Template talk:Post-nominals/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Post-nominals, for the period 2010–2017. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Discussion on size of postnoms
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2010 archive#Use of small postnoms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Commas
Whilst modern usage has, in some jurisdictions, dropped the usage of full stops to delineate the component words, commas are still commonly used and are stipulated in sources including:
- Maton, Michael (1995). "Chapter 24 - Protocol". The National Honours & Awards of Australia. Sydney, Australia: Kangaroo Press. p. 142. ISBN 0864176791.
Postnominals are always capitalised and written without full stops between the letters: e.g., AFM, not A.F.M. Commas are used between separate awards, such as AO, DSC, RFD
. - Elizabeth Wyse, Jo Aitchision, Zoe Gullen and Eleanor Mathieson, ed. (2006). "Orders and Decorations". Debrett's Correct Form. Richmond, United Kingdom: Debrett's. p. 132. ISBN 9781870520881.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) - Style Manual: For Authors, Editors and Printers (6th Edition ed.). Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley & Sons, Australia. 2002. p. 504. ISBN 9780701636487.
Like other initialisms (see Chapter 10), postnominals are shown without full stops; commas are used for separating two or more sets of postnominals
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help)
Accordingly, I have updated the template to reflect this. AusTerrapin (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- The Style Manual 2002 is the authoritative source for official Australian convention. Debrett's Correct Form is is an authoritative source on correct British convention. Authoritative guidance on official Canadian convention is provided by the Canadian Chancellery of Honours: Chancellery of Honours. "The Canadian Honours System - Additional Information: Order of Precedence". Official Website of the Governor General of Canada. Office of the Governor General of Canada. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
Example of the Order of Precedence and the post-nominals: If someone was invested as a member of the Order of Canada and was also granted the Canadian Forces Decoration, he or she could add "C.M., C.D." after his or her name.
This is reinforced by sources such as McCreery, Christopher (2005). The Canadian Honours System. Toronto: Dundurn Press. p. 36. ISBN 978-1-55002-554-5.Forward by General John de Chastelain, O.C., C.M.M., C.D., C.H.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help); More than one of|pages=and|page=specified (help) Authoritative guidance on official New Zealand Convention is provided by Government House: "The Queen's Birthday and Diamond Jubilee Honours 2012". Official Website of the Governor General of New Zealand. Government House, New Zealand. Retrieved 10 October 2012.ONZ. To be Additional Members of the said Order: His Royal Highness The Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, KG, KT, OM, GBE, AC, QSO, PC, of London, United Kingdom. For services to New Zealand. ... Dame Malvina Lorraine Major, GNZM, DBE, of Hamilton. For services to New Zealand.
- Postnominals are a form of list which, when presented in-line, are punctuated with commas in accordance with English punctuation rules. That some publishers in recent times have dropped the commas does not overturn official convention and common usage dating over more than a century, inter alia:
- "No. 21970". The London Gazette. 24 February 1857. "Her Majesty has also been pleased to appoint Humphry Sandwith, Esq., C.B., to be Colonial Secretary for the Island of Mauritius."
- "No. 60009". The London Gazette. 31 December 2011. "K.C.B. To be Ordinary Members of the Civil Division of the Second Class, or Knights Commander, of the said Most Honourable Order: ... Jeremy John Heywood, C.B., C.V.O., Permanent Secretary, No.10 Downing Street.")
- "Dr Brenda Milner promoted to Companion of the Order of Canada". McGill University website - News. McGill University. 03 August 2004. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
Brenda Milner, C.C., O.Q.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Hetherington, John (1954). Blamey: The biography of Field-Marshal Sir Thomas Blamey. Melbourne, Australia: F.W. Cheshire. p. Author's note.
...to Mr. Eugene Gorman, M.C., Q.C., of Melbourne..
- Carlyon, Norman (1980). I Remember Blamey. South Melbourne, Australia: MacMillan Company of Australia. p. vi. ISBN 0333299272.
Foreword by Lieutenant-General the Honourable Sir Edmund Herring K.C.M.G., K.B.E., D.S.O., M.C., E.D., K.StJ
- Marshall, Bruce (1952). The White Rabbit (1952 Reprint ed.). London, United Kingdom: Evans Brothers Limited. p. opposite 102.
Wing Commander Yeo-Thomas, G.C., M.C. and Bar...
- Lawriwsky, Michael (2007). Hard Jacka: The Story of A Gallipoli Legend (Limited Edition) (Second Australian Paperback Edition 2008 ed.). Chatswood, Australia: Mira Books. p. opposite 271. ISBN 9781741166514.
...Capt A. Jacka VC, MC and Bar, Commanding Officer D Company..
- Slim, William (1959). Unofficial History: Field-Marshal Sir William Slim (2008 imprint ed.). Barnsley, United Kingdom: Pen & Sword Books. p. title page. ISBN 9781844157914.
Field-Marshal Sir William Slim K.G., G.C.B, G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., G.B.E., D.S.O., M.C.
- Moreover, on Wikipedia, usage of commas is also prevalent and all usage in WP:POSTNOM shows the use of commas (for a representative sample see William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim, Alexander Fleming, John Colborne, 1st Baron Seaton, John Lambton, 1st Earl of Durham, John Hope, 1st Marquess of Linlithgow, Quentin Bryce, Ninian Stephen, David Hurley, Peter Cosgrove, John Dickson-Poynder, 1st Baron Islington, John Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe, Keith Holyoake, Catherine Tizard, Jerry Mateparae, Paulias Matane, Michael Ogio, Louise Lake-Tack, Kamuta Latasi and Filoimea Telito). AusTerrapin (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia follows its own internal guidelines. WP:POSTNOM currently offers no guidance either way on whether or not commas should be used. (Even the article Post-nominal letters avoids the subject.) I suggest you inquire/find consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Prix du Québec
I'd like to create a post-nominal for recipients of the Quebec government's Prix du Québec. Does anyone feel this would not be appropriate? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Are recipients entitled to post-nominal letters? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah. I see. Frankly, I've not been able to find anything that suggests they are. Case closed, then, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Meritorious Service Medal (United Kingdom)
Hi. This one defaults to canada even with the GBR specified. Can you investigate? Gbawden (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
MC and Bar
For some reason when using |MC2| for Military Cross and Bar it doesn't show anything. Is the syntax correct? Gbawden (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Specifying countries
I think I've figured out the issue that was stopping UK-specific post-nominals displaying. They should work properly now. — Paul A (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Number
Hi. If I specify DFC3 it doesn't display - don't think the template caters for larger awards? Gbawden (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- At present, the list of abbreviations it recognises only goes up to DFC2. If you want to add DFC3, or any other abbreviation it needs, you can edit the list here. — Paul A (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
PC
Should we perhaps note somewhere that "PC" should not be used as a post-nominal for commoners who are members of the British Privy Council? I don't know what the usage is in other countries with privy councils, but it is absolutely incorrect to refer, for example, to "The Right Honourable Tony Blair PC," as was done in his article until I just changed it. The use of "The Right Honourable" already indicates that the person is a privy counsellor, and the "PC" is superfluous. "PC" should only be used for peers. john k (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is not incorrect if the Rt Hon is not used. Since we do not use Rt Hon inline, it is perfectly correct to add PC as a post-nominal in the opening sentence of the article. This is backed up by considerable official usage (sadly, not online). However, I'm tired of debating this with people who refuse to accept it, so I'm not going to say any more on the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Can you provide any particular evidence of this? Particularly from genuinely reliable sources? Just saying that there's "considerable official usage" that's not online isn't very convincing. It's hard for me to understand in what context this usage would ever be found. Formal documents will always use "The Rt. Hon.", and informal usage isn't going to use post-nominals or pre-nominals. Debrett's says not to use PC for commoners. The Ministry of Justice says that PC is "only to be used as described in section on Peers who are Privy Counsellors." The obvious solution, at any rate, is to use "The Right Honourable" at the beginning of articles on privy counsellors who are not peers. I'm not sure why we don't do this. It would be silly for peers, who are always right honourable or higher, but it seems completely reasonable to do it for commoners, since it's the correct way to indicate that they are on the privy council. Certainly, at any rate, "PC" should not be used in the infoboxes, which do always include "the Rt. Hon." john k (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- We never use honorifics of any sort. If we started using Right Honourable, then there would be clamouring to also use Honourable, which is frequently used in various countries as an honorific for judges, politicians and others, and other titles such as Worshipful, Right Worshipful and God knows what else. It would open the floodgates for every tinpot minor notable who wants to have their honorific recorded on Wikipedia. Better to simply use the post-nominal to indicate what is indeed usually used as an honorific. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose there are problems that using the honorific would cause. On the other hand, I'm not sure why it is acceptable to give post-nominals but not honorific prefixes. They're pretty close to the same thing - indeed, the post-nominal "PC" and the prefix "Rt. Honourable" literally mean the same thing. Furthermore, we're highly selective about which post-nominals we use - honours, royal appointments, memberships in learned societies yes, but academic credentials no. If we can be selective about what post-nominals we use, why can't we be selective about honorific prefixes, as well? john k (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- We never use honorifics of any sort. If we started using Right Honourable, then there would be clamouring to also use Honourable, which is frequently used in various countries as an honorific for judges, politicians and others, and other titles such as Worshipful, Right Worshipful and God knows what else. It would open the floodgates for every tinpot minor notable who wants to have their honorific recorded on Wikipedia. Better to simply use the post-nominal to indicate what is indeed usually used as an honorific. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Can you provide any particular evidence of this? Particularly from genuinely reliable sources? Just saying that there's "considerable official usage" that's not online isn't very convincing. It's hard for me to understand in what context this usage would ever be found. Formal documents will always use "The Rt. Hon.", and informal usage isn't going to use post-nominals or pre-nominals. Debrett's says not to use PC for commoners. The Ministry of Justice says that PC is "only to be used as described in section on Peers who are Privy Counsellors." The obvious solution, at any rate, is to use "The Right Honourable" at the beginning of articles on privy counsellors who are not peers. I'm not sure why we don't do this. It would be silly for peers, who are always right honourable or higher, but it seems completely reasonable to do it for commoners, since it's the correct way to indicate that they are on the privy council. Certainly, at any rate, "PC" should not be used in the infoboxes, which do always include "the Rt. Hon." john k (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
New Category Page
Moved from Template talk:Post-nominals/CANTemplate:Post-nominals/CAN-cats has been created to centralise category management. Have copied Post-nominals/CAN into the new template, added categories from GBR-cats but removed European specific references.
Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 09:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Bar and Aster
There's been some edit activity as to what should be used. My approach has been to ignore what the formal convention is and concentrate on the meaning of what is on the page to the uninformed reader (this is an Encyclopaedia after all). While it appears that the formal convention (see for instance the London Gazette) is not to designate bars at all in the postnominals I would suggest it is useful and helpful to the casual reader in this circumstance to do so. It seems to me that for someone unfamiliar with the arcane usage of asterisks to denote bars (I suspect most people) then seeing an asterisk would raise the expectation of finding an asterisk footnote at the bottom of the page. I would therefore suggest that using "and bar", "and two bars" etc would provide the clearest information to the reader. Finally it has been standard practice in Wikipedia prior to the introduction of this template to use "and Bar" rather than *. It is not therefore appropriate to change this convention without a consensus being established to do so. I am therefore restoring the Bar texts. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- You raised a point around Clarity, visitors can place their cursor over a hyperlink and the full name of a VC*, DSO* or DFC** is presented in the mouse-over event (as the post-nominal is linked to a redirect page with the full name which in turn points to the specific order or medal). Hover your cursor over these post-nominal letters for a demonstration DSO*** DSC*. (I've reverted your edit of Template/GBR to demonstrate the mouse over behaviour).
- Your second point was “Wiki standard practice”. The previous behaviour wasn’t a standard practice documented in the Wikipedia:MOS but if you want to revert to the first instance than I think that was me in this entry. The use of post-nominal letters is an honour governed by the statutes and Letters Patent that authorise the specific use of post-nominal letters ‘’and do not include phrases such as “and bar”, “and two bars”’’).
- Strictly speaking, neither words or asters were authorised by any statute or letters patent so neither should be used. You have chosen ‘’” to ignore what the formal convention is”’’ however we don’t have that luxury. The content of Wikipedia must be accurate and the layout tools provide methods that make the content comprehensible to all visitors (especially the Simple English Project).
Consider these changes against the Bernard Freyberg entry who has a DSO and three subsequent bars.
- I've taken the liberty of change the title slightly to replace the * with it's name of Aster**
-- Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 14:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- So, from what I understand you're saying is that the display of postnominals in Wikipedia should strictly follow the official practice used in official documents etc (like the London Gazette). I'm fine with that - it means that neither asterisks nor words ("and bar") should appear in the postnominals. However, I'm concerned that the links displayed when hovering over a postnominal displayed by the template are informative: it should clearly inform that multiple awards have been made. In my experience (a quick straw poll of non-expert acquaintances) hardly anyone knows what an asterisk after an award means and many don't know what "and bar" signifies. Some careful thought as to what text should flash up when 'hovering' so that this information is conveyed simply and clearly (not just a reference to a bar(s)).
- By the way: there may be a problem with consensus with other editors here. The current long standing and clearly established (undocumented) convention in Wikipedia is to use "and bar" (or similar) in postnominals. For example, if you look at the articles on the people awarded DSO and three bars, none use the postnom template yet except Freyberg. All the others employ "and three bars" or similar. My observation after a random but not exhaustive study of other medals and degrees of multiple awards is that this convention is applied in the overwhelming majority. There may or may not have been an earlier formal agreement within Wikipedia somewhere (and I'm not going to search) establishing this convention (consensus) or it may have just grown up by itself. Either way, because this change will affect so many articles, it may ruffle feathers if it is seen as breaking an existing consensus without a new consensus being built and agreed. One thing is sure, there's an awful lot of editing to do to change all these articles so that the correct display is applied consistently throughout the encyclopaedia. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. I notice that although you changed the template to reflect your points above, you did not change the explanatory documentation (Template:Post-nominals/GBR/doc to match. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- P.P.S. So I've removed the remaining "and bars" etc from the display elements of the template to reflect the above and I've changed all the linked XX and bar pages to give a clear description of what and bar etc means. I've also aligned the documentation to this effect. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's an absurd idea. This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have encyclopedia articles, which these are not. The articles are duplicates of existing articles and as such are clear speedy delete candidates. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
OK. It turns out that this was a bad idea and powers that be have required the elimination the all the sub articles named XX and Y bar(s). Hovering over links won't help now so an alternative solution is needed. In virtually all the very large number of instances of post-nominal listings in Wikipedia done "by hand" rather than template, bars are explicitly mentioned in the listings. Because this usage is so dominant in Wikipedia, it is inappropriate to change it via the "back door" in the settings of an as yet still obscure template. An overwhelming consensus of usage is in existence, even if like many it is not documented in the manual of style (there is no rule to say consensus must be documented). So before this convention is changed to another format, a new consensus should be established through wider discussion: a WP:RFC perhaps. In the meantime the existing consensus should be maintained for consistency although perhaps a modification in the template putting the "and Bar" in brackets (text in italics) after the decoration concerned to signify it not being part of the "official" pn listing. This would be easy to do (but not now, I'm going to bed!) Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Restored AFC* AFC** DSC* DSC** and MM**
The five categories removed in good faith Barney the barney barney (talk) will shortly have subject pages attached (which is on-going work). The five categories and links to the list of pages to which they will connect follow below:
- 18 Recipients Air Force Cross and Bar (United Kingdom) Category:Recipients of the Air Force Cross and Bar (United Kingdom)
- 1 Recipient Air Force Cross and two Bars (United Kingdom) Category:Recipients of the Air Force Cross and two Bars (United Kingdom)
- 36 Recipients Distinguished Service Cross and Bar (United Kingdom) Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross and Bar (United Kingdom)
- 10 Recipients Distinguished Service Cross and two Bars ((United Kingdom) Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross and two Bars (United Kingdom)
- 4 Recipients Military Medal and two Bars Category:Recipients of the Military Medal and two Bars
Please view the Category pages to inspect the list of 69 affected subject pages. -- Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 11:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- These have been merged following consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 20. – Fayenatic London 06:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
FRHistS
Can anyone explain why FRHistS is not showing up for Christopher Wright (academic)? Did I do something wrong? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- The post-nominal index wasn't listed in Template/GBR. The subject page used FRHistS and the index in Template/GBR was FRHist. I've corrected the template so it shows the same index (left side of the page) as the post-nominal letters (right side of the linking page name).
Done, fixed.
Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 10:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, looks good. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Distinguished Service Cross (Australia)
Moved from Template talk:Post-nominals/AUS-catsI've reversed out my earlier changes but there is still a problem with this entry:
| DSC =[[Distinguished Service Cross (Australia)|DSC]][[:Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (United Kingdom)]]
| DSCuk =[[Distinguished Service Cross|DSC]]
Problems:
- DSC links to the DSC for Australia however the category points to the UK. I suggest applying category Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (Australia)
- DSCuk could be linked to the existing page or Distinguished Service Cross (United Kingdom) which clearly identifies the award but in either case apply Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (United Kingdom)
AUS-cats would now show
| DSC =[[Distinguished Service Cross (Australia)|DSC]]Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (Australia)
| DSCuk =[[Distinguished Service Cross (United Kingdom)|DSC]][[Category:Australian recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (United Kingdom)]]Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (United Kingdom)
Improvement: Create a category named [[Category:Australian recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (United Kingdom)]] and apply it to DSC in AUS-cats to uniquely identify Australian recipients separate from UK recipients.
Suggestions? Problems? Improvements? Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 13:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Corrected my previous entry where the wrong categories were applied to the Australian DSC entry (so I've altered my previous entry). Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 13:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Howdy! The problems are quite widespread through the template. I've added Template:Post-nominals/AUS-cats/doc which indicates some of the problems, and hints at others. Also, it's probably a good idea if this template is consistent with Template:Post-nominals/AUS & Template:Post-nominals/AUS/doc. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Commas
In the UK it is standard practice to separate post-nominal letters with commas. For example, the fictional Lord John Smith VC OBE PC should be written Lord John Smith, VC, OBE, PC. At the moment, there are quite a few Smith, VC OBE PC dotted around because of the template. Is there a way of correcting this? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Good question and the answer is No, Yes and no.
- No; This isn't covered in WP:POSTNOM which only deals with single post-nominal letters.
- Yes; This is a country specific practice just like the GBR & GBR-cats templates and British English so should happen (and I've seen enough war memorials to recognise the practice is common). The templates could be changed:
- From this | VC = [[Victoria Cross|VC]]
- to this | VC = [[Victoria Cross|VC,]]
- No; We can change the displayed post-nominal letters to include a comma however all post-nominal letters include single and the final post-nom in a group will have a trailing comma instead of full stop. Using your example
- would render John Smith, VC, OBE, PC, ending in a comma
- instead of John Smith VC, OBE, PC. ending in a full stop.
- Even if there was consensus in changing WP:POSTNOM the templates would always end the post-nominal list in a comma instead of a period (unless we list every post-nom twice with one version using a comma and a second using a full stop which is undesirable).
Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 09:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not true. It is not standard practice in the UK to use commas. Practice is mixed. Both forms are used. What is most definitely wrong, however, is to use a comma after the name and then not use commas between the postnoms. That's just odd. Either use all commas or no commas. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
August 2013
Moved from Template talk:Post-nominals/AUS-catsThe following problems were identified and action recommended.
- [Nice summary! And useful, too. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)]
- The template is missing category entries where Category:xxx appears in the documentation. Not all entries will immediately have categories and some will have multiple categories.
- This isn't a problem, it's just incomplete work. The categories can be added and the pages created.
- [a) Largely agree. b) Which will require multiple entries? c) Which pages will need creation? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)]
- This isn't a problem, it's just incomplete work. The categories can be added and the pages created.
- The template and the documentation are crammed with irrelevant-to-Australians imperial awards.
- [The template, yes. The documentation, no. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)]
- The template is intended for all Australian entries including those that pre-date the current Australian Honours System (AHS) otherwise the template would not cover the two centries between 1770-1993.
- [Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)]
- Post-nominal Letters for the Order of St John are not recognised in the AHS.
- [Are not recognised since (whenever - 1982?). Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)]
- For The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem the options are either (1) manage the categories manually (which is the opposite of using the template) or remove the link and post-nominal letters and just use a category. On the seldom occasions post-nominal letters are required they can be added manually (using '''Sir John Smith, {{post-nominals|post-noms=GCStJ}}''' renders as Sir John Smith, GCStJ).
- [Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)]
Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 12:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Suggested addition
Is it possible to add Fellow of the Geological Society (FGS) to this template (the UK one)? Or is there a version of this template that can be used to specify the abbreviation and the link manually? Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- You can if you wish add it yourself by editing {{Post-nominals/GBR}}. (If you do, please also update the list of available post-nominals at {{Post-nominals/GBR/doc}}.) — Paul A (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've now done that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Corrections (3 Sept 2013)
Moved from Template talk:Post-nominals/AUS-cats- Removal of the categories "Australian dames" and "Australian knights" - these category are super-categories of the specific categories listed, and hence are redundant.
- No Australian females have been appointed to the Order of the Bath or the Order of St Michael & St George. As these are now foreign awards, none ever will be.
- Separate sub-categories have been created for Australian recipients of Imperial honours.
Pdfpdf (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Australian dames and knights: That's not what I find when I review Category:Australian knights and Category:Australian dames. What I find are 558 subject pages manually tagged with Australian knights which includes 12 Knights of the Order of Australia and 58 subject pages manually tagged with Australian dames include two with imperial honours. Current usage is that Australian knights and dames are one of three categories assigned to each honour like this snippet from AUS-cats:
- | AK = [[Knight of the Order of Australia|AK]][[Category:Knights of the Order of Australia]][[Category:Australian knights]]
- | GBE = [[Knight Grand Cross of The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire|GBE]][[Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire]][[Category:Australian Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire]][[Category:Australian knights]]
- | GBEf = [[Dame Grand Cross of The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire|GBE]][[Category:Dames Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire]][[Category:Australian Dames Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire]][[Category:Australian dames]]
- | AK = [[Knight of the Order of Australia|AK]][[Category:Knights of the Order of Australia]][[Category:Australian knights]]
- So, why remove Category:Australian knights and Category:Australian dames when there are more than 600 pages manually tagged in this manner?
- Whatever classification system you're using, there are 608 pages that need to be updated.
- No Australian members of etc etc. Okay, the if there are no members then remove the indices from the data sheets and note the documentation however you can't be certain that someone with dual citizenship won't be knighted.
- Separate sub-categories have been created. I see 31 red links on Template:Post-nominals/AUS-cats so the categories were added to the data sheet however the matching categories still need to be created.
- Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 07:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Australian dames and knights: That's not what I find when I review Category:Australian knights and Category:Australian dames. What I find are 558 subject pages manually tagged with Australian knights which includes 12 Knights of the Order of Australia and 58 subject pages manually tagged with Australian dames include two with imperial honours. Current usage is that Australian knights and dames are one of three categories assigned to each honour like this snippet from AUS-cats:
Please stop putting "----" before your signature. Horizontal lines are used to divide topics of conversation. Your use of them just confuses the reader and breaks up the continuity of the "conversation". Pdfpdf (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Good heavens! You do seem to take an aggressive approach to life, don't you! Please read WP:AGF.
- So, why remove Category:Australian knights and Category:Australian dames - I explained that:
- "Removal of the categories "Australian dames" and "Australian knights" - these category are super-categories of the specific categories listed, and hence are redundant."
- Which bit of that do you not understand? (Particularly given that it is in compliance with Wikipedia policy.)
- Whatever classification system you're using, there are 608 pages that need to be updated. - I don't see why. Explain yourself please.
- As for the rest, I don't understand. Please explain yourself more clearly. And also, please check your grammar before hitting "save".
- if there are no members then remove the indices from the data sheets - Makes no sense to me.
- Separate sub-categories ... - Also makes no sense to me.
- BTW: While you are reading WP:AGF, please also read WP:Point. And WP:I just don't like it too, please. To me, you just appear to want to make a nuisance of yourself. I haven't seen from you ANY evidence that you wish to improve Wikipedia. However, as I try to WP:AGF, I continue to live in hope that I am misinterpreting my perception of your behaviour.
- Awaiting/Looking forward to a reply from you that I can understand. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- I see 31 red links on Template:Post-nominals/AUS-cats - So what? What's your point? (WP:Point??) It's a whole lot better than 31 entries without any category at all, or with Category:xxx. Once again, please read WP:I just don't like it, and please explain yourself. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Can you clarify what you mean by Super Category? Did you mean to say Container Category? otherwise the linked page has a helpful description for Wikipedia categories. Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 08:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly. (No, I didn't mean "Container Category". Nor did I say "Super Category".) Basically, when I say super-category, I mean the opposite of sub-category. (c.f. sub-script and super-script.) i.e. a super-category is the parent/grand-parent/great-grand-parent/etc category. Yes, a super-category may be a "Container Category", but is not necessarily a "Container Category". Pdfpdf (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
new sub-thread (or "fork" if you prefer that terminology)
- Regarding: "*No Australian members of etc etc. Okay, the if there are no members then remove the indices from the data sheets and note the documentation however you can't be certain that someone with dual citizenship won't be knighted."
- As I said, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. I assume you are referring to the following?
| code | link | visible | category |
|---|---|---|---|
| DCVO | = Dame Commander of the Royal Victorian Order | DCVO | Category:Australian Dames Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (To date, no Australian female appointments) |
| GCVOf | = Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order | GCVO | Category:Australian Dames Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (To date, no Australian female appointments) |
| LG | = Lady Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter | LG | Category:Australian Ladies of the Garter (To date, no Australian female appointments) |
| LT | = Lady Companion of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle | LT | Category:Australian Ladies of the Thistle (To date, no Australian female appointments) |
- If so:
- Why do you say "knighted"? Females don't get knighted.
- then remove the indices from the data sheets - Why? Just because there aren't any to date, that doesn't mean there won't ever be any.
- however you can't be certain that someone with dual citizenship won't be knighted - Don't understand. Please clarify.
- Pdfpdf (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Size
We need to have a discussion about this. The template is increasingly being inserted into British articles. Now, I don't know what standard procedure is in Canada or elsewhere, but in Britain postnoms are almost always written in the same font size as the name. Small postnoms just look weird. I have no idea why 85% was selected as the optimal size, but it is wrong. It would therefore be a good idea to change the default size parameter to 100%. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Size
We need to have a discussion about this. The template is increasingly being inserted into British articles. Now, I don't know what standard procedure is in Canada or elsewhere, but in Britain postnoms are almost always written in the same font size as the name. Small postnoms just look weird. I have no idea why 85% was selected as the optimal size, but it is wrong. It would therefore be a good idea to change the default size parameter to 100%. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- The template is applied to multiple countries however the datasheet (that we edit) is country specific (being GBR and GBR-cats). The size parameter can change font size using syntax {{post-nominals|country=GBR|KG|GCVO|MBE|size=100%}} as KG GCVO MBE instead of KG GCVO MBE.
Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 02:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that. However, most editors will use the default without bothering to change it (in fact, most use the generic template and not this one), which has led to countless articles having the wrong size postnoms. I have then seen editors alleging that because the template uses 85% this is correct and should not be changed. I think, therefore, it's the template that needs to be changed. Why was 85% selected in the first place when it is not common usage? And why can't it be changed? There seem to be guardians of this template who simply will not allow it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that small text looks very strange. Quite apart from the fact that it's not normally used for post-nominals (at least I've never seen it so used), the name at the start of an article is in running text, and it looks most odd to make certain parts of a sentence small for no apparent reason. Proteus (Talk) 18:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that. However, most editors will use the default without bothering to change it (in fact, most use the generic template and not this one), which has led to countless articles having the wrong size postnoms. I have then seen editors alleging that because the template uses 85% this is correct and should not be changed. I think, therefore, it's the template that needs to be changed. Why was 85% selected in the first place when it is not common usage? And why can't it be changed? There seem to be guardians of this template who simply will not allow it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Commas, again
Hi, it looks the country=GBR construction does not allow commas, which the country=AUS construction does. Commas should be allowed for those wishing to use size=100%, which I believe (as I think some others who have posted here do) is preferable and probably more commonly used that small size with no commas. See here for some background to this post. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like many people monitor this talk page, Ian. Perhaps we might be better discussing it elsewhere (or just being bold if it's a simple change)? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Harry, yep, I think perhaps better to just be bold -- it isn't introducing a new default, just an option to make it in line with the AUS style. Looking around, though, I'm not quite sure where/how one actually introduces this change... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Done, you can now use |sep=,to get commas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)- Ian, less concise explanation: the template now supports commas; stick "
|sep=," before the closing curly brackets, and the commas will appear. You could use anything else to separate each set of letters if you so desired, just replace the comma after "sep=" with your desired punctuation. Example. User:RexxS] and User:Redrose64 walked me through the edits, so many thanks to them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)- For example - some people feel that a semicolon is more suitable, so you could use
|sep=;instead. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)- Hi guys, tks for that. My only concern now is the suggestion that "some people feel that a semicolon is more suitable"... I think the benefits of templates are 1) making it simpler to get syntax right and 2) ensuring incorrect syntax doesn't pass muster. Unless someone can point out reliable sources stating that any separators are acceptable when displaying post-noms, I think it should be restricted to commas (when size=100%) or spaces (when the default small size is used). I've seen enough examples of both forms in official sources to know that they're both acceptable (though I think full-size font with commas is more common) but I've never seen, for example, commas used with small-size post-noms, or anything but a comma with normal-sized ones. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Semicolons are just an example, not an instruction. I looked at the code for this template and some of its subtemplates this afternoon, and the font size is independent of whether commas are used or not. Ignoring the
|sep=parameter added today, you could use{{post-nominals|MC|DSO|country=GBR}}→ MC DSO with a font of 85%{{post-nominals|MC|DSO|country=GBR|size=100%}}→ MC DSO with a font of 100%
- Today's change means that you can use either of:
{{post-nominals|MC|DSO|country=GBR|sep=,}}→ MC, DSO{{post-nominals|MC|DSO|country=GBR|size=100%|sep=,}}→ MC, DSO
- which give commas - still with the choice of font sizes. This addition of one parameter to one template means that subtemplates like
{{post-nominals/AUS}}don't need to overload themselves by duplicating every different letter combination - once without commas, once with.{{post-nominals|MC,|DSO|country=AUS}}→ MC, DSO{{post-nominals|MC|DSO|country=AUS|sep=,}}→ MC, DSO
- notice how the visual output is the same, but the parameters are different. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Tks Redrose (what a nice name you have, and of course I'm completely unbiased!). Yes, it appeared to me that the possibilities are endless but that's my point, that there are certain ways of presenting post-noms and it's not "anything goes". When I asked for commas to be permitted, it wasn't personal preference but because that's the correct separator for post-noms (in normal-sized font at least). I don't think there's any point allowing anything but a comma for the sep parameter. In fact, when I tried using a semi-colon as an experiment, everything after the first post-nom was in bold (such as when you begin a new line with a semi-colon)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'd agree with your assertion that a template is intended to reject incorrect syntax. I can supply anything I like as the date in a citation template:
- Jerry Livingston and Paul Francis Webster (12 Never 1957). "Johnny Mathis (album)".
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)
- Jerry Livingston and Paul Francis Webster (12 Never 1957). "Johnny Mathis (album)".
- so it doesn't seem to be normal practice on Wikipedia to use templates for input validation, probably because of the clumsiness of template syntax. No doubt that will improve as we move towards Lua implementations. Nevertheless, for the meantime, I've modified the template to restrict the separator to a comma or nothing, and I'll now update the documentation to reflect that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- @RexxS: - I do see an error message there, specifically Check date values in:
|date=(help). If you don't, you've probably not installed the CSS shown at Help:CS1 errors#Controlling error message display. Many of the parameters in the Citation Style 1 templates are validated (either for content or mutual interdependence); most of these templates were converted to Lua about a year ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)- That's good to know - I was aware CS1 had been converted to Lua, but didn't know that validation had been implemented now. I may well have installed that CSS at some point, but I've lately cleared out a lot of customisation to try to see our content as near as I can to the way an unregistered visitor would. --RexxS (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Tks all for your comments and efforts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's good to know - I was aware CS1 had been converted to Lua, but didn't know that validation had been implemented now. I may well have installed that CSS at some point, but I've lately cleared out a lot of customisation to try to see our content as near as I can to the way an unregistered visitor would. --RexxS (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- @RexxS: - I do see an error message there, specifically Check date values in:
- I'm not sure I'd agree with your assertion that a template is intended to reject incorrect syntax. I can supply anything I like as the date in a citation template:
- Tks Redrose (what a nice name you have, and of course I'm completely unbiased!). Yes, it appeared to me that the possibilities are endless but that's my point, that there are certain ways of presenting post-noms and it's not "anything goes". When I asked for commas to be permitted, it wasn't personal preference but because that's the correct separator for post-noms (in normal-sized font at least). I don't think there's any point allowing anything but a comma for the sep parameter. In fact, when I tried using a semi-colon as an experiment, everything after the first post-nom was in bold (such as when you begin a new line with a semi-colon)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Semicolons are just an example, not an instruction. I looked at the code for this template and some of its subtemplates this afternoon, and the font size is independent of whether commas are used or not. Ignoring the
- Hi guys, tks for that. My only concern now is the suggestion that "some people feel that a semicolon is more suitable"... I think the benefits of templates are 1) making it simpler to get syntax right and 2) ensuring incorrect syntax doesn't pass muster. Unless someone can point out reliable sources stating that any separators are acceptable when displaying post-noms, I think it should be restricted to commas (when size=100%) or spaces (when the default small size is used). I've seen enough examples of both forms in official sources to know that they're both acceptable (though I think full-size font with commas is more common) but I've never seen, for example, commas used with small-size post-noms, or anything but a comma with normal-sized ones. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- For example - some people feel that a semicolon is more suitable, so you could use
- Ian, less concise explanation: the template now supports commas; stick "
- Hi Harry, yep, I think perhaps better to just be bold -- it isn't introducing a new default, just an option to make it in line with the AUS style. Looking around, though, I'm not quite sure where/how one actually introduces this change... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Commas should be used, for readability, and because accessibilty best practice is to include at least one non-linking text character between links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
RfC: Size of post-nominals in this template
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the default font size of post-nominal letters be increased from the current 85% to the standard 100%? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. It is far more normal outside Wikipedia to have post-nominal letters displayed in the same font size as the individual's name. This is also how they are displayed on our own Manual of Style. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Academic titles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Post-nominal initials. However, this template displays them at 85%. While it is possible to set individual articles to 100%, I believe the default should be 100% in line with both common usage and Wikipedia house style. I have already changed the size, but it has been reverted by the template creator on the grounds that he believes the smaller size looks better and that it has been 85% since its creation, which seems to me to be essentially saying he personally prefers this style and will accept no change to the template. The template was rarely used until relatively recently, but is now being increasingly used and has led to a large number of articles with odd small postnom sizes. Since I have no desire to get into an edit war, I believe the issue needs to be settled once and for all. While I can see the value of small postnoms in tables and infoboxes, I do not believe they should be displayed at a smaller size in the body of the article. We do not do this for anything else in article main body text. Why are we making an exception for these initials, especially when it is not normal practice elsewhere to do it and it goes against our own MOS? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support If the MOS gives it one way and the template the other, doesn't the MOS win out in a case like this? Poking around the internet there does not seem to be much of a case for smaller being a default either. Common displays of post-nominals show them full sized and separated by commas. EricSerge (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- 85% Just a personal view (and unless the issue was specifically discussed and decided before, the MOS has no authority on the matter one way or the other, so personal views are what matter for now). I don't mind very much, but since these letters are generally incomprehensible and not especially significant, I would have them clutter up the opening sentence as little as possible, so would take this opportunity to reduce the amount of space they occupy. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I should point out that they are very significant in British and Commonwealth biographies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't find them so, in fact I don't know what most of them even mean (apart from OBE and MBE and possibly one or two others). I'd rather get on and read what the person has actually done, rather than what gongs or pieces of paper they may have received at one time or another. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whether you understand them or care about them or not isn't really relevant is it? The fact remains that they are widely used in the UK and Commonwealth and are therefore hardly "not especially significant". -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Use doesn't imply significance. I'm just answering with my view on the matter as a part of a hopefully fairly representative sample. If the majority turn out to think otherwise, I'll be happy to go along with them. It's not a big deal either way really. W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whether you understand them or care about them or not isn't really relevant is it? The fact remains that they are widely used in the UK and Commonwealth and are therefore hardly "not especially significant". -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't find them so, in fact I don't know what most of them even mean (apart from OBE and MBE and possibly one or two others). I'd rather get on and read what the person has actually done, rather than what gongs or pieces of paper they may have received at one time or another. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I should point out that they are very significant in British and Commonwealth biographies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose The MoS does not mandate that post-nominals be 100% font size, but, nor does it say they must be 85% size. The issue is, as W.P. Uzer touches on above, one of readability. Long strings of post-nominal letters at full size in ledes makes them appear to be part of the prose. This not only disturbs the eye's movement across the article's first line, but also must confuse people unfamiliar with post-nominal letters, appearing to them like gibberish in the text. Making the post-noms smaller separates them from the surrounding writing, indicating a deliberate communication that these letters are not prose and thus should not be read as such.
- Perhaps in lists or other areas where a person's name stands alone it would be okay to use full size font for any post-nominals. But, not where the same lives embedded in blocks of text. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Rather hair-splitting. It doesn't actually mandate them (and I haven't claimed it does), but it does show them at full size in every example. I'm not aware that the MOS actually mandates any text size for anything (although I may be wrong), yet we write the rest of Wikipedia at 100% and anyone who came along and said "I prefer to write in 85% font size so that's what I'm going to do" would soon be reverted. Nowhere else in the main body of text in an article do we put anything at a different size. And most of the postnoms aren't "long strings". The vast majority of people only have one or two sets at the most. Long strings are a rarity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- It still stands that the MoS doesn't give clear direction either way. Saying the use of 100% size font in the MoS' examples means the MoS encourages the use of 100% size font for post-nominal everywhere is merely a personal interpretation. I don't agree with it.
- Smaller fonts are used elsewhere. Hence, WP:FONTSIZE exists to address it. Of course, "because I like it" would never be a valid justification for changing the size of prose font. But, we are not here dealing with prose and "because I like it" hasn't been used as an argument in favour of 85% sized font; supporting reasoning has been offered. This goes back to WP:FONTSIZE, which allows for the use of smaller fonts in "carefully designed templates", which I believe this one is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have to say, I would not interpret WP:FONTSIZE to refer to templates stuck in the middle of article main body text. More to templates that operate around the fringes. But of course that's open to interpretation. What still hasn't been addressed by any of the 85% supporters, however, is why this one thing should be in a different font size. Everything else in the main body text is at 100%. Why should this be the only thing that's an exception? If there was enormous precedent for it outside Wikipedia then I could understand it, but there most certainly isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've often seen the words "Chinese pronunciation:" (and similar) written in a smaller font (50%?) in the opening sentence of articles. There are templates that produce this. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- That is true, now you come to mention it. But it's a rather different situation, as it's a mere technical note, not part of the running text of the article. Postnoms are. It is perfectly possible to refer in speech to "Sir John Smith KCB DSO". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- The template is not "stuck in the middle of article main body text". Two people (including myself) have explained why this thing should be a different size. Nobody said it should be the only thing. That is a red herring. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- In what way is it not stuck in the middle of article main body text? In what way is it not part of the running text (yes, it is part of the prose, despite your claim above that it is not, as I have stated above and Proteus has stated below)? Yes, you've explained why you think it should be a different size. Nobody's disputing that. You're entitled to your opinion, but all it is is your opinion. It's not backed up by common usage, either on Wikipedia or outside Wikipedia. The fact is that it is the only part of the running text of an article that is ever in a different size. And it's only in a different size because of this template. So no, no red herrings here. I still fail to see why this one thing should be in a different size font. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- You're asking me to prove a negative. However, I'll point out that between the article's second and third words is not "in the middle of the article".
- Nobody has proven what "common usage" is, what context or contexts this common usage is used in, or why common usage outside Wikipedia necessarily overrides what may well work better in this particular context. Many style rules for Wikipedia have been developed or modified to suit Wikipedia's needs/requirements. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- In what way is it not stuck in the middle of article main body text? In what way is it not part of the running text (yes, it is part of the prose, despite your claim above that it is not, as I have stated above and Proteus has stated below)? Yes, you've explained why you think it should be a different size. Nobody's disputing that. You're entitled to your opinion, but all it is is your opinion. It's not backed up by common usage, either on Wikipedia or outside Wikipedia. The fact is that it is the only part of the running text of an article that is ever in a different size. And it's only in a different size because of this template. So no, no red herrings here. I still fail to see why this one thing should be in a different size font. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Honestly, compare
- to
- Both are a mess of letters, but, the question is: which is neater, more easy on the eye, and communicates better that that string of letters is, unlike the words that precede it (and, in article ledes, follow it), not to be read as prose? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- You have, of course, picked an incredibly rare long string of postnoms for your example. Most people who have them only have one or two sets (e.g. David Beckham OBE is a far, far more common example than the consort of the Sovereign). But my answer to your rhetorical question is still the 100%. Looks much, much better and far more normal. And using a very unusual example to illustrate your "point" is a little disingenuous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- And if you want proof of common use: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]...I could go on and on. These are just the first examples I came across in a BBC and Google search. I haven't yet spotted one with small caps. You are quite clearly arguing against common usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, your 12 links don't make it clear at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, so clearly no evidence will satisfy you. You think you're right and that's that. The BBC, which commonly uses postnoms inline in running text and uses them at 100% font, is obviously not an acceptable source to you. Neither are all the personal pages for people with postnoms that use them in this way. Neither are British newspapers. Fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think you meant to say weak evidence will not satisfy me. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, per my choice of example above: one should always design to accommodate the worst case scenario. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, so clearly no evidence will satisfy you. You think you're right and that's that. The BBC, which commonly uses postnoms inline in running text and uses them at 100% font, is obviously not an acceptable source to you. Neither are all the personal pages for people with postnoms that use them in this way. Neither are British newspapers. Fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, your 12 links don't make it clear at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've often seen the words "Chinese pronunciation:" (and similar) written in a smaller font (50%?) in the opening sentence of articles. There are templates that produce this. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have to say, I would not interpret WP:FONTSIZE to refer to templates stuck in the middle of article main body text. More to templates that operate around the fringes. But of course that's open to interpretation. What still hasn't been addressed by any of the 85% supporters, however, is why this one thing should be in a different font size. Everything else in the main body text is at 100%. Why should this be the only thing that's an exception? If there was enormous precedent for it outside Wikipedia then I could understand it, but there most certainly isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Rather hair-splitting. It doesn't actually mandate them (and I haven't claimed it does), but it does show them at full size in every example. I'm not aware that the MOS actually mandates any text size for anything (although I may be wrong), yet we write the rest of Wikipedia at 100% and anyone who came along and said "I prefer to write in 85% font size so that's what I'm going to do" would soon be reverted. Nowhere else in the main body of text in an article do we put anything at a different size. And most of the postnoms aren't "long strings". The vast majority of people only have one or two sets at the most. Long strings are a rarity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per W. P. Uzer and Miesianiacal. —sroc 💬 22:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. The post-nominals are part of the running text, and look bizarre in a smaller font. They're used commonly in the UK (particularly in relatively formal contexts), and I've never seen them made small. Indeed, some of the most well-known ones are used in the middle of paragraphs (news articles will generally say "His barrister, John Smith QC, said such-and-such" or whatever) - are we going to start making them small in the article text now as well? It's very strange indeed to have one size in one place and another in another place. In addition, this smaller-font thing just seems to be to be a WP invention, and we're not supposed to do that. Proteus (Talk) 13:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- When are they ever used in article text beyond the first mention of the person's name in the lede?
- With no set rule on this, whatever's decided here will be a WP invention. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia they generally aren't. Outside Wikipedia, as Proteus quite clearly says, they frequently are. No, 100% isn't "WP invention". Where do you get that from? You seem to be implying that postnoms aren't used outside Wikipedia. Utter rubbish. Maybe not in your country, but in mine (the United Kingdom) they certainly are, both in writing and in speech. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am also in the UK. In my experience (native speaker, have lived here all my life) postnominals are used very rarely here in writing, and extremely rarely in speech. Only in very formal speech, such as in parliament, would they be used. If I were to use the postnominals to which I am entitled on introducing myself to someone, I would be thought very strange indeed! Evidently your experience is different; perhaps one of us is atypical- e.g. the legal profession is one context in which postnominals are used more often than is typical for the rest of society. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not referring to degrees and membership postnoms (we don't use those on Wikipedia anyway). I'm referring to honours and decorations (OBE, KCB, KG etc), senior fellowships (FRS, FRCS etc), and such official postnoms as MP, JP, DL and QC, all of which are commonly used. I didn't say you'd use them when introducing yourself (that would be very bad form on anyone's part, as would using a prenom title except in very specific professional circumstances such as doctors, military personnel and police officers), but they are very often used professionally and when referring to others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- That has not been my experience. Of the ones you name, I agree that MP and QC are commonly used - the rest are (in my experience) not. DL is very unusual indeed (to me it's an envelope size, a decilitre or the postcode for Darlington, rather than any kind of an honour). While I might expect to see an OBE, a KCMG or a KCB on a letterhead, I wouldn't expect it to be used in a newspaper or in conversation unless the honour itself were the topic under discussion. So as someone also in the UK, I can't agree that there's a non-UK bias in the discussion above. 82.44.96.198 (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not referring to degrees and membership postnoms (we don't use those on Wikipedia anyway). I'm referring to honours and decorations (OBE, KCB, KG etc), senior fellowships (FRS, FRCS etc), and such official postnoms as MP, JP, DL and QC, all of which are commonly used. I didn't say you'd use them when introducing yourself (that would be very bad form on anyone's part, as would using a prenom title except in very specific professional circumstances such as doctors, military personnel and police officers), but they are very often used professionally and when referring to others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am also in the UK. In my experience (native speaker, have lived here all my life) postnominals are used very rarely here in writing, and extremely rarely in speech. Only in very formal speech, such as in parliament, would they be used. If I were to use the postnominals to which I am entitled on introducing myself to someone, I would be thought very strange indeed! Evidently your experience is different; perhaps one of us is atypical- e.g. the legal profession is one context in which postnominals are used more often than is typical for the rest of society. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia they generally aren't. Outside Wikipedia, as Proteus quite clearly says, they frequently are. No, 100% isn't "WP invention". Where do you get that from? You seem to be implying that postnoms aren't used outside Wikipedia. Utter rubbish. Maybe not in your country, but in mine (the United Kingdom) they certainly are, both in writing and in speech. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per W P Uzer and Miesianiacal. This is purely a style/personal preference. To my eyes, the post-noms interrupt the natural flow of text and a reduced size helps to mitigate the impact of these somewhat intrusive tangents. DrKiernan (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Support The 85 seems a pretty arbitrary choice and I'm dubious it makes very much difference/benefit to depart from the norm Garlicplanting (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose The different font size allows the eye to skip over post-nominals to the next block of text. There is no hardship with 85% font size if you do need to check/use the post-nominals. I also object to the subjective labelling of 100% as standard when font size is the point under dicussion. (An objective and neutral statement would not have classified 100% font size in any manner.)-- Karl Stephens (talk|contribs)
- Is 100% not "standard" on Wikipedia? Have you not written in 100% font size above? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, useful visual cue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Wikipedia MoS does not prescribe any specific size. I do not agree that the absence of any rule is equivalent to a rule prescribing 100% size. I don't see anything relevant in the Chicago style guide or the Guardian/Observer style guide. Agree with Karl Stephens, Uzer, Mies. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)- Oppose I personally like the look of the smaller size. AIRcorn (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: If newspapers back in the day had access to font-sizing as they do now, then many things written would have possibly been sized-proportioned. Since that was not the issue in those times, there is people today who still view yesterday as the norm. In an ever-changing world, for better or worse, things do change!--De corde puro (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support. 'Real world' usage of small font for post-nominals is typically around 50%-67% (not 85%), notwithstanding, small font size is chiefly used on business cards and in some published books, reports, etc. My personal assessment of the practical style aspect is that 85% is not small enough to provide a meaningful amount of compression and presents a visual anomaly which is not pronounced enough to be immediately processed by the eye/brain and thus presents a distraction that breaks the flow of reading more than if the post-nominals were either at 100% or at an unambiguously smaller size. AusTerrapin (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Categorisation of MPs disabled
Moved from Template talk:Post-nominals/GBR-catsI have disable the categorisation of MPs, because the system in place did reflect the complexity of the history, or how it is represented in the category tree.
There were MPs for centuries before the United Kingdom Parliament was created in 1801. This system takes no account of the Parliament of Northern Ireland (1921-72), the Parliament of Ireland (to 1800), the Parliament of England (to 1707) or the Parliament of Great Britain (1707-1800).
For the full category structure, see:
- Category:British MPs and subcats
- Category:Members of the Parliament of Ireland (pre-1801)
- Category:Members of the Parliament of Northern Ireland
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Suggested addition - Australia
Charles, Prince of Wales has a number of titles and honours awarded by various Commonwealth realms. The Australian {{post-nominals}} template does not show the Canadian Forces Decoration awarded to Charles in 1982, leaving an gap between his QSO and PC, shown as KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, CD, PC. Is this because the Australian template needs to be manually modified to accommodate for Charles' honours from Canada, or because this award is not recognised in Australia? A copy of this discussion is also placed here. Rangasyd (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Categories and namespaces
Currently, this template can take the country abbreviation as a parameter or the country-cats as a parameter (|CAN= or |CAN-cats=). I suppose it's not actually necessary, but it would be nice if a namespace switch was applied somewhere so that the categories only appear in the mainspace, regardless of which parameter is used. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
South Africa
We need to update the Post-Noms to include the civilian ones. Not my area of expertise.. BoonDock (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
FRSC (Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemisty)?
Can this be added to the list? It's a learned society with strict criteria for fellowship (not sure of numbers, have asked and looked, best info I could get was approx 990 fellows in 1970s). I'm currently adding in FRSC as post-nominals (as part of a GLAM editathon) but would look nicer with the template.Rayman60 (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Rayman60: Done. Thank you for your contributions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- The link need to be corrected. Adding FRSC makes a link to Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemisty. It needs the spelling corrected: IE Chemisty ---> Chemistry. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, my mistake. I made an error with the spelling in the title above. I looked for it on the template page but can't find it.Rayman60 (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've fixed the FRSC link now, editing the Template:Post-nominals/GBR (where the important link is; the text can't be seen on the Template:Post-nominals/GBR until you try to edit the page. I've also edited the documentation page, so that you can see the listing on the template page. It took me a while to work this out, I confess.Klbrain (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, my mistake. I made an error with the spelling in the title above. I looked for it on the template page but can't find it.Rayman60 (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- The link need to be corrected. Adding FRSC makes a link to Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemisty. It needs the spelling corrected: IE Chemisty ---> Chemistry. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
How do I add new post-noms?
I've tried to add SSC to the template. Having done this, it still doesn't appear when the template is used in an article. Do I have to do something extra? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 20:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have worked it out now. For the benefit of others (and probably me as I'll have forgotten): add the new post-nom to BOTH Template:Post-nominals/GBR and Template:Post-nominals/GBR/doc, matching the formatting on each page. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
RAAF
@Nford24: insists RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) is not a post-nominal for some reason. I already said it's used frequently in the London Gazette but it's not appropriate to add to the UK post-nom template. Here is a source: Debrett's Handbook of Australia and New Zealand - Volume 2, 1984, Quote: "Honours and decorations, and their post-nominal letters, fall into distinct groups, and within each group there is an order... The letters RAF, RAAF, RNZAF as appropriate may be placed after the names of serving and retired officers of the Air Force." —МандичкаYO 😜 16:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- All postnominals used by the Australian military are listed in the Army Protocol Manual, it really doesn't matter if it's used outside of Australia, anyone can make something up to fill gaps. Only the Royal Australian Navy 'RAN' and 'Royal Australian Navy Reserve 'RANR' are service specific postnominals. The Australian Regular Army (ARA) and Australian Army Reserve have corps or regiment distinguishing letter's after their name, but those are only used in service & not officially. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Are you talking about using post-noms in biographies ie Name, post-nom, DOB-DOD? That is not only the only place the template is used in Wikipedia. Debrett's and London Gazette are acceptable sources when dealing with the ROYAL Australian Air Force and whether or not RAAF is a post-nom. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Uhm no I'm not. I can provide many references where its not used ie (not honours lists, news reports, official correspondence). The post nominal "RAAF" cannot be found in use anywhere (as a post nominal) on the Royal Australian Air Force website, or the main Department of Defence website. My best bet, is the 'RAAF' is only used to distinguish Australian air force officers from that of RAF or RNZAF. The Australian honours lists can be found in original format, on the Governor General of Australia website.
- In my humble opinion, one which I have had for many years. Wikipedia should be about facts, not made up stuff to fill gaps. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Are you talking about using post-noms in biographies ie Name, post-nom, DOB-DOD? That is not only the only place the template is used in Wikipedia. Debrett's and London Gazette are acceptable sources when dealing with the ROYAL Australian Air Force and whether or not RAAF is a post-nom. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Linking of postnominals
There is an RfC which may affect this template directly, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#RfC: linking pre- and post-nominals. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Sentence doesn't wrap
The article on Roy Burston begins with this:
---
Sir Samuel Roy Burston | |
|---|---|
| Born | 21 March 1888 Melbourne, Victoria |
| Died | 21 August 1960 (aged 72) South Yarra, Victoria |
Major General Sir Samuel Roy Burston KBE, CB, DSO, KStJ, VD, FRCP, FRCPE, FRACP (21 March 1888 – 21 August 1960) was an Australian soldier, physician, and horse racing identity.
---
As you can see, the long line of Burston's decorations doesn't wrap: the whole line of text jumps to the next line. I think this is ugly. In Template:Post-nominals/sandbox, I've taken out all non-breaking spaces ( ) and this seems to work:
---
Sir Samuel Roy Burston | |
|---|---|
| Born | 21 March 1888 Melbourne, Victoria |
| Died | 21 August 1960 (aged 72) South Yarra, Victoria |
Major General Sir Samuel Roy Burston KBE, CB, DSO, KStJ, VD, FRCP, FRCPE, FRACP (21 March 1888 – 21 August 1960) was an Australian soldier, physician, and horse racing identity.
---
Is there a particular reason why the template uses non-breaking spaces?
Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I just noticed that this is what the Roy Burston article looks like on an iPhone 5s. This can't be good so I have implemented the change right away.
- I have re-inserted the non-breaking spaces in the sandbox version and, in the above example, swapped the two templates, so it still looks like how it was when I created this thread.
- On a related note: I'm starting to wonder if it makes sense to list so many different nominals after someone's name. To me it's just a long list of random characters. I don't know what all these abbreviations mean. I read the above RfC, and it seems some kind of common practice. But in the above example I would support the smaller font-size of 85%. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Manifestation: It's broken the cases where
|sep=,wasn't used: - I think that perhaps soft spaces should have been used, these are encoded as either
 or . --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)- I carried out the change;
{{Post-nominals/sandbox}}now contains the version with ordinary (non-encoded) spaces. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)- Woops!! Thanks for fixing that Redrose64! I couldn't have thought of that, as I didn't knew of the existence of these 'soft spaces'. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps "soft space" was the wrong term. I meant the ordinary (breaking) space, the one you normally get from pressing the space bar alone; the problem here is that the MediaWiki parser has a habit of trimming these off inside parser functions, i.e. code like
X{{#if:some test| first choice | second choice }}Yis interpreted as Xfirst choiceY - the spaces are lost. But if you encode those spaces, like this:X{{#if:some test| first choice | second choice }}Ythey're preserved - X first choice Y. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps "soft space" was the wrong term. I meant the ordinary (breaking) space, the one you normally get from pressing the space bar alone; the problem here is that the MediaWiki parser has a habit of trimming these off inside parser functions, i.e. code like
- Woops!! Thanks for fixing that Redrose64! I couldn't have thought of that, as I didn't knew of the existence of these 'soft spaces'. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I carried out the change;
- @Manifestation: It's broken the cases where
Space between post nominals
I've noticed that it seems recently the template stopped adding spaces between post nominals by default. Could we discuss this?Lookunder (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Lookunder: Yep. See my last post in the thread immediately above. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah that was my mistake. It is fixed now. - Manifestation (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
FMedSci
Australian Professor Peter C. Doherty has the post-nominal FMedSci but it is not supported by this template, unlike similar cases like FRS. Could it be added, please? EdChem (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Abraham, B.S.: I notice you have been editing to make changes like the one I requested above. Would you explain to me what I need to do so I can make changes like this? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- @EdChem: Hi EdChem. I have just added this to the template. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2016
 | This edit request to Template:Post-nominals/CAN has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could the following be added? | FMedSci= [[Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences|FMedSci]] Thanks, 207.161.217.209 (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- It appears that Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences is London, UK based, and reading the current article, it's unclear why it applies to Canada....? Not done for now — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Re-open, misunderstood {{Post-nominals}} design. Possibly needs more visibility or consensus — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Andy M. Wang: Post-nominal letters from one country that are used by people from another country are often also included in the latter country's subpage. Existing examples are numerous: FRGS, FRMS, FRS, FRSE, FRSL, FSTS, DL, LT, KP, KT, SL (among many others). Were it not for this practice, there would be no way to use post-nominal letters from two different countries after a singular person's name. FMedSci is, in fact, already included in Template:Post-nominals/AUS. I cannot see how there could be any objection to this as there is no conceivable reason not to include FMedSci alongside the others (provided that the template and its various subpages aren't being overhauled from the ground up so as to eliminate the necessity of this standard practice). 207.161.217.209 (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2016
| This edit request to Template:Post-nominals/CAN has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could the following please be added to Template:Post-nominals/CAN? | FBA = [[Fellow of the British Academy|FBA]] Thanks, 207.161.217.209 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done — Andy W. (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Privy Council of Ireland
This gives "PC", but "PC (I)" and "PC (Ire)" were also used Debbiesw (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit request
Is it possible for Hon. RA, Hononary Royal Academicans to be added? Many thanks Eartha78 (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
FRSC x2?
Canadian scientist Jillian Buriak is both a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry (the UK organisation). How can the template deal with this, please? PamD 20:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've added a UK template to get the second sense - but I note that on her website at http://buriak.chem.ualberta.ca/people/jillian-buriak/ it's written as "FRSC-UK" - if that's the norm for Canadians referring to this fellowship, should the CAN version of the template include it? PamD 20:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- And here it's listed as "FRSC, UK" PamD 20:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Adding Portuguese letters to this template
Nford24, there is no reason for this template not to have Portuguese letters in it. It provides more options. The point of the data templates is to prefer a local version if there's overlap, but it is quite possible that an Australian gets inducted into the Order of Prince Henry, so let's make this template allow for as many parameters as possible. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 13:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- The current Governor General of Australia Sir Peter Cosgrove holds the Grand Cross of the Order of Prince Henry. But the Australian Government hasn't allowed the use of its post-nominals, there is little point in adding them. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- But this is an international website. I feel that readers will want to know what post-nominals the person in question is entitled to worldwide even if they doesn't use some in their home country. I assume he would be addressed with all his letters when visiting Portugal. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 12:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Missing nominals
I'll add these later, unless anyone beats me to it:
FFPHMIFFSEM- FISM
once I've found out what they mean! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
FISM
It appears that FISM can mean:
- Fellow of the Institute of Sport and Exercise Medicine
- Fellow of the Incorporated Society of Musicians
Do we have a mechanism for dealing with this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Non-working example
On Alan Emery, the markup: {{post-nominals|country=GBR|FRCP|FRCPE|FACMG|FLS|FRSA|FRSE|sep=,}}
renders badly, as FRCP, FRCPE, , FLS, FRSA, FRSE, because one of his honorifics is from the US. Do we have a solution or this, other than removing the template, or adding it to the GBR list? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Add FGRA (Guild of Railway Artists)?
I was going to edit the article on David Shepherd (d. 19 September 2017) to use this template, but FGRA isn't in this list, so I haven't made the change. Should/could it be added? — Hugh 04:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Broken in Wikipedia Android app
The template "Post-nominals" appears to be broken in the Wikipedia Android app, but is correct in the Chrome Android browser, and also correct in Windows 8.1. I have updated the Wikipedia app on my Android phone, and the defect is still there. I have done screen captures here, here, and here to show the defect in the articles for Adele, Alfred Hitchcock, and Paul McCartney when using the app. I suspect it is due to a change in the template, as I have been using the Android app for quite some time on the same phone and have never seen this problem. Perhaps it is due to the 22 September 2017 edit here, or the previous edit, although I am not familiar with template code to know. CuriousEric 04:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- That definitely looks like it was caused by my edit, but, what in the world? I guess this shows that you can never test enough cases... Pppery 14:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Do you get similar problems with pages using {{pre-nominal styles}}, like William Juxon? Pppery 14:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- I get a similar error using Chrome 60.0.3112.113 on desktop. Red Fiona (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Figured it out -- apparently mw:Parsoid can't handle constructs like {{for nowiki}}, which I'm using internally. Pppery 14:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into it Pppery. I do not see the problem in Android for William Juxon. The Alfred Hitchcock article now looks correct, but Adele and Paul McCartney still show the previous behavior, even though I closed their tabs and created new tabs in the app. Perhaps there is some caching issue. I'll try again later. CuriousEric 16:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- (Abele works because I reverted my fix for this template). THe other two are, as you suspected, caching. Pppery 17:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Adele and Paul McCartney now look correct. Thanks Pppery. CuriousEric 18:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- (Abele works because I reverted my fix for this template). THe other two are, as you suspected, caching. Pppery 17:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into it Pppery. I do not see the problem in Android for William Juxon. The Alfred Hitchcock article now looks correct, but Adele and Paul McCartney still show the previous behavior, even though I closed their tabs and created new tabs in the app. Perhaps there is some caching issue. I'll try again later. CuriousEric 16:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Figured it out -- apparently mw:Parsoid can't handle constructs like {{for nowiki}}, which I'm using internally. Pppery 14:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Canada as the default option
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Can someone please make |country= a required parameter, so that if said parameter is empty this appears: Missing or empty |country= (help);. I cannot fathom why Canada is the default option, especially considering that their system is essentially based on the British one, which came first. Objectively there should not be a default option.--Nevé–selbert 18:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say that's rather tricky to do right. The CS1 citation templates that produce those error messages are highly intricate, far more so than this one. I'm not sure anybody who doesn't know Lua has the skills to even figure out how they do it, and doing it the same way would seem like overkill - turning this rather basic template into a Lua module.
- That said, the proposal as written leaves too many questions unanswered to be implemented at this point. Do you have plans to do the cleanup effort that will be required if lots of articles suddenly give these error messages? What should the "help" link point to (presumably not to help)? Have you thought about the expansion for currently uncovered countries that would be necessary if there is no default? Should there be cases where the template does not have a country parameter and no warning is given? If so, which ones, specifically? Huon (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Huon: I'm an AWB user, so yes I will try cleaning up articles in Category:Members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, presumably only articles in that category would not use
|country=. I guess the "help" link should point to Template:Post-nominals#Country. Regarding uncovered countries, I say we add a|country=naoption and create a hidden maintenance category accordingly. Whether there are cases where there should not be such a parameter ought to be decided on a case-by-case basis.--Nevé–selbert 20:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)- Personally I remain unconvinced that there's a problem here that needs a solution. What goes wrong with the current template? That said, if you're looking for people who have the know-how to add this functionality to the template, I'd suggest asking for help at Help talk:Citation Style 1; people there will likely know how the citation templates produce these error messages. Huon (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Huon: Alternatively, I suppose the default option could be unlinked post-nominal letters. That may be easier to code.--Nevé–selbert 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's not hard to make an error message if country= is missing or empty:
- Missing or empty
|country=(help); - I don't use the template but if an error message is written at all then shouldn't it be limited to cases where none of unlinked=, list=, post-noms= are used? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter: I would prefer an error message, as it would probably make fixing through AWB more straightforward. I agree that it should be limited to cases where none of the above are used, instead of just
|country=.--Nevé–selbert 21:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)- That's a simple addition:
- Missing or empty
|country=(help); - We could add a hidden maintenance category instead to avoid error messages on correct uses for Canadians. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter: Would it be OK to do both? So there is error message and a maintenance category.--Nevé–selbert 08:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- The template has 19401 uses. There may be a lot of them using it correctly for Canadian people without the currently optional
|country=CAN. I'm not fond of suddenly making it mandatory and displaying error messages on articles which didn't do anything wrong at the time and isn't displaying anything wrong now. How about 3 steps: 1) Add a hidden category. 2) Clear the category by manually going through the articles (this may take some time and I'm not doing it). 3) Add an error message and keep the category. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)- @PrimeHunter: Another option is that (instead of an error message) the post-nominals are unlinked if
|country=is empty. We can add a maintenance category on top of that.--Nevé–selbert 02:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)- @Neve-selbert: I have added the hidden tracking category Category:Pages using Template:Post-nominals with missing parameters.[13] There is no error message. It will take time for the software to process pages using the template and add some of them to the category. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter: There's 980 pages in total, which I don't have time to fix at the moment. Would it be OK though to remove Canada as the default option in the meantime so that the new default option would be unlinked post-nominals? Might be a better idea than an error message.--Nevé–selbert 16:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Neve-selbert: I don't like that unless you have found wrong links for a large part of the current cases. It's confusing for editors if correct links suddenly disappear. After looking at a few cases I see there are also examples where the subject is not Canadian but assuming it makes no error. For example, {{postnom|country=GBR|VC}} and {{postnom|country=CAN|VC}} give the same result: VC and VC. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps instead of an error message visible to readers, we could consider an error message only visible to editors:
- Warning: Page using Template:Post-nominals with empty parameter "country" (this message is shown only in preview).
- Which might just be, PrimeHunter, the best possible solution.--Nevé–selbert 19:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of new distracting preview warnings unless there is likely to be a serious problem. I tested 10 pages in Category:Pages using Template:Post-nominals with missing parameters and didn't find a single link which looked wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I suppose you're right
.--Nevé–selbert 02:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I suppose you're right
- I'm not a fan of new distracting preview warnings unless there is likely to be a serious problem. I tested 10 pages in Category:Pages using Template:Post-nominals with missing parameters and didn't find a single link which looked wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps instead of an error message visible to readers, we could consider an error message only visible to editors:
- @Neve-selbert: I don't like that unless you have found wrong links for a large part of the current cases. It's confusing for editors if correct links suddenly disappear. After looking at a few cases I see there are also examples where the subject is not Canadian but assuming it makes no error. For example, {{postnom|country=GBR|VC}} and {{postnom|country=CAN|VC}} give the same result: VC and VC. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter: There's 980 pages in total, which I don't have time to fix at the moment. Would it be OK though to remove Canada as the default option in the meantime so that the new default option would be unlinked post-nominals? Might be a better idea than an error message.--Nevé–selbert 16:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Neve-selbert: I have added the hidden tracking category Category:Pages using Template:Post-nominals with missing parameters.[13] There is no error message. It will take time for the software to process pages using the template and add some of them to the category. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter: Another option is that (instead of an error message) the post-nominals are unlinked if
- The template has 19401 uses. There may be a lot of them using it correctly for Canadian people without the currently optional
- @PrimeHunter: Would it be OK to do both? So there is error message and a maintenance category.--Nevé–selbert 08:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter: I would prefer an error message, as it would probably make fixing through AWB more straightforward. I agree that it should be limited to cases where none of the above are used, instead of just
- @Huon: Alternatively, I suppose the default option could be unlinked post-nominal letters. That may be easier to code.--Nevé–selbert 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Personally I remain unconvinced that there's a problem here that needs a solution. What goes wrong with the current template? That said, if you're looking for people who have the know-how to add this functionality to the template, I'd suggest asking for help at Help talk:Citation Style 1; people there will likely know how the citation templates produce these error messages. Huon (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Huon: I'm an AWB user, so yes I will try cleaning up articles in Category:Members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, presumably only articles in that category would not use
Size
Various templates have been changed to make |honorific_prefix= and |honorific_suffix= appear smaller by default. This means that using this template in an infobox with setting "size=100" is creating some very small post-nominals (such as here). This needs fixing. Either:
- The default size is changed to 100% and size=85 is shown as an option (or even introducing a size=small option so people don't pick their own percentage)
- 85% is kept as the default (as I'm guessing this could lead to confusion) and size=100 is added to the examples so it is used by editors if this is where they get the template from: the use of the default 85% will then be explained under the heading Font size
This is an unfortunate result of the new formatting of the above parameters, but needs a speedy conclusion. What does everyone think? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- This really needs to be sorted out as as the "double smalling" that is now occurring in many articles is contrary to MOS:FONTSIZE: "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes ... In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page font size". Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have added a comment to the template page to reflect this. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Protection
I came here to add another missing post-nom only to find that it has been protected. I understand that this template is "highly visible" but a quick look through the history shows no vandalism. @MusikAnimal: could you please explain the reasoning behind protecting this template. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Gaia Octavia Agrippa: See Wikipedia:High-risk templates. It's about risk, not prior disruption. E.g. if someone were to vandalize this template, it would be shown on 10,000+ pages! We recently had an LTA go on a spree, vandalizing all the unprotected highly-visible templates, which is what prompted me to protect this one. That being said, 10,000 transclusions is a lot, but not critical, I think, so I have lowered the protection level to extended-confirmed. You should be able to edit now. Best — MusikAnimal talk 14:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- That all makes sense (except the LTA bit). Thanks for reducing the protection slightly, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Star of Courage / Senior Counsel
The post-nominal code "SC" currently resolves to Star of Courage. I note that of the List of recipients of the Star of Courage, not one of the recipients appear to have their own wikipedia article. So far as I can tell there is not one instance on wikipedia where the post-nominal SC is used for a recipient of the Star of Courage. There are on the other hand many articles in relation to people appointed as senior counsel. I have just changed more than 30 instances where senior counsel were incorrectly identified as recipients of the Star of Courage. I think it would be more useful for the post nominal to resolve to Senior Counsel, while a different post nominal code resolves to Star of Courage "SoC" perhaps. Is there any reason why I shouldn't make this change ? Find bruce (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- In the absence of any objection, I have changed he code for Star of Courage to SoC and added Senior Counsel with the code SC. Find bruce (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Decorations are the senior post-nominal and the Star of Courage pre-dates the shift away from QC to Senior Counsel - no one. Consequently Senior Counsel should not have first right to the unmodified post-nominal, however to alleviate the identified risk of unwitting incorrect use I am therefore disambiguating both to SC(honour) and SC(law) respectively. AusTerrapin (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Smarter behavior
This would have much, much more utility if |list= (and its aliases) did not completely override the unnamed parameters, but added to them. There's no reason at all that {{post-nominals|TC|OCC|AM|country=GBR|list=[[Trinity Cross|TC]]}} shouldn't work, as: OCC, AM, TC. An alternative would be to permit any numbered parameter to contain something like [[Trinity Cross|TC]] and not be parsed against the pre-set lists; I'd have to think hard about how to detect that. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 13:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Commas
This should have comma-space not just space between each of multiple post-noms. Every style guide I've looked at recommends this, so this template's current output is downright aberrant. It's definitely a comprehensibility issue, and possibly an accessibility problem. (There are some real-world style complications, such as complicated comma and spacing rules advocated by Oxford, in which academic postnoms can include groups of spaced degrees and institutional abbreviations, each group separate by a comma: "BA MA Oxf, PhD Dub"; but this has no implications for this template, and the same style calls for comma-space between each simple postnom when they are not in such "institution attribution" groups.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 13:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)