Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 182

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191

Someone created an Arab Wikipedia page for me without my knowledge?

I don't know how to link it here:

مستخدم:IveGoneAway - ويكيبيديا (wikipedia.org)

What should I do beside change my password?

IveGoneAway (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Many Wikipedias automatically create accounts and send welcomes when you first visit that Wikipedia. I imagine that's what's happened here. Don't worry about it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, didn't know that I visited it. IveGoneAway (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
ar:Special:Logs/IveGoneAway shows your account was created a few hours ago, probably because you clicked a link while logged in. The resulting welcome message has confused a lot of users. I suggested at meta:Welcoming policy to disallow it. Special:CentralAuth/IveGoneAway shows all your accounts. Many wikis don't send welcome messages. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
You can learn more about this at WP:Unified login -- RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I've had a few of these messages from different language Wikipedias but it's a few years since I had one, so it seems that most Wikipedias have disabled them. I agree that it can be very confusing to receive a message in a language, and even a script, that you don't understand. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I got a welcome message from the Egyptian Arabic WP this last January. Donald Albury 16:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Why are past XfD discussion pages not granted a full page protection?

Curious, what's the reason behind this? They are not meant to be modified in any way, right? The question also applies to other pages/discussions that are not meant to be modified. Thanks, Merko (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:PREEMPTIVE -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Merko (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, it's inconvenient (not all xfds are closed by administrators), and there's sometimes legitimate reason to modify the page as opposed to the discussion itself (for example, to add a {{delrevxfd}} tag, or to fix markup that used to work but now breaks or soon will). —Cryptic 04:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
it's also a decent honey pot for spotting editing behaviours that shouldn't be, with rather minimal harm (simply revert the vandalism). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Consensus Process for Splitting a Section

This is a question about what consensus process to request as an AFC reviewer. The situation is that there is a long article on a football club, and a draft on the history of the club has been submitted as a draft for review. The page history shows that there has previously been a child article on the history of the club, and that the child article has been previously merged back into the parent article on the club. (Please note that I am using the word 'history' in two ways, both the Wikipedia page history, and the history of the team.) There doesn't seem to have been a consensus process used to determine whether the encyclopedia should have the history in the main article, or a separate child article about the history of the team. As a reviewer, I don't want to use just my judgment as to whether to accept or decline when I know that someone will disagree. Since I know that there is and has been disagreement, I want to use a process to obtain rough consensus. If I accept the draft, someone who thinks that it should stay merged may either start an Articles for Deletion discussion, which is fine, because that is a consensus process, or they may just redirect the history article to the main article, which is not fine, because it is more edit-warring. So: Is RFC the consensus process that I should be using, as a reviewer? Is there a different consensus process concerning splits? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I personally think WP:BOLD is the process you should be using, but WP:SPLIT is what your looking for really. Start the "split" discussion for the history section, as described there, use a pointer to the DRAFT article showing what you want the resulting split-off article to look like and see where it goes. --Jayron32 17:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear as to why I don't think that WP:BOLD is the process that either I or the authors should use. There has been a history of bold changes, in which the history section was split out once, and then merged back in, because there wasn't consensus, but there were conflicting bold actions. As a reviewer, I don't want to take unpopular actions when they aren't necessary, because I don't want editors to try to game the review process by using the review process as a way of getting fait accompli. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Having read splitting one more time, I see that one of its problems is that it tells how to start a split discussion, but there is no specific timeframe, and no specific procedure for closing the split discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
After thinking about it, and seeing that there isn't being any discussion on the parent article talk page, I think that I will take the bold action of accepting the history draft, and recommending that anyone who disagrees should nominate the history child article for deletion via AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
There are no specific timelines for any of this; but 1 month is always a good rule of thumb, per WP:RFCEND. --Jayron32 11:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:MERGE suggests a week, and as it is the opposite of a SPLIT, that seems appropriate to me. However, the real rule in all of these cases is: when people are finished discussing it.
We don't need specific procedures. Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I?, in which the point is to follow all the bureaucratic steps. We have always cared about the end result more than the process (Wikipedia:Product, process, policy). I'd suggest that, unless you can name at least one specific editor who will be upset about the existence of the "child" article, you just accept or reject it on its own merits and not worry about what happens to it afterwards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

History Merge Message

I have a complaint about the message that appears on an article for which a history merge has been requested. The template that is displayed on the article says that a history merge has been requested. It also says that a particular string can be placed on the user talk page of the editor who did the copy-paste. My complaint is that that message is too nice or too wishy-washy. It tells the person who did the copy-paste that in the future they can move rather than copy-paste. It doesn't exactly say that copy-paste is strongly discouraged, because it interferes with attribution. I would prefer to see something like a Level 2 warning, rather than this not-quite-Level 1 notice. Where can I discuss this? I have been complaining off and on about this message for years. It isn't strongly worded enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Are you complaining about the wording in {{History_merge}} itself or the wording in the warning it suggests: {{Uw-c%26pmove}}?
@Robert McClenon:, I'm not sure it needs to be worded much stronger than it is, but you could edit {{Uw-c&pmove}} yourself. – bradv 04:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The warning that it suggests. I will take a detailed look when I am not paying real life bills and will propose a stronger wording. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The only thing that needs strengthening is the word "undesirable" at {{Uw-c&pmove}} - any suggestions of what it should be? Remember that nearly everyone who does this is ignorant of our copyright requirements, so it is usually done in good faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Do we have a lot of people performing copy & paste moves even after being warned? If not then the warning is probably working just fine. – bradv 19:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The real problem is that even editors experienced enough to know better use cut-and-paste rather than page move, possibly because our upside-down permission system allows even an IP editor to cut and paste but often prevents anyone without page mover or higher from doing the job properly. Certes (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it is upside-down to allow an IP editor to do a cut-and-paste, but my experience has been that it is registered editors to whom I have to give the weak warning. I personally think, but am not sure, that the copy-paste move is done by editors who have just enough understanding of the ways of Wikipedia that they want credit for creating a new article. That is, I think that they are working the system on purpose. I will review the wording in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
After looking over the message, I think that what is needed is at least two levels of warnings about copy-paste move. The current wording is all right for users who have done it once. However, what I may not have been clear about is that sometimes I see that the same editor has already been notified about copy-paste, and has continued doing it. Maybe there should be two versions of the message, one for repeat infractions that warns of sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
The previous research into user warning templates showed that it was best to begin with short, simple, polite messages. Being polite doesn't do anything for the patroller's emotional state (and I expect that any adult who's watched RecentChanges will agree with me that some of these jump-straight-to-Level-4-warnings are because the patroller's gotten hot under the collar, rather than because this bit of editing was dramatically worse than all the other bits of unwanted editing), but it's the best approach overall.
I don't see evidence that this is a significant problem. This year, this template seems to get posted about on the order of once a day, which isn't much. I went through about 60 users who have been warned during the last few years, and I found that the repeat-warning rate was around 10% (sometimes separated by more than a year), which doesn't seem bad. In one case, an editor posted this template three times in three minutes on the same user's talk page. If you're only seeing duplicates "sometimes", and if there are actual attribution problems involved (e.g., not the editor copy-pasting their own work from the draft space to the mainspace, which is legal) then copy-paste of other people's work can be a copyvio, and copyvios are blockable offenses. It's not usually difficult to find an admin if an individual needs a personalized "stop it or I'll block you" chat – no template required.
Other people who might be interested in this include @Liz, who posts more of these warnings than anyone else, and @X750, who seems to have been falsely accused once upon a time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello... I hope you two are both well... WhatamIdoing is correct, in October 2022 Liz posted a C&P notice on my user talk page. It was not true, because I later on when I finished my writing of the page, I looked back at the original draft and I did not think it was anywhere near as good as what I wrote, so I would not have cut and pasted it anyway because the article looked like it was written by a 13-year old. It did cause me a little discomfort though, because I did not wish to be blocked for an offense I did not commit... I take pride in the articles I write and quite frankly almost none of the articles in my little area (race cars) I would ever copy and paste, because they are terribly written and I would not like that to be associated with me... you can view the thread on my talk page under User talk:X750#October 2022 if anyone is interested... thanks for your time... X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 04:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Addendum: of course I am just an Anecdotal Andy stopping by... by no means do my experiences reflect in the entirety of what generally happens when this sort of editing pattern is detected... and I certainly do not think most cases proceed like mine... above me are five much more tenured editors than myself, of whom I am sure are far more knowledgeable... X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 08:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#"Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page – proposal to move MoS section to a naming-convention guideline (either its own or as a section merge into WP:NCCAPS).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Romanization of Ukrainian

I’ve posted an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Ukrainian#RFC: Romanization of Ukrainian as a guideline in the Manual of Style. —Michael Z. 03:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposed_variation_to_WP:NOTDIRECTORY_(revisiting_simple_lists) has an RFC

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposed_variation_to_WP:NOTDIRECTORY_(revisiting_simple_lists) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Soft deletion at AfD, WP:NOQUORUM process

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Soft delete has another question on the soft deletion process opened about a week and a half ago, and I was also thinking of removing the line from NOQUORUM. I figured I'd advertise it here to get some input and maybe some sense of temperature from non-DELPRO-watchers before starting a RfC totallly not because I'm too lazy to just start one myself, no way Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

NSPORTS proposal and outcome should be null and void

discussion following rant by block evader has veered into horse-beating territorry.--Licks-rocks (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:About begins with the following quotation by Mr Wales:

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.

In my opinion, people who insist on deleting thousands of articles which are classified as WP:STUB are disruptive. They are obstructing the site's stated purpose. Their activities totally contradict "that's what we're doing". The wording of WP:STUB does not prohibit stub creation, providing the subject is notable, not a hoax, etc. Equally, the guideline does not say existing stubs should be deleted, again subject to notability and so on.

Lets take this to case study level. A politician who has been elected to a body such as the US Senate or the British Parliament is surely a notable topic and a fifty-word stub about that person MUST be acceptable. The same is true of recognised film actors, international sportspeople, published authors and the like. On the other hand, if one of my friends were to create a stub about me, an ordinary person who has had some minor career successes that have attracted a little bit of routine media coverage, I would expect you to delete it because my career is not a notable topic.

The "sum of all human knowledge" is not going to be achieved if you allow prejudicial activity such as User talk:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification to continue. I use this site as a researcher and only on occasion as an editor. It seems to me, as effectively an observer, that the so-called "deletionists" are taking over. Assuming the site does not have server capacity issues, how does a mass deletion campaign help readers and researchers? Checking forum histories, I find that the deletion campaign was launched by someone calling himself User:RandomCanadian with this proposal on 19 January 2022. In it, he calls for the abolition of WP:NSPORTS specifically but the inference is that all such notability guidelines, sitewide, should be abolished.

Quite frankly, the rationale given for the NSPORTS proposal is absurd and demonstrates a negative attitude fuelled by anger about an article deletion discussion in which consensus was against him. This is obvious when you consider his behaviour in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cook (footballer, born 1885) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 19 on the same day he raised the proposal. Indeed, when you read contemporary comments by reputable editors like User:GiantSnowman, it was obvious at the time so I am not indulging in hindsight.

That proposal developed into a prolonged discussion and was eventually adopted in one form or another, enabling RandomCanadian's supporters to insist on mass deletion of thousands of stubs that are useful to readers in general and could certainly be expanded by interested editors given time and opportunity to do some research. Take a typical two-line stub which has a subject that is unquestionably notable but has only a single source, probably an online one. The deletionist people would no doubt wish to add this to their tally, but have they looked for other sources such as books or contemporary newspapers?

I contend that the whole NSPORTS proposal and outcome should be ruled null and void. Why? Simply because its author RandomCanadian was a rogue editor who was subsequently banned indefinitely. How can you possibly allow someone who was in serious breach of site rules to influence such a drastic change of policy? The only way forward from a mess like that is by veto and the restoration of the guidelines that the proposal attacked. Of course, should a bona fide editor wish to raise a new notability guidelines proposal, they must be allowed to do that. At least you will then have a clean proposal without the toxicity of the one raised on 19 January last year.

I read a news item recently that the number of regular WP editors is now less than 100,000 and falling. That is only to be expected when good editors find that their work is under attack from disreputable people like RandomCanadian, especially when his toxicity continues to be sustained several months after he was "found out". You might also read this report which is valid because it is editors like yourselves who have to fight against distortion of the kind described. The inevitable result of such conflict is that the good editors call it a day and find something more rewarding to do instead.

As a researcher, I have found this site useful on the whole and I want it to remain useful. I do not wish to use a research tool that is tainted by toxicity and distortion. 92.30.240.106 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Citing the G&K distortion of the Holocaust paper to justify a position on sports articles? This is a new frontier in wikilawyering. signed, Rosguill talk 15:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • The sum of human knowledge, not the totality of human knowledge. Also note that other research in fact says that its the bad editors who leave and thats what makes wikipedia so great: Rule Ambiguity, Institutional Clashes, and Population Loss: How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet[1] (in addition G&K don't actually appear to say what you're attributing to them). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
    And people accuse the "bad editors" of a battleground mentality. Rschen7754 00:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
    The cited paper also discusses ways in which civil POV pushing can have a negative effect on a topic space and claims that the disproportionate banning/self exiting of bad editors (both the civil and the uncivil) is what has made wikipedia so successful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree IP user. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • To be honest, no-one can win here. The removal of NSPORTS has indeed led to some biographies of people that are quite frankly obviously notable (but their notability wasn't easily found with a Google search which is the most that many AfD voters can manage) being deleted at AfD, but on the other hand whilst NSPORTS existed, a significant number of biographies of people that clearly weren't notable were being kept with pile-ons of people from various sports projects yelling "Keep per NSPORTS"! What can you do? Black Kite (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • There's room for the sports completionists to resurrect the WikiSport proposal so they can have a place to keep this information without being harassed and disrupted by those horrible, destructive and mean people who want articles to have high quality sources.—S Marshall T/C 17:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I would take it a step further… we should create a new Wikialmanac sister project to separate the encyclopedia part of WP from the gazetteer/almanac part. They are both needed, but they don’t play nicely together. Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Blueboar Great idea. I thought of something like a wiktionary for the mass created 1-2 line stubs. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I've checkuserblocked for block evasion; the editor behind the IP is a banned editor.-- Ponyobons mots 19:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Blueboar has an interesting idea. It would take some time to get started. In the meantime, I have these comments:
  • Every BLP represents another liability of sorts for us. Another article for someone to watch and guard against innocent errors, vandalism and defamation.
  • There’s nothing wrong with stubs otherwise. We have a notability guideline but we don’t have a stubs policy.
  • If we have verifiable information on these players and they’re on public rosters of notable teams, it’s good to have them on Wikipedia.
  • For these reasons, I think all these stubs should be merged into larger list articles giving basic details about each person. We can wiki link to full article’s as some of these people acquire greater notability. We have a solemn responsibility to each living person mentioned on Wikipedia. This will help us meet that responsibility while continuing to add to the sum of human knowledge.
Thank you for raising this issue, 92.30.240.106.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm generally in favor of combining articles of questionable or borderline notability into a "list of" article. As you say, the fact that they're BLPs only makes that solution seem more appealing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ponyo: I'm interested in knowing what banned user that was. Are you allowed to say or is that private checkuser business? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@BeanieFan11: per our Privacy Policy, I can't link an IP to an account based on CU evidence lest my extra bits get yanked. -- Ponyobons mots 19:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The page cited by the IP above, User talk:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification discusses planning for an eventual RfC, shown in draft form at User:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification. I am concerned that this sort of semi-private organizing will lead to an RfC that immediately starts with a pre-canned groundswell of support for deletion. A form of advanced CANVASSing. While I think an RfC is a good idea and it would take some planning, any advanced work should be publicly announced and accessible. The current setup smacks of “cabal”. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The people involved in drafting an RfC voting in that RfC is not canvassing. I'm sure that BilledMammal will be more than happy to have you help in drafting the RfC, its an open access cabal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The thing is he's pinging all the users who support his views to come up with it, seems to be trying to block others from getting to the pre-RFC discussion (every time someone who doesn't support his view comments, he says "how did you get here?"), and once he starts the RFC he'll ping them all again and they'll pile on support. Thats canvassing IMO. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Every time? They only appear to have said that once and it was to you... At which point you hemmed and hawed before proclaiming that "I'm not completely sure" how you got there. Which is... Why we have an AGF policy, lol. It sounds to me like "canvassing" is whatever results in an outcome you don't like. Have you ever considered that your position might not be widely held on wikipedia and consensus might not be with you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Quoting the response to Matthew Anderson701 finding this subpage
”MatthewAnderson707: "I apologize if this is wrongful intrusion or I wasn't supposed to reply to this." I'm a little confused how you found this discussion (can I ask how you found it? - given we have never interacted I doubt you are following my edits) but you are welcome to comment; it is helpful to have input from editors who disagree with the broad concept.”
I encourage readers to check out the talk page and decide for themselves.
Had it not been for the IP flagging that page, none of us would know of this undertaking except the supporters that were pinged.
Our collaborative processes run on trust.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
List of those pinged for that page:
@Paradise Chronicle, @Avilich, @Levivich, @Dlthewave, @S Marshall, @FOARP, @XAM2175
— A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the exact same issue as the recent RFC on the use of maps. I would suggest once they have even a draft of the RFC proposal that they take it to WP:VPI so it can be finalised in public. But I don't see any harm in getting the initial proposal done in user space. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The quoted question to MatthewAnderson707 seems entirely polite, appropriate and not even slightly cabal-like It literally invites them to share opposing opinions also can it even be called a cabal if there's no admins in it?. signed, Rosguill talk 23:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
See also this reply that I made, where I said In reply to this, and your other comment; the discussion will take place in a central location, with this just a preliminary drafting process. I had been intending to ping editors like Blue Square Thing, who I have found while opposed to this contribute productively and in a non-disruptive way, prior to opening the discussion to give them time to comment on the draft. BilledMammal (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC) BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Quoting the page intro:
”@Paradise Chronicle, Avilich, Levivich, Dlthewave, S Marshall, and FOARP: Now that WP:LUGSTUBS is closed we need to decide what group of articles to move forwards with next, using the precedent set by LUGSTUBS.”
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
There’s an interesting discussion about some of the practical details associated with mass deleting a large list of cricketers at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Heads up.
While I’m uncomfortable with some of the scheming on this stuff, the criteria used at User:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification to generate the current list looks reasonable. I think if WP:CRICKETeers and BilledMammal group can work together to tune the process, it would be a win-win for Wikipedia. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding the IP's comments: No. Policies should not be repealed because the proposer was eventually blocked. Policies take effect because of community consensus, not because of one person. (Also, I suppose it is ironic that it is a banned editor making that argument.)
    Regarding the various "canvassing" accusations above: This is a collaborative project. When the completely normal and acceptable behavior of "asking somebody to give feedback on a proposal" leads to hostile accusations, the predictable response is for editors to not edit. People need to stop obnoxiously crying CANVASSING every time two people discuss something controversial. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • The mass-draftifying of these stubs is, in a large way, the result of mass-creating stubs in the first place. Whether useful or not, WP:N is how we judge articles' merits. If editors for a biography can't provide what N requests, then the person shouldn't have a biography. I've backed down on AfDs of sportspeople when other editors provide compelling evidence that they meet N. Having a large role or major accomplishments presume notability, but they don't mean they are notable. We're the sum of all human knowledge; we're not all human knowledge. SWinxy (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Comment -@SWinxy The articles were not breaking any rules at the time of their creation. That's why they were made. It's really asking a lot of people to follow rules that don't currently exist and may not ever exist or risk having the article being drafted wrongly like Alfred Keene, Addin Tyldesley and Alexander Duncan were.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we are getting so lost in the CANVASS discussion that we are losing sight of the bigger picture. What do we want Wikipedia to become? The sum of all human knowledge? Or a place that spirals out of control as the notability requirements keep being ratcheted up in every subject area, much like Twitter that keeps losing editors and readers (read: donor $$$?) --Rschen7754 00:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOT already establishes that we are not the entire sum of knowledge, even if this was a vision of WP at the start. Our focus is on providing verified summaries of topics in an encyclopedic manner. A full list of every athlete is not appropriate for this purpose, per WP:NOTWHOSWHO among others, and NSPORTS was designed to try to quell the number of stub athlete articles that had no immediate route to becoming encyclopedic articles. Masem (t) 00:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
That's a false dichotomy. Knowledge was not lost in the Olympic stub removal. They were autogenerated sentences that repeated information we already have on other pages. If encyclopaedic knowledge is actually lost at some AfD, find an appropriate place for it. CMD (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I suggest reading this study, sometimes the lose of certain editors is a good thing, and at 10B page views per month (up 15% on last year) we not doing badly on readers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Interesting anecdatum: Despite (I think) writing the most women's sports bios out of anyone, if every sports bio (male and female) from Lugnuts was deleted, the proportion of women's biographies on wikipedia would go up. He was the single leading contributor to the gender gap. JoelleJay (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
By "certain editors" you mean the people that actually write the content? Why would anyone spend the time to write anything on this site if there is significant uncertainty that it will be here 5 years from now? Rschen7754 15:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I see again that you chucked WP:AGF out the window, maybe try reading the study and how it shows Wikipedia's practices may run slowly but generally lead to improvements of the project. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The study does not suggest that editors with more contributions are more likely to leave or be run off, largely the opposite in fact... The most disruptive editors are those pushing fringe POVs with long tenures and its those editors whose voluntary or involuntary separation from the project is most valuable to the project according to the study authors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
But the people that the draft discussion would be driving off are not pushing fringe POVs, they are pushing... comprehensive coverage of cricket players. So the article that you are pushing is a red herring. You do that to every subject area (we both know your feelings towards road editors, Catholicism editors, NFL, MILHIST...) and do you have a Wikipedia left after that? I don't think so. --Rschen7754 17:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Are you criticizing consistency across subject areas? Generally its inconsistency (for example applying special rules to your preferred topic area) which is an issue, not consistency across all subject areas. I've created over 200 pages and nominated less than a dozen for deletion, it would appear that we will have a much larger wikipedia left after me. Why would you think otherwise? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I have no fucking feeling towards road editors, catholic editors, NFL editors, or Milhist editors (other than inside your head). I could only name two editors that are in those areas, yourself and BeanieFan11, an editor I have a lot of respect for as they have an amazing ability to find obscure sources. Just because I might disagree with someone on minor details doesn't mean i have any feelings for them good or bad. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The personal attack is directed at me not you... Those are most of my core topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the "sum of all human knowledge". The "sum of all human knowledge" would include the entire internet, everything stored in every computer, every written and printed word, everything contained in every brain. So excluding any of that per se is not a violation of Wikipedia's mission; quite the opposite. So if you start with the entire internet, that is already available. The extraction, selectivity, vetting, & formatting of an encyclopedia is what defines it and it's mission and provides it's particular value. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Support - Have a look here. As called by people like myself in the original olympic draftification discussion, it was just going to be used as the new guideline for future mass drafting/deletion projects. Don't take my word for it, have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BilledMammal/Mass_Creation_Draftification. Some of my favorite lines included, "but I also don't want to propose anything too risky while the process is still being established.", "Nominate articles created by editors other than Lugnuts, to avoid the process becoming a Lugnuts cleanup process", "Nominate articles on topics outside the sports topic area - or at least the Olympics topic area - to avoid the process becoming a sports cleanup process" and "Nominate a larger number of articles, to avoid the process being limited to ~1000 article batches". I'd really love to know how anyone can take stuff like, "we don't want to propose anything too risky here" and "we want to do ___ in this manner to avoid being called ____" as being WP:AGF. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Do you mean "as being good faith"? Because you linked AGF which tells you to assume good faith, which is the opposite of what you're doing... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back - I have a lot of concerns about people basically grouping up in what is essentially private and saying things like "we don't want to propose anything too risky" and "to avoid the process". I know I'd like to know more about these risks and processes that already seem to be mutually agreed upon, especially in a situation where you only need to have the most people present to get what you want.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
And you think that AGF doesn't apply to you because... ? I'd also note that unless you're doxxing someone it wasn't private, you are prohibited from sharing private communications on wikipedia without consent so I assume that what you are sharing is not private. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back - Only certain people got pinged for this discussion and one of the people who didn't get pinged yet found out about it were asked, "how did you find this discussion?"KatoKungLee (talk)
Again, if you can quote from it without fear of sanction it wasn't essentially private. Nobody has restricted access or participation, in fact the page creator appears to have welcomed new editors... Which you must be aware of if you're pulling quotes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I think this discussion especially since it involves "risks" and affects "the process" would probably have better been had at a more public place like the Village Pump and I think phrases like "how did you find this discussion?", shouldn't have been used if it was indeed a public, open discussion that anyone can join in on.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
That is a completely different point from the accusations of bad faith you made above or the claim that the discussion was "essentially private." Note that pulling that quote but not "I'm a little confused how you found this discussion (can I ask how you found it? - given we have never interacted I doubt you are following my edits) but you are welcome to comment; it is helpful to have input from editors who disagree with the broad concept." would appear to be misleading as far as communicating the intentions of the pages creator, I hope you didn't intend to mislead anyone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I think when there's "processes" and "risks" involved that may affect hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands or more articles, these discussions should be held in very public places much like this, so large amount of users can be involved and so we can avoid more situations like Addin Tyldesley, Alexander Duncan (athlete), Alfred Keene where people like myself had to fix articles that were knowingly drafted incorrectly. And I think when people find out about these discussions, they should be welcomed instead of being questioned.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
"you are welcome to comment; it is helpful to have input from editors who disagree with the broad concept." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Make Template:Wikipedia ads ID gaps show ad #174 ("Your ad here")

For example, there is a gap between #3 and #6. I think the algorithm should pick a random number between 1 and 276 and display #174 if the ad indicated by the random number doesn't exist. Additionally, ads to defunct things (like certain WikiProjects) should be removed. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: I don't see that this is a policy issue. I see you already posted at Template_talk:Wikipedia_ads. Since you have no response there, try the related project page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Userboxes RudolfRed (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Whoops, meant to put this in proposals, I always get VPP and VPR mixed up. Should I delete this part? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines and In the news

There is currently no policy or guideline that oversees WP:In the news or its selection process in what is posted to the main page. As a result, ITN has diverged from sitewide consensus, and its processes are determined by a small group of regular editors enforcing a standard of "significance" or "ITN-worthiness" that has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Discussions at ITN make virtually no reference to policy or any sort of sitewide standard, amounting to little more than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, and discussion closures are little more than a headcount. If anything, these discussions actively circumvent policies and guidelines relating to WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:OR. There's a good write up at WP:HOWITNWORKS that goes into this in more detail.

Sitewide consensus has already indicated opposition to the current process of ITN for these reasons, most recently in February at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 47#In the news criteria. Some editors, including myself, have attempted to explain this at ITN and pushed for an approach more aligned with policy. Despite this, a local consensus continues to be enforced at the expense of sitewide consensus.

A great example of the issue here is at the recent discussion on whether to post the coronation of Charles III and Camilla. Despite clear consensus that it was a notable event with extensive news coverage and a quality article, ITN regulars broadly voted against posting it to the main page because it didn't meet some arbitrary standard or because they had their own personal gripes about the event itself, rather than any challenge to the subject's notability or the article's quality. It was only posted at all because several editors who don't normally participate in the ITN process came to see why it hadn't yet been posted and !voted to support posting.

WP:ITNSIGNIF gives a vague description of how submissions should be evaluated, but to my understanding it is essentially a WP:PROJPAGE. It has never undergone the sitewide scrutiny that's expected of pages like this, and it likely wouldn't pass such scrutiny given how unhelpful it is and how much it encourages original research. WP:CONLEVEL is clear on this point: sitewide consensus—especially in the form of policies and guidelines—outweighs any decisions made in a specific area by a small group of regulars. There is no exemption for ITN or any of the other main page focus areas. If anything, these areas should be receiving the highest level of sitewide scrutiny. I believe that there either needs to be a modification of current guidelines to take this situation into account, or a new guideline is needed specifically for ITN or for the main page in general. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Update: ITN is currently in a heated argument about a duck. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly ITN is useless and should be replaced with something else. As it currently exists, it just serves as a great way to start arguments and get people blocked. Also... are you saying that ITN was brigaded...? The coronation should not have been posted. --RockstoneSend me a message! 07:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien: This is a very confusing statement to read - it raises valid concerns about the overall lack of broadly-backed guidance for ITN, but also accuses of issues by participants. Those issues (if true) are a mix of things that are valid unless and until there is a broad-based set of rules rather than a locally written set - and others that might not be. Additionally, this is sitting at VPP, but it's not actually proposing specific changes but raising a general issue. VPI would probably be a more logical forum. tl;dr - break up what are the issues and what we should consider as solutions. If solutions need to be workshopped first, perhaps try VPI. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Nosebagbear: It was already raised at VPI with Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 47#In the news criteria, as I linked above. It hit a wall in part because there was no policy or guideline to fall back on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
My apologies @Thebiguglyalien for missing the previous VPI thread - clearly I shouldn't edit at 2 in the morning, local. Having read it, however, it's slightly odd - in some ways it actually had clearer proposals. I do feel that I should highlight that Notability, OR, and such (but not wp:consensus) apply only to articles - ITN wanting to make their decisions on another basis is not, inherently, policy-violating. ITN currently have an extremely lightweight framework that does mean that there is little difference between votes and !votes.
I would suggest that the following questions need to be answered:
  1. Is the current status quo sufficiently broken that a more formalised set-up is needed?
  2. What will the "in the news" aspect require as a minimum - prevalence of on-going coverage
  3. Of those literally in the news, what level of quality needs to be reached to not be excluded on an article quality basis?
  4. Of articles that meet these two minimums, how are they then picked: the most covered by news? The best articles? Some balance?
Nosebagbear (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The guidelines as written already address these matters. In operation, what happens is that discussions are hijacked by a small group of vocal people who believe they know best on what is significant solely on their assertions that something is or is not significant. There's not much to be done about this that policy can fix; writing more policy does not correct the problem of people ignoring written policy. --Jayron32 13:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The point of my post here is that there aren't policies or guidelines for ITN as they're defined on Wikipedia. If we did have such a guideline, then it could be improved and enforced by the community. Right now, ITN operates as its own bubble with minimal community oversight. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:ITN contains extensive written guidance on both quality and significance. I suggest you read it before claiming it doesn't exist. It's been there for at least a decade before you insisted that it wasn't. --Jayron32 11:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that non-guideline. A good portion of the above post is about why it's insufficient. To summarize: how it's applied was determined by a walled garden without sitewide scrutiny, it's not enforceable by the broader community, it's vague and arbitrary, and it pushes against the letter and spirit of policies such as WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OR. Time and time again, the community has shot down the idea that individual corners of Wikipedia can create their own governing structure independent of sitewide procedures. I don't see why this is any different. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I have no experience in editing ITN, nor do I, as a reader, make great use of it, because I rarely if ever hit the main page. Therefore please treat this observation as potentially naive: it seems to me like the main page is only barely a real article, which makes the usual content policies not terribly helpful. But the conduct policies are still relevant, and this sounds like there might be a little too much WP:OWNERSHIP going on. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

A "here's news stories that a small group of editors decided to emphasize" section should probably not be at the top of the most prominent Wikipedia and Wikimedia page. Nowadays a likely stronger standard of just follow what the media head count does would also be bad. A standard of "how impactful is it?" would make it an excellent section for Wikipedia but that probably isn't going to happen. Best to eliminate it. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That's now what ITN is. Your characterization isn't helpful. What ITN is supposed to be is "Here's a link to quality Wikipedia articles about current events". That sometimes votes don't go the way you want them to is not a reason to take the entire thing down. That's a bit of a petulant attitude. Could Wikipedia do a better job of actually meeting the purpose as laid out at WP:ITN? Absolutely it could. Wikipedia could be better at doing everything, everywhere, all the time. That's not a reason to shut down the whole encyclopedia, though. It's a reason to be better. --Jayron32 14:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien, I think you need to keep in mind just how much the English Wikipedia has changed. The main ITN page was created in 2004. We have editors who weren't even born back then. We have admins who hadn't even been born back then. I wrote WP:PROPOSAL in 2008. Consequently, it's basically impossible for the page to have followed directions that didn't exist. That doesn't mean that ITN's page hasn't been checked out by others, or that it's inherently flawed or otherwise urgently needs some bureaucratic processes thrown at it. Back when ITN was created, pages were still getting designated as guidelines (or whatever) through the expedient of someone slapping a tag on the page and waiting to see whether it would be reverted. Having a label, or not having a label, isn't the most important thing. There's no tag on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Featured article criteria or Wikipedia:Peer review, either, and that's okay. Wikipedia:Not every page needs a tag. As a general rule of thumb, if some process has been in operation every day for longer than you've been an editor, it's safe for you to assume that the community knows about it and doesn't strongly object to it. We use the principle of WP:SILENCE in our processes, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that the present day ITN functions as it did in the 2000s, nor do I believe that it complies with the community's general expectations (hence this discussion). As Jayron32 said above, the discussions are controlled by a small group of vocal people, and ITN has moved away from any 2000s-era consensus that may have once existed. I also included a link of a recent VPI discussion in my post above as one instance where the community expressed dissatisfaction with the current processes at ITN. The WP:SILENCE has been broken many times by many editors, both at WT:ITN and here at WP:VP. All I'm really asking for is some oversight from the community. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm responding to the last paragraph of your opening post, especially It has never undergone the sitewide scrutiny that's expected of pages like this. My message to you is: Sitewide scrutiny wasn't actually expected of that page back then.
As for the rest, I see that you complain that some editors, whom you call the "ITN regulars", voted differently from you in Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2023#(Posted) Coronation of Charles III and Camilla. What you seem to leave out is: your side won anyway, the entries you supported were on the Main Page, and none of those "ITN regulars" even complained very much about the result. Showing up to vote in discussions such as that one is what "some oversight from the community" looks like.
I'm not sure that there is any significant problem here (some editors not respecting others' rationales doesn't count), but if there is a problem, then holding a vote over how to label the page, so that it can either be definitively declared a guideline or a not-guideline, isn't the solution. A WP:PROPOSAL to tag a page is basically never the solution to any problem involving what editors want to see on the Main Page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news is a Salvador Dali painting. It's highly irregular. It's often controversial. The content included is frequently absurd, while also occasionally taking on recognizable items. Everybody tries to interpret it the best they can, but everyone's interpretations are different. Each generation has their own interpretation of it. The original author intent, if there is any, is rarely understood except by devout enthusiasts. But above all, more than anything else, nearly everyone is more confused and sometimes irritated by the persons who would work on the painting, and their accompanying behavior, rather than the actual painting itself. So as we ITN editors try to understand this abstract painting, we frequently find ourselves clashing due to the highly subjective nature, as Thebiguglyalien has pointed out. I suggest, however, that people do participate on the straw poll currently being conducted by Masem at WT:ITN. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Move down ITN started with the important breaking news of the 9/11 attack but it has since lost its way and now reports routine news like sport and the weather. The more important breaking news tends to struggle in its current bureaucratic process because, by its nature, it is raw and unpolished. And the process is quite inefficient so that ITN is the most unproductive section on the main page. For example, the current blurbs are all from last month and blurbs are often there for weeks, gathering dust. Other mainpage sections change their content on a daily basis and it seems ridiculous that the news section can't be so on-the-ball.
To give ITN a wake-up call, I suggest that its position on the main page be switched with the featured picture section. In the desktop view, the featured picture would make a natural pairing with the featured article at the top left/right. And having a prominent quality picture at top right is the normal way we like to present our pages. ITN would then be relegated lower down to the position currently occupied by the featured picture. This might seem to be a demotion but there would be advantages too. The FP section currently gets the full width of the main page but it doesn't need this as it doesn't usually have enough text to fill it. ITN could use that wasted space more effectively by expanding the list of recent deaths so that each death gets a short description. These recent deaths are the most successful part of ITN but their display is currently too abbreviated and so they deserve more space.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Move down per Andrew, at the very least. As they have quite eloquently stated, WP:FP doesn't need that space nor utilise it effectively, and WP:ITN can fill up the space with recent deaths and longer headlines. It will also indicate to them that they need to clean their act up. I think there also needs to be structural changes to ITN, as unfortunately it has devolved since its creation, and there is a large number of editors that concern themselves with ITN and nothing else, which has caused them to drift away from the rest of the community. It's unfortunate to see editors get away with posting their personal gripes. The obvious option would be to enforce a series of guidelines, similar to WP:DYKCRIT. Someone who is familiar with ITN and their problems probably needs to do that. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC: MOS:GENDERID and the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Although I have closed all of the individual sections below, I feel that a broader summary of the discussion below is in order. Throughout the individual RFCs there has been a solid community consensus that runs somewhere between the never and the sometimes of Topic 2, and the once and to avoid confusion of Topic 3. Generally, those supporting the stricter wording acknowledge that there will be occasions where additional uses of the former name will be necessary and aren't actually absolutist about enforcement of the MOS. On the other hand, many of the supporters of using the former name more often still qualify that it should be used as few times as is feasible to avoid confusion, or in the case of Topic 2, only when there is a significant enyclopedic interest. The two positions on both of those topics are fairly close, and a Venn diagram of what was said in the responses, versus the specific option chosen, clearly has enough overlap to demonstrate a consensus in the discussion.
Numerically, supporters the stricter interpretations held the plurality, but with insufficient support to overcome the concerns and objections of the other respondents. Across all of the topics there was very little support for including the former name more than necessary. For example, in Topic 2 there was less than 5% support for providing the deadname whenever the subject's full name was used. For Topic 1, support for always including the prior name of the article subject when they were not notable before transitioning was about 6%. With around a hundred editors responding across these RFCs taking place at VPP, it is obvious that there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest.
Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion on individual articles, although there is definitely space for more guidance in the MOS. One of the concerns in some of the supports for the stricter wordings was that leaving it open would lead to long, sometimes unproductive discussions, and this is likely to happen. However, that is a normal situation when dealing with contentious topics on Wikipedia, and it's nothing we all haven't seen before. Hopefully, this broader statement summarizing the entire discussion is helpful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


This RFC covers 3 questions pertaining to the treatment of deceased trans or nonbinary persons' deadnames.

  1. What name should articles principally use to refer to a deceased trans or nonbinary person?
  2. When should Wikipedia articles include the former name of a deceased trans or nonbinary person who was not notable prior to transitioning?
  3. How often should Wikipedia articles mention a deceased trans persons former name?

--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Background

In the recent past, there have been several discussions and RFCs concerning the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons. Though other policies and guidelines have been invoked, these debates have generally revolved around MOS:GENDERID. But, currently, GENDERID only expressly considers the "deadname[s]" of living trans persons:

If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.

Many have argued that other paragraphs within GENDERID have relevance for the aforementioned questions, and other Wikipedia guidelines/policies that have been thought relevant include MOS:CHANGEDNAME ("A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article."), WP:BDP, and, particularly when a majority of reliable sources refer to person by their former name, WP:DUE/WP:NPOV.

This RFC is not intended to determine the present meaning of those policies—though editors have, often fiercely, disagreed as to their interpretation and effect. In order to properly structure future discussions, these proposals are meant to provide increased clarification through new guidance.

Topic 1: What principal reference? (MOS:GENDERID 1st paragraph)

There is clear consensus to amend MOS:GENDERID as proposed. Some concerns were raised by those opposed about possible scenarios where the new language could be an issue, but those in support rebut those concerns by pointing out that IAR and consensus at specific articles should be sufficient to handle edge cases. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Should Wikipedia articles always principally refer to deceased trans and nonbinary persons by their most recently preferred name of choice, as reported in reliable sources?

Proposed alteration (changes bolded)

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.

Support (MOS:GENDERID topic 1)

  • Support as proposer. In my view, GENDERID's failure to explicitly address the treatment of a deceased person's deadname has led to unnecessary confusion and unnecessarily repetitive discussions. Whether or not enshrined in policy (and I think it should be), this particular proposal is, to my knowledge, already standard practice.
    I'd also emphasize that this proposal only applies if reliable sources do indicate a most recently used gender identity. As such, "but what if reliable sources disagree as to the most recent self identification?" isn't, as I see it, a valid reason to object to this policy. In cases where reliable sources disagree, a case-by-case examination will, of course, be required. But the proposed guidance is explicitly not meant to cover those cases—it's meant to standardize practice when there is agreement as to the most recently used self identification.
    Finally, in terms of the argument that we must follow the majority of reliable sources, I'd point out that MOS:GENDERID already rejects that argument as to pronouns (and the deadnames of living transgender and nonbinary persons). Ultimately, this proposal—unlike the other proposals—is a style issue, not a content inclusion issue.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Full disclosure, I assisted Jerome Frank Disciple with drafting these questions. I agree with Jerome Frank Disciple. In the discussions at WT:MOSBIO that preceded this, some editors expressed confusion over when to use a trans or non-binary person's deadname, especially when that person is deceased. The standard practice in my experience across many biographies is that we use the name that reflects that person's most recently expressed gender identity, and this small change to the first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID codifies and clarifies this. It should be an uncontroversial measure of respect that regardless of what phase of life a person is in, including death, we use both the name and gendered words that reflect who they perceived themselves to be. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: this is a natural extension of existing guidelines and good style guide practice. It is often irrelevant after the first mention of an individual as we refer to people by their surnames, which often won't change in this case. — Bilorv (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is a no-brainer. I like the "any phase of the person's life" bit. That pre-empts and precludes the sort of trolls who might think that it was funny to try to insert wording like "when he was a girl". The only thing I think it would be good to add is an explicit explanation of how to handle situations where WP:COMMONNAME might conflict. DanielRigal (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per everyone above. This is how I've always interpreted the intent of GENDERID, and how most (but not all) people have interpreted it in at least most (possibly all) discussions about it I have been involved with. Making this explicit has no downsides that I can think of, particularly given the "unless they have expressed a preference otherwise" language. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Like everyone else is saying, this one is really a no-brainer. It just clarifies what was always the obvious intent of this paragraph anyway. Loki (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. A change to the fourth paragraph "In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or last, if deceased) name as the primary name..." should also be made.--Trystan (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    I've expanded on this point under Topic 3 (Option 3a), below.--Trystan (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, but... After death, the most recent expressed gender self-identification becomes locked-in forever. In the hypothetical scenario where reliable sources overwhelmingly conclude that a transgender identity was actually disingenuous, we would be prevented from writing an accurate article. I would hope that in such exceptional cases WP:IAR would suffice to do the right thing. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed; the phrasing of this shouldn't be read to imply as "we need to take trolls seriously" and if it becomes a problem I'd support adding "sincere". But I think this is uncommon enough that we can go on WP:IAR for now. Loki (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    After death, the most recent expressed gender self-identification becomes locked-in forever. Though rare, this isn't always the case, at least for the purposes of writing content on Wikipedia. Quentin Crisp is a pertinent example here. Crisp died in November 1999, however at around that same time Crisp was working on an autobiography that ultimately wasn't published until 2017. In that book, among other untold stories, Crisp described the realisation that occurred some time in 1998/99 that they were a trans woman and not a gay man. The book itself is a very personal insight into Crisp's early life, and how because of the time in which they were born (1908) they didn't have the vocabulary to express their gender identity. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
    If I remember correctly in the underlying dispute you're linking to about the Colorado Springs nightclub shooting, the detente was not to use pronouns at all which respects the suspect's right to gender self-identification while not endorsing it. Most reliable sources use and continue to use they/them pronouns and I don't believe WP:IAR gives Wikipedia editors the right to second-guess reliable sources in cases like the one you're referencing. Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 02:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
    regardless of whether or not they legitimately identify that way, I don't think it's anyone's place (especially wikipedia editors) to make decisions about who is or is not truly trans or nonbinary. that could have the effect you're worried about, that we use they/them pronouns for someone who is only claiming to be nonbinary, but I honestly don't see how that's a problem. if someone says they go by they/them pronousn then we use they/them pronouns. if it is relevant and cite-able that people don't think an individual truly identifies as trans or nonbinary, then we can include that in the article, but speculation on the validity of someone's gender identity is a slippery slope, and allowing speculation to determine the way we refer to them is definitely not the move. Tekrmn (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Principally refer to them as their most recent used name and expressed gender identity. I agree that it really should just be policy at this point. I feel there is such a strong sentiment towards this. (I've never seen or heard of an instance where the current name and gender identity wasn't the primary referrer here.) SWinxy (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Names are gendered so this is a natural extension and is already practice. Galobtter (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support as long as the individual’s expressed identity is sourced reliably. Primary sources, as per WP policy, should be avoided, as it may constitute original research, which isn’t allowed on WP. Yasslaywikia (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    It actually seems that primary sources can be used for name changes. Tekrmn (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support going with what RS say is their self identification seems very reasonable and like general best practice, exactly the type of guidance that should be in a MOS.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Seems reasonable, with standard WP:IAR exceptions. --Jayron32 14:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. This amendment is both reasonable on its own merits and a useful clarification of the already-existing spirit of the guideline. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: The proposed rule is reasonable, concise and clear, and comports with the spirit of MOS:GENDERID. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support That has always been the common and proper way of doing things, deferring to the most recent known usage by the individual. SilverserenC 22:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support as a general rule, seems quite sensible, as long as it admits the possibility of a case-by-case exception such as that mentioned by Barnards.tar.gz. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the sensible, most prudent, and reasonable measure to take. Of course, there will be exceptions to this general rule. No one is suggesting that we have to exclusively refer to someone as GodEmperor just because they said that's their name before they died. However, 99% of cases are going to be incredibly straight forward ("I go by Gary even though I wasn't born with that name.") If the guy who said that is dead or alive shouldn't make a difference, we should just call him Gary because that's what everyone else uses to refer to him. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support This is the common usage anyway, so no issue with codifying it a little more clearly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support This is both reasonable, respects the wishes and identity of the deceased, and a natural continuation of the current policies in MOS:GENDERID. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Seems reasonable to close this loophole. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support In those rare cases where RS indicate that a declaration of self-identification was disingenuous, well, we'd follow RS in saying that it was disingenuous. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support sensible for the context. Aza24 (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, especially given that all rules, policies, guidelines etc allow for the application of common sense where blindly following the rule would clearly be the wrong decision. I can believe that there are certain edge cases and exceptions, but we're used to handling those in other contexts (via WP:IAR, in the last resort). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support as a natural extension of the existing guideline.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutebega (talk • contribs) 16:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support This is a logical extension of the current guideline, and I assumed it was already standard practice. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support It does not make sense for the guideline to only apply to living people. Tekrmn (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. We need a rule for this, to avoid sterile arguments, and the proposed change is fine. Herostratus (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support – absolute no-brainer. Sceptre (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - no-brainer. Reflects current practice. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support; this is standard practice and best practice; to the extent people sometimes argue the guideline doesn't cover names, it's good to implement clear language. In pre-RFC discussion, it was noted MOS:SURNAME obviates most problems, but it doesn't cover first use, and some trans people change surnames as part of transition, not just in cultures with gendered surnames but also e.g. Fallon Fox, so it's good to close this loophole since we see that this is a topic area where loopholes are gamed. (Re the point above about trolls: that's independent of this change, as it would also effect pronouns and any of the other things we treat self-assessment as best for, e.g. religion or a person's pronunciation of their name; if it ever becomes a problem, we can IAR or rediscuss.) -sche (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. For me, the deciding factor is that the language specifies that this is the self-expressed preference indicated by reliable sources – not something that present-day editors would determine via original research. If the deceased person indicated that preference while alive, then that's that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Absolutely reasonable proposal. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, with a significant caveat that it apply only to WP:BLP subjects. This could necessitate some housecleaning and pedantic disputes now and again, but it seems consistent with the rational underpinning our general GENDERID framework: i.e., putting a premium on respect for self-identification. However, it could be be deeply problematic for historical trans figures, or those historical figures regarded as trans or possible trans by legitimate historical research, where "the most recent" source purporting to indicate the individual's preference could be leveraged to force the use of pronouns not consistent with contemporary research. I don't even contribute heavily in this area (outside of occasional RfCs) and yet even I am aware of at least a handful of articles about historical figures who assumed a gender role separate from their sex, only to be pressured in the frailty of old age back into their birth gender. For this and other compelling editorial reasons, I think it would be an issue if policy didn't retain a distinction between living, contemporary figures living in the social and linguistic context we do, and long-dead figures whose cases require a lot more nuance to parse, including in situations where we have concerns for faithfully reflecting their genders. SnowRise let's rap 06:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
    I would, personally, treat this more as an oppose than a support—the proposed text certainly doesn't have any blp restriction, and, given that this RFC specifically concerns all "deceased persons" (and is meant to address that the current guideline only covers living persons), I don't think I or any of the other editors voting support would say the policy should be restricted to WP:BLP/WP:BDP.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support – this is pretty much how we treat deadnames out in the world; it seems both respectful and also accurate. Here is a record of the person, viewed backwards from the point they died; here is where they ended up, and if we look back, we can reference where they started.
    We don't pretend people stay the way they started forever for other things, and we don't pretend someone was straight for most of their life and then "became" gay later on, we talk about them as having lived a straight person who later came out as gay, reflecting their greater self-knowledge and self-perception as time passed and they aged.
    In the same way, I don't think it would be right to pretend someone was cisgender and then "became" transgender later on in their life; they merely lived a cisgender person before coming out as trans. Even if, like the name of that very well-known gay socialite in New York (I think) that I can't remember now, they came out as transgender but kept the same name and pronouns for the rest of their life before they died, we still classify them as trans. We should take an approach looking back from where they ended up, in the same way we would for someone who came out as gay later in life. I see no reason to deviate from this approach.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 19:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
    (As I've seen further up in this thread – Quentin Crisp is who I was thinking of.)—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 19:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support as relatively clear in the intent of the policy but not explicitly laid out. I think the project gains significant benefit from this addition. And it's clearly in line with other PAGs including WP:MOSBIO. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong support, with special thanks to Jerome Frank and Sideswipe9th for putting this together. Obviously, Wikipedia policy could never feasibly account for every contingency wherein we make exception to general rules of thumb; I'm sure that many people, particularly those who have in their possession a preponderance of time and imagination, can conjure hypotheticals in which using a late transgender person's deadname would be the more appropriate option. But those scenarios—however many can be conceptualized—are few and far between beyond the confines of one's mind. This is already an unspoken norm, so let's make it official policy. Kurtis (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong support as a matter of respect for the chosen names of all trans people. Funcrunch (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • oppose we should not give in to the woke mob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crustgush (talk • contribs) 17:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support as a more professional way of writing. There's an obvious caveat that for people who have been deceased for a long while, finding sources that cover their preference may sometimes be difficult, but that can be dealt with on an article-by-article basis. --Aquillion (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support As an obvious consequence of the policy as it is worded now. A name, in at least most western cultures, is a gendered word. In most cases, names are already treated this way, especially when it comes to page names. take for example Eliot Page (Pun not entirely intended). Other than that it's a simple matter of respecting people's choices. I don't believe names are an immutable fact of nature. If they change, it makes sense for accuracy's sake that we follow suit. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Most names already are gendered words, and therefore covered by this. It doesn't make sense, then, to have a loop-hole when someone's deadname is gender-neutral. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 04:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
    It's also worth nothing that whether a name is gender-neutral can also be subjective. As an anecdote, I know a person whose deadname is "Lee" (which to me is completely gender neutral) who despite being moderately open about being transgender is possibly the most vigorously against anyone using their deadname, because they see it as misgendering them. They are not (presently) notable, but were that to change they would be extremely against their deadname being included in their article for any reason, regardless of whether their notability came before or after their death. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
    You should ask them, but I wonder if the reason has nothing to do with the gender of the name but the gender of the person that the name denotes. Eg supposing a person was assigned female at birth and named "Kim". That person is a transgender man, who now calls himself "Lou". Both names are unisex. He objects to the dead name not because it is female name, but because he is a different person - Kim was the "dead" person, but Lou is who he is now. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support using chosen name consistently: deadname should stay dead, whether or not person is alive. – .Raven  .talk 09:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per Sideswipe9th. This is already current practice, and codifying it in policy should help forestall having the same policy arguments discussed on an endless number of talk pages. GreenComputer (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Seems a common sense proposal. There's going to be a few edge cases I think having read through a bit of this, but those should be relatively obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Fine as a general rule. Edge cases brought up in the opposes can be dealt with on a case by case basis where the consensus of recent reliable sources is unclear. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (MOS:GENDERID topic 1)

  • Weak Oppose - I agree that MOST of the time we would and should use the name that the subject prefers… but, if an overwhelming majority of sources use some other name, then so should we. It will be extremely rare for this to happen, but we should not box ourselves into corners. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    That is an argument for inclusion of the deadname in the article, not for principally referring to them by that name (which is what this proposal is about). Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    I don’t see the word “principally” in the proposal. In any case, my weak opposition stands. I prefer to give editors flexibility when it comes to what names to use in an article, and this proposal is too rigid. Blueboar (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    Unless the person has indicated a preference otherwise, why would we refer to the person using multiple names outside of, where encyclopaedically justified, required to note the existence of an context for other names? We do not normally do this for maiden names, stage names, or where a person has changed their name for other reasons (see this version of the Roy Chubby Brown article for an example of what a mess chopping and changing causes). Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    Are you sure about that? Hillary Clinton refers to her as "Rodham" in sections about her life before her marriage, and Cat Stevens uses "Georgiou" for times before he took the stage name and "Islam" after his religious conversion and adoption of a new name. Both strike me as clear and well written. Even the article you link seems to suffer more from poor writing than from the use of given versus stage names. But when it comes to MOS:GENDERID, one of the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS factions seems to have won the day. Anomie⚔ 11:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    FWIW, articles like Maya Angelou—a featured article, Courtney Love, and Bill de Blasio don't switch surnames throughout the person's life. I'm also deeply skeptical of the RGW invocation as to this proposal, in particular, since this proposal explicitly relies on reliable sources. I think in this context, that invocation is rhetorically equivalent to "The WOKE generation is ruining everything!"--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    Sure, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And in cases where there's minimal content using a name, particularly when it's only in a short "early life" section, it may make even make sense. On the other hand, were Hillary Clinton to be rewritten as you and Thryduulf suggest is standard, it would come across as pretty strange. As for your aspersion, all I'll say is that I expected as much from the side that won the day. Anomie⚔ 16:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    We do not normally do this for maiden names, stage names, or where a person has changed their name for other reasons — Yes we do. MOS:CHANGEDNAME specifically says "The names should be distributed throughout the lead to mark major transitions in the subject's life" and "A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article" Mitch Ames (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    are you saying that we should mention the previous name or that we should use that name in the article in early life sections and such? the first proposal doesn't say we can't mention the previous name, only that we should be using the most recent name when actually referring to the individual. Tekrmn (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the grounds that it is inconsistent. "Gendered words ... expressed gender self-identification" is consistent (in the use of "gender"). "Name ... person's most recently chosen name" would be consistent (in the use of "name"), but "name ... gender self-identification" is not. Names are not always gender-specific, and we should not be making assumptions that they are.
    Also note that this change would affect articles about living people, not just dead ones, contrary to the purported scope of the RFC. The first words of the sentence are "any person", not "any living person", and it is part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, not Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
    In any case, mandating a particular name would prohibit sensible use of MOS:CHANGEDNAME and unnecessarily complicates MOS:SAMESURNAME. Several supporters have pointed out that the proposed change is common practice anyway, so what problem are we trying to fix, that common sense would solve? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    (1) Would it be easier to just take out "gender" from before "self identification"? The guideline already opens, "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned" ... I'm not really sure what "gender self-identification" as opposed to just "self-identification" adds. (I'm also really skeptical that this would cause any actual confusion.) (2) I believe living transgender persons are already referred to by the name of their choosing per existing passages in MOS:GENDERID—certainly the biographical article is explicitly covered, but I believe non-biographical articles are covered, too, by the subsequent paragraph (which advises, for example, to say "Jane Doe became a parent" rather than "Jane Doe fathered a child").--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    I believe living transgender persons are already referred to by the name of their choosing — So what problem are we trying to fix by introducing restrictions and inconsistencies into the policy? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    You left off "per existing passages in MOS:GENDERID"? The inconsistency and the resulting redundant discussions that have stemmed from it are addressed above, but if you don't think there's a need, I totally understand! Thanks for participating.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    Would it be easier to just take out "gender" from before "self identification"? Personally, I've always found that bit of the guideline rather clunky. It's a very verbose way of saying ...that reflect the person's most recently expressed gender identity.... While I think there are bigger issues with the guideline, hence why I originally started the discussions that lead to this set of RfCs, one thing I'd be tempted to discuss at some point after this is over is changing that to be a little more in line with how gender and gender identities are typically described in scholarly sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose I suspect in most cases the proposed option here is how we will do it. However, this shouldn't be prescriptive, instead it should follow sourcing. For example, if sources are mixed in their use after the subject's death then we should be more careful. Additionally, if there is any reason to think the proposed names/gender etc are disputed we shouldn't then assume one vs the other. Basically this should be handled on a case by case basis. Most of the time it will probably result in an outcome that is compatible with the support option but we shouldn't dictate it. Springee (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should use the name most commonly used in reliable sources, like we do for everything else. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    We should use the name most commonly used only in reliable (inc. ABOUTSELF) sources published after the name change, as those from before do not indicate the standard going forward and will inevitably lead to use of the dead name in the article if the change of name was recent and they are still in the majority, even if the dead name is no longer the most generally used. This is especially true with deceased persons, since it can be almost guaranteed that the name will not change any further. In the current political climate, sources that choose to continue using the dead name after a change are often doing so to inflame or make a point, so we should consider whether they can be considered neutral sources for names at all. small jars tc 12:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ficaia, Springee and Mitch Ames. starship.paint (exalt) 09:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, better to take this on a case by case basis than to try and pigeon hole an all-inclusive "rule" that may fail WP:NPOV. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If used mechanically it can confuse the reader. No arguments have been presented that the current default policy causes any issues. Alaexis¿question? 11:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose This looks like a solution in search of a problem. For the most part this is already standard practice. However the ultimatenauthority is relaible sources. We follow their lead. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ficaia. Some1 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is not a minor clarification but a major policy change masquerading as one, because of the combination "the name and ... This holds for any phase of the person's life". In doing so it prohibits use of deadnames anywhere in the article. Of course we should prefer use of the most recent name and gender identifier in post-change contexts but we also have obligations to historical accuracy and not whitewashing discrimination that an individual would have faced had they transitioned earlier. The policy as it stands covers these nuances, trying to reflect personal and often legal preference or requirement without compromising accuracy unduly. A non-gender example might be referring to Cassius Clay as winning certain boxing championships and Muhammad Ali as winner of many boxing world championships. In this case religious discrimination may have disfavoured his getting fights of comparable value had his religious conversion occurred earlier. Yet Ali is clearly best for most uses in the article, helped by his enduring achievements and fame after the change. Jamesday (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
    Respectfully, that seems to be more of a problem with Ali's biography, than this guideline. While there may be a consensus reason for why Muhammad Ali interchangeably uses both names when referring to Ali (I've not checked the talk page archives to be sure), to me it seems to be bad practice that has resulted in very confusing paragraphs like Clay's father's paternal grandparents were John Clay and Sallie Anne Clay; Clay's sister Eva claimed that Sallie was a native of Madagascar. He was a descendant of slaves of the antebellum South, and was predominantly of African descent, with Irish and English family heritage. Ali's maternal great-grandfather, Abe Grady, emigrated from Ennis, County Clare, Ireland. (emphasis to distinguish where the article swaps names added by me).
    Ideally, in line with the use-mention distinction, that article should use a single name when discussing Ali throughout, but should mention both names as it is contextually relevant. However I do also recognise that MOS:CHANGEDNAME does recommend avoiding anachronistic use of a former name, and an application of that would have Ali's article not using his changed surname for content prior to his conversion to Islam in the 1960s, using only his former surname of Clay for those sections. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak/moderate Oppose Most of the time we would and should use the name that the subject prefers, however for the deceased, particularly those long deceased, where the overwhelming majority of sources may use some other name, then so should we. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 19:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are thousands of years of history involving possibly transgender individuals. Elagabalus comes to mind as someone whose common name does not fit into this policy. The gender of said emperor has been questioned many times, and the name that we use is totally made up. As others have said, there are many exceptions to this rule with dead individuals with unclear identities, individuals that were forced to recant their transgender identity on their deathbed, or just a general lack of knowledge on our part (see Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity). If we're effectively judging all historical articles (most of humanity is long dead) on a case-by-case basis anyways, I don't see why this guideline shouldn't be targeted towards living or recently deceased persons or at least have an exception for historical figures. Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 03:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As most have said, we should use whatever is most often referenced. In cases where it is equal or ambiguous, we should use the name and gender that the person was notable for, with a mention in the lead. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Eh? Seems like a bad rule if "Jane Jones" (notable person under this name) has an interview shortly before she dies and says she prefers to be called "Pink Lemonaid" now - but not otherwise doing anything notable with that new name, re-writing the article isn't going to be helpful to our readers looking for information about the known "Jane Jones". Sure, mention it. And why would we treat this any different just because a subject is in the class "trans and nonbinary persons"? — xaosflux Talk 18:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
    I'm really dubious of examples like this. I mean, sure, it's easy to imagine a hypothetical ridiculous scenario ... but (1) if you have to imagine it, that's some evidence of its rarity; (2) should a situation like that ever develop, then a WP:IAR exception could always be considered; (3) even if IAR were found inapt to this ... "Pink Lemonade" scenario ... it's not as though a name the person was notable under would be excluded from the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: COMMONNAME has not yet been repealed, and it remains common practice to refer to someone by the name most familiar to English-language sources: whether or not the subject would appreciate it (George Kelly reportedly loathed the nickname with which the press saddled him, for instance, yet that's the WP article name all the same), whether it is or was the subject's legal name, and however much a vocal pressure group wants it otherwise. The Stokely Carmichael article is not named "Kwame Ture," the H. Rap Brown article is not named "Jamil Abdullah al-Amin", the Cat Stevens article is not named "Yusuf Islam" ... if there were as few as ten thousand articles reflecting stage names or pseudonyms rather than legal or preferred names, I'd be astonished. Ravenswing 01:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles and so irrelevant to this question, and on skim reading your examples are also irrelevant for the same reason. It is (pretty much?) always going to be appropriate to mention all the names someone is commonly known by in an article about them, but that is very different to what name we use to refer to them in running prose (see use–mention distinction). Finally you are completely ignoring that trans people's deadnames are a qualitatively very different to press nicknames and stage names. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    I would just point to the discussion below (in the discussion section for topic 1) on COMMONNAME, which has, historically, been thought to be consistent with MOS:GENDERID as applied to living people.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Specifically, this is badly worded. What if the person changes name more than once? What if the person's new name doesn't unambiguously indicate "the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification"? More generally, this looks like an attempt (unintentional or not) at a priming question: using an initial question that looks unlikely to be disagreed with as a way of making respondents more likely to be sympathetic to certain responses to subsequent questions and to answer in a way that is consistent with their answer to the first question. This procedural problem could have been avoided if the lengthy discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Remove the "living" qualifier in MOS:DEADNAME had not been ignored by the person who posted the questions here. EddieHugh (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (MOS:GENDERID topic 1)

Nobody has been opposing this. There is no reason to include this in the RFC. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I assume you mean "there was no reason", so allow me to explain my logic. Even though this does, as I said, capture what the current practice is, I see no harm and in fact think there's benefit to enshrining that practice in a guideline. Perhaps I could have just edited that guidance myself and seen if anyone would revert, but, even though it has yet to receive an oppose vote here, I have in fact seen editors deny that such a practice is endorsed by the guidelines and dispute whether it should be done. Frankly, in terms of whether it's required by the existing guideline, I see why that guideline can seem ambiguous: "gendered words" is explained with an e.g. parenthetical that does not include proper names, and deadnames are only explicitly addressed as to living trans and nonbinary persons. Of course, if you're opposing it on WP:CREEP grounds, I understand, but I think the support so far indicates others agree this should be here.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
"Nobody has been opposing this." There was in fact opposition raised when this change was proposed at WT:MOSBIO. Given how contentious changes to this guideline inevitably are, an RFC confirming the change before implementation is the prudent course of action.--Trystan (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The beauty of this format of being three separate but related RfCs, is that if/when we get to WP:SNOWPRO territory, it can be closed independently of the other two sections. Ideally it should run for another few days first, as Trystan is correct in that some editors did object when it was first proposed at WT:MOSBIO and those editors may wish to opine on it here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Ideally it should run for another few days first, ... editors may wish to opine on it here. — I'm waiting for options on all the topics to stabilise before I !vote. Given that all three are related, I suggest not closing Topic 1 early, SNOW or not. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Apparently this RFC is only for editors who agree with Sideswipe9th and Jerome Frank Disciple, so I wouldn't hold out much hope of getting more options. There's already been an edit war over the inappropriate removal of an option, and then a subsequent hatting of the discussion around it. At the end of the day, WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, and WP:NOR is policy, so these style guide changes will always fail ("consensus" or not) when our sources skew the "wrong" way. I see from other replies below we're still engaging in personal attacks against anyone with the wherewithal to even think of opposing the righteousness of the crusade some editors are on. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
The removal of the additional option was done not for ideological reasons but because there was clear consensus in this discussion, and in the pre-discussion, that it was off-topic. All views are welcome in the RfC, but it is natural that when people have strong feelings about an issue that they will robustly argue those views - especially when some opposing views are seen as offensive to them personally. Obviously all sides should do that without resorting to personal attacks (and I can't immediately see any in this RfC). Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
There was no such consensus. Some editors didn't like the option, and strongly opposed it, but it had significant support and there was no consensus to exclude it. The fact that a small group of editors chose to do so, and then edit warred to keep it out, raises WP:RFCNEUTRAL issues. BilledMammal (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
The only editors who came close to supporting your proposed option 2a all agreed that because the scope of it would have an effect on the guidance with relation to living trans and non-binary individuals, it was out of scope for this set of RfCs which are focused on the scope of guidance for deceased trans and non-binary individuals. The advice given by those editors, and advice that I would echo is that if you wish to see that change made, make your own RfC about it.
Having re-read RFCNEUTRAL multiple times, I fail to see how the exclusion of an option that was outside of the scope of the question would inherently make the question itself non-neutrally worded. RFCNEUTRAL pretty clearly applies to the RfC statement and heading, as that is what gets transcribed by Logobot, and not the content after. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
When I refer to support, I refer to the RFCBEFORE discussion where there was significant support for a position like this. Neutrality in RFC's are also related to the scope of the question; it isn't neutral for editors to exclude an option they dislike, as it restricts the ability of the community to consider that option.
The advice given by those editors, and advice that I would echo is that if you wish to see that change made, make your own RfC about it. To make sure that I have understood you, neither you nor Jerome Frank Disciple would object to a second RfC being opened on this topic, despite the fact that it would overlap with this one? BilledMammal (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
would object to a second RfC being opened on this topic, despite the fact that it would overlap with this one? That is what I said yes. While I have an opinion on the proposal that I shall reserve for such an RfC, I have no objection to such an RfC occurring. Whether you wish to hold it concurrently with the three that are already open, or at some point after they are closed, is up to you to decide. Regardless I would support you holding such an RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I absolutely wouldn’t object to a separate rfc covering living trans persons. (To be clear: I don’t take you to be asking whether or not I would be in favor of your proposal—I’d have to read it and your background section & probably see some of the opinions of others first—frankly, very few of the articles I’ve worked on involve living trans and non-binary persons, so I’m not that familiar with the discussions. (To be even more clear: most of the articles I work on don’t involve trans persons at all, but I came across a few that did, and reading the debates as to naming, thought these RFCs might help)—Jerome Frank Disciple 20:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Context/Responses to the above characterization of what happened ... in the below discussion section
Hi! So, I do find it a bit ... fascinating ... that this discussion is happening under topic 1 even though it doesn't at all relate to that topic, particularly given that the discussion below is being mischaracterized. I'll be relatively brief:
  1. First, @Locke Cole is wrong, there was not an edit war over the removal of @BilledMammal's proposal, which expanded the scope of this RFC to cover living trans persons. BilledMammal and I, regrettably, did edit war over its placement before reaching a tentative compromise—if you look at Topic 3 now, you'll see, roughly, how this compromise looked. Or, see it for yourself.
  2. Second, several editors subsequently expressed agreement that BilledMammal's proposal belonged in a separate RFC. Here's the discussion below for anyone who wants to see for themselves. BilledMammal says his proposal was receiving "significant support". That's also not true. Not including myself, six editors expressed an opinion. One declined to change their vote because, they said, living and deceased trans persons should be treated distinctly. Five others said the option should be removed. Another editor (not myself) removed the option, and it was then placed in the discussion section, as you can see. I'm honestly baffled as to why BilledMammal hasn't started a separate RFC.
I don't think it's worth discussing anything further here, particularly given one of these editors is disclaiming wanting to participate while also ... participating through discussion. Locke Cole, I understand your position is that, regardless of the guidelines or the consensus on an article, you'll appeal these issues to as high a court as you can, on NPOV/NOR grounds. Many have explained to you why they disagree with your analysis of NPOV. I guess you think if you go up high enough, you'll find support. Good luck.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth discussing anything further here, particularly given one of these editors is disclaiming wanting to participate while also ... participating through discussion. Who and what are you talking about here? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: there is probably a little bit of overlap between the discussion here, and around article titles. We are specifically talking about how to refer to people, which can obviously mean the article title as well. I do fear a fight between COMMONNAME and this proposal. For instance, we don't change people's article title based solely on what they want to be called (a person going by a stage name e.g. Vic Reeves who no longer wants to go by that name doesn't get to just chose to have their article at their own names). I'm sure there are articles out there that have a performer (or otherwise) only known a name that is a type of deadname (whether that be a stage name or otherwise). In those cases, do we stick with COMMONNAME, or change the name to the gendered full name (that might not be well known)? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi! It's a great point, and I think it was best touched on by a recent closing editor's closing summary: So, first, WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, which means it's almost invariably restricted to biographic articles. And, critically, COMMONNAME includes a proviso that "[a]mbiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". As that closing editor said, that proviso has, historically, been read to allow for GENDERID's instructions (e.g., Elliot Page or, indeed, the page on which the discussion occurred, Gloria Hemingway).--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
In those cases, do we stick with COMMONNAME, or change the name to the gendered full name (that might not be well known)? The only example of a living trans or non-binary person that I'm aware of where we've stuck with the deadname/stage name over the subject's current name is Suzy Eddie Izzard. The close of the recent move request for that article touches on the interplay between GENDERID, MOS:STAGENAME, and though unsaid COMMONNAME. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I never thought about Izzard, but it makes a lot of sense it would have been discussed there. I doubt it comes up much, but I don't think GENID should trump an obvious COMMONNAME, unless that COMMONNAME is specially a deadname. I'm sure it's a case-by-case thing, but I'm not sure this particular policy should be used to have people known by a new gendered name if they have had a stage name that has been commonly associated with the act (in that, we shouldn't use a person's name as their article title if they aren't known by that name). It does look like that has been addressed, so it's all good Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
As I see it, Izzard's article would comply with the above proposals, as the above proposals don't really touch on article titles. In Izzard's article, she is principally referred to as "Suzy Eddie Izzard".--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I doubt it comes up much Yeah, as I said the only living example I'm aware of where it's ever came up is Izzard's article. There are some less obvious counter examples where GENDERID has been an obvious trump to COMMONNAME; Elliot Page's former name is somewhere adjacent to a stage name as the name by which he was credited and known was not his birth name (it was close to it though), Abigail Thorn's former name was also (as far as we're aware) a stage name. In both of those cases the articles were moved shortly after the subjects came out as trans and their new names became known.
It's a tough one to balance, but it's such a rare occurrence that it's (in my opinion) best handled by WP:IAR, with the primary guideline covering the more common transition of John Doe -> Jane Doe or vice versa. . Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic 2: When to mention deadnames? (MOS:GENDERID 2nd/3rd paragraphs)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This was significantly more tricksy than Topic 1, and the discussion far more nuanced. For the specific proposals of the RFC, there is no consensus to change the current wording of MOS:GENDERID. That, however, isn't a complete reading of the discussion.
Reading the full discussion, the rationales provided, and looking at the breakdown of some of the mixed !votes, it is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3. It was plain after reading the discussion that the community believes that, for the most part, the prior name should not be used. Where the lack of consensus emerges is when dealing with where exactly the line for inclusion should be drawn. Many responses supporting different options specifically called out the difficulty of dealing with a "majority" of sources, e.g. is 50%+1 sufficient? How does a majority take into account emphasis and source quality? Some of those supporting option 2 suggested a higher bar than majority as well. Other concerns were about options 1 and 3 being too set in stone, with always and never too strong for a guideline. Some of those supporting option 3 acknowledged that there would be edge cases and occasional exceptions. Another indicator that the consensus is between these two options is the large number of crossover and mixed responses that allow for option 2 or 3, 3 or 2, and 4 or 2. The ability to, in some circumstances, include the prior name also addresses some of the concerns of those responding who cite WP:NPOV/WP:DUE. It is also clear from the responses that always including the prior name, or assuming the prior name is of encyclopedic importance is soundly rejected by the community.
I suggest that some language taking into account the responses and concerns be workshopped, and possibly another RFC be held if the language doesn't get consensus through discussion. From what I've read here, tightening up the baseline for including the prior name and/or outlining some of the occasions it may be included is likely to result in consensus language. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


If a deceased trans or nonbinary person was not notable prior to transitioning, when should an article mentioning that person include their deadname?

Option 1: Always (3rd paragraph—changes bolded)

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. The birth name or former name of a deceased trans or nonbinary person should always be included in the article. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

Option 2: Sometimes—WP:PLA / majority of sources (New paragraph after 3rd paragraph)
Note: All text is new (bold omitted).

For a deceased trans or nonbinary person, their birth name or former name should be included in an article if they were notable under that name or if such inclusion would satisfy the principle of least astonishment, particularly considering the majority of reliable sources discussing said person. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

  • From Leelah Alcorn: Leelah Alcorn (November 15, 1997 – December 28, 2014) ...
Note: Alcorn was not notable prior to transitioning, and the majority of reliable sources used her chosen name.
  • From Danielle Bunten Berry: Danielle Bunten Berry (February 19, 1949 – July 3, 1998), formerly known as Dan Bunten, ...
Note: Berry was notable prior to transitioning.
Option 3: Never—Remove "living" from the current policy (2nd paragraph—changes bolded)

If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a prior to transitioning, their former name (deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. For example:

Option 4: No change

!votes (MOS:GENDERID topic 2)

  • Option 3. Skyerise (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (proposer): I do think it's fair to say that a reader who's seen a name widely reported in the media will be thrown by its absence in an article—that could be true especially if there's initial media confusion about how a person identified. That said, particularly when it comes to individuals whose deadnames are never widely reported, there's no reason to include the deadname. A name isn't in and of itself telling. In these cases, it's, effectively, a piece of trivia. I would secondarily support Option 3. --Jerome Frank Disciple 19:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Full disclosure, I assisted Jerome Frank Disciple with drafting these questions. Option 3 for me is the neatest, simplest, and best way to handle this. As Jayron32 eloquently put on 6 April, treating people with respect and decency doesn't stop at the moment they die. At present, because the second and third paragraphs of MOS:GENDERID restrict the guideline to apply only to living trans and non-binary people, our basic respect and decency actually stops at roughly the moment they die (WP:BDP not withstanding), as at that time the second paragraph of GENDERID ceases to apply and editors can seek consensus to include that person's deadname. In practice, what the changes in option 3 will mean is that when a notable trans or non-binary person who was not notable prior to their transition, like the named examples in the existing guideline of Laverne Cox and Rachel Levine, dies, editors will not be able to insert their deadname simply because that person is now dead. If the article said Jane Doe (born 1 January 1990) today, and Jane died tomorrow, then the lead would read Jane Doe (1 January 1990 - 7 May 2023).
    Some may ask, why is this necessary? If reliable sources call Jane Doe Jane today, won't they continue to call her Jane when she dies? Unfortunately this is not always the case. It is a sad fact that right now, I can go on Google, type in the name of a famous living trans or non-binary person, and usually find at least one reliable media source that has published their name. Typically the only sources to do this are those with a strong socially conservative bias in their reporting, though there are some exceptions. Because of this and the current phrasing of our guideline, when a notable trans or non-binary person dies, it's not inconceivable that WP:V could be met for including that person's deadname. There are also cases where a trans or non-binary person's deadname was never published by a reliable source while that person was alive, but their deadname is published in an obituary. This is most typically done when that trans or non-binary person's family members were not supportive of their transition and denied them agency over their gender identity.
    On the other options, I would strongly oppose option 1, for much of the reasons why I support option 3. For the purposes of aiding in consensus determination, I would also weakly support option 2 but only if option 3 fails. I do have a concern about option 2, that because satisfying the principle of least astonishment is, in many borderline cases, a matter of editorial consensus, it will in practice result in lengthy and occasionally contentious discussions on inclusion versus exclusion of the name after death. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3: though the guidance has so far been for BLPs, where the situation is particularly sensitive, arguments translate across well enough to apply to dead individuals. It is poor reporting practice to include deadnames, can offend those who knew the subject and is not necessary if the individual was not notable. — Bilorv (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    If deadnames can offend some of those who knew the dead individual, then the new name can also offend some of those who knew the dead individual. The offense can be considered to be either balanced out or impossible to quantify. Thus offense should not be considered as a factor. starship.paint (exalt) 14:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Starship.paint: I'm not sure we should be pandering to those who'd find a transgender identity "offensive" by considering that offense as valid. It's not exactly a neutral issue to sit on the fence about; imagine if we applied the same logic to a BLP of someone who's gay, for instance. There's plenty in the Church of England who'd find Rev. Richard Coles' identity as an openly gay priest offensive, but we don't pretend that's an equally-sided issue and give way to them.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 11:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Ineffablebookkeeper: - it doesn't have to be standard bigotry that you're thinking of. It could be the parents of John Doe, who gained prominence as Jane Doe, although in the parents' eyes, the child they raised will forever be John. Shall we invalidate their offense? starship.paint (exalt) 10:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Starship.paint: that may not be what we immediately think of when we think of bigotry, but it is bigotry nonetheless – a quiet, painful form of bigotry, but not everything has to be the world's loudest hate crime to count. I don't think our relatives, parents or loved ones have the right to define our identity because of their own feelings. They may have given birth to Jane Doe, but she is her own person; again, if we apply this whataboutism to a gay person, for instance, it appears as nonsense, we all know this. This isn't how we define policy at all. We can cover how Jane Doe's parents have or have not supported her transition, but I otherwise don't think this line of argument is supportable, valid, or the right move for policy – just because a family member or members don't support someone's transition, it doesn't give us leave to deadname someone.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 13:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Ineffablebookkeeper and Starship.paint: when it comes to parental acceptance, there is sadly a lot of overlap between parents who refuse to accept their child's sexuality and their child's gender identity. It often manifests in the same way, with statements like "no child of mine is going to be gay/lesbian/bisexual/trans/non-binary, and that's the end of it", or some of other identity denialism like "it's just a phase". I think Ineffablebookkeeper's point that we shouldn't pander to this form of bigotry in any form is the correct one.
    Ultimately it's the parent's choice to be unsupportive of their child for something that it is not a choice the child made, but we shouldn't enable that in any form. Being trans or non-binary is no more a choice than being non-heterosexual. In our articles, we can describe that the person's family was unsupportive if it meets other inclusion criteria, but we should not enable it. In almost all cases, if a person says they are one or more of the identities under the LGBT+ umbrella, then they are who they say they are. Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    I'm getting strawman vibes here, @Ineffablebookkeeper and Sideswipe9th:. We are simply using a former name of a dead person. We have plenty of dead people with former names we can mention, but trans people are apparently special, we can't mention those.Trying to tie this into bigotry and supposed pandering and enabling and then into Wikipedia policy is simply WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, against the provision of knowledge. When using the new name, it's okay to offend supposed bigots, but when using the dead name, it's not acceptable to offend people! Also, I kind of agree with the sentiment that I don't think our relatives, parents or loved ones have the right to define our identity because of their own feelings as pertaining to Wikipedia, because, in my opinion, it should be the reliable sources, at least on Wikipedia. starship.paint (exalt) 15:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Starship.paint: take it how you want; I've said my piece.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 16:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Starship.paint: Trying to tie this into bigotry Intentional deadnaming is a recognised form of bigotry, that has real world consequences for trans and non-binary people. Those of us who are advocating for option 3 (and possibly option 2) are not trying to tie this into bigotry, that link has already been made by reliable sources (see the deadnaming article for some).
    As the editors of the peer-reviewed journal Biological Invasions put it when announcing how they were updating their policies in relation to accessibility and inclusion: [Deadnaming] can be accidental or intentional, and it invalidates a person’s identity and dehumanizes a trans person’s experience. Further, maintaining a deadname in the public record draws unwanted attention to a trans author’s name and can lead to discrimination, misgendering, and harassment.
    We are simply using a former name of a dead person. Not quite. To use your language we would be using the deadname of a dead person. A name that most trans and non-binary people, alive or dead, is one that they no longer wish to be associated with.
    To ask this another way, if the Springer Nature group of journals, SAGE group of journals, and individual journals like Biological Invasions, and PLOS.one are changing their policies to enable retroactive name changes for trans and non-binary scientists, in a manner that removes their deadnames entirely from the record regardless of how famous or influential they are in a given field, why are we so hesitant to stop publishing the deadnames of trans and non-binary people who were not notable prior to transitioning shortly after they die? We are already not including that deadname in life, so why are we so hesitant to continue not publishing it in death? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    We are already not including that deadname in life, so why are we so hesitant to continue not publishing it in death? - it's pretty simple, the dead can't be harmed. Also, Wikipedia already does intentionally deadname trans people, so I'm afraid intentional bigotry is not a good enough reason to block this. starship.paint (exalt) 16:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    Also, Wikipedia already does intentionally deadname trans people Those who were notable prior to transitioning yes. However this is something that I suspect in another ten or so years, as media style guides are updated just as scholarly journal style guides have been, we will be revisiting. The AP Stylebook has recently made steps along the same lines to avoid deadnaming, except where it's by the request of the person or is absolutely necessary to understand the news story. But that is not who we are discussing here. Here we are discussing trans and non-binary people who were not notable prior to their transition, a different set of people entirely. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Added AP Stylebook note Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    if someone finds us using the new name offensive, then that's not a problem with the article, it's a problem that person has with the name the trans person in question chose and used, which is not something we have control over. we don't get to go against that person's wishes on how to be referred to, and offend a marginalized group of people due to the implications that trans identities aren't valid, just because some people might wish the subject hadn't been trans or that trans people as a whole didn't exist.
    I also find it really interesting that WP:RGW is often cited in these conversations, when what it says is that we can't "right great wrongs" unless they're verifiable. it's basically just the WP:NOR repackaged, but it seems like people are somehow reading it to say that we aren't allowed to care about respecting trans identities.
    I think it is best practice not to mention non-notable former names for anyone, but yeah it is different with trans people. it's a really big concern for the trans community and there's no legitimate reason for us not to respect that. Tekrmn (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for acknowledging that it is different with trans people. it's a really big concern for the trans community. I simply believe that this concern cannot override the majority of reliable source coverage. I do not agree with the preferential treatment. starship.paint (exalt) 16:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    can you explain how you feel that referring to someone by their preferred name is preferential treatment? we refer to everyone else by their preferred name as far as I'm aware. Elliot Page's original stage name was the only name in his article prior to his transition despite it not being his legal name. It also seems disingenuous to say that we need to use the name that the greatest number of sources use, when that is not how we decide what is included in articles and especially not what name we use to refer to people. nobody is arguing that we use someone's preferred name if there's no reliable source for it, but to say that a certain number of sources need to use their new name over their old name doesn't make sense. Tekrmn (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    The issue isn't exactly referring to someone by their preferred name. The issue is 100% referring to someone by their preferred name. The issue is about excluding all mention of former names, that's the difference. We could be 95% referring to someone by their preferred name, and 5% using the former name, but this is apparently unacceptable for trans people, and acceptable for non-trans people. starship.paint (exalt) 16:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    The word “use” here is key. I feel that use-mention distinction is important in this discussion. Using a deadname seems to me to have high potential for causing offence. Mentioning one, far less so. I don’t think it’s invalidating to mention that somebody used to have a different name. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    we don't have a formalized policy about this for cisgender subjects because nobody is arguing that we need to include old names for them at every opportunity, but in practice (with a few exceptions in older and poorly-written articles) it seems that a cis person who changes their name is referred to by their new name, and their old name is mentioned in the lead if they were notable under it and is otherwise omitted. if you want to open a discussion about the naming policy as it applies to everyone I would participate in that discussion and advocate for the same naming policies to apply to everyone, but regardless, we have acknowledged that there are additional reasons (though we certainly haven't gone into detail about what they are) that correctly naming trans people (and only mentioning their deadname where necessary) is a higher level concern than it is for cis people. why is it so unacceptable to you that we create additional protection for them in our guidelines (at least for now) given that they are both specifically being targeted as a result of our loose naming guidelines and that their names are of much greater importance to them personally and as a community? what is the problem with that? Tekrmn (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3. I see the appeal of option 2 but I don't want us to get bogged down in arguments over what is "least astonishing" when some of the people arguing are likely to trolls who will pretend to be astonished just to be disruptive. Option 3 doesn't stop us mentioning previous names so long as they were genuinely notable under those names, so there is no risk of anybody looking for an article under one name, finding the article under a different name and and not being sure whether this refers to the same person. That is the only legitimate purpose for including a deadname. If a subject was not notable under their deadname then adding it helps nobody to find or understand the article. In addition, I strongly agree with Bilorv's comments about the risk of offending friends and relatives of deceased subjects. DanielRigal (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    There is equally a "risk of offending friends and relatives of deceased subjects" even when using the last preferred name. starship.paint (exalt) 14:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    That's true! I agree in principle here—the "friends and family" argument doesn't have much purchase with me, because, hey, even friends and family can be bigots! I think Folly Mox is correct that, in terms of respect, the issue is respect for the transgender community.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    My respect for the transgender community does not exceed adherence to widespread reliable sourcing. Seems clear that plenty of editors disagree, but it's looks like WP:RGW to me. starship.paint (exalt) 14:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I'd agree that every fact that gets repeatedly mentioned in reliable sources is inherently worthy of inclusion, but it sounds like you're for option 2?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    I've voted down below. I never argued "every fact", the thing is, names are obviously a form of identification, and the lack of identification can be a source of confusion. Omitting hypothetical other facts may not cause such issues. starship.paint (exalt) 14:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    I'm glad your found an option that resonated with you!--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3: I'm mostly even between these two options because I think they both exclude everything I'd really want to exclude. Option 2 allows for cases where a dead person's deadname became well-known after their death, while Option 3 doesn't. I think there's a reasonable case for either version. I oppose Option 1 since I think there are obvious cases (Leelah Alcorn for instance) where including a dead trans person's deadname would be grossly a case of real-world harm. I oppose Option 4 because its ambiguity as to the case of dead people is what got us into this mess in the first place. Loki (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    FWIW if it comes down to it I think I'd weakly support 3 over 2. But they're both very close for me. Loki (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I don't think PAL or use in a majority of sources is the right test, but it should be included if it is specifically relevant. For example, Brandon Teena mentions several facts about the deadname (its appearance in the paper, its use on the tombstone, its use among a list of other aliases) without stating what it is. At that point, we are clearly writing around a piece of information that would normally be mentioned, in order to avoid offence, which is contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED.--Trystan (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC) edit: Second choice would be Option 4 - no change at this time.--Trystan (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) Option 3 per DanielRigal, Bilorv and Sideswipe9th. This (like just about every policy on Wikipedia) does not preclude occasional exceptions existing; the only ones that comes to mind are (1) where a person's notability prior to transition is borderline or disputed, and (2) where the person expressed a clear preference for something different. In the case of 2 we should obviously respect that preference, in the case of 1 then I don't see any alternative to an editorial discussion, but that discussion should be framed in terms of their notability under that name and should minimise the use of the name in the discussion. I oppose option 1 as it is very likely to cause real-world harm without any encyclopaedic justification. I oppose option 4 as it will not resolve the issues. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Always and Never are too prescriptive. There isn't always encyclopedic value in including former names. Conversely, there can be encyclopedic value in including former names. The privacy interest doesn't disappear immediately upon death, but it does fade over time, and eventually the encyclopedic value of including a former name may come to outweigh the residual privacy interest. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 After reading some of the comments below, I don't believe a change is needed. For living and deceased people, notable deadnames should be included per WP:DUE and WP:NOTCENSORED. For deceased subjects, the inclusion of non-notable deadnames should be decided based on editorial judgment, with no bias towards exclusion. Amending my vote from this. Some1 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Small clarification (this was maybe a poor design choice on my part), option 2 would leave the “living” paragraph untouched. It would be inserted below that paragraph. Sorry for the confusion.—Jerome Frank Disciple 21:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3, weakly 2. Regardless of whether a subject is alive, non-notable deadnames are, by definition, miscellaneous WP:TRIVIA (regardless of how biographically/historically "important" trolls always insist they are), and publishing them (moreover, aggregating and verifying them) imparts little meaningful value to readers except those retrieving them for the sole purpose of causing harm. As Bilorv noted, the potential harm (e.g. to those that love and remember them) of making a trans person's deadname such a readily accessible piece of information (e.g. in the Google Knowledge Graph) does not immediately stop with death. I don't see an especially compelling reason why our criteria for inclusion should expire on a subject's death (certainly, if I were a BLP subject, I would not want that particular sword hanging over my head). –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 22:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I'm not sure why we need to complicate things and create a new standard. Jayron32 puts it well: Treating people with respect and decency doesn't stop at the moment they die. If there's an actual case where someone's deadname only becomes important after their death, we can make an exception in that case/craft a policy exception for those particular cases. Strongly oppose option 1. Galobtter (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 as long as it’s relevant to the subject. As per MOS:SURNAME, we should refer to individuals principally by their surname after their full name (and deadname) is mentioned. Yasslaywikia (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 Option 4. The only argument for concealing former names that are reliably sourced would be privacy, and WP:BLP already handles the various concerns around former names and when privacy no longer becomes an issue after death. Former names clearly have encyclopedic value and should only be censored for privacy concerns under BLP. The MOS should not try to decide this issue. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Privacy concerns (nor any of the other reasons we don't deadname living people, including basic respect) do not somehow magically disappear after death, they can (and frequently do) impact on family members and friends of the deceased. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Which is why our current BLP policy extends privacy considerations to the recently deceased. However, there does come a time when that consideration ends. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    In the case of deadnames and similar, the need for consideration extends for (at least) as long as close friends and family are still living. I also explicitly noted that the reason we do not deadname living people is not solely a privacy matter - basic respect for human beings does not end when someone ceases to be recently deceased. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Thryduulf, I'm sure you've seen them, but read WP:GRATUITOUS and WP:NOTCENSORED and tell me how you could justify excluding the former name of a 2-year dead transgender individual because it might offend their living relative? Would you also exclude the images of Muhammad from his bio because it offends some people? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    Images of Muhammaed have clear encyclopaedic justification, the same cannot be said of deadnames transgender individuals were never notable under. Per Gratuitous and other policies we should never go out of our way to offend people, regardless of why, and that includes never including deadnames without clear encyclopaedic justification. Wikipedia:Offensive material states: Offensive words [...] should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.. This does not make any reference to the time since death - if it is encyclopaedically unjustifiable to include a subject's deadname when they are living or recently deceased, then it is encyclopaedically unjustifiable to do so two years after their death.
    See also Folly Mox's comments in the topic 2 discussion section. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    That's cherry picking from the policy/guide. WP:GRATUITOUS also says, Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers Former names are not "vulgar or obscene" and they are included in almost every instance whether the former name was notable or not. Former names are "informative", "relevant", and "accurate", and "no suitable alternative is available". WP:NOTCENSORED, Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. In this case, arguing to make a special case to exclude former transgender names is trying to make the encyclopedia conform to a social norm from gender theory that suggests it is exceedingly offensive to even mention, informatively, someone's prior name. Wikipedia should not conform. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or option 4 (in no order). While PLA isn’t the standard I would apply, it is good enough for now. My own perfect version would establish something like: “Mere verifiability is not enough to justify inclusion, but a preponderance of high-quality reliable sources is”. I am also very amenable to letting wiki-biographers of deceased persons decide on a page by page basis. I don’t particularly love the idea that the MOS should rule over any of this (the current deadname guideline is centred on BLP policy, as Cuñado points out), but I do have to remind myself how many pages of discussion we are generating day after day on this stuff. — HTGS (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - no change. Our current policy is good. It respects the subject, while at the same time allowing flexibility in complex situations. “Always” and “Never” are overly restrictive. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 2. I prefer option 3 as a default, but I think the "always" / "never" words are too strong. We should prefer option 3 in the vast majority of cases, while still allowing exceptions to be made if appropriate for the article in question. stwalkerster (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2a. I don't understand why this option was omitted from the RfC, but there are circumstances where a living trans or non-binary person was not notable under their deadname, but their deadname should be mentioned in the article due to the level of coverage it has received, such as in the Isla Bryson case. This allowance is also necessary to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:BALASP. I would note that this is already how things should function in practice; as the MOS cannot overrule a core policy, this guideline cannot prevent the inclusion of names which are necessary to comply with NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Happy to explain. This RFC, as the title, questions, and proposals indicate, concerns the deadnames of deceased trans persons.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    This appears to a duplication of our discussion below. BilledMammal (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Option 4. Thinking further, option 2 or any variant of it is not viable as it can result in WP:BALANCE violations; a name doesn't need to be mentioned in a majority of sources to be due for inclusion under NPOV. It is also impractical, as it is difficult to determine when a name is mentioned in the majority of sources, both due to the difficulty of such a broad evaluation and in terms of determining when a mention should be counted - for example, do passing mentions count? There is also the issue of when a name is mentioned in roughly half of sources; it could result in us switching whether we include the name every time the person is mentioned.
    Option 3 is not an option for the same reason, as well as being a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. I'll note that for these reasons if there is a consensus for option 2 or 3 it will not resolve anything; as a guideline, MOS:GENDERID cannot overrule a policy (WP:NOT), and there can never be a consensus to overrule a core policy (WP:NPOV). BilledMammal (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - I think it would be good to have this formalized. If that lacks consensus, my second choice would be Option 2, even though I find it tough to imagine a case where the inclusion of a name a trans person was not notable under in an article would assist a reader's understanding of its subject. Hatman31 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3. If it's not notable enough to include when they were alive, it doesn't become notable when they die. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 05:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4. I do not think it should be forbidden to include this information for deceased persons. I have not seen any good arguments as to why it should be forbidden; many of the arguments seem to boil down to a plea to impose ideological uniformity. As to whether it's important enough to include, that's an editorial decision at the article level. --Trovatore (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 seems the best option. I see nothing magical that happens when a transgender person dies that means we should somehow change the policy at that point. Restricting it to "living" just means that the trolls have a loophole when they can wait until a transgender person dies, and then pounce on the article. We want to discourage that behavior; basically if Wikipedia has determined the information is not encyclopedic for living persons, there's no rationale that suddenly makes it encyclopedic the second they die. Like all policy, I would allow for WP:IAR exceptions where edge cases exist. But for the standard operating procedure, we shouldn't change the way we handle transgender individuals the moment they die. --Jayron32 14:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
"the moment they die"... WP:BDP exists for that. EddieHugh (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2a / Option 2 / Option 4 per Trystan, HTGS, Barnards.tar.gz, BilledMammal and Trovatore. Adding on to their rationale, my thinking is simple - follow the majority of reliable sources. Strong oppose Option 3 as verging on WP:RGW by going against the majority of reliable sources (WP:DUEWEIGHT), and for all those claiming that reasonable exceptions may be carved out - I do not believe it. Far more likely that your proposed MOS:GENDERID will be used as a blunt instrument to prevent any exceptions. starship.paint (exalt) 14:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4, no change - I do not think there is merit in changing the current policy, which gives the editors flexibility to choose on a case-by-case basis. In particular:
    "Always" and "never" are overly restrictive. (WP:IAR exists, but we should only rarely require it.
    The "majority of reliable sources" is all very well if the majority and minority explicitly disagreed (eg about what the former name was, not whether it existed), but what if 5 sources do not mention the former name but 2 reliable sources do? In that case I think it fair to include the (undisputed) former name. Not everyone who wants to include reliably sourced factual biographical information is a "troll". Our policies, and our discussions, should be assuming good faith.
    WP:PLA is a good policy, but this is not its purpose. It is not intended as a limitation of what we include in an article, which is what option 2 is trying to do. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3. Multiple participants above have lucidly summarized my thoughts on the matter, especially HTGS (on the strengths of Option 2) and Thryduulf and RoxySaunders (on the strengths of Option 3). ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Is this really solving a problem? In the case of living people the BLP protection concerns can be real. However, when dealing with non-BLP cases why not handle it on a case by case basis? As was said above, always and never are overly restrictive and IAR is a rarely used pillar. It would seem that in most cases we are likely to get a result similar to what we get with a BLP case. In the few cases where we don't I would presume there is a good reason why thus we shouldn't prescribe a solution. Springee (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3: I supported the proposal in topic 1 and I think option 3 best comports with that proposal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 If they weren't notable under the prior name, then there's no reason to include it. And this should never have had "living" in it in the first place, because that results in dumb scenarios where the moment one such person dies, then people are free to claim the name should be turned back to their deadname because this policy no longer applied. Which is idiotic. Hence, it should apply to all trans individuals, living or dead. SilverserenC 22:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 I'm not seeing any major reasoning as why we need to be overly instructive when can judge it on a case-by-case basis.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 02:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    That's fair! I think my concern is that the case-by-case discussions end up looking like policy/guideline discussions. To be sure, there's a tailored option here (option 2), but from looking at a few of these debates, what I've noticed is many people saying "a birth name is inherently relevant" and many people responding by saying "no it's not". Now, we might be having that discussion on a lot of pages, but that doesn't mean we're having a case-by-case discussion. In my best case scenario—the guidance here makes is so that we don't need to repeat policy/guideline debates on article talk pages each time this comes up.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    The "always" option is a red herring. It should have been clarified as something like "never forbidden". It's up to the editors of a particular article to figure out what is and is not relevant in that article. --Trovatore (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    Believe it or not, the argument that a birth name is inherently relevant and encyclopedic isn't all that rare! Though, admittedly, in this discussion, we've only had a couple option 1 supporters—one of whom changed their vote. If you're looking for "unrestricted", the best option is probably option 4.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    I'm on record that birth names are "presumptively" of encyclopedic interest. I see them as on the same level of interest as names of parents, which we routinely report in the "early life" section, and I think the "early life" section is the right place to put birth names as well. But Option 1 is not an option for me — of course it's not the role of the MOS to say birth names should "always" be included. That's an editorial call, not a style issue. --Trovatore (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1, followed by 4, followed by 2. I don't see why we should have to prove 'a majority of sources' use the person's birth name before we can include it in their Wikipedia article. If a good source reports the birth name, so should we. Most Wikipedia biographies have an 'Early life' section (even though most people weren't notable as children) and information on birth name/s should be included there if there is reliable sourcing. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4, with option 2 as a best practice. Social mores change, and not everyone who we now call transgender would have thought of their birth name as a strictly private matter, as is common now. (As mentioned below, try writing about the Public Universal Friend without mentioning their former name and see how far you get.) I don’t think wiki policy/style should be strictly dogmatic either way. MarijnFlorence (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    As the person who originally brought up that example I do want to at least mention that there have been versions of the page that did not mention the PUF's former name. I don't think that they were an improvement, but it's definitely possible! Loki (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2, where the person was notable under a former name it is appropriate that it be mentioned. 4 is a second choice. Definitely not 3. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    Clarification: under all the options, where the person was notable under a former name it is appropriate that it be mentioned. The proposals only address what to do as to persons who were not notable under a former name.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 If a trans person is not notable under a given birth name, then we don't have any obligation to include it. It's always felt ghoulish to me that we can only consistently apply this principle (under current policy) to living transgender individuals.
    The reason I am against Option 2 is pretty straight forward: All it takes is for one reliable source to exist which says a deadname for someone to try and justify giving it WP:UNDUE weight. A more extreme rule (and yes, I recognize Option 3 might be considered by many to be extreme) is a much easier rule to follow. Here's an example:
    You have a transgender man named Gary Dark, and he dies (rest in peace). Mr. Dark was super popular and lived in a lot of places, so he has 10 different obituaries appearing in regional outlets across his country. 9 of them choose to omit Gary's deadname in his obituary, but the one in his hometown has more relaxed (ie. worse) editorial standards and lets it slip Gary Dark was born Alexa Dark. That one source can then be used to justify including something in our article even if 9 reliable sources made the active decision to omit Dark's deadname.
    Of course, exceptions will exist to this rule, but those can be handled in an actual case-by-case basis. The edge cases shouldn't form the basis for most of our policy ("hard cases make bad law" as the saying goes). In most cases, it's practically never relevant to mention someone's deadname if they weren't notable under that name. If they were notable under their deadname, then Option 3 wouldn't effect them.
    That's my logic, at least. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
    Sounds like you are mischaracterising Option 2, MJL, which says particularly considering the majority of reliable sources discussing said person ... but here you are saying ... All it takes is for one reliable source to exist ... That one source can then be used to justify including something in our article even if 9 reliable sources made the active decision to omit Dark's deadname. starship.paint (exalt) 13:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Starship.paint: Option 2 has a large carve out: if such inclusion would satisfy the principle of least astonishment. What that means is going to be subject to endless debate. If, using my example, Gary went to an all-girls high school, would that satisfy the guideline? You could easily make the arguement that a reader might be astonished that Gary Dark went to an all-girls high school.
    I don't think the policy in Option 2 is as clear as it is in Option 3. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
    @MJL: - in this case, with a small minority of sources using Alexa Dark, we could simply write in article text that While still presenting as female, Gary Dark attended an all-girls high school, Stonebridge High School. Wouldn't this be able to solve the problem? Now, definitely, Option 3 is clearer, but clarity is not the only metric that we should be using. I afford weight to.... WP:DUEWEIGHT. starship.paint (exalt) 01:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
    IMO that would be ok, but MOS:GENDERID seems to specifically discourage acknowledging that the person ever presented as a gender other than their current identification, recommending ambiguous constructions instead to obscure the issue. Anomie⚔ 12:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
    MOS:GENDERID seems to specifically discourage acknowledging that the person ever presented as a gender other than their current identification — I disagree. GENDERID includes (with my emphasis added)
    "Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis."
    I.e., it is OK to mention it in the main biographical article, and/or if it would other be a surprise. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
    The very next sentence after what you quote specifically and directly prescribes the use of ambiguous constructions to avoid "confusion". The example used there seems unlikely to be present outside of the main biographical article (unless maybe it's in an article about a spouse, which raises even more concerns). Anomie⚔ 00:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    [tangent] I have wondered occasionally whether this bit in GENDERID effectively takes a philosophical stand against gender fluidity. We wrote it from the POV that a trans woman was a girl/woman from birth, and so should not be described as a boy who grew up to be a woman. Gender-fluid people do not share that belief (as applied to themselves) and might not appreciate our insistence on the most recent gender as the only "real" one. (I don't know how to fix it without making things worse overall.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    @WhatamIdoing: I've had that concern as well. Fortunately the guideline as written does allow subjects to "opt out" of the past-pronoun provision, and, while it doesn't have the same clause about deadnames, I honestly think that's more because no one's ever thought to put it in than because there's a strong consensus that trans people can't consent to having pre-notability deadnames used. (I've wavered regarding Sarah Ashton-Cirillo, who fairly frequently mentions her pre-notability deadname, posts pre-transition pictures, etc., and have only held off on ignoring MOS:DEADNAME there for reasons of WP:DUE.) Personally, as an agender person who does not see xemself as having "always been a woman" or anything close to that and whose post-transition name is just a feminized form of xyr pre-transition name, I've jotted down somewhere that if my pre-transition self is ever referred to in mainspace, I don't care what name or pronouns are used. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    @WhatamIdoing: You are not wrong. I think the major failing of MOS:GENDERID is that it's a victim of WP:POLE and poorly-executed compromises. I'm going to resist the urge to go into detail since it's not what this conversation is about, but I would like to make it clear that I agree with you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
    No, that wouldn’t be good wording. It should be, “before transitioning from female to male”. A Tree In A Box (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
    All it takes is for one reliable source to exist... Sadly this is something that already happens with the current version of the guideline, much less option 2. Earlier this year I created an article about a recently killed transgender teen in the UK. About two days after the teen's death, both the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph amended their early reporting to include the teen's deadname. While both papers later removed the deadname after backlash, in the days that followed, a few editors tried to add the teen's deadname citing archived copies of the article from The Times.
    At present, that name can be excluded per WP:BDP, as the teen was not notable prior to transitioning and only achieved notability because of her death. But at some point between now and February 2025, BDP ceases to apply. So what happens then? Under option 2, an editor could make a PLA based argument for inclusion either in good faith or bad to include that teen's deadname, as that teen's killing is being investigated as a possible hate crime due to her gender identity. Even if that discussion is settled by an RfC, because consensus can change, there is always the future potential for another editor to resume or restart the past discussions on inclusion or exclusion of that deadname.
    I'm personally of the opinion that we don't need to ever include that teen's deadname. It's not necessary to understand that she was killed, nor depending on the outcome of the investigation and trial why she was killed. It doesn't add any information that is of encyclopaedic value to the article, and would only serve to intrude upon the privacy of grieving family and friends. But there are editors, both in good faith and in bad, who believe the opposite to myself.
    The problem is that both PLA and WEIGHT is that they are subjective measures, not objective measures. If you ask a hundred editors what constitutes either, you will likely get 100 different answers, because they are both largely defined on individual editorial opinion and discretion. What option 3 provides over option 2 is that option 3 provides both clarity and continuity of the guideline. It closes a loophole in the guidance that currently exists, where upon the death of a trans or non-binary subject who was not notable prior to transition, that name cannot be included solely because of the fact that they are now dead. If the same person was notable prior to transitioning, option 3 would result in no change to the existing guidance, because their deadname would already be included in their respective article.
    Of course, even if option 3 is the version that finds consensus, WP:IAR still exists to handle the small minority of cases where there is a compelling reason to include a deadname after the subject's death that we otherwise could not include during the subject's life. But the American legal maxim of hard cases make bad law is precisely why the guideline should cover the vast majority of articles where (in my opinion) a deadname for a trans or non-binary person who was not notable prior to transitioning should not be considered for inclusion solely because the article subject is now dead. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
    So, I'm ... really hesitant to discuss this here, and I've only recently realized it, but it's occurred to me that "notability" might not be the correct test. WP:NOTABLE concerns the threshold for determining who gets their own article. I'm not sure it makes sense to have notability govern deadnames outside of biography subjects.
    Obviously, these cases are rare, but consider a person who commits a high-profile crime, transitions post-sentencing, and then dies. (This is not based on the current high-profile RFC involving a person who transitioned before committing a crime; rather, it relates to another article on WP.) Such a person probably wouldn't be notable, before or after transitioning. Chances are, the crime would warrant an article, but not the person who committed it, per WP:PERPETRATOR (part of the notability policy). But, in all likelihood, the vast majority of articles about such a person would use the person's name at the time of the event, not the post-transition name. That's the type of situation where I think Option 2 has some utility.
    I'm not sure there'd be a serious argument for inclusion of the deadname in the article/situation you mentioned under option 2—by my read, PLA independently wouldn't warrant inclusion, and certainly the "majority of reliable sources" wouldn't, either. Sure, it's a standard rather than a rule, so I guess there's always a chance, but, given WP:IAR, aren't all guidelines and policies standards? Yes, consensus can change and arguments can repeat, but that's just as true regarding a PLA argument as a IAR argument, no? --Jerome Frank Disciple 19:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
    To me, the reason for the link between deadname and notability is pretty obvious. Consider that the name of a notable person is very likely going to appear in multiple articles beyond just that person's biography. For example, if the person is a prolific actor, author, musician, or other creative type, their name is going to appear in articles about works to which they contributed. However it's not uncommon for the initial works of a person to be notable long before the person themselves achieves notability. If the guideline didn't link the use of the name with notability, then the primary article about the person might say "Jane Doe (born 1 January 1990), is a [insert nationality here] actress...", while works that involve Jane might credit her as "John Doe".
    by my read, PLA independently wouldn't warrant inclusion Sure, but PLA is pretty subjective, and your or my reading of it is not the only reading. Even majority of RS is somewhat subjective, as some editors will consider that to be 50%+1, while others would require a supermajority of 55% or more.
    but that's just as true regarding a PLA argument as a IAR argument, no? Invoking IAR, whether successfully or not, is a much higher threshold than invoking PLA. In my experience editors would be far more likely to invoke a PLA based exception to an IAR one. With PLA you just need to demonstrate that inclusion of a fact satisfies the base principle, but with an IAR based exception you need to demonstrate how inclusion improves the article in a manner that's currently being prevented by application of a policy or guideline that otherwise prevents it. Those two are not always the same thing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 This approach most harmonizes with our BLP policies. Whether something should be included in a bio should be a basis for a discussion and Option 2 does not *force* this to be included, merely allow a discussion of it. Option 3 basically forces us to censor information even when it's pertinent. Option 1 would be unacceptable for the same reason in the opposite direction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - The basis of the current status quo is that there is a major privacy value ascribed that overrides aggregating available knowledge. A change to option 3 would ascribe a higher protection than BLP/CRIME. I don't think that comparison holds up, and as such option 2 is best. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 but... The problem with not mentioning the dead name on grounds of no pre-change notability is that it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy by barring editors unaware of the dead name of the subject from discovering any potential notability established in sources published prior to the name change. We should respect a subject's preferences even after death when it comes to their name, but we should not allow ourselves to sever their identity from their past, which could include possibly notable and contextualising events. The solution IMO is to leave a sourced note of the subject's deadname at the top of the talk page so that anyone looking to improve the article will have access to this information when searching for sources. Redirects from the dead name must also be kept as these allow people with notable information to find the article on which this information belongs. small jars tc 13:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Same as for living people: if the person isn't notable under their deadname, there is no reason to add it. Again, no need to make a special policy against dead people. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2: I find it hard to say that a person's original name is trivia. That said, we should treat such things with sensitivity and respect which is why I oppose putting any sort of deadnames in the lede or bolding them save for cases where the person was explicitly famous before transitioning. However, with Sophie for example, there are several national-level publications that use her original name, not just a few. For that, I feel that putting her name in the early life section is not any more undue than her exact birthday which has less relevance, less coverage, and is equally as likely to hurt their privacy. And because there is no pushback against exact birthdays for several of the same reasons argued above, it seems that many are here to right a great wrong. (Obviously, the two situations are not the same, but it does help highlight some of why I feel the arguments above are flimsy.) While intentional deadnaming should not be done at all on Wikipedia, and trolls should be banned at the first infraction, Wikipedia is also not censored. Including things that are true, used by reliable sources, and where the person is deceased so as not to get personally denigrated or have their privacy revealed (speaking from a purely pragmatic point) is not offensive in the slightest, especially if it is de-emphasized. (Also, for someone like Sophie that had a small discography under her birth name, I see value in providing the original name. You should not hide a past identity in pursuit of niceness. Note that this proposal is not specific to Sophie, but she provides a nice example of when to oppose.) Why? I Ask (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
    Just to clarify: The Sophie example was used in light of the RFC on that page (although I have to admit I missed that there was a no consensus finding there). Obviously the examples should be paradigmatic cases, so if there's a less controversial example, I'd personally be okay replacing Sophie (and given that the examples are meant to illustrate the proposals ... and it's not the case that the proposals are meant to adjudicate the examples ... I don't think such replacement would count as a change to the RFC). That said, I don't really see any evidence of a real controversy concerning the exclusion of Sophie's deadname.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
    It's all good, but I think it really shows that there are not a lot of paradigmatic cases. While there are good intentions behind wishing to respect the wishes of the subject to the highest extent, it is often hard to find a case where one transitions later in life and does not already have some coverage of their deadname in their professional career (which, in that case, I would support its inclusion given a verifiable source). I think there are plenty of cases where I would absolutely oppose using the birth name (e.g., Leelah Alcorn or Blake Brockington), but for many (especially in the arts where they may have published under an earlier name), it provides some helpful encyclopedic context. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
    The examples are, at least for the purposes of this RfC, largely illustrative for how the proposed change would apply. There may well be better examples to use, and those could be substituted in, either now or after the RfC closes if that option finds consensus, without altering the intent of that proposal. Leelah or Blake would probably be a better example than Sophie, and I don't think you'd find any objections to adjusting the example against inclusion of a deadname to use one or both. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per per DanielRigal, Bilorv and Sideswipe9th. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per a mix of the arguments made above. I think the wording about a majority of reliable sources in option 2 is setting out the wrong criterion; deciding how much weight to give any information isn't just about counting how many sources mention it, but also about how much emphasis they each give it and other considerations. XOR'easter (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3. If someone's deadname wasn't well-known, there's no reason to bring it up in their article, living or dead shouldn't matter. Whether there will be an abundance of clear-cut cases to apply this guideline to is entirely a different matter. TheSavageNorwegian 21:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4: Options 1, 2 and 3 contradict NPOV, specifically WP:BALANCE, which requires us to treat details proportional to their treatment in reliable sources. None of the proposed texts follow policy. RAN1 (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Thryduulf, Jayron, and MJL. I'm not entirely against option 2 in principle, but it seems unlikely for reliable sources refer to the subject only by their deadname (thus generating astonishment) unless they were in fact notable under that name. I realize that some editors think this is overly prescriptive, but I agree with those who have argued that additional breathing room is unnecessary and will inevitably lead to disruptive editing. I can't say I support a race to start inserting deadnames to articles six months after trans person dies, followed by incessant wikilawyering over PLA, which was never intended to be a policy or guideline in itself. Folly Mox also makes a salient point: these decisions have broader ramifications than the subject and their family alone, which should not be overlooked. Barring exceptional circumstances, the use of non-notable deadnames is not encyclopedic and would only discredit the project. —Rutebega (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4, second choice Option 2. We are an encyclopedia; we're here to summarize the world's knowledge. We are not here to make people sad, so we do make compromises to that end, but the dead can not be made sad. Their friends, relatives, and completely unrelated activists can be sad on their behalf, but if we allow everyone and their brother to veto our content, then eventually we will have no content. (Trust me, there are numerous people out there that are eager to say: the very existence of Wikipedia hurts me personally, deeply, and fatally - delete it all!) We need to find a place to draw the line, and "living" seems a good place to draw it. --GRuban (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 out of these but in my view the better solution would be to remove "living transgender or non-binary" and other gender/sexuality references to end up with If a person was not notable under a former name, it should not be included in any page... and A person's birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Furthermore, since it makes no sense to have the resulting stuff in a section entitled "Gender identity", it would probably be appropriate to merge it with WP:CHANGEDNAME. casualdejekyll 21:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I've seen several trans people, some of whom were at least plausibly notable enough for an article, explicitly say on social media that they don't want a Wikipedia article because they're afraid people will use it to broadcast their deadname to the world. MOS:GENDERID has helped with that, but if you can add non-notable deadnames to an article after the subject dies, that sentiment isn't going to go away. And it's a lot harder to ethically write about trans people on Wikipedia if they actively don't want an article because of our policies around deadnames. (Not to mention that there are plenty of people who will want to add a deadname to a trans person's article as soon as they've been dead long enough for purely bigoted reasons, not for any reason related to building an encyclopedia, and that's something we should strongly discourage.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Option 2 could lead to arguments around the inclusion of birth names for almost any trans or nonbinary person. there should be no ambiguity that the name itself needs to be notable for it to be included. Tekrmn (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3. We shouldn't much care about the subject's feelings -- they don't have any, cos they're dead. So the default is to perform our remit of informing as much as we can. (However, it would be nice to consider the feelings of the recently bereaved, so like "only if they've been dead five years" (say) would be good. Herostratus (talk)
  • Option 4. If I had my druthers, I'd strike the entirety of MOS:GENDERID per WP:RGW. WP:NPOV can perfectly handle this entire scenario from start to finish: this is just unnecessary instruction creep. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4, that the guideline does not and should not apply outside BLP. Decisions about inclusion or removal of content within an article should follow generally applicable principles and policies in the same way they apply to any other content. In particular, those policies are not to be conflated with notability. The guideline should remain rooted in BLP (including the recently deceased, as defined under WP:BDP) and not in freestanding recourse to respect and disrespect that would run afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED. I also agree with Mitch Ames on why Option 2 is a poor rule. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 preferably or Option 2 per WP:DUE. If they were not notable under their old names there is no encyclopedic value in including it. Yet since the policy right now is needlessly vague about deceased trans people, editors have this same endless fight over several trans articles, including people trying to change a trans biography right after the subject dies. Rab V (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 preferably or option 2 I think WP:DUE and WP:NOTCENSORED provide enough guidance here. Option 3 attempts to carve an exemption to NOTCENSORED by saying that actually mentioning deadnames is SO offensive‍ NOTCENSORED should not apply. We really should not be treating different types of potentially objectionable content to different standards. CandyScythe (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3; I see no reason why we should necessarily split the difference here. Privacy concerns are a sufficient, but not necessary, reason why we shouldn't include non-notable deadnames. Sceptre (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 as removing the old name entirely creates a barrier that could completely prevent readers from finding information prior to name change. (Note, I didn't say prior to transition, as name change and transition can happen at different times.) Remember that Wikipedia is not a reliable source itself, it is a compilation of reliable sources, and one of the benefits of Wikipedia is as a gateway to reliable sources elsewhere, which would be impeded by an iron-clad policy of "remove deadnames" of those who were not notable before name change. Even if a person is not notable yet, there could potentially be many sources about them. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 22:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4. Option 1 is flat-out unenforceable -- if someone's deadname has not been reported, then this wording all but requires editors to either do WP:OR to dig it up and/or to rely on questionable sources (people databases, etc.) Option 2 gets into all kinds of problems about recentism and availability -- there is no guarantee that "the majority of sources" will be evenly distributed pre- and post-transition, or equally accessible -- and seems likely to lead to cherry-picking or mischaracterizing sources. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    Just a side comment on your objection to option 2… if the majority of sources are from pre-transition, then it is highly likely that the subject is notable pre-transition (and thus the deadname should at least be mentioned somewhere in the article, per our current guidance). Blueboar (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per NOTCENSORED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3, per DanielRigal, Sideswipe9th, and the reasons I gave in pre-RFC discussion, summarized as: the reasons for not including non-notable deadnames don't change if the person dies. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and regularly excludes not only gratuitously offensive things people want to include for bad reasons, but even perfectly inoffensive but non-notable things; in pre-RFC discussion, people argued a deadname would help genealogical researchers: so would knowing the person's genealogy (indeed, that would be far more helpful!), yet in a recent RfC about COPHERITAGE, everyone seemed to agree that despite being NOTCENSORED, Wikipedia is not the place for non-notable genealogies. Likewise, I've yet to find an article where a celebrity's non-notable street address is included: despite the help it'd be to the mythical innocent genealogists some people say deadnames would help, it's not notable information. If a person was not notable under their deadname, then even under the aforelinked existing policies and guidelines, it should not be included, and clear language to this effect would be helpful in resolving the many redundant discussions which otherwise come up. -sche (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3. I honestly don't have much to say besides what has already been said: respect for one's gender doesn't end once a person dies. I wanna point out that the living qualifier was added without consensus by Sdkb in 2020. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    I wanna point out that the living qualifier was added without consensus by Sdkb in 2020. This was discussed here and refined here, where @Sdkb: participated with other editors at the time. The initial RFC closure was only cautiously in agreement for aligning it with BLP, not expanding it to all living or dead individuals. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Extended disagreement on whether current version (“living”) has consensus
  • No prior discussion can bind us against holding another discussion. Everything is open for change, including policies and guidelines that may have been agreed to by a prior consensus-based discussion.--Jayron32 16:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    Who are you talking to? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    You had mentioned that there had been a prior discussion on this matter, which had at the time determined to limit the matter to living individuals only. I was letting you know that even if true, it's not terribly important, and consensus can always be changed with a new discussion. --Jayron32 17:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    You must have missed the quoted part, I was only addressing the claim that there was no consensus for the addition and clarifying the discussion around that. Please do be more careful in the future when reading discussions. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    I will be sure to give your advice its due consideration. --Jayron32 17:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    At the time of the addition, there was no consensus for it. Neither of the proposals in the preceding RfC contained language that restricted the applicability of the deadname provisions as a whole solely to living people. Loki's proposed version did add the clarifier that for living people, a non-notable deadname should be treated as a BLPPRIVACY issue, but did not restrict the first part of the rewording to only living people.
    In the subsequent section, there were three comments made prior to Sdkb changing the guideline to restrict it as a whole to living people only. One from Sdkb rationalising why the deadname provision should be restricted only to the living, and one from Armadillopteryx stating clearly that Some explicitly referenced WP:BLPPRIVACY, but others presented a rationale that could be reasonably interpreted to cover dead subjects as well. The discussions that followed from 17 October onwards focused on the point as to how the then newly updated deadname guideline was to be interpreted with respect to mention of the deadname in infoboxes and throughout the article's text. The living restrictor wasn't discussed in detail until almost a year later, in a subsequent RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Sdkb and Armadillopteryx: (since apparently this abusing {{noping}} behavior is catching). As Sdkb noted elsewhere, WP:SILENTCONSENSUS is a thing, and that the language used stood unchallenged for a year after the discussed change tells me there was no significant dispute over it. This fully refutes LilianaUwU's claim that the edit was made without consensus; there was discussion, no objection, and the edit was made and has withstood the test of time. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    I think everyone has made decent points here! But, as everyone has also acknowledged, the origin of the modifier is, for the most part, not super relevant, because, as Jayron pointed out, even if it was adopted via consensus, that prior discussion isn't binding on this one, but, as Locke Cole has pointed out, even if it wasn't the consensus of the discussion, it is the current status quo (affirmed sub silentio). :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 19:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    there was discussion, no objection Hard disagree. There was an objection, due to the ambiguity over whether or not the intention of contributors to the preceding RfC was to restrict the guideline as a whole to living people only. The subsequent discussion was then focused on a different objection about another part of the proposed change.
    Also I disagree on my use of {{np}} being abusive. WP:NOTIFY states that notifications should be given for discussions about another user, however my comment is not a discussion about another user. I mentioned and quoted from Armadillopteryx's 2020 reply to Sdkb when summarising the context surrounding the addition made by Sdkb, but made no other comment about it or them as an editor or their conduct. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    Cool story, bro. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    Since apparently we're edit warring to keep this open even though it has no relevance whatsoever to what I said, I guess I need to add that I never implied or stated the prior consensus was immutable and unchangeable. This whole subthread strikes me as an exercise in "templating the regulars". I also don't hold out much hope that Jayron32 was sincere when stating they would give my advice its due consideration when they used the edit summary "Cool story, bro." —Locke Cole • t • c 18:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    No, I sincerely gave all of the consideration your advice was actually due. --Jayron32 11:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1. One of the difference between articles about living people and deceased people is that official records such as birth certificates may be used for deceased people but not for living people. Names before a gender transition are useful in facilitating research among offical records. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3. If a person was not notable under their deadname during their lifetime, that name is trivial and its inclusion is undue (2nd pillar). MOS:GENDERID is a guideline and many of the arguments in favor of Option 2 point to outlier cases which would be allowed as occasional exceptions. Option 3 is a simpler solution, far easier to implement and understand. gobonobo + c 16:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 options 2 and 3 are very simmilar and 3 is just simpler. Further it avoids the weird situation of arguing about whether or not to include a deadname after someone dies—blindlynx 19:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2, though option 4 is also acceptable. I have concerns about the application of MOS:GENDERID and the "do not include deadnames for living people who were not notable under that name" (for example, when and how is notability established?), but I feel that the rule itself is acceptable, given its inherent ties to WP:BLP and how Keffals was targeted and harassed merely for being transgender. The concerns over harm to people necessarily cannot apply to dead people, and thus I oppose extending the rule to cover dead people as well. However, any such name is going to need really good sourcing to be acceptable. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I think it's reasonable to take a case-by-case approach, and I think it's frequently encyclopedic to include the birth name. Including it in this way is not disrespectful, just informative. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 strongly preferred, but weak support for Option 2 if, for whatever reason, option 3 wasn't a runner. We do not need to know the deadname of someone who was never notable under that name. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Thryduulf, Jayron32, MJL, Sideswipe9th, et al, with a weak support for 2 should 3 fail. XAM2175 (T) 12:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2. We should include deadnames if and only if an overwhelming majority of reliable sources include the dead name as a notable second name. And per BRAINULATOR9 and Tryptofish above. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4, no change because the current policy allows us the flexibility required to be both considerate and accurate. Consider the case of Chelsea Manning who has said that she wanted female identity from childhood. Had she disclosed that it would have been impossible for her to be hired and obtain the security clearances she obtained. To be accurate and reflect the discrimination she faced we need to mention both. She also illustrates a time issue: the events which made her famous were carried out when openly male in Jan and Feb 2010 but her disclosure of gender issues happened after this. In this case subsequent events make Chelsea and her preferable for most of the article but had everything happened when ostensibly male and particularly if she had died with only an after death biography disclosing the gender aspects, everything notable would have been done as a male yet the most recent identity might be an entirely unknown female one. Privacy issues applying to non-notable living deadnames might then apply to the non-notable deceased most recent name and gender identity and favour not mentioning that much or maybe at all. The current policy provides the flexibility needed to sensibly and respectfully handle nuances of these sorts, while still using what a current still notable individual prefers most of the time. Jamesday (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2. No compelling reason to include a deadname for anyone who was not notable by that name before transition, unless absolutely necessary for clarification. Honoring chosen names is a matter of respect for all trans people. Funcrunch (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4, there is no such thing as a dead person's privacy concerns unless we make some really out there statements about reincarnation. Such a precedent could have impacts orders of magnitude larger than those who came up with this wording (as good intentioned as it is) forsee (for example the extension of WP:BLPCRIME to the dead). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    Why would extending BLPCRIME to the dead be a bad thing? We should not be stating in wikivoice that anybody, living or dead, committed a crime without their having been convicted of it in a court of law. Also, see the very many explanations above about how deadnaming non-living people can have privacy implications for the living and the very many explanations of how privacy is not the only reason not to deadname people. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    That is certainly an extreme position, the community has repeatedly rejected it and restricted the scope to the living and recently deceased. I look forward to your major rewrites of the bios of such unconvicted dead criminals as Adolf Hitler and Stephen Paddock. I'm sure that won't be perceived by the community as disruptive (sarcasm in case you hadn't caught it). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    As much as I don't want to indulge Goodwin, the only conviction we definitively mention in Hitler's article is his 1923 conviction for high treason. We do also mention that one British academic has said he was on the UN's list of war criminals along with a string of indictments, but that is attributed to that academic and stops short of actually describing him as a convicted war criminal. So ironically it seems that yes, Hitler's article seems to largely follow BLPCRIME.
    The Paddock example seems to fit your general point however. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    The lead says "He was closely involved in military operations throughout the war and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust: the genocide of about six million Jews and millions of other victims." which appears to be asserting in wikivoice that he was central to the perpetration of a crime (genocide) for which he was never convicted, not just alleged to be central to the perpetration of a crime for which he was never convicted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    Interestingly that's actually covered under the war crime indictments. Though you do have to dig into the sources to find that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    It seems I should have done more than skimmed the intro of Adolf Hitler before making my sacrifice to Goodwin and his Law (although on a technicality while Hitler was invoked nothing was explicitly compared to him so as far as Goodwin is concerned we have something of a meeting the devil at a crossroads situation here). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    While I don't think the addition rests on the extension of privacy claims to the dead, and would in fact oppose such an extension, neither of your examples are good. Sideswipe9th has already covered why Hitler isn't a good example, but Stephen Paddock is covered by the fact that he was caught in the act. WP:BLPCRIME does not strictly require a conviction for this exact reason.
    It's actually hard to come up with a case of an article where we talk about a dead person who wasn't a public figure committing a crime where the evidence they did so was not overwhelming. In most cases, when we talk about a historical figure who wasn't a public figure committing a crime, it's because they're primarily notable for the crime. So even if that is the precedent we're setting (and, I repeat, I don't think it is), I don't really think it's a problem. Loki (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf, consider Category:Murder-suicides. Consider Category:Suicide bombing. IMO we should be stating, in wikivoice, that some people have committed crimes despite the absence of a legal process during their lives that declared them to be murderers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
    There would though, presumably, be some legal process after their death (e.g. a coroner's inquest) that determined they were responsible for the killing(s). If there wasn't then we should be phrasing it in terms of reporting what the reliable sources say. I accept that "convicted in a court of law" is probably too extreme, but the principal of not asserting something in Wikivoice about the dead that we would not assert about the living stands. However this is all tangential to the topic at hand. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
    There would though, presumably, be some legal process after their death ...in modern times, in developed countries... WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
    AFAICT everyone in those two categories is primarily notable for the crime. If they're primarily notable for the crime, and we have strong enough sourcing connecting them to the crime in question, we don't actually need a conviction, even if they were alive. Loki (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 with Option 2 as a second, inferior option. MOS:GENDERID is a form of censorship of the encyclopaedia. While as a general rule Wikipedia is not censored, the community has determined, for appropriate reasons of the personal privacy of living people, that this censorship is acceptable. Those reasons do not apply to dead people. No possible harm, mental or physical, can come to the dead article subject as a result of the content of their biography. No compelling reason has been suggested to censor the encyclopaedia in this manner, so we ought not to do so. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 or Option 2, if we have to make this explicit. Wikipedia is not censored, and information being offensive to some or even many is not a reason for omission. BLP makes a specific and targeted exception of this for the protection of living people's privacy. Thus, we should include information on birth names when it would benefit the encyclopedia. At the same time, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and there may be an article-level consensus to omit an article subject's birth name if it does not improve the article. Overall, there should not be a carve-out for these specific cases — they can be handled on a case-by-case basis. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 is far and away the most respectful. As someone who is trans, I desperately hope my deadname is not used after I die. Most trans folk I know feel the same. Respect does not end at death. --Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
    The only time respect is relevant for writing an encyclopedia is when it comes to respecting the weight our sources give aspects of a subject. Otherwise, "respect" is not relevant here. That way lies WP:OR and content that runs afoul of WP:NPOV. This is not, and cannot be about "respect". Our sources dictate what and how we cover topics. Even BLP is really redundant to this notion. We don't write articles because they make us feel good or bad about a topic, we write them to provide knowledge to our readers. Diverting from what reliable sources cover (especially if they cover it in-depth and it is WP:DUE) is a position incompatible with writing a neutral encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
    we aren't talking about the content of the article, we're talking about the words we use to refer to to subjects. we are also discussing using those words only when there is reliable sourcing. WP:OR certainly doesn't apply here. WP:NPOV is also not applicable, as there is no POV on how someone identifies or what name or pronouns they go by. there are people who don't believe in the validity of trans identities, sure, but it cannot be argued that, for example, Elliot Page goes by the name Elliot Page and he/him pronouns and identifies as a man. additionally, this is a discussion about the removal of the word living in the existing MOS (and two grammatical changes) so even if OP and NPOV were relevant, at best they are in conflict with the existing MOS and this proposed change would not effect that relationship. Tekrmn (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
    Didn't the person go by "Aiden Hale?" In one of the texts in the opening for the 2023 Nashville school shooting says, Aiden Hale (born Audrey Elizabeth Hale). Cwater1 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
    forgot to mention that it can be confusing. We don't want to be in violation of the Wikipedia policy. You can get a warning or get a ban for a mistake. Cwater1 (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why you think I'm talking about the Nashville shooter, but the person I was referring to is Elliot Page. Tekrmn (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
    How we refer to subjects of articles or individuals named in subjects is indeed content of the article. WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are very much applicable, especially if we're deviating from what is available in reliable sources. Elliot Page would not be a concern as current reliable sources refer to him as that (he's also still alive and famous, so the sourcing isn't really an issue with him). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    as I said, nobody is proposing that we start using certain names or pronouns for people without reliable sourcing. with that in mind, can you explain why you feel that NOR and NPOV apply here, and why that should be a concern in this discussion about simply removing the word "living" from an existing section of the MOS? Tekrmn (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    can you explain why ... No. We're talking about the !vote above which uses, as its sole basis, this arbitrary (and therefore WP:OR) notion of "respect" for subjects rather than any WP:PAG-based reason. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    Well, to be quite frank, I think it comes down to this: this is an encyclopedia, whose goal is to provide accurate, well-sourced knowledge. I wholeheartedly agree. But I see avoiding someone's deadname as much as possible as such a fundamental decency that it goes beyond this. You say my vote is invalid because it does not cite WP:PAG; what is the point of this discussion except to write the policy? But very well; I cite the fifth pillar, that Wikipedia has no firm rules, and to some extent the fourth pillar. I know the fourth pillar is discussing how we should interact with each other as editors; I assume you will dismiss this. But I am citing the fourth pillar because of the spirit, not the letter: we treat one another with decency; we assume good faith; we are kind (or at least, we try to be these things). As we document the world we live in, we value neutrality and good sourcing as an extension of this respect, in a sense! We do not want to be unfair to either side of the story, which is why we take WP:NPOV. To provide the deadname when it is unnecessary is taking a firm stance against the subject of the article; it is not neutral nor is it respectful. (Also, I do find it slightly disappointing that your immediate response was to call respect in the form of not using a deadname original research. I can provide many citations if you would like about the harmful effects using someone's deadname has, and how it is broadly found to be disrespectful.) Apologies for the monologue. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    But I see avoiding someone's deadname as much as possible as such a fundamental decency that it goes beyond this. But it cannot, in fact, be why we do anything here. Logic like this is precisely why WP:NOTCENSORED exists (we don't sugar coat, hide, or otherwise limit what our articles cover out of a fear of offending someone, or a sense of "decency"). You say my vote is invalid I never said your !vote was invalid... there's a difference between questioning the wisdom of a !vote and saying it doesn't count whatsoever. The fifth pillar is IMO the weakest one to base any decision on. Refer back to WP:NOTCENSORED. We cannot pick and choose to "respect" certain subjects, topics or individuals over others, that is a de facto violation of WP:NPOV. Names, including deadnames, are "necessary" precisely because our sources also document them. Should we include them if it's just unreliable sources? Likely not. But if significant reliable sources include these identifiers, then so should we. And the reasons to include are far more relevant for something with historical weight like Wikipedia than the reasons to exclude (ancestry research, genealogy, etc). Also, I do find it slightly disappointing that your immediate response was to call respect in the form of not using a deadname original research. I cited WP:NOR because then we're doing our own "research" in so far as how to identify a subject, perhaps contradicting the very sources we rely on. I'm aware of the potential harmful effects. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    WP:NOTCENSORED states that "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons[...]"
    this is one of the ways in which using the word respect doesn't do justice to the intention of this guideline. GENDERID is about respect, but using someone's dead name is inherently disrespectful in a way that using a cisgender person's former name isn't. it's also about protection. trans and nonbinary people are a marginalized community and their deadnames are frequently used to harm them. I do think that the guideline should apply to anyone who has changed their name, but I think it makes perfect sense that the guideline was created to apply to trans and nonbinary people.
    I also want to point out, once again, that nobody is proposing we do anything without reliable sourcing or that we omit someone's deadname when they were notable under it. Tekrmn (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    You might want to look over WP:BLUDGEON. You keep inserting yourself into threads between myself and another editor (and then ascribing their words to me). I trust them to be able to respond on their own without your assistance. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    It's possible I addressed the same point too many times and should have stepped away from this discussion sooner. that being said, I do only see two places below the original comment where I responded to a comment that wasn't directed at me, and this is a public forum, not a private conversation. I do apologize @Nerd1a4i if you felt talked over. Tekrmn (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    I have found your comments quite helpful Tekrmn, and I'd thank Locke Cole, in the spirit of allowing me to speak for myself, to allow me to let someone else know if I do feel talked over. (To be clear: I think Tekrmn is contributing important points to this discussion, and I think Locke Cole is dancing around wikilawyering.) Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    it seems that your issue is with the existing guideline. this discussion isn't about whether or not trans people deserve respect it's about whether the respect we have already decided they deserve should be allowed to be revoked when they die. from my perspective, the policies you've mentioned do not apply to the existing guideline and are certainly not relevant to the discussion of removing the word living from that guideline. if you can't explain how the policies you've cited are applicable here, despite the fact that both are explicitly about the content of articles, I don't see how we can apply them. especially given WP:NOTPART and, once again, the fact that we are discussing a one word change to an existing guideline, not the guideline as a whole.
    I am not familiar with any existing policy or guideline that states we need policy or guideline reasons to create, or in this case slightly modify, existing guidelines, and I think it's interesting that your issue with WP:GENDERID and with this proposed change is that they set out to be respectful to our subjects. there also are policies to support this existing guideline, WP:BLPRIVACY for one, and I could definitely make a case for WP:AVOIDVICTIM for some cases (especially given WP:SP5). I'm sure there are other policies and guidelines that support the guideline as it stands and the proposed change, but I don't have a ton of time right now. Tekrmn (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    this discussion isn't about whether or not trans people deserve respect it's about whether the respect we have already decided they deserve should be allowed to be revoked when they die You'll notice MOS:GENDERID doesn't contain the word "respect" anywhere (in fact the word doesn't appear anywhere on MOS:BIO). So that's a fabrication, and IMO, a veiled personal attack masquerading as a point. Maybe don't engage in personal attacks again (that's a policy, by the way)? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    respect was your word choice, and I did use it to allude to the point of the existing guideline, though I certainly did not say that the policy used that word. If you could explain to me how my comment felt like a personal attack so I can avoid that in the future I would appreciate it. I'm not interested in continuing a conversation about my word choices beyond that, I'm here to discuss this guideline. Tekrmn (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    respect was your word choice Try again. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    To be quite frank, it is you who is bordering on personal attacks here - you are being abrasive and rude. This is not an insult but a statement of fact. I suggest we have said all that is useful to say here. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    You're saying editors who want to follow our sources are being disrespectful (both to the subjects of our articles, and to trans editors personally). That is a personal attack. I also very much dislike having words put in my mouth, as is being done by Tekrmn (this whole !vote started with "respect", respect was [my] word choice is utterly false. If you want to lie about me, go do it somewhere else. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
    All of this is confusing. Wikipedia maintains a high policy on certain things. Cwater1 (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
    Disagree that's a personal attack. Moreover, this conversation isn't going anywhere.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 4 because we are writing a biography; we can include while not offending. Someone's given name is inexorably tied to them, just like their date of birth, and I reason it should be included. How and where? Probably in the infobox, definitely in the 'early life' section, and just once. But that'd be the extent of it. We ought not include non-notable deadnames in BLPs because we treat it as a matter of BLPPRIVACY. Same with the names of pseudonymous people. We are writing a deceased person's encyclopedia entry which covers a substantial amount of information. I oppose option 3 for this reason. Our role differns from news articles, journals, and non-biographies, but align in the primary use of their most recent name and pronouns. We aren't here to upset people, but we mustn't WP:RGW. SWinxy (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1:I would say that the fact that someone transitioned is an integral part of their life history, and so former names have encyclopedic value. The only counter that I've seen for this so far is privacy, however once someone becomes notable enough to have a wikipedia article written about them, their name is among the least private items that could be included in an article (I would say including a birthplace or current residence is more invasive than a name that they used to go by). Additionally, it would aid in researching among government records and older sources. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    I see this argument pretty often, and I think the fact that someone is trans or nonbinary may be of encyclopedic value, (though I personally think there are many cases where it is not) but that doesn't mean their deadname is. given that WP:BLPNAME exists to protect subjects from having their name included, the fact that a deadname for a trans person carries far more weight than anyone's current name (as is alluded to in the existing guideline). regarding searching older sources and records, if they were notable under their deadname it would be included in the article under any of these options, and therefor easily searchable. Tekrmn (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3. My immediate thought on reading option 2 is "when would this come up?" How could someone be non-notable under their deadname when the majority of source use it? High-quality modern sources wouldn't reference a non-notable deadname at all, and generally we'd rely on the sources to determine if the old name was notable. So the most likely situation where there's a split between 2 and 3 is that someone is trying to use a glut of older sources (from eras when some sources always used or included a deadname) to argue that we need to use their deadname in the article, which seems inappropriate. This could possibly be addressed by tweaking 2 to only allow examination of the most recent sources, but it seems simpler to just go with option 3. Also, I don't think option 1 is even viable under policy - we can choose to include or exclude things that sourcing exists for based on context, but we obviously can't require the inclusion of stuff that may not have legitimate sourcing at all, which "always" would do. Oppose option 4 because there's obviously continued disagreement over this, so the guidelines should mention it in some way, and because today the way this is handled is an important part of professional-quality writing, which therefore needs treatment in the MOS. --Aquillion (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 For one simple reason: Why would we be treating dead people differently than living ones? ----Licks-rocks (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
    Read WP:BLP. Why we currently censor former names is purely based on privacy concerns, and the dead don't have privacy concerns. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
    I disagree with your analysis that that is the only reason, and I also think it's an oversimplification. WP:BLP is not the only policy at issue here. MOS:DEADNAME itself is also a policy. Besides, the dead had privacy concerns. The only thing that changes when someone dies in my view is our reasons for honouring them. In my case, the reason for honouring someone's request to use their chosen name is always a matter of respect. If they don't want their dead-name used in life, they probably don't want their dead-name used in death either. Respect was already mentioned as an issue in many discussions during the first discussions surrounding MOS:GENDERID all the way back to 2004.[2] and has been consistently mentioned since.[3] This is by no means new ground I'm covering. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Licks-rocks: - you are mistaken, MOS:DEADNAME is not policy, it is a guideline. WP:BLP is a policy. Read the difference here. starship.paint (exalt) 14:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    I used the common English word "policy" to describe both policies and guidelines there. Functionally, there isn't enough of a difference for me to care about the distinction in this case. My apologies if this improper use of a wikijargon homonym caused undue confusion. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak option-2; should be dealt with case by case - a person's former names are factual information, provided they are properly supported by reliable sources. — xaosflux Talk 18:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4. I'd like to support something like option 2 here, but I strongly object to using Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment as the criterion. It's a section of an essay that is only tangentially related to the decision to include or exclude information, and should not be promoted to guideline or policy. It's also not objective in the slightest; anyone can claim to be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read to disrupt editing, and that's just not a suitable criterion for deadname issues. As such, for lack of a usable alternative, I'll have to default to no change. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    Question: is there a reason why not option 3? Loki (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    The reason is that I missed the part where it only concerned nonnotable persons. Option 3. If someone can be said to "have transitioned" (any older edge cases which are unclear due to the period would not be considered to "have transitioned", others who did clearly transition would rightfully be covered) before becoming notable, their former name is inconsequential trivia. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    How is a birth name inconsequential trivia. Outside of the powerful movement to expunge birth names of transgender individuals, birth names are ALL OVER the encyclopedia. A Tree In A Box (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
    Find me one notable dead person’s biography who a. changed their name before they became notable b. which the birth/former name is known c. where the person is not transgendered and d. where that name is not mentioned at least in the ‘early life section’ and I will change my !vote to agree with you. A Tree In A Box (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
    Admittedly, it took a while to find this, but I was definitely able to. Oda Nobukatsu was the second son of Oda Nobunaga. All Japanese nobles at the time had a childhood name and his was no exception, yet we don't mention it anywhere. And it is known: he was known at birth as Chasenmaru. Loki (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
    If that actually leads to a vote change I'll be a little shocked, but well done to Loki! That said, I also do think that birth names are generally inconsequential. What insight does a birth name provide? If a person changed their name from John to Jason at age 18 and became notable at age 30 ... what would a reader learn about the person by knowing that they were originally named John, other than ... that they were originally named John. Of course, I'm obviously not saying that inclusion of a birth name is unencyclopedic, and in most cases we should include it! But it is often a relatively unimportant piece of information—its relevance to the subject extends no further than itself. So the whole "BUT WHAT ABOUT INCLUDING THE BIRTH NAME??" argument seems a little hyperbolic to me.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
    ...in your culture (and mine).
    In some cultures, having multiple names per person is normal/expected. In some of them, former names are okay and in others, they're not. We shouldn't impose our idea of whether a birth name is important on others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3: again, recognize name changes consistently. If and only if the previous name was famous or infamous, there MIGHT be reason to mention it... but even then, the current (chosen) name could suffice to discuss past actions good or bad, e.g. Caitlyn Jenner's past Olympic history, or Chelsea Manning's conviction/imprisonment. – .Raven  .talk 10:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4. MOS:GENDERID exists primarily because of privacy-related concerns. There is obviously no such concern for the dead; the existing WP:BDP even allows for extensions of BLP for "six months, one year, two years at the outside" for "contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends". We routinely include full birth names in biographies, and there is no proposal not to do this, so the remaining question is: should dead trans people be treated in a different way from dead non-trans people? Going through the arguments above: 1. 'It is trivia'. The full birth name of a trans person is not more trivial than the full birth name of a non-trans person (who changed their name or not); a full birth name is also not more trivial than an exact date and place of birth or death, parents' names, or other routinely included biographical information, so this argument fails. 2. 'Respect for the individual'. Let's consider the WP:UNCENSORED policy: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." This is a policy: censoring is "incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia", and we are here to build an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia exists to help inform its readers, not to make people feel respected or have their views reinforced. If we do not present information that reliable sources provide and that encyclopedias routinely include, we are not being an encyclopedia. If avoiding this means that some people feel disrespected, then so be it – that is our long-standing policy. Here, we are discussing only a guideline, not a (stronger) policy. So, this argument is contrary to Wikipedia's primary purpose. 3. 'Respect for all trans people'. In addition to points against 3, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is relevant: "we only report what is verifiable using secondary reliable sources". Coupled with WP:DUE ("Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject"), this means that we should present information that is readily available in repliable sources, even when there are people who want us to help change the world as it is. 4. 'Not included for the living, so don't include for the dead'. Not including names for the living is related to personal privacy, not to whether those names are of encyclopedic value. They are normal in biographies, including in an encyclopedia, so when the personal privacy justification ends, 'it's standard in an encyclopedia' takes over. As there's therefore no good reason to change the current guideline, I support keeping it as it is. I see other arguments as being variations on these, but am happy to respond if I've missed something. EddieHugh (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Link to the last RfC on this, less than two years ago: here, where the conclusion was "We find there is no consensus for a change". EddieHugh (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1, but there should be a short grace period before deadnames are added to the article to respect the dead.A Tree In A Box (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per DanielRigal. If it was not encylopedic to include someone's deadname when they were alive, it doesn't suddenly become encyclopedic just because they've died. Having the same standard for living and dead trans people will also allow avoiding having big discussions after someone has died (and/or WP:BDP expires) over whether their deadname is now able to be includede in their article. We should not try and squeeze every possible bit of information in existence into an article. GreenComputer (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 as the rule if they weren't notable until after they transitioned - it's just respectful. Again there may be specific instances where the rule doesn't apply, but those should be fairly obvious and can be considered on a case by case basis. SportingFlyer T·C 20:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3. If they weren't notable under a deadname, then as a general rule it should not be mentioned. Very occasional exceptions will exist and IAR can apply, but the WP:PLA threshold of Option 2 is lower that what would be desirable on this issue. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (MOS:GENDERID topic 2)

I'd like some clarification on option 1. Would the mentioning be in the lead section? Or would it be farther down into the body in, say, the 'Early life' section? I'm reading the poll so far and it makes me think that one or two editors are taking the wording to mean that it would be in the in the lead section or even in the first sentence. SWinxy (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Under option 1's framework, the deadname would not necessarily be confined the lead, but I think in your average case it would be there. Rather, an article would use a deadname any time the person's full name was referenced. Now, per MOS:SURNAME, that's usually just in the lead if we're talking about the body of the article, but if there's a template with the person's full name, it would also be there, or if there's a mini-bio section (which does happen), it might be there, too.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
In my view, the natural place to mention the name would be in the "early life" section rather than the lead, same as we often report parents' names and other birth details. --Trovatore (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the topic should be "When to mention deadnames?", rather than "...reference...", as the former is more specific and consistent with the proposed changes. "Reference" has specific (different to "mention") meaning in Wikipedia. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Fixed! Sorry about that—I thought I had caught it before I opened. I originally used "first reference" quite a bit because that term is in MOS:GENDERID (although MOS:SURNAME says "initial mention", which is maybe less ambiguous).--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking to include their original name in the lead. Most of time, saying "their name" (formally "their former name") should be avoided though. See MOS:GENDERID for more details. Cwater1 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
@Skyerise, Jerome Frank Disciple, Sideswipe9th, Bilorv, DanielRigal, LokiTheLiar, Trystan, Thryduulf, Barnards.tar.gz, Some1, RoxySaunders, Galobtter, Yasslaywikia, Cuñado, HTGS, Blueboar, and Stwalkerster: Ping editors who have participated to notify them of the addition of an option 2a. BilledMammal (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
With respect, I'm placing option 2a below your vote. This RFC concerns only the deadnames of deceased trans persons—that's in the questions asked, and it's in the lead section description. From my perspective, if you want to discuss other topics, I think that should be in a separate RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I've moved it back. It's a significant option, and very relevant to a discussion about when we should mention these names. Further, the BEFORERFC included discussion of this option. Excluding that option, or otherwise lowering the prominence of it, raises WP:RFCNEUTRAL issues. BilledMammal (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Dispute over whether an RFC concerning the "deadnames of deceased ... persons" also covers the deadnames of living persons

I disagree, thanks. You are welcome to start your own RFC. As I said, this RFC concerns the deadnames of deceased persons.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
You don't own an RfC after you start it. If an editor wishes to include a new option they are free to do so. I also don't understand your objections; what is the issue with including it with the others, and what is the benefit of putting it at the bottom instead? BilledMammal (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Please find me where on WP:RFC it says that the scope of the RFC can be unilaterally changed by a user responding to the rfc. Also, your neutrality charge is nonsensical. All your proposal does is take the existing proposal and also apply it to living persons. That doesn't mean the existing proposal is non neutral.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Adding an option isn't changing an RfC. It is commonly done, and to edit war to try to hide that option is disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
You are changing the scope of the RFC. Again, feel free to point to anything on WP:RFC supporting you. But because you apparently need your option to be in the top, I'll introduce it. --Jerome Frank Disciple 13:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
It's within the scope of when to mention deadnames. Further, it's unclear why you attempted to limit the scope from the scope discussed at the RFCBEFORE. Finally, the comment you make in the opening statement regarding option 2a does not comply with WP:RFCNEUTRAL. BilledMammal (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
That's not the scope—and that's not what "within" means The questions asked, the section title, and the proposals make clear that the scope is the deadnames of deceased trans person. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that "NCAA basketball games" are within the scope of "NBA basketball games" because of the word "basketball". For the record, I'm also still quite dubious that you can (1) include your proposal alongside the proposals, particularly when it does expand the scope of the RFC to a different question, and (2) try to insist on the order it's placed in (could a user place a proposal above the proposer's proposal? ... notwithstanding that you did partially do that).--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Although I think the example is a valid one to discuss, the distinction between living and deceased people is significant enough that the two cases are worth treating separately. So I am not changing my response. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Barnards.tar.gz and Jerome Frank Disciple - whether to change the existing consensus regarding living people should not be part of an RfC about people who are not living and attempting to force it in is disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Jerome Frank Disciple that this should be discussed in a separate RfC. What to do in the cases of living people has been discussed extensively already. You are not going to get a consensus to change that in an RfC explicitly about deceased people. Please don't shoehorn such a change in, and force the RfC to include it - doing that is disruptive. Galobtter (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I've removed it; this was also proposed by the user prior to the opening of the RFC and these issues were noted by most users who opined on it even at that time. -sche (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the removal, and the comments that the proposal was entirely out of scope for an RfC on how to handle the deadnames of deceased trans and non-binary people. If BilledMammal wishes to seek this change to GENDERID for how we handle the deadnames of the living, then it should be discussed in a separate RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Just for context, BilledMammal's 2a would have been:
Option 2a: Sometimes—WP:PLA / majority of sources (New paragraph after 3rd paragraph) (all trans and nonbinary persons, both living and deceased)
Note: All text is new (bold omitted).

For a trans or nonbinary person, their birth name or former name should be included in an article if they were notable under that name or if such inclusion would satisfy the principle of least astonishment, particularly considering the majority of reliable sources discussing said person. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

Note: Sophie was not notable prior to transitioning, and the majority of reliable sources used Sophie's chosen name.
  • From Danielle Bunten Berry: Danielle Bunten Berry (February 19, 1949 – July 3, 1998), formerly known as Dan Bunten, ...
Note: Berry was notable prior to transitioning.
I also agree with the removal, and in fact actively oppose 2a just like I did in the discussion above. A living trans person's deadname should not be included under only PLA. Under time pressure right now, but I can find the real-world harm policy that overrides the policies BilledMammal cited above in WP:BLP later. Loki (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I won't be not-voting on this RFC, because I noticed myself becoming emotionally reactive in the thread where it was first being discussed, plus now the words are so many that my poor brain keeps dropping two thirds on the floor when I'm tryna read the other bits, but I did want to mention one thing here, I guess as a matter of consideration / clarification.

I see (and have seen elsewhere) people bringing up the idea of respect for the dead, respect for the relatives of the dead, respect for the victims of the dead, etc, and I'm under the impression that people are missing out on considering a key demographic: every living trans person with no relation to the subject who ever reads the article. To my mind, sloppy and limited as it may be, something I feel like we should care about is the project's general reputation regarding respect for trans people. Whatever anyone's feelings are about a perfidious dead trans criminal or their surviving family members, mentioning deadnames in prose any more frequently than the minimum required of a thorough encyclopaedia article may well give the impression to uninvolved readers that wikipedia doesn't care about respecting trans people. (For the record, in our editor-facing spaces, my opinion is that our sensitivity is more than adequate.) Folly Mox (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

the words are so many—First, I'm so sorry about the verbosity! I take full responsibility for that—Sideswipe9th did her absolute best to help me cut it down. I did think splitting the issue into 3 questions was the best approach, and—despite my naturally verbose nature—I swear I tried as best I could to make the proposals as straight forward as possible. Second, I absolutely agree with 100% of your comment and genuinely appreciate the input.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
You are coming from a good base of concern. I do have a bit of worry about making our goals focused on the reputation of Wikipedia rather than the quality of Wikipedia. Us having concern about Wikipedia being respectful of trans people (within a larger context of being respectful of people in general, but with specific issues in mind) is good. Us being concerned about whether people will see us a respectful, at least in any way that interferes with making this a quality encyclopedia, is less good. (To draw a parallel with other guidelines, us not allowing bigoted aspersions on Islam is good, but it would be wrong for us to start putting (PBUH) after each invocation of the Islamic prophet's name, which would be showing respect, would be wrong.) Having said that, I suspect that in most cases being respectful will look much the same as conveying our respect for trans people. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I've sat out most if not all the GENDERID discussions up until now. I expect my following question is going to garner some heat: Why are we treating trans people like a special protected class with regards to the naming issue, and how do our methods not obviously violate WP:RGW and WP:NOTCENSORED? To my knowledge, the basic standard for including former names of a person is that we have basic RS confirmation for those former names. I understand that the "encyclopedic" value of someone's former name under which they were not notable is arguably minimal depending on the circumstances, but then shouldn't our guidelines universally recommend an "old name" purge for nearly everyone? Jessie Rae Scott, like many women of her time, was not notable under her maiden name, so should we ban mention of it? US President Gerald Ford Jr. was renamed by his family at a young age after his stepfather, so that he wouldn't carry the name of his violently abusive biological father, Leslie Lynch King. Why don't we offer extra sensitivity to him and his family? Why don't we update all mentions of any Muslim person who has ever completed a pilgrimage to Mecca to always reflect the "Al-Hajji" prefix they adopt to show we respect their faith regardless of chronology? As it stands, GENDERID guidance is stricter than WP:BLPCRIME in terms of "past potential unpleasantness for the subject" being allowed mention.
Yes, I know there are violent and malicious actors out there who enjoy deadnaming trans people to be bullies, and in some places in the world its basically a "pass as cis or be grossly denied basic human rights" situation. But why are bending over backwards to try to "protect" these subjects and not others? I can't think of many other issues where we so cautiously avoid mentioning things that are socially or politically inconvenient for the subject (whether that be people, corporate entities, or communities). Either everyone should have an about-equal standard, whatever that standard may be, or we should just admit we have no interest in being neutral on this issue. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
If you can point to another class of people where there old names are routinely weaponized like that, I imagine the community would give that consideration. Most name changes don't have that consequence; Holly Robinson Peete is probably not bothered much if everyone knows she used to be Holly Robinson. We have many ways in which we treat people in different categories differently, such as separating how we treat public figures from non-public figures, or minors from adults. WP:BLPPRIVACY discusses types of information that we may have that we should not include, as what little they add to the understanding of the topic is outweighed by their potential for damage. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Why don't we offer extra sensitivity to him and his family? That's a fair question. There's a lot I think we handle incorrectly with regards to name changes in general, particularly so for individuals who have had to change their names for serious issues like being victims of abuse (historical or current) or crime. While ultimately I would love to see us address that deficiency in MOS:CHANGEDNAME, in a manner that would let us seamlessly integrate the deadname provisions of GENDERID without the current state of making trans and non-binary name changes separate, I think changes along those lines are (sadly) less likely to find consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Because trans "rights" in general are a current political football, so we get people here on both sides trying to have Wikipedia conform to extremist views. Neutrality has not so far won out. Anomie⚔ 21:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The wildly different definitions of what neutrality is mean I don't think any one person is capable of knowing which position even is neutral. casualdejekyll 21:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with you here. And by that I mean we should hold the same standard to all people by removing UNDUE coverage of previous names. I know I've said this before in one of these wall of text discussions. (Incidentally, none of the three sources cited for Scott's maiden name appear to actually mention her maiden name - The News And Observer says nothing, a Google Books search of the book doesn't have the claimed maiden name in it except as a first name, and the ABC link appears to be dead. As such, I've taken it out of the article in question.) casualdejekyll 21:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this RFC has a biased setup and doesn't include the option that makes the most sense. Options 2 and 3 are largely the same thing and 2 can be misunderstood as the status quo, when it's not in the details. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contingent question: If option 3, how should redirects be handled?

Although Option 3 did not have consensus above, just noting here that there is no consensus on redirects. The break point seems to be between B and C, which is similar to the result above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


At ongoing RfD, we have an emerging consensus that a redirect from a deadname that is not mentioned in the target article is acceptable because the article discusses the deadnaming of the subject, includes a quote that originally contained the deadname but has been (correctly) modified to exclude it, cites sources that use the deadname, and is about someone buried under her deadname. If option 2 or 3 passes, it is unclear how such redirects would be affected.

In the event of option 3 passing, what should apply to redirects? I'll give these ones letters to disambiguate.

Option A: Always permissible if verifiable (2nd paragraph—changes relative to Option 3 bolded)

If a transgender or non-binary person was not notable prior to transitioning, their former name (deadname) should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists, with the exception of redirects from deceased persons' verifiable deadnames. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. For example:

Option A2: Always permissible if verifiable in secondary sources (2nd paragraph—changes relative to Option 3 bolded)

If a transgender or non-binary person was not notable prior to transitioning, their former name (deadname) should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists, with the exception of redirects from deceased persons' deadnames when the name has been included in secondary sources. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. For example:

Option B: Limited exception when relevant (2nd paragraph—addition of footnote to Option 3 text)

If a transgender or non-binary person was not notable prior to transitioning, their former name (deadname) should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects,[a] disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. For example:

Notes

  1. ^ If a deceased person's deadname has been reported in independent reliable sources and the target article discusses them being deadnamed (e.g. Leelah Alcorn, Brandon Teena), a redirect may be appropriate to aid navigation, but the deadname should still not be used in the target article. This exception does not apply to living, recently deceased, or possibly deceased people.
Option C: No explicit carve-out but affirming that occasional common-sense exceptions to guidelines exist.

No change to text.

Option D: The prohibition on such redirects should be taken as absolute or near-absolute.

No change to text.

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

!votes (GENDERID topic 2 redirects question)
  • Option B or C. Hard oppose both A and D. Our avoidance of deadnaming the living is informed by both dignity and privacy. With the dead, the motivation of dignity remains, but there is no longer a privacy interest, which means that there is more of a need to balance with legitimate navigational needs. Someone seeing the deadname of a deceased trans person in a newspaper clipping or on a gravestone should be able to find the correct Wikipedia article for that person; this furthers our encyclopedic mission without publicizing anything that wasn't already public. The article's discussion of deadnaming should adequately resolve any confusion the reader may have as to why they wound up at that title. And by keeping any exception limited, we avoid opening the door to outing-by-redirection of the dead. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option C to avoid instruction creep. casualdejekyll 21:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • C or D to avoid instruction creep. I'm honestly not terribly convinced by the argument that someone might come to our website by a deadname. Loki (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • D, second choice C. If we make a choice that a name doesn't merit inclusion in an article, it makes no sense to redirect readers looking for more information on that name to that article and expect them to just guess why. It would be an WP:EASTEREGG redirect.--Trystan (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • B; I don't think instruction creep is too great of an issue here, given it's in a footnote, but I'm not necessarily opposed to option C. Options A & D are too strict; IAR exists for a reason. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option D as "near-absolute" (which is basically option C). In addition to what everyone else has said, unfortunately people can be pretty terrible regarding trans people and it is easy to imagine a scenario where such a redirect is vandalized. That vandalism is likely to go undetected because redirects are less patrolled in general, and (a bit ironically) because if someone's deadname isn't in an article, people are are less likely to know about and monitor it. The best deterrent is not having the redirect page in the first place. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • A, this is really an advocacy/NPOV issue. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 22:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • B - Tamzin's reasoning is generally good here, but I think that C would end up acting as a de facto narrowing. I don't believe it would be a particular aspect of instruction creep compared to the overall deadnaming rules. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • A - we have failed in our mission as an encyclopedia, to inform people, to distribute knowledge, if we cannot even bring people to the correct page when using the name of an individual. Even if this name is a previous name, this should not affect the matter at all. Oppose B, C, D under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, Lights and freedom is correct, this is just advocacy. If editors like Gnomingstuff are worried about vandalism, implement semi-protection. starship.paint (exalt) 01:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
    Semi-protection would help, if it's implemented indefinitely and proactively. This is beyond what's recommended in WP:SEMI and, more importantly, relies on people actually doing it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • A We should follow the sources, not the presumed wishes of the subject/s. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • B or C ... narrowly oppose A, D. I think redirects should be judged by their usefulness. In the event of some persons, assuming their birth name wasn't widely reported, it'll make little sense to have a redirect, because no one is going to, for example, head to some fairly weak secondary/tertiary source, see the subject discussed, see the name used, find the birth name mentioned, and then, in good faith, search wikipedia for that birth name, thinking that's the best way to find the person. At the same time, if the birth name is widely reported or even often used by other sources as the principal name, then the calculus changes.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • C If the deadname is non-notable, then a redirect should not exist; IAR will apply even under option D. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • A, this is an encyclopedia, not a battleground to try and WP:RGW. We don't suppress knowledge or self-censor what reliable sources verify. Pretty much every single proposal here has the wheels falling off when you start considering WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Even MOS:GENDERID as written runs afoul of policy. Trying to disallow redirects from well source/verifiable names to their subjects is lunacy. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) C, very strongly oppose A. Like other redirects without mentions these are normally not helpful (and are sometimes actively harmful) so the presumption should be against inclusion but exceptions exist. There are many possible reasons for an exception, and I don't think listing only one is particularly helpful because some people will read it as suggesting that every time X applies a redirect should exist, but every case needs examining on its individual merits. Factors to consider include the frequency of the name's inclusion in sources, the nature of those sources (including but not limited to reliability, age, topicality and partisanship), other people with the name (especially any who are borderline notable, e.g. we shouldn't normally redirect the verifiable but very obscure deadname of a trans individual to their biography when there is a very prominent individual with the same name who people are more likely to be looking for, even we don't have an article about them (yet)), how open the subject was about both being trans and their former name, etc. Note this does not exclude redirects needed for navigation, it just requires that the need be demonstrated as both real and as, on balance, more beneficial than harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • C, Oppose A I think common sense applies here. If there is actually a reasonable belief that people will search for the name, such as it being a name that is being used at least somewhat prominently in coverage, then common sense would be to make a redirect. However, if the name is not and their chosen name is the one receiving the coverage (or in cases where news is using their chosen name and just mentioning the dead name merely as an aside of "born ***" or "previously known as ***") then I don't see the need for a redirect because people will know and be using the correct chosen name to search for. So a redirect serves no purpose and is only punitive. SilverserenC 19:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • C, Oppose A, Neutral on B. If reliable sources don't make the deadname notable enough for it to be mentioned in the article, it isn't notable enough for a redirect. D doesn't make too much sense either because of WP:IAR. Arguments coming from the point of "this is an encyclopedia" or WP:NOTCENSORED forget tht we don't include literally every WP:GRATUITOUS piece of information on Earth, and that (even outside of deadnames) redirects from topics that aren't mentioned in the article itself is basically WP:EASTEREGG and not recommended. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • C or weak B. As several people have mentioned, a redirect from a name that doesn't appear in the article is rarely if ever going to be useful. Even if something is verifiable, it doesn't necessarily belong on Wikipedia. —Rutebega (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Judge it on a case by case basis - I suppose this is somewhere between B and C… but my opinion does not fully fit in either. Essentially, I am opposed to trying to make any firm and fast “rule” on anything relating to deadnames. What is appropriate for one subject won’t be appropriate for others, so exceptions are always going to be necessary. Having No “rule” would be better than an inappropriate rule. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • C: if it's not public enough to go in the article, nobody's ever going to search for that as a page title either. In the presence of WP:IAR, D reads functionally equivalent to C to me. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 20:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • B as most aligned to normal practice outside of this topic area, where a former name would be an obvious use case for a redirect. Harm-based arguments against this seem tenuous if the person is deceased, and a redirect is not highly visible. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong A (edit: or B; I really can’t tell the difference without my lawyer present): At the point of redirects, the interest is strictly one of privacy, and privacy is an interest which expires with the subject. I would like to express a need for verifiability sans doubt though. (And big congratulations on making this an absolute stinking mess of an RFC.) — HTGS (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • A2. Redirects are to help the reader find the article they are looking for. If a name is used in secondary sources, then it is possible that readers will look for that name and we should help them find the relevant article. I prefer A2 over A as when the name is not reported in secondary sources it seems unnecessary to include it; readers are very unlikely to be looking for it in such circumstances, but would support A over the other options. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • A / A2 If the deadname is mentioned in reliable secondary sources, readers who search for that deadname here on Wikipedia should be redirected to the relevant article, not to an empty page. Some1 (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • C or (2nd choice) B; A would be bad: redirects can be helpful if someone might encounter the deadname in reliable sources in which the person's current name is not also mentioned, but (balancing this), as is already the case in general, redirects must not be used to violate policies or guidelines. You can't create a page titled "that [n-word] who became president" and argue it's fine because it's a redirect rather than a content page, you can't put someone's verifiable home address as a redirect and argue it's fine because it's a redirect and not a content page, and there's no reason to take away that general level of (for lack of a better word) protection, and give trans people less protection, like the first option seems to. It is also, as a practical matter, nonhelpful (indeed unhelpful) to redirect someone who searches for "John Doe" to an article on "Jane Roe", if that article has no mention of John Doe. AFAICT the main use of such a redirect seems to be ... providing a backdoor to take deadnames that are so non-notable and undue they aren't even mentioned in the person's article, and nonetheless wedge them into the encyclopedia. -sche (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    providing a backdoor to take deadnames that are so non-notable and undue they aren't even mentioned in the person's article; per WP:RNEUTRAL, redirects don't need to be neutral, and in addition some of the options above, including the one you supported, would exclude mentions of names even when they are WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. If a deadname exists in the article, then a redirect may be created for it. If it doesn't exist for the article, then an {{R without mention}} isn't going to be helpful since readers won't know if they went to the right page or not. I don't know what option I should be casting a !vote for (maybe Option C or A2; oppose B?).
    Whatever the consensus is for the rest of the discussion, redirects should just follow the same standard for everything else. Deadname in article? Deadname for redirect is fine. No deadname in article? No deadname for redirect. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • First choice C, second choice B. --Jayron32 11:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • B - I would prefer to avoid the usage of deadnames where possible, but for instances where a person's deadname becomes a notable part of the coverage about them in sources, that name becomes a plausible search term. In such scenarios, I think the readership at large would be best served by being redirected to an article under the subject's chosen name. Weak support for C and A2, which come close to striking this balance but (in my opinion) don't quite pull it off. Oppose A and D. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option C, with option B as second choice. Per Silver seren's argument, I find the supposed value of deadname redirects as search aids to be rather overblown. XOR'easter (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option C As I said in the previous section, my main concern is that trans people are afraid to have Wikipedia articles about themselves because they think bigots will use them as a WP:COATRACK to publicize their deadname, and our policies should limit that behavior as much as possible. Since redirects are less visible, I'm not as worried about having them in cases where someone's deadname is widely publicized anyway, but the default should be "don't create them without a pretty good reason". TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 15:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option C per Tamzin and others. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option C: I find myself falling somewhere between B and C. I think this is a case where for the vast majority of articles that involve a deceased trans or non-binary person who transitioned prior to notability, a deadname redirect would be inappropriate. Leelah Alcorn and Brandon Teena would maybe be exceptions to that, though I do worry that option B's explicit "limited exception when relevant" carveout could be misused by bad faith editors to backdoor add non-notable deadnames. I'm also not entirely sold on the premise that reporting of the deadname by RS, and the target article discussing the deadname is strong enough justification on its own for including a deadname redirect. Killing of Brianna Ghey is an example of an article where her deadname was (briefly) reported by an RS, and the article discusses the deadname, but on balance I think that allowing a redirect would be incredibly disrespectful and distasteful far beyond the point of WP:GRATUITOUS. In the case of Ghey, you don't need to know the deadname to understand the large backlash against publishing it.
    While there may be other phrasing, similar to B but that's narrower on when to include the redirect, that I could support, I find that for now I prefer no explicit carve-out except as subject to IAR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. This is a tough and nitpicking call, and I probably couldn't decide it on my own, but will support Tamzin's position; they have clearly thought about this extensively. --GRuban (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option C per Tamzin and others. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option C per Thryduulf. Weak support for B should C fail, though I would prefer that the "may" was emphasised thus; a redirect may be appropriate to aid navigation.... XAM2175 (T) 12:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option B seems the most respectful approach that still aids navigation when necessary. --Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
  • A To avoid confusion with readers. A redirect-hatnote may be appropriate here to avoid confusion among readers who did arrive using the deadname. I would support B and C on the grounds that those would cover the same scenario, just with slightly higher precision. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option C. Redirects can't cite sources, so if it isn't obvious or explained at the target, it generally shouldn't exist. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option C with few exceptions (i.e. approaching D); IF the subject is celebrity-level public about acknowledging the name change, so there's implicit consent to make the connection, as well as ample press coverage, then sure, create a redirect to connect them. – .Raven  .talk 10:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option C or D per LokiTheLiar. WP:IAR will always exist, but I don't see the need for an explicit carve-out here any more than anywhere else IAR could be invoked. Given this whole sub-discussion was triggered by a single RfD, hard cases make bad policy seems relevant (as well as avoiding instruction creep). GreenComputer (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option B I also like C, but I do think we need a specific guideline for this. I do share a concern this may lead to a creep of bad faith redirects as per earlier, but if that happens we can take action as a community. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option B or C. I do think that B is what the outcome of any exception discussion under C or perhaps even D would result in anyway. Oppose both As, since they both overly use deadnames while also creating redirects where the term is not discussed in or readily discernible from the article, which goes against our guidance on redirects per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Discussion (GENDERID topic 2 redirects question)

Are we still talking about deceased people only? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on the proposals, I believe yes.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin / Jerome Frank Disciple : Since this was added after the other questions, perhaps the people who voted on the other questions should be pinged to it? It seems like it's got much less participation even after several days, and I assume some of that is people assuming they've already !voted in this series of RFCs. Loki (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a terrible idea. I can say for myself though that I've been aware of this, I'm just carefully weighing up the options. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
You're right! My fault for not having done that. I'm going to ping the users who commented on or cast !votes as to topic 2, since this proposal only pertains to a consequence of that topic, unless they've already commented here. I ... hope I got everyone. (And if I got you even though you already participated, I'm sorry!)
@Skyerise, Bilorv, DanielRigal, Thryduulf, Some1, RoxySaunders, Galobtter, Yasslaywikia, Cuñado, Blueboar, HTGS, Stwalkerster, BilledMammal, Hatman31, 3mi1y, Trovatore, Jayron32, Mitch Ames, ModernDayTrilobite, Springee, Voorts, Silver seren, Spy-cicle, MarijnFlorence, Stifle, MJL, Anomie, CoffeeCrumbs, SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, Chaotic Enby, Why? I Ask, Ser!, XOR'easter, Thesavagenorwegian, RAN1, Rutebega, GRuban, TheCatalyst31, Herostratus, Tekrmn, Locke Cole, Adumbrativus, Rab V, CandyScythe, and Sceptre:
Hello! There has been a new contingent proposal related to topic 2.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping! Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic 3: How often to mention deadnames? (MOS:GENDERID 3rd paragraph*)

There is no consensus on changing the wording of MOS:GENDERID to be found in this discussion, though there is clear consensus to use prior names as little as possible. We have a plurality in support of 3/3a, but not enough support to establish a consensus, mostly due to concerns over instruction creep, and concerns about possible confusion and article clarity. We have a situation where many of those supporting option 3/3a agree there will be edge cases where other mentions will be necessary, and much of the support for option 4/no change and option 2 hinges on that point, and some of the support of options 2 and 4/no change clearly call for using the prior name as little as possible. Much like the close of Topic 2, consensus is closer than it appears by a numerical breakdown (roughly 50% support of 3/3a), as many of the 3/3a, 2, and 4/no change supporters want roughly the same thing, but it just so happens that it wasn't one of the options put forth. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


After the first reference, how often should a Wikipedia article mention the former name (deadname) of a deceased trans or nonbinary person?

Note: If there is a consensus for option 2, above, these options would be placed below the option 2 text.
Option 1: Whenever the person's full name is mentioned (changes bolded in black)

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

  • From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ...
  • From Elliot Page, notable under former professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ...

When the former name (deadname) of a deceased trans or nonbinary person should be included, include the prior name with either "born" or "formerly", as above, any time the person's full (chosen) name is mentioned.

Option 2: To avoid confusion (changes bolded in black)

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

  • From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ...
  • From Elliot Page, notable under former professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ...

When the former name (deadname) of a deceased trans or nonbinary person should be included in an article, it should be included with either "born" or "formerly", as above, after the first reference to the person. Subsequently include the prior name only if doing so is necessary to avoid confusion.

Option 3: Once (changes bolded in black)

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

  • From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ...
  • From Elliot Page, notable under former professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ...

When the former name (deadname) of a deceased trans or nonbinary person should be included in an article, only include the prior name once—after the first reference to the person with either "born" or "formerly", as above.

Option 4: No change

User:Trystan has suggested that Option 3 might implicitly affect how editors interpret the guidelines as to living transgender and nonbinary persons, and desires that this proposal including living transgender persons also be considered:--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Trystan's Option 3a: Once (changes bolded in black)

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

  • From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ...
  • From Elliot Page, notable under former professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ...

When the former name (deadname) of a trans or nonbinary person should be included in their main biographical article, only include the prior name once, after the first reference to the person.

Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name (or, if deceased, last-used name) as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.), unless they prefer their former name be used for past events. If they were notable under the name by which they were credited for the work or other activity, provide it in a parenthetical or footnote on first reference; add more parentheticals or footnotes only if needed to avoid confusion.

!votes (MOS:GENDERID topic 3)

  • Option 3 (or Option 3a) (proposer). I could be persuaded by option 2, but, for now, I cannot think of a circumstance in which multiple references to a deadname would actually be necessary to avoid confusion. The best argument I've heard for needing to use a deadname multiple times has been in the abstract—references to a situation like Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon (which was won by Caitlyn Jenner prior to her transition). But, looking at that article, which does use Jenner's birth name twice, I have to wonder ... is the second reference really necessary to avoid confusion? Perhaps there's something to be said for having a clarification in both template and the article body, but I'm truly not sure.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 (or perhaps 2): once is sufficient to avoid confusion, but I'd like that to allow for one footnote that is cited multiple times. For instance, imagine a list of sports records presented through tables where three records were set by the same individual before transition—the reader is unlikely to be reading from top to bottom and it makes sense to reference the name they won the record under each time. — Bilorv (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Full disclosure, I assisted Jerome Frank Disciple with drafting these questions. Option 3 is the version that best fits with the other guidelines on how many times to mention a person's name in an article (MOS:SURNAME, MOS:GIVENNAME, MOS:SAMESURNAME). Outside of the exceptions to MOS:SURNAME, I've not seen in practice any good examples for why we need to mention a person's full name, regardless of whether they were cisgender, transgender, or non-binary, more than once in an article in a manner that's not already covered by other broader name use guidance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    As it was added after my !vote, for the purposes of assisting with consensus determination I also support Option 3a with the same rationale as for option 3. I'm not sure though if I prefer one over the other as they both seem fine to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 is going to be the correct approach the vast majority of the time. There might be some rare exceptions but I am very hesitant to support Option 2 as "necessary" is not defined and trolls would doubtless try to use that ambiguity to argue disruptively. I'm not sure how it could be worded to allow for genuine exceptions but preclude long arguments in other cases. If anybody can find a way then I'd support that but, of the two genuine options we have now, Option 3 seems best. DanielRigal (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3: My one reason for liking Option 2 is that there are cases of historical trans people (such as the Public Universal Friend) where it's reasonably clear that they did not identify under their eventual name for the entire life. So in the PUF's case there is a real distinction between "the PUF" and "Jemima Wilkinson" that probably should be made. But this case is uncommon and I see the concern that "when necessary" may be too vague. Loki (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 We should mention former names as few times as possible to avoid confusion, but that might theoretically be more than once. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Mostly Option3 per DanielRigal and Bilorv, but I do agree with the latter's suggestion of allowing (but never requiring) a single footnote than can be referenced multiple times if strictly necessary - my first thought was where an article contains multiple tables of results, each of which might be referenced independently, but where only a single link to the person's article would normally be used. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3a. It should generally be mentioned only once, but I think the specific wording proposed in Option 3 creates confusion in the guideline. There is no need to distinguish between living and dead subjects on this point. The guideline doesn't currently say that it should only be used once for living subjects in their main biogrpahical article, and it should. There is detailed guidance on how to refer to living trans/nb subjects in other articles, and that should simply be extended to also cover dead subjects. Hence 3a, above.--Trystan (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC) edit: Second choice would be Option 4 - no change at this time.--Trystan (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Discussion of option 3a

I see your logic, but, to be honest, I really hope people don't add too many more options to the RFC, particularly if it expands the scope of the RFC. (Imagine if we end up with an option 3c, or maybe also a 2b or 2c in the above two topics.) That's a quick way to kill any shot at a consensus.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The guideline does say it only be used once for living people, specifically that it should only be used in the lead. So I agree with JFD that 3a is unnecessary. Loki (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
It says to include it in the lead "only if they were notable under that name," which doesn't actually prohibit mentioning it multiple times elsewhere. (There is a more strained interpretation that it be included in the "lead only" if they were notable under that name, but that would create the larger problem of not prohibiting including non-notable BLP deadnames.) More to the point, the question is whether we want a different standard on this point for living and dead subjects, which Option 3 would create. In the case of the non-main-biographical article, Option 3 would result in markedly different wording applying to living and dead subjects, for no apparent reason.--Trystan (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I genuinely think if you want to change the policy for living trans and nonbinary persons, it shouldn't be in an RFC that's specifically devoted the policies for deceased trans and nonbinary persons. I'm moving 3a down here below your vote, as it's already causing confusion and wasn't in the original RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 10:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
For articles other than the main biographical article, 3a simply extends the existing detailed guidance for living subjects to apply to deceased subjects. Why would we create a totally seperate standard for deceased subjects, rather than just doing that?
For the main biographical article, Option 3 will have the unfortunate and unintended consequence of changing the guideline for living indivudals, which is what 3a is designed to avoid. Currenty, deadnames under which a BLP subject was notable are typically only included once, in the lead. The guideline doesn't actually say that, though this hasn't been problematic so far. However, if you add an explicit rule to only mention them once, and explicitly limit that rule to deceased individuals, it becomes reasonable to interpret the exclusiom of living individuals as intentional.--Trystan (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Given the discussion above, I'm re-adding your option to the top but with a note that it would expand the scope of the RFC to living persons.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
"Option 3 will have the unfortunate and unintended consequence of changing the guideline for living individuals"—I see your point about how there might be an implicit effect, but I still think the implicit argument is an expansion of scope. (I'm also a little dubious that, even if option 3 goes through, the actual effect will be that editors will treat deceased subjects more restrictively?--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3a (or perhaps 3). I'm confused by the distinction between 3 and 3a, because, as far as I can tell, Option 3 seems to arbitrarily limit the guideline to only apply to deceased persons; any guideline here should either apply to all persons equally or be more strict for living persons. Regardless, I'm pretty convinced by User:Sideswipe9th's argument above. For an example, let's take the current revision of Rishi Sunak's article. Conducting a Ctrl+F find on the page, we discover that in the article prose (not including hatnotes, infoboxes, reference names, etc.) the name 'Rishi' appears only thrice: once as the very first word of the article, and twice in quotations (which are already addressed by MOS:GENDERID). In this case, it seems as if we are simply extending what is already a common naming practice to explicitly include deadnames. Shells-shells (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Option 3a was added by a !voter after the launch of the RFC to cover both living and deceased persons. The only reason it wasn't included Because this RFC was specifically devoted to the deadnames of deceased trans persons.--Jerome Frank Disciple 10:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 4 (in that order). I fail to see how restriction to a single mention is necessary or helpful. Try to apply the more restrictive standards to someone like Gloria Hemingway or the Public Universal Friend and see how far you get. This is the very sort of question that is difficult—but very tempting—to answer from our present ideological ivory tower, but is better answered by those casuists who actually write the biographies. — HTGS (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Gloria Hemingway was an interesting read, thanks. I think that's a good example of an article that really suffers from being forced into one gender, since the person involved seems to have struggled with gender identity their entire life and seems to have used both male and female presentations both before and after surgery. The article seems to do its best to minimize that, leading to reader confusion. Anomie⚔ 12:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • None of the above - when, where and how often to mention a deadname (in those situations where it should be mentioned at all) depends on the specific subject, and can only be determined on an article by article basis. Each individual is unique and has unique factors to consider. Blueboar (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • None of the above (basically Option 4) Agreed with Blueboar. This should be determined on an article-by-article basis. The MOS shouldn't dictate show often a name should or should not be mentioned because not all articles are the same. Some1 (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • None of the above, per Blueboar. BilledMammal (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    I suspect that the "None of the above" !votes should be "4. No change". Because if they don't want Option 4 (or 1,2,3), what do they want? (Feel free to delete this comment if all of the above change their stated preference.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Concur. Perhaps there's a small distinction—i.e. "No change" implies an endorsement of the status quo, while perhaps these editors want to reserve the right to pick entirely different guidelines, but at least some of them are explicitly saying "this shouldn't be addressed by the MOS" ... and, currently, it isn't!--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    To explain my “none of the above”vote… my preference would be to use the deadname only in historical context (for example in an “early life” section), but otherwise use the current name. That said, there will be exceptions in both directions. The flaw with all the questions and options is that they attempt to impose a “one-size-fits-all” rule on a VERY complex and sensitive thing that simply does not lend itself to sweeping rules. It HAS to be determined on a case by case basis. Respect for the wishes of the subject needs to be balanced with encyclopedic value. Where and how to find that ballance is going to be article specific. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 if, and only if, it is to be included, it should only be in their main article and only the once, for completeness. --Jayron32 14:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Option 2 or Option 4, Oppose Option 3 - I would think that at least two mentions are needed, once in the lead and at least once in the body, perhaps one more in an infobox. Avoid confusion. My views also overlap with HGTS and Blueboar. starship.paint (exalt) 14:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4, no change - All of the proposed changes add unnecessary limitations, complexity and scope creep. Existing policies, and editorial discretion on a case-by-base basis, are sufficient. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Prefer Option 2; Options 3 and 4 also acceptable. I believe we should strive to mention deadnames as little as is feasible; however, "as little as is feasible" may occasionally be more than once (see, for instance, the example raised above of the Public Universal Friend). In practice, I expect that Option 2 and Option 3 will lead to the same results in a large majority of situations; in the remaining situations, I believe that Option 2 is the language that will result in the least confusion for readers and editors alike. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 with Option 2 as a best practice As with my other replies, my concern is being overly prescriptive in handling this. Option 2 is likely the best solution in most cases as it puts both names up front and allows for both uses to avoid confusion. Is this any different than what is already allowed? What does Option 4 allow that Option 2 (and typical editorial oversight) wouldn't allow? Springee (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3a There should be no distinction between living and dead persons, and mentioning a notable deadname only once best comports with the spirit of MOS:GENDERID. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3a I never understood the need to use the name more than once in the cases where the name does need to be mentioned. Mention it once and don't use it again, similar to birth or maiden names. Why would you even need to use it more frequently than the one time? And, as I said in move vote above, living should have never been included in this policy in the first place. Dying doesn't change the purpose of this MOS usage. SilverserenC 22:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 Since option 3, goes against the principle of MOS:LEAD.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 02:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4. No need to be overly prescriptive here. Sometimes one option will make more sense than others. In most cases it will be irrelevant as the dead name will be a first name, and people are by MOS generally named only as surname within article text. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 is the one that I feel strikes the best balance between compassion for the subject and our basic, primary role as an encyclopedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3a Follows MOS:GENDERID the best, doesn't make unnecessary distinctions, and no point in repeating the deadname in the whole article. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4, to avoid being overly prescriptive. This will vary on a case-by-case basis, but if a general guideline must exist, then only mention the deadname if both of the following conditions are true:
    • Including the deadname would help the reader, such as to alleviate confusion over discrepancies between an article and its sources, particularly when such sources pre-date the transition.
    • The particular instance is either:
I also oppose revdel'ing violations of this guideline/policy. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • None of the above (basically Option 4) per Blueboar. Not all articles are the same. --GRuban (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3a Tekrmn (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • None of the above per Blueboar, et al. m:instruction creep is over there. WP:RGW. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Other options prescribe a rule too categorically, as editors have argued above. "Necessary to avoid confusion" is one possible reason, but I would not easily declare any one reason or set of reasons to be the only possible one. Ordinary editorial discretion can include any number of considerations – helpfulness to readers, contextual relevance, types of content (lists, tables, quotes, citations, infoboxes, image captions, etc.), degree of coverage in sources, and so on – case-by-case. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 makes the most sense to me as the most neutral approach to this. Considering that MOS:SURNAME dictates that we principally refer to the subject by their surname, this shouldn't be problematic for most articles as I don't see how further mention of either the subject's former or current name would be beneficial. Yasslaywikia (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Generally, my position on this has already been covered by many of the option 4 votes; Blueboar and Springee's are of particular note. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3/3a – We should be using deadnames only when editorially justified, and I don't think we need to do so more than once in nearly any circumstances. Sceptre (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 It just doesn't make sense to have a rule on the number of times it can be stated, per WP:DUE. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 22:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 or 2 - ultimately our articles need to be clear. Option 1 would be oddly gratutiously awkward even if there were zero alternate interests in play. Option 3 (or 3a) are unwise and will reduce clarity in articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • 3a or 3 (or failing that, 4), per Sideswipe9th.
    Option 2 is not a workable/functional guideline, since in previous discussions, some people have argued a person's deadname and/or birth sex has to be spelled out when discussing any and every thing the person did pre-transition to (ostensibly) prevent "confusion"; off the top of my head, I've been involved in a discussion on WT:V where someone argued it was not merely confusing but violated WP:V to use a source saying "John Smith studied XYZ" (or did anything else!) and a source clarifying than John Smith transitioned and is now Jane Smith to say Jane Smith studied XYZ; elsewhere people have argued it's confusing to mention a prior relationships; etc, etc; so option 2 is just a recipe for more repetitive discussions (based on general stances rather than article-specific factors) on more articles. -sche (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 as I can't conceive of a natural example where we would need to use the deadname more than once. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3a followed by 3 per Sideswipe9th. XAM2175 (T) 12:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3a. I don't see any arguments that describe situations where 2 would actually be applicable, and cannot think of any myself. And WP:IAR would likely apply in any scenario where it were truly truly necessary. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3. No compelling reason to mention a trans person's formerly notable deadname more than once unless absolutely necessary for clarification. Funcrunch (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3a. For situations where a person has switched gender identity throughout their life, I do think the article should respect that, but that should be a editor's discretion thing (or potentially a minor phrase addition to 3a). In general, we should default to not deadnaming as much as possible. --Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3a Once should be enough to take care of most situations. I don't want to give individual editors too much leeway in this when it comes to "common sense" because it's a heavily contentious topic, and I'm afraid it will give people an excuse to battleground over what qualifies as a common sense addition, which will rarely result in an improved article and damn near always result in wasted editor time. The rare legitimate case can be handled by local consensus and IAR----Licks-rocks (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  • None of the above; case by case. A former name may be useful in the introduction, it may also be useful in section of an article that are specific about information related to the former name in the context of a section. — xaosflux Talk 19:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3a seems to include some useful clarifications over option 3. There's no need to use someone's deadname more than once. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3a, i.e. for both living and dead subjects, one mention (if any at all!) should suffice. – .Raven  .talk 10:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3a, which is well-worded in a way that allows us to include a single mention when necessary in order to avoid confusion, while making it clear that the default ought to be minimal usage (which will, the vast majority of the time, be once.) I think people's concerns about possible exceptions are overblown - the MOS as a whole is advisory, not absolute; the option to ignore it always exists in any article. But it should make it clear what the preferred wording is, and the wording here reflects comparable language in similar parts of the MOS like eg. WP:WTW. --Aquillion (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • None/option 4. The others are much too prescriptive. They could over-rule local consensus such as at Billy Tipton, where the (generally well-respected) consensus is to include the birth name, but not in the lead or infobox, thereby reducing its prominence. The proposed reducing of flexibility looks like a worsening of the current situation. EddieHugh (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    I'm familiar with Tipton's article, and I've reviewed the discussions that lead to the current state of inclusion of his deadname. The most recent discussions on this from July 2021 and January 2021 are both closer to a no-consensus outcome than a clear consensus for or against inclusion.
    Also consensus can change, both at a local or project wide level, and if a project-wide consensus changes in a manner that rules a local consensus invalid, then policy states that we should follow the project wide consensus. A new project-wide consensus change impacting on an older local consensus can never be a valid reason for opposing the new project-wide consensus in and of itself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Tipton was an example, not a claim that local consensus could/should override project-wide consensus. My point is that the proposals would force a former name to be more prominent (ie, in the lead) in some instances, whereas I believe its intent was to make such names less prominent. Hence my statement about flexibility. EddieHugh (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • RFC's and local consensus can and do occasionally override the MOS, as pointed out by several !votes above yours. That being said, unless I'm confused, I think the article already follows option 3/3a? it only seems to be mentioned once in the article, after all? --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
3 states "as above", which specifies "included in the lead sentence". 3a has "after the first reference to the person", which also implies the opening sentence. The current version of the article doesn't mention the birth name in the lead. EddieHugh (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3a, with option 3 as a close second, per -sche. When a deadname is included, there is no need to include it more than the minimum number of times (aka. once), as to do otherwise would be gratuitous. GreenComputer (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
    I think that be a good solution. Cwater1 (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • None of the above I like 2 and 3 as a general rule, probably with a preference for 3, but I don't think the rules provide enough overall flexibility, for instance where the person has specifically given us guidance on how to handle things. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3A. Strikes a good balance between minimizing deadnaming to usually one but recognizing that more than one instance may be required in some contexts. Option 3 as a second choice. 2/4 are acceptable and will probably be generally similar, but 1 is definitely overuse of the deadname. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (MOS:GENDERID topic 3)

  • Thank you for re-adding 3a. I don't agree with the characterization of it expanding the scope of the RFC to living persons. Outside the main biographical article, it takes the existing guidance and makes it also apply to deceased subjects. Clearly no change for living individuals there. For the main biographical article, it would make explicit the existing practice for living persons, and make that apply to all articles. Option 3 is, in my opinion, the one with policy implications for living persons, by creating an explicit rule that specifically excludes them, when that exclusion would be contrary to current practice.--Trystan (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    I apologize I'm late on getting my coffee today, so I'm scattered. I almost thought I was picking up what you were putting down ... but then I lost it. When the former name (deadname) of a trans or nonbinary person should be included in their main biographical article, only include the prior name once, after the first reference to the person. ... You're saying that wouldn't be new guidance that would apply to living persons?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    It does apply to living persons, in order to preserve the current practice and interpretation of the guideline. By flagging my option as outside the scope of the RFC, it implies that the originally proposed options don't have unintended consequences for how the guideline as a whole will be interpreted with respect to living persons, which is very much a matter for debate. I would prefer it if my option were simply introduced without commentary, for editors to neutrally evaluate alongside the others.--Trystan (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    I reworded the intro to reflect what you just said, but I do think it should be noted that the proposal would, by its explicit terms, dictate the treatment of living persons, even though this RFC (by its questions, section title, and every other indicator) only claimed to be addressing how to cover deceased persons. "But the current proposal might have implicit affects" may or may not be true (I'm personally quite skeptical, because I can't really imagine a world in which the deadnames of living transgender persons are treated with less care than those of deceased transgender persons). But, regardless of its truth, it's still an admission that the proposal only explicitly concerns itself with deceased transgender persons, as the RFC title and questions indicate. (But hopefully the revised intro is an acceptable compromise?)--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Looks good, thanks.--Trystan (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Spy-cicle:—Could you elaborate on the MOS:LEAD point? I'm not sure I understand. Per MOS:SURNAME, we usually only give a biography subject's full name once—in the lead. ... How would this be different?--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • As Trystan correctly points out, option 3 is problematic because it seems to set a higher standard for deceased subjects than living people. But option 3a contradicts paragraph 5: Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc. The existing guideline seems to be more in line with option 2, allowing the deadname to be used only where unavoidable, but applying that restriction only to living subjects. I hate to introduce even more complexity into the debate, especially at this stage, but I'd argue either form of option 3 logically requires a more comprehensive rewrite of the entire section. I also think there should be an option, analogous to option 3 from topic 2, where the "living" stipulation in ¶3 is simply removed. The added paragraph in option 2 is fine but it's largely redundant if the rest of the section is understood to apply to both living and deceased subjects. —Rutebega (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Approaching the close

We are about a week from the above RFC being eligible for closure. NOT saying we must or even should close… merely noting that standard RFC procedure is that after a month we can close. And having noted that, I am thinking that this RFC was complex enough that we should go with the formal “request three uninvolved admins” form of closing. Any objections to doing this? Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need admins here; I think we could optionally suggest that the topics be closed one at a time (and optionally by separate editors), as to make sure that no one editor is too swamped. I think the close on topic 1 is pretty standard and frankly, doesn't require hyper-experienced closers, but I'm fine requesting experienced closers for all of them.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I think an experienced closer would be wise, given how contentious the topic area can be, but as long as they are clearly uninvolved and provide a good summary that accurately reflects the consensus (or lack thereof) of the discussion it should stand up to any review regardless of whether they are a single non-admin or a panel of three admins. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the first topic probably does not need an admin closer (it's a pretty strong consensus for yes). The second and third topics do, however. While I know how I'd close both were I to close them, it's at least a close enough thing requiring enough judgement calls (e.g. are 3 and 3a two phrasings of the same option or separate options) that I'd want someone who knows what they're doing. Loki (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
With how contentious this has been, I agree we need three uninvolved admins for this closing on all three topics. It's not a vote, so simply counting the !votes as seems to be the suggestion on the first topic is unacceptable. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Who suggested that?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
While consensus is not a vote, closing a discussion needs to be done by someone who will represent the consensus of the community, not a WP:SUPERVOTE. Loki (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Yup, the consensus of the community balanced against current policy and guidelines (which already have strong consensus behind them and cannot be ignored because a select group of editors here choose otherwise), not just what the most people want. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
A discussion that explicitly seeks to change policy or guidelines cannot be bound by the policy or guideline they seek to change. This is a well-attended, well-advertised discussion in the appropriate place to discuss proposed changes to policy - consensus here (assuming there is one) regarding the proposals is the community consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I think Locke is just making the same point he's made here or elsewhere, which is that he considers the MOS:GENDERID guideline, both in its current and proposed forms, to violate Wikipedia policies, and he's hoping that by reiterating that fact, a closer will find his arguments persuasive. Other editors have explained why they don't consider GENDERID to violate those policies; he's responded; they've responded, etc., ... so I don't think anything is gained by continuing this discussion.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Userpages displaying deleted userbox

Many userpages post the original code of User:UBX/onemanonewoman (MfD), circumventing its deletion & displaying the box "This user believes a marriage consists only of one man and one woman." Is it appropriate to remove this from people's pages? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Yes. I had a quick look, and all the examples I found date from before the MfD (and are on the userpages of editors who haven't edited since then), so it's probably not going to be a controversial issue. Black Kite (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
    great, and I just saw this. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:VERIFIABILITY question

I and User:Nythar are having conflict about implementing WP:V and WP:PRESERVE, which the two policies are conflicting. Nythar insist on retaining unsourced content to provide citation but don't specify how long that unsourced content can stay to allow time to verify. While I said there must be deadlines for those unsourced content to stay, Nythar say there will be no deadline, citing "Wikipedia is not a deadline", seemingly indicating that unsourced content can remain in articles forever as long as they are tagged. I believe this is ridiculous, since anyone just add a new unsourced content and just need to add citeneeded tags and that content will be able to stay there. Nythar reverted loads of my removals of unsourced content on multiple articles, asking for these content to stay but seemingly is not working on providing source for those challenged content. Brlob (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Ban-evasion by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albertpda 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

First, this is quite negative in tone. Second, I did not cite "Wikipedia is not a deadline". Third, this user believes it is reasonable to blank massive amounts of content just because it is unsourced or partially sourced (here they blanked the entire Sports section from Sierra Leone, even though it has at least two sources). In this edit to Politics of Oman, for example, they blanked the whole article (almost) just because it was unsourced, and completely ignored the tag at the top of the page. Most of this content is entirely true; arbitrarily blanking unsourced or partially sourced sections not only makes articles somewhat incomprehensible, but also makes it almost impossible to find and reinsert the deleted content in the future. (A sample of a few of their edits.) Brlob seems to think this can acceptably be done to any article, and also believes that if their [citation needed] tags go unanswered within three or four days, they are entitled to remove the unsourced content. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't "believe" they can be removed going unanswered for 3 or 4 days, this is literally what I'm wondering here about the policies regarding how long unsourced content can remain. The policy wording need to be more precise and not conflicting. The unsourced reason is wholefully enough for any content to be removed or blanked. Wikipedia's core policy is Verifiability. Brlob (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Ban-evasion by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albertpda 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
If the policy were more precise, we would be limited and forced to add sources to articles within a set period of time, and if we do not do so, large article sections would be blanked arbitrarily. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Is the content being removed suspected of being incorrect? —Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Defunct companies: can they stay in the company section of a navbox or not?

I've noticed someone has moved an article for a company which went defunct in 2019, from the company section of a navbox, to the miscellaneous section of a navbox, where it looks out of place next to crime, history, military, timeline, and geology.

Can I move it back to the company section? Danstarr69 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say that this is an incredibly vague question with no context, so it's difficult to say. Gun to my head, I don't know why it would've been removed from the company section in the first place. I would probably move it back. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Here is some more context: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Defunct_Companies_-_Can_they_stay_in_the_Company_section_of_a_navbox_or_not? RudolfRed (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I would definitely reverse it. We navboxes for a reason. Greenwood's page is missing history like it's ownership of stores like Busbys in Liverpool.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

New RfC on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity

I created a discussion and a RfC regarding pronouns of AIs, chatbots, etc. I would appreciate if other users gave their two-cents on the subject. The discussion can be found here. Thanks, Di (they-them) (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability of Tables

I am mediating a content dispute at DRN which is really a policy question about the verifiability of a table. I am not stating my opinion because, as a mediator, I am trying to maintain neutrality. There was a table in an article, and the table had links to other Wikipedia articles, and no citations of its own. By the way, the article is The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert .

An editor removed the table because it had no citations. The other editor says that the table passes verifiability because the linked articles all have references. So the question is whether a table in an article is required to have its own citations, or whether it can rely on the verifiability of the articles that it links to. Also, if a table has no citations, what should be done, tagging the table, or removing the table pending addition of citations? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing special about a table from a WP:V point of view. It's just a different way of formatting information, as opposed to text (or for that matter, a graph, image, or anything else). We don't cite other wikipedia articles because wikipedia is WP:UGC and thus not a WP:RS. Not to mention, if you're relying on another other to transitively provide a citation, what happens if the citation in that other article is removed. Are you expecting that somebody with do a global search for other articles which depend on that citation? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
If an editor is making a serious challenge to the verifiability of the content, then sources must be added by the editor who wishes to preserve the content, per WP:BURDEN. The existence of sources in linked articles is not sufficient, per WP:CIRCULAR: "Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly."
In this case, however, it seems the editor in question (User:Koavf) is not claiming that the information is unverifiable, and is instead insisting that everything on Wikipedia must be sourced as a matter of principle. The question of whether otherwise unproblematic information can be removed purely on the basis of being unsourced was recently the subject of a long VPP discussion which did not arrive at any clear conclusion. I personally find this behaviour unconstructive and believe it goes against the spirit of WP:V, but the letter of the policy doesn't disallow it. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree. "All unsourced information needs a source" is factually wrong. The policies do not require "all" information to be sourced. They require four specific categories of information to be sourced (see WP:MINREF for a handy summary).
Were an editor to show up and say something like "I could be wrong, but I genuinely doubt any editor could find a reliable source that WP:Directly supports this particular content" or "I believe that this is the kind of statement that editors might fight over, so it's 'contentious matter about a living person' and needs at least one good source", then the material would be fall into one (or two) of the required categories. But insisting that information which you believe to be correct be removed from articles until someone else does some extra work is more WP:POINTY than helpful. Providing sources shouldn't be exclusively Somebody Else's Problem. If you think the material needs a source, it should be yours, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
All information (apart from truly WP:BLUE statements) must have a source. WP:MINREF is only what requires an inline citation, but that doesn't mean of content can be unsourced. Tagging the information if you believe it's true is the correct course (I couldn't tell of that table is true or not), but it's upto the editor wanting to keep the content to source it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested, it must be possible for someone to find a reliable source that Wikipedia:Directly supports all material, including truly BLUE material.
I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing between "must have a source" and "requiring an inline citation". Are you saying that (some) uncited material "has" a source even though it is "unsourced"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems were equaly at odds with understanding each other, as I'm at a lose to what your second point means. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
In the discussion on the article talk page, I understood ActivelyDisinterested to mean that all material must be supported at least by general references, while MINREF material requires specifically an inline citation. MINREF explicitly rejects this idea, and says that non-MINREF material does not require named sources to be present in the article.
Tagging the information if you believe it's true is the correct course I can't understand this mindset at all. The purpose of a tag is to identify a problem with the article. If you believe that the information is true and verifiable (and has no other issues like NPOV etc.), then surely there isn't any problem with that content? Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Even if that is the case, in this instance it doesn't apply as the content was not non-contentious and has now been referenced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
@Sojourner in the earth, an editor might run across information that is true, verifiable, neutral, appropriate, and encyclopedic, like "Smoking cigarettes can cause lung cancer", and still believe that the sentence should be followed by an inline citation.
MINREF doesn't set any rules. It repeats the rules that exist elsewhere. No content policy has ever required a citation anywhere on the page for everything; citations are only required for certain kinds of content. (Depending the subject area and your personal POV about what's Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged, the amount of content required to be cited could be anywhere from 10% to 95% of article content, but the requirements are for specific kinds.)
Every time a citation is required by a policy, the policy requires an inline citation. You can think of this as an accidental happenstance, but it's what we've got. Consequently, according to policy (and accurately reflected in MINREF), there are two kinds of content: content that is required to have an inline citation (e.g., contentious matter about BLPs), and content that is not required to be cited at all (e.g., "The capital of France is Paris"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a case where tagging is more appropriate than removal. Yes, each article needs to stand on its own regarding Verifiability and citations, but we should also assume good faith (at least initially) that the information is properly cited at the linked articles. So… instead of removing… what needs to be done is to copy those citations from the other article into the table. Now, if it turns out that this can’t be done (ie the linked article does not actually contain an supportive citation to copy over)… THEN we can talk about removing information from the table. Blueboar (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Note: the reason WHY we need to copy the citations into the table is that our articles are never set in stone. The linked article might undergo a complete re-write at some future date… and the citation that supports the information in the table might be not be included after that future re-write. That would “orphan” the information in the table. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
In the case of what awards a film has received, yes it absolutely needs to be referenced and shouldn't have been restored per WP:BURDEN. The awards a film has received is obviously not WP:BLUE or non-controversial, and the references in the award article are not good enough. Vandals regularly target awards and having to verify each award in the award article isn't acceptable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
But... if that really concerned you, then why didn't you just copy the sources over from the linked articles yourself? It probably would have been faster, and it certainly would have won you more friends. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The burden to do so is with the editors wishing to keep the content, as you well know. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but standing on your inalienable right to remove good content is not a way to win friends and influence people. Wikipedia is a community, not just an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I have never edited the page in question, thus am uninvolved. As sympathetic to table inclusion as I am, one argument in its favor – "the Awards table has been up for a very long time and has hitherto been unchallenged." – reminds me of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages, specifically WP:UNCHALLENGED aka WP:CONTENTAGE: "While WP:Consensus policy reminds us that any undiscussed edit that is not disputed by later can be assumed to have consensus, the act of challenging it (in good faith) removes that default assumption, by definition. 'It's been here a long time' does not equate to 'it has had actual consensus for a long time'. [...] There is a big difference between material that, on the one hand, someone simply inserted and no one bothered to talk about until now, and, on the other, material that has been repeatedly challenged and retained (by source- and/or policy-based consensus, not a false consensus)." One specific example given, of an argument to avoid, is: "Has remained in the article for 6 years already and no one has challenged it." [emphasis added] – .Raven  .talk 06:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I believe such tables should be sourced. I wouldn't add an unsourced award to a table. To add a citation needed tag and then remove it a few weeks later if no citation was added might be solution, this practice I have also observed in other articles. There is likely no consensus to prohibit unsourced tables, even though I'd welcome that every table is sourced. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
There is no reason for contents of a table to be any different than any other contents; that is, citation needed tags can and most certainly should be added for an uncited Awards table. What exists in other Wikipedia articles is irrelevant. (And WP:MINREF is neither policy nor guideline, but that's off-topic here.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why anyone is having difficulty with the policy on this. "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." And other policies like BLP also add some categories of information that must have a cited source. But there is no policy that all information in the 'pedia must have a source cited; it simply has to be verifiable, i.e. it has to be possible to create a source citation that backs it up. Otherwise, we'd have to delete literally tens of millions of statements from Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC

I thank all of the editors who have offered their comments on the issue. The two editors are as far apart as they were when the discussion at DRN began, so I will be starting an RFC on whether the table should be removed or kept. If a third editor pops up and provides sources for the awards, that will render the RFC overtaken by (useful) events. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I have launched the RFC. Participants in this discussion are welcome to add their opinions and statements to the RFC on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
A third editor, User:Schazjmd, popped up and provided sources for the awards, which rendered the RFC overtaken by useful events. The RFC served a secondary purpose of publicizing the need of the table for references. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon can you link to the RfC? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
User:Paradise Chronicle - It is/was at Talk:The_Adventures_of_Priscilla,_Queen_of_the_Desert#RFC_on_Table_of_Awards. It has been closed because the table now has sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Would have reasoned similar. Sourced content is preferable to unsourced. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANI polices and guidelines

Are there specific policies and guidelines that pertain to conduct and editing behaviors at WP:ANI? I didn't find this particular question in the searches. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I also meant to say, that I have been unable to find policies and guidelines specific to ANI. As far as I can tell, all that is available are policies, guidelines, and often mentioned essays that are applied across Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If the participants at ANI would abide by the existing policies and guidelines regarding editor conduct, a lot of the drama would be drained out. Why should we expect additional conduct rules just for ANI to help? Improving the atmosphere at ANI will require a culture change, which is hard to achieve with regulation. Donald Albury 13:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
In theory, WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQ, etc apply on all pages, including ANI. But in practice? Less so. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
No, there's no specific policies for ANI. Policies for a single page are, I think, unheard of. But do read Wikipedia:ANI advice. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a whole book about best practices for ANI participants! jp×g 05:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC regarding individual area codes

You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications/Area codes RfC regarding the notability of articles about individual area codes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia copyright policy regarding episode synopses for documentaries

As a relatively ok but not technically advanced user can I ask that there be some sort of clarification or discussion on wikipedia's policy on the use of episode synopses for multi-episode programmes that are factual, in particular documentaries, and whether that's considered a breach of copyright or acceptable use. A few days ago I created the article Once Upon a Time in Northern Ireland, and as part of that I used the episode synopses/descriptions used on the BBC website. I was unsure of the policy on this but checked against other documentaries including Once Upon a Time in Iraq, Russia 1985–1999: TraumaZone, and The Vietnam War (TV series) which all do the same (or in the last case use the PBS ones).

Cut to today and one user removed and marked them for copyright violations, giving no justification when asked as to why it's been fine on other equivalent subjects but here it's been immediately flagged and removed. They have also not removed the same offending content on these other pages despite being brought to their attention when asking for their justification.

I'm not seeking to claim this person acted unfairly or against policy (because there doesn't seem to be a clear cut one) and I don't want to get engaged in an edit war that could see my account sanctioned, but I hope my frustration after putting the effort in to keep it in line with other similar content is understandable and hope something productive comes out of this. Apache287 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Across the board, using either short or long synopsis from other websites is a copyvio. We expect editors to create their own short summary for episode pages. Masem (t) 19:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Well if that's the case can it be made explicitly clear in the copyright policy and better enforced, because in the case of The Vietnam War (TV series) copywrite violation summaries have been used for in excess of five years now and no one's enforced it which, along with how quickly I was able to find other documentaries that did the same, suggests there's a knowledge gap there. Apache287 (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
It's in this paragraph of Wikipedia:Copyrights, and I don't know how much clearer we could be. We have a volunteer project for finding and dealing with copyvios of this kind, at WP:CP, but it's horribly backlogged and badly in need of more volunteers. I wish we had more automated tools for detecting copyvios (is there a way to make a bot for it?)—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Except as a layman I don't find it clear, at all. That one paragraph both declares "never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble" but also links to the non-free content policy that says actually you can use infringing-works in certain circumstances as long as it's limited, and then there's simply the principle of Fair Use (that Wikipedia also subscribes to).
How exactly are you even meant to define a documentary episode summary under that? Yes someone wrote it but it pertains to a description of a much larger body of work so is it the whole body that's being assessed or just the summary? Why can I use the image of a documentary's poster in a article despite being non-free because it accurately represents the documentary but not the description likely created by the same organisation?
Even the incident that spurred this section was a wikipedia tool that caught out the summaries on a third party website (one of those TV listings type websites) that didn't create the summary of the work in question, so if it's under copyright then it's been claimed to be violating the copyright of a website violating another website's copyright.
And again I come back to the fact we have examples of these summaries being used for more than half a decade and it's been fine. So it comes across as a nebulous policy because it's not uniformly enforced and isn't being picked up on during just scanning over articles by people reading them. Apache287 (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
If you write a documentary, and I write a summary of that documentary in my own words, then the copyright in the summary belongs to me. Another person could write their own summary and copyright in that summary would belong to them, as long as they didn't just copy my summary.
I don't like the non-free content policy either, and in my view Wikipedia's NFCC aren't fit for purpose. I've sometimes come across media that we could fairly and legally re-use, and would be genuinely helpful to our readers if we did re-use, but still get removed/deleted because some editors are here as free content ideologists (which means they're not here to write an encyclopaedia, but we're nevertheless expected to put up with these people).
It's true that other websites do routinely rip off other people's copyright. Some of them rip off Wikipedia. But we try not to. Wikipedia has its own copyright rules that go beyond the bare legal minimum.
If we've had these summaries for more than half a decade, then it hasn't been fine. It's been wrong and problematic but hasn't been noticed. Could you be more specific about which summaries we're talking about, please?—S Marshall T/C 08:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
For me the issue is that given it's a factual documentary and the summaries are more than likely written by the documentary team themselves, would that tie in to the copyright of that work? If so then you can argue that Fair Use comes into play here given it's a small use of copyrighted material relating to the documentary, doesn't impact the commercial viability of the work (we aren't uploading hundreds of minutes of footage), and is of educational use.
For the current situation of them being used in an instance for more than five years, it's The Vietnam War (TV series) as a quick google of any of the summaries will show it's straight from the PBS website. I personally wouldn't call it wrong and problematic given the context of use, so much as an example of what seems to be a legal grey area everyone's been happy to let exist because it's not detrimental to anyone. Apache287 (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
So, I think you are a little confused. All text should be deemed as being copyright protected unless specifically stated otherwise. Even if it was written by the team making the documentary, that's a copyright infringement. If it was written by someone who had released the text, that would be something different (but, arguably, we should just have our own anyway).You point to other articles that have similar issues, but they should also not copy from elsewhere. These can be safely removed if they are unambiguously copyright violations. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyright of text is not part of NFC's policy, that's strictly under WP:COPYVIO. We only mention text under NFC as the question comes up enough there, but we don't require the same rigor for non-free files and their justification ,compared to text segments. Masem (t) 12:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
magazine cover
For example, you can't just copy television episode summaries from a TV Guide magazine or an official website for the show, even if you see them used on other websites.
When someone says that they find something unclear in the policies and guidelines, it's safe to assume that they actually do find it unclear. If one editor finds this unclear enough to ask for help, then others are probably also finding it unclear and making mistakes, rather than asking for help.
This is easy enough to solve by spamming an example into that section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with this. There is so much confusion surrounding copyright. I also think there is some confusion on Wikipedia on the difference between what might be copyright infringement and what might be plagiarism. If recipes are not copyright protected, then I doubt things like episode summaries would be either since they contain no substantial literary expression. Even individual items in a cookbook are not protected when the whole cookbook is. Huggums537 (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Huggums537: Except episode summaries and synopses do contain substantial literary expression; many of them can be rewritten, but the ones that are copied from other places have very flowery, detailed language that can and should be rewritten. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you might be confusing episode summaries/synopses with episode reviews/profiles etc. Huggums537 (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
The episode reviews/profiles etc. are fully comprised of literary expressions from authors describing their own personal views about episodes, while the episode summaries/synopses are just restatements of the basic facts already obviously known about the episode. It shouldn't really matter if it contains flowery or detailed language. I mean I could add flowery language to a basic recipe, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm still just giving you a recipe, and only the flowery language would be copyrighted, not the facts about the recipe. If I've added any "flowery or detailed" personal commentary beyond what a summary or synopses is, then it really falls into the territory of being an entirely different thing all together, so yes I would agree those need to be rewritten since they are no longer just simple restatements of known facts, but these BBC summaries aren't "flowery or detailed". Huggums537 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
As an example, Watching The Family Album is like coming across a long-lost box of family photos: it's enchanting, humorous and sometimes even eerie. Director Alan Berliner spent years blending home movies and tape recordings collected from 60 different American families to assemble a composite lifetime which moves from childhood to adulthood, from innocence to experience. is a direct copy of its source and is well above the TOO. It would need to be rewritten entirely to be compliant, since it uses creative means of expressing text. This is the type of plot synopsis and summaries that we do not allow, not simple ones like "Bart and Lisa rob a store". Sennecaster (Chat) 23:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Right. I can see where you're coming from, and I fully agree the flowery language from that source doesn't matter because it can and should easily be rewritten to be compliant by omitting the flowery talk and keeping the basic facts, but the BBC summaries don't have any flowery language so they are just straightforward basic facts that should be able to be copied over. Most personal interpretations and understandings of our copyright policy are way overly strict in my view. The fact we had those things for I think more than five years is more than just a simple WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, it's pretty good solid evidence that there's no concern. Huggums537 (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Huggums, I wish I could say that it's more than a simple OTHERSTUFF situation and that there's no concern, but copyright is horribly backlogged and lacking in both resources and editors. Saying that a copyright issue was only discovered recently and has existed for a while is merely a product of there being no manpower between 2015 and 2019 to discover them in the first place, and that compounds any situation we assess from that timeframe. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
You seem to have bypassed my comment below. I was mostly talking about there being evidence that no outsiders have even so much as complained about it in more than five years much less even thought about being the copyright trolls I mentioned below. Huggums537 (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyright is still one of our legal policies that we're obligated to uphold... even if no one's complained. I accept we won't see eye to eye (I mostly do copyright enforcement, after all!), but I respect your opinions and view on this matter. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I did forget to mention that those articles existing that long isn't merely just a product of there being no manpower to correct it because the factor of no complaints must also be considered as well, and I would argue of even more importance since a fast removal would prove nothing while five years with no complaints speaks volumes. I'm just wondering if the facts that nobody in the rest of the world seems to care about Wikipedia's backlog, or articles that have existed just fine for five years might be some kind of indicator to those who've had their head buried in the Wikipedia sand that maybe the current "legal policies that we're obligated to uphold" are being overly strictly interpreted or perhaps even misinterpreted by some. Huggums537 (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Especially considering copyright trolls are a thing that are real big business, but we haven't heard a peep out them about it in those five years... Huggums537 (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Copyvios on Once Upon a Time in Iraq and Russia 1985–1999: TraumaZone removed. Will do Vietnam War after lunch - X201 (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Relist Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter

Relisting for further input. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_182&oldid=1163902645"