The removal of postnoms from the lead under these new guidelines has started to create some problems. While I am not opposed to this in principle, I am opposed to the removal of information. Some editors are "enforcing" these new guidelines by removing postnoms (often on dozens of articles at a time) where there is no infobox showing them. If there is no infobox then the postnoms should remain in the first line until an infobox is added. It doesn't matter if the honours are included in the body of the article - it is extremely useful to have an indication of what the person's correct style is at the top of an article where it can be seen at a glance. This problem is compounded by the sniffiness of some Wikipedia editors about infoboxes, especially those involved in projects relating to cultural figures. An example of this can be seen on the article for Michael Hordern, where his CBE has been removed from the first sentence but an editor is resisting the addition of an infobox (and, indeed, deleting one that has been added) showing his CBE. Postnominals are important in the UK and other Commonwealth countries and removing useful information like this is not helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joanne Rowling CH OBE FRSL
Perhaps that seeming overwhelming support is because nobody has [been] notified...
So, has this discussion ended? It seems inconclusive and stalemated at present. Is someone going to challenge the RfC and propose its being reversed? Or start a new RfC regarding the inclusion of postnominals in the lead sentence? (I don't know how to do either of these.) Or do we leave it as is, and actively remove postnominals from all lead sentences? Masato.harada (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALL — I have requested that the initiator of this discussion start an RfC to move this forward one way or another. Otherwise, I will. MWFwiki (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:JOBTITLES currently reads:
Offices, titles, and positions ... are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically. They are capitalized only in the following cases: When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII. When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the King, not the king (referring to Charles III); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis). When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description
Offices, titles, and positions ... are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically. They are capitalized only in the following cases:
Should we simplify MOS:JOBTITLES by removing exceptions #2 and/or #3? Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{reply to|Eyer}}
is not preceded by a modifier
Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972.
Official titles and offices are capitalized whenever they are used to name a particular holder or incumbent
opposed to Wikipedia joining "the way of the future"
It sounds weird to say that 'Donald Trump is US president'
Richard Nixon was President of the United States
When a formal title for a specific entity ...
Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
... after which President Trump joined them ...
... after which current president Trump joined them ...
I believe the reader expects more capitalization than we give them
People have long been fascinated with the idea and imagery of a female pope. In the later Middle Ages, there was an oft-repeated story about Pope Joan...
An example of JOBTITLES' inane results that I frequently have to deal with would be the sentence: "The king of Jerusalem, Fulk, defeated Pons, Count of Tripoli." What sense does this make? Surtsicna (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is currently chaotic
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (WP Library link) is supposedly based on corpus data and gives an overview of different style guides. Here's what it has to say on this issue:
Official titles and offices are capitalized whenever they are used to name a particular holder or incumbent (e.g. Cardinal Newman). When the title or office is used in apposition to the individual's name, capitalization practices vary. American English is less inclined to capitalize, whether the title follows the name or precedes it without being part of it (e.g. Fiorello La Guardia, mayor of New York) In British English, such titles carry capital letters when they come before the individual's name but not if they follow, according to Ritter (2002). So a reference to French President De Gaulle would be fully capitalized. Older British style put capitals on titles used on their own, as in the Bishop of London was in attendance (Hart's Rules, 1983), but this is no longer necessary except to prevent ambiguity (Ritter), and Americans just would not, according to the Chicago Manual (2003). Neither would put a capital on generic or plural references to an office: when he became king; the prime ministers of England. British and American practices also coincide on using upper case / capitals in honorific titles and forms of address such as His Grace, Her Majesty, Your Excellency. Senior titles and office-holders in institutions other than church and state are not regularly capitalized. In newspapers and other general publications, references to chief executive officers in business and industry are typically lower-cased, as in: chairman of Kraft Foods.
Cardinal Newman
Fiorello La Guardia, mayor of New York
French President De Gaulle
the Bishop of London was in attendance
when he became king
the prime ministers of England
His Grace
Her Majesty
Your Excellency
chairman of Kraft Foods
— Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
MOS:INITIALS requires stops and spaces between people's initials:
An initial is capitalized and is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien).
However, there are seven American political figures known often by their initials in shorthand, and their initials across Wikipedia are used unspaced, in violation of this policy:
The only exception for spaced initials is given at MOS:BIOEXCEPT, which allows formats such as CCH Pounder but requires that the format be used only when
the person has clearly declared and consistently used a preferred exceptional style for their own name; and
While some (but not all) sources currently write these names unspaced, the and requirement of MOS:BIOEXCEPT still restricts this usage as none of these men styled their names without spaces, preferring to go by their full names in nearly all cases. In John F. Kennedy's case, there is evidence he wrote his name with spaced initials.[1][2]
Some style guides resolve this issue by making a difference in how spaced initials are treated when they are the full name. For instance, Turabian has
Some individuals are known primarily by initials in place of a first and/or middle name. Such initials should be followed by a period and a space. If you abbreviate an entire name, however, omit periods and spaces.G. K. Chesterton but JFKM. F. K. Fisher but FDR
A previous discussion at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 8 § "RFK Jr." vs "R. F. K. Jr." led to a discussion about modifying BIOEXCEPT at § MOS:BIOEXCEPT: and/or, which was inconclusive.
How should this discrepancy be resolved?
— Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] — Options 5 & 6 added, to reflect the actual discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
verges on politico-slang and headlinese
recognise the difference
apply the same rules to both
You also need to be aware of potential Engvar differences in usage
"For initials in biographical names, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies § Initials"
See more detailed rationale above. I am opposed also to the later-added "Option 6", though it is perhaps the least bad of all the other alternatives to Option 1. But that comment should not be taken as actual support of Option 6. We have absolutely no objective reason to completely switch initials style just because one of them includes the surname, and we especially have no reason to do this on a per-bio basis, introducing random-ass chaos into the equation. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"not written in news style"
"commonly appears"
References
J. F. K.
Sen. J. F. Kennedy
Wikipedia generally avoids using full point in upper-case acronyms
MOS:NICKNAME says: "If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial." Does that apply only to nicknames that are our article titles, or to all nicknames that are sufficiently prominent to be in the lead sentence? --GRuban (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, at least these seven articles currently use this format without the nicknames being the article titles:
Higher on this page you will see a large number of very experienced editors disagreeing at length, so I think this is worth coming to consensus. The options proposed:
Helen Louise "Nellie" Taft
Claudia Alta "Lady Bird" Johnson
Helen Louise Taft, also known by the nickname Nellie
As per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia#First Nations group names in the first sentence of bio articles?:
A: Can belonging to an Aboriginal Australian or Torres Strait Islander group be considered a form of nationality?
B: Should MOS:NATIONALITY be edited to include an example of someone belonging to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander nation with that nationality named as a demonym in the first sentence of the lead, similarly to the example given for Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians? E.g. the first sentence of the Ashleigh Barty article reads:
Ashleigh Jacinta Barty AO (born 24 April 1996) is an Australian (Ngarigo[1][2]) former professional tennis player and cricketer.
Neegzistuoja (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Membership of the indigenous people depends on biological descent from the indigenous people and on mutual recognition of a particular person's membership by that person and by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people.
"Ethnicity … should generally not be in the lead"
"status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity"
Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity. Indigenous persons' citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names.
strong and complex relationships
the legal situation is not the same as it appears to be in the US or Canada
the sub-groupings and clans of many Aboriginal peoples were complicated
few Aboriginal people live on their traditional lands
many current-day Aboriginal people either have complex ancestry from multiple "nations", or don't actually know who their people were
“I'm not sure why you think this change is needed either — a person's indigenous ancestry can be and is often already covered in articles”
would you support including Pat Dodson as an example
The dichotomy you present between indigenous rights activists and athletes representing Australia
an added example in MOS:NATIONALITY could help to clarify whether First Nations Australians group names are only lead-worthy in some, and not all, bio articles
leav[ing] it up to individual editors to decide
saying that they documented their existence and activities ... is going too far.
If change were to occur ... that gave Aboriginal nations some kind of special legal status or jurisdiction
like an Indigenous Voice to Parliament?
It is not possible to create a uniform guideline when such strong disagreement exists on the relative importance of the labels. Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency—making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities—is strongly discouraged. Such imposed uniformity cannot, in any case, be sustained.
Thanks all for your inputs. Taking your feedback onboard, acknowledging others' concerns that Ash Barty's Aboriginality is not what she became notable for, I would like to now instead propose the following text and example to be added to MOS:NATIONALITY.
While Australian law does not recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups as nations, it does recognise their distinct sets of laws and customs and strong ties to "Country". Membership of one or more such groups, where relevant to a reason for the First Nations person's notability and cited in reliable sources, can be listed parenthetically, or in a clause after their names. Patrick Lionel Djargun Dodson (born 29 January 1948) is an Australian (Yawuru[5][6]) indigenous rights activist and former politician.
While Australian law does not recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups as nations, it does recognise their distinct sets of laws and customs and strong ties to "Country". Membership of one or more such groups, where relevant to a reason for the First Nations person's notability and cited in reliable sources, can be listed parenthetically, or in a clause after their names.
@MapReader, GiantSnowman, Markbassett, FactOrOpinion, Moxy, Michael Bednarek, Rosbif73, Chipmunkdavis, Laterthanyouthink, Traumnovelle, 5225C, Mitch Ames, Fyunck(click), Skyring, William Avery, and Dfadden: Does this address your concerns? I'm not claiming that First Nations groups are nations, just trying to succinctly note what is unique about them that warrants inclusion. Happy to refine wording as needed, thanks. Neegzistuoja (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under the laws or customs of the relevant locality, particular tribes or clans were, either on their own or with others, custodians of the areas of land from which they derived their sustenance and from which they often took their tribal names. Their laws or customs were elaborate and obligatory.
... how to handle nationality and ethnicity for bio articles on First Nations Australians? Perhaps we could think about where this might belong
Claiming a specific identity in the Lede may be a BLP vio
reason for the First Nations Indigenous person's notability
Australian law does not recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups as nations
where relevant to a reason for the First Nations person's notability
Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do not like to be referred to as ‘Indigenous’ because it is considered too generic and can be applied to all indigenous peoples of the world. There is a growing preference for First Nations Australians as a more encompassing term, because while it also is generic, it acknowledges the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
do not like ... 'Indigenous' because it is considered too generic
... reason for the First Nations Indigenous Australian person's notability
... reason for the First Nations person's an Indigenous Australian's notability
relevant to the person's notability
Hi all, thanks again for your inputs. User:Mitch Ames has kindly informed me of the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Conventions/Indigenous draft, which I will be channeling my interest in this subject towards in the future. I note the significant levels of opposition to my proposals thus far. In the interests of transparency, I was motivated by an aim of increasing awareness of the diversity (and claims to sovereignty) of the First Nations on the continent of Australia. Hopefully I have at least achieved this aim on a small scale among this small community of Wikipedians. I believe that my proposals did reflect a legitimate ambiguity in MOS:NATIONALITY (the inclusion of an example for First Nations people in North America, but not in Australia) to the extent that this conversation was at least valid and useful, regardless of my intentions. However, I intend to be more mindful of this WP:Activist WP:Bias? going forward. I invite and welcome other editors to continue the discussion here to whatever extent they wish, but I note that I will be making a conscious effort to tune out of the conversation on this page unless I am pinged directly. I accept that a consensus for change to MOS:NATIONALITY is unlikely, and I hope that the clarity provided by this reaction is useful. Thank you all and I wish you much peace and happiness in your lives. Neegzistuoja (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ Neegzistuoja As I am now working in Archaeology, have worked at Reconciliation Australia, and have recently consulted on a research project on the state of representation in Australian Wikipedia - I'll give some feedback here. Proposing something like this has value because it moves things forward and in this particular instance very likely reflects the attitudes of the vast majority of Aboriginal people in Australia. But, without First Nations consultation its not going to reflect what is actually appropriate or wanted. This kind of stuff really should be handled by a coordinated working group funded by the Wikimedia Foundation or one of the universities. It should not be handled or decided by a vote of non-expert non-Aboriginal people, (in many cases even non-Australians). The fact that Wikimedia hasn't done this and the rules on here handle these kind of issues extremely poorly and favour a tyranny of the Eurocentric majority doesn't give me me great hope for that. Having discussions around something like this is a constant mine-field of dealing with bad faith actors and non-enforcement of the rules around them - so be aware of this.Poketama (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Barty, a Ngarigo woman and deeply proud of her Indigenous heritage
Ngarigo woman Barty admitted it felt "a bit strange" to be back in Melbourne with a relaxed frame of mind
Dodson, a Yawuru man, on Tuesday announced he would retire as a Western Australian senator due to ill health.
Dodson, a Yawuru man from Broome, believes in "the Law".
Hi, not sure if MOS:SURNAME applies to the first mention in an article's body. @Quaerens-veritatem thinks it does (see [28]), while @750h+ thinks it doesn't (see Talk:Ryan Reynolds#MOS:SURNAME). Thedarkknightli (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fairly obvious reasons to repeat the full name. For example, Daisy Bates (author) also mentions her husband, Jack Bates
Everything in the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body.
MOS:SURNAME currently states "For fictional entities, use common names. For example, Jason, Luigi, and Wesker." Ironically, I suggested the current wording, following this consensus reached at Project Video games.
Would this apply to regular characters in film and book plots? For example, one editor is now changing surnames in film plots to first names, citing MOS:SURNAME, on the grounds that film characters are typically fictional. See this edit for example: [29], where the film character Ben Gillespie has his name changed to 'Ben', presumably because the character is more likely to be referred to as Ben in the film, than as his surname. When I proposed the current wording of MOS:SURNAME, I had intended it to apply to famous characters like Luigi and Wesker, not regular fictional characters in mainstream media. Should film characters who are not notable themselves always be referred to as their first names, just because they happen to be fictional? Damien Linnane (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussion above, I am proposing reversing the decision made in 2023, on the grounds that discussion was inadequate and not enough concerned editors involved. I'll ping all the names I can find tomorrow, if someone else doesn't get there first. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made three edits to §Gender identity in the article. Those edits are only to add clarity to existing policy, based on what I learned at Talk:Sarah McBride#Notable by the previous name. I actually disagree with this policy, and believe that a trans person's birth/former name is no different than a maiden name. In my opinion, if the former name has been reported in reliable sources, there is absolutely no reason not to include the former name in the article, just like maiden names are included in biographical articles. Green Montanan (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way I am reading the discussion above, there is a consensus for a clarifying footnote, but opposition to using Sarah McBride as a specific example. Here is a proposal for a new footnote, which is general, and does not use any examples: neither real nor hypothetical.
I think the new footnote explains why in McBride's case we do not include her former name without explicitly naming her. In her case, the only WP:RS that are available prior to her transition is her university's student newspaper, which is not enough to meet the WP:Notability requirement of multiple sources independent of the subject. Green Montanan (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The gist of the footnote is to say that the existence of the article (or lack there of) pre-transition is an indication on whether the pre-transition name can be mentioned in the article, but that's not a guarantee. The rest of the footnote gives a process for not following the pre-transition article existence indicator. Green Montanan (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although the above proposed footnote is long, it is not an instructions creep, as it does not add instructions. It adds clarification. Of course, dilutes the effectiveness of the additional clarification. So here is a new proposed clarifying footnote which is much shorter:
It basically explains what it means to be notable from the Wikipedia point of view. Green Montanan (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the current section for MOS:NEE should mention whether italics should or shouldn't be included in it. Template:Nee does not include italics automatically. However, some editors would format the text to be ''née'', with italics. I feel like there is quite a lot of inconsistency on pages regarding this. To sum it up, I'm mostly questioning if it is preferred for "née" to be in italics or not? Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
''née''
A rule of thumb is to not italicize words that appear unitalicized in major general-purpose English dictionaries.
This does not apply to loanwords or phrases that see everyday use in non-specialized English
Kou Yang is referred to in English sources as "Dr. Yang" and "Yang" per American and English-language custom documented in MOS:SURNAME - but among Hmong he would go by Kou since the last name is a clan name (and thus very common: 18 Hmong clans exist, so there are about 18 standard Hmong last names) - per MOS:GIVENNAME. I wrote the article body following the conventions of the sources but I am wondering if I should switch from "Yang" to "Kou" for better clarity, particularly when citing sources by someone of the same clan? Per MOS:SAMESURNAME. I'm uncertain here and would appreciate input. Do I follow the sources or the cultural convention? (I also posted this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans#Naming conventions for Hmong Americans.) Pingnova (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is presently an RfC on the Catalan/Spanish label issue for Ramon Casas: Talk: Ramon Casas#Request for Comment: Subject lead label Catalan or Spanish?. Since starting the Casas RfC, I learned about the pervasiveness of the question. There was an RfC in 2018 on this question on this talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2018_archive#RfC_on_use_of_Spanish_regional_identity_in_biography_leads. I have since learned that this conflict is widespread, and, frankly, unresolved by the 2018 RfC. For Catalan personages, there are editors who are systematically and insistently changing "Catalan" to "Spanish" as the primary label for the subject in the lead. A random example, Isidre Nonell: diff1,diff2,diff3,diff4,diff5,diff6, etc. Notice there is no discussion of the issue on the article Talk page. One can pick just about any other article with a Catalan subject and find similar, sometimes with an edit summary "Catalonia is not a country!" I leave aside motivations for this low-level, but on-going, widespread edit warring. I was brave or foolish enough to start the RfC on the question (labels matter.), but most often the revert back and forth goes undiscussed (a small issue, not worth the time, let the reverts continue?). Is there a way to resolve this on-going conflict, or are we to form our own gangs of editors and, on a weekly basis, say, go through all the articles and change them back from what the other gang did? Ultimately, it appears that your original RfC did not resolve the question; as I read its resolution, it left too much gray area for interpretation (How does one show that a subject "self-identifies"?). It would be an exhausting task to go through all the Catalan biographical articles and litigate each one, with vast polemics, separately. Perhaps one strategy would be to contest several key articles with RfCs, such as to develop a body of precedence. (Note that this question turns on what a label is, generally, which I've raised on these pages before, I believe. That a subject is consistent with a technical definition of a label, does not mean they should necessarily be identified by that label, e.g., "He has Spanish nationality, so he should be labeled Spanish." C.f., an essay Wikipedia:Crime labels; Using a simple, superficial label is often just bad writing.) Bdushaw (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The present Manual of Style could be made clearer, with respect to the main question here. Per MOS:NATIONALITY, The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident and that neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability. The key concept here is where the subject was notable. But the statement plays rather vaguely about what nationality means - that won't do in Catalan-Spanish controversies. One new consideration for me is what exactly is a "country" or "nationality" in this context? I had thought that Scotland was not a country, for example, but that's not exactly true. Within the Commonwealth, it is a country, but one not recognized internationally. Similar, Palestine - going strictly by formally recognized nation definition, are Palestinian politicians to be called Israeli politicians (apologizes; what a horror). By these looser definitions of "country", is Catalonia a "country"? It has its own well-defined region, language, flag, government, culture, etc. Most often the subjects of such articles self-identify as "Catalan", though it can be problematic to find reliable sources to this effect for historical figures. Then, the statement above seems to pertain to living biographies, whereas the general problem here extends back in history. Bdushaw (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident
neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability
The guidance also declares that ethnicity is not to be included in the lead. But where does ethnicity begin and end in this case - is Catalan an ethnicity? Bdushaw (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People get so dogmatic about the person's country of citizenship that they overlook the less common cases when another identification is actually more germane to their notability. That's why it's essential to look at sources and see if they are calling someone, for example, a Catalan politician or a Spanish politician. Bdushaw (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:MR clarifies to use "Mr.", but Mr. clarifies that there's a difference between for "Mr." and "Mr" in American and British English (while noting, though, that articles are not content guidelines). Is there a reason why MOS:MR doesn't clarify this, and should it be updated? -- Alex_21 TALK 07:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFL § Inconsistent application of nationalities in lead sentences?. Left guide (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do BLP policies apply to nationalities and ethnic groups, or any group of people? Do we have separate policy? For example, what are the rules about ethnic or national stereotypes. -- GreenC 16:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any consensus about whether accomplishments by creative professionals (published works; art exhibitions or installations; music concerts or performances, book tours, and so on) may be included in a biography and formatted as a bullet list in an article section? This question is inspired by Teahouse questioner Naomi Hennig at this Teahouse question regarding whether {{resume-like}} templates placed without comment by Doubledoublex2 to three sections of BLP Regine Schumann, namely these: § Art installations in public places, § Solo exhibitions, and § Group exhibitions are appropriate at the article. The templates have since been removed. I can see how it might appear rather cv-like in the aggregate, but not sure if we have a guideline about this. Further comments by Hoary at the Teahouse discussion and Talk:Regine Schumann may be relevant. Mathglot (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of works of individuals or groups, such as bibliographies, discographies, filmographies, album personnel and track listings are typically presented in simple list format, though it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points, and that if the lists become unwieldy, they are split off into stand-alone lists per WP:Summary style.
Visual artists--yes, I realize I have not discussed that group--it has a different set of problems--There are a few, the most extensive being the group under List of Picasso artworks (by decade). I do not know about completeness or quality. Perhaps we should postpone this part--enough complications for the time being.
Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists
An entry was recently removed from this list on the grounds that he now identifies as transgender and masculine. (Comment: I think I read the editor's summary correctly that the chef in question identifies as masculine, so I am using masculine pronouns based on that but without further verification.) However, he identified as female when he received a Michelin star. He is not notable, but the restaurant is. Is MOS:GENDERID a reason to delete the entry? —C.Fred (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for some guidance on naming a biography article (already checked out the naming conventions MOS page, didn't look like that talk page got much traffic). I'm developing an article on the visual artist known currently as "Lotus L. Kang", she's been featured in an array of solid publications and notable exhibitions (highlights: monograph published by Chisenhale Gallery [museum] in '23, 2024 Whitney Biennial, currently on the cover of Frieze magazine's May issue/was on the cover of Art Monthly mag in 2023), so the notability, etc. all check out. But she has gone by several different names over the last few years, reflected in the sources I'm looking at. Through the early 2020s she went professionally as "Laurie Kang", in the early 2020s she switched to "Lotus Laurie Kang" and in the past 2 years she's switched to "Lotus L. Kang". As far as I can tell from reading the profiles and coverage of the artist both before/during/after the name switches, it's not a question of gender identity or presentation, so I don't think that's what would guide this situation. But what makes the most sense for the title? I would think either "Lotus Laurie Kang" to capture all her names or "Lotus L. Kang" to be in line with how sources currently identify her, but I didn't just want to assume. The most recent sources go with "Lotus L. Kang", and the current red-link on Wiki (on the 2024 Whitney Biennial article) goes with "Lotus L. Kang". Thanks for any help! 19h00s (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand why we wouldn't want common nicknames in most cases, I think it is of substantial value if the article title does not have a nickname in it. This is because the nickname is very frequently is not mentioned anywhere in the lead, even when it is the way the person is most commonly referred to. For example, Helen Herron Taft was most frequently referred to as Nellie throughout her life, but because "Nellie" is considered a common hypocorism of "Helen" (I have some issues with this too, but that's a different matter), basically the only place where it is mentioned is once in the childhood section. This needs to be much, much more prominent. It was decided in an RfC to do this for YouTuber MrBeast, because the personal name he most frequently used was essentially not mentioned anywhere in the article at the time. This was a good decision but since there are other cases where it should apply, it should go into the MOS. Ladtrack (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should the provision MOS:POSTNOM (under WP:MOSBIO) that allows post-nominal letters only outside the LEAD SENTENCE be overturned, maintained, or modified? Specifically, the guideline currently reads: "When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post‐nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence." Obviously, this RfC would also invite alternative solutions, etc. I will add options if so-requested. As such;
"When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post‐nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence."
AGAIN, THIS PERTAINS TO THE LEAD SENTENCE OF AN ARTICLE.
EDIT: the order of precedence stuff can probably be ignored. EDIT 2: For transparency, I have attempted to manually ping each participant in the original discussion. I apologize if I missed you, it was a long discussion and my thumbs and eyes grow weary.
This RfC invites discussion on whether excluding post‐nominals from the lead remains justified, or if a revision is warranted given concerns about clarity, consistency, and the conveyance of useful information. The original discussion was not an RfC proper, and as such, I have taken it upon myself to start one. The discussion was productive enough that I feel it warranted an RfC. This is my first RfC, so, I apologize in advance for any mistakes.
MWFwiki (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 isn't really viable because infoboxes are intended to summarize information already provided in the article, and only the most important ones. They are not for holding, as the sole location, information on the subject, nor a dumping ground for details that someone wants to suppress from the lead or rest of the body (rather the opposite). Option 3 would be my last (acceptable) choice, as presently written (i.e. also requiring the information be in the article body somewhere).
Nikkimaria is correct that per-article consensus is a factor, as it is in anything. Option 4 is less desirable because a one-size-fits-all solution will not actually fit all. Someone may have 5 honours that are very notable (and 7 more that are not), while someone else might have 2 that are both trivial (e.g. fellowships in tiny organizations without any reputation, or even a negative rep). The sensible thing to do in the first case is include the grand 5 in the lead, while what to do in the second case is include neither. And exactly what Nikkimaria said about ordering of postnominals. All that attempted nit-picky rule-mongering is not appropriate for an MoS section (WP:MOSBLOAT, WP:CREEP). People who care a lot about (especially Commonwealth) honours will already know how to appropriately order these, and WP's and MoS's job is not to stand as a replacement for Debrett's Handbook.
PS: The late-added option 5 is operationally the same as option 1, since the pre-exclusionary-change wording permitted, did not reqire, postnoms and didn't have CREEPing rules about number and order of them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC); revised 11:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are not for holding, as the sole location, information on the subject, nor a dumping ground for details that someone wants to suppress from the lead or rest of the body
In sum, we should follow our existing policies and guidelines, which tell us to communicate a person's notability through actual words. If the honor is important enough to be listed in the lead, let's write things in a way are simple to understand (e.g. as done in Edward Holland (Canadian Army officer)). Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In particular, opposers did not successfully challenge the claim that most post-nominals do not significantly define the subject in question such that they provide the reader with an essential understanding of who the subject is..."
I believe that supporters of the proposal had a stronger argument for why the post-nominals should not, by default, be included in the lead sentence
There probably are not many people who think the same from what I see in the survey, but I somewhat wish there was a sort of intermediary option between 2 and 3. Something along the lines of keeping the exclusion from the lead sentence that we already have, but also confining post-nominal letters to the infobox on pages that have one, while detailing the titles in the body in any case. Choucas0 🐦⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
post-nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence
I'm just wondering if those contributing to the survey should note whether or not they live in a Commonwealth country. I suspect that there may be a difference in understanding of the significance of the civil honours systems. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a quick side comment, there were some analogies to winners of important US awards for why inclusion of post-nominals can be good. But this analogy doesn't work. In the rare cases where the awards are of titanic importance, they probably go in the 2nd or 3rd sentence anyway (not the 1st sentence), and then they deserved to be spelled out in plain English, not in a cryptic abbreviation. See Audie Murphy for an example - it doesn't try to jam all the awards he won in the first sentence, but simply describes them in an accessible overview in the second sentence. That seems correct to me. SnowFire (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The average reader may not understand why some people get letters after their name, while some don't. There may be subtle bias introduced against people in non-postnominal areas if we make a point of including postnominals so strongly. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 18:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...wouldn't be the first idea of such an expansion; such proposals have always met with a shouting-down for good reasons involving fallout consequences.
I disagree on your [SMcCandlish's] statement that if something is about on the prestige level of the Congressional Medal of Honor or Presidential Medal of Freedom, or something granted by a highly regarded organization like the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzer Prize, we would include that prominently in the lead, and often in the lead sentence. Medal of Honor recipients are generally career military veterans who are notable solely on the basis of receiving the medal and so its receipt is due for inclusion in the lead. Even still, articles like Thomas Payne (soldier) and Michael A. Monsoor mention their medals in the second sentence. Of the first six Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients from Joe Biden, only Simone Biles and Steve Jobs mention the medal in the lead, and both times in the last paragraph rather than first sentence. The other articles don't mention the medal until a much later section of the article. A goal of provid[ing] a convenient and compact way of doing this that is meaningful to readers who care about the honours isn't really worthwhile for our readers. Nobody is going directly to biographies to learn whether someone is a recipient of a specific honor, we have list articles for that. Unless a reader is intuitively familiar with the concept of postnominal letters and knows the letters for the specific title received by the subject of the article they're reading, it appears as complete nonsense and clutter. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if something is about on the prestige level of the Congressional Medal of Honor or Presidential Medal of Freedom, or something granted by a highly regarded organization like the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzer Prize, we would include that prominently in the lead, and often in the lead sentence
provid[ing] a convenient and compact way of doing this that is meaningful to readers who care about the honours
readers who care about the honours
jingoistic
Much more substantively, this is a key, if not the issue here: there's no intuitive reason why Commonwealth countries use letters and other countries don't for their state awards. There's no intuitive reason to you, but more importantly yet, it is a fact that the post-nominal abbreviations are a standardized style for Commonwealth persons. There's no escaping that. There is no objective reason I can discern for "readers [to] see this distinction as arbitrary"; they're not categorically stupid nor utterly unexposed to writing outside their own country's publications. That is, your "and so" leading into that clause is equivalent to "ergo" or "thus", but the one does not actually follow from the other as a consequence.
there's no intuitive reason why Commonwealth countries use letters and other countries don't for their state awards
Further toward the meat of the matter, the idea that postnominal abbreviations are not used in the US is actually false. Quite a few of them are (look at the credits in any American movie or TV show and you'll see several). High-end tech professionals use lots of them, even on their social media pages. So do nurses and other medical people. There's a societal difference in that these American postnoms are usually guilds, unions, medical registrations, certifications, and other professional details, not awards/honors, so probably not lead-worthy except in unusual circumstances. However, many Americans actually have British honours; I know quite a number of FSAScot who are Americans, just because of the circles I run in. There are American (and other non-Commonwealth) fellows of more prestigious British institutions than that one. Yes, these people usually use the postnoms. So, the rather "us vs. them, Americans vs. Brits" taint in the air throughout this thread is misguided from the start. If a British fellowship (or royal/governmental award) of significance were awarded to an American subject, and it were significant enough to their notability (regardless of the person's citizenship) to include in the lead at all, there would be no reason to exclude that postnom from the lead sentence (under RfC options 1, 4, or 5). That is, this really is not about British/Commonwealth versus American/other subjects, or readers, or editors, or dialects. It's about the fact that postnoms are entirely conventional for particular things, and not for others; and that among those they are conventional for, some are lead-worthy and some are not. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
especially all that dwelling on the nature of one particular American honor
What's the difference between "option 1" and "option 5"? — BarrelProof (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So if we decide that they should be in the first sentence should these be mentioned at MOS:LEADCLUTTER that currently states "Avoid cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthetical containing items like alternative spellings and pronunciations" we go on to mention "This information should be placed elsewhere, such as in the |pronunciation= or |native_name= parameters of an infobox, or in an explanatory footnote, to avoid clutter" . MOS:FIRSTBIO and MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE also gives us examples of explanatory footnote to avoid clutter.Moxy🍁 22:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section.
The lead sentence should be concise: Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article, along with the above, but should be omitted from the lead, as should superseded honors (e.g., the lesser of two grades in an order), and those issued by other entities (e.g., sub-national organizations).
When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters or seldom uses them (common among heads of state and members of royal families), they should be omitted from the lead, and the titles only described in the main body of the article.
Post-nominals should not be added except to a biography subject's own lead sentence, in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material, and in other special circumstances such as...
...post-nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence.
The lead sentence should be concise: Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article, along with the above, but should be omitted from the lead
Post-nominals should only be mentioned at relevant places in a biography subject's own article (excepting the lead sentence), in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material, and in other special circumstances such as...
I couldn't get past why there's so much focus this time around on lead sentence, so I've been investigating- I don't want to get drawn into the larger debate but it's worth clarifying this small component - hopefully by staying away from the subjective parts and focusing on just a factual point I won't be drawn too far into this debate.
The previous discussion, though titled about "Lead sentence", wasn't worded to apply narrowly to only the lead sentence. It was titled as such, because, I suspect, the previous placement WAS the lead sentence, but the meat of the discussion was about lead vs. body. Ed's proposal was worded: ...would advise that post-nominals be placed in the body of the article. and the previous discussion was held on that basis, not the specific basis of excluding it from the lead sentence only (not sure such a different understanding would of changed anything relevant though). The original proposal continued that there was meant to be a followup If needed, the exact wording of this revised section will be determined after this RfC concludes and the need for a part 2 discussion was repeated elsewhere, but a follow-up was never held as far as I'm aware (I was however gone from wikipedia for a while so may have missed it)... (There was tangentially this but it never went anywhere.)
...would advise that post-nominals be placed in the body of the article.
If needed, the exact wording of this revised section will be determined after this RfC concludes
Meanwhile, after the previous discussion, the MOS was changed to ...may be included in the main body of the article., matching the proposal and meaning not anywhere in the lead, as was discussed. In Aug 2024 Asilvering changed it to ...may be included in the main body of the article, but not in the lead sentence of the article., being ambiguous as to whether the rest of the lead was allowable or not. Ignoring some minor formatting changes, the next significant change was in Jan 2025 when Ed changed it to ...may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence, presumably to clarify the previously introduced ambiguity but inadvertently now indicating that another part of the lead was allowable, and included a link to J. K. Rowling as an exemplar of such usage in both lead & body, even though neither case in that particular example is done well in my view (but that's an aside)
...may be included in the main body of the article.
...may be included in the main body of the article, but not in the lead sentence of the article.
...may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence
Now that it's being discussed again, with all the intervening piecemeal changes, some folks are focusing on the lead sentence title bit of the previous discussion rather than the lead versus body substance of that discussion. Appears a similar distinction was made in the tangentially related follow up I linked above. Some folks want to have it in the infobox and not the lead, but others are pointing out (or did point out, in the previous discussion) that it can't be in the infobox if it's not somewhere in the article text (Though I seem to remember one person somewhere arguing that it can be amongst the "minor statistical facts & figures" if quoted directly within the infobox, but I can't re-find that - and that's a whole different side discussion about infobox's and whether or not you should have citations inside infobox's, a commonly quoted concept but not in WP:INFOBOXCITE). So if you are going to include it in the infobox, then it seemingly needs to also be in the text, but there's only 2 places that make logical sense to do so in the text- to use the postnominal(s) actually postnominally (like it is designed to be used, ie after the name, which 99.9% of the time going to be in the lead sentence) OR include a separate wordy and awkward section, but including separate sections for styles and the like has also been challenged and/or found to be confusing like here for example. In the previous discussion at least a few editors seemed to be deliberately forcing such a catch-22 because they actually wanted ALL postnominals removed everywhere (I respect Vanamonde93 & Dan Leonards posts above where they explicitly lay out that that is their goal- I disagree with them, but I appreciate & respect that they're upfront about it and are not trying to back-door it like some previous editors have attempted). For me it boils down to two questions- #1) For postnominals are we using all, some, or none in Wikipedia? (My answer would be "some", but I don't want to get drawn into the subjective parts of this discussion) Then, #2) Unless you answered #1 with 'none', then you have to figure out where to so include them? with the name, which happens to be in the lead sentence, is the best place (and optionally additionally and in any infobox, as well). It's no more of an imposition on the various lead MoS guidelines's than including the middle name or birth/death dates are. But now I'm getting into this very debate which I said I don't want to be drawn into. argh!
Unless the answer to #1 is "none", then you ALSO must answer #2 - you lot figure that out, I'm done. Gecko G (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and now it's time to sort out that can of worms
Being a Jew at the 1930s in Germany was a completely different than being a German. Oficialy Jews where not Germens after 1935. So for Jewish people that lived in Germany during that time to call them just Germans is misleading. They were not Germens according to the low they where Jews. That situation should reflect in Wikipedia rules where to mention ethnicity. Eyal Morag (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]