:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you want to change Edwards to Thompson?  Could it possibly be to influence the outcome of ongoing discussion at the Fred Thompson article???Ferrylodge 07:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To piss you off?:) j/k No seriously, what do you see the differences as?--Tom 07:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a need not to change a Manual of Style unless there is a valid reason.Ferrylodge 07:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I guess we should take this back to the Thompson page?--Tom 07:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.Ferrylodge 07:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please stop playing games.  I said that there was no valid reason for the change proposed by Threeafterthree.  I did not say that there is no valid reason for any change whatsoever in this article.Ferrylodge 06:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing name legally vs otherwise

message: Concerning say, Queen Elizabeth II should her article not be headed, Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms? While she is primarily based in the UK she is Queen of other areas in equal measure. In regard to say, George V should he not be George V of the British Empire? Gavin Scott 10:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has come up numerous times (and usually every requested move is heavily voted down, often with a further vote requesting that this point be put to rest!). First off it would be creating titles (WP:OR). Secondly numerous monarchs have reigned over more than one place at the same time (or for different periods) - the convention is that their single highest title is listed. The article name is aiming to easily identify them, not cover every single territory they reigned over. Timrollpickering 11:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Monarchs 

message: A problem has arisen at WP:FAC#Nancy Reagan. She is best known as "Nancy Reagan" but that is clunky. Abbreviating to "Nancy" is deprecated by the guidelines here but calling her "Reagan" courts confusion with the president. Easiest seems to be to call her "Nancy" and her husaband "Ronald", despite the cosiness. What do editors feel about this? And should WP:MOSBIO be changed to reflect this difficulty? --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's perfectly acceptable to use first names when to use surnames only would cause confusion (such as married couples, as here). -- Necrothesp 09:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My view too. Is there consensus for reflecting this in the guideline? If so, I'll draft something. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who started the Nancy Reagan nomination. Roger Davies hit it right on the mark in his description of the problem. I would support a change to the guidelines. Happyme22 (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First ladies

message: Unless anyone objects, I propose adding the following section to the Subsequent uses of names section of Manual of Style (biographies) on Thursday, 22 November 2007.
A great many articles already use this approach so updating the guideline is merely reflecting widespread current practice and providing a clear standard to follow for future articles. I have posted a message about this in WP:Biography
--ROGER DAVIES talk 07:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly what we need, and I support adding it to the MOS Biographies. Happyme22 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support! --Melty girl (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: There is currently a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history as to whether service postnominals should be included in first lines of military biographies. For example, should a Royal Australian Navy officer have RAN at the end, or is this an unnecessary addition as we have decided that postnoms indicating academic degrees are. Personally, I believe that they are unnecessary and could lead to conflict as many officers change services over their careers, leading to editors who favour one particular service, corps or country changing the postnom to reflect their POV. They do not reflect an honour, award or achievement as most postnoms do, but merely an affiliation. The counter-argument appears to be that they are specifically mandated by some service manuals and therefore should be used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Military postnominals

message: The example guven for Hawkin, and the text of the article as it is today, seems to violate the principle it is supposed to illustrate. I won't change it in case I've misunderstood something.
"Postnominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name. 
For example:
*Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, (born January 8, 1942) is considered one of the world's leading theoretical physicists. Hawking is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge..." Pol098 (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those postnoms indicates an academic degree. Two (CH CBE) are British honours and one (FRS) is a fellowship, and it's a general rule that FRS is always included if somebody has it, since it is so prestigious. Hawking's degrees are not included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen William Hawking example 

message: The guidelines as they are today read: "To disambiguate between siblings or other well-known relatives with the same surname, use the surname of the article header to indicate that person, and use first names or complete names to indicate siblings or others."
I'd suggest a modification so that the text makes sense by itself, without reference to the article title. I'll start with a few examples, with suggested wording in [brackets]:
Sally Hemings:
Jefferson was alleged during his administration to have fathered several children with slaves; more recently DNA tests indicate that a male in Jefferson's line, possibly but not definitely Jefferson [Thomas or Thomas Jefferson or the statesman] himself, was the father of several of Sally Hemings's children.
George III of the United Kingdom:
...of King George's insanity and health problems. After a final relapse in 1810, George's eldest son, George, Prince of Wales ruled as Prince Regent. On George's death, the Prince of Wales succeeded his father as George IV.
...of King George's insanity and health problems. After a final relapse in 1810, his eldest son, George, Prince of Wales ruled as Prince Regent. On George III's death the Prince of Wales succeeded his father, as George IV.
Benedict Arnold:
The Arnold family was well off until Arnold's father made several bad business deals
The Arnold family was well off until the future general's father made several bad business deals
(Arnold's father was also called Arnold, of course)
So I'd suggest something on the following lines:
To disambiguate between siblings or other well-known relatives with the same surname, in a paragraph where several people with the same surname are mentioned use the full name of the article header or another word or phrase identifier to indicate that person, and use first names or complete names to indicate siblings or others. In paragraphs where others are not mentioned, the surname of the person who is the subject of the article is usually sufficient.
This could probably be worded better, but should this change of policy be made? Pol098 (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People with the same surname 

message: The "Subsequent uses of names" section says:
The general guideline here is "use surname only", the "best known by" just says "a pseudonym" and the description of what to use is "pseudonym surname". So does this all only apply for pseudonym surnames? Or if the person is known by a single-name pseudonym do we use that? What about if the pseudonym is just the first name (bordering on a nickname)? Some clearer wording and/or examples would be useful here. DMacks 21:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that more clarity is needed here. The guideline as written is too vague: what is a "suitable abbreviation"? I have no idea. I propose an alternative. --Melty girl (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As people can see, this issue has been raised by a few people over time, but has been repeatedly ignored. In the absence of any comments, I implemented my proposal. I believe it is clearer, logical and, for the most part, follows current practice on Wikipedia and in many publications. Comments are, of course, still welcome. --Melty girl (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudonym guideline wording