Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2014 archive

His Eminence

Manual of Style/Biography/2014 archive
His Eminence; Manual of Style/Biography/2014 archive
Cardinal Archbishop of Berlin (installed); Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne (appointed)

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Manual of Style. 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.

Small caps for post-nominal initials?

I have seem various examples where post-nominal initials are formatted in small caps in the lead, e.g.:

Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, (née Roberts, 13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013) was...
Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, ,[1] (20 December 1894 – 15 May 1978) was...

Indeed, this is the format given by the specialised {{post-nominals}} template (85% font size). This format is not used at WP:CREDENTIAL or WP:POSTNOM, however.

Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS (born January 8, 1942) is...
'''Joe Bloggs''', [[Victoria Cross|VC]] gives Joe Bloggs, VC

1. Assuming the format adopted by the template is correct, shouldn't this be specified in MOS?

2. As the comma preceding the post-nominals is presumably treated as parenthetical, isn't a matching comma required after the post-nominals (or after the parentheses that immediately follow)?

Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, (née Roberts, 13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013), was...
Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, [1] (20 December 1894 – 15 May 1978), was...
Stephen William Hawking, (born January 8, 1942), is...

3. Hawking's listing is incomplete as he also has a FRSA. —sroc 💬 13:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

One of my pet hates. The use of small caps looks absolutely awful and is not normal practice anywhere. I have no idea why the template defaults to 85%, but I believe it should be set to 100% to reflect practice in the real world. I have tried to change it in the past, but one of the template's self-appointed "guardians" changed it back, alleging it had been "agreed" (it hasn't, certainly not in any form of general discussion). As to commas, there should either be commas between each abbreviation, or no commas at all. Having a single comma after the name is just plain wrong. But no, there certainly shouldn't be a comma at the end or after the parentheses. The example given for Stephen Hawking above is entirely correct. It would also be entirely correct using no commas at all. We don't usually record FRSA in the postnoms, incidentally, as it is not at all a prestigious honour and can apparently be purchased. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have seen small caps for post-nominals elsewhere, and there are good reasons (it avoids long strings of shouty capitals, for one).

Do you accept that a comma is proper after the name, preceding the post-nominals? After all, the addition of post-nominals does not alter one's name; rather, it is attached akin to an appositive or parenthetical remark (e.g., John Smith, AO, said to Jacob Mitchell, butcher, that his niece, Serena, 6, enjoyed tennis). He doesn't become John Smith AO. As with any paired commas, the final comma would come after any intervening parentheses (John Smith, AO (a nominee for Australian of the Year), said to Jacob Mitchell, butcher (whom he had not met before), that his niece, Serena, 6 (no relation to the Williams sisters), enjoyed tennis). Forgive the ugly sentence used to illustrate the point. —sroc 💬 16:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have very rarely seen small caps for postnoms. They are not correct. As I said, it is correct to either have a comma after the name or have no comma after the name. Both are common. As to a comma after the postnoms, absolutely not. Looks ridiculous and is completely unnecessary. As I also said, the Stephen Hawking example is entirely correct. There's no need to change the MOS when it is correct as it stands. It's the template that needs changing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The guideline only states that post-noms should be included, when they are not too numerous. It says nothing explicit about the font size or whether there should be commas. That strikes me as essentially a personal choice. There is no set style, other than they should be wiki-linked. DrKiernan (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Which is why it seems odd to use a small font size when we don't use it anywhere else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The proper use of commas is not a personal choice; style is determined by the house, in this case, by consensus in the community. I do not accept Necrothesp's unsubstantiated position on allowing a comma after the name proper but not also requiring one after the post-nominals. I think WP:POSTNOM should be explicit about this to avoid confusion/disputes. —sroc 💬 13:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to put a comma at the end of the postnoms? Consensus is clearly with the examples in the MOS, which do not do this. My position is therefore already supported by the "house". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, explain why a comma would be appropriate after the name but not after the post-nominals? As I see it, the post-nominals are parenthetical to the name, as I showed in the examples above, and would therefore require paired commas after the name and after the post-nominals (Jane Smith, AO, was named…; not Jane Smith, AO was named…) — like why commas are required after the year in MDY dates and after the state in "city, state" forms (On July 4, 1997, in Wilmington, Ohio, he gave…; not On July 4, 1997 in Wilmington, Ohio he gave…). The examples in WP:POSTNOM are wrong. (I don't have any issue with the commas between post-nominals.) —sroc 💬 05:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have also never seen small capitals used for post-nominals outside Wikipedia. As I've said on the discussion page for the template, "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". My preference would be for all-commas over no-commas, purely because I think it breaks the sets of letters up and so looks better, but I agree with Necrothesp that both are correct. I also agree that having a comma after the name but not between the invididual sets of letters is wrong - the string of post-nominals is not a fixed item separated as a whole from the name. I think the format currently given (and accepted by the community for a considerable time) for Stephen Hawking is therefore the right option, and any templates should reflect that. Proteus (Talk) 14:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I happened to see a sign today that listed people and organisations, including one with post-nominal initials, formatted in small caps, as follows:

Dr Kenroku Fujii AO

I believe this is a common, if not predominant, format. —sroc 💬 06:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the most common usage, but I've seen it done elsewhere too, and I think it's a practical solution; we need to show the postnominals (at least once), but we don't want them to overwhelm parts of an article - such as the first sentence - where editors are already trying to cram in lots of other details. bobrayner (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what they do in Australia (which is where AO originates), but in the UK it is certainly not common. They are not overwhelming. May I ask if any of you actually work on British biographical articles or have any knowledge of this subject? -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the usage, but put simply, I think the use of small caps simply looks better. Reso lute 01:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That's purely an opinion. I don't. I think it looks awful. And it certainly doesn't match normal usage, which is our usual guide. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox use of "Honorable" in honorific-prefix for U.S. Judges?

Our article on honorifics specifically calls out U.S. judges for the honorific. The infobox is a logical place to put it as it doesn't clutter up the article biography. Example is here [1]. While a number of offices can claim the "Honorable" title it seems peculiar to judges to address them with it in the U.S. Thoughts? --DHeyward (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This honorific is from the British system and is used in many current and former colonies. See Judiciary of England and Wales, for example. Pburka (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-Western academic titles

Should we say something about this in the guideline? I see thag [{Gheshe]] is used extensively at New Kadampa Tradition. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of Jr, Sr etc

The topic seems rather quiet on the recommended use of suffix honorifics such as Jr, Sr (if they are regarded as honorifics). These are common in the United States (and Canada?) but are not commonly used in other parts of the English speaking world as part of a person's name, although they may be used in full in text or speach to distinguish (but "the father" or "the son" etc might be used instead).

Now, in citations, authorlinks etc. this is awkward and I should prefer to omit them - there is no need as far as I can see to disambiguate in the text here, that's overkill (if there is an authorlink that should of course be to the right person). For prefixes such as "Sir", which are almost always used in the United Kingdom, the guidance is that they are optional after first use; but for "Jr" and so on, which are commonly used in the US but much less so on the UK, there is no guidance at all – I think the rule should be explicitly stated to be the same.

What do other authors think? What is the normal form when citing someone with last name first (e.g "Jones Jr, Fred" or "Jones, Fred Jr")? And should "Jr" and "Sr" have stops after them (I would say not, since the "r" in both is the last letter of the full form)? MOS is strangely quiet – or at least enigmatic – on the matter. Si Trew (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Are "Jr" and "Sr" restricted to men? I can't think of an example where women have used them – I guess because women have traditionally changed their names on marriage so there is less likelihood of confusion – but I suppose it could be considered sexist to use the suffixes for men and not women. I suppose the general rule is call people what they call themselves, but this is not what we do with other honorifics that are in daily use in the UK ("Sir Mick Jagger", or "Sir Mick", would not seem overly deferential but just a courtesy). Personally I would recommend omitting them unless there is genuine ambiguity (and at first use in a bio). Si Trew (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

For a lot of American men, this is used as part of their name. They sign it that way, it's on their letterheads, cheques, etc. The same for numerals. My birth certificate has III at the end of my name, although I don't use it, but again for many men that is part of their name. They always have a full stop, see for instance [2] - Garner's Modern American Usage, Oxford University Press, and [3] as well as our article [[Suffix {name}]]. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nicknames vs stage names/pen names, etc

Is it possible to get some clarity on nicknames in opening paragraphs/sentences of biographies? My opinion is that, unless a nickname is actually used as a stage name, (i.e. Bono) or so commonly used that it can be used in place of the legal name (i.e. Shaq), we should avoid mentioning nicknames in opening paragraphs. I noticed the trend in basketball player article and brought up the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 24#Nicknames in player article leads, but I'm noticing it outside basketball as well.

Is this something that can be clarified here, one way or another? Or does it need to be a case-by-case thing? Mosmof (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletions of citizenship from lede

This guidelines states: "The opening paragraph should have: ... In most modern-day cases ... the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident..." (emphasis added).

Editors keep on deleting the citizenship of a person from a blp lede here. Also here and here.

The deleters claim that this guideline -- which calls for reflecting citizenship -- is trumped by the soccer wikiproject (the subject plays soccer), which they say calls for not reflecting citizenship here. (The deleters also have some other claims, such as that reflecting that he is a dual German citizen in the lede is anti-Iranian).

Another editor supported inclusion of citizenship in the lede, but he was also deleted.

I understand guidelines to control such matters, not individual wikiprojects. And, citizenship is especially notable for a lede of an athlete -- as it drives what countries the person can play for. And other sports include citizenship in ledes (as does the rest of the Project, following the guideline here). Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Global guidelines should override individual wikiprojects. I'm no fan of some of the clumsy phrasing used to cram citizenship into the very first text of some articles where it's not particularly relevant, but we ought to mention nationality somewhere in an article. bobrayner (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that it says in the lead that he has played for German and Iranian national teams, isn't that enough? Not every fact can be crammed into the lead, particularly a short lead like that one. W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede is actually too short for that size article. Not too long. If it were more than 4 paragraphs, we would look to trim it. It's all of 2 sentences. And we are of course talking about -- at most -- 6 words; 4 if you limit it to the key "Iranian-German dual citizen". And the fact that he is a dual citizen means that he can play for both; you can't otherwise determine whether he gave up one citizenship for the other, and can only play for that one. Furthermore, readers can probably figure out that Hitler was German, but we reflect it in his much longer lede. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Or two words: "Iranian-German". —sroc 💬 00:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume the argument is based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players, which is not a guideline and indeed is described as "a proposal for the general style and contents of an article on a football player" and states "This page provides a suggested layout for footballer biographies. While nothing is set in stone, this layout is used in most of the best biographies as judged by the community, and following it is a good idea." It does not explicitly state that nationality should not be stated in the lede; it is simply not mentioned in the opening paragraph of the example layout. However, it does seem to be pertinent information for inclusion in any case as this may indicate their eligibility for playing in national squads, quite apart from the overarching guideline at WP:OPENPARA.

Notwithstanding the above, I see that Epeefleche has already started a discussion at Talk:Ashkan Dejagah#Deletions of citizenship from lede, contra our guideline. It is unhelpful to have multiple discussions on the same topic at once. This should be centralised by having the discussion in one location and linking to it from the other. —sroc 💬 00:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed -- as to the last point, the other discussion is now pointed here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players did include nationality until this edit in 2010 with no explanation for the change. The only discussion on the corresponding talk page is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players/Archive 1#Rewriting the sample first sentence about how to express dual nationality in the opening line, from 2009, before the above edit. There is discussion recorded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Nationality, however, this is mainly concerning the use of flags, not about mentioning nationality in the lede. It is unclear what is the basis from claiming that a "footy guide" says that nationality should not be stated in the lede, nor why this should trump the actual guideline at WP:OPENPARA. —sroc 💬 01:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I still think that, in a lead of this shortness, repeating nationality information that is effectively already there is overkill. If the lead were to be expanded into a fuller summary of his life and career, then explicitly stating his dual nationality (assuming we have a reliable source for it) would be more appropriate, as it would not then appear to be overemphasizing the point. It really doesn't depend on what may be written on this page or on some football project page (neither of which contains set-in-stone rules), but what makes the most easily digested article for a reader. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll happily collaborate with others to expand the lede appropriately. It should follow wp:lede, and stand alone as a concise overview and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. I think it's a separate issue. But I'll take an initial stab at that. As to us having a source, we have Spiegel saying it here, which is referenced above (check the above deletions).--Epeefleche (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@W. P. Uzer: Why do you think that a mention of a footballer's nationality (e.g., "…is a German–Iranian footballer who plays for…") is "overkill", compared with other biographies that routinely include such information in the opening line (e.g., "…was a German-born theoretical physicist"; "…is a retired American swimmer…"; "…is a former World No. 1 tennis player from Sweden")? —sroc 💬 13:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Only because (last time I checked) this particular lead is very short and already mentions his having represented both countries at football, which tells us that he has dual nationality. But like I say, if the lead is expanded a bit, I wouldn't have any objection to stating his nationality explicitly as part of that. I don't have any strong objection anyway, it just wouldn't be my preference (in the short lead case). Anyway, I see the lead has now been expanded, which is a definite improvement. I would certainly now like to see a mention of his being Iranian (and logically, German as well) in the first sentence or paragraph. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Per User's suggestion, and per wp:lede, I expanded the lede. The same two editors who tag-teamed to delete the information that is the subject of this string, have just now tag-teamed the deletion of information from the expanded lede. Without any explanation at all, let alone any credible explanation. See here. How best can this be addressed?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Forget it, they seem uninterested in discussion, only edit warring, and have a friendly administrator. Wikipedia rules say they win. Go and find something else more profitable to work on. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Post-nominals#RfC: Size of post-nominals in this template

Input requested. Should the default size of post-nominal letters set by this template remain at 85% or be increased to 100%? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Country of birth in Infoboxes

There is a discussion at Talk:Ted_Cruz#Canada_in_Infobox in which we are discussing if it is customary to add the country of birth to the infobox, or if it unnecessary. The case in point is that currently, the infobox reads "Calgary, Alberta", omitting Canada. Some editors are objecting to adding the country, and another editor is questioning the need for place of birth in the infobox and asserting that needs to be omitted altogether.

I checked List of foreign-born United States politicians and could not find one biography without their country of birth listed in their infobox.

Are there any specific guidelines in the MOS in this regard? Cwobeel (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Place of birth is fairly basic biographical information, surely, and the country is needed as part of that in a global encyclopedia. Every BLP I can recall seeing has it in the infobox. There's a space/parameter in most infobox templates for it and there would have to presumably be good reason to exclude it. WP:MOSBIO does suggest it should not appear in the lead – I agree as it would clutter it up – but that's not the issue here. I can't believe that there appears to have been quite such a long debate about this on the page in question, even if there are concerns about the supposed politics involved in documenting that this person was not born in the US. N-HH talk/edits 15:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

::I accept N-HH's word on inclusion of the country in the infoboxes for the list of foreign-born US politicians. However there are many WP bios whose infoboxes specify city and state but not country. And many that include it. One can cherry-pick either way. E.g. all the following infoboxes include Canada:

~~Stephen Harper, Canadian Prime Minister, born Toronto, Ontario, Canada [4]~~
~~Norman Kim Kwong, 16th Lieutenant Governor of Alberta, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [5]~~
~~Stan Stephens, 20th Governor of Montana, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [6]~~
~~James Gosling, computer scientist, inventor of Java programming language, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [7]~~
~~Theo de Raadt, software engineer who founded OpenBSD and OpenSSH projects, residence Calgary, Alberta, Canada [8]~~
~~Delighfully named war hero Ian Willoughby Bazalgette, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [9]~~
~~Tibetan lama Lobsang Rampa, died Calgary, Alberta, Canada [10]~~
~~George Stanley, designer of the Canadian flag, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [11]~~
~~Film director David Winnng, born Calgary, Canada [12]~~
~~Cheech and Chong's Tommy Chong, born Edmonton, Alberta, Canada [13]~~
~~NFL player Nate Burleson, Cleveland Browns wider receiver, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [14]~~
~~Novelist Nancy Huston, born Calgary, Canada [15]~~
~~Actor/singer Cory Monteith, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [16]~~
~~Heather Marks, supermodel, born Calgary, Alberta, Canada [17]~~

Is there any sound reason in policy to exclude Canada from Cruz's infobox? As N-HH says, this is a global encyclopedia. Assumptions that all readers would already know Calgary is in Canada are, well, just assumptions. And rather imperious, First-Worldy ones at that. Writegeist (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC) On reflection, there don't seem to be specific MOS guidelines re. adding countries to infoboxes, let alone removing them; so discussion here (which anyway doesn't attract much attention) will be fruitless. Therefore striking my comments with a view to maybe reposting them at the Cruz TP. Writegeist (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Linking name with honorific

When linking to a person who is referred to with their honorific prefix, should the full name including honorific be linked (e.g. Sir John Soane or just the name as it is in their article title (sans honorific), with the honorific present but unlinked (e.g. Sir John Soane)? Colonies Chris (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If it makes any difference – I think it doesn't – I'd prefer the more direct link: Sir John Soane. That's personal preference, and I would never change it if I encounter a different form. I don't think we need instructions on this. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I pipe, as in [[John Soane|Sir John Soane]], as I think the title looks better as part of the link. But it's personal preference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Nicknames in OPENPARA

Could we make add an edit to Wikipedia:OPENPARA#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names discouraging users from adding nicknames that are not used as substitutes of legal names in professional/public settings? Something like:

Do not include nicknames that are not used as stage names or otherwise in place of the legal name. For example, do not write, Zachary Randolph (born July 16, 1981) nickname "Z-Bo", is an American professional basketball player... because he is not known professionally by the nickname. Exceptions include cases like Shaquille O'Neal, who commonly goes by simply "Shaq".

Please feel free to tweak or otherwise offer suggestions. --Mosmof (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your example. Where is Randolph known as "Z-Bo?" Holdek (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, the "Z-Bo" example is in an earlier edit. It's one of those things NBA fans care about, but it's not something that's used professionally, so yes, exactly my point. Mosmof (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't think it's necessary. Uncommonly-used nicknames would already be precluded by Wikipedia: LEDE. Holdek (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- But based on basketball and American football articles I've edited, that WP:LEDE is often ignored or misunderstood, and there's a demonstrated need for clarification between nicknames used professionally and casually, however commonly. Mosmof (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Nicknames used professionally go before the legal name, like "Mr. T[1] (born Laurence Tureaud; May 21, 1952) is an American actor...." (Mr. T.)--Holdek (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

OPENPARA

GiantSnowman recently reverted a change to OPENPARA, claiming that not mentioning a person's place of birth and death in either the lead generally or the opening brackets specifically is consistent with general encyclopedic practice. This is untrue: many encyclopedias include places within the opening brackets (eg Britannica, Canadian), as do several non-English Wikipedias (eg German). Looking at previous discussions, it appears that the enjoinder not to include POB/POD in the opening brackets was added without discussion and that consensus favoured its removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Stating the place of birth in the lede is fine and I have no opposition to that; my only concern with OPENPARA is that we should not state the place(s) of birth/death in the opening brackets, because is a) messy and b) not good practice. Not a single FA/GA I have encountered has it, which says it all really. Giant Snowman 12:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really - since FAs are required to follow MOS, the fact that they do does not demonstrate that MOS is correct. As already shown, including places in the brackets is "good practice" for several other encyclopedias; what evidence do you have that it is not? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Your examples of the Britannica and Canadian encyclopedias are misleading, seeing as they have a completely different overall MOS to us regarding this and much more. And, of course, what other language Wikipedias do is wholly irrelevant. Giant Snowman 12:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

As you need a log in (which I no longer have) I can't link to it but the BND uses the format of:

SMITH, JOHN (1899 – 1994), journalist and author, born on 21 July 1899 in New York City

which has the POB in the lede but not the brackets. Giant Snowman 12:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

So why are my examples "misleading" and "irrelevant" but yours not? Some encyclopedias include places in the brackets, others don't; this seems a good enough reason to not prohibit it, as it's clearly an acceptable practice and one that already has support from editors here. It's not like we're suggesting mandating it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well of course that's not to say mine also isn't "misleading" and "irrelevant" - we are a unique encyclopedia which uses some, but not all, of the formats of other, more 'traditional' encyclopedias. To try and base our MOS on theirs is a folly. If you believe that POB should be in the opening brackets then make a case for it, but my edit (to restore the small sentence you removed (twice!) stating that "[POB] should not be mentioned within the opening brackets") merely reflects and clarifies both current MOS and current practice. A few editors who prefer to add the POB in the opening brackets, or do so through innocent ignorance, does not mean we should change current MOS and current practice.Giant Snowman 12:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

GiantSnowman should not have made this change without continuing from existing discussion. Further, re "we are a unique encyclopedia which uses some, but not all, of the formats of other, more 'traditional' encyclopedias.", that largely isn't true beyond the restrictions of html format. We do aim to look like an encyclopedia, and what other encyclopedias do is a common reference point in both MOS and content discussions. Biographical dictionaries frequently do give exactly the POB POD format for scientists, artists, historical figures - while sports html for example does not. As Nikkimaria says it's clearly an acceptable practice and one that already has support from editors here. Not least from any editors coming over from de.wp fr.wp pl.wp and so on and editing in a global wp style - which we need to continue to welcome. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

One I was merely restoring the current status quo, two forgive me but I had completely forgotten about the discussion over 12 months ago. Anyway, please explain why this is "clearly an acceptable practice" when it's against long-standing MOS and actual common practice (as seen in FA/GAs)? Giant Snowman 13:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that a change that affects this many articles have input from the wider community via an RfC. An edit war is not the way to deal with this change one way or the other(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC))

The change (which should not be made) being, of course, to include place(s) of birth/death in the opening brackets, seeing as both the MOS and current, wide useage prohibits that. Giant Snowman 13:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the previous discussion reached consensus that such prohibition was unwarranted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case then why was such consensus never actually implemented, and why has the MOS remained the same for the last 12+ months? The answer, of course, is that there was no such consensus. Giant Snowman 13:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking around in other-language Wikipedia: German has the places within the brackets (de:Henry Purcell), French has them after the brackets (fr:Henry Purcell). It would be nice to be able to do the same in English, as valid options. What we have now is MoS police, sometimes removing a location from the lead without placing it at least in the body. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, the place of birth/death should definitely be in the lede, just not in the opening brackets; it certainly should not be removed entirely (unless it is unreferenced!). Giant Snowman 14:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not really that unusual to see "John Smith (April 1, 1883, Birmingham, England – June 3, 1929, Paris, France ) was..." at the start of an article. I don't normally do that myself. If it's a long article, and there's no infobox, and the death location is near the end, and one feels that quick access to complete vital information is a virtue, I can see doing it. I wouldn't proscribe another editor from doing it or change it if she had.

From an organizational development standpoint, people do not like to be told "You can't do it the way you like, you must do it this way" and we should avoid doing that absent a compelling reason. I don't see a compelling reason to say "no, you can't do that" in this situation.

IMO there's no gain in trying to be as rigidly formatted as other publications, since we're not like other publications in having a chief editor and employees whom we are paying. We "pay" our "employees" by trying to ensure that they have as enjoyable an experience as possible commensurate with publishing a reasonably standardized work. Every time we constrain an editor's freedom by prescribing a particular format for something, we gain something in standardization and lose something in editor retention. (Others may disagree. The point that "if we look sloppy or are too loosey-goosey that alienates people too" is also reasonable.)

Possibly there should be a proper RfC on the question. However, the proscription against giving vital locations in the opening parens, however it came to be there, is the status quo now I guess, and an RfC would probably circle around and 50-50 or 60-40 and so end in no consensus and thus no change. So maybe best to let it lie. I could be wrong about that though. Herostratus (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That's kind of my point as well - surely if there was as big a support for this change as some are claiming then it would already have been suggested/made? This MOS (of having no places in the brackets) has been around for as long as I can remember, and I've been here over 8 years. Giant Snowman 16:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This MOS was added, by you, in December 2012, and removing it was suggested in early 2013. Given the support for its removal then, I don't know why it wasn't removed, but now seems a good time to rectify that. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, that's exactly the point isn't it, this isn't "a change" because there has never been a RfC to ban POB and POD from brackets, which is why 10,000s of scientist, painter, composer, etc articles on en.wp follow standard "European" bio entry format. We had this discussion before a year ago and no evidence was provided of any such consensus having been sought or agreed. There is no intention to get sports bios to include data which is not as relevant for sportsmen as it is for mobile Renaissance painters. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact looking back through discussion on this page I only see 1 editor committed to not allowing the European lead style in any en.wp articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

My addition of 9 words 18 months ago did not change the MOS, it merely clarified the existing MOS. Take a look at the examples at OPENPARA, how many of them have POB in the opening brackets? None. Take a look at every single bio FA over the past God-knows-how long, how many of them have POB in the opening brackets? None. That is the status quo - you need to start a RFC if you want to change that and introduce POB into the opening brackets, I don't know how much clearer than that. You are the one wanting to make a change, not me. And no, there was no consensus 12 months ago, hence why the discussion fizzled out with no change being made. Giant Snowman 18:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Just look at the wording before my change - "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability" - where is the mention of including birth and death places in the opening brackets? Giant Snowman 18:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I mean if including birth and death places in the opening brackets was allowed - which it isn't - it would be detailed at the MOS. Does the place become before or after the date? Is there a comma or not? etc. etc. Giant Snowman 18:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

We had this discussion before, as before there is no evidence of any community consensus for a ban on the format found in so many articles. This happens occasionally a small local consensus, or lack of discussion, at a MOS pages sets up some guideline at odds with widespread editing practice, and gets left in the MOS because editors get on with editing. In this case it has been called. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No, no, no, no no - you've got it the wring way around, what you actually mean is there is no community consensus to include the format. The current MOS does not allow it, why can't you understand that, other than the fact that you don't agree with it? Giant Snowman 18:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, again that is your interpretation of the MOS as edited by yourself and others.

However, out in the article corpus, I just randomly put in "French architect Paris" and got plenty of articles like Libéral Bruant by User:Wetman, Jean-Michel Chevotet, Mathurin Cherpitel created by User:Neddyseagoon. Incidentally editor names I recognize as productive Bio editors, coming across their work frequently, but these aren't footballer stubs (who shouldn't even be in a real encyclopedia imho) these are real encyclopedic content - following one encyclopedic bio format. These predate your opposition to this format. If there has been broad community consensus banning "Paris" next to date of birth why do so many articles from 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 do so? In the previous discussion, last year, following lack of evidence, I concluded that it is because there has never been a properly advertised and agreed decision to ban the mention of "Paris" "Berlin" etc. in historical bio stub birth death brackets. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, kudos on being a snob, exactly the kind of attitude we need here at Wikipedia. Secondly, you're completely correct when you say the MOS has not been "properly advertised" - but ignorance of the law does not excuse the crime, does it? Perhaps if you spent more time trying to educate these "productive bio editors" about the MOS to prevent future indiscretions we'd have less of a problem? I know plenty of editors for whom this is not a problem. Giant Snowman 18:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Arguing about whether a local MOS-consensus existed or not is unproductive. In the absence of a diff showing an RfC discussion agreeing to ban "Paris" etc. from historical bio stub birth date brackets, the alternative is an argued logical proposal as to the benefits of banning fr.wp de.wp pl.wp (and much of en.wp) style from en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Um I'd hardly call MOS:BIO "a local MOS-consensus" - I don't know when the consensus was formed, I don't know who took part in the discussion (I certainly didn't), all I know is that the current MOS - and it has been the MOS for as long as I can remember! - does not allow places of birth and death in the opening brackets. If you want to change that now, start a RFC, but you will seriously need to have better arguments that "they do it in Germany!" and "me and my mates don't like it" if you want to get anywhere. Giant Snowman 18:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well that's what I'm calling it based on (a) discussion last year, (b) evidence of article practice. And please stop with the "I don't like it"-calling, it's annoying and cuts both ways. When I see a properly supported advertised and practiced community consensus I support it, and you have absolutely no right to imply otherwise of any editor. That for now is enough, I will pop back in in a few days. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

So because of a minor discussion you and your mates had (which didn't actually result in any consensus), and because some few articles violate the MOS, you are going to ignore it? Go ahead, be disruptive; I will continue to adhere to the MOS and continue to remove places of birth and death from the opening brackets. If you want to change it, the start a RFC, as I have said far too many bloody times already. Giant Snowman 18:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

An RfC does not appear to be necessary for this point: you did not have one to make the change (which was indeed a significant change - you can't expect a few examples to cover every possible formatting, and what was previously there did not mandate exclusion of places from the brackets), and there seems to be a fairly clear consensus of those commenting on the matter so far that your change should be excluded. It might be worthwhile to have an RfC discussing whether the entire sentence about places should be removed from OPENPARA, as you suggested with "place of birth/death should definitely be in the lede". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think the crux of the matter is "This MOS was added, by you, in December 2012, and removing it was suggested in early 2013. Given the support for its removal then, I don't know why it wasn't removed..." I don't know either, but it wasn't. That makes it current stable version. Any attempt to remove it now must achieve one of these two things: 1) clear preponderance in strength of argument, which is impossible because there is no clear Wikipedia rule that prohibits the passage, and on the merits its just a matter of opinion, or 2) a supermajority -- at the very least in the area of 63-65% or so -- which is very difficult to achieve. Failure to achieve either devolves to no change, keep the current stable version.

People who don't like the passage should have been more alert and more vigorous in asserting their WP:BRD rights in early 2013. But they weren't, and so it looks from here that they're SOL. They can try for for a supermajority if they like and good luck with that. You never know until you try, though.

Sometimes the Wikipedia works like that. Somebody slips something in, or wrote something in 2002, and that becomes the rule and remains the rule forever. WP:NOTCENSORED is like that. There's a rule that you can't write "In January of 1920..." but must write "In January 1920..." that I find annoying. There's a rule that you can't use piped links in disambig pages, which working around that is tedious and pointless. And so on. It is what it is. I wouldn't worry about it too much. It's just a minor detail.

FWIW one of the interesting problems with the entire section is that the habit if adding parenthesized vital information is never described let alone prescribed, and AFAIK also not at WP:DATE or anywhere else. Examples are given showing parenthesized vital information, but those are just examples. Adding the dates in parenthesis is just something that people do out of habit, the MOS doesn't require or even suggest it (unless you consider examples to be suggestions, which is reasonable but not inarguable). The one passage we're talking about says "within the opening brackets" as if a person is supposed to know what those are, but they're never described. (They're not brackets BTW they're parentheses, brackets are these: []).

It's possible that clever person could leverage this into a more overarching RfC which address the entirety of what-goes-in-the-parentheses on a clean-slate basis. Doubt it though. Or an alternative strategy is for editors to just ignore the passage and keep putting in the parenthesis what they think best. I certainly ignore some rules that I consider to be over-controlling pettifoggery. Eventually someone will go on a refactoring spree, citing the passage, and this will piss off enough people all at once that the passage might then be removed. Dunno what to advise. Herostratus (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Herostratus, I don't think that 1 editor (do you mean Giantsnowman or someone else?) adding something which was objected to and then putting it back constitutes the way MOS consensus works.

Taking consensus back a notch further, to the state I thought MOS was in since I don't sit on it watching for changes, W Nowicki added this on 16 June 2010

Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability.

This of course is a quite reasonable and non-confrontational addition, since it doesn't say "a large number of historical bios are henceforth banned" it recognises something simple, flexible and including various formats. In the absence of discussion, that is what I regard as the last consensus-supported version of the MOS. Up to GiantSnowman adding the bit it seems nobody supports 7 Dec 2010 being BOLD and clarifying - any issues please let me know on my talk page). It was objected to almost as soon as it was put in and there has been no support for reintroducing it. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The passage is there and has been there since 2012 (I've been told; didn't check). It's the current stable version. It's entirely possible that someone could have or should have reverted per WP:BRD and insisted that the person (GiantSnowman I guess) discussed the matter and, if necessary, show a consensus for the change. Coulda woulda shoulda. No one did. What do you suggest -- just edit warring over it? What if you run an RfC and you get 11 people (57%) against the passage and 8 people (43%) in favor -- a statistical tie? What version would then prevail? The current stable version.

OK, drilling down. Looking over the current discussion, I get:

User:GiantSnowman is in favor of the passage proscribing birth/death location in the parens.
User:Nikkimaria, User:In ictu oculi, and User:Herostratus against the passage. The totality of User:Michael Bednarek's comments here and elsewhere clearly puts her in the opposition camp too IMO.
User:Littleolive oil said "I suggest that a change that affects this many articles have input from the wider community via an RfC". It's not clear what she means by "a change" -- GiantSnowman's 2012 edit inserting the passage, or Nikkimaria's recent edit removing what had become by default the stable version. If it's the 2012 edit she's a little late. I won't count her either way without knowing more.

Looking at the earlier (spring 2013) discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2013 archive#POB in WP:OPENPARA, and not counting people already counted above, I get these people opposed to including the passage:

User:Kleinzach says "I'd agree that MOS:BIO is being overly prescriptive... The important thing is the quality of the information, not following little rules".
User:Apteva, ditto: "overly proscriptive". However, Apteva is is now indef blocked, probably forever, so IMO he doesn't have standing and I'm not counting him.

A number of people didn't flat out say that including the natal/death locations should be prohibited, but they don't like it. I get:

User:Yworo said "The municipality of birth... should preferably not be in the lead at all, neither in nor outside of the parens" except for stub-type situations with "no sections".
User:Necrothesp "No it isn't [common practice], and many of us hate that style [of including natal/death location in the parens]".
User:GeorgeLouis said "I really prefer to keep things simple, viz.: "Joe Blow (1932-1955) was a . . . "".
User:Dirtlawyer1 said "the proper place for stating a biographical subject's place of birth and place of death is in the article's infobox and in the main body text of the article... this is the majority practice in the overwhelming majority of American biographies... and this standard formatting has been widely enforced by various WikiProjects... [it is] awkward and confusing when both POB and POD are included..."
User:GoodDay includes the natal/death location in the parens when he writes. You'd think that obviously he would thus be opposed to prohibiting it, but then later he clearly says "Oppose reverting GiantSnowman's addition", further confusing me by saying "Furthermore, (DoB PoB - DoD PoD) is more common..." Odd, but "Oppose reverting GiantSnowman's addition" is what it is. Have to count him as endorsing the passage proscribing birth/death locations in the parens.

Taking both discussions together, and not counting

User:Apteva who is blocked, or
User:Yworo who advocates one style for stubs and another for non-stubs, so I don't know exactly what he thinks we should say, or
User:Littleolive oil who I'm not clear on what she's objecting to

I get five people who don't agree with the statement "they [birth and death place] should not be mentioned within the opening brackets", and five who do agree. Of the five who do agree (for all cases), it's not clear that all of them support actively saying so in the MOS, but since the discussion is about that you have to assume that they do.

So 5-5, no consensus, no agreement. Stable version holds absent further discussion, presumably a proper RfC. As I said, such an RfC will expand the discussion but in my guess change 5-5 to 18-18 (or 19-16 or whatever) leaving: no consensus, no agreement. Stable version holds. Again, the time to deal with this was immediately after User:GiantSnowman added the material or very soon after, by reverting per WP:BRD. Way too late now. You cannot go back to 2012 and say "Oh, reverting this 1.5-year-old edit per BRD". If we tried to stretch BRD to work like that it would bring chaos. Let this be a lesson. But run an RfC if you want to.

I would admonish User:GiantSnowman though. You "win", but only by exploiting a flaw in the Wikipedia, although I know it wasn't done with malice. Changes to actual rules should not be boldly made but discussed first and please do this in future. I commonly revert undiscussed changes to the rules pages I watch automatically regardless of the merits. Even if I agree with the change I'll often revert it unless it's clearly uncontentious, and I recommend that other editors also do this for rules pages. Herostratus (talk)

As I've already stated, my minor addition did not actually change the MOS, it merely clarified it. Hence no RFC was required, hence no consensus was required - the consensus was already there! It was merely tightening-up what was already MOS. If that is not the case, please can somebody show me where it says "places of birth and death should be included in the opening brackets" in the MOS? Please can somebody show me where is says how we should display the location - before the date, after the date, with or without commas? Please can somebody point me to one of the listed examples where places of birth and death are included in the opening brackets? Oh, you can't. Putting in into practical effect - please can somebody show me a bio FA where places of birth and death are included in the opening brackets? Oh, you can't. Giant Snowman 09:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Not explicitly saying something is allowed is not the same as saying it is disallowed. As already pointed out, you should not expect a few examples to cover all possible situations - none of the examples cover pronunciations, for example, yet those are allowed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You have not answered any of my questions. Giant Snowman 12:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I've explained that your questions are irrelevant, and that your addition (which, again, did change the MOS) should be removed. Since you are the only person here explicitly disagreeing with that, consensus seems to be against you. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree; and you'll have to get a RFC to change the MOS. Giant Snowman 17:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, no one is saying change the MOS. The issue is about 1 editor who has made a diff reverted by 2 editors, who has put it back a third time. In such a case do editors need an RfC to remove that diff? Please address the actual disputed diff. If an RfC required to undo your diff? Yes or no please. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Herostratus you write "I would admonish User:GiantSnowman though. You "win", but only by exploiting a flaw in the Wikipedia, although I know it wasn't done with malice." - Giant Snowman hasn't yet said "I win", he could accept that his addition without discussion having been quickly reverted the first time, and not supported in following discussion, and then reverted a second time when again added without discussion, and again not supported a second time in following discussion can be reverted by a third editor. There are obviously enough editors here who consider pushing through the pushing through addition a third time to be not the way to make a consensus based edition, it only needs a 3rd different editor to remove the 3rd time 1 editor has made the same addition and the problem is solved. It is not edit warring when 3 different editors revert 1 editor's addition to a MOS page. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that attitude's any better though; what you describe can as easily be a WP:TAGTEAM of three people coordinating to thwart an actual consensus position as misc. editors representing consensus happening to all independently revert a non-consensual change. It's not about who is reverting how, it's about how good the rationales are on either side. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well no IIO, actually you are wanting to change the MOS. Even without my minor clarification, the MOS still states that "birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability" - it makes no mention that they should be included in the opening brackets at all and that is because the current MOS does not allow for that. My 9-word clarification was simply that, a clarification intended to avoid any confusion for those who say "well, it doesn't explicitly state you can't do it" - by that crappy logic I can go around calling everyone "cunts" because it is not explicitly forbidden by WP:NPA. Giant Snowman 08:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmph. I'm not following you. We all know quite well that you can't go around calling people names like that on the bogus basis that NPA doesn't specifically forbid that exact attack. So why would we presume that editors in general would make the same kind of bogus argument about the open parentheticals in the lead? I.e., the slippery slope argument you raise actually militates against the change you propose here. For myself, I don't terribly mind when guidelines reinforce each other, so the addition doesn't seem "bad" to me; I just don't really buy that particular rationale for it. That said, I'm not convinced that MOS "forbids" including birth/death places in those parentheticals, even if we are moving away from them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not at all; NPA doesn't explicitly say that calling someone a "cunt" is forbidden, even though it clearly is given the context of the rest of the page. Likewaise, OPENPARA may not have explicitly said that places are not allowed in the opening brackets, but given the wording of the rest of the MOS that is clearly the case, hence why I introduces 9 words to try and make it clearer. Giant Snowman 10:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:SMcCandlish that is one way of looking at it, however on a MOS page 2 editors reverting an addition and 1 editor putting it in/back 3 times is not the usual way consensus is built. I'm not sure I share your observation that we are moving away from placing "(Paris, 1685 - Lyon 1721)" stubs - if anything I've been seeing more of them, but maybe it's the area I edit. Or it maybe that Maksymilian Gierymski (Warsaw 1846 - Reichenhall, Bavaria 1874) was a Polish painter, Kazimierz Alchimowicz (born December 20, 1840 in Dziembrów, Vilnius Region – December 31, 1916 in Warsaw) was a Lithuanian-born Polish romantic painter. ...etc... were made mainly 2003-2010, when we were building up a stock of notable bios, wheras disproportionately new bios in 2014 tend to be WP:BLPs (and often trivial). Of course we don't see the European bio header format in football stubs, but then it isn't sports style - it's more appropriate to historical figures for whom place of birth and death are almost automatically notable and significant - as the stable version of the MOS indicates. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In WP:STUBs, sure; the usage actually makes sense there. Who cares? Stubs are stubs - they're just fragments of what article should actually develop there. I can't really get worked about who where a birtplace is put in their formatting. Seems kind of like worry about the exact placement of cheese slice on a cracker right before you eat it. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Plus the "stable version" you mention clearly says that "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability" - no mention of opening brackets. Why not have John Smith (1 January 1800 – 1 January 1850) was a British painter. Born in London, he..."? Giant Snowman 11:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Because imposing this obligation on the editing community effectively demands adding copy text to the first line of 100,000s of bios to stretch out the lead sentence, thereby putting excess weight on geo-bio-data which can be conveniently and simply contained in POB/POD brackets. From:

John Smith (London, 1 January 1800 – New York, 1 January 1850) was a British painter.

To:

John Smith (1 January 1800 – 1 January 1850) was a British painter. Born in London, he died in New York.

If there's something else specific to add such as "he died of the plague [in 1630] while on a diplomatic mission to Venice" then there's a reason for spelling it out, but even then it creates the inconvenience of having to split/dislocate D.O.D. and P.O.D. information, and probably the additional inconvenience of having to repeat the birth and death year twice, like this:

John Smith (1 January 1800 – 1 January 1850) was a British painter. Born in London in 1800, he died in New York in 1850.

This is why bio-dictionaries for highly mobile historical figures such as painters, soldiers, composers invariably use a compact (Paris, 1731 - Berlin 1787) format. The new "not in brackets" rule, if adopted, would just serve to bloat leads with repeated information. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

OPENPARA RfC

See comments in white box. Formerip (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

Result is no consensus. Clearly views are split on this and there are fair arguments on both sides. The oppose arguments are stronger. You don't necessarily need to agree with the sentiment to agree that "don't clutter the lead" is at the very least a valid aspiration, and it seems generally in line with WP:MOSINTRO ("emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject") to see birth and death places as "clutter". I think the support argument that other encyclopaedias do things differently to us should be given little weight. We're free to differ from other encylopaedias if we choose, and we have the convention of infoboxes as a place to put biographical data for easy reference. The argument that a prohibition is unnecessary instruction creep is one to take seriously, but at the same time the very existence of OPENPARA and WP:LEAD suggests that there is community consensus that tight guidelines for the very beginning of an article can be necessary (not that this cancels out the argument, which is valid). The difference between the two sides in terms of strength of argument is such, IMO, that I toyed with closing this by declaring a winner.
It has been suggested that a "no consensus" result should, as an exception to normal practice, result in the wording in question being removed rather than retained, because it should never have been inserted without an RfC in the first place. That there should have been an RfC may be fair comment, but it's too late and too bad given that there is no doubt that the version with the wording inserted became stable. It has also been claimed that there is a pre-existing consensus, which should apply in any event, to remove the words "they should not be mentioned within the opening brackets". I don't agree. There's some discussion about that in the section immediately above this one, but I am not able to read a consensus into it and, in any event, a supposed consensus in a discussion leading to an RfC can't be used to overturn the result of the RfC. There was also a relevant discussion in March 2013, but I am also not able to read a consensus into that and, even if there was one, it is too late to implement it once discussion has been restarted all these months later.
So, the wording should be retained. Formerip (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Should the sentence "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability; they should not be mentioned within the opening brackets" be removed from the section about the opening paragraph?Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

Support: as detailed above, the practice of including places either in the opening brackets or within the opening paragraph generally is common to several respected encyclopedias, other Wikipedias, and many of our own articles. There is already consensus to remove the part about the brackets. I do not suggest mandating the inclusion of places in the opening paragraph, but it should be an option available at the discretion of contributors to a particular article. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Strong support: although the RfC should really have been starting from the reverse point "Should a ban on place of birth/death in birth/death brackets be added" - since the prohibition was repeatedly added by one editor and removed by more than one editor, and has not been applied/enforced in the editing community. An attempt to unilaterally introduce a rule counter to existing practice, requiring adding longer copy such as "...who was born in Paris and died in Berlin" to 10s if not 100s of 1000s of European historical bio leads, will create an enormous disruption to the existing compact format. See essay Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. It will also create friction with editors who have created/translated, and will continue to create/translate such bios from fr. de. pl. it. ru. etc. wikipedias, where this European bio dictionary style is universal. A style appropriate to soccer stubs should not be imposed on Italian Renaissance architects, and likewise a style appropriate to Italian Renaissance architects should not be imposed on soccer stubs. It's appears from discussion above that the editor who added the new "not in brackets" rule is confusing two issues - (Q1) to add "Paris... Berlin" at all, and (Q2) if adding "Paris... Berlin" to do so inside brackets or after brackets. All the new rule succeeds in doing is bloating the lead sentence by requiring expansion to "born in Paris... died in Berlin" and information moved after the brackets, separated from the actual dates of when born in Paris, when died in Berlin, or demanding repeating the birth year and death year twice in the same lead. The new "not in brackets" rule wasn't discussed before addition to MOS and therefore the consequences weren't well thought through by the editor who added it. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Support: Not sure I do enough mainstream article editing experience to have a firsthand account of such an existing need for an RfC, but the proposed method is clearly more clueful. If it's a matter of needing to go one way or the other, I choose the way that makes intuitive sense. -TIM^(Contact)/_(Contribs) 03:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Support – The prohibition of placing birth and death places into the opening brackets should be removed – I can't see any good reason to prohibit a widely used style. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
@Michael Bednarek: and what about the "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability" element? Giant Snowman 12:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Support: Doesn't reflect real-world or WP practice, is not practical or sensible, and doesn't represent consensus (here or more broadly). Note that permitting and requiring are not the same thing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Clarified, 12:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Support per Michael Bednarek, for compatibility with other encyclopedias including other Wikipedias, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Adding, in response to a question below: this is not my only reason (I tried to keep it short and simple). I - as a reader - would like to see the data of birth and and death early in the lead, especially in articles without an infobox supplying them, such as Karl Ludwig Gerok. Instead, they were just removed completely. while the article is on the Main page and this is discussed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
So it's personal preference as opposed to anything else? And as for the Karl Ludwig Gerok example, they were removed as opposed to being re-located because they were not referenced. If it is referenced, it is relocated to the body as per the MOS. Giant Snowman 12:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Lead facts are not referenced, but a summary. I didn't write the lead (I follow the current MoS in "my" articles, although I don't like it), but I saw no need to change it. If you see a reference to a cemetery, wouldn't that tell you where to find a reference for the place of death? I this case it also references the place of birth. Simple removing doesn't help our readers, I don't like it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Unreferenced material doesn't help our readers, I don't like it ;) Giant Snowman 12:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
German articles typically don't have inline citations, they are referenced summarily by books, see? A translation of such a thing is not "unreferenced", and we do try to add inline citations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
But we are not German Wikipedia - we are English-language, we do have in-line citations, and we have our own style. The fact that German-language's MOS is to include places in brackets is wholly irrelevant, they also seem to have weird symbols like '†' which we don't. Giant Snowman 17:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Support There is no earthly reason to prohibit including POB in the lead. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Bladeboy1889: you have 'supported' removing the line about POB in the lead but then said that it should not be prohibited - you appear to have contradicted yourself. Giant Snowman 12:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
How so? Removing the sentence as indicated, removes any interpretation that inclusion of POB in the lead is prohibited by default and leaves it open to article consensus? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The RFC was started by those who wish to be allowed to include POB in the opening brackets. The current wording does not prohibit POB in the lede. I think what you want, and what I would support, is a change to "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body or the lead if known; they should not be mentioned within the opening brackets." Giant Snowman 12:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah - thanks, I had only read this section, not the whole debate above. I concur with you then - the RfC is poorly worded and should make it clearer what the change would be. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Support: The best place for pob is in opening brackets, this certainly shouldn't be prohibited. Im not opposed to pob being included elsewhere in lead but only if correctly written and not if its the only place its included, must be in main article and sourced properly. A very short stub article for instance wouldn't need pob in main bulk of lead if its included in main article would be appropriate in opening brackets.Blethering Scot 16:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Support. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of it generally (it's appropriate for some situations and I've done it myself occasionally) but that's just my personal style and I'm much less a fan of prohibiting other editors from doing it if they want to. What's the attraction of making rules for other editors when it's not needed? We don't need to be consistent on this particular matter. We just don't. Let the article creator or main editor(s) decide. Herostratus (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Support. I've recently been annoyed by this issue. The sentence should not have been added without a RFC, so a "no consensus" outcome here should mean its removal.—S Marshall T/C 19:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose: People may flagrantly ignore it, but I see this more as a case of "monkey see, monkey do". I believe it is sufficient to cite their years of birth and death, and leave the precise dates and locations to the body. These factoids are WP:INTERESTING but tend to clutter up the lead with sets of needless nested parentheses and wikilinks that are better off later in the less "blue" parts of the article. The place where a person is born or dies is often disconnected with the country of their citizenship, and it's already good that a person's nationality is usually already part of the opening sentence of the bio. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: @Ohconfucius: There would be no requirement to put these places in the lead sentence parenthetical, so of course a case where place of birth/death isn't very relevant to the subject's notability, such as you posit, is a case in which this would not be done. In the average case, they places are relevant, so on what basis would you prohibit it? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ohconfucius: Yes, SMcCandlish is correct, supporting the new rule is simply mandating move John Smith (~~London,~~ 1 January 1800 – ~~New York,~~ 1 January 1850) ... and adding a new sentence "Born in London in 1800, he died in New York in 1850" to lead. Who is going to go through 100,000s of historical bio articles and move "(London, 1 - New York, 1850) to new sentences outside brackets? Who is going to warn/block new article creators/translators following a more euro bio dictionary format? No one is proposing to simply go through 100,000s of articles and delete place of birth and death information, it would have to be expanded not deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi:I don't get the point you are trying to make, but the point isn't who's going to do such and such. This is a wiki, and the "who" question comes after the decision has been made, whether it's by one individual or a group. There may be external conventions, but it would be wrong to say there were hard and fast rules about how things are done. Old habits may die hard, but moving from print media to electronic will weaken some conventions and strengthen or help develop others. Some editors might rue that we hadn't adopted Chicago or AP early on as style guides and be done with it, for our lives would have been much simpler and we would have saved many hundreds of hours of needless discussion and endless arguing as to whether we use curly quotes or not, or put full stops after quote marks or before, or universally ignore the ndash and use hyphens exclusively. But the fact is we developed our own style guide, and not allowing the lead to be cluttered up with interesting factoids (often with their associated wikilinks) instead of pertinent facts is a sensible evolution. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was too verbose. The point is that the new rule increases/inflates the clutter you refer to. Where POB/POD is not interesting/relevant - like sports bios - it isn't there anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - the undisputed guide of "birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability" clearly implies that they should not be placed within the opening brackets; so therefore the additional line of "they should not be mentioned within the opening brackets" merely clarifies that advice, as opposed to changing it. This is something that FA/GAs already abide by and have done loooong before the "opening brackets" clarification was added by myself. However I am open to discussing possible re-wording as per W. P. Uzer. Giant Snowman 12:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: That implication isn't clear at all, or we wouldn't be here. The very prevalence of the practice indicates that it's in fact the natural inclination of most editors to include it in the opening sentence's parenthetical, not at some random location elsewhere within the lead. "X goes inside Y" does not in any way imply that "X does not go inside Z", when Z is part of Y. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Well if we're talking about the "natural inclination of most editors" on Wikipedia, that is probably actually vandalising articles, so that does not mean it is a correct course of action. I mean, if they were already allowed by the MOS, then a) it would say so and b) tell you how to display the information. Giant Snowman 13:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Only a tiny fraction of edits on WP are vandalism, and we do not count their perpetrators as editors. Next, "that which is not forbidden is permitted" as a matter of policy (WP:BOLD) and common sense WP:CREEP, WP:BEANS, etc.); all sorts of typical WP editing practices are not formally documented; neither of your points a or b are actually supportable. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
So if "all sorts of typical WP editing practices are not formally documented" what is the point of our many, many MOS pages, policies, guidelines etc.? Giant Snowman 20:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
To document the ones that experience tells us need to be documented to resolve recurrent disputes, obviously. You seem to be making an argument that if everything isn't documented nothing can be, and conversely that if anything is documented everything must be. No such principle applies here (or anywhere in life). WP:CREEP in particular addresses this adequately. There are a million rules we could write and do not. There are already far too many rules here; it's one of the main reasons we're losing productive editors and attracting abusive wikilawyers and other system gamers. Just the facts that a bunch of editors from all walks of wiki-life (i.e. not some WP:FACTION pushing an entrenched topical POV, as is so often behind contentious style disputes here) think it is often okay to include b/d places in the lead-opening sentence's parentheticals, and no one is advocating unreasonably that it always be done that way, and hundreds if not thousands of our articles do it or had done it until editwarred into not doing it, and this issue is a perennial "why do we have such a rule?" discussion here, and the practice is normal in offline sources like biographical dictionaries and other encyclopedias, is collectively way more than enough to ditch this "thou shalt not put them in the parentheticals" rule. WP:COMMONSENSE is one of the most important pages on the entire system, and this certainly qualifies. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose We need to avoid cluttering the intro with too much information. Some biographies also include one or more renditions of names in other scripts, and adding POB and/or POD could lead to them being overlong). Number 5 7 14:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose adding the place of birth/death in the parentheses leads to inconsistency with the majority of cases where this is omitted; and could clutter parentheses whether other data is included (e.g., pronunciation, names in other languages, etc.). This information should be included in the infobox (if there is one), in the lede (if relevant) or in the "Early life" and "Death" sections (if they exist). If an exception is needed for how to deal with cases where none of these alternatives is available, let it be explicitly stated. —sroc 💬 23:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: I spend a lot of time correcting this ugly, superfluous practice which causes more confusion than it resolves. It's not common practice in encyclopaedias, and with good reason. Let's distinguish between things we need to do differently in wikipedia because it's an on-line encyclopaedia and things we want to do differently out of sheer perversity. Deb (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Deb, it is common practice in encyclopedias - for example, Britannica includes places in the brackets, and ODNB within the first sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
No, it is common practice in some encyclopedias - but not in all, for example the DNB (which I have mentioned before), as well as Hutchinson's. Therefore that element of argument is irrelevant. Giant Snowman 12:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
In my experience it's very uncommon. Having said that, I notice the Oxford DNB also doesn't begin by stating what the person is famous for in the opening sentence. There was a time, in the early days of this project, when we started articles by stating where and when the person was born and then went on to describe the rest of his/her life experiences in chronological order, so that you had to read half the article to find out what they were well known for. We abandoned this practice because wikipedia articles are by nature concise and are meant to help people find out the salient points as easily as possible. That's why it's not a good idea to follow ODNB's practice. Deb (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: As Sam Blacketer points out in the next section, inclusion of the places of birth and death within the parentheses makes the first sentence too clunky, particularly if other information that is often added within or in proximity to the parentheses is also included (such as post-nominal letters, translations of the name into other languages, alternate names, and pronunciation of the name). The place of birth and death information will very often appear in an infobox next to the lead section anyway. I agree with the statement "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability" – there is no need to insist that the birth and death places be stated in the lead section unless they are relevant to notability. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Someone's exact place of birth and death is rarely particularly relevant to them. Where they grew up is far more important, which is not necessarily where they were born. Of course it should be mentioned in the body of the article, but the only thing mentioned in the brackets should be the dates of birth and death. Anything else is ugly, unwieldy and unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose adding places in the brackets would just clutter the lead sentence with what in most cases is not that important, if the locations are that important, which is not that often, then it should just be mentioned in the lead as per the statement. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose due to the reason described by JackLee above. Holdek (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability; they should not be mentioned within the opening brackets" is appropriate and useful guidance to ensure that focus is paid to what is important, and that simplistic layout copying that is inclined to introduce potentially misleading trivia is avoided. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Only if relevant to notability, which eliminates 99% of possible subjects. It becomes too cluttered and leads to excessive linking early in the article, not to mention WP:OVERLINKing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Other viewpoints

"Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body sourced if known, and is not prohibited in brackets at start of lead.
Or any other better way of saying is should still be sourced in main body of article to back up in relation to WP:BLP.Blethering Scot 00:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the sentence should just be removed, but I would support changing it in some way from a prohibition to a mere suggestion. I agree that in many cases it's going to be preferable to avoid locations in the opening brackets, for the reasons given by Ohc, but in certain cases it may be perfectly reasonable and even the most convenient option. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Neutral and confused: Basically, I believe that locations in opening brackets or lead should not ever be mandated, so to that extent I think I support that part of the proposal. II think that the above example of (London, 1899 -New York, 1999) is very poor style too and I think it should be discouraged. Birth and/or death locations in lede pargraphy at most would only be suitable if it somehow was strongly linked to notability. I'd add, though, that location has relevance within general body text and/or infoboxes, it is particularly important for those who are emigrants - someone like Einstein, for example; useful to note where they were born and where they died. Montanabw^(talk) 00:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Montanabw Confusion is understandable. To be clear no one is saying that locations in opening brackets or lead should be mandated, POB and POD data will continue to be missing for bios where it isn't relevant - POB and POD are really only relevant for Einstein types as you say, but in the Renaissance to Napoleonic era mobility in Europe was the rule rather than the exception and if POB and POD are in articles they shouldn't be deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel that people often try to add lots of different details into the lede, and having to include birth/death places/dates in parens is just a symptom of that; each pair of brackets is a lost battle in the war for clear summary ledes. There may be cases where we absolutely have to put this information in the first sentence because it's particularly relevant to the person's notability, but I want to avoid this becoming common or default - we should instead focus on ensuring that the first sentence is a readable description of the person and why they're so notable. bobrayner (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree; my own preference is just birth/date in parens and anything else has to be significant enough to be a part of the lede for other reasons, probably not in parens or brackets. Montanabw^(talk) 16:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
To those citing "other encyclopedias" as seemingly the only reason to remove this sentence - firstly we are not a normal encyclopedia and have our own style, and secondly what about the DNB which deliberately excludes POBs from the brackets? GiantSnowman 11:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- We all agree that wikipedia is not a normal encyclopedia! Montanabw^(talk) 16:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment – I'm still opposed to including places of birth/death in the opening parentheses, but I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. I've just come across an issue at James Wilson (footballer born 1995) where I added it to the lead as a minor piece of information relating to Wilson's eligibility for the England national team (not realising that it was prohibited by this policy). I've always included it the lead section of articles I've written as I feel it's useful info, so I don't see why the MOS shouldn't change. – PeeJay 12:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I like your example, it may be relevant, but neither mandated nor prohibited. The main thing I don't agree with is (born London, 1950- died New York 2012); that's poor style. Montanabw^(talk) 16:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  - @Montanabw: - what style should be used? I have asked that question multiple times in the earlier discussion, as well as at various user's talk pages, and I have never received an answer. GiantSnowman 17:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    - - My own personal opinion is that, subject to IAR, WP can follow standard biography entry procedures used across many platforms; "Joe Schmoo (1867-1932) was a person who..." But that's just my opinion and it's how I want to write articles; but I can think of many exceptions to this, so it probably is best to not be a rule set in stone. Montanabw^(talk) 18:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
        Sorry, I meant "style" for those articles where places of birth/death are in the opening brackets. Giant Snowman 18:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment - As per PeeJay2K3 - there is no reason to legislate against including POB in the opening para. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I too agree with PeeJay2K3, and Bobrayner. The Britannica style, always putting place of birth in the opening brackets, leads to an overloaded and distracting beginning to an article. For instance look at this one for an opening sentence:

“

James Callaghan, Baron Callaghan, original name in full Leonard James Callaghan (born March 27, 1912, Portsmouth, Hampshire, England—died March 26, 2005, Ringmer, East Sussex), British Labour Party politician, who was prime minister from 1976 to 1979.

”

Contrast with the current Wikipedia article:

Leonard James Callaghan, Baron Callaghan of Cardiff, KG, PC (27 March 1912 – 26 March 2005) was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1976 to 1979 and Leader of the Labour Party from 1976 to 1980.

Is it helpful to the reader to have the place of birth thrust at them before they see why this subject is noteworthy? I would say 'not particularly'. But in some cases we might want to note where someone came from, and it ought to be in the lede, and even in the first sentence. It's a matter of editorial judgment. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Support what Sam Blacketer said. Not confused about that! Montanabw^(talk) 16:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Sam Blacketer's example shows that (a) if we try to shoehorn specific details into the ledes of biographies, by rote, they become unreadable; and (b) we don't have to slavishly follow the example of other encyclopædias, if we find a different way that serves readers better. bobrayner (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly. Keep it as neat and simple as possible in the introduction! Giant Snowman 17:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, a point yes, but distinct to the new rule you have unilaterally added to the MOS. Then you need to start a second RFC to ban "Portsmouth" "Ringmer" from lead. As it is the new rule to always move POB and POD out of lead produces this:

“

James Callaghan, Baron Callaghan, original name in full Leonard James Callaghan (~~Portsmouth~~, March 27, 1912, — ~~Ringmer~~, March 26, 2005, ), British Labour Party politician, who was prime minister from 1976 to 1979. Callaghan was born in Portsmouth, Hampshire, and died in Ringmer

”

Which is a bad example anyway because en.wp James Callaghan doesn't have this in lead because he wasn't a mobile historical figure where POB and POD are important. Again you are confusing two issues (1) discouraging POB POD, (2) when POB and POD are needed, where to put them. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't added a new rule; and you need to explain what type of articles merit having places of birth/death in brackets, and which ones don't. I'd advise you not to mention football again. Giant Snowman 08:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I have notified WT:FA as this RFC could affect their work. Giant Snowman 14:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I have also notified WT:FOOTY as a related discussion was alredy ongoing. Giant Snowman 12:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman Given that football player bios don't need POB and POD, and given that you yourself are a football project editor, do you think that that was a wise thing to do? Isn't there a danger that advertising this RfC on WT:FOOTY will bring editors from WT:Footy to this RfC? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "football player bios don't need POB and POD"? Why wouldn't they? As I've already stated I advertised it at that WikiProject (of which my membership is irrelevant) because a related discussion was already ongoing and this RFC could have an effect on said discussion. Giant Snowman 12:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"Isn't there a danger that advertising this RfC on WT:FOOTY will bring editors from WT:Footy to this RfC?" - I didn't realise there were private discussions that certain editors or projects were barred from? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There have been concerns about individual wikiprojects developing and enforcing their own specialised style, which diverges from what the broader community has agreed. I think it would be better to seek a much wider consensus which isn't dominated by editors from a single wikiproject. bobrayner (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever happened to AGF?!... Giant Snowman 17:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a couple oddities here. One is that AFAIK I know nowhere is the parenthesized vital information mentioned in any of the MOS's except in this one place where it's assumed that the reader understands what's meant. (And even then it confusingly says "brackets" rather than parenthesis which is what are actually used.) (N.B. by "vital" is meant "of life" (Latin vitae) rather than "crucial".)

Everyone sees and uses them in every bio article and the various MOS's give plentiful examples, but... for no other commonly-followed are we like "There's a format that we use universally, but we're not going to mention it, just look at existing articles or the examples and you can infer the rule from that". We ought to have a passage to the effect of

Biographies include parentheses containing some vital information, immediately following the name and any attached qualifiers (III, M.B.E., etc.) and the name in non-English languages, if these are present. The parenthesized vital information always includes the birth and death year, and sometimes the birth and death dates or locations or both, and no other information). See ____ for details, examples, and special cases; see _____ for advice on what vital information to include and when.

The other oddity is that's it's arguable whether the passage should currently exist. Probably not. It was written in by one person and there were objections, but nobody reverted it. As I predicted the RfC, like most, seems to be tending to no consensus, which defaults to the existing state. An example of how one lone person can make up a rule and make it stick if the page not heavily watched and/or people aren't vigorous in using WP:BRD. This is not necessarily bad if it's a good rule I guess. But usually most of our rules codify existing practice, and when we do have prescriptive rules that create a new practice, not sure that having one lone person making them is a great idea. Might be, sometimes. Anyway: be vigorous and rigorous in policing rules pages, people! Use your WP:BRD rights on rules pages with alacrity, celerity, and frequency! If someone wants a substantial change make them prove their case first! Herostratus (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"it confusingly says "brackets" rather than parenthesis which is what are actually used" - in British English, brackets is the term used for all styles including the default '()', whereas American English seems to use the term only to refer to square brackets. Probably this section of the MOS was originally written by someone who used British English. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Bingo, I added the "brackets" sentence and I am British. Giant Snowman 10:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well it's an international publication and in American brackets means [these]. Do people in Britain understand what "parentheses" are or is that word uncommon there? Herostratus (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course the term is known, it's just not widely used. If your issue is over the wording, not the content, then that can be very easily rectified by changing "brackets" to "parentheses". Giant Snowman 12:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The typical way around these problems is to refer to () as "parentheses (round brackets)" or "round bracket (parentheses)", and [] as "square brackets". Zero confusion on the part of anyone. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am more than happy to support that change in wording to clarify what is actually meant. Giant Snowman 09:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Are these orders or honors?

At James O'Higgins Norman User:Ollamhnua states that ", MStJ and KLJ" are "honors not memberships". Is this the case? I was also reverted when I removed Dr. from in front of his name (which I've removed again. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

de, von, van, etc

Can someone advise me where the policy for capitalization of such name particles is, for use in running text? I mean in cases such as Charles de Gaulle or Vincent van Gogh, not when the particle is normally capitalized, e.g. Dick Van Dyke. There is inconsistency in the articles (He knew de Gaulle, He knew Van Gogh). In other articles, e.g. Alexis de Tocqueville, Marquis de Sade, the particle is omitted (He knew Tocqueville, He knew Sade). Thanks! Spicemix (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably not exactly what you're looking for but maybe have a look at WP:MCSTJR, 7th bullet (discusses sorting of such names in categories, which is sorting by last name). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Francis! I'm thinking if you know policy as hidden as that, but don't know of a central guideline, then there probably isn't one. My current view is that the running text should be consistent with the article name (He knew de Gaulle, He knew van Gogh, he knew Van Dyke). In cases like Tocqueville, the particle can be lost if that is accepted usage. But I think MOS should say something on this topic. Spicemix (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There are two issues:

When is the particle dropped?
When a lower case particle is not dropped, when does it change to upper case?

Language of origin plays a part, country of origin too, for the first question I suppose also habit plays a part.

Some examples regarding the first question:

(German:) Beethoven, Bismarck, but Von der Leyen: I suppose the rule is: the higher your fame, the more likely people start referring to you without the particle.
(French, France:) de Gaulle, but La Fontaine (not de La Fontaine): maybe de rule is that the "de" particle normally gets dropped, unless the last name is so short it stops making sense. It might also be that a difference is made when referring to nobility ("de" always dropped, which would also explain Sade while Marquess, but not Tocqueville) and regular last names. So, habit (???)

Note that generally "de" in French means "of" in English (which is not the same as "de" in Dutch, which means "the" in English - "of" in English translates to "van" in Dutch, "von" in German - Dutch "van den Bogaert" would translate as of the Orchard in English) - Thomas Percy, 1st Earl of Worcester is shortened to Worcester (without "of"), so it shouldn't surprise that Marquis de Sade is shortened to just Sade.

(Dutch, Netherlands - Dutch, Belgium - French, Belgium): all particles always kept afaik

Re. 2: more complications, but there are definitely rules:

(French, France): de Gaulle - same capitalisation as when the name is written in full
(Dutch, Netherlands): Van Gogh - first letter of the first particle changes from lower case to upper case when not preceded by a given name (and all particles always lowercase when preceded by given name) - ~~I think these are also the German rules~~.
(French, Belgium): no lower case to upper case changes: de Bethune (nobility, "de" stays lower case) - d'Udekem d'Acoz (nobility, all d's stay lower case) - De Decker (no nobility, "De" stays upper case)
(Dutch, Belgium) Since the first letter of the last name is always capitalised, there are no lower case to upper case changes necessary, e.g. Van den Brande. Note that normally only the first article gets capitalised (Pol Van Den Driessche is not correct I think - though it should be noted that many Dutch speaking Belgians capitalise all particles of their name which are in fact the French/Belgium rules for non-nobility - habit can be stronger than rules I suppose?)
more errors: Chris van den Wyngaert should follow Dutch/Belgian rules, but since she works in the Netherlands someone must have thought it better to have her follow Dutch/Netherlands rules. Anyway, by last name she would be Van den Wyngaert (although in Belgium also Van Den Wyngaert would not really be considered wrong - that was also how it was written in English by her employer at The Hague [18])

To say something on the matter would take a lot of place, I don't even think it is possible to find someone who is sure of the major rules. Although... maybe this summary might be effective:

Dropping a particle when the surname is mentioned in running text (without given names) follows convention (see what others have done before you);

Regarding capitalisation there's maybe only one rule worth remembering: nothing changes except for ~~German names (in German-speaking countries) and~~ Dutch names (in or from the Netherlands) where the first letter of the first particle changes from lower case to upper case.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC), updated Francis Schonken (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Francis. I was unaware of the Dutch convention to capitalize the particle when not preceded by a given name; however, from limited research at German Wikipedia I see that the particle (when it is retained) stays lower case there – see Manfred von Richthofen for example. You'll see too that they follow their own convention, not the Dutch, at Vincent van Gogh – and I think they have a point. English Wikipedia should not necessarily follow foreign language conventions.

Like you, I was thinking that the particle is more likely to be omitted when the subject is noble, but there will be doubtful cases when the subject is more remote from the aristocracy. I agree that convention (the sources) should be our guide there. Spicemix (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Struck the German thing. Anyhow, no there's no reason. Why not move Chris van den Wyngaert to Chris Van Den Wyngaert with the capitalisation as in reliable English-language sources? No need to go through all the complexities at WP:NAMESORT any more. But yeah then there are all the sensitivities... Someone took the trouble of moving Chris van den Wyngaert to that version of the name, but believe me there's much more.

In sum, maybe this: do as good as you can, but don't worry if there are minor culture-specific issues you'd have missed - a bot might come around, or another editor more knowledgeable in the field, and will adjust (e.g. [19]). Or nobody's bothered, and then your version is fine. In most cases multiple versions are arguably correct in English. Try to keep coherent on one page though. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Francis, I've learned a lot talking to you. Spicemix (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

On a related issue, what is the MoS policy on alphabetical sorting of such names. Our article Dutch name says that while in Dutch directories, the prefixes are ignored for the purposes of sorting, in English directories "may be ordered on the full name including all prefixes". Is this enshrined as policy anywhere? Should it be? Kevin McE (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, WP:NAMESORT is a guideline. I don't think we need a hard policy on sorting of names - is it often a problem? bobrayner (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

In Dutch (with Dutch = language) directories from Belgium the prefixes are not ignored for sorting. "...in Dutch directories, the prefixes are ignored for the purposes of sorting" is only correct when Dutch = from country (namely: from the Netherlands). --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it leads to absurdities. See for example LGBT writers in the Dutch-language area#Dutch-language sources: in an attempt to sort alphabetically I put Ronny De Schepper (Dutch/Flemish) before Ed van Eeden (Dutch/from the Netherlands). I'd be very much pleased with a more uniform solution for such sortings. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

en.wikipedia is an English language source, so should follow the rules of English. Identification of which of an individual's plural names is to be indexed is dependent on the language/culture of the person in question, but once identified, English treats that as a single entity, even if it is more than one word: prefixes are considered within alphabetisation.

That does not overrule wp:commonname in relation to when the prefix is dropped. Kevin McE (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct, at least not for all languages. You won't normally find Beauvoir, Sade etc shelved under "d". Formerip (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you didn't read what I wrote.

A) We are talking about indexing for an English language resource (en.wikipedia), so it is only about one language;

B)"That does not overrule wp:commonname in relation to when the prefix is dropped." Kevin McE (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Are we aiming to be descriptive, here, or prescriptive? Describe what is currently done, or establish the best way of doing things? The two differ.

If we're just going to be prescriptive, then French prefixes (and to a lesser extent some other western European languages) are recognised as separate entities, not as part of the name itself to be used for sorting; maybe that's helped by French's long status as a prestige language. However, common English usage is less likely to extend that courtesy to other languages. The same happens elsewhere - prefixes, titles &c do tend to get absorbed into names over time. I'd like to hope that an encyclopaedia can avoid that entropy and try to steer towards more faithful handling of names. 14:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sex/gender in the opening paragraph

Should we treat sex (or gender) in the first paragraph like ethnicity and sexuality, for the same reasons, and on the additional grounds that the person's sex will become clear upon first use of a pronoun? I'm looking right now at a new article, Betty Harris (scientist), that describes her as "an African-American female chemist". Even just as "a female chemist", this doesn't sit right with me. She's a chemist, period, as far as the source of her significance is concerned. OK, an American chemist. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "American chemist" is sufficient - no need for her ethnicity ("African-American") or gender ("female"). Giant Snowman 08:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - sex should only be included if it is sufficient notable eg Margaret Thatcher being the first female UK prime minister. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The lede should describe a person and emphasise why they are notable. We shouldn't emphasise gender or colour unless they are closely related to the subject's notability - Margaret Thatcher is a great example.

Few chemists are notable. Few patent-holders are notable. Harris seems to be different in that she is listed in various websites showcasing "black inventors" &c, so it's reasonable for the first sentence to mention that she's African-American. Strangely, I can't find anything from the horse's mouth about the "Trailblazer Award" - but there are plenty of other women who received a "Trailblazer award" from the "New Mexico Commission on the Status of Women". If her gender was a factor in her only significant award, then yes, we ought to mention gender somewhere in the lede.

As an aside, the article also says "She is recognized as a distinguished African American Scientist by the National Academy of Sciences", which makes it sound like some kind of title or certificate that one might hang on the wall; the reality is that there's a bio page on a NAS website. bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Including both middle name and married name in intro

As discussed in the appropriate talk page, there's an editing dispute in the article about Shelley Moore Capito, whose middle name is Wellons and married name is Capito. Another editor excludes the middle name for being confusing to readers, despite my pointing out that articles about Holly Robinson Peete and Hillary Rodham Clinton - two other women who use their married names professionally - open with their subjects' middle names. Is there a definite standard for these types of situations? Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Arbor to SJ:If the two names are significantly different, as with Ray Manzarek, isn't the standard to state the WP:NATURAL which is usually their given name from birth; and then parenthetically state the WP:COMMONNAME which is usually their current, married, name? That's how I've always seen it. It's the same with stylized brands, to state the de-stylized name followed by the "stylized as" or "sometimes referred to as". The point is that the natural takes precedent over the common, but you never totally lose either one. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

With women who change their name on marriage, I think the standard is rather to give the married name first (unless they are still better known by their maiden name, perhaps). This isn't exactly the question being asked, though. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct. The Sarah Michelle Gellar article opens with her married name (then her maiden name) since she doesn't use her maiden name legally now, in comparison with the Clinton and Peete articles I linked earlier. But Capito uses both her maiden & married names professionally. My question is if there's a consistent standard of including middle names in introductions of articles about women who changed their names in marriage. Arbor to SJ (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The article says this: they should not be mentioned within the opening brackets. Why is this mysteriously in quotation marks and where are the RfC discussions that the latest edits refer to about this subject? Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you're looking for the very long thread titled #OPENPARA, higher up this page. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy regarding death details in biographies?

Do we have a policy regarding when to include details of death, including how, where, location of burial, etc? I believe these details should only be included if they are a notable aspect of the person's biography. For a typical death, the date of death is sufficient.--Karinpower (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree - I think these are facts that many readers would expect to find in a biography. If we have such information from good sources, then it should certainly be included. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is this even a discussion, there is no Death section in the guidelines WP:MOSBIO, the current crisis on the Robin Williams page has definitely brought this issue to the forefront. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no "crisis" at the Robin Williams article. There's one editor (Slave28) making a mountain out of a worm hole that doesn't even really exist. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously it exists if you made your way here to debate the issue, I am not the only one who brought up issues regarding descriptions regarding his death, both pro and con, don't be making accusations you can't back up. Had I been making edits to go with my remarks on the talk page fine, but all I have done is brought up issues I thought needed to be addressed which I saw as not appropriate for an encyclopedia, only to watch the same group continually outvote any idea put forth by anyone. You wanted citations and guidelines, I gave them to you, don't come on this page and make accusations. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I made my way here via looking at your contributions log. My purpose in commenting is to dispel the hyperbole you are engaging in at this talk page. I've made no accusations, however, you are making threats. And in light of that, I'm advising you to back off and change your tone and attitude or the way this is starting to go will not end well for you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I will not comment on that, it is taking us away from what this section should be about, therefore I will simply return to the topic. Still no death category suggested on the guidelines for biography. So when did the whole death category get started without this page ever getting updated? --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a good reason why we don't have a death section. Because, at this time, if a figure is confirmed dead they do not fall under the current guideline unless there is contentious material being added, in which case the recently dead can be covered by our policy up to 2 years. However....if the information is public and encyclopedic (where someone is being interred is very much encyclopedic content) it should be included, just as how, and where they died would be included.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm ..very interesting point, thanks for your view on the matter Mark Miller. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Now...having said that I also know that there are many biographies where there is no mention of the location of the cemetery etc., but...in cases where the subject had great "fame", such as Marylin Monroe: "Monroe was interred on August 8, 1962, in a crypt at Corridor of Memories No. 24, at the Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery" (From our article), so it is not out of place or odd to mention where celebrities are buried. Monroe's article even includes a picture of the crypt.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I can definitely see a burial location as being part of an article. That would certainly fall within the boundaries of important facts for encyclopedic requirements. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Lots of articles do have a "Death" section (or something that includes it, e.g. "Later life, and death", "Abduction and murder", "Disappearance and death", "Retirement and death", "Battle with cancer, and death", "Exile and death", "Imprisonment and death", "Mystery surrounding death", "Fatal stunt", etc., etc.). Whether to include such a section is a matter for consensus at the article in question (and the answer is usually "no", unless the death itself was important to understanding of the subject, or was a natural or contingent consequence of something that was important to understanding the subject, or the article is quite long and needs a denoument section for the end of the subject's life). Regardless, it's absolutely routine to include basic death information, including cause, in any non-BLP bio, usually in the "Personal life", "Non-professional life" or similar section after the meat of the subject's career is covered. It's expected information, and if it's removed, someone will just re-research it and add it again later. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in SMcCandlish. I fully agree with you, there has been sections regarding individuals deaths for quite some time in biographies. My main concern was the direction of the article in question. I am a recent addition to the editors on Wikipedia but have been reading for as long as I can remember, and I have quite a fondness for it. But I think the current case regarding Robin Williams is of particular interest. It does touch on what you have mentioned above, yes I agree his death should be reported, but to what extent, and in all honesty, should details of how he proceeded to end his life truly necessary for encyclopedic material, on this I disagree, which has been the impasse I was having on the talk page there. The details have been toned down dramatically since they first began to appear, which is progress, I simply think that on the matter of suicide, it is probably best that the editors of Wikipedia should come together as a group, and for the better of not only Wikipedia itself, but for those who suffer from any form of mental health issues who may be tempted to follow the path a celebrity may have taken, use the tools we so glamorously put on display. I tried leading everyone to this talk page for a discussion as it seemed the appropriate forum, since it was the base page for biographies, and it does use the term, guidelines, which is a term that keeps getting pointed out to me on a regular basis. Finally, would you agree that a persons death should be a subsection as opposed to a section in itself. Based on the Infobox Biography, that would seem to fit the guidelines, as OCD of me as it sounds (sorry, I am OCD LOL, Order not Chaos & Disorder is what I call it, makes me feel better about the condition). --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I see what your concern it, but it's not an MOS matter at all, it's about appropriateness and relevance of content in the context in question. No one's bio article should be dominated by detailia about their death, except in the case of someone principally or only notable because of how (or controversy about how) they died. There'll never be a "Wikipedia does not provide suicide details" policy here, because (except when people wrongly add WP:Original research against our rules), everything in WP has already been published elsewhere, and Wikipedia is not censored. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So it is fair to say, based from what I am reading, in regards to suicide, yes we should post it, it's details to a certain extent, but not a full section on the subject. A mere passing mention that a person committed suicide in such a way, should be sufficient for an individuals biography. And I fully understand that Wikipedia is not censored but that it also has limitations on what can be posted, so there would be a line that could not be crossed of course. I sincerely appreciate you time on this matter SMcCandlish, at the very least, it has answered some of concerns. On another matter, what do you think of adding a parameter for Widow to the Infobox Biography, since spouse no longer correctly applies after ones passing. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Others may contradict me; I don't make any rules here. I'm trying to get across that I think how and whether to present suicide-related details is just like most decision about how and whether to present details at an article - it's up to editorial discretion at the article, unless there is some external rule (at MOS or where ever) that could affect it. This one doesn't seem to be an MOS matter. Neither is whether the parameters at {{Infobox Biography}} are adequate; that's a matter for that template's talk page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good SMcCandlish, thanks for taking the time, much appreciated. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "spouse" should be changed to "widow(er)". We expect all of our subjects (and their partners) to die at one time or another, and we don't have to write everything from the point of view of here and now. When a person has passed away, we say who that person's spouse was, when they were alive. (I'm not sure that information necessarily belongs in the infobox in all cases, but that's another question.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there W. P. Uzer, my thought was only adding a new parameter not changing the current one. People sometimes remarry so they definitely will have ex-spouses but in the case where someone is deceased it somewhat seems a little more then bizarre not only to have their current spouse listed as ending when they died, when technically the relationship was not necessarily terminated, hence my recommendation for adding an extra parameter to compliment spouce, widow & widower. In a case where the person ever officially divorced they could be moved. Patrick Swayze for example, his widow Lisa Niemi, is a perfect example of where this would be appropriate. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You will find these details in any biography. Why on earth should Wikipedia be any different? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of trivial information?

For a content guideline page, precious little guidance is given other than naming protocols. Nowhere, e.g., does it say what information, even if sourced, is sufficiently transient or trivial to be excluded from a biography. For example, what the subject eats or not, what they do with their pet, what teams he/she supports, what they claim to do in their spare time, etc., especially when these have no connection with the subject's notability. These items, which would never be found in a proper biography but would be found in teen magazines, make biographies look haphazard or purely veneer. Ought there be guidance on such content? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If by "proper biography" you mean those in book form, then I think much such information would indeed be included. It would tend not to be included in traditional encyclopedia entries, but Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia - it has practically unlimited space, for one thing. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the openness of WP means that fanboys and fangirls get to edit their idols' articles and fill them with unencyclopaedic cruft. Of course material of such great (un)import should be removed on sight. Just because WP is not a "traditional" encyclopaedia is no excuse for allowing it, but I'd say its widespread existence is better explained by the fact that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Usually, the more editor traffic a bio gets, the less there is of this tidbits, because experienced editors know what is or isn't appropriate. It might take time as there is no deadline, if it's not defamatory or otherwise offensive. This may be covered not by style guidelines such as these, but by content guidelines: WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:TRIVIA addresses lists not such stuff as "In October 2012, Cosgrove's pet poodle, Pearl, died from kidney failure at age 14..." and "Cosgrove bought a three-bedroom, 2,900-square-foot (270 m2), 1952 traditional-style house for $2.65 million." (Miranda Cosgrove) Would we put even consider writing about every Corgi the Queen has lost at what age, and what from, and how each affecter her or the square footage and price tag of Albert Einstein's or Jesse Jackson's house? This is an encyclopedia not a collection of anything gossipy about everyone of recent vintage. I think this MOS would be the place to put such style guideline in place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So how do you propose defining, for the purposes of a guideline, what does and does not belong in Wikipedia? Remembering there is also the other side of the coin - some editors are prone to take arrogant and poorly considered decisions to cull information that they personally don't find interesting or "encyclopedic" (whatever that means), not realizing or caring that certain groups of readers may in fact be interested in that information. And that the kind of information that's insignificant in one person's biography may be of more significance or interest in another's. Looking at the article you refer to, I don't see anything out of place about the statements that you refer to - the poodle appears to have been a significant part of her life (unlike any individual corgi of the Queen's), and the house gives some idea of her level of wealth and what she does with it. It's not as if this kind of thing is dominating her article and making it harder for readers to find any other kinds of information (though there are some other articles where it might have reached that level) - it simply helps to make a more rounded biography for readers with a genuine interest in that person (a group to which I suspect none of us here belong). W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Miss X

Regarding women who were only known as "Miss X": do we follow the sources or do we follow WP:SURNAME? For example, I came across an article on Helen Hooven Santmyer from the mid-80s, where the author not only exclusively uses "Miss Santmyer", emphasizes at the beginning that one does not refer to her as "Santmyer". Would we say that this is part of the self-designation exception to MOS:IDENTITY? (The article is a stub, the only reference to her by name after the lede is "Helen".)

I note that policy is flexible on this. For example, in the Mrs. Patrick Campbell article, she is usually referred to as "Campbell" (the use of "Mrs. Pat" is really just a nickname). Catherine Booth is usually referred to as "Catherine Booth", and Mary Todd Lincoln is usually referred to as Mrs. Lincoln. In each of these cases, one has clarity of reference issues if just the last name is used, and in each case, the editors have made a choice that works. (And I note that no discussion seems to have ever been made.)

In the case of "Miss Santmyer", the "Miss" isn't needed for clarity, so these three are not really analogous. Choor monster (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Do we need to use title? Giant Snowman 19:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No. My question is in the first paragraph. The point of the second paragraph is to illustrate different examples. Choor monster (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Place of Birth

In some countries, the place of birth in the ID record is cited as the town in which hospital where the birth took place is located, (sometimes because in the village of the parents maybe there's no hospital), despite such person may have never lived there or has no conection to that place... If I'm not wrong, in some countries, in the official ID documents, the place of "first residence" of the parents is the one appearing... How should this be listed in the Articles?--Maku17 (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Full names in running text and templates

Should we use full names instead of plain/common names in running text and templates? For example, Anna Eleanor Roosevelt instead of Eleanor Roosevelt, Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Edward Moore Kennedy instead of Ted Kennedy, etc. The answer seems quite obvious and straightforward to me, but there seems to be a disagreement at Template talk:Kennedy family tree#Middle names. Surtsicna (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of future job positions in infobox, list, etc.

CONSENSUS

It seems that the proposal made by Iaritmioawp was seconded by Johnmoor, opposed by the OP, and not further commented on by anyone else. It therefore has a thin majority. Given generally low participation in the RfC, I suggest for Iaritmioawp's proposed format to be trialled on a BRD basis. Having noted Elizium23's opposition to the proposal, I suggest that she/he abstain from reverting such changes to give the proposed format a chance to be appraised by other editors. I can see no consensus having developed in any other part or aspect of this discussion. Samsara 15:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

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 future job positions be described in the infobox, lists of people with that job, succession boxes, and so forth? Or should they only be described in article prose?

Background:

This dispute has to do with the appointment of Catholic bishops, but I am seeking a wider consensus, because in over three years none has been reached, and there has been no central place to discuss it exhaustively.

In a nutshell, the problem is that appointments of bishops makes big news, and installation is not so newsworthy. But bishops retain their previous post and do not assume responsibilities of the new job upon appointment, but upon installation. So what we have is everyone changing the infobox, lists of bishops, succession boxes, and other things to indicate that new bishop has assumed his post when he has not yet done so. Contrast this with the way it is done by WP:ACTOR. An actor takes a job starring in a film, and this can be described in the article, but not placed in the filmography until the film begins principal photography. Contrast this with the President of the United States. Barack Obama was elected first in November, 2008 but did not assume his duties until the Inauguration of January, 2009. I have verified that the infoboxes were not changed, some lists were updated but it was made abundantly clear with italics and so forth that he was President-elect and not yet President.

So I am asking for consistency, please. Either change the way everything else is done or change the way episcopal appointments are handled to have it line up with the way we already do everything else. Thank you for your consideration. Elizium23 (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts from my experiences. I have been through a couple of interregnums of bishops and they are not as black and white as you make them out to be. First of all bishops rarely succeed each other the way presidents do. Presidential succession is instantaneous, more like a monarch, than a bishop. We know who will become president should the president become permanently incapacitated or after the Electoral College has met. While I have not done a comprehensive study on this, there are numerous presidential and constitutional scholars (and others) who say a person becomes president at a particular point in time and not when the oath of office is administered. In other words, LBJ took over the presidency when JFK died not when the oath was administered on board Air Force One. This also came up last year when the constitutional Inauguration Day fell on Sunday. There were many who said Obama did not need to swear the oath twice (the formal inauguration ceremony is traditionally not held on Sunday) because he automatically becomes president at noon on January 20th regardless of when the oath of office is administered. They held the swearing-in ceremony at the prescribed time in the White Hose just in case. I realize all this is debatable, but my larger point is that there is a particular point in time when a person becomes president regardless of the circumstances and ceremony. The only time that happens with a Catholic bishop is when there is a coadjutor bishop with the right to succession. While there is no prescribed date or time, the coadjutor automatically takes over the see when the previous bishop dies or when his resignation is accepted by the pope. There is also no installation ceremony. A coadjutor bishop is welcomed, but not installed. (Of course, he is also ordained a bishop at that time if not already a bishop.)

Most episcopal successions do not happen that way. The previous bishop either dies, is appointed to a different position, his resignation is accepted, or he is declared incompetent for any one (or more) of a variety of reasons. This results in an interregnum which lasts for an undeterminable amount of time until a successor is named and put in place. (Although since John Paul II resignations are generally not accepted until a successor has been named so the interregnum is of a determined length of time in that instance.) Once a bishop is named to a diocese, and it is publically announced, he is by and large in charge. He is regularly consulted as to decisions that have to be made although most decisions can be delayed until he is installed and can give his undivided attention to the matters of the diocese. Some decisions he, or anyone else, are forbidden to make by canon and/or civil law until he is installed. This is more common sense than anything. Bishops who are corporate souls tend to take over that responsibility before their ceremonial installation. It could be a difference in time of several minutes to about a day, but generally not longer than that so there is not a huge time difference. Priests who are named bishop may also start wearing certain elements of episcopal attire such as the zucchetto and I believe the pectoral cross. However, they cannot wear the mitre, the ring or carry a crosier unless they are abbots. So while they may not formally be a bishop, or yet installed depending on the circumstances, they are acting the part. The Rite of Ordination of a Bishop, or the Rite of Installation, should not be viewed as a magic act either- now you aren't now you are.

All this is a process. It is a bit like the Eucharist Prayer. The western church feels the need to determine the exact moment the bread and wine are transformed, namely the Institution Narrative, while the eastern church (and the orthodox) view the whole prayer as consecratory and they don't want to single out an exact moment. That's part of the reason why I say it's not as black and white. It is also instructive that the Diocese of Wichita claims James O'Reilly as its first bishop even though he died before he was consecrated. He is placed at the head of the list on the diocesan Wikipedia page as well.

In many cases there are differences between dioceses and those called to be bishop and the particular circumstances of their appointment. It's also important to note that the Roman mindset tends to be less legalistic in these matters than the American mindset. In general, Toledo, Ohio is no longer considered an open see because Pope Francis named Bishop Daniel Thomas as its bishop this week.

Wikipedia is a resource and not a legal document. I don't think its necessary to get tied up in the minutia, especially when the minutia is firmly in the grey areas and not in the black and white. If someone is announced as the new bishop of a diocese I believe he can be listed as such and placed in an infobox with the appropriate notation of his status. All of this can be easily changed on the day of his ordination and/or installation. God knows why, but I generally follow these things and, all things being equal, can make the necessary changes in a reasonable amount of time. I suspect a few others are the same. That's the beauty of this resource. Doing so is not so much the crystal ball-gazing that you accuse others of doing. These things are already determined and the process of becoming the diocesan bishop has begun before anyone even thinks of editing a Wikipedia page. (I guess that was more than a couple of thoughts.) Farragutful (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

There are legitimate technical issues about when a bishop become the bishop - but I prefer to look at things from a casual user's perspective. I can easily understand how someone can hear a passing reference to a bishop change in their local area and then consult Wikipedia for more information. In the case of a newly named bishop, that means, imo, the information regarding the recent change should be prominent in the article. The exact wording and format can be discussed, but information on the change should be added as soon as possible.Dcheney (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course the information should be prominent in the prose, I am not disputing that. The fact is that many, many other WP:BLPs do not put future jobs in infoboxes, lists, etc. and this bishops case is an outlier. I'm asking for consistency or some explanation and consensus about why it simply must be done differently. Elizium23 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

We can take the lead from how sources discuss these things. If it's really the case that there's extensive coverage of appointments rather than installations, then appointments deserve mention in articles - and in infoboxes too. bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course appointments must be mentioned in articles. There's no dispute about that. Now, how can we mention future events in infoboxes without cluttering and confusing them? This article is an example of my work after the last ANI thread regarding this dispute. As you can see it is cluttered and silly-looking with both present and future jobs in the infobox. I feel it is pretty much stupid to do it this way but that was the suggestion. Are you supporting that proposal? How would you change that particular article? Elizium23 (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry. I did not mean to characterize the proposals here as silly or stupid. I should clarify what I mean by this. The current status quo is to strip out all the old information and put the new in. This is deleting sourced, verifiable and true information and replacing it with factual errors. This is what must be stopped without question. Now if the proposal can be made to modify the infoboxes, so that the current and future information can coexist there, that is something I can support, with reservations. I have reservations only because it isn't really done anywhere else on Wikipedia. I am not sure why Catholic bishops have to be special-cased. But anyway, I will go ahead and modify the relevant infobox template(s) with future job fields and we can see how that works out as more appointments roll in. Agreed? Elizium23 (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment My understanding of the subject is somewhat limited, but I'd like to point out that when we state that a new bishop was appointed, we're not referring to "future events," we're referring to a past event, i.e. the bishop's appointment, and I believe that such an appointment is indeed important enough to warrant its inclusion into all relevant infoboxes. On a similar note, the word "future" as used in the Christian leader infobox in the article discussed at AN/I rubs me the wrong way as it implies we know for a fact the appointee will assume office. I'd suggest replacing current/future with installed/appointed. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe this solves the RfC. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Rejecting this proposal. It is indeed a future event, as an appointment does not confer the rights and obligations of a particular office. Only installation does that; it is a future job and the labeling of "(installed)" and "(appointed)" only serves to increase confusion among a readership who is mostly ignorant of the particulars (as can be demonstrated by all the editors themselves who are ignorant) so I am afraid I will have to stick to (future) and (current) in my proposal. Elizium23 (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Oversimplification lends itself not to clarification but to obfuscation. The word "future" as used in the infobox is confusing to the reader as it does not report the present state of events but rather speculates on what is to come. Using the word "appointed" solves that problem. When we update an article to say that a new bishop was appointed, we do it after and not prior to the appointment. Therefore, the information we add pertains to a past event. That the office is not to be assumed by the appointee until his installation is immaterial. Once a bishop has been appointed, the appropriate title followed by the "appointed" label should be incorporated into all relevant infoboxes. If the appointment is subsequently cancelled, the label should be removed together with its corresponding title. If the appointment is not cancelled and the bishop assumes the office for which he was appointed, the label should then either be adjusted to say "installed" or simply removed as it's now superfluous. The problem of the term "appointed" being potentially unclear can be addressed by piping it to the article detailing the appointment process. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Categorization by ethnicity

What are the criteria for categorizing someone as belonging to a certain ethnicity? The particular case I have in mind is Dmitri Borgmann; all reliable sources agree that he was born and spent his early life in Germany, and the only other statement in reliable sources concerning his ethnicity is that "he fled with his parents to Chicago in 1936 when they feared that the Nazis would uncover his mother's Jewish ancestry". This rather strongly implies that of his two parents, it was only his mother who had any Jewish ancestry, but doesn't say one way or another how much Jewish ancestry she had. Under the Nuremberg laws which Lisa Borgmann was presumably trying to escape, people were persecuted for having as little as one quarter Jewish ancestry. This means Dmitri could have been as much as one half Jewish or little as one eighth Jewish. Is this somewhat uncertain information sufficient to put him in "Jewish" categories here, such as Category:German Jews and Category:Jewish American writers? Again, the statement that his mother was at least partly Jewish seems to be the all the information we have; nowhere in third-party sources is Borgmann himself ever referred to as a "Jewish writer", nor did he ever identify himself as such in his own writings.

Note that my question concerns only the ethnic aspect of the categorization. There is no question that Borgmann did not practice the Judaic religion; sources attest that he was raised Lutheran and later became the head of an independent church. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As with all categories, they have to be defining. If no reliable sources use that attribute, and if a subject doesn't self-identify as such, such categories should not be applied. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Without having reviewed discussions to see what specific categories are being disputed, it seems that fleeing one's country of birth because of fear for your life could be seen as defining. Why wouldn't Category:German Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism be appropriate? 2600:1006:B112:2B66:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There are no discussions to review, because nothing is being disputed at this time. This is just a query about what our guidelines say about categorizations. I have no idea whether Category:German Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism would be appropriate for Borgmann, or even for his mother (were she notable in her own right)—certainly not everyone who the Nazis persecuted as Jewish considered themselves to be Jewish. Is there any further guidance on this? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@2600:1006:B112:2B66:5AD:4287:E314:1B02: I don't see how a 6-year-old being taken to the US could lead to the categorisation you describe – certainly for his parents, but not for the child. If that person throughout his life never self-identifies as a Jew, I don't see why he should be so categorised. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "...what our guidelines say about categorizations": the guidelines you're looking for would probably be WP:COP#N, and more specifically WP:EGRS. Also WP:DEFINING might come in handy to get a grasp on what guidelines say in this respect. & excellently summarized by Michael. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree too. In fact I think categories like Category:German Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism serve little purpose except as a source of arguments. If editors are going to bother maintaining such a category, then with only a little extra effort they could maintain a proper list, with information as to what these people are notable for, when they lived, why they might or might not be considered to belong in the group, and so on. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Template:Infobox person

This message is to notify you that there is an RfC ongoing on whether to add pronunciation info to {{Infobox person}}, a discussion which may be relevant to watchers of this page. Your comments on the matter are appreciated. The discussion can be found here. Thanks! 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Linking also the title if it belongs to the pagename?

Take a look at this edit. Is there a rule about "how to link a biography with a title at the beginning of the pagename"? I mean, how should I link "Pope Gregory VII"? In my opinion, if the community is using that pagename (after long discussions), it is probably a good way to refer to him. So I guess it's adeguate to link that biography writing [[Pope Gregory VII]]. Is there a good reason to write instead Pope [[Pope Gregory VII|Gregory VII]]? Please note: I don't want to discuss about the naming conventions, it's about linking the whole pagename even if there is a title at the beginning. And what about Queen Victoria? And Mother Theresa? Usually unnecessary piping should be avoided. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 00:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The rationale is given in the edit summary of the edit you refer - it sounds reasonable to me. We probably want to be consistent within a given page (as to whether titles are included in the link). If we write ...King Henry VIII..., we want to be writing ...Pope Gregory VII... If the pagenames don't follow a consistent style (and often they don't) then a policy of linktext=pagename is not going to be optimal. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of surname alone and repetition of full name

In the first paragraph following the lead paragraphs, some users are fond of repeating the subject's full name, rather than just using the surname at that point. So we might have a lead paragraph, and then in the section entitled "Early life", it will say something like, "FIRSTNAME MIDDLENAME SURNAME was born in CITY on January 1, 1901 to parents FATHER and MOTHER SURNAME. ...".

Is there any consensus or ideas on what is appropriate here? (My reading of WP:SURNAME is that we should just use the surname, because this situation is not one of the exceptions listed.) Sorry, I don't know if this has been discussed before. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer repeating the full name. The lead section is meant to be a summary of the main text, so the name should be given in full when it first occurs in the main text. Setting out the name in full may also be helpful if the lead section is quite long and separated from the main text by a similarly lengthy table of contents. Finally, it may seem a little odd to have a sentence like "Smith was the son of John and Mary Smith" (compare "Peter John Smith was the son of John and Mary Smith"). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I was the editor who made the edit in question that led to User:Good Olfactory bringing this up. Like User:Jacklee, I also prefer repeating the name at the beginning of the body of the article, and some searching proved that this is indeed a fairly universal practice in FAs and GAs on individuals. However, Good Olfactory correctly pointed out to me that this policy page does not actually mention any such repetition at all, and so I would like to join him in asking 1) if this has ever come up before, and 2) if other editors would chime in with their opinions. White Whirlwind 咨 02:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether this has been discussed before, but I agree that the full name should be reiterated at the beginning of the main text of a long article (e.g., "Early life" section). —sroc 💬 03:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Good grief, no. No reason whatsoever to repeat the full name. It looks extremely weird, almost childish in fact. It reminds me of individuals, especially those trying to sell you something, who insist on repeating your name every couple of sentences when speaking to you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Comma before Jr. or Sr.

There does not appear to be any consensus for implementing this proposal. Number 5 7 12:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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 guideline about the use of a comma before Jr. or Sr. be modified to proposed language? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed language:

If the subject's preference can be established, use it.

If a subject's preference cannot be established, look at the form used by the subject's biographers. Use only authors who are known for serious, well-researched biography, such as Stephen Ambrose or Doris Kearns Goodwin. Other authors, news items, etc. should not be considered.

If neither a subject preference nor a biographer preference can be discerned, default to no comma.

Introduction:

I asked for clarification of this guideline one week ago, on the BLP noticeboard, but there has been little on-topic participation. Please read that relatively short discussion before participating in this RfC, as it provides relevant background. In particular, note that the guideline's current language differs slightly from the original language.

The first response to my request for clarification was a dismissive assertion that I was "creating a problem out of thin air" and failing to apply common sense. I view that as closer to I just don't like it than an actual argument. I believe that any guideline worth having in the first place is worth making clear. I also feel that the presence or absence of a comma in a person's name—particularly in the title of an article—is almost as important as the spelling of that name (and it wouldn't be much of a stretch to call it part of the spelling). If you disagree, please stop reading here, with my apologies for wasting your time.

As for the language of the proposed change, I feel that more "casual" authors should not be given any consideration as to the presence of absence of the comma. These authors are far less likely to attend to such details, partly because they are not expected to do so. In many cases, this is the only book they have ever written or will ever write; they simply have some inside knowledge of the subject and wish to sell it. A serious biographer, on the other hand, is more likely to have access to the subject's personal writings, etc., and will take more care when it comes to the details. If a subject has no serious biographers, and it cannot be determined that the subject had a preference one way or the other, I believe it's better to use the house default than to look at casual authors.

One might suggest changing the guideline to simply defer to WP:COMMONNAME. That would be problematic since it would open it up to a much wider range of sources, "reliable English-language sources". That usually requires the use of search engines (such as Google News Archive search) to determine the most common usage, and search engines ignore punctuation.

As for the house default, no comma, that is not within the scope of this RfC (nor prerequisite to it), so please save that for another discussion. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC survey: Comma before Jr. or Sr.

Oppose - I see no reason to make it more restrictive than it already is, which is a default to no comma barring sources telling us differently. I suppose we could make the current sentence "preference of the subject or <reliable> sources", but that's as far as I would go. Otherwise we just wind up arguing about who is actually a "serious" biographer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Support - though I personally think having a comma before Jr./Sr. as default would be better. Eman235/talk 22:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose — usage as per common name in reliable sources and/or per explicit and consistent self-preference OK (that's always understood, does not need to be mentioned separately for every topic), but besides that: best to keep the default to "with comma" in all other cases (as it is now, I see no reason to change that). So, no need for this proposed update. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Support in principle, but ought to be sayable in fewer words and with less alteration to the present text, and following resolution of the question of what default we have actually adopted (see discussion below). This is basically a question of style, and it looks a bit poor if we introduce random variation in our style just to reflect the accidental differences between the styles used by the different sources we happen to have available about different people. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Per Fyunck and Francis Schonken. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Per Fyunck and Francis Schonken. Restricting this to "serious" biographers just seems to be asking for arguments and wasted energy. If the subject's preference is known use that; if the subject's preference isn't known, follow the consensus of reliable sources; if there is no consensus among reliable sources then use Wikipedia's default (whatever that is, and I don't particularly care either way). Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC threaded discussion: Comma before Jr. or Sr.

Comment see WP:NCP#Disambiguating — don't change WP:MOSBIO without checking (and if needed: updating) its consequences to the naming convention. I left a note about this current RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Jr/Sr convention in WP:NCP#Disambiguating --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem here anyway, since the page you linked to appears to make the comma the default, whereas this page makes no comma the default. Unless I'm misreading something, it seems this is a problem more in need of discussion than the one above. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"Do not place a comma unless" means the default is no comma. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 08:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. But click the first link that Francis gave, and it says "In the case of Senior/Junior, the preferred format is with ", Sr." or ", Jr." written after the name." Which implies that the default is comma - the reverse of what this page says. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were replying to Francis, and thanks for fixing your indent. My read is that WP:NCP#Disambiguating needs to be updated as per the default, but it doesn't define the default. Most likely, whoever wrote it simply wasn't aware that a default was defined anywhere, and assumed that the comma was more appropriate because it's the more traditional form. It needs fixing, but it's not prerequisite to this RfC, and I would dearly love to avoid that tangent here. The default, if someone wishes to challenge it, is an RfC unto itself. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 09:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, if we have two supposedly authoritative pages with contradictory information, there's no way of telling which is the real default and which is the one that needs to be brought into line. Francis (in his vote) now seems to be saying that the default is with comma. There seems little point in discussing fine detail of how aggressively the default is to be applied, when there is such fundamental confusion as to what the default even is. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful. So we'll have an RfC to establish where the default is defined, followed by an RfC to decide what that default should be. And then we can retry this RfC? No, I don't think the default is relevant to the criteria for when to apply it. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, WP:NCP#Disambiguating refers to the comma incidentally, in the context of disambiguating a Jr. and a Sr. The guideline, in contrast, is specifically about this comma, and nothing else. It's clear enough which has the stronger authoritative claim. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to go back to see what the basis is for the two contradicting statements. If there was significant discussion on the matter before, then the consensus resulting from that discussion should determine what's authoritative. Basically the problem is that there are way too many Wikipedia guidelines, they are not well organized, and they seem to have been created and edited largely on an ad hoc basis. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Granted. And we need to find a way to make small incremental improvements to guidelines despite that mess. To my knowledge, there's not a lot of traction for the idea of rewriting and reorganizing all guidelines beginning now. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 11:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment - <per your oppose> @Fyunck(click): True, but don't we make judgment calls like that all the time as editors? For example, what is actually a "reliable source"? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but it's done by consensus of the article in question. We don't hamstring ourselves right out the gate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following your reasoning. Any decision process that is used for "reliable source" could also be applied to "serious biographer". There would be no more hamstringing than we already have for "reliable source". The question is how high you want the bar for this comma, and accepting any old authors' random treatments—including news articles, per the current language—is a pretty low bar. As I said, very few of these authors give a moment's consideration to the appropriateness of the comma for this subject. They simply write what seems right to them, as with any other punctuation, and their personal preferences should not be input to our decision. We might as well conduct a survey of all authors' personal preferences and apply the result across the board. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think reliable sources should be narrowed to serious biographers. If 1000 semi-serious biographers spell it one way, and two serious biographers spell it another, I'll go with the 1000 semi-serious guys every time. And to ban news articles is not to my taste either. This is a guideline that has to cover a 100,000 different types of articles... the bar should be low. Individual projects can also help handle the intricacies in their own areas of expertise. But really shouldn't any discussion be talked about below? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I had the same thought, but didn't know how to respond to your !vote any other way. Feel free to refactor as you see fit, as far as I'm concerned. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 08:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Without prejudice to whether comma or no-comma should be the rule, if a comma is placed before "Jr." or "Sr.", a comma must also be placed after unless followed by other punctuation, as this would be treated similarly to the year in MDY-format dates or city–state/city–country descriptions (see MOS:COMMA). For example, Sammy Davis, Jr., was a member of the Rat Pack; not Sammy Davis, Jr. was a member of the Rat Pack. This ought to be mentioned here to avoid confusion and to promote proper usage where it arises. —sroc 💬 11:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

See, for example:

—sroc 💬 11:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Whether to format "Jr." and "Sr." suffixes with or without commas is a style issue; why should the subject's preference enter into it? In my view, there ought to be a house style either: (1) always to include it (the traditional format); or (2) never to include it (the contemporary trend); or (3) to include or omit it at the discretion of the first main contributor of an article provided that each article is internally consistent. Pandering to subjects' preferences may lead to inconsistency within articles where some people are named with the commas and others without, quite apart from disagreements about whether other sources are sufficiently authoritative enough to lend support for a preference one way or the other. —sroc 💬 11:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Disambiguation and Spanish naming customs

Per WP:SAMESURNAME we should refer to the people with the same surname by given names for clarity and brevity. In Spanish naming customs, a person's name consists of a given name and two surnames (paternal and maternal). A father and son will, therefore, have the same paternal surname but different maternal surnames. In an article about a Spanish father and son, would the article refer to them by their given names or maternal surnames? And why? Ajaxfiore (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)