Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2012 archive

Waller

A current FAC begins:

Hector Macdonald Laws (Hec) Waller, DSO and Bar (4 April 1900 – 1 March 1942) was a senior officer ...

Where do we usually put the "Hec"? - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The best way is to give any informal name or nickname separately from the full legal name, thus:

• Hector Macdonald Laws Waller, DSO and Bar, known as Hec Waller (4 April 1900 – 1 March 1942) was a senior officer ...
• Hector Macdonald Laws Waller, DSO and Bar (4 April 1900 – 1 March 1942) was a senior officer ... He was known to friends as Hec Waller.

This helps make the meaning clear; otherwise it might be misread as saying that 'Hec' was an unused fourth Christian name. It has the advantage that the full legal name runs uninterrupted. It is probably fair to say that the Manual of Style does not at present say this explicitly and it may help editors if it did. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, I think this is making a mountain out of a mole hill. The way I've written his name is just as his Australian Dictionary of Biography has it. Hec is a typical shortened form of Hector, not unique to this guy, and I don't see how it would confuse people. I've used the same style for FA-level bios like William Dowling (Bill) Bostock, Valston Eldridge (Val) Hancock, and others, without issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that he was generally referred to as "Hec" both during and after the service, I'm with Ian on this one; FAC has no lack of fussy reviewers (including me), and I don't remember seeing this cause a problem at FAC. OTOH, if only some people called him "Hec", or only for part of his life, then I think we need to say so instead of writing (Hec). - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, Dank, and if there was some particular point when that started, I would note it, but all the biographical material I have on him seems to refer to him as Hec pretty well from birth, without making a deal about it. OTOH, his nickname of "Hard Over Hec" (unique to him) was gained for a specific characteristic observed in the Mediterranean campaign during World War II, and I've highlighted that at the appropriate point in the narrative. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help on titles and honorifcs

I'm trying to pin down exactly what titles and post-nomial letters are allowed. The article in question is List of Royal College Colombo alumni. I attempted to remove nearly everything, but was reverted by another user. We've agreed to some removals, but not others. Specifically, here are the ones in contention (that I say should go but he does not):

• Military ranks (Major X, Second Lieutenant Y)
• FRCS, etc.: These are memberships in a society, and appear (if I understand correctly) to be identical to the use of the pre-nomial "Doctor", which is expressly forbidden.
• Justice (when used as a title for a judge or ex-judge)
• pdc, ndc: These indicate that a military officer attended a particular military school.
• SLA, SLAC, etc: These indicate the branch of the military a person served in
• CCS, SLAS, SLOS, etc.: These indicate the branch of the Sri Lankan government the person works in (like adding DoJ after someone's name in the U.S.
• MP: Stating they are/were a member of Parliament.
• Deshamanya and another I can't find: Titles bestowed by the Sri Lankan Government.

The only one of the above that I consider to possibly fit within the MOS is the last one, as it looks like it might be the equivalent of "Sir", which is allowed. One thing the other user keeps arguing is that many of these are based on the British tradition...but as far as I can tell, we don't use them for people from the UK (for instance, I don't see MP after the names of members of the UK Parliament). In essence, the other user is asserting that this is a specific Sri Lankan tradition, while I'm arguing that we do not follow said traditions, with a few very narrow exceptions. However, as someone of US origin, I do find the whole subject a bit outside of my knowledge base, so the input of MOS regulars is appreciated. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally agree with keeping military ranks, senior fellowships (like FRCS) and titles such as Deshamanya, but not the others. We certainly don't use them in British biographical articles, so the other editor is incorrect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just so that I understand, could you explain what makes a military rank more acceptable than, say, a political rank (which we don't include, like "President")? Also, what makes those fellowships more important than membership in a limited membership commercial guild? I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just trying to figure out how we're making these distinctions. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The use of post nominal letters, and prefixes in Sri Lanka is a hybrid of native, colonial and post independence styles developed over the years. Therefore suffixes such as Dissawa, Adigar originated from the native Kingdom of Kandy; titles like Justice (Sri Lanka still used Roman-Dutch law), Mudaliar from the Dutch and was continued by the British. Due to over 100 years of British colonial rule the heavy use of titles and honors became popular in Sri Lanka and continued after Independence. In the post republic era were a local honors system was developed the old practices remained even after they may have died out in the UK. Qwyrxian, compared with the US, Commonwealth countries have a heavy use of titles, military ranks are such. Officers tend to retain and use their military ranks as a title after leaving the service in good order even though they may not were their old uniform (unlike in the US) unless they are reactivated or receive a military funeral. The practice of use of military ranks as titles are rarely used in the US, other than in the south before and after the Civil War. Cossde (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, commissioned military ranks tend to be retained for the rest of one's life. Other titles are not. In fellowships, I favour following the formal British practice, which is to always include senior fellowships (FRS, FBA, FRCS etc), but not other memberships, qualifications etc. Postnominals like MP, SLA etc are also transitory. One ceases to use them after one has left the organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace/hometown

In biographies, particularly infoboxes, should we be giving the municipality in which the person was born, or the municipality in which the person's family was living at the time of birth? In modern times, many people whose families live in suburbs are born in a nearby large city where hospitals are located. The actual birth city seems less encyclopedic than the city in which the person was living when born, but it's more technically correct, isn't it? Powers ^T 15:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In my view, a person is born in the city (municipality, whatever term is appropriate for the country) they "live" in at the time of their birth, not the location of the hospital, the car, or the taxi. For me, the only time it becomes more complicated is if they're born while the mother is visiting another city, and if there's sourcing for that, I'd deal with it on a case-by-case basis, depending on the sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyone else have any input? Surely we have a standard of some sort? Powers ^T 14:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We should do whatever is clearest for readers, which means adopting whatever common convention is used by existing reference sources. I think the convention is that the "place of birth" is the actual location where the infant was born. Further evidence and reasons I lean toward this interpretation:

• Our own Place of birth article says: "The place of birth is not necessarily the place where the parents of the new baby live. If the baby is born in a hospital in another place, that place is the place of birth." The article doesn't provide any citation for this, but still it makes sense to be consistent with that article to avoid confusing readers.
• Location of birth has more practical significance. For example, location of birth often has a role in determining citizenship, while place of parents' residence does not (although parents' citizenship often does).
• The wording of the infobox is "Born: October 28, 1955 (age 56) / Seattle, Washington, USA". This implies that we're stating specifically where a person was born. If the infobox field were labeled hometown or place of origin, I might lean the other way.
• The "municipality in which the person's family was living" guideline is more difficult to interpret consistently. Under such a standard, if a Mercer Island, Washington, family has a baby in Seattle, the baby's place of birth is Seattle. What if the family has the baby in Everett, Washington (while visiting Grandma in the suburbs), or Vancouver, British Columbia (while on a day trip), or Beijing, China (while on a short vacation—or on a six-month sabbatical). There's a continuum of possibilities, and no clear place to draw the line. The actual-place-of-birth standard is much simpler.

—Caesura^(t) 15:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not really difficult is it? The place of birth is whatever place the mother is when the baby pops out - how could place of birth possibly mean anything different? So I agree with Caesura and what our current guidelines state. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 17:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, for place of birth it is the geographical name (e.g. town) of the place where delivery occurred. Exception might be --where this place cannot easily be determined or where it is a meaningless set of coordinates-- when delivery occurs on high sea. In this case it should be name of the vessel possibly in conjunction of a nautical location. Mootros (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sheikh?

Sheikh is an honorific title which has the same connotation as "Lord" or "Lord Prince", especially in the context of members of Arabian royal families. According to WP:HONORIFIC the honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person. However, there is no guideline regarding the honorific title "Sheikh". Also, WP:NCNT does not give a clear advise either, except of that "there is no explicit convention for Middle Eastern countries". Since it has similarities with that of the honorific titles Sir or Lord, I would argue that it is therefore logical to include the honorific title "Sheikh" as well in the initial reference. Am I right? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I respectfully disagree entirely. Mr D. E. Morphon, you appear to know a lot about titled western families, but not to have comparable visibility of the working practices of Islamic communities, especially those outside of the Arab world (where hereditary titles do still exist). The use of "Sheikh" as an Arab hereditary title is a minority use of Sheikh nowadays. I live in a location that has thirteen mosques, six madrasas and two Islamic centres. Each is headed by an imam (or seveal imams) or other senior persons in authority. None is from a titled family or has earned a formally bestowed title from a national honors body like those found in Britain and most Commonwealth countries. Yet all these heads of units are variously called “Mufti”, “Shaykh”, “Maulana” etc by those within their groups. I am not really bothered that occasional Wikipedia articles might refer to such an imam as “Imam Smith”, although, as you know, it is not usual or desirable on Wikipedia pages to refer to people with their titles (“Professor Smith then …”, “In 1987, Dr Smith ...”). See for example the articles for famous doctors like Paul Gachet and Christiaan Barnard. Moreover, a much wider “problem” exists. Perhaps you could google people like Abdur Raheem Green, Yusuf Chambers, Ahmed Deedat, Hamza Yusuf, Yusuf Estes and Zakir Naik, to give just a few examples. They are routinely called “Sheikh” (commonly also spelled “Shaykh”), “Hazrat”, “Maulana”, etc, regardless of family background, the quality and extent of their formal education, or their levels of authority within hierarchies. Yusuf Estes, for example, often speaks publicly around the world where he is called, or calls himself, “Sheikh Yusuf Estes”. Yet Estes has not inherited a hereditary title, he was not born into a socially elevated Muslim family (indeed he is a convert), he has not gained higher formal qualifications and no organisation has bestowed upon him a title so that he can act as their representative. In other words, Shaykh Yusuf Estes is a shaykh because he says so or because the people promoting his speeches say so. This is VERY common. In my view, we should restrict the use of Islamic honorifs on Wikipedia to (a) hereditary titles; and (b) FORMALLY BESTOWED titles representing specific posts or levels of education/accomplishment.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gorge. The policy on post-nominal initials may provide a guide: it requires that "they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated". I would say that if we were to permit this, we would need a citation that shows this condition has been met. We have the same problem in the Hindu sphere with the word "Swami". It is not always formally bestowed, and we have too many article titles which start with this honorific when they should not. Yworo (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How to handle name changes?

When the (living) subject of a biography changes name, and publicly identifies and is known by the new name, I presume we should rename the article and generally change the name in the article to the new name (with the addition of née maiden name in the lead for a married woman). However do we change all usages of the name, even when some obviously refer to things that happened before the name change? Barring any last-minute objections, I intend to rename the Alicia Gorey article to Alicia Loxley, to reflect her recent marriage and name change. (We have appropriate references, including public self-identification. Talk:Alicia Gorey#Name change: Gorey --> Loxley has the details.) However sentences don't make sense (on their own) with the new name, eg "In July 2008, Loxley joined Nine News Melbourne as a reporter" - because at the time she was not Loxley, she was Gorey.

What should we do - refer to her by her current name throughout the article, or her name at the time? Do the MOS guidelines cover this explicitly? Should they?

On a related matter, I suspect that some references to her from other articles should not be changed, because they refer to past roles, before her name change, eg in Today (Australian TV program)#Finance. However this might lead to anomalies, eg if the same article refers to her in the present tense, by her new name (eg Today (Australian TV program)#Substitute presenters. Does MOS offer any guidelines on this? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I was involved in a similar dispute last year over Louise Mensch née Bagshawe, who changed her surname on marriage but retains her maiden surname for her books. I'm strongly of the view that we should not rewrite history, and any matter dealing with the past before a name change should use the old name. It's clear to the readers of a biographical article because they should have started with the introduction which explains the change of name. With other articles, it's easy to put in a piped link to help explain. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What about people who appear in someone else's BLP who change their name after they have no association with the subject of the BLP? Should their name be retrospectively changed in someone else's article. MoS/B isn't clear on the subject and some people want to put (currently known as ABCDE) after the name they were using at the time. I agree with SB above that we should use the name that was being used at the time. Introducing a new name that was not used at the time can confusion. I suggest adding something to MoS/B like - "If someone mentioned in another person's BLP changes their name after their mention in the BLP, still continue to use the name they were using at the time of their mention. If they have their own Wiki article, link to that article from the name they were using at the time".Momento (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

First, I would do a page move to the new name, which will automagically put a redirect in for the old name. Next, assuming the biography is written in chronological order, I would leave everything before the name change the way it is, cover the name change in a Wedding section, and then carry on using the new name for the rest of the article. I don't think this will be too confusing because the lede should have both names in the first sentence, then the article will consistently refer to the person by the old name, until a clean changeover to the new name. I don't think you should go back and change other articles with links—it's technically unnecessary due to the redirect, and it's not wise from a style point, either. Especially if the person is someone with credits to their name (artist, actor, author, etc.) those credits are not revised after the name change, so changing the name in our articles on those subjects would be wrong. I can take a whack at writing up something to go into the MOS if you agree with what I've said here. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. You may have intended this but perhaps in the wedding section say something like "Since her marriage Gorey started using Loxley as her surname" to make it clear that she initiated the name change, not us Wiki editors.Momento (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll make the above change unless there are objections posted here.Momento (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Should we mention non-western ordering of name components in "First mention"?

Further to my previous comment on the name ordering for Thai names ... Is it worth mentioning explicitly in MOS:BIO#First mention that for people from some countries/cultures, the "full name" is written surname-first and/or that conventions other than given-name surname may apply? WP:NCP#Scope of this guideline mentions language/culture-specific variations, with a reference to {{Naming conventions}}; should we add a similar brief mention to MOS:BIO#First mention? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Change to MOS/BIO

I have added the following as per talk =

Changed names

If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention.

Thanks.Momento (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Previous nationalities?

What does "previous nationalities" mean? Given the already highly debatable use of terms like "nationality", "citizenship" and "ethnicity", I think this term does nothing to guide people in writing lead paragraphs -- it just confuses one further. If someone is sure what "previous nationalities" means, then please rewrite the article. ---Very trivial (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thai names

I propose to add an exception to the WP:LASTNAME guideline for Thai names, corresponding with the remark on Icelandic names. It is already practice in articles on Thai persons to address their subjects by first names, because editors who have started these articles and are familiar with Thai naming customs have used this practice instinctively. It is really weird for someone acquainted with Thai naming practice to read a person referred to only by their last name.

Some references for the use of first names when referring to Thai people: "When possible, address Thais by military, professional, or academic title + first name." (Mary Murray Bosrock: Asian business customs & manners, 2007); "Among the Thai, the first element is usually the given name and it has precedence in identifying persons over the second element which is the surname. The usual form for a general in the Thai army, for example, is the title of general followed by the given name — not the surname, as in the west." (Paula Kay Byers: Asian American genealogical sourcebook, 1995); "...the average Thai, who is still addressed for the most part by his first name only. A person named Sulaksana Patibatsarakich, for example, would be called simply Sulaksana or Nai (Mr.) Sulaksana; ..." (Valentin Chu: Thailand today, a visit to modern Siam, 1968); "A surname, or family name, is never used alone even in the most formal situations..." (Shōichi Iwasaki, Inkapiromu Puriyā Horie: A Reference Grammar Of Thai, 2005)

In English-language literature on Thailand topics and Thai people, you will always read it this way, even in the book titles, e.g. "Thaksin: the business of politics in Thailand" (not: "Shinawatra: the business of politics in Thailand"); "Divided over Thaksin: Thailand's coup and problematic transition" (not: "Divided over Shinawatra..."); "The Thaksinization of Thailand" (not: "The Shinawatrization")

More evidence for this practice in English-language texts: "Mr. Thaksin left the country...", "Mr. Thaksin is back at the center of Thai politics...", "Ms. Yingluck, a businesswoman with no political experience" (New York Times, Aug. 16, 2011); "Well, I just want to extend my congratulations to Prime Minister Yingluck for her leadership." (Speech by President Obama, Nov. 19, 2011); "...government spokeswoman Titima Chaisang told reporters, adding that Yingluck had asked her deputy to chair a cabinet meeting in her place." (The Telegraph, 29 Nov 2011); "Abhisit was backed by 249 parliamentarians..." (The Guardian, 19 March 2011); "Thai opposition seeks impeachment of Prime Minister Abhisit" (The Guardian, 24 May 2010); "The Constitutional Court stripped Samak from office on Tuesday" (The Australian, Sep 11 2008); "The airport siege ends after a Thai court disbands Mr. Somchai's People Power Party for alleged vote-buying" (WSJ, July 3, 2011).

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Subsequent use should be amended correspondingly to avoid unclarity, misconceptions and inconsistent use in the future. --RJFF (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm not sure whether seemingly anecdotal evidence would justify such an entry. Yes many English language newspapers follow this conventions for some politicians, but it seems far fetched to state that there is such a "proper" way in English. I'd say, on a case by case (i.e. article by article) base might be the way forward but not a template. A Reference Grammar Of Thai, "the average Thai", Asian business customs & manners... That is exactly the problem: The "the average Thai" does not speak English; she speaks Thai. The references are about Thai language or social context in Thailand or Asia. Living or dead persons, are normally referred to by their last name (if not the full name) in EN.Wikipedia. However, I have no problem that some articles may not do this because source texts might not do this either. The comparison to Iclandic might be too far fetched, as it is not a surname but a patronymic. In sum, the problem with such a MOS entry is that it suggests that there is an authoritative agreement in English about Thai names, rather than specific practices in specific circumstances. Would this entry improve any quality here? Mootros (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I find the idea that we should not document a practice because it has not been clearly shown to be set in stone elsewhere, despite the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary, and despite the fact that it is already done in every Wikipedia article about Thai persons, rather absurd. Wikipedia's Manual of Style need not follow authoritative agreement; that is what is required of encyclopaedic articles, not guidelines. We shouldn't need to cite the major English style guides when saying a Chinese name has the family name before the given name. Determining proper use on a case-by-case basis is of course appropriate, but in the majority of cases regarding Thai persons the given name is what would be used, and I don't see any argument against noting the practice in this MoS. This is unrelated to having or not having hat notes prescribing the fact to article readers. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

For a concrete and explicit example, refer to the quote from the Telegraph style book below.[1] --Paul_012 (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

In Thai and Malay, the given name comes first followed by a surname or patronymic, but the given name is used after first mention as in Mahathir Mohamad (his father was Mohamad something). Cambodians, Vietnamese, Laotians and Burmese also use this system, but sometimes in reverse order. (Aung San Suu Kyi's father was Aung San. She is Suu Kyi on second mention.)

And also:

• Asian Pacific American Handbook, via the California State Library:[2]

  Most Thai names have just two name parts, family name last. But spellings of the parts may be exceptionally long by Western standards. Thais tend to be known by their personal name, listed first, even on second reference: Prapass Charusathira, Mr. Prapass, Mrs. Prapass; Prem Tinsulanonda, Mr. Prem, Mrs. Prem. Thai royal names actually are written as one long Thai word and are broken up only for the convenience of foreigners. They usually consist of seven syllables; the break usually occurs after the third syllable.

• Reuters Handbook of Journalism:[3]

  Thai names
  The first name is used alone at second reference, e.g. Prime Minister Chatichai Choonhavan said ... Chatichai added ...

• University of Queensland Style and Produciton Guide 2012:[4]

  Most Thais have two names. The first is the given name and the second the family name. Use both names on first mention, then use the first only. So Chuan Leekpai is Mr Chuan.

Why is this discussion even needed? --Paul_012 (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is determine whether to include this entry into the MOS or not. Good work, btw! Mootros (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Added. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that the recent addition (of Thai usage) needs expansion and/or change, but I'm not certain enough of the material to do it myself. The rest of MOS:BIO refers to "given names" and "surnames" (ie family names), but the Thai usage refers to "first" and "second" names. I'm an Australian and admit that my knowledge of non-Western name conventions is far from complete. While Western names are generally written as given-name surname (eg John Smith), I know that "asian" (in the very general sense used by an ignorant westerner) names are written surname given-name (eg Wen Jiabao). But is Thai "asian"? According our Asian article it is, but most of the above discussion suggests that Thais write the names as given-name surname. So is the "first name" (which we should subsequently use to refer to a Thai person) the given name or the surname? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The first name is the given name. --RJFF (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have improved this a little bit more by: (1)Expanding the context details (2)Rewording by adding pronouns and introducing a two sentence structure to differentiate rational from suggested action in guideline. Mootros (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We should also decide on how to sort Thai names in categories consistently. Currently some users use the sort key "Lastname, Firstname" (Western usage), while others use "Firstname Lastname" (Thai custom), so the sorting in categories that contain Thai people is - in plain English - a mess. Some articles are found under the first, and some under the last names. --RJFF (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This was recently changed at WP:NAMESORT. I'll start a discussion there. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

post nominals: JP (Justice of the peace)

Am I correct to assume that the post-nominals JP are to be included with a person's name in the lead of an article as these are issued by a state rather than an academic institution? As such they should be treated like the post-nominals of a state honour such as VC, ONZ, etc. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Exceptions to honorific titles - when to include "Sir"?

There is a discussion underway at Talk:Donald Tsang on whether to include the prenominal title "Sir" in the bolded text in the leading sentence of the article. The current MoS guideline does not envision any exceptions - that is, anyone entitled to "Sir" or "Dame" will have the title bolded in the leading sentence. Donald Tsang is entitled to the use of "Sir," had not renounced or repudiated his knighthood, but (due in part to change in nationality) does not use the title on a regular basis. The media seems to have used the title for the first couple years he was knighted (1997-2000), but has ceased doing so, consistently calling him "Mr Tsang".

My view on this is to not include Sir for living recipients of knighthoods who have repudiated their knighthoods, but to include them for those who are deceased or who have not repudiated their knighthoods. Tsang falls under the latter. I think the bolded text, which includes the full name along with any pre-nominals, is not meant to mirror common usage.

Comments, and whether the current wording needs to be fixed to reflect cases such as these?--Jiang (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Relevant discussions : Wikipedia:BLPN#Donald Tsang (permalink), Talk:Donald Tsang#New discussion: "Sir". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, only citizens of countries that have the Queen as head of state (with possible exceptions like Ireland) are entitled to use "Sir" when awarded a KBE; so it "Bill Gates, KBE" but not "Sir Bill Gates", for example. People who later become British citizens may acquire the right to the title "Sir" (and, no doubt, Bill Gates would be very welcome), but do we know the official rule or unofficial convention for those who later lose British citizenship? --Boson (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the first footnote of the article. Citizens of countries that have the Queen as head of state at the time the knighthood was conferred are entitled to use "Sir" when awarded a KBE, regardless of whether Commonwealth citizenship was lost at a later date. The title "Sir" is held forever (or until forfeiture). We have parallel cases involving Indian nationals who were knighted before 1947. We have cases where the knight continued to use the title, cases where the knight stopped using the title, and cases where the knight repudiated the title and returned the insignia. Where do we draw the line on when to use "Sir" and when not to?--Jiang (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Talking general principles (which I think is appropriate on this page), I would say:

• As a general rule, we want to follow conventions.
• We want a very reliable source for what the conventions are. If none is available, we can decide on the normal criteria for deciding MOS rules.
• We want uniform rules (even if they are complicated and take account of personal preference).
• Because the rules are complicated, there is a danger that normally reliable sources will get it wrong, which is one reason why we should not necessarily follow sources that are reliable in other respects.
• For persons whose notability (since being awarded their KBE) are mainly notable in a non-Commonwealth jurisdiction/culture, we should follow the conventions of the appropriate location, with the conventions of England taking second place.
• We should take the preference of the person concerned into account.
• We should take into account that acceptance of awards or use of titles might be illegal or otherwise frowned upon in certain places and that our use of such honorifics might imply such use.
• If we know what the rules are (and can source them reliably), we should state them (probably in a footnote), whatever choice is made in the body text. If possible, we should link to an article where the details are explained (what about an Englishman with a knighthood who later acquires American citizenship?).

So, if the facts are as I understand them, in the case of (Sir) Donald Tsang I would say one should omit the "Sir" throughout the article but indicate that he was awarded a KBE and (in a footnote) that he is (or may be) entitled to use the "Sir" (with appropriate sources). I think the Economist's solution is elegant ("Sir Donald, as he prefers not to be known"), but not quite encyclopedic in style.

--Boson (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The question is not whether "Sir" should be used throughout the article but whether it belongs in the bolded text in the lead section, which takes exception to common usage by displaying the full and complete name of the person. On the one hand, a title is not the same as a name; on the other hand, the bolded text was never designed to reflect "personal preference" or "common usage". see also List of honorary British knights and dames on what we have to say on loss of citizenship.--Jiang (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A problem here is that if Tsang had registered himself as a British national (overseas), he is still a Commonwealth citizen, since British nationals (overseas) are Commonwealth citizens by definition. Jeffrey (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Tsang did not register himself as a British National (Overseas), as did not Anson Chan and other officers of the new SAR government, and that is why her damehood awarded in 2002 is honorary. If she had been given a damehood in 1997 like Tsang, she would similarly be entitled to be styled "Dame".--Jiang (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A request for comment has been filed regarding the use of "Sir" in Donald Tsang's biography. Please join the discussion here. --Jiang (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Names in other scripts

A Serb editor is adding in a name in Serbian Cyrillic to the lead of an Australian actress whose father was Serbian. I am assuming that the convention is to use script translations only when the subject is from that country. I can't find a specific guideline for this. Your views are appreciated. Thanks Span (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there even a reliable source attesting to the Serbian Cyrillic name? If not, it's OR and goes straightaway. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Foreign names and their English spelling

I came across Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir and Eiður Guðjohnsen, names which are hard to read for me. Why don't we put the common English spelling of the name in the beginning of the lede, in parentheses as a significant alternative name? If I want to find out how their name is commonly spelled in English I have to go all the way down to the references section. That makes no sense. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand it either, it is flat out against Wikipedia guidlines. The most common guidlines like WP:TITLE, WP:OFFICIALNAMES, but also many other, states: "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English". This makes sense because this is the English language Wikipedia, not some Icelandic one. Internationally, not many people can read Icelandic either. I will change the titles of the pages. Dr. D.E. Mophon (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly it isn't against WP guidelines see WP:MOSPN#diacritics. As for "internationally" educated Europeans evidently can read ð as the interwikis show. We'd need to start a new wikipedia us. uk. or au. if we are are going to go by "native English speakers" rather than "all English speakers"; see James Stanlaw -Japanese English: Language and Culture Contact 2004 Page 280 "The British Council as early as 1986 recognized that the majority of English speakers were not 'native'." In ictu oculi (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Belatedly agree with In ictu oculi. As written unless someone is so well known by an English common name (similar to place names) that there is a solid case for that usage. (And I would probably add that there is also sufficient difference, not just diacritics applied to otherwise the same letters.)

How Eastern European hockey players' names appear on their uniforms in the U.S. NHL is a typical nexus of a great wailing and gnashing of teeth which typically degenerates into the non-diacritics camp being denounced for being anti-name-your-nationality and of being nationality/ethnicity denialists and the diacritics camp being labeled as POV-pushing article-owning nationalists. Redirects exist to address this sort of stuff. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this matter is, as you say, one of "great wailing and gnashing of teeth", ANI, DR, and other noticeboard issues, and the behavioral issues are not, I fear, going to resolve until there is better policy guidance. I would have hoped that common sense and civility would reign, but that's not the case. As such, I'm going to make an RfC below, and I'll try and write a more general question than one specific to Icelandic, as lovely as that language is. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Academic titles

1. Confusing rules – WP:CREDENTIAL starts with "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before (or after) the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name." What is the point of the section in red, since it seems to cover all situations?

   Similarly, "Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name in the first line..." (followed by a parenthetical dealing with articles not about the subject person) doesn't address the rest of the article (i.e. after the first line). Should they be used there? That would seem oddly inconsistent.

2. Disrespectful policy – Assuming that the ultimate intent of this (and the rest of the section) is to say that the prefix "Doctor" and suffixes "Ph.D." or "MD" should not be used at all for articles about the subject person, unless it is a pseudonym or stage name (whether earned or not), especially in combination with the following section about using honorary titles and postnoms, I think we've got it completely backwards. To refer to someone given an honorary title by a non-elected monarch as "Sir", or who undeservedly decides to call themselves "Doctor", but yet not refer to someone who spends a third of their life learning how to save lives as "Doctor" is just plain disrespectful to the latter. How/why did WP arrive at this decision?

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's no more disrespectful than not prefixing names with "Mr", "Mrs" etc. Should we also do that? To refer to someone given an honorary title by a non-elected monarch as "Sir" - I think you're showing your colours here. "Sir" is a title granted by the United Kingdom to honour its most outstanding citizens. Try not to insult a country by denegrating its honours system. It and its associated titles are also used in almost all encyclopaedias, whereas academic titles are not, and are invariably used when addressing the individual so honoured, effectively becoming part of their name. It is actually incorrect to refer to Sir John Smith as simple "John Smith"; it is not incorrect, in any country, to refer to Dr John Smith as "John Smith", any more than it would be incorrect to refer to Mr John Smith as "John Smith". It would be incorrect to refer to Dr John Smith as "Mr Smith", but we don't do that anyway.

Remember that usage of academic titles varies across the world. In America, for example, all doctors, vets and dentists hold doctorates. In most Commonwealth countries they do not and medical doctors (but not usually vets and dentists) use the title of "Dr" only as a courtesy, despite having done as much training as American doctors (it's simply a different academic system). What titles should they have under your proposals? Their title is far more honorary than any knighthood, as it's just a courtesy title, but they certainly should not be considered inferior to Americans with the same level of qualification but with different postnominal letters (in Britain, an MD is a prestigious higher research degree held by only a handful of physicians, not a basic vocational qualification). In many Commonwealth countries, qualified surgeons revert to "Mr", using this title even if they do hold an MD. Many doctorates are merely honorary - and many holders of honorary doctorates do use the title "Dr". In some European countries it is usual to prefix all degrees (not just doctorates) to a recipient's name and far more people hold doctorates than in English-speaking countries (many lawyers, for example, who rarely hold doctorates in English-speaking countries unless they're in academia). In short, academic titles are a minefield and therefore best avoided. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

British Nationality

In recent days this IP editor Special:Contributions/90.219.64.194 has been going around changing articles in a very POV and contradictory way. They have replaced introductions saying someone is British to simply say Scottish along with removing United Kingdom as a location, but at the same time has been changing articles saying someone is English to British and adding UK.

There is at present no formalised way to handle British nationals, the essay at Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS is useless and out of date. Can there not be a discussion on trying to agree a single format? People are British citizens, the UK seems to be the only country with its citizens not described as such on articles, and this is unreasonable. There are many possible ways of handling the situation, but it would at least make far more sense for it to be British by default unless there are specific reasons and justification for only saying English or Scottish. Or to mention both. English/British or Scottish/British etc. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree. British by default unless there is a good reason otherwise. In any case, this user's edits are clearly POV. If a person from Scotland can be described as Scottish then a person from England can be described as English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, and I am NOT getting caught up in this, every English article I have read describes English people as "English", whilst many Scottish articles describe Scottish people as "British". Fair is fair. If English are going to be English, then I think Scots should be Scottish, Welsh should be Welsh and Northern Irish the exact same! 90.219.64.194 (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Im not too concerned about you changing English to British (many articles i see do say British for people from England and rightly so). The problem is you are also changing British to Scottish at the same time, which is blatant POV. Lets be fair, they should all be described as British unless there are strong reasons to justify not saying British in the specific case. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologise. Let's just leave it as English for English people and Scottish for Scottish people, it's more specific that way! Sorry! 90.219.64.194 (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know which articles you've been looking at, but in my experience most articles on English people describe them as "British", whereas most articles on Scottish-born people describe them as "Scottish", even when they've spent most of their lives in England and most people wouldn't consider them to be Scottish. It really is easier and more NPOV to stick with "British". -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

When people are notable for their success competing on behalf of Britain, they should always be called British. I can see the logic in starting an article "is a Scottish footballer..." or "is an English rugby player", because that is how nationalities are handledd in those sports. But British olympians should be called British, and by default British citizens should always be British unless there is clear justification or a reason for calling them one of the UKs internal nationalities. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

For Olympians, yes, fair enough. But by describing as "British", it is taking their national identity away from them, because like it or not, Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are still countries with their own identities Scottish people, Welsh people etc. Articles like Elton John, David Bowie, Billy Idol etc have all gone by English for a while, but up until people have changed Scottish articles that described the likes of Annie Lennox and Sheena Easton to Scottish, these ladies have went by "British". Think it's cleaner to leave them as English or Scottish instead of British, as you'll just get people changing them back again! North, South or East of our borders! 2.96.194.92 (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can make the assumption that (e.g.) someone born within England with parents also from England necessarily regards their identity as English and not British. It is only very recently, in the past 15 years, that many people from England would have regarded their primary identity as English rather than British. Many people from Scotland still think of themselves as British over Scottish. A very quick search finds this opinion poll from April 2011 in which 83% of Scots think of themselves as more Scottish than British, which means that 17% don't, and 61% of English people think of themselves as more English than British, which means that 39% don't. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to reinforce that point, here is a report from 2000 of the British Social Attitudes survey. It found that 17% of people in England thought of themselves as English more than British, and that only two years before the figure had been 7%. In other words, in 1998, 93% of people in England did not regard their primary identity as being 'English'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Their legal nationality is British, they are British citizens by law, not Scottish, Welsh, or English. Northern Ireland is of course a lot more complicated as people can have Irish nationality/passports. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

How exactly do i propose an alteration to the Manual of Styles? Does it have to be something like an RFC? What needs to happen for it to be formally discussed. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the best solution might be the following.

• The introduction by default of a British citizen should start "is a British..." except when:
  • The person's primary notability is for a sport that is competed by the Home nations (Such as Football and Rugby)
  • The person is a politician for one of the devolved assemblies or parliament or governments.
  • The person's notability relates specifically to being English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish.
  • Sources are provided showing the person rejects their British nationality or favours the break up of the British state.
  • The person considers themselves Irish and holds an Irish passport.

• The infobox nationality field states British by default:
  • If the person is known in the media or to identify as English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish or is notable for that reason (culturally, politically, sports etc) then the infobox should say British (Scottish) / British (English) etc
  • If the person rejects their British nationality or favours the break up of the British state then simply put English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish or Northern Irish.

I believe this uniformed approach might work well and prevent a huge amount of alterations that presently happen as people change things backwards and forwards so often. it avoids calling someone British if they reject British nationality.. so for example Alex Salmond would be a Scottish politician and the infobox simply says Scottish. But Chris Hoy would say British track cyclist and his infobox would say British (Scottish). It seems to me a reasonable compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I just did a spot check "is a British actor" "is an English actor" both had around 1,500 articles. Leave it as it is, each article creator has put thought into it based on context and sources. It is just removing useful information for the sake of what is evidently a POV. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

But this is not about what each articles creator put, this is about the fact editors like this IP go around changing things such as British to Scottish. The status quo is hugely problematic with constant changes backwards and forwards on numerous articles, there needs to be some form of standardised process rather than leaving it to be completely random dependent on which editor gets their preferred version in first. Now who is talking about removing useful information? What i have proposed above provides MORE information. It would say English/Scottish if that is what their notability is related to such as footballer, but at the same time it would also say British in the infobox (along with English or Scottish etc), unless they reject their British nationality to avoid causing controversy or offence. At present a legal nationality recognised around the world is totally ignored on numerous articles, even of people who openly say they are proud to be British. The UK is the only country treated in this way and it is unfair and gross bias. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Proud to be British"? if that's the reasoning then you should definitely not be adding "British" to English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish. Unless there's evidence in the article that the person concerned is a British nationalist then English/ Scottish/ Welsh/ Northern Irish is more neutral and more precise. Please leave this alone, it is obviously POV and not appropriate. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is if sources identify them as British and they are on the record as supporting their British nationality, it is crazy that the anti British bias that blatantly exists on wikipedia prevents it from being mentioned on their article. How is it "more neutral" to simply to refer to someone as English or Scottish. The legal nationality is British, they are British citizens. In your previous post you claimed that i was proposing to remove useful information, i hope you will withdraw that incorrect claim. It is infact you who are seeking to prevent more information from being included by the offensive suggestion that stating someones legal nationality would some how not be "neutral". Please explain that too. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, agree with you 100%. Unless someone has expressed an actual and documented preference to be identified as Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish, represents one of those countries in a sport such as football or rugby in which each home nation competes as a separate country, or is a member of one of the devolved legislatures or governments, then "British" should be the preferred descriptor. Many British people have "mixed" ancestry and/or have moved around (or their parents have) and don't necessarily identify with the one of the four home nations in which they were born or specifically with any of them. To force an identifier on them because of where they were born, other than the nation state (i.e. the United Kingdom, making them British), is POV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. There's a big tendency to look at birthplaces but this can lead to mistakes: Ian Hislop isn't Welsh but David Lloyd George certainly was. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is more complex than BritishWatcher suggests, and cannot be resolved by rules or guidelines that try to impose some form of consistency. Some people are legally of British nationality but would never describe themselves as such, preferring Scottish, Welsh, English, etc.. Others are happy to be described as both British and Scottish, etc. And the fact that it may be "obvious" to people in the UK that a person can be - for example - both British and Scottish, it may by no means be obvious to readers in other parts of the world. There are also issues relating to historical figures, and those who identified with a nation different to the one in which they were born (Lloyd George, for instance). The solution to BW's problem of IPs changing nationality without discussion (other than sometimes in a cursory edit summary) is that all such changes should be summarily reverted unless there has been a discussion leading to a measure of agreement on the talk page, in each case. And, if there is any evidence of sources indicating different nationality (for example, one source describing an actor as "British" but another describing them as "Scottish"), this should be explained, probably very briefly, in the article itself. Consistency is impossible to achieve because it does not exist in the real world. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I accept that there cannot be a uniform policy of simply stating everyone is British because the issue is complex, but that is why my proposal specifically rules that out, making it very clear if people do not identify as British or reject the British state, dont put British.

Here is another example.. history of Michael Jamieson article. An editor creates an article about a British swimmer taking part with Team GB at the olympics and calls them a British swimmer. Along comes a different IP [5] changing British to Scottish. And then yesterday along comes another IP, changing nationality in the infobox from UK to Scottish [6].

Now using my proposal above, the article would start he is a British swimmer, his nationality would be put as British (Scottish) in the infobox or United Kingdom (Scottish). If there were sources showing he supports Scottish independence or rejects his british nationality, then removing British from the intro would be be in line with it. I do not get how my proposal does not take into account the difficulties you mention, and additional safeguards would be possible.

On the example of a British/Scottish actor.. Richard Wilson (Scottish actor) comes to mind, someone notable for British television, i believe it would be more reasonable for him to be described as a British actor in the intro + title (unless there are disambiguation issues which there are not in this case), with the infobox saying British (Scottish). Where as someone only notable for being in a Scottish television programme like River City would be better described as a Scottish actor, with the infobox nationality saying British (Scottish) unless a source exists demonstrating they reject British identity, only view themselves as Scottish or support the breakup of the British state. I think a reasonable guideline could be drawn out that would be acceptable to all sides, it would prevent any person from the SNP for example being described as British in the article/infobox to avoid any controversial disputes, even though they are in fact British nationals.

I accept there is not consistency in how everyone is treated in terms of media sources, but one thing is factually accurate, the legal nationality recognised around the world, is British nationality. That is what their nationality is no matter what their preference, but that is why guidelines with exemptions seems a reasonable compromise. And in terms of the infobox if Scottish (British) / English (British) makes more sense than British (Scottish) or British (English) then i would equally see that as a solution too. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't dissent from that to any significant degree. I've made a change to the Michael Jamieson article - he was born in Scotland, represents Team GB, and I've not seen any sources that say that he self-identifies as Scottish rather than British. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually look for sources? This shows Michael Jamieson self-identifies as Scottish. A Google search using "Michael Jamieson Scottish" show many more reliable sources that he is Scottish. Daicaregos (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources showing he rejects his British nationality? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Apart from the fact that Twitter is not a reliable source, what I did was simply to revert to the status quo ante - the article accurately described him as British, before it was changed without any discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that WP:SELFSOURCE confirms Twitter may be used as a source of information about the author. I have no particular interest in the Michael Jamieson article, and any discussion on it is best confined to its talk page. Given that you said you had not seen any sources that say that he self-identifies as Scottish, I only wanted to know if you had looked for sources and failed to find any, as I found them very easily. Daicaregos (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The question is are there sources that show he identifies as Scottish and rejects his British nationality. Considering he plays for Team GB the evidence would suggest otherwise. I did a google search, i find more sources saying British than Scottish for Michael Jamieson. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks i agree with that sort of approach, i think it makes sense to say born ** , Scotland , in the same way some American articles simply say (born ***, State) on articles. It is the nationality issue that seems to cause by far the biggest trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This line "[if] he supports Scottish independence or rejects his british nationality" is silly. Most people use the terms "English" "Scottish" "Welsh" "Northern Irish" for precision, not greatly different from "Cornish" "Midlands" "Yorkshireman", and perhaps to others additionally because "British" carries overtones of jingoism and/or a slightly creepy/nasty flavour. Someone is Scottish because they are Scottish, it has nothing to do with supporting Scottish independence. Please do not go adding "British (Scottish)" to infoboxes. In fact please drop this silly subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What is someone who is born in Scotland with one Scottish parent and one English parent but then spends most of their life in England? Someone born in England with two Scottish parents who is educated in Scotland and then moves back to England? I know two people with broad Scottish accents who were born in England to English parents, grew up in Scotland, were educated in Scotland, but have lived almost all their adult lives in England. One is a Scottish nationalist. I know another person, also with a broad Scottish accent, who was born, grew up and was educated in England, but who married a Scottish woman and settled in Scotland, where he has now spent most of his life. He is pro-United Kingdom, as is his (wholly Scottish) wife. I personally was born in South East England (although I have substantial amounts of Scottish and Irish blood), grew up in Cornwall, was educated in England and Wales, and have spent most of my life since in South East England and the Midlands. I happily and proudly identify as Cornish, English and British and see no conflict between them. You see the problem with identifying someone as coming from one of the four home nations? That's why British, our legal nationality, is generally a safer and more NPOV option. As to carrying "overtones of jingoism and/or a slightly creepy/nasty flavour", that sounds like your POV. Why on earth would "British" carry this flavour? To many, the word "nationalism" is what carries this "flavour". -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps among other reasons because "British Nationality" has been co-opted by the British National Party. But there's also "British bulldog" "British beef" "Best of British" "Buy British" etc. The term, when used outside the neutral/natural/unavoidable parameters where UK won't serve, to many people carries baggage. There'll be exceptions such as Cool Britannia, Team GB In ictu oculi (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you know how incredibly offensive some of your comments are in terms of your derogatory views on British people and British nationality, although this does demonstrate some of the anti British bias that exists on wikipedia. People are British citizens, my proposal above would avoid calling anyone British that does view it as carrying "baggage" and objects to being British or opposes the British state. How is that not reasonable. You say Team GB is an exception, well there are sadly many examples of Team GB participants whos articles do not say they are British because of the actions of a minority of editors seeking to censor British nationality from wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite. "British Nationality" has been co-opted by the British National Party. What utter and complete drivel! Just because a tiny minority group uses a term does not mean it becomes associated with their politics, which are anathema to most people who call themselves British. "Co-opted" indeed. Good God, I've read some rubbish on Wikipedia talk pages... Using your logic (which, thank God, I don't), "Scottish" and "Welsh" should also be seen as carrying "overtones of jingoism and/or a slightly creepy/nasty flavour", given some of the arrogant, offensive, racist comments that have on many occasions issued from the mouths of Scottish and Welsh nationalists, many of them with overtly far less extreme politics than the BNP. People from all parts of the United Kingdom are British. Fact. It's on their passports. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Look guys, I don't have a dog, bone or kennel in this, or in fact anywhere near this. I'm just telling you how it sounds to some people and you're reacting by being uncivil and rather confirming the direction this kind of MOS arguing will take. ::::::This has nothing to do with "derogatory views on British people and British nationality" - the responses show that, BritishWatcher, Necrothesp, you don't have any sensitivity or "ear" for how the term - when deliberately contrasted with English/Scottish/Welsh/NorthernIrish - can sound to many British people. Passports have UKGB&NI on the cover and "British Citizen" on the ID page. Anyway, whatever you may think. As per Jacklee below.

All the best. I won't be responding further. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not "uncivil" to refute ludicrous arguments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I participated in the last round of discussions that led to WP:UKNATIONALS and am not planning to take part in the present discussion on the matter. I just wanted to say that the discussion thus far shows there is unlikely to be any consensus on this issue, and that WP:UKNATIONALS (an essay, not a guideline or policy) was drafted to record the lack of consensus following the last discussion. For what it is worth, my personal view was that "British" should be used as a default, but no consensus could be reached on that. All the best for the present discussion. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, it hardly seems an unreasonable position to hold in terms of having a basic policy of British by default with exemptions to avoid any controversial issues arriving and where it makes more sense to say Scottish/English etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And just came across this user making the same sort of changes. adding United Kingdom for someone from England whilst removing it for someone from Scotland and within 4 minutes on 31 July changing English to British and British to Scottish. These continued alterations back and forward with it going Scottish, British, British, Scottish etc is exactly why we need to try and reach clear guidelines. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of behaviour we need to oppose. One of this editor's edit summaries was "England is NOT a country on its own. It does not govern itself [presumably implying that Scotland was not a country either before devolution in 1998, something I think would be rightly opposed by most Scots]. And Besides that, England is still a part of the UK!" [italicised text mine], while at the same time deleting British/UK from articles on Scottish individuals. Clearly POV and highly biased. It seems strange to me that it is implied in some of these arguments that those of us who champion the neutral and legally accurate "British" for all natives of the United Kingdom are biased, while this sort of partisan behaviour is considered to be understandable. It seems that many believe that the English make no distinction between English and British - this is simply not true and many English people (including myself) identify as English first and foremost. Nevertheless, the descriptor "British" is best for people from the United Kingdom except in certain circumstances. It's accurate and it's neutral. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to firmly express that any editing of the nature presented above amounts to nothing but disruptive editing. Glad to see they agreed to stop. I have seen an entire range blocked (IN ENGLAND LOL) for a similar editing pattern not too long ago...don't tolerate it, give warnings and report if needed - if the user is clearly only interested in furthering their POV agenda and has no leg to stand on - just report and move along. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Last names and when people change names later in life

Jennie--x and I have been in a bit of a debate regarding how biography articles should be written in regards to a person's last name, specifically when a person's name changes (or becomes a pseudonym) later in their lives, as stated in the article. The example I am going to present involves the article which we have been debating for a couple of days now: Nicki Minaj. A couple days ago, I was making some edits on the article in regards to the chronology in the article in which the names "Maraj" and "Minaj" should be used to refer to her last name. Per WP:LASTNAME, the very first sentence reads "After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only..." How I would interpret this is that a surname for a person should not be used until it is mentioned in the article in the person's timeline. The example in that article under debate is this section in the article: 2004–2007: Career beginnings. As of this moment, the person which this article is about is not officially recognized in the timeline as "Nicki Minaj" until the second to last sentence in this section. Since I interpreted the WP:LASTNAME section as I did, and since the subject has the last name "Maraj" in the previous section, I went on to change all mentions of the last name "Minaj" to "Maraj" prior to the point in the section when the subject was officially renamed "Nicki Minaj" (at the second-to-last sentence.)

The only other section that I can find in the WP:MOS that makes even a close reference to this subject is Changed names section of MOS:BIO; however, that section does not currently apply to this discussion as it reads:

"If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention."

My thought is, though, either the Changed names section could be used as precedence to arrive to a conclusion regarding this topic, or there should be documentation on either the Changed names section or WP:LASTNAME that either opposes, or agrees with, my interpretation of WP:LASTNAME.

Thank you for your time in reading this and giving this topic consideration. Steel1943 (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you have misinterpreted the guidelines to an extent. Nicki Minaj has not changed her name in any way, "Nicki Minaj" is the pseudonym of "Onika Maraj". The Changed names guidelines applies to people who have changed their legal name, for example, Reginald Dwight to Elton John, so they don't apply in this situation.

The Nicki Minaj article previously used "Minaj" as the surname throughout the article until Steel1943 edited to include her legal surname in the early-life section. Personally, I would advocate keeping her pseudonym of "Minaj" throughout. As per WP:LASTNAME, "People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames". This can be seen across countless articles in Wikipedia, one prominent example is Lady Gaga, in which her legal surname (Stefani Germanotta) is mentioned in the first sentence, but she is subsequently referred to as 'Gaga', even when she hadn't adopted the pseudonym. The potential use of twos surnames, in my opinion, would only aid confusion (despite the editors intent to reduce confusion) and I don't think this practice is present on many (or even any) articles on Wikipedia. Jennie | ☎ 10:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct, and all of this is pointing to the fact that this article can be interpreted in multiple ways, and should be addressed for a interpretation that can be amended into the WP:LASTNAME section, or even MOS:BIO as a whole. As I have interpreted this guideline as so, and am still not convinced that my interpretation is incorrect, what this means is that this guideline could have multiple interpretations, and the multiple interpretations contradict each other. (And yes, I am not saying that the Changed names section refers to this topic in the least, as it does not. I put in bold the keyword that shows that it does not, but rather, was using that example as a possible precedent that could be used in an agreed decision for this discussion.) The specific point I am trying to locate in MOS:BIO to answer my question specifically does not exist; there are only precedents that have been added to this article that could be used to make a decision regarding this debate.

• Sidenote regarding the case of Nicky Minaj, Jennie--x's claim is not completely true regarding the entire article having "Minaj" listed prior to my edits: in the section 1982–2003: Early life, the section referred to her occasionally by her initial legal given name "Onika", which needed to be fixed per WP:LASTNAME, which I did in addition to the changing of "Minaj" to "Maraj".

The point of me bring this discussion here is this: if this is supposed to be the way that all articles have been agreed to be written in Wikipedia regarding biographies, a specific statement needs to be amended into MOS:BIO to include this point. As MOS:BIO stands right now, this specific topic could be interpreted in multiple ways. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the MOS:BIO guidelines are quite clear and I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. If the individual has a name, such as David Cameron, their surname should be used throughout the article - e.g. Cameron lives at 10 Downing Street. The guideline later states that if an individual has a pseudonym, they should either be (a) referred to by the pseudonym as a whole - e.g. Madonna has a daughter, Lourdes or (b) if the pseudonym has a surname, such as Nicki Minaj, then the surname should be used. If the individual has a pseudonym, but chooses to use a legal surname professionally, e.g. Beyonce Knowles, then use the legal surname.

In the case of Nicki Minaj (a pseudonym with a surname present) this should be used throughout the article, as found with countless examples: Lady Gaga, Jackie Chan, Ringo Starr, Marilyn Monroe and David Tennant. Jennie | ☎ 13:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My only point with all of this is that I want to see this officially stated clearly in MOS:BIO that this is or isn't the case. And if this is not supposed to be the case, then there are a lot of articles that supposedly need correcting. At this point, I'm waiting for outside input regarding the way MOS:BIO is written and/or how it needs to be corrected/clarified. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thumbnail descriptions.

There is an issue being hotly debated over on Talk:Homeopathy about what (if anything) to say when we mention someone's name and link to them. (For example "German physicistphysician Samuel Hahnemann said XYZ"). This is a kind of mini-biography - so I'm asking about it here.

The question is whether there is any kind of guideline about how to (or, indeed whether to) provide such attribution.

The specific case in point is James Randi - who is both a stage magician and a notable skeptic. In the context of his criticism of homeopathy, it's perhaps relevant that he's a noted skeptic - but it is also notable that as a stage magician because he exhibits showmanship in his anti-Homeopathy presentations. So should we say:

• "James Randi said XYZ"
• "Noted skeptic, James Randi said XYZ"
• "Stage magician, James Randi said XYZ"
• "Noted skeptic and stage magician, James Randi said XYZ"?

Where do we stop? We could end up with half a paragraph of biography leading up to a link to a person who merely mentioned something about the subject of the actual article we're writing!

Looking through a range of articles at random, it seems that we're highly inconsistent about this kind of thing. Just how much mini-biography of this person should we attempt to include when quoting them?

• None (on the grounds that we're linking to them - so a full bio is just a click away).
• Only what seems relevant to the article (so Samuel Hahnemann is a "physicistphysician" because this is the Homeopathy article - and not "linguist", for which he is also known).
• Everything.

Does it make a difference if there is an article about the person or not? If there is a linked article, then the information could be omitted because the link can easily be clicked upon by the curious reader. But if there is no article, then perhaps a few words of context about this person is important.

Are there any existing guidelines about this at all?

SteveBaker (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Steve intended "physician", not "physicist" :-) Some other possible criteria to consider are

• Best known as X (by analogy to wp:COMMONNAME)
• Most published on X (by virtue of wp:V)
• Most cited on X (by extension to wp:N)

Many people have had things to say about (in this case) homeopathy. The blurb should make it clear to the reader why this particular person's quote is worthy of mention in the article. Otherwise the inclusion could appear to be an arbitrary choice. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

When you stop and think about it though, why is Samual Hahnemann a "German physician" and not just a "Physician"? Nobody is suggesting that we say "American skeptic James Randi" - this is a clear WP:WORLDVIEW issue. Hmmmm...we really need a guideline! SteveBaker (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a further issue here. Though it is common in US Eng to use expressions such as "Stage magician, James Randi"..., this is not the case in Br Eng, where this would normally be "James Randi, the stage magician,..." (if he is well known) or "James Randi, a stage magician,..." (if he is not necessarily so; The Economist sometimes takes this form to extremes). In accordance with MOS:COMMONALITY, therefore, the US Eng form should be avoided where possible. Deipnosophista (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

proposing edit that infobox not substitute for body

I propose to edit that birth and death dates can be reduced to years in the lead if the full dates are given in the body. The guideline now permits reduction if the full dates are in the infobox or the body. The problem with the infobox is that it is inaccessible to visitors who are visually impaired and depend on screen readers or other technology to convert text to speech. While an infobox is good for most visitors, all textual information in an infobox has to also be in the body. Therefore, I propose to delete "or in the infobox" from the Opening Paragraph section in the guideline. I'll wait a week for comments. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

proposing to add on East Asian names and on more use of full names

I propose adding, in the section Names, in the subsection Subsequent Use, before "However, where a person does not have a surname but a patronymic", the following:

While Western names usually place the surname last, Eastern Asian names, those from China and east, usually place the surname first (e.g., Mao Zedong, whose surname was Mao). Less consistent are the names of people of East Asian heritage who move and live in a Western culture; some preserve name order and some Westernize name order, moving the surname to last, and this has to be determined on an individual case-by-case basis, although it may be found that a person with one Western name that is similar to many Western given names and that is followed by an Asian name has the surname last.

I propose adding, in the section Names, in the subsection Subsequent Use, at the end of the subsection, the following:

Full names should be used:

• when two people named in the article, including in references, have the same surname, except for people in the same family (see the subsection Family Members with the Same Surname)
• in quotations when an ellipsis or bracketing would make the quotation harder to read
• in references, such as for an author
• when the surname is easily confusable with a famous person's name, e.g., that of a prominent religious figure
• when the surname is easily confusable with a common word
• when the surname sounds like another in the article even though spelled differently, for the benefit of visitors whose computers read Wikipedia aloud to them

The proposals are approximate, mainly to accommodate any intermediate edits to the existing guideline.

There's a separate point already on the page about other countries, but, since it's not for a foreign Wikipedia but the English Wikipedia, it probably should be more closely integrated into the relevant point. However, that can come later.

I'll wait a week for any comment.

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's hard to find, but in MOS:FOREIGN#Foreign_terms you will see a link to Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional), and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles has guidelines on switching Japanese name order to Western. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China-related articles explains how to identify (in an article) which of the names is the surname, but doesn't recommend that this be done :-(   On the subject of foreign names and foreign words in English Wikipedia, for search engines and screen reader accessibility all foreign words should be tagged with semantic templates like Template:lang, Template:CJKV, Template:Nihongo and the many others, but there isn't even a Category:Foreign-language templates yet, and no recommendation yet to "always use such templates when embedding foreign words, including European languages with diacritics".
• The recommendation that "full names should be used" is not always a good idea, for example Manuel Sanchez (tennis) is known as es:Manuel Sánchez Montemayor on Spanish Wikipedia, but that name would probably not be recognized in English. Likewise "Edson Arantes do Nascimento" is unlikely to be recognized on English Wikipedia, whereas Pelé (same person) is well known. See WP:COMMONNAME. There should be a clear link from somewhere in WP:MoS or WP:AT to MOS:BIO. WP is so full of wordy, rambling, overly-detailed and prescriptive, and poorly-organized guidelines and recommendations scattered all over the place and not linked together that it is difficult to find stuff, though there are a few Wikilawyers who spend all their time citing such zillions of guidelines to newbies. :-(
• Although there are no guidelines saying that names with diacritics should always or never be used as article titles on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:AT#Foreign names and anglicization, which suggests "seldom"), a few editors have been quietly pushing their PoV, using RfCs and Moves to add diacritics to article titles, and even pushing for complex Vietnamese diacritics to be in article titles. For the majority of English Wikipedia users—who can't read, write, pronounce, or remember complex diacritics—this is like using Chinese, Japanese or Korean in English Wikipedia article titles: it is surely a usability disaster. Even though there's no problem if foreign words (names) are used in language templates in the lede, these people have been moving the diacritics to the article title and removing the plain English version from the lede. A few people who have been doing the reverse—moving articles to plain English titles, and moving the diacritics to the lede—have been blocked.   LittleBen (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ive only looked at this diacritics issue a little in recent weeks for the first time, i certainly agree that there appears to be a crusade to undermine the English language on the English language wikipedia with the endless imposing on non English language names/words/symbols on here. Not only do just one side appear to get blocked, but i notice the other side is able to operate under the guise of countering systemic bias, a wikiproject that appears to be used to canvass for these sorts of issues to benefit the anti English language brigade, whilst i remember seeing another wikiproject shut down because it was the "opposing side". Its a shocking state of affairs for the English language wikipedia, and i highly suspect most other language wikipedias dont suffer this problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm dropping my proposal because this looks like it will be too time-consuming for research into Wikipedia pages, but if anyone else wants to pick it up, go right ahead. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Maiden names

At WP:MOSBIO#Maiden names, it says that maiden names are often given, even when the subject is not known by that name. Why? I understand mentioning it as a birth name later in the article, but if Lucy Jones was never widely known by her maiden name Lucy Smith, why should the first words in the article be "Lucy Jones (née Smith)"? Regardless of whether the idea of married names is antiquated or sexist, it was common until the late 20th century, and this guideline seems like it's trying to re-write history. I'd want the last line to read "A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname, nor will it necessarily include her maiden name." and the rest of the section be made to agree. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not an issue of maiden names specifically, but birth names (it's not just married women who change their names, after all). Why do we put it into the first line? Because a person's name and all versions they have used is highly encyclopaedic. And contrary to your statements above, the majority of women still change their surnames on marriage. I only know one married woman who has retained her original surname. We're not rewriting history, but including information that all encyclopaedias include. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A bit late on this, but he may be referring to celebrities. Some of them will change their name but continue using a former one, but many celebrities, authors, and medical doctors tend to retain their birth names for complicated professional reasons. I also do not agree that removing the maiden name from articles is a good idea. We even put nicknames or other names on some. Spelling Style (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal life in lead.

See User_talk:Spelling_Style#RE:_Biographical_articles.2Fchildren.27s_gender_and_name_in_lead. When I tried to make a change to a GA citing that there exists no guideline on this stance (I just added the subject's child's gender and name), three editors reverted me with one saying it was unnecessary, then a fourth one still insisting this isn't necessarily a universal rule. I noted that some GAs and FAs do indeed list the genders and names of subject's child(ren) so I thought this the norm. Apparently not. Thoughts? Should this be changed somewhere? Spelling Style (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it would be the same as for using children's names in an infobox: "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable." --Musdan77 (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Independently notable" is too strict a condition, in term of what WP means by notable, but in general children's details should only be mentioned if they are well known or part of what the subject is known for. Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions re interpretation of WP:OPENPARAGRAPH

WP:OPENPARAGRAPH says to include "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)" (emphasis added), going on say that this is (to simplify) generally where they live now. Or as an alternative, where they lived when they did their notable things, but only "if notable mainly for past events".

Aren't most people notable for past events? I'm a little hard-pressed to think of people notable for future events -- the presumptive heir to a ruling throne or a large fortune, maybe? (And I doubt if "past events" is meant in contrast to "events occurring at this moment", since it'd be unclear if "at this moment" refers to the time of writing or the time of reading (the latter would be essentially impossible to know, so it must be time of writing -- but wouldn't that be problematic, usually? Like if they're notable mainly for winning a race which is still in progress when the article is written, or whatever?)

No, "if notable mainly for past events" must mean their notable achievements are mainly in the past. Right? Since that's only definitely true of the dead (granted, sometimes dead people participate in notable events -- King Tut, John Wycliffe, Elmer McCurdy -- but we can probably ignore that), and probably true only of the retired or decrepit, should "if notable mainly for past events" instead be "if deceased or retired or decrepit"? ("Decrepit" is kind of subjective, so "if dead or retired (from their main field of endeavor)" would be much easier to deal with.)

I ask because Andruw Jones had "Andruw Rudolf Jones is a Dutch baseball player...". I changed this to "... is a Curaçaoan baseball player...". He's from Curaçao, which makes him a Dutch citizen. I figured this is a bit of a technicality. But shouldn't it instead be "American baseball player...", given that all his notable accomplishments (so far) were achieved in the United States? (He has to live in the United States most of the year; I don't know where he lives in the off-season, or if he's still a Dutch citizen.)

Am I overthinking this? Herostratus (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This would require finding out whether or not Jones still does have Dutch citizenship. If he still does, then I personally would find it 100% acceptable to call him a "Curaçaoan baseball player". If he has both, just change the lead to, "has dual American and Curaçaoan citizenship". Spelling Style (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Child named for parent or predecessor

Recommend changing "Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr., George Welton III."

to:

"Place a comma before Jr., Sr., but not before Roman numeral designation unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr., Martin Luther King, Jr., George Welton III."

This brings the title convention in line with the convention which appears in the MOS at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Widely used abbreviations in Wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you intended to write "Examples: Sammy Davis, Jr., ..." (And they ought to be linked.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Names with diacritics and other non-ASCII letters: Should we permit, require, or prohibit ASCIIfied versions?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as no consensus as no-one is prepared to spend the time to close this discussion. This has been sitting at the top of the list for a couple of months and no-one has got around to it.

If you wish to make a change here I think a clearer discussion is needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

---

When article titles include characters with diacritics, non-ASCII letters (such as the Icelandic thorn), and so forth, what should the article do about the fact that often, in English writing, these terms will be written in a more or less ASCII-fied (A-Z, a-z only) manner? In particular, should the lead sentence include simplified versions as "significant alternate forms?"

There has been, as has been pointed out in a thread above, much "wailing and gnashing of teeth" with respect to the correct orthography of individuals whose names are include characters beyond A-Z, a-z. In my view, this wailing and gnashing of teeth has risen to the level where it's overall effect on the encyclopedia is problematic. I request better policy guidance.

The question: When article titles include characters with diacritics, non-ASCII letters (such as the Icelandic thorn), and so forth, what should the article do about the fact that often, in English writing, these terms will be written in a more or less ASCII-fied (A-Z, a-z only) manner? Are these "significant alternate names" as the phrase is use in our policy on article titles?

(Added clarification: The policy I named specifies that "signficant alternative names" should appear in the lead. The question is around the lead wording, not the title itself, nor redirects. My apologies for the any resulting confusion. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

I would ask that participants consider at least the following specific distinctions, in case they turn out to be relevant:

1. Characters with accents. e.g. Jelena Janković. Do we need to note that Jelena Jankovic is an alternate name? If we don't need to, is it redundant to, and is that encyclopedic?
2. Does the answer to the previous question change if the language the name is from treats what I might think of as an "accented letter" as a entirely different letter of the alphabet, much as is the case with the Spanish Ñ?
3. What to do about singular characters outside of accents, most notably the Icelandic eth and thorn?
4. What do do about ligatures, e.g., Æ.

Arguments I've seen made in favor of including such alternative forms where sourced include portions of WP:AT's requirement of including "significant alternate names" and WP:BIRTHNAME.

Arguments I've seen made in favor of prohibiting such language include the argument that the ASCIIfied versions are obvious and therefore redundant and unencyclopedic. Also, there are several examples in policy pages of non-ASCII biographic names, and none provide said "dediacriticed" versions. See examples at WP:OPENPARA, for example.

There are no doubt many arguments I've missed, and I'm sure I've done neither side justice, but I wanted to hit the most common themes I've seen so far in the dispute.

I'm neutral save that I would ask editors attempt to form a consensus of some sort, be it prohibit, permit, or insist, and if "permit", then in what cases? Thanks, --j⚛e decker^talk 19:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment There is really nothing we can "do about the fact that often, in English writing, these terms will be written in a more or less ASCII-fied (A-Z, a-z only) manner". And it would be a major break to either require or prohibit. The actual issue is more subtle than this question suggests. Dicklyon (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Hi Joe, thanks for notification. If I understand your specific question related to Jelena Janković then my answer would be that if title has a diacritic, then lede does not need to represent typographic limits present in some sources, even the majority of otherwise reliable but not "reliable for the statement being made":

Charlotte Brontë (21 April 1816 – 31 March 1855) was an English novelist and poet,...

Zoë Eliot Baird (born June 20, 1952) is an American lawyer...

François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand (...) was the 21st President of the French Republic...

Lech Wałęsa (born 29 September 1943) is a Polish politician, ...

Tomás Séamus Ó Fiaich (3 November 1923 – 8 May 1990) was an Irish prelate...

Björn Rune Borg (6 June 1956) is a Swedish tennis player...

The BBC website does not here typographically represent Brontë, NY Times does not represent non-Spanish/French/German names such as Wałęsa per User:Prolog/Diacritical marks, but this does not make these typographically limited sources an alternative name. i.e. There is no "Charlotte Bronte." I would propose that a Slavic or Scandinavian example be added to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies next to Mitterand to make it clear that if en.wp has a Polish etc name in title, then we do not have ledes such as:

Charlotte Brontë (BBC website "Charlotte Bronte") was an English novelist and poet,...

François Mitterrand (Daily Express "Francois Mitterand") was the 21st President of the French Republic...

Lech Wałęsa (NY Times "Lech Walesa") is a Polish politician, ...

And perhaps add e.g. quote "Typographical limitations in some sources, such as Francois without the ç, are not to be considered alternative names or established English exonyms such as Zurich or Montreal." unquote.

In ictu oculi (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up comment. I think the above covers 99% of European bios and toponyms. But there are going to be a 1% of exceptions, as Joe specifically tees-up the question referring to Icelandic thorn Þ, þ, a difficult letter for English speakers. What makes this difficult more than the Polish ł of Wałęsa? Visual recognition. Any English speaker can read Wałęsa, they will probably just read it as "Wallessa" rather than "Va-wen-sa", the name is still recognisable. But when faced with "Þ" that is not a lightly modified character but an extra letter of the alphabet. The same is true with the small case eth ð, though it is evidently easier than thorn. Another one is German ß, hence Franz Josef Strauss (but in this case the article title already has changed -ß to -ss, so the lede starts

Franz Josef Strauss (German: Franz Josef Strauß) ...

Debatably it could/should perhaps be the other way round, but in either case the non 26-letter consonant is given as a separate variant. Æ I am less convinced is not English, Ælfric of Eynsham for example. So this leaves Icelandic Þ/þ,Ð/ð, and German ß as the three letters beyond the A-Z 26 letter alphabet. After these 3 letters other exceptions get thin and few. The Maltese alphabet doesn't go beyond the 26 letter alphabet, no matter that accented Ħ/ħ is a little offputting, it can still be read as "H". That only leaves one notable exception, which is the problem in romanization of Serbian of what to do with the "Dj" sound. Croats and Bosnians will always use Ð, since they are used to writing in Latin alphabet, no problem and not outside the 26-letter alphabet. Serbians, who write less in Latin-alphabet sometimes use the old Gaj's Latin alphabet form. So we have several footballers called Đoković, but a tennis player called Novak Đoković on his website but Novak Djokovic on his ATF registration. This is, alongside Franz Josef Strauss, one of the very rare examples of a living person with a significant established bona fide English variant which almost qualifies as an English exonym, not quite as true an English exonym as John Calvin for Jean Calvin, but almost a true exonym. These exonyms, or near-exonyms for Djokovic and Strauss need to be in the lede. But the Bronte/Walesa/Ó Fiaich examples are inside the 26-letter alphabet and are at best patronising to our wp readers, at worst considered xenophobic to have spelled-out in Daily Express English in the lede. We also have a specific guideline on WP:EN "Tomás Ó Fiaich not Tomas O Fiaich". I have noted before on WP:EN Talk that "My concern is that "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich" doesn't poke editors in the eye and say FOREIGNER! And yet 99.9% of diacritic names will be foreign" Meaning that we need to be careful in this area that we are being even handed about the linguistic/typographic issue - inclusion in the basic 26 letter alphabet, and not letting pro- or anti- national feelings of one sort or another get involved counter WP:WORLDVIEW. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment agreeing with IIO here. In terms of character set, we should focus on latin letters and latin accented letters. Thus, the icelandic/old english letters should in general not be used in the title, unless there is a strong preponderance of use in sources. Also, I don't think there is any purpose in listing the diacritic-free version (e.g. Francois Mitterand) in the lead sentence; it is redundant, and it should not be considered an alternative name in most cases, it is rather just a case of low-fidelity reproduction.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think he's not asking about titles at all, but only about whether to include plain-ASCII alternatives in the lead sentence. I think your answers are about right for that, too. The plain ASCII is sometimes helpful, when there's more than simple diacritics, but not always. And the plain ascii is required a redirect, generally. Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dick - what would you consider a helpful example of plain ASCII in the lead - or put another way, what do you consider "simple diacritics"? Dohn joe (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The examples given above, and probably all French and Spanish and most German and other western European, don't need to be repeated without the diacritics (acute and grave accents, cedilla, tilde, circumflex, diaresis are pretty familiar). Even the fancy Hungarian double-acute-accent of Paul Erdős doesn't need a plain-ascii alternative in the lead, I'd think, but its typography is worth discussing later in the article. For letters not recognized as slightly decorated standard Latin letters, we probably want alternatives (eszett, thorn, some ligatures, when English spelling alternatives are available). For some, like Geißenklösterle, there is probably no common ascii version in English sources, so we don't bother (some sources substitute the ss, but they leave the umlaut, so they still don't convert to ascii). For highly accented letters like Vietnamese, I'm not sure what's best; probably depends on prevalence of Anglicized forms in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say we should require, in all cases, a redirect from an all-ascii title to any title with diacritics - or at least strongly encourage. People almost never complain about having too many redirects.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dicklyon is correct, the question revolves around the lead sentence. Not titles, not redirects. My apologies for any confusion on this point. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Where the article title contains diacritics or special characters, I think the best solution is to provide a hatnote that explains how the name sometimes is or can be written when the true characters are not available. This hatnote should also link to the Wikipedia articles on the individual characters, where details such as pronunciation will also be discussed. Formerly the templates Foreign character and Foreignchars were used for this purpose. They were frequently used and very useful. Unfortunately they were deleted after a discussion over the holiday season December 2011/January 2012. I believe some people misinterpreted the wording as suggesting that the hatnotes in some way gave "permission" for use of diacritic-free spellings. In my opinion the templates should be re-instated; if necessary the text should be amended. --Boson (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That is to cover use of alternate spellings that have not really become established as alternative names but only as alternative spellings that are used because of typographical or other restrictions. Names that have actually become established as (alternative) English names should be listed in the lede, regardless of whether the alternative name merely differs from the article title name in the absence of diacritics. This should apply only to the relatively small number of foreigners who are sufficiently well-known in English speaking countries as to have established English names, for instance because they live in America. Since an English name is established by the English language community (not an editor or systems designer addressing issues like available fonts or collating algorithms) I would normally expect a reasonably large absolute number of mentions in different publications. --Boson (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Boson, you mention "if they live in America", but these "English-name" ledes currently causing problems, despite that they were roundly rejected at the WP:TENNISNAMES RfC, take the form [site:en.wikipedia.org "tennis" "known professionally as"] 71x BLPs with

"Manuel Sánchez (born January 5, 1991) and known professionally as Manuel Sanchez, is a tennis player from Mexico...

and another 40x tennis BLP ledes with similar variants, do not live in America. In your view should one of these ledes be accepted into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies as a credible model for BLPs? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not followed the tennis-player issue, but without evidence that the players are truly so known professionally, I would not think that appropriate in the lede. If it seems likely that a particular source uses a name without diacritics for reasons other than that it is believed to be a correct or established name, I don't think it is appropriate to use that source to determine that the name is established. Some possible reasons for other publications (i.e. not Wikipedia) to use a name known to be incorrect (i.e. not established) are that:

• the source has its own style guide, valid only for that publication, which specifies that diacritics are never used, regardless of what is established;
• a "low-fidelity reproduction" of the name is chosen because contributors - given time constraints - might get the diacritics wrong (better consistently wrong than inconsistently right);
• a simplified version of the name is chosen because of current or historical problems (or cost) involved in data transmission, data processing, or collation.

I don't think there is a bright line that will always tell us, without thinking, when a diacritic-free name has become established; it is a matter of editorial judgment. But I think - for spelling purposes - we can safely ignore sources that clearly choose a name based on technical limitations with deliberate disregard for what others (especially the person concerned) regard as correct. If we need to quote sources that deliberately or unintentionally use incorrect names, we should consider adding an explanation or caveat, as we would with "visiters", "seperate", "grammer", or "a looser" (regardless of the number of Google hits). --Boson (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Boson, thanks for your answer. The above are completely reasonable observations and I fully concur with them. I also do not think there is always a bright line, but in the case of the near-exonyms for Djokovic and Strauss there is a bright line - a change not in diacritics but actual alphabet letters in both cases. These need to be in the lede. But if you don't consider the Manuel Sánchez tennis-lede appropriate then I take it you're also in agreement we don't need "also called Bronte" "also known as Walesa" "also known as O Fiaich without the accent" need to be in lede." The issue now then is how we get the issue which Joe has presented as an RfC into Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies in way which makes it clear that Djokovic and Strauss are alternatives but Zoë Baird/Zoe Baird or Sánchez/Sanchez is not. Do you have any suggestions? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not currently have a useful suggestion. I had started to draft something, but the issue is complex and would probably require a lot of work. I don't think we will get anything like a resolution to the overall problem unless we have a wider RfC, taking into account about half a dozen overlapping guidelines. In the meantime, I would suggest never giving the diacritic-free spelling as an alternative name except where there is explicit prior consensus to do otherwise. I think that would work for most cases. However, I doubt if there is a consensus for that.--Boson (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure this is "only a diacritic/ascii" situation. Right now "Wikipedia Policy" (not a guideline) seems to indicate that all significant Alternate names (including different spellings) should be included in the lead... not just a simple little redirect. If that Policy is to stand and is not thrown out with the bathwater, then what it doesn't tell us is "what is a significant alternate name/spelling." Maybe that's what we should key on for biographies and it will vary depending on the person in question. Maybe we should look at something like a check list of the following:

  "what constitutes a significant alternate name?"

  1. Does 50% usage in the English press usually confer a degree of significance?

  2. Does near universal usage in the English press usually confer a degree of significance?

  3. Do the authoritative bodies in a person's profession add to the significance of an alternate name/spelling?

  4. Do the major events a person performs his profession in add to the significance of an alternate name/spelling?

  5. Does a person's registration name for his chosen profession add to the significance of an alternate name/spelling?

  6. Does a person's own personal English websites and/or English signature add to the the significance of an alternate name/spelling?

  Obviously these will vary depending on the profession of a person in our bios but the answers may give us a guideline as to how we handle different situations when they arise in the future. Situations that maybe we can't foresee if we are too general in our yeahs and nays? Maybe this rfc's answers to these questions won't always be 100% accurate but it will be something we could apply to each case as it arises. Obviously the Motion Picture industry allows different names for the actors listed at wikipedia and mostly we follow that industry's lead. As far as i know the art industry has no governing body, just venues of display. If every venue the art is displayed spells a name with an "re" instead of an "r" is that a significant alternate form that should be mentioned in an article? I believe the baseball project on wikipedia handles names as shown on baseball cards, disregarding other sources. Would that still be proper and should we make sure that if a name is spelled differently on the baseball scoreboard of every stadium in front of the crowds, should it also be mentioned as such in our articles as opposed to just a redirect? Encyclopedia Britannica sometimes shows both diacriticed and non-diacriticed forms of a name in the lead. Is this wrong? If we can agree on these 6 items, or more if others can think of others, then maybe we will have laid some groundwork to an understanding. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fyunck, baseball BLPs on en.wp do not do this:

Celerino (Pérez) Sánchez (February 3, 1944 – May 1, 1992) was a Major League baseball third baseman. He was known primarily as an excellent fielder."

Can you please give an example of a non-tennis BLP which has the "Manuel Sánchez (born January 5, 1991) and known professionally as Manuel Sanchez, is a tennis player from Mexico..." format? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. In the context of this RfC it will be good to read to most recent community wide RfC on the question of diacritics in words and names. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC.

While the proposal was closed with no concensus, it is a relevant read. Basically it was a proposal to retain diacritics in words and names from languages with roman script. So it was a more pro-diacritics proposal. Interesting is the 2nd part of that proposal, quoting: "Common renderings without diacritics (where used in English-language sources) may also appear in the body of the article if that rendering can be cited to reliable sources. Both native and non-diacritic renderings must be adequately cited."

I didn't see any protest against this second part of the proposal, it was the first part that failed to gain broad concensus.

Now, what we see recently is that some of the editors who voted in support of this proposal and thus also in favor of the second part (which states that we can use the rendering without diacritics if it is adequately sourced), have been taking turns to remove the properly sourced rendering without diacritics in articles like Jelena Janković (25 of the sources in that article back up the rendering without diacritics). Maybe they have forgotten their own vote.

So, let's have a look. All our policies currently state that wikipedia is spelling and diacritics neutral, which is firmly based in WP:NPOV. I don't think WP is ready to give up on that basic policy. This can only mean that WP is not against anglicized or even ascii-fied spelling, we simply use what our reliable sources use. That's why the mentioned second part of that 2011 proposal made good sense: we can use the rendering without diacritics if that rendering is properly backed up by the sources used for the article. If a certain rendering is only found in one source or in a questionable source, then we can put it away as a typo. But if it appears in several sources for the article, then it is not a typo but an alternative rendering that is quite common in English language usage. We are not against anglicization of names, are we? And we cannot require that our editors do original research to figure out why we find an anglicized rendering in all or part of our sources. We simply report on what we find in our sources for the article. So we mention the alternative rendering, because we want to give complete information to our readers.

Removing properly sourced information from an article goes against our policies, and I see no reason to make an exception for the removal of anglicized names (if they can be cited to the sources for the article). MakeSense64 (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem, the "tennis sources" being preferred to the WP:IRS "definition of reliable sources": "best such sources".. "sources reliable to the statement being made" are not properly sourced information for Spanish spelling. Which is why no BLP on en.wp except the 100x tennis BLPs with "Manuel Sánchez (born January 5, 1991) and known professionally as Manuel Sanchez, is a tennis player from Mexico..." type ledes are all but unique on en.wp. Same question as for Fyunck. Please provide a non-tennis example. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Why do you go on repeating the same argument, even when it has been pointed out multiple times to you that it is a logical error? Arguing that sources which use anglicized spelling of names are not reliable for spelling is an obvious case of begging the question.

2) Banning anglicized spelling of names from the lede of articles held at diacritics title, would clearly violate WP:NPOV. WP should not be used to advocate a certain spelling in English, rather we are supposed to report on all spelling that is commonly used in reliable English language sources.

3) If a person has conducted all or part of his notable activities under a name that differs from the native spelling of his name, then that is not irrelevant or "obvious" information. If only the diacritics rendering is given in the article, then the reader is left doubting whether some non-diacritics rendering (which he may see in newspaper or tv) is the same person or not. Wikipedia tries to give complete information. Even, if a topic is commonly referred to by some "wrong" name, we will usually mention it (properly sourced of course).

4) In the mentioned RfC from last year, a lot of "pro-diacritics" editors already voted in favor of mentioning the non-diacritics rendering of names in the lede (provided they are properly cited). It is reasonable to assume that those who voted against the proposal are also not against mentioning the non-diacritics rendering in the article.

Bottom line: We are trying to find concensus on what is a "significant" alternative name, and whether the anglicized version of a name can be such a "significant" alternative name that needs a mention in the lede? My proposal: if the anglicized rendering of a name appears in a good deal of the sources used for an article, then it is a "significant" alternative rendering and should be included in the lede per our existing policies and guidelines. If an alternative rendering of a name is used in the context of all (or part) of the notable activities of the given person, then it is even more obvious that it is a "significant" alternative name. We can even use the text that our pro-diacritics friends proposed last year:

Proposed text: "Common renderings without diacritics (where used in English-language sources) may also appear in the body of the article if that rendering can be cited to reliable sources. Both native and non-diacritic renderings must be adequately cited."

Who has reasonable objections against such a formulation? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

MakeSense64

It actually sounds pretty reasonable. We do try to give complete information at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you see above where I ask "Same question again: as for Fyunck. Please provide a non-tennis example. Thanks." Answer that and then I will answer your 4 new questions. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have seen your irrelevant question and if you insist on an answer here is one: I don't know of any article (tennis or non-tennis) currently showing the anglicized version of the name as an alternative rendering, mainly because in the articles I follow some editors have been very busy removing them. For non-tennis examples where the anglicized name used to be given in the lede, you can look at this diff: [7] or this one: [8].

But even if there were no examples at all, it doesn't mean we shouldn't look into the question whether it makes sense to show anglicized renderings in our articles. And that's the question we were asked to look into in this RfC. One year ago over 60 "pro-diacritics" editors voted in favor of showing both renderings if they are properly sourced. I am curious to know what has changed in the world , so that now the rendering without diacritics should not be shown anymore.

Now I have answered your question, I am looking forward to your answers to my questions. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

MakeSense64

Okay I see that those past diffs show that someone tried to add a tennis-lede in the past. But the articles today are according to WP:OPENPARA

• Eiður Smári Guðjohnsen[note 1] (born 15 September 1978) is an Icelandic footballer..
• Céline Marie Claudette Dion (born March 30, 1968), is a Canadian singer...

Do you have an example of a stable Céline/Celine lede in a current non-tennis article?

Please.

Second, you say But even if there were no examples at all, it doesn't mean we shouldn't look into the question whether it makes sense to show anglicized renderings in our articles but I would say it does. Note this diff trying to add something similar to the 100x tennis-ledes to François Mitterrand the edit was immediately rejected by a passing editor, the editor who did it got a topic ban - which you don't agree with I know, but agrees with community rejection of your WP:TENNISNAMES proposal.

As regards your 4 questions.

1) Because of WP:IRS

2) For the same reason Wikipedia "Bans" "Censors" spelling errors, mistaken capitalizations and punctuations in the lede. There is no such thing as "English names" except for genuine exonyms. Search "English spelling of his name" in Google Books and see.

3) Seriously? Who is going to think Céline Dion and Celine Dion are two people?

4) Previous RfCs have only supported clear near-exonyms and nationality changes such as Arnold Schoenberg (born Arnold Schönberg), they haven't supported a blanket non-diacritic such as Fyunck has added to 100x tennis ledes.

4b) But for the sake of argument, if previous RfCs are as you say, please provide an example of a stable Céline/Celine lede in a current non-tennis article? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If I may jump in - as to 4b), I added "common rendering" language to a few articles, including Lech Wałęsa, Slobodan Milošević, and Nicolae Ceaușescu - all of which were stable for 3-4 weeks, with multiple intervening edits by other editors - until In ictu reverted them. If it weren't for those reversions, it's quite likely that they would still be there. In ictu and I have since had a decent discussion on my talkpage, but I have to say that it seems a little disingenuous to ask for examples of stability when one is actively removing such examples. Dohn joe (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

DohnJoe, It is not disingenuous for three reasons: (i) your RM on Lech Wałęsa in 2010 was rejected without any consensus for then adding the "English name" in the lede (ii) your similar edits to Gdansk were also reverted and not by me (iii) who else apart from yourself is adding such ledes to non-tennis biographies? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

@IIO. Your answers are once again not to the point.

1)You are not addressing the point: arguing that sources which use anglicized spelling of names are not reliable for spelling is a classic case of begging the question. No comments?

2)Who is talking about "English names"? Are you trying to deny that there is something like "anglicized names"?

3)Hah, but not every name is a household name. And wikipedia is also written for people who are looking up a topic they know nothing about. Who is going to think that "Xyz Gonzalez" and "Xyz González" could be two different people? Well, it is very possible. So if we would have an article at "Xyz González" but he conducted most of his activities under the name "Xyz Gonzalez" then we need to mention that. If for any other reason he was usually rendered "Xyz Gonzalez" in the sources used for the article, then it is better to mention that. Why this fobia for anglicized names? We have to write our articles from the perspective that some (or even most) readers may not know the topic at all. We cannot take it for granted that the reader knows if "Xyz González" and "Xyz Gonzalez" are the same person. Our article should provide that information.

4)I am not talking about "previous RfCs" but specifically about the most recent RfC in which plenty editors voted in favor of the wording I have quoted in bold. Your answer is once again not to the point.

4b)No need to give any more examples. As Dohn joe confirms, you have been removing anglicized names in all kind of articles, and now you ask us to show a stable example of an article where the alternative anglicized rendering is somehow still included. Heheh?? My neighbor picked all the fruit in his garden and removed it. Then he asked me: "do you see any tree bearing fruit here?" MakeSense64 (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

MakeSense64,

1000s of editors all over en.wp are creating articles without these Zoë Baird or Zoe Baird ledes and 3 editors following WP:TENNISNAMES are adding them. Dohn Joes' additions were simply not noticed because of innocuous edit summaries. If Dohn Joe had written "Lech Wałęsa (commonly rendered Lech Walesa)" as the edit summary chances are it would have been reverted more quickly.

Anyway, same question - please provide a non-tennis example. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You are again repeating a question I answered already, while you are not addressing mine. How is this supposed to be seen as constructive editing? Consider this my last warning. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In the example given above I was searching who and with what reasoning the alternative was removed and was surprised to find this edit. In particular I was looking for evidence of either a small group removing those or a larger driveby majority. Never thought there was a third option. Anyway policy/guidelines on Wikipedia - at least in the early days - have been descriptive rather than proscritive. So in addition to how *we* feel here in this page we should also look at who added and who removed those type of ledes over lets say the last 12 to get an idea of how editors who normally will not frequent these discussions feel. Agathoclea (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that Kauffner would remove the English/ASCII form from Eiður Guðjohnsen at the same time as arguing to have it moved to the plain ASCII form does seem rather WP:POINTY. To me, this is exactly the kind of name where listing a common familiar alternative from the English literature makes sense, since most English readers are probably clueless about what to do with Icelandic letters. Whichever way such articles are titled, both the Icelandic name and the common English transliteration (when there is one) should be in the lead sentence. When it's just a matter of dropping diacritics, then probably no need. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (on the RfC, not the above digressions): "significant alternate names" (a.k.a. ignorant laziness by English speakers) should appear in the lead and exist as redirects. There is no excuse for Wikipedia being inaccurate. Ever. Including when some people hate diacritics for reasons that are often questionably rational. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 04:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

S, I'm unclear on your point. If by "ignorant laziness by English speakers" you mean the dropping of diacritics, are you saying that the diacritic-free ASCII version needs to always be included alongside the accented one? Or are those not what you mean by "signficant"? Where do you think the threshold is? Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have long felt the need for the hatnote, but that was twice deleted while I was on a wikibreak so it seems the consensus there was that that kind of information is not needed. Typographical errors are not alternative names although in some instances they can become though. Therefore I am against an outright ban of having the non-diacritical version in the lead but there will need to be a very good reason for that. An ITF listing is no such reason. Agathoclea (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not? The ITF occasionally uses foreign alphabets in place names, just not player names. Neither does the WTA, ATP, Davis Cup or Wimbledon. And players register with a non-diacritic name. It's not ignorant laziness as some would lead you to believe. Maybe it's still their policy as with their bylaws and policies needing to always be in English. When we have those organizations and most all the English press spelling a name a particular way it is easily significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lead or nearby. It is policy. Maybe other sports and business entities work differently than tennis, but we have the authorities of the sport spelling names one way and a non-English nation spelling it another. Some of these English alphabetic names are being incorporated into a players OWN websites by the players themselves... and that's being bashed by editors saying that the tennis player must be ignorant of their own name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

@Agathoclea. You were one of the editors who voted in favor of allowing both renderings in the body of articles, if properly sourced, in last year's RfC. If we agree that anglicized renderings can be "significant" alternative renderings, then all we need to do is find a practical way to determine when they are "significant". I think last year's proposed wording (which I have quoted in bold) was a practical solution because it uses an objectively verifiable criterion: the appearance of an alternative rendering in the sources used for the article. If a certain rendering appears in a good deal of the sources used for the article, then it is a "significant" alternative rendering. For example in the Jelena Jankovic case that was mentioned at the start of this RfC, the alternative rendering without diacritics appears in 25 out of the 27 sources, including the website of the subject itself. How is that not a "significant" alternative rendering if it is so common in the sources for the article? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: In the case of romanized Asian names—such as Chinese, Japanese, or Korean—surely any recommendation in the relevant MoS (regional) (if any) should take precedence. It cannot be required to cite the Asian-language version of the name, because the article author may not know it, but it is certainly highly desirable to include it in the head of the article, in order that somebody who can read it can validate it against (and link it to) the corresponding Asian-language Wikipedia. LittleBen (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Little Ben. Asian languages can be linked at the bottom (I'm surprised they aren't), and in Category:Japanese male tennis players some have kanji in brackets some don't. But I don't really think it's a significant issue for this RfC. The tennisname ledes are found only in European language examples like

• "Manuel Sánchez (born January 5, 1991) and known professionally as Manuel Sanchez, is a tennis player from Mexico..."

That is the context of this RfC; are these recent 100x tennis ledes right and all other en.wp article ledes wrong? Should the rest of wikipedia be changed to agree with WP:TENNISNAMES or should the rejection of the WP:TENNISNAMES RfC be accepted by the 2 or 3 editors still doing this. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing to do with style, but surely one of the key considerations for Wikipedia is making articles easy to find. Google usually gives more weight to what is in the title than to what is in the body. If the romanized (ASCIIfied) version of the name without diacritics is used in sports events around the world, then there will be a lot of searches on that, and it makes a lot of sense to use it in the article title. You can generally use Google Insights for Search to compare the popularity of the two versions in searches.
• As far as possible, adequate research should be done to find out the real name of the person in his or her home country, to use that name in the head of the article, and to link the English Wikipedia article to the corresponding foreign-language Wikipedia article. It looks as if this is the correct Spanish name for the Mexican tennis player; surely it is pretty sloppy not to establish this first. To establish this, I Googled "site:wikipedia.org Manuel Sánchez tennis" with search preferences set to display Spanish. If Manuel Sánchez is not his true, full Spanish name, then surely the romanized version is preferable in the article title.
• You can often see how the person wants his or her name romanized from Facebook or the like. In the case of Japanese, the romanized version of the name in the passport is chosen by the person. There are no hard and fast rules as to how it must be done. But if the name is widely cited in the press, they will usually get it right. LittleBen (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the English alphabetical name, if used more in the English press, should be the title, since that's what readers will likely search for. But certain editors like IIO have made certain those titles have been excised from wikipeida so we are left with the prose to let readers know there is a significant English alternate spelling. And the wikipedia alternate names policy tells us we should anyway. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Little Ben, Thanks for finding the es:Manuel Sánchez Montemayor interwiki - I've added it. We don't "romanize" Spanish names, they are already romanized, we don't anglicize them either unless the person really is "Sanchez", e.g. American citizen, not "Sánchez" a Mexican citizen. The example here is fairly typically of Fyunck's tennis stub creations: Data copied from a tennis stats website, no reliable sources for the statement being made, never featured in NY Times sports pages (where he would be "Sánchez"), marginal notability (junior player), no interwiki - es., no place of birth, Spanish maternal name "Montemayor" missing. in this case. Which is fine, sports editors make BLP stubs and other (typically country project) editors should normally come along and improve to BLP standards - except in this article creation the Talk page was only tagged WikiProject Tennis and not tagged WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Mexico which makes it slightly less easy for editors on those projects to do that.

• 6 Feb 2012 Article title Manuel Sanchez

Manuel Sanchez (Spanish: Manuel Sánchez) (born January 5, 1991) is a tennis player from Mexico. He played in the ATP 500 Mexican Open event and was on the Mexican Davis Cup squad in 2011.[1]

References

^ "Davis Cup profile". Retrieved 2012-02-06.

• 27 July 2012 Article title Manuel Sánchez

Manuel Sánchez Montemayor (born San Luis Potosí, January 5, 1991) and known professionally as Manuel Sanchez, is a tennis player from Mexico.[1] He played in the ATP 500 Mexican Open event and was on the Mexican Davis Cup squad in 2011.[2]

References

^ Organización Editorial Mexicana 16 January 2008 Reconocimiento al tenista Manuel Sánchez Montemayor - En el Deportivo Potosino

^ "Manuel SANCHEZ Davis Cup profile". Retrieved 2012-02-06.

In one way this rather unfair since this is Fyunck's stub creation, that other editors should come along and conform it to a normal en.wp BLP for Category:Mexican people. But WP isn't a blog and WP:OWNER means that once it's created it's part of collective effort. I've chosen this example deliberately because its typical of the RfC content - the 100x tennis stubs with these ledes - since it's much more rare for these kinds of ledes to be in a notable BLP like Jelena Janković. I've also picked one that displays myself in the edit history going to 1RR on 22 April with Fyunck. So anyway, question is, LittleBen, is Sánchez as incomprehensible to English readers as e.g.

• "Manuel Sanchez (Japanese マヌエル·サンチェス) is a Japanese tennis player of Hispanic descent"

In your opinion? And again (the question to Fyunck and MakeSense64) Are there any non-tennis BLPs that have these duplicate name tennis ledes? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• In my opinion, virtually no English reader is going to do a search for Sánchez, so the article title should avoid the diacritic. Mexicans are probably also going to search for sports figures by their nickname or by the romanized version of their name that is used internationally. In many, or even most cultures, it is insulting to use a person's name and get it wrong (or not cite the full, formal name). There's also Wikipedia's "Use English" mantra. So I think that the original policy of sticking to widely-used romanized names in article titles—and, wherever possible, citing the full, true, accented name in the head of the article—is admirable. Surely it should not be compulsory to use an accented or foreign name in the article title, because the article creator may not know it, may not be able to type it, or may get it wrong. I believe that you (IIO) were caught changing French names in article titles to accented names without first getting a consensus—i.e. without arguing for months or years to get present policy changed—and Dicklyon is trying to get another user, Kauffner, who seems to be a major contributor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam, banned for doing the reverse to Vietnamese article titles. This does not make any sense to me. How to express the names of people and the like in English Wikipedia should be defined by the corresponding regional MoS.
• I believe that it's critically important to do one's utmost to get one's facts right—and, particularly, to get article names right. I believe that it is far more important that Wikipedia remains a trustworthy source than for "this style" or "that style" to be used. Many Wikipedia editors do not know how to use Google to find the "native-language" Wikipedia article (like the Spanish article cited above). In WP:Article titles, I have tried repeatedly to link to a Wikipedia tutorial on how to use search engines for research, and Dicklyon has repeatedly removed the link. It's very frustrating not to be able to link to information that will help new editors—and even many experienced editors—learn how to do sufficient research to get article titles right. The flip-flopping, or attempts by certain people to force their POV, on the use of foreign languages in English Wikipedia article titles suggests that many Wikipedia policy decisions are based more on the POV and politics of a tiny handful of people than on adequate research and wide discussion. LittleBen (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

LittleBen, that's not nice, nor true. So I'm going to ask you to retract that about "caught." Can I ask where are you getting you information from? There have been a series, a painful series, of open public RMs to gradually correct, by consensus a tiny percentage of en.wp European sports stubs (primarily tennis and hockey) which were at odds with policies like WP:FRMOS, and this was done in public, with consensus. (Do I have to list all the European sports stubs RMs over the last 4 months?) To the point that now all European bios are spelled correctly. The only issue left are these tennis ledes - which is nothing to do with titles.

Do you want European bios to read

(A) "Manuel Sanchez (Spanish: Manuel Sánchez) (born January 5, 1991) is a tennis player from Mexico.

(B) "Manuel Sánchez (born January 5, 1991) is a tennis player from Mexico.

This is what this RfC is about.

What do you want to see, (A) or (B)?

In ictu oculi (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Of course I would rather see (A), but with the correct Spanish name. I'd rather see the English name in the article title too, and my reason is not just search popularity (findability) as I have mentioned in my note about Google Insights for Search: another reason is that it is sometimes possible to tag a term in English Wikipedia as being in a different language, and this tagging affects the "lang (language)" attribute in the HTML tag. There are templates for embedding Japanese and Chinese words in English Wikipedia. Depending on whether they are tagged as being Japanese or Chinese, some Unicode character codes display quite differently. Also Google may find it difficult to properly classify foreign-language names and terms that are not tagged with the correct language tag, and the default (English) font used to display the terms may look ugly or garbled. If they were tagged with the correct language, then the browser would use a font that supports that language to display it. In Japanese pages, if English is not tagged as such then it is displayed using a Japanese font, and looks really ugly. There are no templates that I am aware of for tagging French, Spanish, Vietnamese embedded in English Wikipedia, and there should be. Also, for this reason, accented foreign-language words should generally NOT be used in article titles. PS: The item that I linked to cites your behavior. LittleBen (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually LB, the choices given are not correct at all as there are plenty of other choices as to the lead. It could be "Manuel Sánchez (English: Manuel Sanchez) (born January 5, 1991) is a tennis player from Mexico, "Manuel Sánchez or Manuel Sanchez (born January 5, 1991) is a tennis player from Mexico, or "Manuel Sánchez (known professionally as Manuel Sanchez) (born January 5, 1991) is a tennis player from Mexico. etc... Wiki isn't locked into a cookie cutter form that must be the same for every single bio. It also isn't exclusively about European bios either as this rfc would work for all languages that use diacritic type marks. So this RFC isn't about any particular type of order for the sentence structure, it's about whether all traces of an English alphabet name should be permanently removed from our readers view no matter how significant. And for some here no matter if the person in question spells their name in English without diacritic marks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Little Ben

I see where you stand.

I can only say the same to you as to Fyunck, MakeSense64 etc: give an example of an en.wp article you agree with.

And Japanese is irrelevant; this issue affects Latin alphabet bios and geos.

In ictu oculi (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If "virtually no English reader is going to do a search for Sánchez", which may be true, then that justifies our requirement for a redirect from Sanchez. That's all. It's not a reason to change the article title to what people will type to search for. And I can't for the life of me see how to reconcile "I believe that it's critically important to do one's utmost to get one's facts right" with "Dicklyon is trying to get another user banned for doing the same to Vietnamese article titles"; or with "Dicklyon has repeatedly removed the link" referring to a link already in the policy page, which I said I have no problem with. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• A little research shows that Mexicans do not use the abbreviated Spanish name in an article title—maybe it would be considered insulting to do so—and so the present English Wikipedia article title might justifiably be called "wrong".
• Google does not index redirects. If most of the searches are plain English, then changing an article title to use diacritics is likely to cause it to fall quite a bit in search rankings.
• Also, in deciding article titles, it is critically important to know how to research the "best compromise" candidate, and to use Recognizability (Findability) and Consistency (with Category naming) as very important criteria. The trustworthiness of Wikipedia—knowing how to do adequate research—is much more important than issues like diacritics and capitalization, and should not be relegated to the bottom of a long subsection in WP:Article titles. LittleBen (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

None of those 3 comments are related to this RfC. Even if they were correct. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The statement that using a title with diacritics would (or may) cause the article to fall down Google search rankings is demonstrably wrong. Resolute 22:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• If you think it's so, then provide references. If an article name has several diacritics, so is significantly different from what is searched for in English (the common version, without diacritics) then of course there will be a drop in rankings. LittleBen (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Specific proposal 1.1 1.2 1.3

I would like to make a 3-in-1 proposal which I believe better illustrates where stable en.wp articles are:

• 1.1 Propose adding a slavic example to WP:OPENPARA; either Lech Wałęsa (born 29 September 1943) is a Polish politician, trade-union organizer, and human-rights activist. or "Antonín Leopold Dvořák (September 8, 1841 – May 1, 1904) was a Czech composer of late Romantic music, who employed the idioms of the folk music of Moravia and his native Bohemia".
• 1.2 Propose adding a tennis example to WP:FULLNAME; "Björn Rune Borg (6 June 1956) is a Swedish tennis player..."
• 1.3 Propose new "alternative names" section; illustrated with 2 examples Franz Josef Strauss (for non A-Z letter), and George Frideric Handel (for change of nationality). In ictu oculi (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Martina Navratilova combines namechange and nationality change. I just moved a related article to match -- Agathoclea (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It is premature to decide which examples to add here and there. If we are to add examples then it will logically depend on the outcome of this RfC. If anglicized renderings are deemed "significant" in certain cases, then it will be useful to add examples of that.

We also need to be careful that WP:OPENPARA does not contradict WP:LEDE, which specifically mentions several examples of persons, and how we can add one or two significant alternative names to articles. It also mentions how we try to maximize the information available to the reader, but have to balance it with the need to maintain readability. That's quite interesting because in the case of adding a significant alternative anglicized rendering of a person's name we are not only maximizing information, but also improving readability for those we are not used to strange diacritics. That's a win-win. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be premature to decide, but I think it's great having specific proposals with examples. That's how this diffuse RFC can be turned into something that can gather a consensus. We can adjust the examples later. In general, I think I like it, but will reserve more definite support pending seeing the discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Agathoclea, MakesSense64, okay, then leaving the specific examples till later would you support or oppose the need for the following?

• 1.1a Propose adding a slavic example to WP:OPENPARA - demonstrating that all en.wp slavic BLPs use full Czech/Polish/Serbian spelling.
• 1.2a Propose adding a tennis example to WP:FULLNAME - demonstrating that MOSBIO applies to tennis bios as well
• 1.3a Propose new "alternative names" section - recognising exceptions like Strauss In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with the question we try to answer in this RfC. And as I said, WP:LEDE is currently the most specific and detailed about the mention of alternative names and spellings, so that text may need a rewrite pending on the outcome (if any) of this RfC. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for response, I've added in "Oppose all 3" for you in case anyone misunderstood. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (which includes WP:LEDE) is general, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies (which includes WP:OPENPARA) relates to biographies. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Summing up a bit

So far nobody has touched the fact (are we to consider that silence is consent?) that in last year's broad RfC, editors who voted for using native spelling in the titles for all names in roman script, also voted in favor of using both the diacritics and the non-diacritics rendering of those names in the "body" of the article, as long as both renderings were properly cited in the article.(see the bold text I quoted earlier)
1)This already indicates that mentioning alternative renderings, including rendering without diacritics, is not against any existing WP policy or guideline.
2)This brings up the question: on what basis are editors going to remove an alternative rendering, if that rendering is adequately sourced in the article? Last I heard, removing properly sourced information from an article can be considered disruptive editing.
Q: Why is the anglicized rendering of a name not unnecessary or self-evident?
We need to remember that wp articles are also written for readers who know nothing about the topic in question. A person with official name "Manuel Sánchez" may or may not have conducted activities as "Manuel Sanchez"; he may or may not appear in sources as "Manuel Sanchez". If he frequently appears as "Manuel Sanchez" in sources, then we let our readers know. This is about maximizing the information we give in our article. In other words: an alternative rendering is "significant" if it appears in a "significant portion" of the sources about the given topic. Actually, when a given alternative rendering is appearing in more than half of the sources, then it is the most significant rendering of that name in the given language. That can not be a good reason to ban the anglicized rendering from the article. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• As I have pointed out above, the correct Spanish name is Manuel Sánchez Montemayor. What is the point of forcing editors to use foreign names in article titles if most editors do not have the multilingual research skills to get the name right? This is surely a good way to destroy the trustworthiness of Wikipedia. Simple one-word nicknames (like Pelé) and romanized names of sports figures are easy to find and easy to remember. To research and add the correct, formal, foreign name should be a "highly-desirable" recommendation, but surely can't be forced. Keep the rules simple, and there's a fair chance that people will remember them and get them right most of the time (just an engineer's viewpoint). The more long-winded and complex you make the rules, the more people are going to get fed up with the hassle and quit contributing to Wikipedia. Is that the objective? LittleBen (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic on the table. We have seen enough digressing in this RfC already. We are not discussing the issue of article titles here, that belongs on WP:AT. For this RfC we are purely looking into the question whether anglicized names can or should be included as a significant alternative name in the lede of our biography articles. This question is relevant, regardless of what is used as the title of the article. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Coming back to the question that Joe Decker has posted at the start of this RfC. We have 3 different policies/guidelines that seem to cover this ground. In the question, he already brought up WP:AT, which requires us to mention "significant alternative names" in the lede, and WP:OPENPARA, which currently does not give any example of non-diacritics alternative names. There is also WP:LEDE, which has a detailed section about alternative names as well.

Now, whenever we have a policy conflict, our procedural policy recommends us to let policy take precedence over guidelines (see WP:POLCON) until the conflict is resolved. That means that in this case WP:AT, a policy, takes precedence over WP:OPENPARA and WP:LEDE, which are only guidelines. WP:AT is rather unambiguous, quoting: "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended. (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc. There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article..."
Notice the use of the word should. Reading it in context it is saying that only one name can be retained as the title, but significant alternative names that are not retained as the title should be mentioned in the article.
This means that when editors go on removing a properly sourced alternative rendering of a name, even if it is just an alternative spelling, are going against clearly written policy, and should be banned if they continue doing so.
If some editors think that the WP:AT policy should be changed, then that cannot be done with a RfC here on the biography guideline page, but would need an RfC on the WP:AT policy page or higher. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A major issue here is the nature of the sources and whether they are sufficient to establish a significant alternative name. To be counted as valid reliable sources for this purpose, it must be at least likely that the spelling given by the source was intended to show an established name, rather than a simplification for technical or typographical reasons. In the last century, names were normally stored in computers using only capital letters, and lists based on that were printed using only capital letters and no diacritics. Even after computers were easily able to store lowercase letters, this usage was retained for some time, but such sources would never be used to suggest that encyclopaedias should give the all-caps version as an alternative name. Similar considerations no doubt apply to some sources that still have a policy of displaying all personal names without diacritics, without regard for what name is actually correct or established. If a source does not use certain diacritics for a whole category of names, it strongly suggests that the reason is technical or internal to the publication and should not influence other publications. Similarly, an individual publication's style guide might prescribe that all uses of certain terms should be capitalized (e.g. "Member States" in EU publications), that winners of sporting events should be displayed in boldface, that locations should be printed in all caps, that names of computer variables should be printed using a monospace font, etc. Such elements do not determine what is an established English name and do not determine Wikipedia's house style. This does not mean that there cannot be cases where a diacritic-free name has been established as the common name or a valid alternative name. For instance, if a source consistently uses diacritics for some players, actors, etc. but not for others, it can be inferred that the name is at least intended as an established name. If several reliable sources do the same, that is evidence that the spelling should indeed be treated as an alternative spelling; if a person lives in an English-speaking country that does not traditionally use certain diacritics, the omission of these diacritics may also represent valid evidence of an alternative spelling that is not restricted to non-encyclopedic usage. --Boson (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This has all already been roundly and overwhelmingly rejected as disruptive and dependent on unreliable sourcing, at User_talk:MakeSense64/Tennis_names#RfC:_Can_a_wikiproject_require_no-diacritics_names.2C_based_on_an_organisation.27s_rule_or_commonness_in_English_press.3F. If anyone thinks it hasn't been rejected then go to Charlotte Brontë and make an edit like this

• Zoë Baird (English Zoe Baird) is an American lawyer...

If you believe that a website missing a diacritic creates an alternative name, MakeSense64, then rather than writing large policy essays like WP:TENNIS, which others follow and get blocks or bans, or editing pages like WP:AT with your view, have the courage to make the article edits yourself. If you truly believe BBC "Charlotte Bronte" is an alternative name for Charlotte Brontë then go to the article and add it in. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss WP:TENNISNAMES, as you know very well. Why is that you are constantly trying to digress?

We are here to try to answer the question that was asked in this RfC. And we are here to answer it on the basis of our existing policies and guidelines, not on the basis of counting editor's personal opinions. Now, do you have anything to say about the policy based points I have brought on the table?

I don't need to go out and make any of the edits you suggest. Appropriate edits can be made after this RfC gets a conclusion. Until then policies take precedence over guidelines, so that means WP:AT gets used until an answer or solution is found. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

MakeSense64

No, I don't know very well. Just the opposite, as far as I know we are here exactly because Fyunck, following your essay WP:TENNISNAMES, initiated edits on 100+ tennis bios to include the "Charlotte Brontë (ITF name Charlotte Bronte)" tennis-ledes, which he then tried to get page protection for bringing the (needed) attention of admins like Joe Decker. So this RfC has everything to do with your essay - as illustrated again by the failure to provide 1x a single non-tennis example. When you have found a single non-tennis example of a "Charlotte Brontë (BBC website name Charlotte Bronte)" type lede on en.wp then please leave me a message. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, piling up more fabrications... will it ever end. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar Fyunck? On last Google count you had done this to 110+ tennis BLPs, in accord with MakeSense64's WP:TENNISNAMES essay. So where's the lie? Further on all 110+ of them except the two Joe froze, your tennis lede is on the top. So where's the lie?

Apart from that, when you have found as single non-tennis example of these ledes, let us know. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I trust nothing you say or will ever say, from experience. I don't follow Tennis Essays, I base things on English sourcing per wikipedia and tennis guidelines. I also had advice in how to word it from other wikipedians including administrators. One thing of note... that tennis essay that you are so fond of, was opposed in an rfc...but not the way it is written now. It looks to have changed considerably. While the rfc was on the complete elimination of all English sourcing it doesn't look to be written the same way anymore. With your edits on it does it make you a co-author of TENNISNAMES? I don't recall mentioning anything about Charlotte Brontë as opposed to tennis players. I also only asked for page protection once it was appearing to be heading to a back and forth edit war. It eventually got there and was protected anyway. I have no idea why you would write "tried to get" in such poor styling. And with your 1000s of pages moves away from any English and no-compromising attitude it's no wonder things have gotten to this point. It's because of the 1000s of page moves across many many wikipedias, and your removal of all traces of common English names that we are here. I do my best to avoid you at all costs but when you continually trash my handle it makes it difficult. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The other guideline MakeSense64 is ignoring is WP:IRS, which explains how to determine when a source is reliable. At the very top, it says "CONTEXT MATTERS: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Thus, in the case of diacritics in names, the important thing to study is not whether a particular source removes the diacritics from a tennis players name, but whether they remove diacritics from *all* player's names. If they do so, then they CEASE to become a reliable source as to the proper spelling of that person's name. If on the other hand, they keep diacritics, but then choose to remove them for a particular person, then we have evidence that the non-diacritics version is beginning to be used as an ALTERNATIVE spelling (and not just a technological diacritic-stripping fix). We have examples shown in another discussion of books on Vietnam that use diacritics for names of ancient poets, but strip the diacritics for words like Vietnam and Hanoi. This to me is evidence that when an editorial decision is being made about spelling, and they have the opportunity to use diacritics for a particular word and CHOOSE not to, that is now becoming an alternative spelling. In the case of all of the tennis bios, it is simply a software limitation that prevents them from using diacritics in their name, and has nothing to do with proper/encyclopedic rendering, so we can safely IGNORE those sources when it comes to spelling. Thus, there may indeed be cases where a diacritics-stripped name is appropriate in the lede, but in my opinion these will be quite rare, and will have to be sourced carefully (and not just by saying "look here are 100 sources that strip the diacritics" - one must establish that those same sources chose to *not* strip diacritics for other words). A black and white book of Picasso's work cannot be used to argue that Picasso also painted in black and white. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

But what you are failing to understand is that in ITF player biographies, diacritics are sometimes used for birthplaces etc... so they are choosing not to use them for the player. And it's not like it matters. If for example 12 million sources choose to spell something in a particular way contrary to how it's spelled in Monaco, then it IS a substantial alternate spelling. If the ITF was the only place that spelled a player's name using the English alphabet you would have a point. But that is not close to the case. We have Major tennis venues spelling names in English, International events like Davis Cup, spelling names in English, Encyclopedia Britannica making sure both spelling versions are present, NY Times, LA Times, the UK Guardian, WTA, ATP, a player's own registration spelling, sometimes a player's own personal websites, etc... We look at it all, not just one item. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Do *any* of those sources do what is proposed here - e.g. list the version with diacritics and without? Again, your point about them allowing diacritics in birthplaces is not relevant; we need evidence of a source which regularly uses diacritics for the topic in question (say names of people), and then decides to not do so for a particular player. That is the only evidence that the diacritic-free version is becoming an accepted alternative. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware that the 'english' alphabet includes some diacritics? The fantasy of 26 letters without accents is just that - a fantasy - and doesn't map to real english language usage, words, dictionaries, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't need that (that's you opinion) but EB does anyway. The Latin alphabet may use diacritics but the English alphabet really only has them in loan words that soon lose them unless spelled similarly to another word. If a word is spelled in all English sources, it doesn't matter at all as to why... it would be the common English spelling and a significant alternate spelling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please show an example where EB does it. I quickly found three, where EB doesn't do it: [9], [10], [11], and I didn't find any where it does do it. And the 'english' alphabet uses the diaereses in words like coöperate: English words with diacritics, [12], etc. Finally, your assertion here "If a word is spelled in all English sources, it doesn't matter at all as to why" shows that you haven't read WP:IRS. We use different sources for different purposes. In this case, we need to find sources that use diacritics for some names, but don't use them for the subject's name. There are certainly cases like this - I gave the example of Ho Chi Minh, whereby books about Vietnam will use diacritics on some things but not on Ho. This is because his name, sans diacritics, is now a significant alternative spelling.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing... right here with Ilie Nastase. As far as cooperate, in US schools it's spelled cooperate (as in Websters). When I was a kid it was actually spelled co-operate but that was pretty much done away with. What I meant with "it doesn't matter" would be like Burma. If I recall it was called by those living there Bama and the English world decided it was to be pronounced Burma. In a few years that was it's name in English... it didn't matter what it was called or how it was spelled in its native tongue. We usurp spellings all the time for our own purposes and make them the common English spelling and we usually drop it down to our standard 26 letters. Of course there are exceptions, just as there will be with some biographies. It's just that we can't use a blanket approach especially with tennis players and the governing bodies. Music and art may, for example, be totally different beasts. I have no idea if they have governing bodies that spell names diacritic free. I didn't check to see whether or not Nobel winners have to register their names in English or whether English hospitals, where famous heart surgeons work, spell their names using the English alphabet. But in tennis that's how it's done. It's one thing to systematically move 1000s of bios from common spelling to foreign spelling, but it's quite another to expunge all traces so as to erase any English existence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agree: I don't see any problem in handling the naming of sports figures, who are usually known by nicknames or abbreviated "common names", differently from the way presidents, or historical figures (from an era with different style "rules") are handled.
• A sports person might not be considered "significant" (notable) until he or she becomes famous enough to "acquire" a (usually non-accented) one- or two-word shortened name: such a COMMONNAME or nickname is necessary because sports writers can't repeat long formal names many times in news articles and broadcasts. If sports people become really famous, like Pelé, they will often get a one-word nickname (usually not accented), and people will search on that—if they are famous (notable) enough, then their most common abbreviated name (best article title) can be determined by using Google Insights for Search to compare the popularity of any alternatives. It is not productive to use the real name of Pelé in the article title, and redirect from Pelé. Most people who search for Pelé and land on an article titled Edson... or Edison... (the real name) will immediately conclude that they've come to the wrong place, and hit the browser back button. LittleBen (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not expunging traces of English existence. You really sound like a xenophobe sometimes. Of course people from FOREIGN countries will have FOREIGN-spelled names. That's natural. In some cases, a different spelling of that name becomes more common - like Strauss for example - but for random tennis players? No, there's no reason. I looked at your edits at Manuel Sánchez (tennis); they were reverted by 3 DIFFERENT editors. What part of consensus do you not get? There is clearly not consensus for these changes, and it's treating wikipedia readers like fools if we think we need to provide a diacritic free version of a name so they can process it. There's no evidence that any readers are complaining except for a few editors moaning about tennis bios, and this style has not penetrated any of the other hundreds of thousands of biographies that have diacritics in their names - politicians, actors, musicians, artists, etc. It's not about whether English hospitals have a certain system, it's about tennis being an aberration with a few hundred articles changed by you. That's it. And your Brittanica example is a bad one, because it's going the other way - the title is at the diacretic-free version, so providing the diacritics aids understanding. But stripping them? That helps nothing, actually. try to find an example where any publication lists a person's name, then their name sans diacritics, for the benefit of their poor readers. Actually one useful thing about the Brittanica example, because they do use that accent in other Romanian names, is that it may suggest Ilie Nastase is now well-known enough to have officially acquired a diacritic-free name.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we disagree here. Sure, I would list the article at it's common English sourced spelling and make sure that all significant spellings are shown in the lead or in a "names" section. In fact when tennis articles were at English alphabetic titles I added the foreign spelling also for our readers benefit. I thought it best not to censor out the foreign spelling. That doesn't make one a xenophobe. I didn't call you a anglophobe for not wanting the English spelling present. You asked for an example that lists "the version with diacritics and without", which I did. Now we need more stipulations? And must we have readers complain that they aren't being given adequate information before we add it? When did that happen at wikipedia? Here we are discussing what can or cannot be a significant name that we can present to our readers. I feel purposely eliminating sourced English versions is censorship here at wikipedia, and you do not. We simply disagree on what constitutes a significant spelling in English sources. You mention the Nastase article... are you suggesting some cutoff? If so I'm listening. I have no idea how it could work but certainly the English press and tennis establishments write more and more about a player as they go up the rankings where their names become more and more known in the English alphabet. Players who've reached the top 10 or 20 get lots of coverage as compared to lesser rankings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've struck the xenophobe comment, sorry. But please stop using this phrase english alphabet - what you're trying to say is, 26 letters without accents. However, that is *not* the English alphabet. There is no official english alphabet, since we use loan words that have various diacritics, those become an accepted part of the language - and when we're rendering the spelling of a proper name, many sources, written in English, especially high quality sources which are careful, use the appropriate diacritics on latin letters (for example, in New Zealand, it is common practice to use the a-macron in Māori - does that mean ā is now part of the english alphabet? or the New Zealand english alphabet? There is no governing body, so it's a moot question - we just have to look at usage). All of that can be considered proper english, even if it bothers you for some reason (you will note for example in old books, spellings like rôle - language is malleable and evolving). As for Năstase, that's an example of what I've been asking for in all of these discussions - it to me is good evidence that perhaps the title should be at Ilie Nastase (then give the romanian spelling in the lead). One source is not sufficient, but if we find say the top 40 books about tennis (most read, most famous, most cited, etc), filter out all those books which never use accents at all, so then lets say we're left with 20 books. Then, see which of those books use the accent for Năstase. If most of them do not, then we can be confident that his diacritic-less name has become an accepted spelling (and not just a low-fidelity reproduction). Because Brittanica uses that same character for other names (ex: [13], but chose not to for Năstase, that's an interesting piece of evidence. If corroborated with other sources, that would make a good argument to move Năstase's article. Finally, please don't abuse the word censor. We're not talking about censorship here, we're talking about providing text in the first sentence of the article which provides almost zero useful information to the reader - for thousands of these bios, we would be talking about reproducing the same exact name minus a single accent character - what for? And yes, we need to have some evidence that readers need/want this - otherwise it just seems like an anti-diacritics project with no basis in user experience.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Your comment about New Zealand and Māori that, "for example, in New Zealand, it is common practice to use the a-macron in Māori - does that mean ā is now part of the English alphabet? or the New Zealand English alphabet?" is very easy to refute if you do a little research. The tools for doing adequate research are there—use them. Google Insights for Search shows that the word Māori is virtually never used with a macron in New Zealand English. The Google books n-gram viewer shows the same. The macron is just to indicate the pronunciation—the a is long and the o is nearly silent. So the fact that most or all of the Wikipedia article titles use Māori with the macron surely proves that most Wikipedia editors don't know how to do adequate research into what the actual or preferred usage for foreign words in English is. The same type of macron usage occurs in romanized Japanese. With macrons to indicate pronunciation, Osaka is written Ōsaka. Note that the version with the macron is shown in the head of the Osaka article. It's pronounced with a long O. But it's not written that way in most official English publications about Japan, as you can easily check with Google Insights for Search or Google Books n-gram viewer. The MoS (Japan-related) also says that common usage is the criteria that must be used for romanization. Macrons and diacritics require special fonts to support them, so add cost and complexity to English-language publishing, and thus are avoided as far as possible. LittleBen (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to read WP:GOOG. Do you really think that Google's OCR is up to the task of capturing the macron, when it can't even capture most other diacritics? Please understand, those tools you are looking at may be useful for determining "apple" vs "orange", but they're relatively useless when looking at diacritics because the software doesn't encode/capture these appropriately. And whether people search using the diacritic or not is irrelevant; people search for all sorts of silly things, but we don't title our articles based on the lowest comment denominator search string. I'm not suggesting that we start adding macrons all over the place, I'm just noting that in official publications and scholarly works, people use the macron in New Zealand. Whether that means ā is now part of the alphabet or not is really irrelevant - English does not have a strictly defined alphabet and list of legal diacritics. And yes, I'm sure that there are those who do not use diacritics because it adds costs; but those arguments are irrelevant here.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Obi, you must have missed this; he's an "expert" on Google searchig. Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sarcastic ad hominem attacks like that add nothing constructive to this debate.--Wolbo (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I gave the example of Pelé above to show that—for a notable person or term—it is usually easy to find which rendering of a word or name is most searched for by using Google Insights for Search like this (note: sports category) or like this (substituting Manuel Sanchez in this example).

• I have just checked the NZ Government website, and they use macrons. This would appear to be a quite-recent change. However, if you check real-world newspaper usage, like Googling for "site:www.stuff.co.nz maori" then the macron is not used. Also: very many New Zealand place names come from Maori, and nobody seems keen to rewrite them all with macrons to show how they should be pronounced. It should not be compulsory to add macrons to NZ or Japanese articles, because people who are not familiar with the language (and even many locals) won't know how to do it correctly. (See the MoS (Japan-related) link above.) LittleBen (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not an RfC about macron usage; and my example was intended simply to show that the english language is malleable, including in its choice of characters. The assertions above that the English language only has 26 letters with no accents is thus false false false. (FWIW, there is a whole web page devoted to the official place names in New Zealand that have the macron: [14], so it's certainly part of their variety of English (even though some in NZ disagree, because of the costs of putting up new signs, etc)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• It appears that RfCs forcing use of diacritics have repeatedly failed, see here and here. Even so, some people seem to have succeeded—for the present—in ramming through the use of diacritics in article titles.
• Regardless of the logical reasons against using non-English words in article titles, technically, this is not being done properly: Any foreign words embedded anywhere in English web pages should be properly semantically tagged with lang tags to indicate the language. There are two reasons for this: (1) to indicate the correct language to the browser—the browser will then choose a font that includes the character set for that language to render the snippet of text that you marked with language tags. (2) If proper semantic markup is used, Google is not forced to guess the language—sometimes, or even often, it guesses wrong for Chinese and Japanese. (The reason is that some Unicode character code points are shared by Chinese and Japanese. In a Japanese font, a Unicode character can be displayed quite differently than the same Unicode character displayed in a Chinese font. With many European languages one can often get away with not using the lang tag. But Japanese embedded in English text and not properly tagged is likely to be garbled if displayed on a Chinese PC—and vice versa.)
• In Wikipedia, the mechanism for lang-tagging is Template:Lang, but in most cases this is not being used to properly tag foreign-language words in titles and body text. LittleBen (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion on ANI, which uses a lot of diffs from the recent discussion here. The thread is long term pattern of obstructions by In ictu oculi.
MakeSense64 (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

MakeSense64

It's a shame that was closed, I was just about to post the links below - ANI would probably be more representative of normal editors than those attending a MOS RfC. We might have actually had ANI hand down from on high a verdict on these tennis ledes and could save MOS Biographies the trouble...

Anyway.

About "obstruction", here's the thing; Anyone who sets out to form policy for other wikipedia users and disproportionately spends their time editing WP MOS pages rather than creating or contributing to articles can be expected to be challenged to provide examples of en.wp articles which agree with what they think en.wp should look like. If it is "long term pattern of obstructions" to ask for real en.wp examples, it is more so "long term pattern of obstructions" to continue editing WP MOS pages without real en.wp examples.

btw - one of the interesting things in that ANI was that you challenged anyone to look at your edits. But you don't make the edits do you? You wrote the essay WP:TENNISNAMES, but it is Fyunck who inserts the ledes. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Partial list (half?) of articles affected by tennisnames ledes

That's about half of them. This is what started this RfC. But I don't know how we can get mainstream editors to turn up to a RfC to comment. Maybe we should take this to ANI? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There are probably thousands of biographies supported by WP:FOOTY that have this issue with diacritics. If you look in some of the categories like Category:Spanish footballers or Category:Serbian footballers you can find hundreds of them. Jogurney (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jogurney, really..? I'm surprised, can you give a couple of examples please? But I just went through the first column of both of those and didn't find one in either. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I see under Endre Bajúsz: "Endre Bajúsz (Serbian: Ендре Бајус, Endre Bajus)..." but looks like the italic Bajus is showing pronunciation, not a Tennisname diacritic-stripping, which would be "Bajusz". Any examples? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Jogurney, are you possibly referring to ledes like

• Gabriel Gómez Román, aka Gabri (1985-), is a Spanish professional footballer..

This isn't the same thing, that's just a nickname. We'd be looking for ledes like e.g.:

• Gabriel Gómez Román (English Gabriel Gomez Roman (1985-), is a Spanish professional footballer..

I've been trawling the category and can't see anything like this. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confused about this topic. I thought you were concerned about what the lede should say when the article is about a person whose name uses diacritices in their native language. As you noticed, I think the tennis biographies have a different protocol for the lede than the football biographies do. I apologize for the confusion. Jogurney (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem, actually your comment helped highlight the difference. In fact most tennis biographies don't have this lede, this is only 100x of around 1500x. These 100x appear to disproportionately be the exceptions which were originally created at "English names" and then through a community RM were moved to French/Spanish/Serbian etc. names. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A few, like Saša Hiršzon or Sasa Hirzon, make sense, as the spelling changes rather than just dropping a diacritics. For the others, can we just fix them, or will the tennis editors defend this silliness? Dicklyon (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that "Sasa Hirzon" is a typo, Fyunck earlier added "or Sasa Hirszon". None of these are spelling changes. They are all pure diacritic-nondiacritic duplications. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No, "Sasa Hirzon" is not a typo. It appears in many sources (not just the wiki mirrors). Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, seems to stem from a spelling in a newspaper article in the Independent 1997. Not supported in Croatian sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Staying focused and on topic would help with outside input, I would imagine. I looks right now like about four editors or so, all of whom appear to be "the usual suspects" in a debate like this, have produced reams of text that nobody is likely to want to follow. I have some thoughts on Joe Decker's original questions, but frankly, there is no point because they'll just get buried. Resolute 23:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolute, yes, and imagine how it feels to be a usual suspect for addressing this. :( But like it or not unfortunately this is the topic. These ledes above are why we're here. But outside input would certainly be welcome. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well. My opinion is that most of those examples are utterly ridiculous. Virtually anyone capable of reading this encyclopedia would not be confused by "Román" instead of "Roman", for instance. And those who are should probably just head over to the Simple English Wikipedia. There are also times where simply dropping a diacritic is flat out wrong. (e.g.: Sven Bärtschi), so there are also issues with so-called translations. So my answer to Joe's questions #1 and #2 is no. We do not need to do that, nor should we. Eth and Thorn are a bit of a different issue as those characters are incredibly unusual in English - as opposed to the "common" accent marks that are being used far more frequently now that people are using technology to their advantage. That is a case where examples like Novak Djokovic may well be appropriate. I'm not aware of any usage of Æ in a non-archaic setting, so can't really decide if it is useful to use or not. Resolute 03:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

@Resolute. I have tried a few times to bring the discussion back on topic, for example by starting the "summarizing a bit" section. But that was clearly met with more burying immediately, so I pulled out of this discussion. The latest news is that this is now considered "part of how it goes" in content or policy debates. Way to go. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Another attempt to find a working compromise

Let's give it another try:

• WP:AT and WP:LEDE have been cited, which clearly state that we should include significant alternative renderings of a name. Nobody has denied or refuted that. Of course this brings up the question: what is a "significant" alternative rendering? That's where the opinions seem to differ. Whatever opinions we may have about it, we will need something that can be determined objectively if we are to avoid lengthy future discussions about whether a given rendering is "significant" or not. A working idea was found in last year's RfC about diacritics, which proposed to allow alternative renderings depending on being properly sourced in the article cites. Even though the complete proposal was not accepted, it is a workable definition for "significant" alternative rendering that could satisfy most editors, regardless of where they stand in the diacritics-saga.
• Some editors have objected on the basis of WP:OPENPARA. But I have not seen any policy that states that we should put the alternative renderings in the opening paragraph. All we have is that they should be in the lede (or in a special article section if there are too many of them). So the alternative rendering(s) can also be at the end of the lede. That's what we see in this example Tesshō Genda. Also notice that "wrong" spellings are not avoided on wp (provided they are common in sources).
• Based on this , I think a workable compromise will be to put the "real name" in the opening paragraph (as we always do), and "significant" (on the basis of the cites used for the article) alternative renderings can go into the last paragraph of the lede. Doing so we would be satisfying all current policies we have, as well as serving all possible readers.

If nobody brings policy based objections to that, then we can start thinking about a proper neutrally worded phrasing for it. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. It sure wouldn't be my first choice but if putting it at the end of the lead paragraph will move this quagmire, I'll go along with it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is in the nature of "compromise" that most people don't get their first choice. I hate compromising as much as anybody else, but at the end of the day it is our job to find some kind of common ground. At least they won't be able to say that we didn't try. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It also doesn't say we "must" wait till 3 names to make a naming section. We could also just put a secondary spelling in a separate section where we could give better details as to when and why most English sources spell a name differently. No one would have to guess as to why. Sure it wouldn't be in the lead per policy but it could allow some flexibility without actually banning anything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Somebody had deleted the above comment without any reason. @Fyunck. While a naming section is workable in larger articles, in shorter articles it would be undue weight to make a special section for it. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the delete must have been an error by someone. I had discussed this compromise with others. I could see where with stub-like articles adding a names section might look a bit large but with most multi-paragraph bios I don't think it would. Just something simple like "Though he is known in Franistan as maestro Çlăcìôć Güîłdìąň, in all English sources and Metropolitan Music Centres the spelling is Clacioc Guildian." It doesn't need to be long, just acknowledgement that another significant spelling exists. That would keep it out of the lead as some object to, yet not banish its existence from wikipedia. It might also fit into a personal section if it's right near the top of the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, this is essentially the same thing as above but putting it in another location. It is unbelievably ridiculous to put the spelling with diacritics into a paragraph stating it is an alternate spelling, when what it is, is an incorrect spelling. That is like saying Apple sometimes spelled aple in an article because its a common typo. -DJSasso (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless I can find a reliable source that claims apple can be spelled aple. This is the fact vs truth argument. See how silly it can be? Hillabear10 (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That is sort of the point of the comment....you can find any number of articles out there in the world that have that typo. To then go and use that as proof that it can be spelled that way and that it is an alternative version is absurd. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. However it needs to not only apply to spelling of words, but to what society views as authority. For example, a college of medicine vs a newspaper.... In this case, I would suggest the Webster dictionary is the authority and anything else is secondary. Hillabear10 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur with DJsasso. A wrong spelling is a wrong spelling. Simple as that. The fact is, these alternate spellings are usually derived from sources which omit all diacritics as a matter of policy. That's not a credible "alternate spelling," that's just simply their policy. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose WP:AT and WP:LEDE have been cited, which clearly state that we should include significant alternative renderings of a name. Nobody has denied or refuted that. I will be the first to refute this then. The policy was never to be applied in the way it is being suggested by MakeSense64. Therefore there is no policy in place to support this proposal. Hillabear10 (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a response to the proposal at WP:ANI from Joy(Shallot), HandsomeFella and myself for a specific lede-edit-ban on Fyunck from the "Charlotte Brontë, known on BBC.co.uk as Charlotte Bronte" type edits on top of edit history in 100x BLP ledes. Those who want to see more of these kind of ledes feel free to go to WP:ANI and oppose our "anglophobic" (per Fyunck and MakeSense64) "censorship" (per Fyunck) of English. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think it is cute that you are demanding a "policy based objection" to a silly idea that has no basis in policy itself. Once again, dropping a diacritic is not a "significant alternative spelling". So, as with Hillabear, Oppose this so-called "compromise". Resolute 13:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Resolute, Hillabear, the proposal for a specific lede-edit-restriction on Fyunck adding "Charlotte Brontë, known in tennis as Charlotte Bronte" type edits is still at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive765 is still open and still has 3 users supporting it. As I see it the editwarring behaviour of Fyunck and the Talk-warring of the originator of WP:TENNISNAMES MakeSense64 will continue. The 100x BLPs will continue to have Fyunck's edits on top. The only way WP:TENNISNAMES consensus against the WP:STAGENAME argument will carry through is either ANI or Arbcom telling Fyunck to stop. Since it isn't actually being done to major articles like Charlotte Brontë there may be a certain, "what the hell it's only some minor foreigners" about the issue, but it's still disruptive - and counter the result of the painful WP:TENNISNAMES RfC. NB I won't be responding the text wall of personal attacks and justification of Fyunck's tennisledes that will follow this. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This RfC is related to this RfC, this ANI and this ANI. LittleBen (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• I am doing an impartial study of the effects of using diacritics in article titles. Assistance appreciated. LittleBen (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC closure

Time to ask an uninvolved admin to close this RfC? --Boson (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2012 (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.

Reliable Sources for Names in BLP (essay for discussion)

I am putting together an essay at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Reliable Sources for Names in BLP, comments welcome. This is intended to be a successor to the above Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RFC: Names with diacritics and other non-ASCII letters, but restricted to WP:BLP.  LittleBen (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:POSTNOM

There is a disagreement between Daniel the Monk and me over what counts as a post-nominal title. The disagreement emerged after this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugh_of_Saint_Victor&diff=522068025&oldid=521783146 ; the discussion that followed (User_talk:Daniel_the_Monk#WP:POSTNOM) was not conclusive. I understand the guideline as follows: always link / avoid bold typing post-nominal initials in general (as I see it this definitely includes post-nominals related to bodies of priests — Post-nominal letters#Examples). Daniel the Monk believes that since religious Order initials are not honorifics, they could/should be bold typed. Could we have this clarified in the guideline page? --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no special exception for religious vs. non-religious postnomials. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 22:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No reason to treat these any differently. In this case their inclusion is anachronistic anyway, as I very much doubt postnoms were used in the 12th century! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point. I think postnomial abbreviations as adhering appendages to names (vs. incidental time-saving abbreviations used or not used as the writer wished) only go back to the 19th c., i.e. the Victorian era (based on my reading and retention; I'm not an expert on titles and styles). Any application here of a specific postnomial abbreviation outside of the period in which it provably was consistently used would be a clear policy violation, per WP:NOR. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Re McCandlish's point, these postnominal initials are precisely that, time saving abbreviations, not appendages. So regarding that and the issue of NOR, an indication of a person's religious Order following their name can be found in illustrations of individuals going back to at least the 16th century. In texts they go back to the 12th century, when Orders other than the Benedictine began to emerge, as a means of identifying the individual's religious affiliation. In modern times, the name of the Order was simply abbreviated.

As to the point of anachronism, if the individual belonged to an Order which still exists and uses these postnominal initials, why should they be treated differently in a contemporary text? Are they not to be treated as a member of the Order, albeit no longer living? Clearly if they were alive today, they would use the postnominal initials. This is not an ancient document, but an encyclopedia.

But as to the main point, why are they to be treated the same as honorifics, such as OBE or Ph.D.? I have yet to hear a good rationale. As I indicated in my initial exchange with Omnipaedista, they clearly are not that, but instead indicate membership in a community. Any member of the Order is entitled to their use, whether they are the Brother who repairs the plumbing or a cardinal. Therefore they should be considered the equivalent of Jr, Sr and III. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

They aren't equivalent. Jr, Sr and III are part of a person's name, whereas postnominal letters indicate membership of orders or qualifications. If used, which they don't have to be, they should not be bolded. DrKiernan (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Jr and Sr do not have to be used, and often are not, so what is the difference in that regard? Plus what do you mean by qualifications? Other editors here don't say that they are part of a name, so that seems irrelevant. Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You mentioned PhD above. Membership of orders should be treated the same way. DrKiernan (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

So presumably you're also saying that postnominal abbreviations like RAMC, RAF and RN should be bolded as they also denote membership of an organisation? Sorry, but no. It's a postnominal like any other. In actual fact, far from being bolded, none of these should even be used, because as you say they don't actually denote any achievement but a simple membership. We don't use degrees inline; why should we use postnoms denoting membership of an organisation? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Membership in a religious Order is legally recognized as equivalent to a family relationship throughout the world. So your comparison to an occupational organization is not equivalent. Perhaps that is the problem for people to grasp their meaning, as there is no equivalent otherwise in society, other than the familial titles of Jr., Sr., etc. Daniel the Monk (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You presumably have documentary proof of this claim? A religious order is an "occupational organisation" to all except the religious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

In the United States, there have been a number of court rulings to this effect. For this reason, a religious superior is accepted as the next of kin by the legal system. I can't speak to your own country, but I doubt that it is significantly different.

Can you provide documentation for that last comment? Daniel the Monk (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again, would you like to provide proof to that effect? And tell us why it's relevant to this discussion? As to my other statement, it's blatantly obvious, I would have thought, since non-Christians clearly don't accept that being a monk, nun or priest is anything other than a job. If we believed they were something higher then we'd obviously be Christians! That doesn't need documentary proof, just common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Only the article title is bolded per MOS:BOLDTITLE and MOS:BOLD and the article title does not include post-nominal letters. DrKiernan (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would love to see documentation for your assertion, Necrothesp. I am not arguing about anything being "higher", simply that being part of a religious institute is being bound into a particular group with their particular way of life, one which is legally recognized as not being simply a job. The difference from a job is that otherwise your supervisor at the office could legally determine whether or not to pull the plug on your respirator, which a religious superior can do. Thus the closest civil parallel is familial. Consequently they should be bolded, even if not in the title of the entry, in the same way that a maiden name or a foreign alternative form or family title would be. Daniel the Monk (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You keep asserting these things, but have provided us with no proof! It's all very well to say that a religious superior can "pull the plug on your respirator", but a different thing entirely to prove it to us, which you have not yet done. The Catholic Church asserting this right and the law accepting it are two entirely separate things. And even if it were true, that still does not mean that the postnominals are part of their names, legally or otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What kind of proof would be possible in this format? This is not a legal codebook. And, even just assuming that I am correct in this matter, I disagree with your conclusion. They are certainly not honorifics, which is what the MOS speaks about. Why not consider them the equivalent of family titles, such as Junior or Senior? Can you suggest a better equivalent? Daniel the Monk (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have removed "honorific suffixes" to clarify the guidance. DrKiernan (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Was there any kind of editorial consensus for that or did you do that on your own? Daniel the Monk (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The former. For example, there are 4 editors in this talk page section that agree on the point. DrKiernan (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of WP:CREDENTIAL

"Rabbi" is an academic title indicating that the recipient has successfully completed the requirements of a multi-year program in an institution of higher Jewish education. As such, I had always thought that the first sentence of WP:CREDENTIAL,

Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before (or after) the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name.

was a clear indication that the title "Rabbi" should not be included before the name in the initial sentence or other uses of a person's name. However, I have recently been getting opposition to this from another editor, who insists, at least in the Elazar Shach article, that the title Rabbi "is part of his name." Is my understanding incorrect? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Any guidance would be most appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no specific guideline here, since Rabbi is essentially a religious title as opposed to a strictly academic one (rabbis are generally spoken of as being "ordained", just as Christian clergy are). We have never really determined whether religious titles of any denomination should be included inline or not. It is a discussion we probably need to have, but as yet there is no real guidance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If WP:CREDENTIAL doesn't apply, then would WP:HONORIFIC? Some combination? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the directives there seem to indicate that it is a case by case basis on whether to use the title Rabbi. Since we have Mother Teresa as an article name, it is clear that a usage of Rabbi could in theory by common enough to conform to the indications there. Whether or not a specific usage is, I think would have to be decided on a case by case basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Discoraging of mention of ethnicity in lead should be toned down

The fact of the matter is that lots and lots of people have their whole careers tied to their ethnicity. This is particularly true of many actors. It would seem much better to reword the phrasing on mentioning ethnicity in the lead. This is epsecially true because many actors who are clearly know as African-American only have one paragraph articles. The current situation has lead to a situation where people aggresively defend categorization and attack those who try to follow the rule that categorization should follow mention in the article, while at the same time other people agressively fight mention of ethnicity in the opening paragraph. This leads to people like me who seek to have some semblance of connection between the article and the categories it is placed in getting attacked by people from both sides. I can't remove and article from Category:African-American actors without being accused of being a vandal because it is a commonly known fact that Ellen Bethea is African-American, but I can't mention in the lead that Ellen Bethea is African-American because "mentioning ethnicity in the lead is discoraged". What should I do, especially when those who are hung up on a stringent reading of the guidelines do not care one iota about categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)