Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

2005 categorized contributions 2007–2008 discussion on British nationality 2008 discussion on honorific prefixes Jan 2003 – Feb 2003 Oct 2003 – Sep 2004 Oct 2004 – Jan 2006 Jan 2006 – Feb 2007 Feb 2007 – Dec 2007 2007 • 2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Per the close of this RfC, I've changed "in the lead sentence" to "article space" at MOS:DEADNAME. I did not add the new paragraph, since it's not clear to me what version of its wording has consensus. How should that part be done? Armadillopteryx 01:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armadillopteryx, I'm coming across this discussion after the close, but something that I see in the discussion above that hasn't yet been translated into the guideline is that this applies to BLPs, not BDPs, where the harm rationale and WP:BLPPRIVACY do not apply.

I recently made a few fixes to Virginia Prince, a pioneer who came out all the way back in the 1940s (and who I would love to see become a GA or FA eventually), and I did not hesitate much before adding her deadname—she's no longer alive, so it won't harm her, and it's a valid part of the encyclopedic historical record of her life. That decision seems aligned with consensus based on the sentiments above, but it's going against the letter of the guideline as currently written, so the guideline needs to be revised. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: I see what you're saying. To be honest, it's not clear to me whether all who supported the change meant it only for BLPs or for biographies in general. Some explicitly referenced WP:BLPPRIVACY, but others presented a rationale that could be reasonably interpreted to cover dead subjects as well. The additional text proposed at the start of the RfC never gained consensus on its wording. In the original RfC text, that part refers to BLPs, but variations were presented in the comments (and here). If others want to chime in and clarify whether they were talking about only BLPs (and indicate their preferred wording), that would be helpful. Armadillopteryx 08:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armadillopteryx, seeing no further comments, I'm going to adjust the guidance at MOS:DEADNAME to specify that it applies to BLPs, since it is not clear that there is consensus for it to apply to BDPs, and we should be cautious about adding anything to that effect until it is clear otherwise. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the change by Armadillopteryx is why mentioning the name in the lead even became an issue at the Joey Soloway article. I don't think that change is best, given that the section in question is entirely about leads. It should at least state "in the lead or other article space." But, really, "article space" is vague. And while I get that it was meant to be vague, we don't typically drop the name anywhere in the article, such as in the "Career" section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To whoever, please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That change was prescribed by the outcome of the RfC above. If your main concern is with the wording rather than with the change happening at all, there are other options. "In the article text or infobox", for example, would also work IMO. Armadillopteryx 05:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC is not focused on removing "in the lead." And there is no consensus against "in the lead" being there. Again, since the section is focused on the lead, "in the lead" should be there, like it was for years. The new wording was used to try to keep a notable name that belongs in the lead out of the lead. And if it's going to be used in that way, the current wording needs to be remedied. It's not like we are going to remove Chelsea Manning's birth name from the lead of that article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC text says: Should MOS:Deadname be updated to say: In the case of transgender and non-binary people, former names should be included in article space only if the person was notable under that name. If included they can be introduced with either "born" or "formerly”. [Examples: Caitlyn Jenner (included), and Laverne Cox (omitted).

I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the RfC, which was formulated specifically to expand MOS:DEADNAME to apply to the whole article and not just the lead. Armadillopteryx 07:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant to keep non-notable deadnames out of the whole article, yes, but now it looks that it could be reversed and misapplied to argue that notable deadnames just have to be somewhere in the article, so we should bury it somewhere lower down. Meanwhile readers are wondering if the article they've arrived at is the person they are thinking of or not. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to further clarification, but I note that saying a notable deadname is permissible in "article space" or "in the article text" includes the lead, since the lead is part of both "article space" and "the article text" (i.e. I find this redundant). Neither of those options states anything about what part of the article the name must (or must not) be in. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue based on this policy that the name must be located outside the lead, as that's not what it says. I also think that the current wording ("the lead or article text") is not preferable to "article space", because the latter also includes the infobox and title, whereas the former does not. Armadillopteryx 21:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stating "in the lead or in article text" at least shows that in the lead is acceptable, rather than allowing people to argue that we can put the old name anywhere (and some editors will misguidedly try to put it somewhere inconspicuous). Above was mentioned where confusion was developing on this point (only two weeks after the "article space" wording was implemented), specifically at this and this edit. At that latter comment we see the flawed argument, the policy MOS:MULTIPLENAMES only states name should be in the article space; I'm taking it at it's literal word. The policy is clear and able to distinguish between lead and article space when it necessary. As for "article text" vs. "article space", that was SMcCandlish who made that change, but I understand why because "article space" is jargony and confusing to new editors. (I can imagine them thinking "Article... space? Huh?")

Here's a possible way to re-write the sentence, taking the above into consideration, as well as the above RfC which forbade non-notable deadnames anywhere in the article: In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should only be included in the lead if the person was notable under that name; otherwise the birth name should not appear anywhere in the article. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That almost sounds good to me, though drop "only" which serves no useful purpose here and makes it unclear whether inclusion of the name when it does qualify for inclusion is actually recommended (it is). More problematically, the lengthy sentence structure is ambiguous, because the "otherwise" has no certain referent, and can be read as excluding mention of former name that does qualify for the lead, anywhere else in the article, such as the early life section. That's clearly not the intent, and it's better to use multiple sentence. We have three goals here: say that names from the period of notability are usable appropriately, say that they should be in the lead, and say that old names that pre-date notability should not be used at all. So, try this: In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should only be included if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead, and may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate. A birth name that was not used when the subject was notable should not appear anywhere in the article. We might also consider trimming "used elsewhere in the article" down to "used elsewhere" because, as one example, Caitlyn Jenner should be referred to as "Bruce (now Caitlyn) Jenner" in articles on past Olympic games; we already have language saying it's appropriate to use "now [name]" or "later [name]" clarifications (because I added it during my cleanup, detailed below). PS: Yes, I changed it to "article text" (or just "article" above) because "article space" is jargony and confusing to new editors, but also because it was a loophole: templates that render text in articles are in the template namespace not the article namespace, but their output is part of the article and is meant to be covered. Just one of those WP:Writing policy is hard things; you have to game out in your mind every way someone may try to wikilawyer or system-game around something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armadillopteryx, I haven't misunderstood anything. Like I Crossroads stated, that RfC was not about making it so that the notable name can alternatively go lower in the article. It was about keeping non-notable deadnames out of the whole article. The wording you implemented isn't about keeping non-notable deadnames out of the whole article and is being used to argue that the notable name need not go in the article's lead, which means that a lot of people, especially those who do not read beyond the lead (which has been reported to be most people in the past), will be confused when they land on the article. It's not about editors stating "must be located outside the lead." It's about editors personally not wanting it in the lead and making it seem like "lower in the article" is better. In the case of a notable name, a significantly notable name for a trans person, how is "lower in the article" better better for readers? There is already guidance in the section telling editors (to uusally) not to include non-notable deadnames in the article. So the "in article space" change earlier on isn't needed. Per the importance of having that notable name in the lead and what WP:Alternative name states, I changed the text to this.

Crossroads and SMcCandlish, I made that change before reading your latest above posts. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

I like your proposed wording, SMcCandlish. We can wait and see what Armadillopteryx thinks of it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just to clarify: the change I made was the exact wording presented in the RfC; that wasn't something I personally came up with. Your argument above appears to say there was no consensus to eliminate "in the lead", but that's exactly what the text discussed in the RfC did. I'm not personally married to that wording and welcome changes that may make it clearer, but there certainly was consensus for the wording of the first paragraph.

With respect to the edit you just made, I think it's a semantic improvement, but now the sentence reads as emphatic about including a notable deadname, while the RfC's point of not including it otherwise is a small afterthought at the end of a long sentence. Above, Crossroads gave examples of people blatantly misrepresenting the guideline as written, but that's a flaw of those arguments, not the guideline: those editors tried to claim the guideline said something it blatantly did not say.

I support the wording that SMcCandlish proposed here. Armadillopteryx 04:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you implemented a piece of wording that was not the focus. That RfC was not about loosening our guidance on including the notable name in the lead. And yet that is what your edit did. You speak of "emphatic", but the section was already like that before your edit. It stated "should." And SMcCandlish's proposed wording also states "should." And, yes, per my and Crossroads's arguments above, that new "in article space" wording was a flaw. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unhelpful to "blame" Armadillopteryx for doing what closers usally do. :-) The fact that the RfC inadvertently produced a line-editing change that introduces a problem doesn't mean we can't fix it, though defaulting to the RfC's wording was a reasonable starting point. Any time material like this is edited in isolation, there's a good chance that such a problem will be introduced. We already have long-standing guidelines about alternative names going in the lead, and this RfC wouldn't undo those; it did not address them at all, so it's not possible that it's a consensus to change them. Flyer22 is correct that removing any mention of the lead was an error, though pinning this on the closer isn't useful. Now, it's just a matter of copyeding the language in this section to be compatible with other guidelines again. No biggie.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The RfC's wording is all I inserted into the guideline, and it was very much the focus: the point of the RfC was to expand MOS:DEADNAME to apply to the whole article and not just the lead. There had been a longstanding problem with people inserting non-notable deadnames in articles and gaming the system by showing that the guideline only prohibited them in the lead (see the discussion that prefaced this RfC, which I linked above). I think your (Flyer's) wording made the sentence more emphatic, as I said. The issue wasn't with the word "should".

Anyway, the important thing is that we all like SMcCandlish's wording, so I've added that text to the page. Armadillopteryx 04:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, I'm not blaming Armadillopteryx for simply implementing RfC wording. Armadillopteryx implemented a tiny piece of text that was not the focus of the RfC. And by "not the focus", Armadillopteryx, I mean that the text you altered is about notable previous names. Therefore, it had no effect on the "must keep non-notable deadnames out of the whole article" aspect. This is what Armadillopteryx should have focused on adding, but Armadillopteryx declined to add it. Crossroads already addressed what the point of the RfC was, and he is correct. A longstanding problem with people inserting non-notable deadnames in articles was not going to be solved by having the guideline allow for the notable name to be placed somewhere else other than the lead. And "in article space" allowed for that because it did not specify "in the lead." That is what happened at the Soloway article.

Armadillopteryx, at this point, I'm repeating myself. We disagree, including on the more emphatic thing since the wording without "especially" allowed for the notable name to be placed anywhere and all "especially" did was tell editors that it should be in the lead. This meant "it can go anywhere, but it should certainly go in the lead," which is no different than what the current wording is relaying. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer, it was not me who selected "the text I altered"—that was the RfC itself. The wording of the first paragraph (i.e. the change I made) gained consensus in the RfC and was therefore a straightforward change; the wording of the second paragraph (which you commented I "should have focused on") did not gain consensus in the RfC, so I started this subsection to acquire that consensus instead of making a unilateral edit.

You've been very persistent in personalizing this matter, and I have tried to be patient with that. I would like to request that you stop now. Let's just keep our focus on the primary discussion topic, which is what the wording should ultimately be. As far as I can tell, we are all in agreement with SMcCandlish's proposal, which is now in the guideline. Armadillopteryx 07:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, per what I stated above, we disagree. I have not "been very persistent in personalizing this matter." I have noted that you added the piece, but I've clearly focused on what you added. I do not understand why you do not get what Crossroads and I have stated on the matter. So I appreciate that you removed this from your latest response. I apologize for making you feel that I was attacking you. I was not. My issue was with the text you added. Other than my reply to Izno below, I see nothing left to state on this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

undent: I reverted the second sentence from SMC's suggestion; the way it's phrased, even in the context it is in, would be wikilawyered by someone into meaning all people with non-notable former names. I'm fairly certain everyone here understands that wasn't the intent, nor that that case is an issue for cis-gendered (in general). I see a careful wording below the bullets like "such a subject", with which I wouldn't have an issue with the sentence being inserted, but I didn't see an elegant way to do so in this sentence's context. Moreover, it seems unnecessary with the 'only if' language in the primary sentence. We don't need to assert both positive 'do this' and negative 'not this' if we already exclude the 'not this' case with the 'only if' clause. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izno, you removing this is fine since it's covered by this. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That entire section has been getting more and more palimpsestuous over the last two years or so, making less and less sense to those not steeped in debating about it – a "Well, I know what I meant it to mean" problem. It's important to remember that guideline (and policy) pages are written primarily for new editors and as dispute-resolution reference works among more experienced ones. For both reasons, the material needs to be crystal-clear. So I did a cleanup pass on it, fixing all kinds of grammar errors, poor sentence structure, subtly contradictory instructions across different parts of it (and between it and other WP:P&G material), pointless rambling and linking of everyday words like "marriage", missing cross-references to relevant material, clumsy "just stick a shortcut in here" cross-refs., confusing material order, mis-placed shortcuts, shortcuts without anchors, etc., etc. I've endeavored to not change the meaning/implementation in any way, other than the addition of clarifications that are in the same spirit as the revision process above (i.e., make it say what consensus actually is and how various existing policies and guidelines apply to these matters). PS: I think all the relevant shortcut redirects have been updated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank you to everyone for working to get this meaningfully updated!

One aspect that I think needs to be looked at again is that the deadname, if not notable, shouldn’t be used anywhere in WP:MAINSPACE (mistakenly focused on as Article Space, but explained). This is to specifically end such deadnaming in lists, disambiguation pages, redirects, other articles, etc. I feel this needs to get addressed even if fully explained in an extended footnote. Any ideas? Glee^anon 18:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a footnote [1], and clarified the sentence ("in this or any other article" instead of "in the article"). It also accounts for templates and categories. However, I did not specifically list redirects, because I think we've not had a discussion about that, and regulars at WP:RFD are apt to have strong views on the matter. E.g., that if someone comes here already knowing that name and they search for it, they should find the person's bio, perhaps because they might not even know about the name change, or they've read one of the few sources that did disclose it despite that disclosure maybe not having been a good idea. I'm not sure that reader-utility argument is a good argument, but utility arguments are the most common ones at RfD. And I wouldn't want to just assume, as if infallible, that my skepticism of that rationale equates to a consensus against it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration and edits! Glee^anon 01:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, just noting here that -sche removed this this part of your wording. It seems that -sche thinks it goes against the RfC. I don't see that. As for consensus, discussion obviously continued after the RfC and that part of your wording was added to make it clear that the notable name can be included beyond the lead. Also, once it's mentioned in the lead (and likely the infobox), what issue would there be with mentioning it in the Early life or Personal life section? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I set it back to this: "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead, and may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate." That is an accurate summary of actual practice (i.e., extant consensus).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC found "a very clear majority against gratuitous deadnaming", so per WP:ONUS, you will need to demonstrate WP:CONSENSUS to add such an affirmative endorsement of it. (If it is actual consensus, as you say, this should not be difficult to do.) I'll notify the Wikiproject(s) where the RFC was first proposed that discussion is continuing. From my perspective, the affirmative endorsement will be misunderstood or misconstrued by editors overly broadly; I think the passive absence of prohibition which existed was sufficient, but I guess your own perspective is that that would be misunderstood by editors as allowing only overly narrow use? -sche (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I read In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead. as stating that it can only be used in the lead, but I can definitely seen it as being read either way. Gbear605 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sche that the wording proposed seems like it can be read in a way that is too broad and counter to the RFC. The RFC did not state that the deadname had to appear in the lead and may appear in the article space. For example, the RFC includes the note to avoid using the name in the infobox but the current writing of DEADNAME implies doing so would be fine. The RFC and BLP would require instead that the deadname may be used in the lead but should be avoided in the rest of the article space. Rab V (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the purpose of the RfC was to expand the ban on non-notable deadnames from the lead sentence to the whole article. It was never to ban notable deadnames from everywhere except the lead. If a deadname is notable and can be in the lead there is no basis for a blanket rule that it cannot be included anywhere else. That needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, not dictating every situation from on high. (For example, note how Caitlyn Jenner is handled at Athletics at the 1975 Pan American Games.) And regardless of one's opinion on this matter, the RfC did not find a consensus for any strict rule about notable deadnames. "No gratuitous deadnaming" is not the same as "banned outside the lead". Crossroads ^-talk- 23:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK we're not discussing banning notable deadnames outside the lead. The wording someone boldly added was to actively, affirmatively encourage deadnames outside the lead. I think that wording will be interpreted too broadly (besides, procedurally, not being supported by previous discussion AFAICT). Unless there is consensus to add that wording, the next step (strictly speaking, the previous step which should already have happened) is to revert the addition. -sche (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not encourage that. It says (emphasis added) it may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate, not "should" be so used. If it says the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead, and stops there, it does look like it is permitted only in the lead, which was not discussed at the RfC. Right above we can see that Gbear605 interpreted it in that way, as did Rab V, who outright claimed that The RFC and BLP would require instead that the deadname may be used in the lead but should be avoided in the rest of the article space. We need to avoid this sort of misunderstanding. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then we need to have the extra sentence of and may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate but change it to emphasize that it is should not be emphasized broadly, perhaps adding if necessary, only, and bolding to create and, if necessary, may be used elsewhere in the article only where contextually appropriate. Gbear605 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that will lead to unanswerable disputes over what "necessary" means. I think "only" is covered by "may" - since "may" is saying when it can be done, the "only" is superfluous. A possibility is to change "when" to "if": may be used elsewhere in the article if contextually appropriate. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the wording of the RFC for this case: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, former names should be included in article space only if the person was notable under that name. If included they can be introduced with either "born" or "formerly”." Why are we not using this wording? Multiple editors have complained that the wording that was used instead is confusing and could mean something different than the RFC intended. Rab V (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The part of the RFC telling editors to minimize use of the former name is also nowhere in the current version. Rab V (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC also did not include the statement that was added that former names of transgender people are required to be in the lead and that was not in the prior version. Will remove that as it makes conflicts with statements in MOS:GENDERID that the manual of style does not state where in the article former names need to be mentioned. Rab V (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was all discussed earlier in this subsection starting on 17 October. Before the RfC it said that birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when...; so it required inclusion in the lead sentence, not just the lead: [2] The RfC was not about changing this so that the birth name could be stuffed away anywhere in the article; it was about extending the ban on non-notable birth names to the entire article. Otherwise, we get editors, such as yourself, arguing that the notable birth name can be put somewhere else: [3][4] Quoting the original proposal verbatim smuggles in a change that was never discussed or intended; as I said above, having the notable birth name in the lead makes the most sense for reader navigation. Note too that the RfC closure explicitly finds support for further refinement of the wording going forward, as has been done; it never mandates Gleeanon409's exact wording. As for MOS:GENDERID, I guess that has to be updated to read: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Changed names calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person in the lead if they were notable under that name. (The underlining is only to indicate the new words.) Again, the requirement to have it in the lead was always here; really, if the person was notable under the name, putting it anywhere else is nonsensical per WP:LEADALT, and if they were not notable, then everyone is agreed it should never have been there in the first place. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion, kindly revert to the WP:STATUSQUO. Consensus for it was reached in the earlier parts of this subsection. I will repeat, the RfC was (1) not for smuggling in permission to shunt notable birth names into lower parts of the article, (2) was not for saying that if in the lead it can never appear anywhere else, and (3) explicitly said that continuing discussion to refine the wording would occur. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not; my edit was a revert to the STATUSQUO, as modified by the successful RFC above. "Only when" is prohibitive; it did not require it. Policy has never required it, while the "may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate" seems entirely new. SMcCandlish's proposed new addition plainly does not have consensus above, does not reflect any sort of policy or practice that we have ever had, and would therefore require unequivocal consensus for his proposed wording before it could be included. And I would strenuously disagree with this proposed addition - I think it is a very poorly-considered proposal indeed, one that fundamentally reverses the intent of the RFC (which, to my reading, was specifically about broadening WP:DEADNAME to cover the entire article, something that this proposal would essentially undermine, since anyone making any addition to any article will obviously feel it is "contextually appropriate") by simultaneously removing the leeway we have always had on including such names in the lead while encouraging editors to bicker over the vague meaning of "contextually appropriate." This is obviously a highly-contentious proposal and I'm honestly a bit shocked you reverted it back in once already after opposition was clear, let alone that you would try to argue that this new proposed rule represents any sort of status quo. --Aquillion (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "honestly a bit shocked" a few editors are trying to make significant changes to the MOS that were not discussed at the RfC. Replying to most of this would just be repeating myself. The RfC expanded the ban on non-notable birth names from the lead sentence to the full article; it never changed or discussed anything about notable birth names, which have always been required in the lead (lead sentence, actually): [5] I'm more than happy to discuss refinements or changes to the wording, as the RfC closure specifically asked for, but if editors are going to WP:TAGTEAM to smuggle in changes that were never discussed, that is inappropriate. Guess we'll see what onlookers think of this. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Aquillon the edits that have been done only seem to undermine the RFC and the section should be reverted to either the statement accepted in the RFC or a version before the current set of edits. The October 1 version of the article did not include a requirement deadnames be in the lead: once again this fact is even mentioned in MOS:GENDERID with the reminder that the policy does not state where to include the former name.Rab V (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Pinging the editor who closed the RFC for help on whether SMCCandlish's edits to DEADNAME go with the intent of the RFC and whether the RFC stated that deadnames need to be included in the lead. Thank you for any help. Rab V (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of overdoing it, in case JzG may not read all the above, I have to emphasize here that your framing is wrong. JzG said in his closure that Consensus cautiously supports the proposal, with support for further refinement of the wording going forward. That is what happened right after the closure, and then yesterday a couple editors tried reversing that refinement. Sockpuppet Gleeanon409's exact wording was not mandated anywhere. The pre-RfC version did state that birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name [6], and removing this requirement for notable birth names was never even mentioned at the RfC. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC states that deadnames should be used in the ARTICLE SPACE (not the lead necessarily.) On October 1 DEADNAME reflected this but SMC and you seem to be reverting this change without evidence for a new consensus and after editors have objected. The RFC also includes the portion about minimizing use of deadnames that is nowhere in your changes. Rab V (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That change regarding notable names being in the lead was never discussed or hinted at in the RfC or its closure, so there could not possibly have been a consensus for it. I'm more than open to discussing how to reflect the "gratuitous deadnaming" aspect of the closure, but we need to establish the facts on this "in the lead" matter first. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But where did the idea that deadnames, if notable should then appear in the lead come from? It wasn't in the RfC close, it wasn't in the status quo ante, so why was it added? The status quo ante simply stated that the only deadnames in the lede should be notable ones, and the RfC certainly didn't change this aspect - it is quiite different from the should appear language that was recently proposed and reverted. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors appear to believe that the "should only appear" language in the status quo ante was equivalent to "should appear, but only", whereas I (and many others, it seems) understood it to mean "should not appear, unless". Perhaps this is a specific issue that should be discussed more calmly, under a new heading? Newimpartial (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, this, and this? Since we have a certain group trying to make it so that the notable birth name doesn't go in the led and tag teaming to do so, another RfC should be started and it should focus on whether or not the notable name should be in the lead. It should also be well-advertised. I'll start the RfC if no one else does. I'll advertise it well if that's not done. Like I stated in that last edit summary of mine I just pointed to, "WP:Status quo is not a policy or guideline. And the RfC was not about moving the notable name out of the lead. That we include the notable name in the lead has been done for years and it will continue to be done. That is WP:Consensus." I've already made my arguments above in this section; so I won't be repeating any of that in this section. Arguing with Aquillon, Rab V, and Newimpartial on this will get editors nowhere. Best to start an RfC and see just how many uninvolved editors weigh in and how the strength of arguments like Crossroads's hold up against activist arguments. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the supposed "tag-team" status quo version contains the same should be included in the lede only if language that has been in this section for years. This language does not at all suggest that the deadname should not be included in the lede; it simply does not add additional encouragement to do so, which the tag-team Bold version did.

Also, activist arguments does not apply to me - though it seems to be directed at me - and also appears to be intended as a personal attack; please don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh. And go study WP:No personal attacks. We are allowed to focus on the arguments. We are allowed to attack arguments. When I see any kind of activist arguments, like I'm seeing now, I will state so. And that's that. The "birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name" wording is not the status quo version. The status quo version that editors have used for years mentions the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

(edit conflict) No, the tag-team version currently out there states the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name - nothing about the lead. Also, criticizing someone's arguments, whether calling them activist or otherwise, is not a PA. Wikipedia will never be an echo chamber and everyone's arguments will be criticized. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the section entitled Lead. It is about the lede.

And if you think I am being "activist" in my arguments, Crossroads, you should provide some evidence/diffs for that. Otherwise it is like using political labels for other editors, which is recognized as UNCIVIL behaviour. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's under "Names", not "Lead". Crossroads ^-talk- 20:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. However, your Bold proposal goes far beyond adding back "in the lead" in that sentence, so I don't think it answers the question posed here. We would probably benefit from a fresh RfC to determine whether: (1) there is an expectation to include or not to include notable deadnames in articles (or they are permitted but other considerations apply); and (2) when they are included, should this necessarily be in the lede? I don't see how the previous RfC answered either of those questions. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're still pushing the false narrative that me, SMcCandlish, etc. are the ones trying to put through a bold proposal. Your side's "notable birth names don't have to be in the lead" idea is the bold proposal here. It's reversing the burden of getting consensus, and what holds in a case of no consensus, by obfuscating what the status quo was. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what I in particular am saying, so you see a "narrative" that doesn't exist. I am not saying that "notable birth names don't have to be in the lede"; I am saying that the status quo ante language, that they should only be included in the lede if, was permissive rather than obligatory - that it was equivalent to "do not include them unless" rather than necessarily to "include them if". I think this is the real problem: we haven't agreed about what the old consensus actually was. It may be easier to find a new consensus than to figure that one out. Newimpartial (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I echo this comment. The pre-RfC wording was apparently interpreted differently by two groups of people: one group thinks its primary purpose was to require notable deadnames to be in the lead, while the other thinks its primary purpose was to ban non-notable deadnames from the lead (but not the rest of the article). The recent RfC expanded the ban on non-notable deadnames to the entire article but did not address notable deadnames at all. It does not appear that either "side" of this discussion opposes having the guideline do both. Newimpartial's observation here is important: the pre-RfC wording sounded permissive rather than obligatory to many people, which is why no participant of the RfC opposed simply changing the lead to article space in the sentence in question. The different interpretations of the pre-RfC wording appear to be the root of much of the disagreement in this section (and of the comments some users have made about others' intentions).

Above, I expressed dissatisfaction with how attempts to clarify treatment of notable deadnames ended up obscuring the point of the RfC to the point of making it an easily missed afterthought. I don't personally care whether or not we require notable deadnames to be in the lead, but that, like the non-notable deadname ban, should be determined via community consensus. And if consensus is to require notable deadnames in the lead, that point should be presented with equal weight to banning non-notable deadnames from the article so that anyone referring to the policy will clearly understand both points.

Personally, I would propose separating guidance on notable deadnames and on non-notable deadnames into two separate paragraphs so that there is no ambiguity about what to do in each case. The current structure of the guideline, which has sometimes treated these two cases implicitly in the same sentence (e.g. in this version) is clearly not helping anyone. Armadillopteryx 23:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been following all of the above discussion in detail but I do agree that spliting it up sounds like a good idea. We need to have two readers in mind when we draft the policy. First is the reader who is consulting the policy in good faith in order to find out what they should, and should not, be putting in articles. We want to make it as easy as possible for them to understand and implement the policy correctly. The other is the reader looking to find any loopholes or amibguities that they can exploit to wikilawyer in support for adding bad content to articles in bad faith. We want to make it as difficult as possible for them to disruptively kvetch about the meaning of the policy. Considering both types of reader shows the need for clarity. I'd be inclined to suggest three parts:

1. How to tell if a deadname really is notable.
2. What to do if it isn't. (The default option.)
3. What to do if it is.

We could even have a flowchart, if that helps. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the fact that there was a (brief) revert-war on a significant policy page suggests that we are going to probably require another RFC, unless someone can come up with a magic compromise that satisfies almost everyone. So it would probably be useful to consider those questions, use them to come up with a set of possible options (stating proposals for the entire wording of the relevant section this time, so there's no surprises in how people interpret it and we can finally settle this); then, unless one is a clear favorite to the point where it's unnecessary, run another RFC between the various options. --Aquillion (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a brief edit war because editors did not respect the long-standing wording of "should be included in the lead sentence"...which was clearly there for years before this edit. All one had to do was restore to that -- the actual status quo.

Armadillopteryx's description of both sides does not describe my feelings. And I don't think it accurately describes Crossroads's or SMcCandlish's either. Our point has been that the RfC wasn't at all about notable birth names and that the guideline should continue to make it clear that the notable birth name belongs in the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid a fork in this discussion, I will note that the meaning of the status quo ante language is itself in dispute, as I have noted (in the following section) here and here, links corrected here.Newimpartial (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the dispute for the reasons you mentioned, except maybe by you. There have always been certain editors who don't like that we include the notable birth name of trans people in the lead sentence. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the two editors I provided diffs for, who say that they interpreted the prior language in the same way. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must be blind then, because I only see you arguing about "when" and "if" stuff in a way that makes no sense. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you read for content the diff I provided above of my own prior comment, and those I provided for the other two editors, you would see that we are all agreeing on this matter. The other two editors seem to understand this and so does Crossroads, who chooses to assume bad faith of all of us equally. Newimpartial (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per DanielRigal's suggestion above, here is an example of a different way to organize the main points of MOS:DEADNAME that may be clearer and less given to misunderstanding:

If the subject in question is a living transgender or nonbinary person, whether (and how) to include the birth name depends on whether any of the subject's notability is connected to that name. If the reliable, secondary sources that establish notability do so using the birth name (for example, if the person did notable work under that name), the birth name is notable. If the subject's notability has been established only under their current name, the birth name is not notable.

If the birth name is notable, it should be included in the lead and be prefaced with "born" or "formerly". It may also be mentioned elsewhere in the article if contextually appropriate, but such mentions should be kept to a minimum.

• From Chelsea Manning, notable under prior name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning; December 17, 1987) ...

If the birth name is not notable, it should not be included in the subject's biography, nor anywhere else in the mainspace—even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. (See also: WP:Manual of Style § Identity and Deadnaming.)

• From Laverne Cox, not notable under prior name: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...

This is just a rough idea, not meant to be a final draft. What do participants of this discussion think of an option like this? Armadillopteryx 10:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's the best way to describe how a name is notable. The principle that Wikipedia users have agreed upon in past discussions is that if they're publicly out as using a new name during the entire time that they are notable, then their birth name is not notable, even if there are multiple reliable, secondary sources that deadname that person. For example, Margot has been using her preferred name for the entire time she has been notable, but conservative Polish news sources exclusively use her deadname (while liberal Polish news sources and all English news sources use her preferred name). The consensus among Wikipedia editors is that under the current definition of the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name, Margot has only been notable under the name of "Margot," while this proposed definition makes it more unclear (do all reliable sources need to use the birth name, or merely some?).

However, I do definitely prefer making it more explicit. I suggest a phrasing along the lines of If the subject's notability has been established only while publicly using their current name, the birth name is not notable.

Gbear605 (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbear605: Fair enough—tbh that was the portion I was least sure of how to write. I'm fine with your suggestion and am open to hearing more. Armadillopteryx 15:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - I would like to hear arguments for or against including all notable deadnames in the lede of the subject's article. My knee-jerk reaction is that it is sometimes helpful to include the deadname in the lede - particularly in cases where readers are brought to the BLP by a redirect from the deadname - but I can also imagine cases where borderline-notable deadnames might be relevant only in the context of a specific section. For example, an author who published initially under a deadname without receiving much media attention, then became more famous with their gender-appropriate name - it might be more helpful in that case to include the deadname only in the section on said early writings, so that interested readers could find dead tree books published under the former name.

Anyway, what I would really like to know is where other editors come down on this question. Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the example you give, I would say that since the early writing did not receive much media attention, it does not count toward establishing notability of the subject, let alone of the deadname. This would make the deadname non-notable in principle. But to avert confusion in the section where the early writing is discussed, it would probably be appropriate to say something like: "So-and-so published XYZ early work under the name [deadname]." This sort of thing (critically, the use–mention distinction) is addressed in MOS:IDINFO#Recommendations, a page that appears to have been mostly abandoned despite the fact that it would be a useful addition to our guidelines. Armadillopteryx 15:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, such a name is non-notable. Maybe the early-writing matter can be mentioned in a footnote. But notable birth names should be required in the lead. Regardless of how what was previously said in the guideline is interpreted, the standard practice has always been to include such names in the lead, especially for navigation purposes. Without that requirement, many articles will have to combat people pushing to have that name become as inconspicuous as possible. This started happening only two weeks after the wording was changed from the original RfC above. We shouldn't have to waste time arguing each one on a case-by-case basis. Regarding It may also be mentioned elsewhere in the article if contextually appropriate, but such mentions should be kept to a minimum, I believe "in the article" should be deleted, as there are some cases where the birth name is contextually appropriate in other articles. See how Caitlyn Jenner is handled at Athletics at the 1975 Pan American Games. We don't need people trying to argue that the birth name is never allowed outside of the article on the person. Regarding "such mentions should be kept to a minimum", there could result unanswerable debates about whether the need to minimize its use overrules contextual appropriateness. This could be replaced with wording that more closely matches the RfC closure above, e.g. "but gratuitous mentions should be avoided." Crossroads ^-talk- 17:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like your suggestions to remove "in the article" and to change "but such mentions should be kept to a minimum" to "but gratuitous mentions should be avoided". As for requiring notable deadnames to be in the lead, I see reasonable arguments both for and against it; apparently we're headed for an RfC that will clarify that point. Armadillopteryx 07:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current and old version do not require prior names in the lead and there are cases where forcing an old name in the lead could conflict with BLP. I'll have to not support this version for that reason. Rab V (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also will again note forcing old names in the lead will conflict with MOS:GENDERID's note that the MOS does not say where old names must be included. Rab V (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep stating that? As seen before this edit, the guideline stated, "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name." The word should was already there. For years. As seen with this edit, SMcCandlish's version stated that "it should then appear in the lead." No difference as far as the lead goes. MOS:GENDERID does not conflict in any way. There was no reason for MOS:GENDERID to state "in the lead" since it relays, "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Changed names calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person if they were notable under that name. In other respects, the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first." It's pointing people to this guideline for further detail. And that further detail stated, in part, "should be included in the lead sentence." Arguing that because MOS:GENDERID doesn't state "in the lead" when it points to a section that has stated "in the lead" for years and that piece was added to MOS:GENDERED so that people could be taken here and see the appropriate "in the lead" guidance is silly. If I knew you would argue that, I would have added "in the lead" to MOS:GENDERID right after that piece was added there to MOS:GENDERID. And it is a more recent addition to MOS:GENDERID. The "in the lead" aspect at MOS:CHANGEDNAME has been there for much longer. Years. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why some editors in this discussion continue to argue that the status quo ante language was unequivocal. It seems clear that we have good faith editors who interpreted "should only" as "should, but only" and other equally good faith editors who understood "should only" as "should not, unless". I don't see the key to this as uncovering the "originalist" interpretation of the status quo ante, but I see even less point in pretending that "should only" had one and only one meaning, when clearly several editors held each of the interpretations I just described. Newimpartial (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand those supposed different interpretations you speak of and have not seen them. And, regardless, reverting back to the long-standing wording in the meantime is easy enough, especially if WP:Status quo is going to be invoked. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This provision says that the deadname "should appear". This longstanding version says that the deadname "should only appear ... if". The two do not mean the same thing, according to posts by me and other editors. Newimpartial (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the lead part (and only the lead part), there is no difference between what is the long-standing version and SMcCandlish's wording...other than SMcCandlish's wording using "lead" instead of "lead sentence." There is nothing vague or confusing about "should be included in the lead sentence." There is nothing vague or confusing about "it should then appear in the lead" unless one wants to argue that it doesn't state "lead sentence." But the examples given are about the lead sentence. So people would get the point in that regard. There is no difference between stating that the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name and stating that the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. How you are trying to differentiate "when" and "if" in this case is odd to me. Let's not create an issue where there is none so that people can justify not returning this page to the long-standing version that has been used for years. That doesn't work. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I do not see others arguing the semantic things you are arguing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not see that this version states that In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name while this version baldly states that In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead? That is, the second version states that all notable deadnames should appear in the lede, but many editors (like me) read the first version as permissive rather than obligatory. I am perplexed at the difficulty some editors are having in seeing this difference, which seems obvious to me; I have shown that at least two other editors read the previous text the same way I did. Newimpartial (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People now are claiming that it could have been read that way, as part of arguing that their preference is the status quo. But has anyone ever read it that way before this current push? Has there ever even been an article where the person was notable under their birth name and it was nevertheless not in the lead? Crossroads ^-talk- 22:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, except that I only see Newimpartial arguing all of that. And I already addressed Rab V on "should." It's always been there. It's not like the guideline ever stated "must" on this matter. I don't understand Newimpartial's "22:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)" post. To repeat, "Let's not create an issue where there is none so that people can justify not returning this page to the long-standing version that has been used for years. That doesn't work." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer both of you, I have always read the policy the same way as Newimpartial, and I will tell you why.

"If" and "only if" (similarly, "when" and "only when") are logic operators with distinct meanings. This is explained reasonably well at If and only if#Distinction from "if" and "only if".

"A if B" (or "A when B") means that whenever B is true, A is automatically also true. B is a sufficient condition for A.

"A only if B" (or "A only when B") means that A cannot be true without B, but B does not by itself guarantee A. B is a necessary but not sufficient condition for A.

The pre-RfC wording was: [birth names should be included in the lead sentence] only when [the person was notable under that name].

The laws of logic described above clearly indicate that the person was notable under that name is a necessary but not sufficient condition for birth name should be included in the lead sentence. It meant that birth names can't be in the lead without being notable, but it doesn't mean they have to be there. This is objective.

Note that I obviously don't expect everyone to apply the same rigor as a logician to their words. I believe you if you say you interpreted the policy to mean notable deadnames had to go in the lead. However, strictly speaking, that interpretation holds for the logic operator "when", not "only when".

Flyer, your above analysis of the sentence was flawed because it focused on "should", which is merely an internal component of one of the two conditions separated by "only when". You have to look at the sentence in its entirety and parse it in the right order.

Crossroads, if you would like an example of a large group of people interpreting the pre-RfC wording the way I did, check out the planning stages of the RFC. There, not one person suggested that the policy had anything to do with requiring notable deadnames in the lead. Gleeanon's RfC wording above was actually somewhat bold, as the pre-RfC discussion showed a rough preference for making the whole RfC about simply changing "the lead" to "article space", omitting the second paragraph altogether. It simply didn't make sense to anyone why a policy apparently banning deadnames did so only from the lead.

Up in #Further refinement of wording, the three of us and SMcCandlish had a conversation rife with misunderstanding because it took probably a dozen comments before I understood that you all thought that the pre-RfC wording required notable deadnames in the lead, as I was operating on the premise that they were permitted both before and after the change. If you reread that discussion, you will notice there were a few times I tried to explain that notable deadnames were still allowed—precisely because changing the guideline's pre-RfC intention, from my perspective, would have required banning notable deadnames from the lead. I thought that's what you meant when you said people were misusing the guideline.

Anyway, none of this is to invalidate your interpretation, but since the alternate interpretation is actually more sound logically, it would be nice if you could stop making presumptive comments about everyone else. I didn't appreciate the bad-faith assumptions and borderline insults I sustained above, and I don't think the way you're talking about Newimpartial and others is civil or called for, either. Armadillopteryx 10:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no flaw in my argument regarding "should." And I clearly did not only consider "should" in my "21:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)" post. No, I don't see any difference between "when" and "if" in this case. And it's not about rigor. Considering that the "should" piece has focused on notable birth names of trans people for years, I don't see how anyone could have thought that it meant that non-notable birth names of trans people should go in the lead. Yes, there were debates about including non-notable birth names in the lead and lower in the article even with the guideline focusing on notable birth names, but the guideline never stated that non-notable births names belong in the lead. As for "required", I already brought up "must" vs. "should." The guideline has never stated "must", and SMcCandlish's wording didn't relay "must" or "required" either. But "should" is a strong word. It's one of the strongest words we use in our guidelines and should (no pun intended) typically be adhered to. If we wanted to state "may", we'd state "may." As for the rest, you were not the one very recently removing the piece about including notable birth names in the lead. My interaction with you over this topic came and went. I stand by what I've stated. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My main point was just that a lot of people, myself included, read the pre-RfC guideline differently from you without any bad faith or "activist" intentions. My personal reading was based strictly in logic, as I described above.

My secondary point was that (if taking a rigorous approach to the pre-RfC wording) analysis of words like "should" is secondary at best, because the difference between requiring vs. allowing notable deadnames in the lead is determined by the difference between "when" and "only when", as I showed above. I'm not sure most people would agree that saying a name "should" go in the lead doesn't sound like a requirement.

I did not suggest a difference between "when" and "if" (in fact, I said they're logically the same), so I'm not sure what you mean by that. My comment about non-notable names in the lead was a typo; I meant to write "notable deadnames" and have fixed it now.

Anyway, I'm glad we'll have another RfC so we can simply decide what the policy ought to say from now on. If one thing has become obvious from this whole talk page discussion, it's that the guideline needs to be phrased more clearly. Armadillopteryx 06:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just like you are free to have your opinion about whether arguments are activist arguments and what the intentions of others are, I am free to have mine. But as has been made clear before, I focused on how I feel about the arguments, not the editors (except for noting edit warring behavior that removed a key piece). Best to speak for yourself rather than try to get me to believe what others' intentions are. Regardless of whatever your points are, I disagree. I never stated or implied that most people would agree that saying a name "should" go in the lead doesn't sound like a requirement. I was simply stating that it's not the same as "must" and that whatever requirement you are going on about with regard to the use of "should" was already there. It was. You disagree? I know that. You've stated "Flyer, your above analysis of the sentence was flawed because it focused on 'should', which is merely an internal component of one of the two conditions separated by 'only when'."? I know that you've stated that. Your disagreement makes no sense to me since the guideline has stated "birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name" for years now. I know what SMcCandlish's wording was and how it's not exactly the same. I was there when we agreed on it. I already commented on the difference. I also already noted that "should" is a strong word and is supposed to typically be adhered to when in our guidelines (or policies), and that we would use "may" if that was intended. It's wasn't/it's not. My commentary on "when" and "if" has its origins in an earlier reply clearly seen above. In addition to that, you stated, "'If' and 'only if' (similarly, 'when' and 'only when') are logic operators with distinct meanings." So I went back to "when" and "if." I'm not sure what typo you are referring to. I disagree that anything regarding the "should" piece needs to be phrased more clearly. It and the piece about non-notable names are clear. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I feel like we're speaking two different languages, because many of your replies seem to indicate you've misunderstood virtually everything I said—and apparently the feeling is mutual. I'm kind of perplexed that you're still going on about the difference between "must" and "should" and "may"; that term could just as well have been "can't" or "may never" or "shall be determined by the roll of a die", and it still wouldn't have changed my point. From what I gather, the earlier "when"/"if" remark you're referring to was said by someone else, not me (and it doesn't reflect what I stated). You appear to acknowledge the parallel (not contrast) I drew between "when" and "if" using "similarly". The difference I described is between "when" and "only when". The same difference exists between "if" and "only if", and I only mentioned it because the concepts happen to be laid out at If and only if, not When and only when. I never disputed what the old wording of the policy was, so I don't understand why that came up. In the interest of not drawing this out, I'm not going to attempt to re-clarify my "disagreement [that] makes no sense to [you]". Armadillopteryx 19:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it doesn't seem like we're really getting anywhere with this. I commented in this thread because I thought I could clear something up in the beginning; apparently that's not the case. I'd rather just focus on the new RfC and whatever steps remain thereafter to make the policy adequately reflect both RfCs. Sorry for whatever frustration this conversation may have caused you. I've wearied of it by now and imagine you may have as well. Armadillopteryx 21:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You stated, "Many of your replies seem to indicate you've misunderstood virtually everything I said—and apparently the feeling is mutual." Yes, it is. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject a clarifying point: every proposal (and they began very early on) for Wikipedia to adopt in its WP:P&G pages a strict may/should/must distinction borrowed from the world of technical standards, was shot down in flames. When MoS or any other guideline says "Editors should do X", or "Wikipedia does Y", or "Do[n't] do Z", these are all equivalent-force statements, because guidelines are just guidelines, and even policies can have exceptions (except the legal policies imposed on us by WMF). At most, someone working on guideline text might use "should" intentionally to imply that there's more likelihood of a contextual exception, but this distinction cannot be depended upon at all, because a zillion people edit these pages, and they're not all the same kind of thinker. If we want to do that, we usually add "usually" or "in most cases" or something that effect. If we need to be emphatic about something, we'll be clearly emphatic. And if we mean to say that there's not really a rule and it's left to editorial discretion at the article, then we'll say so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the policy should ever absolutely require a deadname to be in the lead, even if there are some cases where it would seem perverse to omit it, i.e. for people primarily or equally notable under their deadnames. We don't want editors arguing that only slightly notable deadnames are required to be in the lead and we need to foreclose that argument in the policy. I'm not sure how to phrase this in policy terms but my feeling is that the deadname should only be permissible in the lead when it is likely that a significant proportion of the readers interested in the subject might be unaware of the subject's current name and might search for the subject's deadname instead, get redirected to the article under the current name, skim the lead and then wonder whether they have been sent to the wrong article by mistake. In that situation it is helpful to the readers to put it in the lead. In most other cases it is unnecessary and it would seem more natural to mention it when talking about the things that the subject was notable for under that name. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all basically a non sequitur, since MoS is not a policy, and doesn't "absolutely require" anything. Even policies cannot do that, per the WP:IAR principle (other than meta-policies like the legal parts of WP:COPYRIGHT and other matters imposed on us by WMF's lawyers as WP:OFFICE actions).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My example above was more to see if people like this structural breakdown of the policy points, and I'm glad to see there have been a lot of suggestions to improve the wording so far. It seems like an RfC will be the way to decide the matter of requiring notable deadnames in the lead, and the outcome of that will go in the guideline. Armadillopteryx 07:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we can determine "slightly notable deadnames", DanielRigal. It's similar to the Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#The piece about the subject's sexual orientation being relevant to their public life discussion about trying to determine how relevant sexual orientation is to a person's public life. The "or notability" thing has been easier to go by in that case because all we have to do is go by our WP:Notability guideline. And that guideline is not about slight notability. Either someone or something is notable or not. The "slightly notable deadnames" thing falls significantly into subjective territory and is prone to wikilawyering.

In any case, whether we are talking about a trans person or a non-trans person, I am against any notion that the notable birth name doesn't belong in the lead. That is...unless it can actually be proven to be "just a little notable." In that case, it should at least go in the infobox. The part about not including non-notable names in the lead or elsewhere in the article is already in the guideline. So, really, all that needed to be done was revert this change to the longstanding wording about including notable names in the lead. But it seems we are beyond that now. So, yes, I guess an RfC is next. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

I doubt that there is any consensus to include "slightly notable deadnames" of Trans people in an infobox, either. That might be a good issue to assess at RfC, given how prone infobox contents can be to edit-warring. Newimpartial (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One would first have to convincingly make a case for what "slightly notable deadnames" are. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time to re-RfC this. We had clear language (long-standing) to not include old names of TG/NB people in the lead sentence unless they were notable under that name. People decided to wikilawyer about this, ignoring the obvious spirit in which it was intended, so we had another RfC to clarify that the previous name(s) of such a person should not be included in the article at all if the name(s) pre-date that person's period of notability (despite that being already the result of a huge RfC at WP:VPPOL several years ago). Meanwhile, actual operational consensus is that if the name does date to the notability period, it should be in the lead section if not lead sentence (usually in the lead sentence), and is also used elsewhere when contextually sensible, both within that article and elsewhere (e.g. lists of Olympic medal winners, etc.), and we even have rather standardized ways for indicating a name change. Now, days of editwarring have broken out to prevent any of this from being mentioned, and the clear intent of this activity is to simply ban all "deadnames", or as many of them as possible, without regard for actual consensus on the matter. This is not going to fly.
Below are the propositions to settle that I can think of, and I'll list them out in tedious but WP:NOTGETTINGIT-proof detail. Green entries represent current operational consensus (how our articles are actually written, after many discussions from the individual article level to WP:VPPRO). Red entries directly conflict with prior RfCs and other consensus discussions. Grey entries are basically redundant with extant (green) consensuses that are supersets of the grey options. Black options are untested variants.

1A: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject should be included in the lead sentence. [1A and 1B/1B2 are mutually exclusive, and 1A conflicts with 1D.]

1B: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject should be included in the lead section, with inclusion in the lead sentence being left to editorial discretion. [1B and 1A are mutually exclusive, and 1B conflicts with 1D.]

1B2: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject may be included in the lead section if it is a likely search term, with inclusion in the lead sentence being left to editorial discretion). [1B2, 1B and 1A are mutually exclusive, and 1B2 conflicts with 1D. This option and 2A2 were added to encapsulate the position of DanielRigal, above.]

1C: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject may be included in an infobox in an appropriate parameter, e.g. |birth_name=, though not all former names are necessarily infobox-worthy, which is left to editorial discretion. [1C conflicts with 1D.]

1D: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject should not be included in the subject's lead and infobox at all. [1D conflicts with 1A/1B/1B2 and 1C, and is a subset of 2B and of 3B.]

2A: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject may be included elsewhere in the article as contextually appropriate (e.g. "Early life" section). [2A conflicts with 2A2 and 2B.]

2A2: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject should be included elsewhere in the article as contextually appropriate, instead of in the lead, if it is not a likely search term. [2A2 conflicts with 2A and 2B. This option and 1B2 were added to encapsulate the position of DanielRigal, above.]

2B: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject should not be included in the subject's article at all. [2B conflicts with 2A/2A2, 1A/1B/1B2, and 1C, is a superset of 1D, and is a subset of 3B.]

3A: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject may be included elsewhere in Wikipedia as contextually appropriate (e.g. lists of winners of gendered awards), usually with a notice of name change ("Foo formerly Bar", "Bar later Foo"). [3A conflicts with 3B.]

3B: A former name that does date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject should not be included in Wikipedia content at all. [3B conflicts with 3A, 2A/2A2, 1A/1B/1B2, and 1C, and is a superset of 2B and of 1D.]

The rest of these are subject to much less dispute, so need not be broken down into as much detail:

4A: A former name that does not date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject (including birth name) should be included in the lead and infobox.

4B: A former name that does not date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject (including birth name) should not be included in the lead and infobox. [Subset of 6B.]

5A: A former name that does not date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject (including birth name) may be included elsewhere in the article as contextually appropriate.

5B: A former name that does not date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject (including birth name) should not be included in the subject's article at all. [Subset of 6B.]

6A: A former name that does not date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject (including birth name) may be included elsewhere in Wikipedia as contextually appropriate. [Not likely to arise, since if they need to be name-dropped in that context, then that name is pretty much by-definition within their period of notability.]

6B: A former name that does not date to the period of notability of a TG/NB subject (including birth name) should not be included in Wikipedia content at all.

I'm not certain that an actual RfC needs to be written out in this level of detail, though doing so would not break anything (the community can handle quite complex RfCs). That said, winnowing this down just what actually needs to be reassessed by the community is probably a good idea. It needs to be done in a way that forestalls any more interpretational conflict.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank SMcCandlish for the studious, systematic character of this taxonomy, though I hope we won't have to put include all of the categories at RfC.

I wanted to react to 6A first, since I think it might be the most likely to be gamed - I think there might be many occasions where some editors would name drop a deadname into an article that isn't about the subject, whether or not they are aware of the name change. And based on the discussion in passing about "slightly notable deadnames" above, I think there is a fair degree of dissensus about what deadnames are notable (for example, is a deadname that would be either a bare GNG pass or a bare SNG pass - or a bare pass of both - a "notable deadname", a "non-notable deadname" or somewhere in-between? Not all subjects are the Wachowskis).

If we don't as a community agree what deadnames are notable, then it is likely that at least some editors will knowingly include in articles deadnames that other editors regard as non-notable, which will produce disputes not only in articles about these subjects but most likely in other articles as well. Newimpartial (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep in mind that no editor has to read much less comply with MoS or any other page here before editing. It's up to more experienced editors to ensure material is compliant with policies and guidelines, and to help newer editors absorb more of the applicable WP:P&G rules and write more-compliant material in the future. Thus "occasions where some editors would name drop a deadname into an article that isn't about the subject" are not an actual problem. If consensus is and remains that a name of TG/NB person that pre-dates that subject's notability (or an old name of a TG/NB person who is not notable at all) should not be used in mainspace, such an old name can simply be replaced with the current one. If consensus is and remains that a name from within someone's notability period can be used as contextually sensible – typically with some kind of formula like "Jane (now John) Smith" or "Samantha Stein-O'Grady (then Samuel Stein)" – then there's nothing to fix but injecting that kind of clarification formula. This comes full circle to my point that part of the NOTGETTINGIT happening in this debate is that some participants seem to want to ban all use of all prior names of TG/NB people, whether they date to the notability period or not, yet every consensus discussion on this matter has concluded against that idea. We would do well correct any further attempts to confuse use of notability-period names of TG/NB people (in any article) with use of pre-notability-period names (or identifiably using old names of simply non-notable TG/NB people). Aside: If someone who has been informed of the relevant P&G rules goes around injecting inappropriate "dead names" into articles, that's a disruptive-behavior problem, not a lack-of-rules or lack-of-the-right-rules problem, and we have WP:ANI for a reason. (Plus WP:AE – that behavior would probably fall under the somewhat recently WP:ARCA-expanded scope of the {{Ds/alert|gg}} notice to cover "human sexuality and gender, broadly construed" if I recall the wording correctly.)

Important: I wrote the above questions/issues list with very precise language; while not all of the options (some of which have already been rejected by prior RfCs) need be listed in a new RfC, we need to be clear that there's no such thing as "a notable name". The primary source of confusion about TG/NB-related policy and guideline material is in turn the confusion that there is any such thing as a "notable deadname" or "non-notable deadname", leading to worse confusions like "slightly notable deadname" or "borderline-notable deadname". There simply isn't any such thing. A person is either notable or not (determined generally by us having an article on them and it surviving AfD or being nearly certain to do so; see also WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:NTEMP). Likewise, a name either was used during the person's period of notability or it was not (as determined by reliable secondary and primary sources that prove the name usage timeline). There is no "slightly" or "borderline" to any of this, but we're going to continue having pointless, heated, inconclusive discussions until people absorb this fact.

WP:Notability pertains to subjects of stand-alone articles (by whatever names they have/had), not to particular names for those subjects. While some of us have been casually using expressions like "notable names" as a shorthand in these discussions to avoid having to type out long things like "names by which subjects were known during their periods of notability", doing this has unmistakably confused various participants in these discussions and effectively trainwrecked the threads. In an RfC itself, we need to be very clear what we mean, using exact terminology that agrees with definitions of words like "notable" in the WP:P&G pages (especially WP:BLP, which cares about notability and privacy; whatever MoS has to say on TG/NB matters, it cannot run counter to actual policy). The importance of the distinction is paramount: if a subject is notable, their former name(s) during the period of notability are not a WP:BLP privacy concern. BLP cares about a) old names of notable TG/NB people that pre-date their notability, and b) old names, at all, of non-notable TG/NB people (if those names can be used to identify the person, anyway; I've yet to see anyone argue absurdities like hunting down reference citations to non-notable works by non-notable people and changing an author name based on their own WP:OR about who the author really is today!). It's even important to keep in mind the distinction between WP:Notability (stand-alone article on the subject) and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE / WP:NOTEWORTHY mention in an article on another topic or in a list: the fact that someone is contextually important enough to mention/list but not notable enough for their own article will generally rule out use of a "dead name" of such a person (if secondary sources tell us the name changed and we're certain of the identification), right along with a pre-notability "dead name" of a notable person.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, I think that while options 4A through 6A were listed for logical completeness, they were already essentially rejected at the RfC above, with 6B being the mandated approach. So we probably won't need to RfC them, I'd imagine. To be clear, we wouldn't use "notable name" or similar in any RfC option, since we're really talking about names that were used when the person was notable, not the name itself being the subject of sourced discussion. I don't think defining notability in any sense is needed here, since it needs to be decided on a case by case basis, following the standard notability guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. I don't think we should introduce the concept of "slightly notable", as this creates a sort of two-tiered notability. I am not aware of any edge cases where it would be unclear if someone was notable prior to transition. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The case I mentioned earlier was a person who had authored (NBOOK-pass) books prior to their transition and name change. The person might easily be a marginal (or disputed) GNG pass but an NAUTHOR (thus NBIO) pass, for example. In that instance, the last RfC would suggest suppressing the deadname (if it were considered non-notable), but I think this is a case where the most helpful treatment for the reader would be to include the deadname in the section on the subject's writing (and in the articles on the books written under the deadname, if such articles exist). However, I don't necessarily see any reason except "logical consistency with policy" in favor of putting this borderline-notable deadname in the lead or lead sentence. Newimpartial (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads: Yes, 4A through 6A were listed for completeness and clarity. It has become apparent that various participants in these discussions do not know understand the underlying policy principles, do not know about the prior consensus decisions, do not accept them, do not understand them (i.e. do not interpret them the way almost everyone else does), or pretend not to understand them, or some mixture of two or more of those. As for confused use of "notable" in this discussion, see my reply to Newimpartial just above in the same thread (same timestamp as this one).

Newimpartial, to apply that just-mentioned other reply to your newer post: There's almost always the possibility of edge cases, for any rule about anything. That's not an argument against having a rule. (And see below for an even odder hypothetical example.) BLP policy with regard to TG/NB people is entirely grounded in privacy and notability, not other concerns. (To the extent WP is considering any other concerns in relation to TG/NB people, like shifting societal norms about pronouns, etc., these are in MoS material, and are more flexible guidelines, and are within, not counter to, the policy concerns.) A "marginally notable" (i.e. notable) author whose old name appears on a "marginally notable" (i.e. notable) book is a really hard – maybe impossible – sell when it comes to privacy arguments (especially if the book has not been reprinted under the new name). Policy doesn't recognize a subject as "marginally" notable; either it is notable enough for inclusion or it is not. The "marginal" notion is one of the closeness of an AfD pass/fail result. By way of comparison, Trump has been the US president for almost 4 years, not "marginally" the US president, despite the marginal nature of his "pass" in the 2016 election. So, we need to stop thinking or talking about "marginally notable" as if it's a thing. It's not, but belief in it is badly confusing these discussions.

If we have an article on the book and an article on the author, WP is not in a position to pretend there is no connection between them, nor to fake the facts about the name used on the book cover. To take a split scenario: If we end up with an article on the book but not the author, the proper thing to do varies by context. The default assumption is that we should prefer the current, preferred name of the person, so we'd need to explain that the author is now known by name B, while the book cover says name A. We're not in a position to pretend in the article on the book that the old name was not the name under which it was published. We might well have reliably sourceable information that the person prefers to identify by the newer name even in the context of their old writings, or that they don't care if others' material about their old writing uses their old name (random people, after all, can't really be presumed to know of the name change, especially for someone barely a public figure and a work barely notable enough for inclusion). If the book has been republished under the new name, we might need to mention the old name only in a footnote (just so readers do not get confused into thinking two books on the same subject by the same title from the same publisher were written by different people). This really isn't appreciably different from a pseudonym case, since there's not a legitimate privacy issue. The reverse split scenario: If we end up with an article on the author and not one on the book, we'll again need to mention the old name (unless the non-notable book has nothing to do with the person's notability and need not be mentioned in the article at all).

Privacy can cut both ways, though, especially for non-notable persons. Consider this scenario: the book is notable, the author is not, and we have undeniable sourcing that the author has completely distanced from the prior name and life and does not want to be associated in any way with the book and the name on it. As the person is not notable, they do in fact have a privacy interest in not being "outed" under their current name and having that name associated on Wikipedia with the book and the old name on it. If the person becomes notable (in association with the book or for any other reason), i.e. becomes a fully public figure, then they no longer have a privacy interest in their connection to the notable book and the name on it being ignored by Wikipedia. But an edge case like this is going to be rare at best. If it does arise, we have IAR for a reason and can just adapt for the unusual context. But IAR probably would not be necessary even in this hypothetical. I can actually think of a prior AfD case (which I won't name, since that would basically thwart the AfD's purpose!) that involved a scenario like this, except without the TG/NB component. While the work was arguably notable (or at least NOTINDISCRIMINATE enough to cover in some detail in a broader article on the overall topic), the pseudonymous author of it was not personally notable and did not want to be publicly and real-name associated with that work. AfD did in fact delete the bio article, on BLP privacy grounds and because the person was only supposedly-notable in connection to that particular work (and an award received for it, the only reliable non-pseudonymous identification of the author with the work). If BLP privacy concerns are strong in that kind of case, they are going to be even stronger when combined with additional TG/NB privacy concerns of a non-notable TG/NB person. PS, for anyone new to all this: a central principle is that notability does not "rub off" (e.g. from a book to its author or vice versa). An author must pass WP:GNG as a person to be considered notable, even if their book has already passed the GNG test as an inanimate work.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: while I do not concur with the entirety of the analysis of WP:N here, I do agree about the role of the MoS in the cases discussed including the detailed considerations involved in deciding them, so for me the big picture basically trumps the details in this instance.

From my own experience at AfD, there is a set of cases where the GNG (or SNG) pass is more marginal, where the considerations of Notability get wrapped up in more general encyclopaedic principles than whether SIGCOV has been met two or three times - I imagine this would be even more true in any community attempt to determine whether a person would have been presumed notable based only on references from the period where they had preferred their former, now dead name, in instances were either no article was written under those conditions or where a stub article was never sent to AfD while those conditions pertained.

Those caveats aside, the actual MoS principles and potential decisions discussed here by SMcCandlish seem reasonable to me. Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And those seem like good caveats. It was complex enough already I didn't want to get into SNGs sometimes (rarely, mostly with regard to academics) having non-GNG criteria.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR. I think this is really the wrong place to be setting "rules" for when previous names can/should be mentioned. This is (supposed to be) the Manual of Style, the purpose of which is to provide "guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles", so all this page should be doing is advising how we mention someone's previous name, if it is to be mentioned. And that is exactly what MOS:DEADNAME did before the RfC; now it's creeping away from that narrow purview. The question of whether or not to include such names is a legitimate one, and maybe we are overdue for a formal policy or guideline about it, but fundamentally it's a question about content not style and thus should be handled elsewhere--probably at WP:BLP or a related policy/guideline page. Yilloslime (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The very widely participated RfC that set this direction initially was for MOS:GENDERID, as I recall. I don't know why we would suddenly move this discussion elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the one reply directly above (which didn't actually address the point), my comment right above that([7]) seems have ended the debate. I will take this silence as tacit agreement that WP:MOS is the wrong place for content policy/guidence. Yilloslime (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff, Yilloslime, removed the second half of the guidelines

If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article,{{efn|A "deadname" from a pre-notability period of the subject's life should not appear in that person's bio, in other articles (including lists and disambiguation pages), category names, templates, etc.}} even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. (See also: WP:Manual of Style § Identity, and the article Deadnaming.)

I agree that MOS is likely the wrong spot for it, but achieving the purpose of it is definitely agreed upon, and until we have similar guidance elsewhere, such as at WP:BLP, we shouldn't remove it. I undid Yilloslime's change for now, but am very open to having it done in the future once there is actual consensus here, not silence. Gbear605 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, Yilloslime, just because I was the only one foolish enough to respond to your "point" does not imply consensus to remove text from the MOS, including text that was added as a result of a recent MOS RfC. In the immortal words of the closer of that RfC, don't be a dick. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I assumed that since no one had even attempted to rebut the merits of my argument after several days, everyone must have agreed. (And since making my edit, Gbear605 has stated that they agree this is the wrong spot for this guideline.) Editors have to make good faith efforts to participate in talk page discussions; they can't just revert to their preferred versions without discussion. If editors want formal guidance on the inclusion of prior names, the onus is on them to make the proposal in the appropriate forum, which this is not. The forum matters: People who care about punctuation and formatting in BLPs are watching this page; people who care about privacy and content in BLPs are watching WP:BLP. And yes there's overlap in who's watching what, but the point is: if you want to make content policy/guidance, then you should solicit the participation of the folks who are interested and (presumably more experienced) in questions of content.Yilloslime (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: this was a well-participated and properly closed RfC whose result you were reverting. You don't just get to assume IDONTHEARTHAT and do your own thing, no matter how right you feel deep within your heart.

The fact remains that the guidelines about gendered pronouns and deadnames have been extensively discussed and mostly resolved as MOS issues up to now, so it really isn't up to one or two editors to decide that this isn't the appropriate forum.

And the fact also remains that this particular forum has attracted more than its share of editors who are experienced in questions of content in this area. The idea that other, more experienced editors have been missing from these discussions seems pretty laughable to me, but by all means publicize the next RfC farther and widerer. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Yilloslime is going to refuse to even attempt to absorb the complexities of the policy/guideline interactions in this matter – the need to clarify them being the entire reason we're contemplating another RfC after we just closed one and it failed to get the job done – and is going to start edit-warring again, then we're probably going to have to ask RFPP to lock the MoS page again, and take the editwarring to a noticeboard. The locking of the page within the last week is a warning to stop editwarring.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone thinks that the closure of the last RfC actually resolved any issues regarding the inclusion of deadnames from prior to an article subject's period of Notability in BLPs, this issue is subject to anongoing RfC at Nicole Maines. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Project:Military History section of the wiki has come across something rather perplexing; how to handle military ranks. A considerable portion of military officers (particularly German) have their military ranks inserted above their name in the infobox, meaning the honorific section. While certain high ranks like the British field marshal, American General of the Army and German Generalfeldmarschall are honorifics, other examples are ambiguous and may not be. Pages like Gottlob Berger present his rank of SS lieutenant general (SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen-SS) above the name as an acceptable use despite the rank not being an honorific. The military talk project has already discussed this at length [[8]].

What are the guidelines on this? I don't see military rank used for other countries and don't see why we should make an exception for Nazi officers. TFD (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not clear on the issue here. Military ranks are not honorifics, they are ranks. Please clarify. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a related question about combining honorifics and ranks, as in the current revision of Erin O'Toole. The infobox currently reads "Captain the Honourable" above a pic of O'Toole, which reads very oddly to me. As ARandomRedditorWikipediist pointed out on the talk, few of the articles on former PMs who served in the military include military ranks in the infobox (see this list). Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong... but it seems that the issue is that the template does not have “Military Rank” field ... so editors are USING the “honorifics” field for that purpose. That’s a problem with templates - the pre-set fields don’t always match the info we want to include, so we force the info into fields that are “close enough”. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. On a second look, {{Infobox officeholder}} has some params for military service such as rank, branch, etc., so it looks as if his military title is already handled elsewhere in the infobox. If I'm reading this right, I think deleting "captain" from the top line is reasonable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the captain here would be the captain of a ship, not necessary as a rank, but, well, as a honorific. Lectonar (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the lack of clarity, but due to the depth of the discussion we were undertaking, I was uncertain if I could summarize to a suitable level. To wit, the problem at hand involves the use of military ranks as honorifics. The highest military rank of esteemed officers (particularly with regard to those of five-star or six-star rank) are prominently displayed above the article image in the honorific-prefix section. This commonality is not exclusive to Third Reich or Nazi officers but the trend was first noticed in those sort of pages. Users Kierzek and Peacemaker67 (among others) have spoken about the necessity of these in length since a rank field already exists in the military-type infobox. Officers such as Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas Macarthur, and Gottlob Berger see this fashion of use. User Peacemaker67 in particular has noted that no attention has been raised on this matter leading to at least a local consensus on inserting military ranks in the honorific-prefix field. To quote from Kierzek in the forum: "While it is true a person can receive an honorary rank, that is often times granted to a civilian for something specific or upon retirement. So there are occasions where is it appropriate for use, however, that does not apply to the men of articles I reverted. An "honorific" as stated in the Wikipedia article, for example, "is to convey esteem, courtesy or respect for position", often in the academic world."" Hence, what we are looking for is:

• The criteria needed for a rank to count as a honorific. While individual ranks have theur own criteria, users on the project concur that guidelines on the matter are hazy.
• If rank honorifics bloat the honorific-prefix section (if a holder already has a sizeable number of honours to their name) and should be treated accordingly.
• If rank honorifics (such as in the aforementioned articles) should be removed, and what should be the extent of the changes made.

The project community agrees that a general consensus should be made for the purposes of clarity. Someone here asked what the guidelines on this are, and it seems that specific rules on this are virtually non-existent. SuperWIKI (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I asked that this be brought here for a community consensus after it was raised at Milhist talk, as some editors continue to claim "local consensus" on it, and guidance one way or another would be useful. The current guidelines for the usage of the honorifics field in Template:Infobox military person actually suggest putting the rank here, as explained above. However, there are several factors which have not been reflected above as yet. In many militaries, rank is used as an honorific even for retired officers, the Commonwealth standard being that it is used for officers of the rank of Major (equivalent) and above. This means that even though they have retired, they are addressed as "Major" etc, invitations are addressed to "Major Billy Bloggs" etc. On top of that, tertiary references in the field of military history such as the Oxford Companion to Military History include the rank of officers along with honorifics such as "Sir" in the title of the entry. For example, "Browne, Gen Sir Samuel" and "Gneisenau, FM Graf August Wilhelm Neihardt von" (FM meaning Field Marshal). I'll add that in Commonwealth countries, people are addressed as "General Sir Samuel Browne", or Colonel Doctor Billy Bloggs", meaning that the military rank is given priority over the knighthood. This is reflected in protocols in Debrett's A–Z of Modern Manners. So, why would we single out military ranks for exclusion as an honorific, but continue to include "Sir" per MOS:SIR? Perhaps we should adopt a guideline that specifies using the honorific field for ranks of Major and above, and the rank field for lower ranks? Finally, I have half-a-dozen military biography FAs of Australians and Germans that have included rank as an honorific, and it has never been raised in a review, which reflects a weak consensus that it is actually fine. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Order of appearance in a name string does not equate to a ranking of the titles/honors/etc. It has to be "General Sir Samuel Brown", because after a knightood, "Sir" is fused indivisibly the the forename; it becomes normal formal address to call the person "Sir David", where "Mr. Brown" or (for military person) "General Brown" would have been used pre-knighthood. "Sir General David Brown" is not possible in this system of address because of the nature of "Sir [Forename]", not because the knighthood is lower importance/priority/status than the military rank. That becomes really obvious when you consider low ranks, the lowest of which is assigned automatically simply by being in the military at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Another Comment I noticed the problem when some edits adding honorifics popped up on my watchlist (some SS-officers, and more are still listed with their SS-rank as a honorific now). I read through the manual of style (didn't find anything helpful for the question here), had a look at the German Wikipedia (same), reverted some additions of the rank as a honorific, and subsequently (together with Kierzek) pointed the OP to Milhist. While what has been said above may be true for the Commonwealth, you can be sure that at least in Germany no SS-rank would have been used as a honorific (even for a retired officer) after the end of WWII. As for consensus or not, the little discussion at Milhist at least seems to point to not using them as honorifics, but list them as ranks in the pertaining infobox. The whole topic hasn't been given much tought imho. Lectonar (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, while it is true a person can receive an honorary title/rank, that is often times granted to a civilian for something specific or upon retirement. I agree with Lectonar above, in relation to the SS bio articles I reverted on my watchlist. A rank is not the same as an honorific title by definition. And the info-box already has a section/box to add in a person's rank. Kierzek (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ranks are not honorifics, and infoboxes already have a field for rank. Kierzek, above, nailed this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• From Magic Johnson: Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr. (born August 14, 1959) is ...

So I guarantee some knucklehead will, from this formulation, conclude that Earvin Johnson Sr. was also nicknamed "Magic" (which is demonstrably false). Can that be helped, or should we care? ―cobaltcigs 13:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We should not care. WP cannot account for every form of dain bramage. However, in Johnson's case, the lead should probably be presenting his entire birth name including middle name, followed by "better known as...". We could do with a cleaner example of nickname in mid-name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This at the end of MOS:NEE:

A person named in an article in which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article. For example, Pope John Paul I was known as Albino Luciani before he was elevated to the papacy, so a depiction of the time before he became pope should use the name Albino Luciani. See also MOS:IDENTITY.

I have seen multiple instances where the names of The Wachowskis have been changed retroactively. But the quoted rule seems to say that the director of The Matrix should have remained the Wachowski brothers Andy and Larry. I then looked at MOS:IDENTITY but couldn't immediately find anything to countersay this.

To me, it seems our MOS guideline needs to be rephrased to distinguish between

"After the cardinal electors assembled in Rome, they elected Cardinal Albino Luciani, Patriarch of Venice, as the new pope on the fourth ballot." (August 1978 papal conclave)

and

"She was created by The Wachowskis, and portrayed by Gloria Foster[4] in the first[1] and second film[5] and Mary Alice in the third film.[2]" (The Oracle (The Matrix))

The first sentence adheres to the guideline (it isn't changed); the second does not (it is changed despite being an article in which The Wachowskis are not the subject).

What would you suggest as an improved phrasing of MOS:NEE?

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This comes up a lot with various sorts of people, from women who later marry to British politicians etc who later become lords. At the very least editors should be encouraged to put both forms in the text - it is often confusing or unhelpful to the reader not to, even where the "final" name is visible if you hover over a link. But what is appropriate will vary, & we should not be too prescriptive - which we seem to be at present. However, I agree that "the name they used at the time being described in the article" should normally be included. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, in the case of the second sentence, it if is possible to avoid a complex naming issue (eg instead of using the "Wachowski brothers" but the "Wachowskis") that seems to be fair. It would be wrong to use "Wachowskis siblings" (that's far too generic and seems degrading). But this appears to be a rather special case, as normally we are talking individuals and we need a first and last name at minimum to be specific, eg if we're talking Caitlyn Jenner prior to her transition (eg you have to refer to Jenner as Bruce Jenner over at CHiPs). --Masem (t) 16:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Capn Zapp, I don't see how using "the Wachowskis" represents a violation of "the name they used at the time" principle. They have always been "the Wachowskis", whatever else they have individually or collectively been called at various times. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Newimpartial said. Find a better example where this is an issue. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A more common problem might be exemplified by Pamela Digby/Churchill/Hayward/Harriman who was a fairly well-known figure over many decades under each of her four successive names (birth & 3 husbands). Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still seems to me to use the name at the time when associated with the topic. I would only add that if we're talking someone who became only famous under one of their latter names and their earlier names are more obscure when used in these other articles, this is where one might one use something like "Mr. Smith married Jane Doe in 19xx (who later was better known as "Famous Name") and divorced her in 19xx." (where "Famous Name" is where the wikilink would be) Hard to show without a good example but I think that idea may be clear). --Masem (t) 20:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any article on 19th-century British politics will give plenty of examples. Usually, and I think correctly, the solution is to link the first, contemporary name, even if the title at the linked article is the later name, though there is much inconsistency. Examples of other ways:

• From William Wellesley-Pole, 3rd Earl of Mornington: "He was the younger brother of Richard Wesley, later Marquess Wellesley, and the elder brother of Arthur, who became Duke of Wellington, and of Henry, who became Lord Cowley." - I wouldn't do that myself.
• From Charles Meryon: "... she became the mistress of Viscount Lowther, the future William Lowther, 2nd Earl of Lonsdale, then an unmarried Tory MP, junior minister, and ..."

Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I first ask editors such as Newimpartial to respond to the actual subject matter at hand rather than getting caught up on technicalities? Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now then, seeing general agreement, the question remains: What would you suggest as an improved phrasing of MOS:NEE?

CapnZapp (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the wording is, it should only apply to an appropriate set of cases. Any wording that empowers editors to revert the Wachowskis references is not ok with me. -Newimpartial (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point exactly! I brought this up precisely because I detected the guideline might not be in line with our intentions! CapnZapp (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, but the principle is by no means restricted to biographies. For example the Wachowskis will come up in many other types of articles. I think it would be better to discuss this at the main MOS, & add something there, plus of course here too. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, no need to self-link :-) With respect, I am bringing up a highly specific case. Do feel free to start a general discussion elsewhere, just don't forget about the originating question please: What would you suggest as an improved phrasing of MOS:NEE? CapnZapp (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You called the section "People who are not the subject of the article" so taking it beyond the scope of MOS:NEE, which is all about how to start (etc) biographical articles. I think any changes to MOS:NEE on this should follow changes to the wider MOS. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2020 (ITC)

• If my memory is correct, this provision was added to deal with disputes over how to refer to Bruce/Caitlin Jenner in articles about the 1976 Olympics. It was determined that since Jenner competed (and entered the record books) under the name “Bruce”, that “Bruce” was the appropriate “historical record” name to use in those articles. The concept would apply in similar “historical record” situations.

That said, the case of the Wachowskis is a bit different... because we have a third option: Since they usually worked as a duo, it would be appropriate to refer to the pair AS “the Wachowskis”, omitting first names completely. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of changing the wording, I would simply consider the case of the Wachowskis as an exceptional case, but an example that can be referenced, in that if it is possible to refer to them by a name that may not have been used at the time for the article in question but for all purposes is clear and obvious of the identity of the people involved, and avoids other naming issues like deadnaming, that should be used instead. But it seems such an IAR-type case that it may not need to be added for the one specific example. Unless there's several dozen other types of cases, we shouldn't worry about carving out MOS for just one problem situation. --Masem (t) 14:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So... doing nothing is the outcome in practice here? CapnZapp (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've cleaned up this entire section, though I'm not sure the cleanup will address the concern raised here. I have to agree with Newimpartial, et al., that "the Wachowskis" was what the subjects were all along, regardless if some other word like "brothers" or "sisters" was appended after it, so that example isn't illustrative of any problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A change by an IP editor to the Khalik Allah article left this edit summary: "It's very offensive to All Muslims in the world to call someone Allah his name is Khalik Allah not Allah his name means Allah Creation don't call him Allah that's very offensive it like calling someone named Abdul Allah (God servant) Allah that's not how it goes." MOS:SURNAME and MOS:GIVENNAME appear to offer no guidance on this matter. How should I proceed? Thanks. Lopifalko (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Wakeel Allah refers to the subject as "Wakeel Allah" throughout, and Ikhlef Ahmed Hadj Allah, Abdel Hadj Khallaf Allah and Zahra Rahmat Allah are such short stubs that they don't mention the subject again. All have defaultsort of "Allah" - that's how I found them, at Category:Living_people. There may well be other biographies of (dead) people with the surname "Allah": it's not easy to find them, as there is no Allah (surname), and no mention of any of them at Allah (disambiguation). A rough scan through the first 500 hits for "Allah" shows a few people with it as a given name but nothing else which looks like a surname (except perhaps "Thérèse Allah, better known as Allah Thérèse". PamD 10:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination would be to simply use the first name (Khalik) for subsequent mentions. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some early Puritans used compound religious phrases as names, like "Nicholas If-Jesus-Christ-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barbon". It's a middle name in this case, but we certainly wouldn't shorten it to "If" or "Damned". Similarly, for someone named "Pam" we wouldn't shorten the name to "Pa" or "am". It seems like this is likely something of the same thing, where the whole phrase is a single name rather than something separable into first and last names, and we should keep it intact rather than making up shortenings of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we steer this into being enshrined in MOS? -Lopifalko (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be WP:MOSBLOAT. Even after PamD's digging around, this appears to apply to a single case, so we have no reason to write a rule about it. It would also be easy for someone to extrapolate from it about other similar names (Muhammad/Mohammed, Jesús, etc.) Whether such names are accepted as appropriate by someone will vary by language, religious denomination, and other cultural differences. Even the opening claim by the OP is false, since many Muslims do not consider anything from the Q'ran, including the name of God, to be other than a weak approximation if not written in Arabic (i.e. "Allah" is not the name of God, but a Western attempt at ١ّللَه‎, like "Jehovah" is of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, יהוה‎).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose these two changes to the page:

A. That this:

Beyond the first paragraph of the lead section, birth and death details are not included after a name except in a case of special contextual relevance.

Be changed to this:

Beyond the first paragraph of the lead section, birth and death details can be included after a name, but only if there is special contextual relevance.

To remove unnecessary (rather unsightly) bolding, and to shorten and make the prose more direct and readable.

B. And this:

Generally speaking, notability is not inherited, which means the fact that a person is the spouse of another notable person does not make that person notable.

Be changed to this:

Generally speaking, notability is not inherited; e.g. a person being the spouse or child of another notable person does not make that person notable.

To clarify that the rule "notability is not inherited" applies to more than just the spousal relationship, which the current sentence implies.

LK (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With A, the formatting and wording is there for a reason, and saying "not included ... except" is clearer than "can be included ... but only if". With B, I suggest the wording is changed to "Generally speaking, notability is not inherited, which means the fact that a person is the spouse or relative of another notable person does not make that person notable". GiantSnowman 14:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In A, I do not see how a statement stated in the negative can be "clearer". As for your suggestion for B, (apart from being ungrammatical) the sentence still implies that the rule "notability is not inherited" is only for spousal or blood relationships. Using the phrase "for example" or "e.g", would signal that the rule applies for other types of relationships as well. LK (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed wording for B is 'spouse or child', mine is 'spouse or relative' - so yours is actually narrower! So why are you complaining that my suggested wording "still implies that the rule "notability is not inherited" is only for spousal or blood relationships"? GiantSnowman 16:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not reading correctly. I am suggesting to use the phrase "for example" or "e.g", which means that there are other cases unmentioned. Your wording implies that the list is complete. Also, do you not see that the sentence "..., notability is not inherited, which means the fact that a person is the spouse of another notable person does not make that person notable" is grammatically awkward? At the least, the sentence should be made more readable.  LK (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading correctly. You suggested "spouse or child", did you not? Please ask yourself - why has nobody else suggested these changes before? Is it because the wording is fine as it is? GiantSnowman 17:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one not addressing the correct issue. Throw in spouse or child or blood relationship or whatever, that's totally fine with me. My issue is that the current phrasing implies an complete listing. My suggested phrasing, using "for example" or "e.g.", implies that there are other situations as well. And you still have not addressed the issue that the original sentence is ungrammatical. LK (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to Proposal A. Can we agree that a sentence stated in the positive is clearer than a sentence stated in the negative? Also, do we have consensus about the current bolded and italicized formatting of the current sentence. Or do people feel that this doubled emphasis is unnecessary for a relatively straightforward issue. LK (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support both. The excessive emphasis is not helpful, it is generally better to use a positive construction, and "which means the fact that a person is" is just poor writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the bolding etc. is fine, but the wording should remain as it is. GiantSnowman 07:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found answer in the Manual of Style, but in first reference to a married person (e.g., female wife of a male) shouldn't we use prior name? e.g., say Mary Jones marries John Smith and thereafter goes by Mary Smith: Shouldn't we write John Smith married Mary Jones in 1988 rather than John Smith married Mary Smith in 1988? Subsequent mentions should use whatever the person is known by publicly, which might be Mary Jones Smith, although professionally she may continue to use a former name.

If they later divorce but she keeps former name, and then remarries, is she now referred to in Wikipedia as Mary Jones Smith Brown (as often seen in newspaper obituary headings)?

Same comment for the spouse's name in the right-sidebar infobox: How should spouse's name be listed? (I realize that the maiden name isn't always known.)

All this might be handled socially &/or legally in other means in various cultures (e.g., hyphenated Latin American surnames). Also, some same-gender couples combine the 2 prior surnames into one hyphenated name used by both partners. Casey (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would use the same logic we apply to transgender names. If the person wasn't notable at all under their pre-married name, and that pre-married name is not something well documented, I simply wouldn't include it. On the other hand, the person may not have been notable under the pre-married name but because of the attention to their career after marriage we know of that name, readily repeated in bios and the like, so we can include it. Obviously if the person was notable under their pre-marriage name as well as after, both should be included. --Masem (t) 15:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the spouse (of any gender) isn't themself notable, the only mention here should be encyclopedic as the spouse of somebody who was notable enough to merit a Wiki page. However, no reason not to give the spouse's prior name (including maiden name) if known. But rather than write John Smith married Mary Smith in 1982 we should say something like John Smith married his wife, Mary, in 1982. Casey (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if John Smith's wife happens to have had maiden name Mary Smith, we should say John Smith married his wife, the former Mary Smith, in 1982.--Casey (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, better is John Smith married his wife, Mary (née Smith), in 1982. "The former Mary Smith" suggests she is no longer in existence as a separate person! It's a very odd form of words and should be discouraged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it suggests that at all, and that it's commonly understood and used to mean that that was a person's former name can be seen by searching for "the former hillary rodham" or "the former jacqueline bouvier" or "the former margaret roberts" (the last of these yielding results for Thatcher as well as for others). However "former Margaret Smith" implies that she used to be Margaret Smith and no longer is. So, if her name is still Smith (either because she kept her birth name or because her husband is also Smith), it's erroneous. The situation is unusual enough that I'd be inclined to write "John Smith married Mary, also Smith, in 1982." ("John Smith married his wife, Mary Thomas, ..." is redundant. "John Smith married Mary Thomas ..." suffices.) Largoplazo (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this may well be an ENGVAR issue. It's almost never seen in the UK and I think most here would see it as a very odd form of words. What's wrong with "née" though? That's the standard word in all forms of English and on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably is an ENGVAR issue, as "the former" is absolutely normal American usage and "née" is often seen as pointlessly pretentious and may not be understood.--Khajidha (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use "John Smith married his wife, Mary (née Jones), in 1982." Well-written articles (on Wikipedia and more broadly) already do this. When we write "John Smith married his wife, Mary Smith" we are strongly implying that both of them were surnamed Smith before marriage (and that happens often enough with common surnames; consider for example that about half of the Korean and Korean-diaspora population have family name of Kim, Lee, or Park). If the pre-marriage names really were the same, use "John Smith married his wife, Mary (also née Smith), in 1982." When we write "John Smith married his wife, Mary Jones, in 1982", we are fairly strongly implying both that this was her birth surname and that she still uses it despite the marriage. For subjects who use both names, we can probably do: "John Smith married his wife, Mary Jones-Smith" (or "Mary Smith Jones" or whatever she uses), without much confusion potential, but if you wanted to be really really clear about it: "John Smith married his wife, Mary (née Smith, now Jones-Smith), in 1982."

I cannot agree with Masem to "use the same logic we apply to transgender names". MOS:DEADNAME is a special exception we are making (largely because the real world is increasingly making it, after considerable research into things like mental health repercussions of deadnaming of TG/NB people, which do not apply to things like cis-gendered people's birthnames). Another way of putting this: MOS:DEADNAME is an application of the "do no harm" material in WP:BLP policy to a narrow style question, and that policy does not tell us, or even faintly hint, that we should suppress all pre-notability information about all biographical subjects or about non-notable persons mentioned. In essence, this is not a style question but a policy one. This is an "exception chain": BLP policy is making narrow exceptions to WP:V and WP:EDITING policies, and imposing a narrow matching exception on MoS. MoS, a guideline, cannot on its own carve out new exceptions to the policies. PS: In a case where the marriage situation actually overlaps with the TG/NB one, so that DEADNAMES applies (i.e. Mary is a notable transwoman but was not notable before the marriage, or is a transwoman and is simply not notable), use "John Smith married his wife, Mary, in 1982", same as we would do with a spouse whose birth surname is unknown.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be: 1) When a not-notable spouse's former name is known use "John Smith married his wife, Mary (née Jones), in 1982." 2) For a notable spouse, just spell out the name, of course Wikilinking it if possible, with no née. 3) If former name isn't known, say "John Smith married his wife Mary in 1982." (Commas optional?). 4) Whenever the spouse keeps former name, say "John Smith married Mary Thomas" or "John Smith married Robert Jones". 5) In a same-gender union (or an opposite-gender one) if the surnames are combined after the union and indeed elsewhere in the article, use the former names in the sentence describing the union. Somebody with authority to edit a Manual of Style please incorporate all this (perhaps in the "Changed Name" section). - Casey (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that I think of it, "John Smith married his wife, Mary" is crappy writing. You can't marry your wife. You marry someone who is not your wife, who then becomes you wife upon completion of the marriage. It might make more sense as "John Smith married Mary (original surname unknown) in 1832" or whatever. Maybe I'm nit-picking too much, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder?
While framed in terms of article title policy, this is also a MOS:BIO and MOS:WTW matter, since the article text will have to agree with the title.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS says not to capitalize job titles except in three cases, one of which is "a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier ...".

So, "As Archbishop of Canterbury, he is the primate of all England ...", but "... by Justin Welby, the current archbishop of Canterbury", where it is preceded by the modifier "current", if I am reading the MoS right. Also by the book, but perhaps a step further, is "the official London residence of the archbishop of Canterbury", because "the" is considered a modifier by the MoS. I'm good with what the MoS says, but a couple of editors are not, saying that "Archbishop of Canterbury" must always, always, always be capitalized. Do we need to improve the MoS, its examples, or some of its editors? Chris the speller ^yack 18:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the existing MoS language, which explicitly calls out situations where "archbishop" isn't capitalized in "archbishop of Canterbury", leaves some people still thinking that the "a" must "always, always, always" be capitalized in "archbishop of Canterbury", then it isn't because the language isn't already clear, and no amount of editing will change their minds. Either your statement of their position on the matter isn't spot on, or else they're failing to accept or failing to understand that the MoS is the prevailing style guide that, for Wikipedia articles, supersedes whatever they were taught elsewhere or have inferred from their own reading.

For our context, where are these discussions taking place? Largoplazo (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions have been on my talk page and that of Koavf so far. Thanks for your post, which really reinforces what I thought and clarifies what should be done with such cases. I will return to those discussions now that I am certain that this is the right treatment. Chris the speller ^yack 19:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's down to just my talk page. Chris the speller ^yack 20:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just drafting a post on the same question, but with the opposite preference.

It's always been my understanding that specific, unique titles of individuals get capitalised - "an archbishop" but "the Archbishop of Canterbury"; and that's what the Overview at Biography#Titles of people seems to me say: Titles should be capitalized ... where the position/office is a globally unique title that is the subject itself, and the term is the actual title or conventional translation thereof (not a description or rewording)

But this text in the overview does currently seem to be contradicted by the bullet points and examples at MOS:JOBTITLES.

I'm really unconvinced by the argument that, while if I say "Justin Welby is Archbishop of Canterbury" I'm using his title, if I say "Justin Welby is the Archbishop of Canterbury" or "Prince Charles is the Prince of Wales" I'm using a description that just happens to have the same words.

As far as I'm aware, when I say either, I am using their title - I'd certainly never substitute "Justin Welby is Canterbury's archbishop" or "Justin Welby is the archbishop of the Diocese of Canterbury"; or "Prince Charles is the Welsh prince". Is this a WP:ENGVAR thing? (Perhaps worth noting that "Welby is the Archbishop of Canterbury" gets 10 times as many Google hits as "Welby is Archbishop of Canterbury", suggesting the latter is a niche usage.)

The lede of Archbishop of Canterbury has, as far as I can see, been stable for almost 20 years as "The Archbishop of Canterbury is..." before being changed two days ago to "The archbishop of Canterbury is...."; every other Church of England bishop article I've checked is the same. I really think this change is counter to established Wikipedia practice, and if MOS currently requires it MOS should probably be changed.

I'd suggest the far simpler rule implied by the overview: actual titles of individuals are capitalised, with or without the definite article. TSP (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking on this a bit further, "Prince of Wales" is a good illustration of why the proposed approach must be wrong.

According to that reading of the MOS, you could say Charles is Prince of Wales; but would have to say Charles is the current prince of Wales.

But that's wrong: Charles isn't the prince of Wales - the last Welsh prince died in 1282, Charles has almost nothing to do with Wales. He is the Prince of Wales, that is simply a dynastic title he holds. It can't be decapitalized and turned into a description, it is only a title.

So the argument that adding 'the' or 'the current' changes a title into a description, which therefore should not be capitalized, cannot be right; because 'prince of Wales' as a description does not apply to Charles; only 'Prince of Wales' as a title. I'd suggest the argument makes little more sense applied to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and would be best removed from the MOS. TSP (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a specious argument, equating "[p|P]rince of Wales" with "prince from Wales" or "Welsh prince", a very false equivalence. (That's super-duper-extra-especially so in this case, if you know the legendary history of that dynastic title as a "gotcha!" wordplay in the first place! It has literally never means "Welsh prince".)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not specious. "Prince of Wales", with prince capitalized, is a title of royalty currently held by Charles. But "prince of Wales" with a lower case prince is something closer to a job title, a description of someone who reigns as prince over Wales. Charles does not reign over Wales, so the lower case prince is incorrect for him. He is a prince, and he is Prince of Wales, but he is not one of the (reigning) princes of Wales (or of Powys, or whatever distinction you think you're making when you say that Prince of Wales has never meant Welsh prince). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no job/role title of "someone who reigns as prince over Wales" (except deep in history, when "Wales" had a different definition, and the title is usually translated as prince of the Welsh). And English capitalization was not standardized during most of the period during which that title has even existed (to the extent that it even is today). You're basically manufacturing anachronistic arguments to push for an exception that suits your personal preferences. From another angle: If there were actually a role or set of roles that consisted of princes from and ruling over Wales, and it were customary in English to refer to such a person with the exact phrase "a prince of Wales", then there would be a case to disambiguate from the dynastic (and non-automatic) title presently held by Charles. Even in that case, however, there is no particular reason that a single-letter capitalization change would actually serve to disambiguate properly; we know from long experience that the average reader's (and average editor's) use and understanding of capitalization is hazy at best and conflicting from person to person, and thus that attempts to distinguish topics on the basis of nothing but a capital letter tend to fail. Various RfCs and other referenda about WP:SMALLDETAILS have seen its wording change significantly, due to community realization that just a capital letter is often insufficient. But we need not even go there, because none of the "setup" conditions, to need to disambiguate in the first place, even exist.

There is no effective difference, style-wise, between [p|P]rince of Wales and [e|E]arl of Cromartie, for the same reason: There is no general class of "earls from/born in Cromartie" who in English are each referred to as "an earl of Cromartie" in distinction from persons bearing the exact title the earl of Cromartie; all "earls of Cromartie", in any sensible usage of English, are persons bearing that title, just as "a prince of Wales" is not used in English to refer to anyone other than a bearer of the title the prince of Wales. If you needed to refer to earls who happened to have been native to Cromartie but who were never the earl of Cromartie, you would write something like "several British earls who were born in Cromartie", just as you would write something like "Welsh princes" or "princes in Wales" in reference to pre-1301 principes in Wales. Even that would be poor writing, as it conflates unlike categories, all during different periods and with differing levels of autonomy and regional authority: princes of the Welsh, princes of various Welsh realms (princes of South Wales, princes of North Wales, princes of Aberffraw, princes of Powys, princes of Deheubarth, etc.), kings of the Britons, and rulers of various individual kingdoms and other realms in what was later Wales).

A third way of approaching this: There is no effective difference, style-wise, between [p|P]rince of Wales and [k|K]ing/[q|Q]ueen of England; we write "successive reigns of three kings of England", and "when John became the king of England", without a capital k. It simply doesn't matter that that what is now England was once multiple co-existing kingdoms with multiple kings; we just write more clearly: "kings of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms", or whatever. Likewise, we would never use "a prince of Wales" or "princes of Wales" to refer to rulers in/of Wales who were not the prince of Wales in the sense of that dynastic title, nor do we have any reason to capitalize the p in "when Charles became the prince of Wales" or "Charles has approached his role as the prince of Wales very differently than did Edward VIII, the last holder of the title." There's nothing unusually special about this title.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the argument that MOS currently makes, isn't it? That it's only if I say (lowercasing everything here to avoid the issue) charles is prince of wales that I am using his title, so should uppercase prince; whereas if I say charles is the current prince of wales, it asserts that I am actually using a generic position description, not a title, so should lowercase prince? But, as you correctly say, "prince of wales" does not exist as a description, only as a title; so I don't see why we would ever lowercase 'prince of Wales'.

Currently, and as far as I can see forever, Wikipedia has used the capitalisation "Prince of Wales" consistently, including in the sentence The current and longest-serving Prince of Wales is Prince Charles.

MOS, as far as I can see, decided in 2017 that this was wrong: that we should change that to The current and longest-serving prince of Wales is Prince Charles.

I don't think that is a usage you will find anywhere outside Wikipedia. I realise that Wikipedia style tends to be sparing with capitals - and I usually agree, for example in he is the president not he is the President - but I think inventing a usage which is found nowhere else is going too far; and as far as I can see has been rightly ignored by the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia since it was introduced.

Personally, I'm not pushing for an exception for 'Prince of Wales': I'm using it as an example for why I think the whole current approach is wrong.

I think the approach given in the overview is correct (my emphasis): Titles should be capitalized when attached to an individual's name, or where the position/office is a globally unique title that is the subject itself, and the term is the actual title or conventional translation thereof (not a description or rewording). Titles should not be capitalized when being used generically. And that approach leads me to the current Prince of Wales - that is the actual, globally-unique title.

I think the "only in the following cases" approach which gives the current prince of Wales is wrong, at odds with all forms of normal English and also with the approach actually currently used on the vast majority of Wikipedia, and should be changed. TSP (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with TSP. Won't relitigate lost battles but when gnomes have to change thousands of pages to suit a style guide, one should wonder how much sense the style guide makes. MOS is a niche realm of wikipedia dominated by over enthusiastic editors that are at odds with how everyday wikipedians write articles.

For example, 20 days ago List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom got re-titled List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom solely based on the MOS without even making the same correction to the first line of the page, which shows even the gnomes aren't consistent in application and that no one cared for 15 years about the capitilization. Slywriter (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. I do appreciate the MOS editors, and largely appreciate what they do (and have been one myself in the past). But in this case, a decision got made by a handful of editors on an obscure MOS sub-page in 2017. I - even as an active editor who has actually edited the relevant section of the MOS before - had no way of knowing the debate was even happening (because the section had been spun out to a sub-page not on my watchlist). Once it was done, I was completely unaware of it for three years, as an active Wikipedia editor with 2000 pages on my watchlist, which all remained in line with the previous consensus.

Now my alerts seem to be full of editors changing "the Archbishop of Canterbury" to "the archbishop of Canterbury" - a usage that I suspect could be found almost nowhere on Wikipedia, or in the real world, until this change - on pages that have been stable for years, and telling longstanding article editors who object that they are wrong based on this MOS change.

Wikipedia is almost 20 years old and has thousands of articles written, according to the MOS guidance of the time. Please can we have consideration from MOS editors, to at least attempt to make advice in line with actual Wikipedia practice, and with normal real-world English?

I think after 20 years, MOS editing should be considered largely a maintenance task, clarifying inclarities and dealing with unanticipated situations; not trying to mandate huge usage changes across the whole of Wikipedia based on the decision of a few editors. TSP (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As those watching this page know, it was recently full-protected due to edit warring over MOS:CHANGEDNAME. Before that, I had gone to an admin about getting it full-protected, but eventually felt that it was no longer needed.

The full protection that a different admin implemented is about to wear off. Let's not edit war as soon as that protection wears off. The long-standing version that has had consensus for years should remain unless a new consensus is formed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it still contains the text "If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article" from the recent RfC, so there is no need to change it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So wait, now we're going to ignore the results of the deadname RFC, and leave it as 'lead' instead of 'article'? This whole kerfuffle has been an absolute shambles of attempts to nullify the consensus of that discussion. Revert all of the bizarre "clarifications" that came after the RFC edit, and start one of your own if you want to try and muddy the waters more, this is ridiculous. Parabolist (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous, which is why I asked RFPP to protect the page pending further work toward another RfC to settle this/these dispute[s]. Before that, I restored what I believed was an accurate description of the status quo ante the current kerfuffle, and when that resulted in counter-reverting, I went further back and restored the long-stable version (i.e., I'm invoking BRD, just on a longer scale than average). It has become clear that one or more camps of editors are unwilling to accept or even agree on an interpretation of the results of intervening discussions between that old wording and present re-drafting attempts. This is why I laid out (in almost tedious detail) every every question that seems to be floating around about this, in a numbered series of points that can be used to draft a broader RfC, which should probably be "advertised" at VPPOL and elsewhere for maximal community input when it's ready.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this archive for a recent past discussion about this and WP:UKNATIONALS for a 2007 essay about this.

Currently MOS:ETHNICITY states

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident ... Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

Without context and for those who are not perfectly acquainted (such as myself), this seems to imply that articles should simply say "British," but there is in fact no consensus and the currently policy is to preserve the WP:STATUSQUO. As ProcrastinatingReader stated in the 2020 discussion linked above, and suggested as an addition to MOS:ETHNICITY, There is no preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh. Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus. The label must not be changed arbitrarily. To come to a consensus, editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject, particularly UK reliable sources, and consider whether the subject has a preference on which nationality they identify by.

As I've discovered myself over the last few hours, it's difficult to discover this existing preference. Since it is only in an essay and not in any guidelines, a well-meaning editor might come along and see what appear to be numerous violations of the MOS. I propose that we add the text above to MOS:ETHNICITY in a footnote since it is explanatory for both the history of the issue and for what editors should do on current pages (namely, maintain the STATUSQUO without first reaching talk page consensus).

Gbear605 (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If an article describes someone in the lead as Scottish, Welsh, English, etc., it should only do so as a nationality. As far as I can tell, a significant fraction of the people who insist both on using English as an ethnicity rather than as a nationality for people of modern times, and on using English instead of British, are doing so out of racist impulses, as a way of not counting all those other people in England as being properly English. That's not an attitude we should provide any leeway for. I think the current text is ok in this regard, without needing clarifications for the fact that some nationalities are subsets of other nationalities (English ⊂ British). But I think that if we are to add a footnote about this special case, your proposed footnote is too vague about the distinction between ethnicity and nationality. If it's in MOS:ETHNICITY, and editors see text saying that it's ok to call some British people English, they could easily skip past that word "nationality" much later in the footnote and think (incorrectly) that this is an exceptional case where ethnicity is allowed. I'd prefer wording like "There is no preference between describing a person's nationality as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh", making clear much earlier on that we're only talking about nationality here, not ethnicity. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, a significant fraction of the people who insist both on using English as an ethnicity rather than as a nationality for people of modern times, and on using English instead of British, are doing so out of racist impulses, as a way of not counting all those other people in England as being properly English. As long as Scottish and Welsh editors insist on classifying anyone who was born or lives in Scotland or Wales as Scottish or Welsh then I don't think it's fair to suggest that English editors are classifying people as English for racist reasons. In fact, that's tantamount to a racist suggestion in itself, as it implies that calling someone Scottish or Welsh is fine but calling them English is not. Personally, as an Englishman who is happy to describe himself as both British and English (and who considers anyone who was born or grew up in England to be English, no matter what their ethnicity, and has so categorised people on Wikipedia many times), I'd be fine with using British for everyone from the UK unless there are good reasons not to, but sadly not everyone concurs. And unless and until they do, there's absolutely no problem with describing someone as English. Of course, our passports all say "British", so in fact that is legally our only nationality (unless we happen to have dual nationality with another sovereign state). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading my comment again. Particularly the part where I wrote "insist ... on using English as an ethnicity rather than as a nationality". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You actually said ...a significant fraction of the people who insist both on using English as an ethnicity rather than as a nationality for people of modern times, and on using English instead of British, are doing so out of racist impulses... Which implied you disliked the usage of English instead of British as a general rule, not just as an ethnicity. I would also point out that if Scottish, Welsh or Irish (or French, German, Italian, etc) are ethnicities, as they are generally regarded as being, then so is English. Terms are very often used both for nationality and ethnicity. Nothing racist about that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are still responding to an imaginary comment that is different from what I actually wrote. I am fine with people using English as a nationality, as in the example of Paul McCartney mentioned below. It's the people who insist on calling ethnically-English people English and on calling other-British-people-in-England British that I want to head off. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS says that exceptions might apply and people should use common sense. Generally we should use the description most commonly used in reliable sources. So the Beatles were an "English rock band," while Boris Johnson is a "British politician." But McCartney is not ethnically English. TFD (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the MOS states that exceptions apply, but I think it’s worth calling out this specific exception because it’s a frequent edit change, especially by IPs and new editors, it’s an example where there are strong feelings on both sides with decent arguments behind both sides, and it’s an example that applies to thousands of articles (just do a search for “is an English”). Otherwise it’s simply too easy for a naive editor (such as myself) to come in and think that they see a big problem when there is not one. Gbear605 (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key point here is that people (and editors) are situated differently in relation to the concept of 'UK nationality' vs. especially the Scottish, Welsh and now English 'nations' (Ireland was always its own set of issues). To me, the current pandemic has done more than any single event in the last 200 years - even Brexit - to bring on the realisation that England has its own 'national' policy issues apart from those of the devolved governments. And so English 'nationhood' - quite part from English ethnicity - becomes a meaningful issue. But as I say, people are situated differently in relation to this development. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever reason for reliable sources to determine how someone should be described, our determination should be based on common usage in reliable sources. Also, the issue affects other countries as well, especially historically when residents of the British dominions and colonies all had British nationality. So while the article refers to Gandhi as "Indian lawyer," etc., there was no Indian citizenship and he was a British subject. TFD (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, that an editor that works mostly in the countries of the former Yugoslavia, the current ethnicity guidance is a square peg trying to fit a round hole. In order to understand how a person fits into one of the Yugoslavia's, you almost always need to know their ethnicity up front. Many of my FAs have "Yugoslav and Bosnian Serb/Croat" etc in the first sentence, and for good reason, it is central to their biography. In the British case, if the ethnicity, Scottish, Irish etc is relevant to why the person is notable (ie a member of the Scottish parliament, an MP for a Scottish constituency, a Scottish rugby player etc), it should be in the first sentence along with British (which is their nationality). I fail to see how this would be in any way controversial or unencyclopaedic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how Scottish ethnicity is central enough to be lead-worthy for most Scottish MPs, any more than Irish ethnicity is central enough to be lead-worthy in comparison to Paul McCartney's Liverpudlian identity. And the Balkan ethnicity/nationality edit-wars, most of which are based on zero reliable sources, are not exactly a model for best practices here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion illustrates nicely the difficulty English-speakers currently have with the concepts of "nationality" or "nation". MOS:ETHNICITY skirts around this, but it is clear that one widely held POV is that "nationality" should in all cases mean "legal citizenship at the time a person became Notable". However, contemporary usage in the UK is rapidly evolving away from this, so that the Scottish and Welsh "nations" are increasingly recognized as the relevant "national" units in spite of their common citizenship with England, which means "English" becomes the "nationality" of people who live in the territory of Great Britain without devolved government. This usage has nothing to so with English or Welsh or Scottish ethnicity, so there is no doubt that Paul McCartney for example is "English" in that sense. Newimpartial (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2020(UTC)

It's standard in the UK to think of oneself as Scottish, English, Welsh or Irish. If someone is a poet from Scotland, she's a Scottish poet, not a British one. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe a makar, in that case. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, good word. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SIR says "The infobox heading includes pre-nominals, name and post-nominals as separate elements." However, in practice, it is well known that this is not observed in articles about political persons: Talk:Winston Churchill/Archive 15#Positioning of honorific 'Sir' in infobox (see, e.g., Winston Churchill or John Major). I was even reverted when I tried to apply the MOS here. Why is not there a global consensus on this? --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnipaedista: Because some editors don't read guidelines, are stubborn, and exhibit issues suggestive of WP:OWN / WP:VESTED, generally. This is more often the case at WP:FAs or FA candidates, especially when one or two editors have worked a whole lot on it, and think (incorrectly) that this gives them more authority over future development of the page. I would try asking them to attempt to justify why they are not following the guidelines and the template instructions. If you get indefinite stonewalling, an RfC at the talk page on whether there is some compelling WP:IAR reasons do misuse the template parameters, or whether instead the article should follow the guidelines and instructions should work, though as a last resort (since settling lame style silliness that already has a clear answer isn't a good use of other editors' time).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful. Thank you very much! --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Over at MOS:MUSIC, we have the following:

Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names).

This is obviously meant to apply to performers and other notables more generally. The "giant test case of doom" for this was [t|T]he Beatles, which was flamewarred about for years, and the RfC that settled that (in favor of the Beatles) is why the line quoted above was added to (but only to) MOS:MUSIC.

We have frequent flare-ups about whether it applies to wrestlers, actors, sports and gaming teams, comedians, dance troupes, yadda yadda yadda. People are wikilawyering that it doesn't apply to their pet case because it's not a musician, not a trademark, or whatever, ignoring the community intent of adding that to the guideline.
I propose that this be integrated into MOS:BIO directly, as something like:

Standard English-language text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of individuals and groups, such as bands, troupes, teams/squads, and families. (See also: WP:Manual of Style/Trademarks; WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Institutions; WP:Manual of Style/Proper names).

We can add a footnote about cases when reliable sources near-unanimously agree in favor of an exception, e.g. k.d. lang, CCH Pounder (without dots). The cross-reference to WP:Manual of Style/Proper names would eventually go away, as that page has been slated for merger of its advice into relevant other MoS pages. MOS:BIO#Families should get a cross-reference to this new item, as it does not address things like "[t|T]he". If we need to inject examples, that will be easy enough, even for things like teams; e.g., our article is Miami Heat, and they are the Miami Heat, in short form the Heat, not "The Miami Heat" or "The Heat".

Doing this would forestall a never-ending stream of perennial (and often excessively heated, WP:SSF- or WP:CSF-driven) arguments. Given that MoS's secondary purpose (after providing consistent, encyclopedic writing for the reader) is prevention and resolution of time- and goodwill-wasting editorial disputation over style trivia, we generally should not skip opportunities to do so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: A series of merge proposals from 2016–2018 to consolidate biographical advice into MOS:BIO all concluded in favor, and I merged in material from MOS:LEAD, MOS:ABBREV, MOS:CAPS, etc. in a long series of back-to-back edits [9], resulting in today's MOS:BIO. This particular nit-pick is just one that was lost in the shuffle, and should have been done years ago. In essence, I'm just checking consensus to finish the job properly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lately I've spent about 99% of my time on Wikipedia arguing about this, so I support the change. It's not just a rule for musicians. Popcornfud (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Sensible and overdue measure. Tony (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this would be helpful because I have looked for this information in the past and it was difficult to find. As this now seems to be fairly standard practice, I think it would be helpful to have it clearly stated in the MOS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds like a good idea in terms of presenting things clearly in an easy-to-find place. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but it doesn't go far enough. It would be useful also to clarify that we don't say things like "a The Beatles song" or "a the Beatles song", not do we use disambiguators "(The Beatles song)" nor "(the Beatles song)". Sadly, for most of the "The" bands other than the Beatles, we still do those odd things. Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not directly about biography articles, but is related to MOS:ETHNICITY. See Talk:Tel Aviv University#Adding and linking nationalities/citizenship in list entries: shouldn't list entries of notable alumni/faculty/etc. avoid mentioning ethnicity/nationality/citizenship/past nationality/etc. unless it is directly related to their notability?

My understanding is that this is the case as it's even less significant for lists than for leads of the main articles and that this is the existing consensus for such articles (e.g. List of Harvard University people, List of Princeton University people, List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty, List of Stanford University people, List of University of Cambridge people, List of École normale supérieure people). — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Society, sports, and culture Biographies History and geography Language and linguistics Wikipedia style and naming Wikipedia policies and guidelines Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should MOS:DEADNAME be updated to address dead-naming of transgender or non-binary individuals in articles about their previous works before their transition was made public, including in the infobox, lead, and credit sections?

• Option A: Previously published works should refer to individual using their preferred name after their transition (with a footnote explaining the name change).
• Option B: Previously published works should refer to individual using their preferred name after their transition (without a footnote explaining the name change).
• Option C: Previously published works should refer to individual using their name as credited in the work (with a footnote explaining the name change).
• Option D: Previously published works should refer to individual using their name as credited in the work (without a footnote explaining the name change).
• Option E: Previously published works should refer to individual using their preferred name after their transition first followed by a parenthetical containing the name as credited in the work.
• Option F: Previously published works should refer to individual using their name as credited in the work first followed by a parenthetical containing their preferred name after their transition.

While we ordinarily keep a person's name the same as the credit in the previous work such as a film when they have subsequently changed their name from something like marriage, there appear to be many considerations that are different for a transgender or non-binary person who has decided to use a different name. A discussion about how to handle Elliot Page's previous works is taking place on his talk page, and there was an RfC last year regarding The Wachowskis, which resulted in replacing references to "the Wachowski brothers" from prior works with "the Wachowskis" and including the previously credited name in a note. There were also discussions about Caitlyn Jenner and how to handle her previous athletic records several years ago when the dead-naming policy was being developed, and her record pages for her previous events still generally list her name as "Bruce Jenner".

• I am not sure what is the best approach, but I thought it may be useful to try to determine a consensus on the issue before working out specific language. Please feel free to remove/reword this RfC if it could done better or more specifically. Please also feel free to edit or correct any of my information above regarding previous discussions on this topic. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • EDIT: I apologize for not including parentheticals as an option (such as "Elliot Page (credited as Ellen Page)" or "Ellen Page (now Elliot Page)" or some similar formulation), and I have added those options based Onetwothreeip's request. It may be helpful to the closing admin if those who have already voted would explain if including the information in a parenthetical (or some other type of note) rather than a footnote would affect their view in the RfC. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's entirely situational and we should simply rely on how reliable sources refer to these people, whether they are transgender or not. There are no particular reasons to treat transgender people any differently here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. The "Main biographical article" section at MOS:GENDERID should be changed to apply to all other articles too: "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources". Referring to an individual's deadname is harmful, and appreciating their request to use their preferred name is both simple and accurate. I'm not totally opposed to Option A if it's deemed necessary—specifically in cast lists, or for clarification if used in direct quotes (i.e. Juno (film) § Music)—though I personally believe readers can just click through to the individual's article if they're confused. – Rhain ☔ 00:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Referring to an individual's deadname is harmful" - that is quite a claim, and even if true, should not override the need for an encyclopedia to describe subjects of articles as they are documented, not as they might wish they were documented. There is an important principle at stake here: articles of any kind are written in the interests of the furthering the reader's understanding, not to accommodate the subject's personal feelings on how reliable sources have or have not documented them, however valid those feelings may be and however sympathetic we may be to them! Beorhtwulf (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my view, the related RfC that was closed here with the immortal words, don't be a dick, offers us more helpful and policy-compliant guidance than the observation that even if deadnaming is harmful, that fact should not override the need for an encyclopedia to describe subjects of articles as they are documented. We often go out of our way to avoid using the bigoted or dated labels applied in sources from a previous time, anyway, so I don't know why editors insist on hiding behind this particular fig leaf when confronted with an inconvenient identity. Newimpartial (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't call it too extreme a claim; it's in the lead at Deadnaming, for starters. As for "articles of any kind are written in the interests of the furthering the reader's understanding": wouldn't updating articles to use the correct self-identification be the best way to further the reader's understanding of the topic? – Rhain ☔ 01:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, we should look to IMDB on this as they have done it quite well. Former name not mentioned until/unless it's relevant (in the most recent situation, addressing the incongruity in acting credits). There is absolutely no reason for the deadname to be front and center as the first line of the article other than "well policy says...." We are not paper, we can be edited, even our policies. Insisting on forcing deadnames to the forefront is disrespectful at best, and extremely harmful at worst. Any time a trans person is outed as transgender, it is an opportunity for that individual to come to harm. We clearly can't ignore the deadname altogether due to the encyclopedic nature of what we are, but we can at least avoid triggering every transphobe who even casually glances at the article for half a second. 50.84.54.202 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A as first choice, or Option B as second choice. Rhain suggests that readers who are confused can click through, but I think that articles should always make sense when read standalone (good for people with bad internet, reading on mirrors or printouts etc.) and I believe policy mostly supports this too. We shouldn't refer in Wikipedia's voice to a person by a name that they do not use—that is a BLP violation. But if a person was credited as something then it's important to record that information. ("The Wachowskis" is an edge case because it's not like they wouldn't be called that before their transitions.) The change in consensus from the Caitlyn Jenner case to the Wachowski case reflects, in part, the change in style guides in use by the Associated Press, newspapers, encyclopediae etc. which Wikipedia generally bases its style on. We should never be referring to Jenner as a man when she is not. This will cause understandable confusion when talking about male categories for sporting events, or when someone is familiar with only the deadname, so footnotes or text should be used to clarify. — Bilorv (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with you at all regarding "articles should always make sense when read standalone", it's just a personal preference that deadnames should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. I'm still in full support of Option A if consensus heads that way. – Rhain ☔ 01:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Option D. Refer to as credited and sourced at the time for that particular topic. This conforms to WP:TVCAST and WP:FILMCAST. The names are linked, redirects work, and further expansion about a basic name change in some other article is giving undue weight to something that really has nothing to do with that article. This has the added benefit that we don't have to go over every single mention in every other article and change anything. As to purported harm that the person is already notable and well-known under the old name so no harm can be done by Wikipedia mentioning an old name. This may not the be the case for non-notable people which is why they get extra consideration. Another issue for some films is if the person is in the starring cast, their name as credited will remain in the poster art in the infobox and that cannot be changed anyway. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geraldo Perez, while it's understandable that matching up with the work's given cast list is important, I think it makes more sense to only note the discrepancy as an aside. As stated below, wording like "John Doe (casted as Jane Doe)" makes the distinction on actual name vs. listed name quite well. Perryprog (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A or B unless the person has publicly, in a verifiable, reliable source stated that they have a specific preference. This is something that will likely evolve over time, as different members of the trans/non-binary community individually decide how they want to be credited, so the policy should be flexible to accomodate this. In either case, I think the default should be to use their preferred name, with a footnote explaining the name change where it makes sense to do so (for people with a long history under a particular name -- Elliot Page was the impetus for this RfC and this is a good example). MrAureliusR_Talk! 00:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C else Option A, I think for articles/templates that are specifically citing sources & awarding for their pre-transition gender (Best female lead actor etc), it makes sense to name as cited. While avoiding sensitivities around dead-naming is an important step, I feel making articles less confusing to the uninitiated reader does take precedence in certain situations. As such, that footnotes are to be included when it's specifically an award category in the subjects former gender. — IVORK _Talk 00:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option D, though open to sparing use of footnotes if there is a need to mitigate risk of astonishment. The term "deadnaming" is emotive and POV here. It brings to mind some kind of bullying situation in which a trans person is deliberately taunted with the use of their former name, when all we are actually doing is describing the world as it is documented by reliable sources. It is an inevitability when dealing with biographical articles that not all reliable sources will describe people as they wish to be described. It is one thing to use a trans person's newly announced name and pronouns from the point of their announcement onward, but to go back and use them retrospectively to describe times when no one was using them will create preposterous situations, like Wikipedia denying that the film Juno was starred in by a clearly female lead known to everyone in the world as Ellen Page, and documented as such in all contemporary reliable sources, playing a clearly female character in a story about pregnancy. While no one should go out of their way to offend or belittle, our priority should always be to maintain credible and authoritative encyclopedic coverage of the topics we discuss, not to rewrite our articles to accommodate the feelings and preferences of their subjects. Beorhtwulf (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One would think that we had not had large, highly engaged RfCs in which the community expressed its consensus that DEADNAMING is a real concern for the WP editorial community and that some sort of balance of considerations, harm-minimization principle must apply. We have already agreed in MOS:GENDERID and MOS:DEADNAME to use present pronouns (universally) and present names (generally) in retrospective discussions, and your personal priorities simply will never override clearly-expressed community consensus. You should take solace, Beorhtwulf, in the fact that Elliot page also uses they/their pronouns as well as he/his, which can be used to minimize the risk of ASTONISHMENT in related articles. Newimpartial (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead-naming is an emotive act, which is why we have guidelines and policies around it. There are many other policies that take into consideration the emotional impact of what is included in Wikipedia, especially for living people, and I think it's important that we do consider the real world impacts of our work here. I also think it's important to remember that not everyone may share the same views about what is "preposterous" or "clear". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B, followed by Option A. One suggestion for the footnote, by Jiiimbooh, is worth mentioning: On the articles for older work, why not write "Elliot Page (credited as Ellen)" at the first mention and in the cast list, and otherwise just "Elliot Page" (from this talk page discussion). This has the advantage of being more clear than phraseology like "formally known as", and correctly distinguishes the time frame of when an actor participated in a movie. It's also currently what's used in The Matrix's infobox for the directors. This seems to be the smallest adjustment from what's currently in the MOS, which only covers references within the person's own article—Options A and B would simply extend the current policy to include articles that reference the person as well. Perryprog (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The parentheticals seem to be used commonly in prose and that may also be easier than using a footnote in places like the credits. For something like the infobox, I think a footnote would be the only option, although it could always have no note at all there and just include the name change in the credits or in the prose. I definitely think that there will still need to be discussions and local consensus after this RfC to determine some of these particulars. "Credited as" seems to make a lot more sense for transgender or non-binary people than "formally known as". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not Elliot Page (then Ellen Page)? We can do this for anybody who has since changed their name, regardless of the reason. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why: "When a subject changes names as part of coming out as transgender, it is often impossible to continue to use that person's former name without misgendering them and thus causing harm". Changing names as part of coming out is different than, say, as part of marriage or divorce, and thus requires a different approach. – Rhain ☔ 01:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rhain: It does not harm anybody to state either that "Ellen Page (now Elliot Page)" or "Elliot Page (then Ellen Page)" was an actor in a certain pre-2020 film. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onetwothreeip, I don't think that would work for infoboxes but I really should have phrased the RfC as with or without a "note" rather than a "footnote" as that would also encompass parentheticals. I think that could be addressed in the wording for MOS:DEADNAME if the policy is changed. Would you agree with Option A if it included parentheticals rather than a footnote? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wallyfromdilbert: Unfortunately a footnote means something very specific. I would agree with either "Ellen Page (now Elliot Page)" or "Elliot Page (then Ellen Page)", with my preference being the former. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A mainly, of course not for every occurrence of the name. In the case of actors, we could include the footnote next to the name on the infobox, in the lead section, and in their first mention in the Cast list, then go on without the footnote for following mentions. El Millo (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C followed by option D per Geraldo Perez and comments reiterated at Talk:Elliot Page. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Option C else Option D. As per reasoning of Beorhtwulf and Geraldo Perez, though I see no harm in a footnote. If something here is "harmful", it's accusing people of bigotry for the innocuous act of having a film's cast refer to an actor as they were actually credited on that film. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure where these accusations of bigotry came from. – Rhain ☔ 01:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's been clearly implied. I don't want this conversation to go off tangent, so I can agree to disagree. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the creator of the RfC, it certainly has not been implied there, and I think it is probably best to not make accusations based on perceived implications. If we cannot bring a diff to support a specific accusation, then it is probably best to not make it in the first place. If anything is clear, it is that this is a contentious enough issue already. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) I haven't seen a single person even hint at implying it. I assume that your contributions are in good faith, so why not extend the same attitude to others? Bringing it up in the first place is a detriment to this discussion, and implies that anybody who disagrees with you is accusing you of bigotry. But sure, agree to disagree. – Rhain ☔ 02:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C followed by option A. With "deadnaming", it really depends on the individual. It seems a bit odd to lump up all trans/nonbinary people as being completely against their former name. However, I'm not disagreeing that it can be harmful but I also believe anyone can deem anything harmful so it should be irrelevant in the context of an encyclopaedic wiki. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C. Unless the credited name is changed subsequently, the credited name should be used. Gender expression may be retroactive, but name changes are moving forward from the date the change was announced. Preferred pronouns should obviously be updated, and certainly prose can be rewritten so as to reference the present name... but the credits should be listed in the filmography as they were presented in the work. As with pseudonyms, pen names, etc., it is generally listed as "{Preferred (Actual) Name} (credited as {Name as it appeared in work}). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A (but with parentheses) seems the best way to me. "Chosenname Smith" is how a trans person will be known to readers going forward, and that name refers to that person at any stage of their life. However, "Birthname Smith" is how they were identified in connection with a given past work, and is likely how they would be known to someone who only knows them through that work, so that article should clearly and explicitly make this connection for the reader the first time the person is named. For example, the article about Juno (film) might say that "Elliot Page (credited as Ellen Page) stars as the title character" and then refer to just "Page" or "Elliot Page" as appropriate in context. (Frankly, I'm not overly concerned about how an actor might feel about seeing their former name in a Wikipedia article about one of their old films like that, because I am hopeful they have better things to do with their time, and believe in treating adults like adults.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Wallyfromdilbert: Please add Option E: "Credited Name (now Preferred Name)" and Option F: "Preferred Name (then Credited Name)" to the list of options. I would prefer Option E as standard, particularly for infoboxes and credits, but Option F can otherwise be used interchangeably and is more appropriate in certain instances. Biographical articles should generally use only the preferred name, except when identifying their previous name. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you for the suggestion! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A or Option B, without a particular strong leaning for either. I largely believe that when it is relevant to make the note within prose, using the parenthetical "Name (then DeadName)" or "(credited as XYZ)", then further avoiding the formerly known name afterwards, is clear and concise language, and being as respectful as possible while still acknowledging the need to perhaps clarify a discrepancy between the credits of the film and the lived reality of the actor. Whether a footnote or a parenthetical is more appropriate is really a which specific location is this, prose vs infobox and etc, and what the exact language is, I don't think is the point of this RfC, so I'm not gonna hash that out. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm not opposed to Option E either. It feels no different to me than Option A, personally. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A or Option E (equally good) - past RfCs and Wikipedia editor consensus is clearly against egregious use of deadnames, including when talking in the past tense about people who later came out. We must balance that with not surprising or confusing readers and ideally maintaining full comprehension in a single article. Gbear605 (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Notices: I've notified various talk pages relating to biography in general and published works, as well as Village Pump, and also listed this at WP:CENT. It's proven to be the case that thinly-attended RfCs that have anything to do with MOS:DEADNAME or MOS:GENDERID tend to result in renewed rather than reduced editorial strife.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Objection to prejudicial wording. This RfC is not worded or titled neutrally; "update/updating" implies that the current guideline is obsolete, and this prejudices the question. If the heading is changed (e.g. to "RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to ..."), the original title should be put into an {{Anchor}} so that incoming links to the section do not break.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A, C, E, and F are all acceptable. Which will be preferable in a particular article (or running content within one, e.g. a list of award winner, etc.) will vary by context, and should be left to editorial discretion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B as default with acknowledgment that a given individual may express a different preference about use of their former name (see Talk:Daniel M. Lavery), and then and only then should Wikipedia proceed differently, in accordance with their expressed preference. Avoiding harm to a living individual far outstrips any question of inconvenience of clicking through or printouts, etc. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

For details, please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Finished MOS:DIACRITICS merge.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]