Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/Archive 5

message: I propose to change the MoS page Entry from "3. Nationality" to "3. Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, or was a citizen when the person became notable.)" to celar up this matter once and for all. DES (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Mikhail Veller is described as "Russian writer of Jewish origin" (which is true), but by nationality (citizenship) he is Estonian and he lives in Estonia. I have no hard feelings about this but according to the general policy he should be described as an "Estonian writer". On the other hand, his books are in Russian and most of his readers are in Russia, so describing his just as "Estonian" might be misleading. Maybe "Estonian Russian" would do? 
But then, his novels and short stories are a part of Russian literature, and he has described himself as a "Russian (Jewish) writer" [].
Lebatsnok 08:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another example of nationality

message: I propose that the the term "The Most Noble", "Right Honourable and all other such prefixes are removed from the opening of Wikipedia articles to bring all subjects especially members of the British aristocracy in line with their superiors.  If such terms are of importance they can be explained elsewhere in the article. Giano | talk 08:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *By superiors, I meant in the terms that peers are junior to  their monarch, thus the sovereign is superior to a duke etc.  I agree there is some argument for retaining Rt. Hon., although I would still prefer to see it explained in the article as a term of address. Giano | talk 11:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you seemed to be being disparaging, and some of your posts on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard suggested it. -- Necrothesp 11:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * No problems but for the record: I am very pro the peerage of all countries.  I just feel that Most Noble is an antiquated term used very rarely used and then, more often than not, only on heraldic legal documents - recent divorce papers of Dukes do not refer to them as such, neither do their own stud and record books.   I am also very pro Wikipedia appearing as an intelligent encyclopedia unweighed down by undue deference and antiquated ideas.  If  a monarch is (quite rightly) not given the prefix HM, how an earth can a duke be Most Noble. Giano | talk 11:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I agree with you there. Also being monarchist and pro-peerage, I have no problem with the title being used in very formal documents, but not as a matter of course. -- Necrothesp 12:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *It does look a bit out of place to have it at the start of peers' articles. Later in the article it can give their full style (for example, many pages have a "Titles from birth" section listing their full, formal titles). But what happens with the articles of peers that are privy counsellors? Peers are The Rt Hon already, so add PC. But if we're not including Rt Hon for peers, do we still add PC? --JRawle 11:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dod's Parliamentary Companion is quite happy adding Rt Hon to the titles of peers who are Privy Counsellors, but not to those who aren't. Probably technically inaccurate, but obviously common usage even by peers themselves. -- Necrothesp 12:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But isn't it ambiguous? If we're going to do that, we still need to add "PC" after their names. --JRawle 12:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *But we are not "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" we are a modern international encyclopedia.  I don't think it infers disrespect to explain these honorifics later in a page rather than a prefix at the beginning of the lead.  Secondly if The Honourable remains, there will be mass confusion with those who are merely honourable by accident of birth.  Finally, if the Queen as the "fountain of all honour" is not "HM", the her subjects must do without their honorifics too, otherwise that could be construed as disrespect - HM may even be an editor here!  And what about the Grandees of Spain etc - what are we going to do for them are they any less important.  Regarding Privy Councillors, in reality it is  more of a job than a rank so should be treated as such. Giano | talk 12:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with removing "The Rt Hon" from peers' article, as they aren't called that even in quite formal documents. However, Privy Counsellors are usually called The Rt Hon, so I think it should stay in their articles. Peers who are privy counsellor should have Rt Hon included too, but also PC suffixed, as they whould normally have. --JRawle 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However, like ranks and pretitles, I don't think The Right Honourable should be linked - it just looks ugly. -- Necrothesp 14:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree on that point--I think it looks ugly unlinked. More to the point, the link provides an explanation as to what "Right Honourable" signifies. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but I don't think that needs to be in the first line. It can appear later. After all, the Manual of Style urges us (rightly, in my opinion) not to link parts of the bolded title, and I think this should apply equally to prenoms, bolded or otherwise. -- Necrothesp 15:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Giano. Biographies should begin with a person's name, and then the article can go on to explain what honors they have earned or been given, and what that means in terms of how they're addressed (Rt. Honorable, Dr., Professor). But to start with a style is POV because it buys into that person's, or a certain country's or institution's, point of view. This is an international project in 2006. "Most Noble" is no way to begin a modern, encyclopedic, neutral bio. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Believe me Proteus to see Cherie Blair's page (should it not be Cherie Booth's page) begin Mrs. Anthony Blair would give me immense pleasure; but it isn't going to happen.  Wikipedia is too far and lost down the strict etiquette path to start dragging up antiquated forms of address, if they are not going to be standard across the board.  To do so we would have to fix a time date, I suspect the one you would like would be circa 1886.  For better or for worse it is 2006 and we have to go by accepted standards of our day not those of  a bygone age.  British Dukes are no longer addressed as Most Noble anywhere but in rarified heraldic documents - Wikipedia isn't one!  Right Honorables I admit are a little more common in every sense of the word, but the prefix should be explained within the article.  If the "fountain of honour" herself  is not HM then no one else can have a prefix either. Simple! Giano | talk 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have a rule about using titles in article titles? For example, someone kept wanting to move Noel Annan to Noel Annan, Baron Annan, and I've seen quite a few like that. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western nobility). Articles about peers should be named using their titles unless they are "exclusively" known by their personal names. -- Necrothesp 21:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: * Chick - I wish I knew the answer to that.  I have a hunch the difference is people swoon at European titles and don't at American, which of course is kinda sad if you are a titled American.  The logical answer here is no one should have an honorific in the prefix to their name in the lead.  Then we have a level playing field, no Holynesses, no  Majesties, Highnesses, Most Nobles, Rt. Hons and Rt. Down the Lines - that way no one is slighted, offended or whatever, and all their titles can be explained in the articles about them.  That's my view.  Incidentally how is the consensus doing on "Most Noble" (which is why we were originally here) can I start to delete them now? Giano | talk 22:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *People mostly chuckle at the American ones.  Everything you say sounds quite logical to me, Giano.  I don't think it is or should be Wikipedia policy to be reverent.  Chick Bowen 00:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: * I support removal of Most Noble (only), as in the posting immediately above--Smerus 08:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Yes, I support this too, as well as the removal of any other honorific used just because someone is a peer. I think we can quite clearly distinguish between these and titles given because the holder is a Privy Counsellor or whatever. As Smerus says, these are commonly used in the British media and would certainly be familiar to most British people. Whereas even most peers don't bother using their honorifics. But if the present attempt at consensus is only for getting rid of "Most Noble", then so be it. -- Necrothesp 09:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the policy doesn't entirely work, since the example they give, Margaret Thatcher, is now almost exclusively known in the British media as Baroness Thatcher. -- Necrothesp 13:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, but don't see the difference between Dr, Sir, and The Most Noble. I say we should start articles with a person's name, and explain within the text or within an info box how they're addressed. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy with a policy of no exceptions at all. So you would favour returning George Cardinal Pell to plain George Pell? Adam 06:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does look odd, but yes I would. If King Hussein of Jordan can be Hussein bin Talal, then Cardinal Pell can be George. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My understanding, and I'm not wholly clear on this, is that "Kt" isn't really correct and should only be used when the holder in question is a baronet (and, therefore, there would be no post nominals explaining why the person is a knight). We certainly can't remove "Sir" from the beginning of articles; Necrothesp is quite right about that. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, sorry, poor wording on my part (should have "why the person has sir in front of their name"). Anyway, thought I read that somewhere. Mackensen (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed incorrect to put "Kt" after the name. That is only used in publications such as Who's Who when they use it to list the date of the knightood. It should never be done otherwise, and the knight or dame should never be listed without their pretitle. It has effectively become part of their name. If John Smith is knighted he will never again be addressed as "Mr Smith", but always as "Sir John". Incidentally, "Bart" is also incorrect (although often seen) - it should be "Bt". -- Necrothesp 12:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was referring to the Obituary Column not the "famous peoples write up" but the columns where ordinary low achieving Knights and Dames pay to go.  Baronets do indeed write Bart. after their names.  All knights belong to one of the various orders of Knighthood, one can't be a Knight otherwise.  Such as the Bath, Order of St. John and St. George, Knight of the Royal Victorian Order. etc. sect etc.  These are the letters after their names. Kt is just an old fashioned abbreviation for Knight sometimes found on ancient memorials, or as an abreviation for knighted in a reference book.  It is impossible to be Knighted and not have the letters of an order to tag after the name.  Only Baronets may not have letters which is why they write Bart. Giano | talk 14:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems I'm wrong above, according to this Knight Bachelor Knights may belong to no order and write Kt after there name. Learn something new evry day! Giano | talk 14:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Knights Bachelor are by far the most numerous knights. They also hold the oldest form of knighthood and the lowest in precedence. But note the clause "but "Kt"...is sometimes used erroneously". It is incorrect usage. "Bart" is considered incorrect usage today, although it was commonly used historically. See Baronet. Incidentally, how can you be a knight or dame if you're "low achieving"? These are not hereditary titles. All knights and dames are by definition notable people at the top of their profession. -- Necrothesp 14:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, having studied it for years, I'm very aware of how they're dished out. They are rarely awarded to those below Permanent Secretary rank in the Civil Service (although once they were) or senior ambassadors in the Diplomatic Service. Yes, the political honours are a little questionable, but they are never given to nobodies. The fact remains that knighthoods are not given to low achievers. -- Necrothesp 16:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is really a difficulty here. The styles for Peers: The Most Noble , The Most Honourable, and Right Honourable are not really used, whereas Sir for Knights is in common usage. Therefore I propose using only Sir as both Britannica and Chambers do (they do not use Right Honourable at all). Arniep 16:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sir is not a title. It is the style of a Knight or Baronet. But, yes, in general, remove styles, keep titles. Arniep 18:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll get there. I'm going to write up some language below. If everyone seems okay with that then we're good. Mackensen (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've rewritten it slightly to address your objections--they fall in with hereditary nobles. Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My support for this proposal is conditional on it definitely including the removal of the inline use of "The Honourable" and "The Right Honourable" from articles about politicians. Adam 07:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to draw peoples attention to the proposal that has been made above to remove nationality from the headers of all articles Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29#Proposal_on_Nationality. Arniep 22:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm quite happy with it being mentioned anywhere, except at the start. Adam 12:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I support the proposal. Proteus (Talk) 13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackensen (talk • contribs) --Mackensen (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: * 'Ave no fear M'sieur, any of their aristo tricks and vee zend zem to the WP Guillotine toute de suite. Giano | talk 12:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As stated above "Cardinal" is a title, not a style, so it wuld be "George Cardinal Pell", but not "His Eminence George Cardinal Pell" which is the correct style for a cardinal. DES (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, the text says 'Wikipedia currently distinguishes between three groups' and then goes on to list four groups. Markyour words 12:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Most Noble 

message: Based on the discussion above, I suggest the following language:
The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles has proved controversial on Wikipedia. Wikipedia currently distinguishes between three groups: nobles, government officials, and members of royal families and popes. 
*(1) Styles and honorifics which are derived from noble title, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable, shall not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.
*(2) 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, shall not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.
*(3) Styles shall not be used to open articles on royalty and popes. Thus the article on Pope Benedict XVI shall not begin "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI . . . " nor the article on Queen Victoria begin "Her Majesty Queen Victoria . . ." They should, however, be discussed in the article proper.
*(4) The honorific Sir shall 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.
I think that about covers it. I'm completely open to suggestions, but I think a working text is helpful. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten it slightly to address your objections--they fall in with hereditary nobles. Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My support for this proposal is conditional on it definitely including the removal of the inline use of "The Honourable" and "The Right Honourable" from articles about politicians. Adam 07:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to draw peoples attention to the proposal that has been made above to remove nationality from the headers of all articles Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29#Proposal_on_Nationality. Arniep 22:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm quite happy with it being mentioned anywhere, except at the start. Adam 12:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I support the proposal. Proteus (Talk) 13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackensen (talk • contribs) --Mackensen (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change to Honorific prefixes

message: The above discussion suggests that people accept this compromise. In the next day or two, unless significant opposition develops, I'll update the policy page. At that point, those so inclined may start removing styles from the beginning of articles. This will probably, as Adam suggests, cause consternation. I would suggest, therefore, that those removing styles do so in a friendly fashion, with specific reference to the policy page and this discussion. Admins should avoid the rollback button. It would also be a good gesture to make specific mention of the removed style elsewhere in the article. This would reinforce that styles aren't being deleted so much as removed to a different part of the article. Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * 'Ave no fear M'sieur, any of their aristo tricks and vee zend zem to the WP Guillotine toute de suite. Giano | talk 12:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As stated above "Cardinal" is a title, not a style, so it wuld be "George Cardinal Pell", but not "His Eminence George Cardinal Pell" which is the correct style for a cardinal. DES (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Implementing the change

message: The agreed wording now on the policy page is, I'm afraid to say, slightly ambiguous. I understood it to be about removing "The Right Honourable" or "His Excellency" and the like courtesy prenominals. I didn't take it to be about removing titles like Sir, Dr, Cardinal, Lord or Lady etc. At least one user disagrees.  Can we clarify this please. -- Ian ≡ talk 12:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the text says 'Wikipedia currently distinguishes between three groups' and then goes on to list four groups. Markyour words 12:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguous?

message: This section (Honorific Prefixes) of MOS:BIO was recently quoted at the Help Desk, and one thing was very noticeable -- this is the only section of MOS:BIO that uses "shall" (as in, "Styles and honorifics which are derived from political activities [...] shall not be included in the text inline") as opposed to the entire rest of the style guide, which uses "should" (as in, "Academic and professional titles [...] should not be used before the name in the initial sentence"). 
"Should" seems more appropriate to a document like this; "shall" would be more appropriate for a statute or other legal document, rather than a style guide. Unless there are some very good reasons to make the wording of this section completely unique, I propose to change "shall" to "should". 
I should also point out that I fully support the substance of the section as it stands and am only proposing a change in language for better consistency and more appropriate wording. MCB 04:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Shall" vs. "Should"

message: A user has been systematically replacing British as a nationality with English on a huge number of articles with no prior discussion or consensus and has continued to do it despite my messages on their talk page to stop. The user has an account Special:Contributions/Layla12275 but also uses Special:Contributions/82.4.86.73 and Special:Contributions/82.110.217.226. I personally think that most people from England regard their nationality as British even if the Scots and Welsh reject that tag. Certainly doing what this user has done without prior discussion or consensus is not acceptable so possibly some sanction is due but I would appreciate people's thoughts on this. Arniep 03:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's kind of a blockable offense at this point.  After all, this mess has been going round and round for over a year, and, although I always stay as far away from it as I can, it's fairly settled by now.  The problem is that one can do one of two things, presently: say that, at the time of the person's life, there was no United Kingdom, or there was a Great Britain but no United Kingdom, and tag according to what the figure would have seen himself as, or say that, no matter what that person thought at the time, the place the person is from is now part of "Britain" and therefore apply that tag irrespective.  To my knowledge, that has not been settled.  For my part, I don't think historically aware tags are appropriate unless they are particularly important in the function of the person's life or for a legal reason (e.g. James I of Great Britain is not James I of the United Kingdom; Philip Sidney campaigned to subjugate Ireland and would have been appalled to have been lumped in with Scots and Welsh and any "Celts," whom he regarded as less than human).  However, indiscriminate replacement, even with a rationale, is blockable if there is no discussion.  Probably a WP:ANI matter.  Geogre 15:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is you must not make wholesale changes (which you have been doing) without prior discussion or consensus. To do so is arrogant and disrespectful of the community. Arniep 20:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally think that most people from England regard their nationality as British Nonsense. - FrancisTyers 23:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, most people I know (from England) describe themselves as British, and, if you look in most major reference works British is generally the accepted nationality for anyone from England. Arniep 23:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland too? - FrancisTyers 23:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no, see below. Arniep 23:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Bah, the hobgoblin of little minds.  Scottish and Welsh are useful information for Jocks and Taffs, because those respective identities tend to be stronger than their British identities.   The case for English over British is less strong, though it has the merit of giving some extra information.  But I really do wonder at the mentality of people who can think of nothing better to do than change English to British (or vice versa) in hundreds of articles: just leave it to the people who actually wrote the article to decide which to use. Mark1 23:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. :) - FrancisTyers 23:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to be accepted in other reference works that Welsh and Scottish people are not described as British. Generally it seems to be the case that people from England are described as British. Arniep 23:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference works published where? I know Americans tend to use English and British interchangeably, meaning they'll call someone Welsh, Scottish or English either English or British. - FrancisTyers 23:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Britannica uses Scottish and Welsh, but generally seems to use British for people from England. Arniep 23:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: How about the individuals preference is used. E.g. if someone calls themselves English then English, or if British then British. - FrancisTyers 23:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that but how often do people actually mention their own "nationality"? I know that a lot of ethnic minorities certainly don't identify as English. Arniep 23:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know about that. I wouldn't support describing Talvin Singh as English, I would however support the continued naming of Stephen Fry, Steve Coogan and Sean Bean as English. I would say that if people don't mention their nationality it needn't appear in their Wikipedia article (e.g. Nick Griffin). - FrancisTyers 00:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Have the three you mentioned identified as English? Just thinking about Steve Coogan, do we talk about British comedy or English comedy...I'd say the former. Arniep 00:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the Alfred Molina example? Alfred Molina (born May 24, 1953) is an English actor of Spanish-Italian parentage, born in London. Regarding Steve Coogan, unless he has specifically called himself Irish or British, I think we should use Steve Coogan (born 14 October 1965 in Manchester, England) is an English actor and comedian of Irish parentage. Likewise with Jimmy Carr, although he carries an Irish passport he should be described as English with Irish parentage (although funnily enough his Wikipedia page doesn't mention this). - FrancisTyers 00:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely use British in that example. We should use British unless we are absolutely certain that person would have identified as English. Arniep 01:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably British comedy but that is fairly irrelevant, would you use Welsh comedy or Scottish comedy? I don't think so. How would you describe Marion and Geoff, British comedy or Welsh comedy? - FrancisTyers 01:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Re: your edit on Ian McKellen, I put British back. I'm not sure what your problem is with the term as it just means from the British Isles (which actually includes Ireland) so is actually a good broad identifier.  Arniep 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah and Bertie Ahern is British, give me a break. - FrancisTyers 15:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you try and stay WP:CIVIL please? I did not mean that Irish people should be described as British I meant that for people in England who have close Irish/Welsh/Scottish ancestry British is a fitting term. Arniep 16:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies if I came accross as uncivil. I didn't spend enough time thinking about that comment. I really don't know, how recent is his Scottish ancestry? If not his parents then perhaps English actor with Scottish heritage or actor based in the United Kingdom, or probably the best solution is an actor with British citizenship (this is not the same as a British actor). - FrancisTyers 16:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "British" does not mean "from the British Isles", it means from Great Britain (geographically) or the UK (politically). --Ryano 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarity at last! -- p r e c i s e l y so, Ryano. (And it's exactly what makes the very term "British Isles" so anachronistically misleading and eminently worth avoiding) -- Picapica 12:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule is, if it's good it's another triumph for Britain!; if it's bad it's England loses again ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 13:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I'm sure Flanders and Swann would appreciate this. However I can't see any coherance in the suggestion that  we use Welsh for the Welsh but British for the English. Using different terms for different parts of the UK seems inherantly POV and will lead to edit wars. For right or wrong its the UK & NI and it British just as its Spanish even if they are Catalonian. Wiki surely has to deal with the political reality and report itAlci12 11:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User replacing British with English

message: While I support not including titles on pages relating to nobility I would like to voice my oppinion that including titles such as The Honourable and The Right Honourable really dont hurt anything, and although im sure people do not in everyday use call someone like Jean Chretien, The Right Honourable Jean Chretien, these titles do become part of that individuals full legal name for life.  For example during the Gomery Commission, Judge Gomery would regularly use the title saying things like "There has been a request from the Right Honourable Jean Chretien asking that I recuse myself".  Also, although people do not say things like "I was talking to The Honourable Sheila Copps the other day" I do know firsthand that she uses the style "The Honourable" on her buissenss card (I have one sitting on my desk in front of me).
As someone else mentiond previously on this discussion page, honourific titles like The Right Honourable, are occassionally given as a mark of respect by the Governor General on the advise of the Prime Minister, as was the case with Herb Grey the first Jewish cabinet minister, or Ellen Fairclough the first female cabinet minister, and it would be a bit of a disrespect not to use them here.
As a bit of trivia, the father of the former Prime Minsiter Paul Martin was also given The Right Honourable status, and a boat in the Canada Steamship Lines fleet is name (literally) "The Right Honourable Paul James Joseph Martin" - so these things do have a life outside of the house of commons.  
Its not as if the styles being used at the start of articles could easily confuse, since they are used wikied to their related pages. To concluse I would like to reopen discussion on this topic as I think it deserves a second look. Dowew 00:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with this opposition. This looks more like some kind of class war than an attempt to write an encyclopedia. --Khendon 06:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorific titles 

message: I just wanted to voice my opposition to this new policy. Removing honorific prefixes from the beginning of articles just because some people feel that it sounds pompous or could be misconstrued is really going a bit far. It seems really superflous to me to write a new sentence saying "By virtue of his office, Jean Chrétien is entitled to the honorary prefix The Right Honourable" instead of simply opening the article with "The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien". If certain people are somehow confused by the concept of honorary prefixes, well, this in an encyclopedia, so let them be educated. If the concept of honorary prefixes offends them, well, too bad. Personally, alot of facts of reality offend me, but I don't go around insisting that no one mention them. Digging.holes 07:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with this opposition. This looks more like some kind of class war than an attempt to write an encyclopedia. --Khendon 06:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition

message: In a lot of articles, such as Mark Vaile, John Howard and Tony Blair, styles like "The Hon" and "The Rt Hon" are placed in photo captions and above infoboxes. I've been told that "we" have this convention to leave them on for Commonwealth ministers. 
It seems to me that really, this is illogical, when the MoS states that honorifics shouldn't be used inline and the style be used only in discussion of it (I know it doesn't state that it shouldn't be used in photo captions and above infoboxes).
The reason I've been given for this use of styles is that it's a "convention", but I think that should be changed and that convention is no reason to keep doing something that is not as clear, simple and logical. Even only recently, articles on current peeresses (wives of peers) were named, for example, like Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, which would be the normal style of a divorced peeress, until it was decided that the definite article be added (Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall).
I'd like to hear opinions on this, as to whether styles gained from being politicians, such as The Hon and The Rt Hon should be removed from photo captions and above infoboxes. Thanks. JSIN 07:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of honorifics - proposal 

message: Having read the above and the MoS I'm still not clear what we should be doing with post nominals. I can see a reasonable argument for adding them (especially if we are for reasons of clarity which I reluctantly support not using the pre nominal "Dr") but are we adding everything or just notable things. Take the MoS example Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, Now he has presumably a BA/BSC MS and PHD yet we list none. Others have talked about listing the PHD. I can't see as things stand on what basis we are making this choice? Are we only using PHD where no higher post noms exist - that would be the conclusion from the Hawking article.
I'm having a bun fight elsewhere over the insisted inclusion of a BA. It seems  pointless to include such low grade awards as everyone and their dog has one. A PHD obviously is more limited and notable. The MoS doesn't really argue for or against this position even if the reality of usage in wiki appears that we don't add BA or MA except where the odd editor has a whim. 
If someone can clarify where we stand I'd appreciate it - but as I say I don't think the MoS at the moment really gives a clear answer and it does need so to do.Alci12 15:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would still maintain that we should not use any academic postnominals, including doctorates. The reality of usage, as you say, has always been that in general they are not used, and I believe that's the way it should stay. -- Necrothesp 21:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well thats's the thing I can't see where a BA or MA or even a PHD really adds to the article - they are just not unique enough. If people want to make an infobox or add it to the body of the article fine. There seem so many proposals going on here I'm not sure if this can be attached to another and voted on or needs a new vote.Alci12 11:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Academic titles
Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in subsequent uses of the person's name.  Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead.  In cases where the person is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not), it may be included as described above.
For example:
*Isaac Asimov (c. January 2, 1920 – April 6, 1992, IPA: , originally  Исаак Озимов but now transcribed into Russian as Айзек Азимов) was a Russian-born American Jewish author and biochemist,... He graduated from Columbia University in 1939 and earned a Ph.D. in biochemistry there in 1948....
*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...
*David Drew Pinsky,  (born September 4, 1958) nicknamed "Dr. Drew", is a board-certified physician and addiction medicine specialist. [...] Pinsky...earned his M.D. at the University of Southern California School of Medicine in 1984....
[...]
Subsequent uses of names
...until his elevation to the peerage in 1563.
For people with academic or professional titles, subsequent uses of names should omit them.  For example, use Asimov, Hawking, and Pinsky; not Dr. Asimov, Professor Hawking (or Prof Hawking or Dr Hawking), or Dr. Pinksy (or Dr. Drew).
To disambiguate between siblings or other well-known relatives with the same surname....
This proposal would eliminate the use of academic titles with names, and I hope put to bed internecine squabbling about whether a person "deserves" a given title or not. 
I can imagine that there may be academic or professional titles that are not well known.  If someone can give me some examples, I'd like to incorporate that into the guideline in a way that would specify something like the following:  In 1932, Smith achieved the degree of Master of Weaving from the Nowhere School, entitling him to be called "Weaver Smith".  But having no examples at hand, I've left it out for now. --TreyHarris 05:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: ...looks good! I support TreyHarris' proposal --Francis Schonken 11:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Any other comments?  Arbusto, Necrothesp, JzG?  Is this compromise acceptable? --TreyHarris 01:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course support, since this is exactly the policy we had before, is it not? -- Necrothesp 13:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I still think people with doctorates should be called Dr in the introductory sentence. Yet, it looks like this has one more vote of support than the other proposed addition. Arbusto 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Support: I agree with the above proposal of excluding titles from introductory sentence.  Including them seems more like an author's biography and less like an encyclopedia.  Also, titles can change and the encyclopedia should introduce a person with the more permanent facts. -- Renesis13 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic Post Nominals 

message: I propose a section be added under "Honorific prefixes" and a paragraph be added to "Subsequent uses of names":
:
Academic titles
Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in subsequent uses of the person's name.  Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead.  In cases where the person is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not), it may be included as described above.
For example:
*Isaac Asimov (c. January 2, 1920 – April 6, 1992, IPA: , originally  Исаак Озимов but now transcribed into Russian as Айзек Азимов) was a Russian-born American Jewish author and biochemist,... He graduated from Columbia University in 1939 and earned a Ph.D. in biochemistry there in 1948....
*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...
*David Drew Pinsky,  (born September 4, 1958) nicknamed "Dr. Drew", is a board-certified physician and addiction medicine specialist. [...] Pinsky...earned his M.D. at the University of Southern California School of Medicine in 1984....
[...]
Subsequent uses of names
...until his elevation to the peerage in 1563.
For people with academic or professional titles, subsequent uses of names should omit them.  For example, use Asimov, Hawking, and Pinsky; not Dr. Asimov, Professor Hawking (or Prof Hawking or Dr Hawking), or Dr. Pinksy (or Dr. Drew).
To disambiguate between siblings or other well-known relatives with the same surname....
This proposal would eliminate the use of academic titles with names, and I hope put to bed internecine squabbling about whether a person "deserves" a given title or not. 
I can imagine that there may be academic or professional titles that are not well known.  If someone can give me some examples, I'd like to incorporate that into the guideline in a way that would specify something like the following:  In 1932, Smith achieved the degree of Master of Weaving from the Nowhere School, entitling him to be called "Weaver Smith".  But having no examples at hand, I've left it out for now. --TreyHarris 05:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...looks good! I support TreyHarris' proposal --Francis Schonken 11:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Any other comments?  Arbusto, Necrothesp, JzG?  Is this compromise acceptable? --TreyHarris 01:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course support, since this is exactly the policy we had before, is it not? -- Necrothesp 13:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I still think people with doctorates should be called Dr in the introductory sentence. Yet, it looks like this has one more vote of support than the other proposed addition. Arbusto 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Support: I agree with the above proposal of excluding titles from introductory sentence.  Including them seems more like an author's biography and less like an encyclopedia.  Also, titles can change and the encyclopedia should introduce a person with the more permanent facts. -- Renesis13 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate proposal  excluding initial titles 

message: I would guess most of the guidelines on style would apply to military ranks; if so, this should get mention in the style guide.
I mention this because I have run across an article on Sergeant Major so-and-so which refers to him as Sergeant Major so-and-so throughout the article, as in "after completing basic training, Sergeant Major so-and-so received artillery training at Ft. somewhere" -- clearly the individual was not a Sergeant Major immediately after basic training.  I think the article on George S. Patton seems like a good example, using the rank sparingly and always using the current rank. --Rschmertz 01:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Arbusto 07:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the final (or current, if still serving) rank achieved should be used at the beginning of the article. Thereafter, I don't think the individual needs to be referred to by rank at all. The surname is perfectly sufficient, as with anyone else. -- Necrothesp 01:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In British civil life it's rare to use the military title for those below Major (Captain in the navy, Squadron Leader in the RAF), as noted above. Just zis Guy you know? 19:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's Lieutenant-Commander in the Navy. -- Necrothesp 13:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm.  I have met people who use Commander in civilian life, but not Lt-Cdr. You may e right, though.  Never come across less than a squabbling bleeder used in civvy street from the air force, anyway.  I think there is a guideline in the Usual Sources, come to that. Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've certainly seen retired officers billing themselves as Lt-Cdr. It is, after all, the equivalent of Maj and Sqn Ldr. Mind you, some people consider it bad form to use any rank after retirement, and some have continued to use more junior ranks, the most famous example being Sir Basil Liddell Hart, who annoyed the whole military establishment by called himself Captain Liddell Hart for the rest of his life. Not only was it a junior rank, but he wasn't even an ex-regular (he'd held the rank in WWI). -- Necrothesp 13:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military ranks? 

message: Should there be image standardization and image caption standardization? Looking over biographies the opening image ranges from the standard thumbnail to 300 pixels. Some have frames, some don't. Some have image captions, some don't. Image captions vary. Shouldn't the look and feel be standardized? I notice that infoboxes are used in some biographies, but have not been standardized, there are three types used in biographies, and the colors vary from biography to biography. Is there a code to the colors? 
Suggestions:
*Frame the image
*Standard thumb for a vertical image, 250px for horizontal image
*Standardize caption as: "John Doe (1860-1923)" or "John Doe (1860-1923) circa 1910" or other variations. 
What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is one place where standardization isn't needed.  The "picture is a thousand words" cliché is relevant here; the varieties of variability from image to image is enormous, and I think we'll be in trouble if we try to write specific formatting rules to cover them all.  Suppose there's an interesting feature, relevant to the article text, that can only be seen at >300 pixels wide?  What if the only image we can use already has a frame inside it?  What if the only image we can use has two people—shouldn't we identify the other one?  (These are just three examples; if you were to rewrite your suggested guidelines to handle those cases, I'd have a dozen more to add, just off the top of my head.  My point is that it's an intractable problem to address them all.)  I think that while writing some general aesthetic guidelines, we should leave wide latitude for editors to make aesthetic decisions.  --TreyHarris 21:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image standardization in biographies

message: 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 16:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal on spacing of initials in names 

message: I strongly disagree with point 2 in the current policies on honorific prefixes.  Not being able to use "The Right Honourable" for privy councillors doesn't make much sense, especially since we do give post-nominals, which include "PC" for peers. Since "The Rt Hon" is precisely equivalent to "PC", except one is used for commoners and the other for peers, it makes absolutely no sense to give one at the beginning of the article and not the other. john k 15:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But "PC" can and should be used as a postnominal for commoners as well. So your argument is flawed, I'm afraid. -- Necrothesp 15:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "PC" is only used for peers (at least in Britain). Proteus (Talk) 16:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. It is used for commoners in Who's Who, for example. -- Necrothesp 10:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an addendum to that, I have in front of me the official order of service for Ernest Bevin's memorial service at Westminster Abbey in 1951. It says "Ernest Bevin, PC" on the front. -- Necrothesp 11:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: See my above two comments, in which I have provided citations to the effect that this is not the case. -- Necrothesp 17:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorific Prefixes 

message: MoS at present says:
(4) The honorifics Sir and Dame shall 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.
The sons of marquesses/dukes and daughters of the same and of earls are known as "Lord/Lady John/Jane Smith. So are they treated as Sir/Dame above? Logically they should be (it is 'inherited' in the same way that a baronet's title is 'inherited') but the MoS doesn't give any guidance atm. Looking around for articles I can find them with/without and those that have had them added/removed Alci12 15:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where have you found them without/removed? (The only one I know of is Lord Nicholas Hervey.) Proteus (Talk) 16:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Younger sons of Marquesses/Dukes etc 

message: I could use some advice about an MoS issue with a biographical article (Danah boyd).  The spelling of the subject's name appears in one way in nearly every major press article about her (Danah Boyd), but she insists that her legal spelling is different (all lower case: danah boyd), and that her Wikipedia bio should match the legal spelling.  Her friends and fans have been coming in and editing the article to adapt to her wishes.  Has this kind of issue been dealt with in other articles?  How was it handled? --Elonka 18:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From reading her latest blog entry (incidentally about her article on Wikipedia) it sounds like she's not going to like this, but her name should be capitalized on Wikipedia.  (See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks) for discussion on lowercase first letters in trademarked names.)  She deserves no special treatment even if that is her "legal" name.  I didn't know you could "legally" have a name that started with a lowercase letter.  Either way, this issue has come up many times with trademarked names before, and first letters of persons' names should be treated just the same. -- Renesis13 20:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I sympathize, I have to say that seeing e. e. cummings's name in title case would be weird. [checks] my goodness, Wikipedia actually does show cummings's name with caps, and defends the decision too. Okay, well if it's good enough for cummings, then boyd is just out of luck, I think. — Del C 22:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about lowercase spelling of name 

message: The current example uses nee rather than née.  While not normally a pedant for diacritics, I really would prefer the latter as a standard; currently both seem equally common in the articles.  Any opinions? Joestynes 18:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. née should be the standard. Cheers -- Szvest 18:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "née" definately. - FrancisTyers 18:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "nee" is just wrong, looks daft, and encourages mis-pronouncation; "née" is the only one in the Compact OED (according to Ask Oxford).  There seems to be no case for "nee" as an alternative.  — Johan the Ghost seance 19:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also the form listed in List of French phrases used by English speakers. — Johan the Ghost seance 11:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems like a concensus, so I made the change. — Johan the Ghost seance 08:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nee" is not "just wrong", it's "just a variant", and appears as such in most dictionaries...probably even in the un-"Compact" OED. Not that I object to preferring née, it just shouldn't be preferred for the wrong reason. - Nunh-huh 11:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, though my "Concise" OED (which is really rather chubby...;-) doesn't mention "nee" either.  Now, if they'd just release the full OED under GPL... — Johan the Ghost seance 09:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the full OED doesn't list "nee" as an alternative either. -- Necrothesp 12:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maiden names : née or nee? 

message: See Ian Paisley.  Was The Reverend and Right Honorable Ian Kyle Paisley, MP, MLA.  I removed rt. hon per MOSBIO, what about The Reverend?  Needless to say it (and MP, and MLA) are Wikilinked. Just zis Guy you know? 12:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still an honorific and therefore should go. -- Necrothesp 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for The Right Excellent Marcus Mosiah Garvey, I'm not touching that one... HenryFlower 16:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is it different from Right Honourable? "Right Honourable" is used in the UK to denote a member of the Privy Council. "Reverend" is used in some religions to denote a member of the clergy. This may be highly subjective and controversial (as in Paisley's case). The OED describes "Reverend" as a "respectful epithet" and/or "form of address", which hardly makes it a rank (as our article on the subject says, describing it as a "style", incidentally). In actual fact, I think there is far more of a case for the use of "Right Honourable", which officially denotes membership in the Privy Council, than for "Reverend", which is merely a customary expression of respect for clergymen of a religion to which many of us no longer adhere (and implies that such clergymen are somehow superior to the rest of us - to be "revered" in fact). To claim that it is equivalent to President, Pope and Queen, all actually titles, is the patent absurdity. -- Necrothesp 12:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Anglicanism, one of the largest mainstream denominations, uses Reverend Mr and always has done. Roman Catholicism uses Reverend Father. Proteus is completely correct in what he says (and I was not, incidentally, one of those who supported the continued use of Rt Hon etc). Personally, I would trust Debrett's Correct Form to be correct about such matters. -- Necrothesp 21:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: A snide remark again. Perhaps you should learn to use more courtesy and less arrogance. I am fully aware of the differences between styles and titles. It appears that you are the one who is not, since Reverend is in fact a style and not a title. However, it seems pointless to argue about it, since you will obviously not agree. -- Necrothesp 21:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. 'The Reverend' is a style, like 'Her Majesty'. 'Vicar' is a title, like 'Queen'. Lord Charlton 12:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently you believe you know better than Debrett's too. I think we must agree to disagree on this one. -- Necrothesp 09:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Reverend 

message: The current practice seems to be to remove the term peace be upon him or the abbreviation pbuh in relation to the prophet Muhammad from articles. Pbuh is treated as a honorific prefix. However, the guidelines don't say anything about religious honorifics or epithets. I believe there should be such a guideline, so I'm bringing it up here. The wording I propose is: "Religious styles and honorifics, including but not limited to Peace be upon him for the prophet Muhammad and The Almighty One for God, shall not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper." Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 17:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Titanium Dragon 19:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace be upon him 

message: Since we edit for both clarity and for, we hope, posterity, I propose that we consider, at least from now on, since converting older articles is laborious and not necessariy beneficial, a standard for the chronology of a perosn's life.
===Current articles===
The articles are written in varying styles, some with paragrpahs with dates interspersed, some with dates out of order, and some with timelines.  Apart from dates being out of order this neither makes them good nor bad.
===For discussion===
Creating a synopsis timeline of a person's life and achievements should clarify a complex and busy life.
====Example====
*1807 - Born
*1823 - Composed first symphony
*1843 - survived TB
*1892 - Died
It should not supplant good prose in paragraphs, but should be used to bring order and clarity to the article
====Benefits====
*clarity
*ease of interpretation (this is, surely, what an encyclopaedia is about)
*ease for subsequent editors of slotting newly discovered facts into the article in chronological order
====Against====
if an article were solely to be a timeline with no text, unless a stub article, this would run counter to the guidelines on not writing articles as bullet points.  Thus the Biog guidelines would need to make mention of this
Fiddle Faddle 22:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It only looks awkward when the balance of the article is disproportionately small.  I understand your point about prose.  As a counter to this I would suggest that it be emphasised that the Chronology be a synopsis and that it does not replace prose.  Even so, prose is not to be valued above clarity, surely?  Assuming wikipedia to be a worthwhile and authoritative resource, a researcher coming here for a biog and finding a timeline may find it a better tool because of it.  They may also add something that might otherwise have been missed.  Fiddle Faddle 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal on Chronology 

message: Creating a synopsis timeline of a person's life and achievements should clarify a complex and busy life.
====Example====
*1807 - Born
*1823 - Composed first symphony
*1843 - survived TB
*1892 - Died
It should not supplant good prose in paragraphs, but should be used to bring order and clarity to the article
====Benefits====
*clarity
*ease of interpretation (this is, surely, what an encyclopaedia is about)
*ease for subsequent editors of slotting newly discovered facts into the article in chronological order
====Against====
if an article were solely to be a timeline with no text, unless a stub article, this would run counter to the guidelines on not writing articles as bullet points.  Thus the Biog guidelines would need to make mention of this
Fiddle Faddle 22:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For discussion

message: if an article were solely to be a timeline with no text, unless a stub article, this would run counter to the guidelines on not writing articles as bullet points.  Thus the Biog guidelines would need to make mention of this
Fiddle Faddle 22:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Against

message: I'm definitely against this. It looks ugly and encourages people to write articles in note form and not in proper prose. -- Necrothesp 14:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It only looks awkward when the balance of the article is disproportionately small.  I understand your point about prose.  As a counter to this I would suggest that it be emphasised that the Chronology be a synopsis and that it does not replace prose.  Even so, prose is not to be valued above clarity, surely?  Assuming wikipedia to be a worthwhile and authoritative resource, a researcher coming here for a biog and finding a timeline may find it a better tool because of it.  They may also add something that might otherwise have been missed.  Fiddle Faddle 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: discuss below here

message: Two editors disagree with the statement on the MoS that "Sir" and "Dame" should be bolded. They have consistently changed and reverted one article and have also changed the MoS to reflect what they think it should say. They argue that to bold these titles is monarchist POV. The counter-argument is that in a monarchy these titles are a fact and are effectively part of the recipient's name in all formal documents, as are peerage titles. They therefore have as much right (probably more) to be bolded as do nicknames, and normal practice has in fact been to bold them (contrary to the claims by these editors). This has already been discussed above, but these editors seem to think that because they disagree they have a right to change articles and cite the NPOV rule as a justification. -- Necrothesp 16:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not one of these two editors, but I must admit of having been puzzled by reading that the addition of Sir in front of a name was equivalent to a change of name — and even more by seeing the number of people who have indicated that this is a fact, but without providing any source. Now, as you can easily guess, I am not originally from a country that attributes this kind of honours. But to me, a name is something that is printed on your birth certificate and then, later, it gets printed on government documents such as a passport. This name can be changed, for example if one gets married or one asks for a change of name, and then some official registry is updated with such a name. But a name is not changed just because everyone uses a modified version of it. I am quite happy to believe that it is customary to use Sir or Dame before someone's name, as in the London Gazette link you supplied on another page. But from here to say that it is equivalent to a official change of name seems like a huge leap; for example, do these people have Sir written in their passport ? This is what I would consider a significant argument. While this question looks interesting to me, I don't care very much about the bolding itself. I personaly would not bold it, but since people seem passionate about his issue, I'll leave it to them. Schutz 19:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know about passports, but you can certainly have "Sir" written on credit cards. And since we bold nicknames, it seems to me rather incongruous not to bold titles. So, a nickname by which you are informally known should be bolded, but a title by which you are officially known should not? This seems completely illogical. -- Necrothesp 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The nickname is a good point, although it is usually written within quotes when mentioned together with the name, thus leaving no doubt about the fact that it is not part of the name. The credit card arguement is weaker: I have seen plenty of credit cards bearing titles such as "Prof", "Dr", or both, so nothing here justifies to treat these titles differently. Schutz 05:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Schutz, in some countries titles are considered part of the name - something Dr/Prof certainly arn't. Frankly I had hoped this had all gone away as we had such a bitter series of arguments that never seemed to end last time. We had seemed to settle on a middle road which all sides seemed to be broadly abiding by and considering all the effort people on both sides went to to reach the present accord re-opening it without a stong consensus seems unhelpful. Certainly I think Guettarda's actions in unilaterally editing the MoS in order to use that self created alteration as justification in an ongoing revert war elsewhere as bordering on vandalism.Alci12 11:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, from my point of view, either it is officially a change of name, and it is case there is no discussion, or it is only a convention where many (or even most) people use the modified name. If it is the former, then there should be an official reference or source (as I showed, credit cards do not count). If it is the latter, well, the argument is much weaker. As another example, I have never ever heard anyone refer to Bill Gates as William Gates; still, his Wikipedia article correctly states his name as William Gates. I don't think a policy should be based on an unsourced fact that says "yeah, everyone calls him (or them) this way". Anyway, it looks to me like the point is moot, since the people who felt most passionate about this do not seem to want to participate in this discussion. But if you see my point, I'd still be interested in knowing (with relevant sources) which of my two alternatives above is the correct one. Best, Schutz 21:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it were not an actual change of name (and I still maintain that it is), we bold names by which people are known, so surely these titles should be bolded anyway. I fail to see why a nickname, stagename or nom de plume is considered more important than a conferred title (which is a fact in the UK, not just a POV as alleged), yet by convention we do bold those and there seems to be no argument about doing so. -- Necrothesp 22:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (copied from my talk page) Funny coincidence, I just found another piece of convincing evidence, and on Wikipedia no less: see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Civil_partnership_elton_john.jpg. Schutz Schutz 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well for all the above I'm not sure it has moved things on. Guettarda has ignored this thread although looking at his talk has been asked to join it and discuss this. I've posted him your link above showing the title in the name box.  All I have back is his assertion that using any title is NPOV end of discussion. He has simply reverted any article he comes across to conform to what he wants the MoS to say. Alci12 13:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I don't understand this chap. He's been asked to come here and discuss it, but he just ignores the requests in order to push his own POV. He just doesn't seem to be able to accept that in a monarchy the status of titles is a fact, not a POV. -- Necrothesp 14:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Knighthoods

message: Is there a protocol for the use of a woman's married name, especially in opening paragraphs,  if it's not the name she is commonly known by?  I can think of numerous articles for women who have married and legally taken their husband's name but this is not inclued in the lead paragraph.   Someone has edited Sharon Tate changing her name in the opening from "Sharon Marie Tate" (her birth name) to "Sharon Marie Tate-Polanski" her supposed married name.  I say supposed because "Tate-Polanski" is not correct as she referred to herself professionally as "Sharon Tate" and personally as "Sharon Polanski".  I feel that the article should read "Sharon Marie Tate", as her marriage to Polanski is discussed at some length in the article.  Would be interested in another opinion on this as I haven't been able to find anything in any policies or guidelines.  Thanks.  Rossrs 11:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I entirely agree here. She is always known as Sharon Tate, her real birth name, so that's what should be used as the opening. If she also called herself Sharon Polanski then that should be used after her dates. I think the best version would be: "Sharon Marie Tate (24 January 1943 – 9 August 1969), sometimes also known by her married name Sharon Polanski..." -- Necrothesp 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for replying.  I've been thinking that I should just revert the edit.  I won't include "sometimes known by her married name...." because I think that it's more common here to not include that info in the opening paragraph, and in this case she wasn't actually "known" as "Polanski" - that was just her legal name.  It would be like saying "Madonna" - "once known as Madonna Penn, and now sometimes known as "Madonna Ritchie".  The married name simply is not what many prominent female celebrities are known by.   Thanks for helping me unscramble my thought processes ;-)  Rossrs 12:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, you say above that she referred to herself as Sharon Polanski. If this is the case, then it should be included somewhere. -- Necrothesp 00:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what I meant is that it is her legal name as it is her married name, exactly the same as Madonna's legal name is "Madonna Ritchie", and I suppose there are occasions where Madonna would be legally required to identify herself as "Madonna Ritchie" on contracts, or bank accounts or whatever.   Same thing with Tate and many married female celebrities.  Privately of course, Tate referred to herself as "Mrs Polanski", and the marriage to Polanski is covered in the article in considerable detail, including the opening paragraph so it's not necessary to add an aka to the lead paragraph IMO.  That would open up a can of worms where virtually every female celebrity would subject to the same style resulting in  "Britney Spears also known as Britney Whateverhermarriednameis", "Mariah Carey, once known as Mariah Mottola"..... and that's without going near Elizabeth Taylor or Zsa Zsa Gabor ;-)    Rossrs 11:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but your comment suggested that she actually called herself Sharon Polanski in private. I doubt if Madonna ever calls herself Madonna Ritchie or if Elizabeth Taylor ever called herself anything else, even outside their careers. If she never used the name except in a legal sense then no, it shouldn't be included. -- Necrothesp 12:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I meant, in the legal/private sense, but not in the public sense.  Sorry, reading back through my original comments I can see I worded it badly.  Rossrs 14:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Married names

message: I am reviving this question, because I think Max Flesicher is a good case in point. A recent edit made the lead describe him as an "Austrian-American". The article as I found it made no mention of him being Jewish, except via categorization; I'm about to add a mention. This strikes me as actively misleading. I have literally never heard a Jew call him- or herself an "Austrian-American". I have only heard that used to refer to people of ethnically German background from the former Austrian or Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The comment that ends the previous section simply says it's this way because that's what the MoS says. Folks, this is the page where we hammer out what the MoS ought to say, so while that may be a valid argument on another talk page, it is not a valid argument here.
I'm not saying that every article needs to mention someone's ethnicity, but I believe that we are downplaying ethnicity considerably. For someone who emigrated to the U.S. around the age of four, place of birth is little more than trivia compared to ethnic background. Believe me, when the Fleischers arrived in the U.S., they would have been perceived as German-speaking Jews, not as "Austrians". 
If we are going to continue to have a geographically-based notion of nationality as a required part of the lead paragraph of biographies, we ought to allow it to be qualified with a mention of ethnicity. I'm probably particularly aware of this in the case of Jews, being one myself, but similarly it is misleading to call a Magyar or ethnic German from Transylvania simply a "Romanian", or to call a Catalan from Barcelona simply "Spanish", especially for cultural figures. - Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviving this question

message: For people with a given name (or names) and a family name, is there any reason the given name should come first? Why Ernő Rubik and not Rubik Ernő? --♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that's his common name in the English-speaking world, and our normal rule is to use that. -- Necrothesp 17:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or, more precisely, Hungarian names usually get that treatment; Chinese ones don't (no one refers to Zedong Mao) - Jmabel | Talk 22:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that's because Hungary was part of an empire that was predominantly German-speaking and therefore put the surname last (indeed, many Hungarians were themselves predominantly German-speaking at the time - Franz Liszt for example, who was never comfortable speaking Hungarian). The normal European convention was therefore established in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and is still followed outside Hungary for Hungarian names. But it's not at all discriminatory - it really is the common version in the English-speaking world. Also remember that while most English-speakers would recognise Erno as being a given name (since it's close enough to an Anglophone given name) and would therefore instinctively put it first, most would not know whether Mao or Zedong was his given name, since Chinese names are alien to European culture. -- Necrothesp 23:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order 

message: While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version. For example:
In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well:
*(from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) …
I would like to add the following: Once the most common name has been determined, remember to add the full names and alternate names as redirects. Add "William Jefferson Clinton" as a redirect to "Bill Clinton". This will prevent others from moving the article later to what they believe is the proper name for the article. This lets future editors know that the chosen name was not an oversight, but was deliberate. 
The wording can be changed, but I think its good policy, and will prevent future conflict and re-debate over closed issues. What do you think?
--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Support this all the way. The bit about creating the redirects is a good point. Not only does it help people find the article, but as you say it prevents moving to that location in the future. On the other hand, some article have lots of redirects. For an example of where I went overboard, see Talk:Thomas-François Dalibard! :-) Carcharoth 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I dont think you can overdue redirects. Especially when they have 4 names. You have all the permutations and with an without spaces between letters. Such as J.R.R Tolkien and J. R. R. Tolkien. I am always suprised at how many links I pick up when I create the redirects. The same goes with companies: Acme, Inc.; Acme Inc.; Acme Incorporated. I was suprised how many I picked up for common mispellings (which I corrected) for Wal-Mart. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please close off fullnames when using common names as the article title 

message: After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only. 
Does this guideline apply to performers who are primarily known by their given name? i.e Elvis and Cher. Geedubber 22:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite the same case. "Cher" is a stage name and the title of the article about her, so logically that name should be used, since she's never known by her surname. In Elvis's case, I would say that it's perfectly normal to refer to him by his surname. I don't actually think he is primarily known by his given name. Everyone knows who you're talking about if you say "Elvis", but he's still commonly known as "Elvis Presley" and that's the title of the article, so I don't think any exception is needed. -- Necrothesp 22:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elvis and Cher

message: The guidelines are not exactly clear on this. Is it ok, when talking about Pope Benedict XVI, in another article to put "His Holiness" before it? To me that seems very POV and doesn't seem to agree with these guidelines. The way I read the guidelines is that title of articles should not included these honorific prefixes, but a discussion of their use is fine (and probably necessary). However, it doesn't excplicitly state the situation I am talking about. This question comes from the Roman Catholic Church article, where they refer to the current pope as "His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI". I see no encyclopedic value at all of adding the honorific title, and it seems like POV pushing to me. The content necessary for understanding is the pope's name and the wikilink to his main article. Removing "His Holiness" does not change the meaning behind the sentence. I have proposed a change where there is a sentence describing the office of "pope" and the honorofic titles associated with it. I felt that was a more NPOV in handling this. However, I was curious if I was reading too much into these guidelines, or if people have opinions or precedent in refering to the current pope as "His Holiness" on wikipedia. --Andrew c 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not reading too much into the guidelines, that use is way out of line for Wikipedia.  I say go ahead with the change. -- Renesis13 18:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification of "His Holiness" 

message: There's no actual policy in the MoS biographies for actors with screen names (eg Nicolas Cage), or Chinese people with Anglicized names (John Woo, Russell Wong) and so it looks very inconsistent right now.  Both the John Woo and Nicolas Cage born on brackets seem clunky right now (Cage with his "often called Nic Cage" and John Woo with the double brackets).  I think the policy should be updated to resolve these kinds of things.  --ColourBurst 05:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screen names, altered names, etc. 

message: Having worked on and read lots of academic biographies, most science academics with a reasonably productive career will produce over 50 papers, in addition to book chapters, and books. In the articles that I have written I never inlcude a full list of journal articles - as are often available on external sites and would be prohibitively long. I also expect the reader to realise that if someone has been invited to write chapters, or has written textbooks, then they are probably respected in their field. Do we need some sort of guidlines about what sort of publications to include in a biography?--Peta 01:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the vast majority of cases, this issue never comes up.  So by the 80-20 rule, we don't need to address it at all. Wjhonson 04:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With over 100,000 biographies, even 20% is a large number. The issue does come up with academics  and also with journalists . It'd be helpful to have some guideline to point to. -Will Beback 05:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Publications for academic biographies

message: I am aware of the guideline that the subject must be referred to by their last name in an article, but in the James Bulger article imho I think this sounds really odd - especially as James was a toddler, and it makes him sound more like the criminal than the victim. Any comments on this would be appreciated. Thanks. --Alex talk here 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you considered that you might be placing your own POV onto the subject?  I don't think referring to him as "Bulger" in any way makes him sound more like the criminal.  We identify him in our minds as a cute, helpless, trusting little boy who was cruelly treated and murdered.  It's heartwrenching of course and "James or "Jamie" better fits the image that we have of him, especially as "Bulger" is not a "cute" sort of name.   It would be inhuman of anyone to not feel moved by the tragedy of his story.  Magazines routinely call him "Jamie" but their aim is to stir emotions and sell magazines,  and emphasising his cuteness and vulnerability is part of the ploy they adopt in their writing.   As an encyclopedia we need to rise above those emotions and remain objective.  All biographical subjects are referred to by their surname. It's our convention and is fairly established as the norm in other works as well.  Rossrs 09:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think there is something strange about referring to children by their surnames.  Newspapers don't only refer to James Bulger by his first name in order to stir emotions.  It's a well-established convention in all sorts of writing that children are referred to by their first names.  In scholarly biographies, for example, the subject is usually referred to by his/her first name in the early chapters.  The manual of style states that referring to someone by their first name might give the false impression that the writer knows the subject personally.  I can agree with that for adults, but I think children are a special case and should be referred to by their first names.  I'm not going to go around editing that, though. --Richardrj talk email 13:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Richardrj on this topic. Even formal broadsheet newspapers and journals refer to children, especially those who are victims of crimes, by their first names. It's nothing to do with 'cute' or the like, it's merely distinguishing that it is a child we're dealing with here. If it's good enough for upmarketnewspapers and published journals then surely it is good enough for wikipedia.--   Cosmic Quest 00:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of surname 

message: Click here to see reasons why I object this manual of style.
In a television show, you must call the host and/or hostess (in the instance of The Apprentice) "Mr. (last name)", "Ms. (last name)", or the proper salutation, because I really disappreciate the link that I have to post here.  There are certain "things" that at times people MUST be called by a proper salutation, and calling people by just the last name is NOT proper.  Imagine that you are a teacher for a high school class.  You would give the offending person a detention if he/she calls you by just your last name would you?  That is why in this case, you must address the host as being "Mr. (last name)" or the proper salutation!  Same if you are in a sports team, people MUST address the coach by "Coach (last name)".  Something is absolutely wrong with this policy that I'm opposing right now.
I vehemently oppose some clauses of this style policy! — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In an encyclopedia there needs to be consistency and there is nothing impolite, improper or disrespectful in referring to someone by their surname only.  There is no disrespect if we refer to certain people as "Lincoln", "Kennedy", "Edison", "Curie" or "Mandela" in their articles, and quite frankly these people are more deserving of respect than your average football coach.  This is not a football game, a class room, or a reality television show.  There is no logic in suggesting that the rules that apply there, apply equally here.   "Trump" can and should be referred to as such - why on earth would we call him "Mr. Trump" here?  If he ever happens to give me a job, you bet I'll call him "Mr. Trump", but I'm not about to adopt an outmoded and inappropriate form of address for him in an encyclopedic context.   Conventions exists to give uniformity to a complete work or project - we can not operate with two sets of rules.  We can not refer to the majority of people by their surname and then suggest that "Trump" deserves more respectful handling.  Rossrs 09:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm with Rossrs.  It seems comical to imagine that "Napoleon" or "Bonaparte" would be less respectful than "Mr. Bonaparte".  This encyclopedia is not The Economist - which is famous for always using a salutation for living people.  Patiwat 19:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute Objection!!! 

message: I propose to change "Dates of birth and death" in "Dates and place of birth and death". My reason is, in a biography these are among the data I look for first. Many historical people have moved a lot in their life and many of them changed nationality. They sometimes grew up in a country which ceased to exist or came under the jurisdiction of another state. Therefore I like to see it in the opening paragraph. The Manual of Style Dates and numbers refered to this Manual when adopting the current text (see archive). Otto 12:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: I have seen some biographical articles that are clearly resumes, i.e., they are bullet lists of schools and universities, current positions, previous jobs, and awards, with maybe a 1-2 sentence introduction.  When the subjects of these articles clearly merit Wikipedia articles, does this resume-style format belong in Wikipedia?  Patiwat 19:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When the subjects of these articles clearly merit Wikipedia articles, these are better than nothing, but should be reworked. Probably less of a problem on an actor (the roles they've played are a pretty defining aspect) than on, say, a scientist. - Jmabel | Talk 18:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More of an issue with government officials, who have personal profiles (actually resumes) posted on government websites.  Resumes often seem to be copied directly onto Wikipedia. Patiwat 21:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles formatted like resumes 

message: The ad-hoc abolition of styles has resulted in ambiguities and inconsistencies. Stripping the rightful stylistic prefixes and suffixes from those entitled to them seems to represent an unfortunate triumph of personal ideology over general accuracy and helpfulness.    
A paper encyclopaedia has limited space and a constraint to alphabetise its entries. One of Wikipedia's great strengths is that neither of these conventional restrictions apply. We are uniquely able to include in articles about individuals a full and accurate depiction of names and rightful styles, titles, and honours. 
A Wikipedia-wide disclaimer that some people, for various personal and ideological reasons, may not recognise some or any of these dignities would be preferable to having such dignities stripped as default. Some readers may quickly consult an article merely to determine the full honours that some person possesses, or how to cite them appropriately - only to be sorely disappointed by discovering a quite minimalist heading - and having to read the entire article and try and piece it all together (presuming they are informed enough to know how, which is statistically doubtful). And these are web pages, not index cards, so surely space is not the issue.
We are sliding from 'Queen Elizabeth II' to 'Elizabeth II' to someday, perhaps (I pray not), merely   'Lilibet Mountbatten'. Which is to say, we are going less in the direction of standard reference works such as Debrett and toward the likes of the tabloid press. My concern is not for those who already know the correct syles and titles, but for those who don't, and seek Wikipedia for answers. 
Regards,
Lord Charlton 13:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anything's been abolished. It's for you to make corrections where you find inaccuracies.qp10qp 13:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Styles 

message: The suggestion is that a new para 2.5 under the heading Postnomial initials be added to Manual of Style (biographies).
:Postnomial initials</br>
:Writers should remember that the meaning of the most obvious (to them) postnomial initials will not be obvious to some readers. When postnomial initials are used the meaning should be readily available to the reader. This is most easily done with a piped link to an article with the appropriate title thus:
::: VC which will give Joe Bloggs VC
:This procedure will ensure that readers who hover over the initials see the expanded abbreviation as a hint and in the status bar at the bottom of the window.
:Many readers will click immediately on the link, missing hints. Writers should remember that readers may not want to search through a lengthy article to find the definition. If a short article is not possible, the definition should be clear and near the start. Often one line article will suffice, with appropriate links to further information, thus:
::: Jack Brabham OBE.
Writers should be left free to limit postnomials to those which they feel are necessary – but when used the meaning should be clear. — Saltmarsh 14:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this; it is particularly useful for titles under the British honours system, where people may be confused by the distinction between say MBE, OBE, CBE, KBE, DBE and GBE.--Runcorn 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the correct term not "post-nominal"?Michael DoroshTalk 15:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. And we generally don't have them in bold and separate them from the name (and each other) with commas. Proteus (Talk) 17:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course - a Freudian slip (since I dislike the things) to give them a non-existant name! Saltmarsh 06:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Proteus's sentence above might be ambiguous, it should be (?): And we generally don't have them in bold and do separate them from the name (and each other) with commas. – Saltmarsh 06:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We definitely shouldn't have them bolded. Personally, I don't particularly like them separated by commas either. That's a purely personal stylistic thing though - some sources do it, some don't. -- Necrothesp 13:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right about the commas. They are distracting and putting a space is enough. David | Talk 17:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Postnomial initials

message: User:Jack O'Lantern seems to be systematically removing mention of people being Jewish. A perfect example of this is this edit on Harold Clurman, but I am sure I could easily find a dozen similar examples: I've crossed three of them on my watchlist today. 
Clurman's interest in theater began with Yiddish theater. He married Stella Adler (daughter of Jacob Adler, one of the half dozen most famous actors in the history of Yiddish theater) and with her was involved in the almost entirely Jewish Group Theater, one of the main vehicles by which Russian acting technique passed from Yiddish theater to English-language theater. This would seem to me to reach the bar for Jewish ethnicity being mentioned in the lead paragraph of the article on Clurman. Apparently, to Jack it does not reach the bar for Jewish ethnicity being mentioned at all in the article.
It concerns me greatly that this seems to have the character of a systematic campaign. I do not want to find myself dragged into edit wars ranging over dozens of articles, so I am not unilaterally reverting him, I am bringing the matter here instead.
Yiddish-language culture has never had a nation-state attached. This should not be a grounds for effectively removing the fact that it is attached to an ethnicity. When edits like this occur in dozens of articles, that is the effect. - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me, I have no personal stake at this and am just enforcing the manual of style, which I am currently doing for Italian-American articles (not a single X-American group out there where this doesn't occur). Harold Clurman was known for being a theater director and drama critic... not for being Jewish. Calling him a "Jewish theater director and drama critic" doesn't make sense, because what does it mean? Are we saying that he was Jewish? Or are we saying that he reviewed Jewish-themed plays and criticed Jewish-related drama productions? By all means, mention the ethnicity anywhere you want in the article, I certainly do in articles I edit, but putting it in the first sentence like that is just confusing. I don't think we should disagree on this issue at all. Mad Jack 06:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish ethnicity, yet again 

message: I've noticed the contention that's come up in a few articles about including the sexuality in the lead paragraph of an article.  As far as I can tell the guideline was added on September 14th without any discussion on this page.  Is that the case?   It's obvious that there's some contention about the inclusion is appropriate, and I'm interested in seeing how the consensus was reached.   --- The Bethling(Talk) 21:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes are far from unilateral. There have been around ten seperate posters that have contributed to the change. If you have a suggestion, please make it.Cliesthenes 22:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please link to the part of the page where this discussion takes place? Danny Lilithborne 22:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second that request. Agne 22:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to the edit history. It was not a unilateral decision--numerous posters took part. There is a basis for the change in the above section.  Agne even refered the the basis explicitly below. Instead of making an assumption of bad faith, please assume good faith.Is that so much to ask?Cliesthenes 22:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think there's any bad faith assumptions here.  This is a major change to the guideline, potentially affecting thousands of articles.  We're (or at the very least I am) just asking for a pointer to where the discussion about and consensus for this change took place so I can get a good idea about the reasoning.    --- The Bethling(Talk) 22:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I second those suggestions.  -- Dcflyer 22:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sexuality, just like ethnicity is relevant, if the person themselves has made it, or commentators on them have made it, relevant.  So the sexuality of the ex-Governor of New Jersey is relevant.  The sexuality of Ellen Digeneres is relevant.  In the same vein, the Jewish ethnicity of the former head of the American Jewish Committee is relevant.  These are the things that made them important.  However the incidental Jewishness of a person not particularly known for being Jewish wouldn't be relevant in the LEAD although it should be mentioned in the body. Wjhonson 22:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's relevant then it should certainly be included because there will be reliable sources attesting to the relevance that particular aspect had to the individual. If it is not relevant and there is no reliable sources to back up this claim, inclusion is not proper because it will either be non-notable or original research Agne 22:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, however, the changes do exactly what you stated. In fact, I would argue the newest changes endanger the intent due to carelessness by the editor (namely massive grammatical problems, along with the obvious subjective problem of the term "tact." It is clear that the fact a person is homosexual can be a major point of notoriety, and thus needed in the opening. Both of you admit this. If the current system--based on existing wikipedia policy, and the discussion on religion--is not enough, propose something new.Cliesthenes 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that in some cases being homosexual can be a major point of their notoriety. Ellen Degeneres's coming out was groundbreaking and historical (and you can find several reliable sources to attest to this--Lance Bass' was not. There is a difference and there is a context. The automatic assumption that since a person is gay it must be part of their notability is OR and POV.Agne 22:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A valid point. I agree that not all gay people deserve the tag. Even the rule change reflected this. However, I disagree witht he assertion about Lance Bass. The massive publicity he has recieved in the last month due to "coming out." Means he is noted for being gay. He has been awarded several awards by LGBT groups. All of this is discussed in the article. This is why I believed any additional sources were unneccessary. 205.188.116.197 23:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually he received all that publicity because of who he was before he came out. When a singer of lesser fame, like Me'shell Ndegeocello comes out, you don't have such media attention. Why? The act of coming out is the same. It's the same declaration of being gay. Rather, you have more media attention given to Lance Bass because of his already established notability. Similarly, let's say that Marc Blucas gets pulled over by police for speeding and being intoxicated. If he goes on an anti-Jewish rant will he get the same attention that Mel Gibson got? Again, it depends on context. If an person's notability  is intrinsically tied into being gay, then it should certainly be included in the Lead Section. If the person's notability is not dependent on their sexuality then that subject matter should be dealt in the appropriate context later in the article. Agne 23:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No one is asking you too. Honestly, I don't understand where this argument comes from? Who is asking you to not delete invalid edits? Even so, people can still have the right to place back a deletion they see valid. Then come to a compromise. However, the fact there is a differenceis not a valid reason to report a person. 
Again, from my understanding, the edit simply restates current wiki policy. Cliesthenes 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new edit seems to be fair. The term homosexual should not be on every gey person's bio but the standard does not require that. It seems like it applys the standard for nationaility to gays. I have no problem with that.
*Cliesthenes, you are dodging the question.  Please link to the part of the talk page that contains the consensus you claim for your edits. Danny Lilithborne 23:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Are new users not allowed to make changes? I didn't understand why my edit was reversed. To my understanding of the rules, I am allowed to suggest changes. Polmalo 00:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality in Lead Section Discussion? 

message: As of September 1st the Opening Paragraph section was...
The opening paragraph should give: 
# Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles))
# Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death)
# Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)
# What they did
# Why they are significant. 
Personally, I think it should be changed backed to this. It's clear, concise, and relates well to other guidelines within WP:MOS and Wikipedia. More importantly, as far as I can tell from the history page and talk page archive here, it looks to have been the long running consensus till of late. Agne 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sexuality, just like ethnicity is relevant, if the person themselves has made it, or commentators on them have made it, relevant.  So the sexuality of the ex-Governor of New Jersey is relevant.  The sexuality of Ellen Digeneres is relevant.  In the same vein, the Jewish ethnicity of the former head of the American Jewish Committee is relevant.  These are the things that made them important.  However the incidental Jewishness of a person not particularly known for being Jewish wouldn't be relevant in the LEAD although it should be mentioned in the body. Wjhonson 22:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's relevant then it should certainly be included because there will be reliable sources attesting to the relevance that particular aspect had to the individual. If it is not relevant and there is no reliable sources to back up this claim, inclusion is not proper because it will either be non-notable or original research Agne 22:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, however, the changes do exactly what you stated. In fact, I would argue the newest changes endanger the intent due to carelessness by the editor (namely massive grammatical problems, along with the obvious subjective problem of the term "tact." It is clear that the fact a person is homosexual can be a major point of notoriety, and thus needed in the opening. Both of you admit this. If the current system--based on existing wikipedia policy, and the discussion on religion--is not enough, propose something new.Cliesthenes 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that in some cases being homosexual can be a major point of their notoriety. Ellen Degeneres's coming out was groundbreaking and historical (and you can find several reliable sources to attest to this--Lance Bass' was not. There is a difference and there is a context. The automatic assumption that since a person is gay it must be part of their notability is OR and POV.Agne 22:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A valid point. I agree that not all gay people deserve the tag. Even the rule change reflected this. However, I disagree witht he assertion about Lance Bass. The massive publicity he has recieved in the last month due to "coming out." Means he is noted for being gay. He has been awarded several awards by LGBT groups. All of this is discussed in the article. This is why I believed any additional sources were unneccessary. 205.188.116.197 23:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually he received all that publicity because of who he was before he came out. When a singer of lesser fame, like Me'shell Ndegeocello comes out, you don't have such media attention. Why? The act of coming out is the same. It's the same declaration of being gay. Rather, you have more media attention given to Lance Bass because of his already established notability. Similarly, let's say that Marc Blucas gets pulled over by police for speeding and being intoxicated. If he goes on an anti-Jewish rant will he get the same attention that Mel Gibson got? Again, it depends on context. If an person's notability  is intrinsically tied into being gay, then it should certainly be included in the Lead Section. If the person's notability is not dependent on their sexuality then that subject matter should be dealt in the appropriate context later in the article. Agne 23:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No one is asking you too. Honestly, I don't understand where this argument comes from? Who is asking you to not delete invalid edits? Even so, people can still have the right to place back a deletion they see valid. Then come to a compromise. However, the fact there is a differenceis not a valid reason to report a person. 
Again, from my understanding, the edit simply restates current wiki policy. Cliesthenes 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new edit seems to be fair. The term homosexual should not be on every gey person's bio but the standard does not require that. It seems like it applys the standard for nationaility to gays. I have no problem with that.
*Cliesthenes, you are dodging the question.  Please link to the part of the talk page that contains the consensus you claim for your edits. Danny Lilithborne 23:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Are new users not allowed to make changes? I didn't understand why my edit was reversed. To my understanding of the rules, I am allowed to suggest changes. Polmalo 00:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Paragraph section before recent changes

message: I am going to take back the "opening paragraph" guideline to how it was on Sept 1st. My reason is that there was no talk page consenus to warrant these major changes and the top of the guideline page clearly says consensus is the basis of these guidelines and that any major change should proposed and discussed on the talk page. Despite repeated requests by several users, a link to where this "consensus" was formed has not been provided. The contention that these changes merely clarify policy is not valid since they radically alter the meaning of that section. To go from (Sept 1st version) 
3. Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.) 
4. What they did 
5. Why they are significant. 
 
To (today's current version) 
3. Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability (for example, it isappropriate for the inclusion of race in the opennings on articles on Cesar Chavez, and Martin Luther King). 
4. The same rationale applies to sexual orientation, and religion. When relevant, sexual orientation, and religious affiliations should be tactfully incorporated into the opening paragraph. This is deemed appropriate when a person is gay and is noted for being gay (for example, Rosie O'Donnell, or Ellen DeGeneres). Remember, Wikipedia stands in the interest of reporting sourced information, and not for outing people. 
5. What they did. 
6. Why they are significant (reason for being known)
...is signifigant and major change. A major change, which again consensus has not been reached on. This is not to say that consensus can not be reached and that these changes are, by default "bad", but rather these changes were essentially putting the cart before the horse and circumventing discussion. I encourage my fellow wikipedians to start a discourse on this page and acheive consensus for your desired changed before instituting this major change into the guideline. Guidelines are not written in stone but neither are they written in sand that can be washed away on a whim. Agne 00:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see support for the addition of #4 including in the history.  Since the addition was disputed from the beginning, it should be removed until some sort of consensus can be had.  --Kevin_b_er 04:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing back to Sept 1st. version 

message: There isn't a firm policy on this, but an example suggests that subjects with Knighthoods or Damehoods should have 'Sir' or 'Dame' in bold in the lead section. I would like to argue against this. Firstly, we do not habitually link Sir or Dame so that readers unfamiliar with the term (there are some) may be mislead that it is a part of the name. Secondly, there are some naughty people who have adopted their first name as 'Sir' or 'Lord' in order to mislead about a title they have, for example the byelection campaigner David Sutch who put his name down as 'Lord David Sutch'. Thirdly, it helps readers to understand that before the subject got the Knighthood or inherited the Baronetcy etc., they were referred to without the title. David | Talk 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed a while ago, I think. It's probably either somewhere up this page or in the archives. (From memory, the main point is that "Sir" and "Dame" do form part of Knights and Dames' names, and policy is to have names in bold. It'd be inconsistent, for instance, to have peerages in bold (they, with reference to your point about earlier usage, probably also weren't held in early life, but are still there) and not "Sir" and "Dame". And people who legally put fake titles in front of their names can always be clarified with a footnote.) Proteus (Talk) 17:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should 'Sir'/'Dame' be bolded? 

message: See the discussion under Talk:C%C3%A9sar_Ch%C3%A1vez#Request_for_comment.  -- Dcflyer 03:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further discussion about ethnicity, race, religion, and/or sexual orientation being included in the lead sentence

message: Right now we have "No baronet should be shown with the postfix but without the prefix, e.g. John Smith, 17th Baronet." Nothing near that gives an example of how to do it right. Giving only a wrong example isn't much use to someone looking here for guidance. - Jmabel | Talk 04:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He should be Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. - Kittybrewster 08:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kittybrewster is Correct. You either observe Correct Form, or you enter upon an anarchic course. David Lauder 10:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baronets again 

message: I don't know if this has been raised anywhere before, but national flags have started appearing on biography articles next to a person's place of birth. This seems to be leading to edit wars over what flag to include, with articles swapping the English flag for the Union flag and vice versa. There are also now state flags being used, eg I just saw the flag of Ohio on the Steven Spielberg article. In the circumstances, think it might be an idea to ban the use of these altogether as they are not very helpful. JW 10:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags

message: Are these guidelines meant to be applied to articles that aren't biographies?  I'm specifically interested in "subsequent uses of names" in articles that discuss people but aren't biographies of the people discussed. The guideline page itself doesn't say "these guidelines are meant for biographies", but it seems to be implied. Schi 18:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not just for biographies?

message: Would anyone be willing to offer a second (or third) opinion in Talk:Selig Percy Amoils where the date of birth should go in Selig Percy Amoils? Thanks! -AED 21:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Selig Percy Amoils

message: Having reviewed the debate on the changes to policy regarding the inclusion of The Right Honourable or Rt Hon for members of the privy council who are not peers; And having counted the votes for and against it seems that this change in the guidelines was pushed through without having established consensus (I imagine this was because once ideas are made "policy" they are less likely to be challenged). The guideline has been in place since January 2006.
The vote has stood against this change since 6th February but the policy has remained in place. The vote now stands at 10-6 against.
As the policy has been placed in error for 9 months I propose it be removed directly and replaced with:-
Articles on Privy Counsellors of the United Kingdom Privy Council who are not peers should begin:
Rt Hon Name  or
The Right Honourable Name
The style should be bolded with the name.
The style should be pipe linked as The Right Honourable
Where the privy counsellor is a peer the style "The Right Honourable" or "Rt Hon" should not be included,
Instead, the postnominal letters "PC should be included, bolded and pipe linked as PC
Where the privy counsellor is a citizen of a Commonwealth Realm other than the United Kingdom, the style Rt Hon or Right Honourable should not be included automatically but should depend on the convention in their country. Basketdove 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this is not the case. The people who actually expressed an opinion after Mackensen formally proposed the change clearly expressed support for it, and at least two people changed their opinion, which you have mysteriously not counted (I know, since I was one of them - you have counted me as being against the proposal, whereas in fact I said I agreed with it after it was formally proposed). -- Necrothesp 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Privy Counsellors

message: I see many articles whose source is the 1911 Britannica, and "He was born at Paris", or "He died at Madrid". A 21st-century American would never say "at Paris", but would say "in Paris". In the last 95 years have speakers of Commonwealth English retained or dropped the use of "at Paris"? I feel tempted to change these when I see them. Chris the speller 05:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would surrender to the temptation, if I was you.  It seems like an archaic form of expression. Rossrs 09:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In" would certainly be the American style. I can't speak for the U.K. Wahkeenah 13:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most British English speakers would say "in" for a large town or city, although they may say "at" for a small village. Personally, I would use "in" for both. -- Necrothesp 16:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet we Americans also say that so-and-so was born (or died) at such-and-such hospital. Go figure. Wahkeenah 00:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usual British usage is to use "in" for hospitals as well. -- Necrothesp 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And we'd use "in" for a named hospital as well. "Fred's in Bart's", for instance. If we said "Fred's at Bart's" it would imply he was just visiting someone there, worked there or had business there, not that he was a patient. -- Necrothesp 16:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My God, I am glad, that I speak German. We use generally "in" :-) Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I hear "in hospital" it makes "hospital" sound like an adjective form, such as "he's in traction". As you may know, English is the semi-illegitimate offspring of French and German, thus accounting for much of this confusion. And American English, of course, is English that ran away from home at a young age. Wahkeenah 23:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see much in this discussion. Does it really matter, I should think that grammatically 'at' has the edge if you are speaking about a particular town or city. David Lauder 10:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born at a city, or born in a city?   

message: I intend to alter the guidelines to recommend the use of the term "original name" rather than "born", when stating a person's original name (e.g., "William Jefferson Clinton (original name William Jefferson Blythe III)"). My reason for doing so is discussed at Talk:Buddhism#Alteration_.28GMT_2006-11-22_23:47.29. I would like to make the change on or shortly after GMT 2006-12-02. I will check here for comments before doing so. — Kipholbeck 20:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no substantive opinion (yet) regarding the issue, but would request that it be discussed here in full, rather than by reference to a previous discussion on an article's Talk page that is unlikely to have been seen by editors who have previously participated in shaping this style guideline. Thanks, --MCB 02:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I completely disagree with this. Whether "born" is entirely accurate or not is irrelevant. It is the commonly accepted way of putting it. Please don't start making major changes like this without getting consensus, or they'll just be reverted. -- Necrothesp 10:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: --MCB 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change regarding the use of "born" in connection with a person's original name 

message: Now that I have been on Wikipedia for a while, I have noticed one striking "problem" or feature. Many articles have almost unreadable introductory paragraphs. Some of this is because of the Wikipedia Manual of Style itself. In short order, following the Manual of Style and carrying the policies to extremes, the introductory paragraphs become clogged up with details such as:
* multiple names (sometimes 3 or 4 or 5 or more), all in bold face
* alternative spellings, all in bold face 
* very detailed date information, and sometimes alternate date information when the dates are disputed
* names in multiple languages and scripts (sometimes just one other script like Arabic or Chinese, but other times in 2 or 3 or more other scripts)
*translitterations of foreign words
* parenthetic information
* semicolons and dashes
* sentence fragments with no verbs
* long lists of material separated by commas 
* multiple topics and caveats all strung together into one long sentence
* pronunciation guides, sometimes with links to audio versions
If just one or two of these is present, things are not too bad. However, in some cases, it makes the articles completely inaccessible. A reader cannot read the first 3 or 4 sentences of the article and have any idea what the article is about. Many editors try to shove as much information as possible towards the front of the article and into the introduction, and this compounds the problem. I am afraid that the Wikipedia style policies exacerbate this problem. Comments?--Filll 14:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree, I'm afraid. I don't think most intro paragraphs, as long as they're written with a certain amount of literacy, are at all unreadable. Sometimes the English needs to be improved, but you could say that about many articles or parts of articles. I don't think the intro paragraphs are any more of a problem than other parts of articles and I don't think we need to change the style. -- Necrothesp 01:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that in a few biographies, there are multiple names and names in multiple languages, but that's going to happen for, say, an emperor of Austria, and most readers get to such an article while looking for an emperor of Austria, and they should expect the opening to be rather dense, and to contain lots of names and titles and some of them in Hungarian, but it's not necessary to devour every letter and word to get the drift, which is that the article is about an emperor of Austria. But most articles have openings that are not very hard to get through, unless a lot of stuff is thrown in that WP:MOSBIO does not specify (place of birth and death, parents' occupations, etc.) I think the style guideline is fine, it's getting people to follow it that's a problem. Chris the speller 02:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly discussion of disputes over dates can be moved to a later section (see Che Guevara) or footnote (see Francisco Franco). - Jmabel | Talk 02:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the idea of getting excessive data out of the first sentence. Footnotes or discussion in full sentences later on can make for a far more readable first paragraph. As an aside, insisting that the title of the article be presented immediately as the first element in a full sentence is not always helpful. Palmiro | Talk 19:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductions

message: I do not have any great examples to offer, but a couple that I have tried to make a little cleaner, with mixed success are the articles about the Nurhaci, Hung Taiji, Merlin and Yasser Arafat. I am showing their state before I put some work into trying to simplify the introductions. Not all of my changes were accepted, however. I have seen some worse examples, but these give the general idea of what I was referring to. It is my opinion that they are starting to get to be a bit dense for someone who just wants to find out what the subject is about, before digging into a lot of details.--Filll 22:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some examples

message: How can you objectively come up with a way to determine the "most common name" for a biography, so that five people will all come up with the same answer? Its easy for people in the news today, you do a Google search and see which version of the name is more common. Should the one used by other encyclopedias be the article name? I am looking for an objective answer or formula. see Talk:Frederick_T._Frelinghuysen --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's an easy answer to this. I tend to use full name unless there's evidence that the  person was overwhelmingly referred to by a specific truncated name (e.g. for British people, if it's specifically stated in the Dictionary of National Biography or Who's Who). -- Necrothesp 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truncated name vs fullname 

message: The manual of style specifies that articles should include the subject's full name. It also requests articles to identify the usual name by which people are known. In many British biographical directories, this is done by putting the unused first name in brackets, e.g. "(James) Gordon Brown". The Manual of Style is silent on this subject - is it encouraged, discouraged, or merely allowed? Should it be mentioned? Sam Blacketer 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The method I always use (because it's the one I prefer) is to put the full name, then the dates, then the common name, with both names bolded. For example, "James Gordon Brown (born 20 February 1951), known as Gordon Brown, is the Chancellor of the Exchequer..." This is the most unambiguous method to my mind. -- Necrothesp 23:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, the way it's normally done (including in Gordon Brown itself) is to say nothing, on the basis that it's obvious to the reader that if the person's full name is "John Henry Smith" and the title of the article is "Henry Smith" then they use their middle name rather than their first name. We generally only use "known as" if they're known by a nickname rather than merely part of their name (and even then, in obvious cases like Tony Blair, where the nickname is a normal shortening of a first name, we sometimes just leave it unsaid). Proteus (Talk) 18:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I prefer to be a little more explicit. Like most things, however, this appears to be a matter of personal preference. -- Necrothesp 22:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People normally known by their middle name 

message: : Lucy Washington (née Payne) (1772?–1846) was ...
This is an ugly example of the use of brackets.  The née aside should either be set off using commas, or inserted into the brackets.  Either of the following examples would be a big improvement:
:  Lucy Washington, née Payne (1772?–1846), was ...
:  Lucy Washington (née Payne, 1772?–1846) was ...
 —Michael Z. 2007-02-10 01:24 Z
:My preference is to add it after the dates, e.g. 
:::  Lucy Washington (1772?–1846), née Payne, was ...
:Necrothesp 11:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Lucy Washington, née Payne (1772?–1846), was ... - 131.211.210.20 13:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor use of brackets 

message: This is from the Florence Melton article: Born in Philadelphia, Melton grew up so poor that her parents could not even afford to buy her a doll. Melton was the name of the man she married much later, so this sounds absurd, but calling her by her first name is also wrong. I suppose she should be referred to by her maiden name, but I don't know it and it isn't given in the article. What should be done? --Grace 08:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could replace it with 'she'.  You could leave it as 'Melton' and change it once (if) her maiden name is provided.  You could indeed call her 'Florence'.  I would leave it as Melton. Proto ► 11:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely she should be called by whatever she was best known, and, more importantly, whatever she called herself. David Lauder 10:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the article refers to her as Melton, but I'm just not sure that is right when referring to her childhood, fifty years or so before she met Mr. Melton. --Grace 07:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referring to the early life of a woman who later took her husband's name