Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Russian and Kazakh personal names

Resolved

See here for some discussion from ChelseaFunNumberOne regarding the correct formatting of Russian and Kazakh names.

Should we follow this convention? The editor appears to be familiar with Russian and/or Kazakh, possibly a native speaker of one or the other, but relatively unfamiliar with English.

With some other languages we do adopt their styles for personal names, to some extent at least.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

  • In fact, no, this is completely unrelated to WP:NCP. Whether an article title is Augustine of Hippo (or St Augustine, or St. Augustine, ...) is a topic of this guideline. Whether an article title is St Augustine's Abbey (or St. Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, or St Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury,...) is not discussed in this guideline. Same for L.N.Gumilyov Eurasian National University (or L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, or L. N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, ...): not a topic of this guideline, while of course whether Lev Gumilyov (or L.N.Gumilyov, L.N. Gumilyov, L. N. Gumilyov,...) is the best article title would be. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Agree that this guideline is peripheral to the RM (as I have said at the RM).
    • In fact you seem to have misunderstood the question. Probably my fault, how to put it better... Nom is arguing that there's a standard for personal names. While that's not a good argument for moving the particular article which is the subject of the RM (hence my describing it there as peripheral), it is relevant to article names on people, which are covered by this guideline. Andrewa (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we agree on the scope of the guideline... second paragraph... This guideline does not cover articles on organizations or other non-biographical articles on groups of people, things named after people (Basilica of St Denis, RMS Queen Elizabeth 2), or gods and deities. Naming of such articles may be covered by other relevant guidelines: see the box at top right. Otherwise, consult the general policy on article titles. That's exactly what I was saying in the RM discussion.

What I'm asking is... first parargraph... In general this guideline deals with the naming of articles where a single article is devoted to a single person (although there are also sections on articles combining biographies of several people and several articles treating the same person).

The points raised by nom in the RM are relevant to the naming of articles where a single article is devoted to a single person. Agree that neither this guideline nor those points are particularly relevant to the RM.

This is not a proposal to change this guideline on that point, and I can't see how you ever got the idea that it was, however badly I may have expressed it.

It is a suggestion that we look at the points raised by the nom to see whether we should adopt the (alleged) Russian and Kazakh conventions on blanks for articles that are currently covered by this convention. No more, no less. Andrewa (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I see, plain old-school WP:FORUMSHOPping. A proposal to change this guideline would be on its place here (so that was just a friendly suggestion). When the content of the guidance is clear, whether, and if so how, to apply it should be discussed elsewhere – the OP was however not formulated as a pointer to an open discussion elsewhere, but was initiated as a split of that discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
    • You don't seem to see at all. How can it be forum shopping when I've always maintained that this guideline is next to irrelevant to the RM (and you seem to agree)?
    • Or to put it another way, any change would only affect articles within the scope of this guideline. As you seem to realise, the article covered by the RM is not within the scope of this guideline. Your suggestion that I was suggesting a change of this scope was in error.
    • My question is, are the arguments in the RM relevant to this guideline? And you have as yet made no attempt to address this question. Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
      • That question should not be asked in a WP:FORUMSHOP way (i.e., opening a new discussion about it here), but with a pointer to where the discussion is going on (i.e., a neutral invitation to take part in a discussion elsewhere, not opening a new discussion about it here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
      • And literally, how the contorted question is asked, i.e. "are the arguments in the RM relevant to this guideline?", the answer has been given: no, something raised at an RM is only "relevant" for a guideline if some clarification needs to be given (not the case), or if some update to the guideline seems indicated (not the case afaics). The RM is completely outside the scope of this guideline: to make it "relevant" to the guideline, its scope should be changed, which is not even proposed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry you found my question contorted, I'll try again. Andrewa (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll try again

I suggest we ignore the above. I seem to have been misunderstood at almost every phrase.

There are claims made in a recent RM that L.N.Gumilyov shall be written with a space between name and surname, as it originally written in Russian and In English initials are used for name and middle name, while in Russian for name and father name. Gramatically, name and father name must be written together. Kazakh language follow the same rule.

While they were made in the context of an RM of an institution and are next to irrelevant there, these claims are more relevant to article names that are covered by this guideline.

We follow naming conventions from other cultures to some extent. Should we do so in the case of these Russian and Kazakh personal names, in naming articles covered by this convention, i.e. those on people? Andrewa (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you give an example that actually indicates an issue with this guideline? I mean, Lev Gumilyov, the person, is at that article title, not with an abbreviated first name, and with no middle name, even less with an abbreviated middle name. All of that seems adequately covered by the current guidance. When that person's name (whether L.N.Gumilyov, L.N. Gumilyov, L. N. Gumilyov, or whatever) is used in an article title that is not the primary biography of that person, there's no relation with WP:NCP. General naming conventions for Russian, Kazakh, or whatever language, when a name from such language is adopted in an article title at English Wikipedia, are also outside the scope of this guideline which is only about the article titles of biographical articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Another example:
and,
(the second set also illustrates that this is language-independent). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I have corrected your stringing per WP:TPO Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC)... (my emphasis) I've been following your lead above rather than make an issue of it, but this latest mixing of bullets is confusing. Please do not use them here unless part of a bulleted list. Andrewa (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The obvious example is the one you first cited, L.N.Gumilyov, L.N. Gumilyov, L. N. Gumilyov. The guideline refers to the MOS and would suggest L. N. Gumilyov, while the editor I cited above suggests L.N. Gumilyov.
We could of course wait and cross that bridge when we come to it, but even if we do that it's good IMO to have recorded here what this apparently knowledgeable editor has said. It would have been even better to discuss it here, but that seems impossible. Andrewa (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, the MoS, MOS:INITIALS more precisely, as was already pointed out at Talk:L.N.Gumilyov Eurasian National University#Requested move 13 April 2018 before your first comment there. I refer to the talk page of that MoS guidance if you have questions about it. That guidance falls, of course, outside of the remit of WP:NCP. That MoS guidance is not even repeated or summarized in the WP:NCP guideline, so I still can't fathom why you brought this here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, the reference to MOS:INITIALS at the RM was one thing that caught my attention. Let's just both AGF and leave it at that. Andrewa (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
And again, "L.N.Gumilyov, L.N. Gumilyov, L. N. Gumilyov" is not an example that illustrates an issue with WP:NCP. For the third time, we have a biographical article about this person, that is: the person after whom the L.N.Gumilyov (or L.N. Gumilyov, L. N. Gumilyov) Eurasian National University is named. The article title of that biographical article is Lev Gumilyov, which to all extents and purposes follows the WP:NCP guidance. But that article title has (per WP:NCP) no influence on how the article on the university should be titled. It is not possible to illustrate a problem with WP:NCP based on the article title of something that is named after a person, but is itself not a person. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Again you seem to have missed the point, which was that the description of Russian and Kazakh naming traditions for people, while of very little relevance to the RM in which the comments were made, is relevant to this convention. Andrewa (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, no, those comments seem to have no relevance whatsoever to this guideline. Please stop your WP:IDHT. Why they seem not relevant has been explained multiple times – and no convincing reason why they would be relevant has been given. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree to disagree

From above I still can't fathom why you brought this here. This to me reeks of IDHT. But I expect that my comments seem similar to Francis Schonken! As above, we assume good faith.

My sole purpose in bringing it here is to make some information available to those who maintain the guideline. I hope that someone might investigate it, but see no evidence above that the only respondent has done so. By their own admission they do not understand my reasoning. I hope that others will not be deterred by this! Best. Andrewa (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort: the principle in building this guidance has been, thus far, that stable article titles of biographical articles are the basis of the recommendations given in this naming convention, thus:
Can you now stop the WP:IDHT please? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I begin to understand, but I'd really like to clarify your logic here, if you wish to.
We have a description of Russian and Kazakh naming traditions, which is new information. Is any of that disputed?
We have existing, not so detailed guidelines, which have been followed and have not been problematical in any specific case. I think that's agreed.
We have other detailed guidelines which do take account of other language and culture-specific naming traditions. Is that disputed?
And we have a principle in building this guidance that stable article titles of biographical articles are the basis of the recommendations given in this naming convention. That is, until an RM is proposed that is affected by this new information to which I have linked, no change to the guideline should be considered. I think that's understood and undisputed too.
But in addition, we have your opinion that this new information is irrelevant to the guideline, and that posting it here is in error. That's what surprises me. In my opinion, this talk page and its archives are exactly the places that such information should be discussed and stored for future use. Andrewa (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Re. "... which is new information. Is any of that disputed?" – yes, it is disputed: I see no "new" information in this sense.
Re. "... other detailed guidelines which do take account of other language and culture-specific naming traditions. Is that disputed?" – yes, it is disputed, as well its relevance to this guideline, as its implication that the current guideline would not contain information on "culture-specific naming traditions" for Russian names (it does – did you actually look at the guideline?)
Re. "... until an RM is proposed that is affected by this new information to which I have linked ..." – please stop the WP:IDHT: the linked RM does not affect this guideline because it is not a RM relating to a biographical article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Progress! Agree that the linked RM does not affect this guideline because it is not a RM relating to a biographical article, and this is stated above many times.
And I think I now understand that you believe that L.N.Gumilyov shall be written with a space between name and surname, as it originally written in Russian contains no information on how Russian names are written. I was slow to see this because it seems such a bizarre belief. The author is clearly referring to the way Russian personal names are normally written. The fact that these comments were made in the context of an unrelated RM doesn't change that. (And they may or may not be correct. We didn't get that far.) Or have I still misunderstood?
The other disputed point that surprises me is my claim that other detailed guidelines which do take account of other language and culture-specific naming traditions. I'll find some examples. Andrewa (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Re. "The author is clearly referring to [whatever]" – your successive interpretations of what ChelseaFunNumberOne was trying to say seem way off. If it wasn't clear what they were trying to say you could simply have asked them, instead of extrapolating it into something it clearly wasn't.
Re. "The other disputed point that surprises me ..." – did you even look at my comment which indicates in what sense I dispute it? I think we're off into another WP:IDHT tangent. Please stop it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course I read it! Your comment read yes, it is disputed, as well its relevance to this guideline, as its implication that the current guideline would not contain information on "culture-specific naming traditions" for Russian names (it does – did you actually look at the guideline?) (my emphasis). Yes, I of course I looked at the guideline. But if I understand you now, that as well meant that you don't really want to dispute my statement at all, but instead want to talk about these other issues. Is that unfair?
I think it's a shame that there is no other opinion being offered on what ChelseaFunNumberOne meant. I respect your opinion but disagree. My interpretations have all been the same... they are telling us how Russian and Kazakh personal names are formatted in their (Kazakh I think) culture. But they're not a native English speaker, their difficulties with English are obvious, and they have not edited since blanking their user page a week ago, so frankly I think it's pointless asking them to comment further.
Regarding your repeated allegations of IDHT, as that is a behavioural issue, I request that you either drop it or take it up on my user talk page. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

George Cross Disambiguation

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.
Consensus to adopt the version proposed by SMcCandlish. feminist (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Douglas Ford (GC)#Requested move 5 July 2018 and Talk:Walter Anderson (GC)#Requested move 11 July 2018. Should we disambiguate people only notable for winning certain high awards by those awards? This definitely affects Category:Recipients of the George Cross, Category:Recipients of the Victoria Cross and Category:Recipients of the Medal of Honor, all of which use this form of disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

To be clear: At the Walter Anderson multi-page RM is a side discussion about whether to make an exception to the principle to not disambiguate by accomplishment. It's just for certain difficult cases where the person is literally not notable for anything but the award and what they did to receive it, but the latter doesn't produce a satisfactory disambiguator (e.g., "got shot while trying to stop the escape of some bankrobbers" doesn't compress to a one-or-two-word DAB that gets at it). Most of the renames in the do not involve this question (but whether to keep using "(GC)", or if not, then what to move to). There are just 1–3 cases calling for some special consideration. The Douglas Ford one-page RM is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS squabble; its outcome is probably moot, because the mass-RM will set the WP:CONSISTENCY standard for this entire cluster of disambiguations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to open a formal RfC on this question to establish/confirm the guideline for disambiguating articles for living people, where they are notable for an achievement (e.g. winning the George Cross or Medal of Honor) and not for what their job/position was (e.g. soldier, teacher). And if we are going with the achievement, is "(GC)" appropriate, or should it be "(George Cross recipient)"? In addition to Ford and Anderson (above) there have been a number of other requested moves where this was in dispute: Talk:Harry Harvey (soldier)#Requested move 22 July 2018 and Michael E. Thornton#Requested move 27 June 2018. jamacfarlane (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment this does not seem to be a support/oppose survey yet. My view is that it should be acceptable to disambiguate by an award where the subject is known almost entirely for having been a recipient of that award, and that the award was not given in recognition of their ordinary occupation and that the full proper name of the award should be used, and acronyms avoided. The effect of this is of course that Example Personsson (George Cross recipient) would be acceptable and not Example Personsson (GC) or Example Personsson (primary school teacher). But that Example Officerdottir (soldier) would be prefered over Example Officerdottir (Victoria Cross recipient). This is because a Victoria Cross or any other military award is to recognise achievement as a soldier, it is not in itself a suitable disambiguator. The Georges Cross is a special award for a single act of bravery unconnected with the recipients ordinary occupation, and may become a lasting legacy beyond that persons otherwise ordinary career. Another point I feel is relevant is that articles should not be disambiguated by awards of the Order of the British Empire or similar entirely civil awards given in recognition of an outstanding civilian career. For example John Barnes (footballer) not John Barnes (MBE) or John Barnes (Order of the British Empire). — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with this approach of using awards when the person would not otherwise be WP:NOTABLE. It would suit the cases of Bob Taylor (GC), a newspaper advertising salesman and ex-serviceman who died attempting to stop two armed bank robbers, John Clements (GC), a schoolmaster who died rescuing others from a hotel fire, and Leslie Fox (GC), a carpenter by trade who was a member of a wartime rescue squad and rescued an injured man from a bombsite, who are notable for their actions and awards, and would not warrant articles just for being a salesman, teacher, and carpenter. Otherwise, I agree with SMcCandlish the norm (whether or not it's "policy") is not to disambiguate by accomplishment. jamacfarlane (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support extremely narrow version: I would modify Frayae's to this reformulated proposal, tied to policy, and with an anti-WP:GAMING eye::

    ... where all of the following apply:

    1. The subject is notable only for having been a recipient of that award.
    2. The award was not given in recognition of their ordinary occupation, office, or other role.
    3. No other term that would make a good disambiguator applies (e.g. "rescuer", "whistleblower", "inventor").
    4. The conventional, recognizable name of the award is used in the disambiguation (not an abbreviation, nor a lengthy or uncommon official name of it), in the form "(George Cross recipient)", "(Blavatnik Award recipient)".
This will avoid several problems in the prior formulation: unnecessarily windy disambiguations like "(Blavatnik Award for Young Scientists recipient)"; confusing ones like "(George Cross)"; WP:WIKILAWYERing loophole room provided by wishy-washy wording like "known almost entirely for" (which isn't tied any WP:P&G wording like "notable"); "acronyms" are not the only kind of unhelpful abbreviation; "occupation" is too narrow, and would be wikilawyered to exclude nobility, volunteers, and other roles we could disambiguate by; and, there are often other disambiguations we could use (like "rescuer" in two of the three problem cases in the mass RM that inspired this RfC in the first place – it really just came down to one guy who was shot while trying to stop bank robbers). In the end, this comes up so infrequently, I'm not sure we need a rule about this, rather than just declaring a case like that to be a WP:IAR exception, and annotating here in a footnote that some such exceptions have been made because no other DAB appeared viable.

For the record, I absolutely oppose disambiguations like "(GC)" and "(OBE)", which are meaningless to too many readers and are ambiguous, anyway. A disambiguation that introduces another ambiguity is a failure.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support narrow version. If a soldier is awarded a medal for valour in the course of their duties (be it in the presence of the enemy or not), then they are a notable soldier and should be disambiguated as such. This should be no different for a teacher awarded a medal for valour whilst being a teacher or a Civil Defence Service volunteer (I am unsure about the correct title of the latter). In an instance where someone was awarded a medal for valour not in the course of their occupation (for example Bob Taylor (GC)) then I believe using the award as a disambiguator is appropriate (to continue the example Bob Taylor (George Cross recipient)). Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC).
  • Support narrow version per SMcCandlish's formulation above. We don't normally disambiguate by award, but it may be necessary when no other reasonable disambiguator can be found. When it is necessary, the disambiguator needs to be be kept short but clear, per point 4 in the formulation. Alsee (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2018 (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.

Initials used in article text, vice initials used in citations

The guidance at WP:INITS is quite sound – but what should we do with initials used in citations? That is, per WP:CITESTYLE we may use any of the accepted citation styles, and we should seek to preserve the established style in each article. But clarification is needed. Does WP:INITS apply to citations? (E.g., are initials, with/without spaces and/or full stops forbidden in citations?) I think not – WP:CITESTYLE applies to citations and WP:CITESTYLE allows initials in accordance with each particular guide. Accordingly, I suggest these modifications to the naming convention guidance:

  1. In the subsection "Variation in citation methods", replace the sentence "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style... ." with "Editors should not attempt to change an article's consistent (i.e., established) citation style...
  2. In the sub-subsection "To be avoided", replace the sentence "When an article is already consistent, avoid: ..." with "When article citations are already consistent (e.g., established), avoid: ... "
  3. Add a note to explain that the guidance applies to article text, not to citations, where WP:CITESYLE and WP:CITEVAR must be applied.

Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The relevant section of MOS is MOS:INITIALS (not WP:INITS linked above), and it is 100% clear that it applies to all initials that represent names of people. CITEVAR should not be an exception to this. This talk page discussion section should be linked to from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, since that is the discussion page for this guidance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Reply – Certainly MOS:INITIALS pertains to the naming of individuals in article text. But please think about this – does MOS:INITIALS pertain to how we list the authors of sources listed in the ==References==? Look at the various FAs and GAs which WP maintains – hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of them have citations with like "Smith, A.B." and "Smith, AB" and "Smith, A B" and "Smith, A. B." and "Smith, Alfa Bravo" and "Smith, Alfa B." and "Smith, Alfa B". My suggestion seeks to clarify that MOS:INITIALS and WP:INITS pertain to article text only. When it comes to article citations, we should stick to consistent / established citation style – and seek to edit out variations in article citations. (BTW: a link from MOS/Biography/Talk will be posted.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Even if CITEVAR had precedence over MOS:INITIALS (which it doesn't -- they're both guidelines), that still doesn't allow the switching from one established citation style to another based on personal preference. In fact, it would disallow it. Articles should not be changed from citations with spaces between initials to citations without spaces between initials. Doing so after being asked not to is disruptive. DrKay (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Reply – this response begs the question. Exactly what is an "established" citation style? If some citations have spaces and some don't, is there an established style? (Also, it doesn't matter if the initials have full stops or not – the editing goal is a consistent presentation.) And what's with this "not be changed from citations with spaces between initials to citations without spaces between initials. Doing so after being asked not to is disruptive."? Is this a one-way admonition?? That is, if an editor was changing citations without spaces to citations with spaces so that the presentation was consistent, would that be disruptive? My suggested edits to the guidance seek to clarify that INITIALS and INITS apply to article text only. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is disruptive to change from one established citation style to another without consensus. So, changing from Vancouver style to another style (with spaces) after being asked not to, would be disruptive. CITEVAR was deliberately written to dissuade editors from making such changes. DrKay (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Still, you do not address the question I presented: E.g. what is an established style (within articles)? If there is a mix of spaced/unspaced, or full-stop/not full-stopped, or hyphenated/non-hyphenated citations within the references section can we say a particular style has been established? If not, then do my suggested improvements help clarify the guidelines so that consistency prevails? – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Clearly, when every citation uses spaced initials and only one isbn uses spaces instead of hyphens, the established style is to use initials with spaces and isbns with hyphens. There is literally no possibility of doubt. Therefore changing from that established style to a style where spaces are removed, as you did[1], is disruptive. The policy is already clear and no clarification is necessary. DrKay (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there a dispute that is causing this thread? --Izno (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Particular disputes are not an issue in this discussion. If there is an ambiguity in the guidance we ought to clear it up. – S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Izno, see here and here for the discussions, and links to sample edits, that led to this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that's important context. I'll be back later, but at first glance I'm a bit troubled by the editor in question here. --Izno (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
How should you be troubled? I've sought to present the issue in a neutral fashion; e.g., how can we improve the guidance? (Indeed, I think I've provided sound rationale at all stages that addresses each specific editing.) If my suggestions here are off the mark, then please explain why. – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Rich that MOS:INITIALS should not apply to initials in references. To do otherwise would be completely inconsistent with WP:CITEVAR. Too many of our well established and widely used and consistent citation styles do other things with initials. For that matter, it should always be acceptable to use a citation style in which author names are written as the author wrote them in the initial publication, which may well be different from what MOS:INITIALS says (for instance, an author may have used initials for publication but something else for common use). Only if we ever talk about trying to standardize all of our citations should we start talking about the subproblem of how to standardize author names in citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Assuming I understand your comment, I think editing to get each of our citations to comport with actual citations is too much "in the weeds". For example, we might see a book ISBN cited as "978-1-23-456-7890" on the actual book jacket cover, but as "978-123456789" on WorldCat or Google books. Which is correct? Answer: it does not matter (especially as far as ISBN linking goes). In copyediting we ought to use a consistent (established) style throughout each WP article. Same rationale applies to names and initials. (Same-same for MDY/DMY, AD-BC/CE-BCE, and other small potatoe concerns.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is this is discussion open at WT:NCP? Anyway, if you're following a previously published (i.e., real-world) citation style that requires (not just optionally permits) author names in the form of something like "Smith, TK" or "Smith TK", instead of "Smith, T. K.", then you can use a "TK" version, if it's the consistent citation style used in the article. People are apt to change it anyway, which really isn't a problem as long as it's done consistently. That is, it's better in the end for a WP article to be consistent in using "T. K." from top to bottom, and to switch away from some off-site "TK" style, than to be defiantly using a confusingly variant "TK" style lifted from a journal. Better consistency is a boon for everyone; adherence to some particular off-site citation style is simply pleasant for a few specialists. But if the article is already consistently using "TK"-style citations, then changing it might trigger an objection if the change wasn't discussed first. Generally, it doesn't, but YMMV.

    When it comes to just making up your own "citation style" out of nowhere, using "TK" format is worse that pointless, and people should normalize it to "T. K.", since there's no external authority for what you want to do, and it's not reflecting any kind of norm in a field. We have the CITEVAR stuff for one reason only: people in certain disciplines are used to a particular citation format (at least more so than any other one) and we don't want people telling them they're wrong to use what they use every day professionally. The theory is that WP having a single consistent citation style might discourage participation from subject-matter experts. (There's no actual proof of this, and it's highly dubious, since academics are used to conforming what they submit to match the style requirements of the publisher, or having it conformed for them.) This "real world citation styles and the people who love them" rationale, whatever its alleged strengths, doesn't apply to a "citation style" someone pulled out of their own butt.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Citations are one area which should be completely exempt from any Wikipedia MOS considerations, and we should instead tell editors that the citations should preserve as close as possible the presentation given by the original source. That means if a journal article title isn't capitalized as we would, or the author initials aren't dotted-and-spaced, then we should not be imposing our preferences upon them. ISBNs should be hypenated exactly how they appear on the copyright page or book cover. The best method would be to use the journal's own citation tools, or if we're manually plugging the information into one of our Cite_ templates that we copy-and-paste each portion as given. This means that it is incredibly unwise and unwelcome to use any programmatic (bot or user script) methods of homogenizing citations. -- Netoholic @ 20:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    Pure fantasy. Our citations are routinely edited for MoS compliance in myriad ways, and MoS considerations are a frequent topic among the developers of the citations templates (primarily at WT:CS1).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Self-published name changes example

This section gives the example of Fazer (rapper) → Richard Rawson as someone who has changed back to birth name (and has done since the section was introduced in 2014). However, this name change was reversed in 2016 based on this move request. Either this move needs to be reversed, as it was controversial, or a better example found. Spike 'em (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Which spelling variation to use?

The reason I was looking at the above, was the line that said For minor spelling variations (capitalization, diacritics, punctuation and spacing after initials, etc.): when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists, it is usually followed. This is within a section specifically about a change of name, but does the same hold where there is a dispute over the spelling of the subject of an article? i.e. if there are sources using 2 spellings of a name, should we attempt a COMMONNAME investigation, or stick with the spelling used by the person themselves. This relates to a discussion at WT:CRIC started when an ip editor claimed that we are spelling Ben Sealey incorrectly and that it should be Ben Sealy (the editor claims to be his son). Sources can be found for both spellings and the usual standard sources for cricket players use the "wrong" one. The only evidence I could find of how the (now-deceased) subject spelt his name was via a picture of an autograph, so I'm not sure if there is enough evidence of this anyway! Spike 'em (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding advice about avoiding WP:LABEL disambiguation terms?

I was able to resolve this but before then, we had an article titled Rick Tyler (white supremacist) (It was possible to completely drop the parenthetical term with the only other "Rick Tyler" conflict we have currently). If we had to disambiguation his article, we should not be using anything that would fall under WP:LABEL, per BLP and NPOV. The only exception I can see is if we are talking about a person that has been convicted of a crime and that's the only thing they are known for, at which point "(criminal)" is appropriate (ala Robert Chambers (criminal)).

We should add advice here to avoid using anything that can be seen as a label or a partial term (vs impartial) in such disambiguation practices and focus the term on an impartial term like their "profession" even if they don't have an official one. Tyler here would be a "(politician)" having tried to seek office several times but failed. Other labels likely can be converted to more neutral terms like "(activist)" or "(journalist)" or "(blogger)" or so on. --Masem (t) 01:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Not directly what you asked, but I elevated WP:BLP from a listing in the "see also" section to the first paragraph of the lead section – Would that work for you? WP:LABEL is subsidiary guidance, like there is so many subsidiary guidance of various policies, I don't think we'd need to mention it all in this guideline which would make it, in the end, rather indigestible, or what would you think in this specific case? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
This addition to the general disambiguation guideline should cover it all: the "label"-related style guidance applies, of course, to all parenthetical disambiguators (not only in the NCP context). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I still think a more explicit statement after The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in his or her own right. In most cases, these nouns are standard, commonly used tags such as "(musician)" and "(politician)". in "Disambiguation" is needed. Something like "Use impartial nouns and descriptors as disambiguation terms, and avoid non-neutral words such as contentious labels." You don't nee more than that, at worst, I would footnote the part about when "(criminal)" would be fine. I do think an explicit link to LABEL is needed here to show examples of terms that should not be used. --Masem (t) 19:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, no can do. WP:LABEL is about value-laden words, not about "non-neutral" words. That is not the same. The article title should be neutral, that does not mean that every word in it should be neutral. That is not the same. WP:NPOV is a policy that deals with neutral vs. non-neutral, WP:LABEL is style guidance that does not deal with neutrality of words. That is not the same. Not a single word is in itself neutral or non-neutral, but words can, in and by themselves, be value-laden. That is not the same. The statement with which I updated the disambiguation guideline should suffice. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, that we should not inject a MOS as a guiding naming principle, which I agree you don't want. But I think I'm using LABEL as examples of non-impartial, non-neutral words that some may want to use as disambiguation terms. Value-laden words are non-impartial too. BLP/NPOV set the policy why these titles for disambiguating BLP should be impartial terms. Maybe you don't need to link to LABEL, but you could say "avoid value-laden terms", and if anyone questions that, we can point to the examples in LABEL. --Masem (t) 05:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Re. "that we should not inject a MOS as a guiding naming principle" – on the contrary, my proposal is to inject MoS as a guiding naming principle into the disambiguation guideline. But the MoS is not about neutral vs non-neutral, that is a travesty of the MoS. What you propose, "Use impartial nouns and descriptors as disambiguation terms, and avoid non-neutral words such as contentious labels", is an unsound mixture of MoS and NPOV guidance, which sends editors in the wrong direction. It identifies "contentious labels" with "non-neutral words", which is neither the spirit, nor the actual content of nor the WP:NPOV policy, nor the MoS guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing it, but the section WP:LABEL in the MOS seems to be there to uphold the principle of NPOV , particularly the point "Prefer nonjudgmental language" of WP:YESPOV. (To be clear , LABEL is meant to apply to prose, not article titles). I concede to the issue that we want to avoid mis-mashing the wrong policies and guidelines together here, but I see the issue of value-laden terms in disambiguation terms specifically an NPOV issue (WP:POVNAMING specifically) with examples provided by the types of terms covered under LABEL. --Masem (t) 16:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:NICKNAME in quotation marks within boldface title

 – This is about article body text (try WT:MOSBIO), not page titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This isn't the more popular question of when it's appropriate to include said nickname (but assumes the answer to that question is yes).

I've noticed it's common (but not universal) for the quotation marks themselves to be excluded from the boldface effect. Examples:

I have no idea why, and it seems like continuously bolding the entire string would be less cluttersome and no less correct. Counterexamples:

Is there any specific MOS guidance on this? ―cobaltcigs 12:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, see MOS:NICKNAME (the talk page for which is WT:MOSBIO). This isn't a WP:NCP discussion, since it doesn't pertain to article titles but to article body text. The short answer is it would be less correct, because the bolding indicates a name of the subject, and the quotation-marks stylization around the name (which applies to nicknames but not to hypocorisms, professional aliases, married/single names, etc.) is not part of the name, but just markup indicating that it's a nickname. It's basically the same as why we do The Fellowship of the Ring (film); the " (film)" disambiguation isn't part of the title of the subject (just of our page), but is clarifying markup separate from it, so it does not receive italicization as part of the title, even on something like a disambiguation page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

More input needed at RfC on infobox birthplace/nationality/citizenship

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC on birthplace, nationality, and citizenship parameters with matching values.

This RfC has been running for a while but input has dropped off, and right now it's about an even split between the guidelines a) saying nothing at all about the matter, or b) saying to avoid putting the same country in two or three infobox parameters (the other options in the RfC have attracted nearly no support). It's not going to be a useful outcome (just another RfC again some time later) if this closes with "no consensus", so this tie needs to be broken – with good reasoning, not with WP:JUSTAVOTE of course.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

First name vs. patronymics where 99% of reliable sources refer to the subject by his patronymic

I noticed on the Kenenisa Bekele article (he's Ethiopian, where they use patronymics rather than family names) that there's a mix of referring to him as "Kenenisa" or "Bekele" throughout the article. The note at the top talks about the naming convention. However, in nearly every outside reliable source I looked at, he's referred to as "Bekele" in the text of such articles. I'm looking for guidance on which one to use throughout his Wikipedia article, as I think it should be consistent. On the one hand, I understand that in Ethiopia, he would be called Kenenisa, even in formal settings, I suppose. On the other hand, almost all of the English language sources use Bekele, so while I'm on the fence, I think I'm leaning towards using Bekele, since this is the English-language Wikipedia. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

MOS:PATRONYMIC specifically mentions that Ethiopians should be referred to using their given name. This is a MOS issue rather than a sourcing issue about what his name is. Spike 'em (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'm going to copy my original question over to that talk page, as I feel it's an issue that deserves exploring. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"gamer" or "video game player" as parenthetical disambiguation?

Watchers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games) § RfC: "(gamer)" or "(video game player)"? Izno (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Full names for fictional characters

Is there a policy discouraging them? Bignole keeps doing that on Oliver Queen (Arrowverse) (removing his sourced middle name Jonas), saying, "He isn't a real person. That isn't his common name. we don't need his middle name mentioned because it lends nothing encyclopedic and he isn't real (which is what they do for articles on real people)." --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hungarian Names

I'm a little confused about the guideline to use Western (family name last) naming convention for Hungarian names. It seems common sense to use Western name order for individuals like John von Neumann, where sources predominately refer to the subject that way. However, shouldn't Hungarian naming conventions follow that for Chinese, Korean, etc, which specify to use their "correct" name unless there is reason to do otherwise? I've never edited/suggested change to a manual of style page before, so please let me know if there is a justification or process that I'm not aware of. Thanks! Novabrahm (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the general principle is to follow a convention here for each language that reflects actual usage. For better or for worse, in English it's conventional to move Hungarians'—and Japanese people's—given names in front of their first names, while we don't normally do that for Chinese or Korean people. Largoplazo (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I asked a question at Talk:Peter Bence over a year ago trying to get clarification on whether his name in Hungarian is actually Bence Péter or Péter Bence, since the name by which he's being called here is (minus the accent mark) the same as what the article gives as his Hungarian name. I tried to find out through Google searches which is correct in each language and found conflicting information. No one's responded to my inquiry. Largoplazo (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Now someone has. But you might want to schedule some reading time for it; it's not short and sweet! Mathglot (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
LOL. I'm gonna need to set aside a block of time for this. Largoplazo (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles § RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles § RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder?. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Re wp:Middle initials

W rgd wp:Middle initials: Some newspapers' style books recommend middle initials, others' don't. E.g. the Washington Post will write "Jessica A. Krug" (about a tenured assoc. professor involved in identity scandal) in an article itself, which is abbrev.'d to "Jessica Krug" within that same article's headline: https://nowthisnews.com/news/george-washington-university-professor-reveals-she-fabricated-her-racial-identity . All other factors being equal (for example, it's often the case that academics' writings will credit them with their middle initials but mentions of these same academics in news reports will be without them) - WP's style book ought to come out in favor of one position or the other.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Periphera
Fairly simple question, no need to jump to an RfC without discussing first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
To answer the question:
--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Point of order: I'm not asking what the guidelines are but suggesting they be amended. I've contributed a number of biographical beginnings/stubs. I used to include academics' middle initials (per their scholarly pubs) but started to leave them out (per users' usual searches for them) and think WP itself ought to encourage contributors to go one way or the other in such cases where the choice otherwise seems quite random. --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
No RfC is needed if you want to pursue an amendement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
For clarity: naming conventions, such as this one, are not usually determined by RfC. They are mostly defined by a series of WP:RMs that go in the same direction. So, commonly, without RMs, no guideline change. And, for clarity, the RMs would need to demonstrate that current guidance would be insufficient or otherwise problematic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's not get off track. Any takers [Edited: with substantive considerations they'd be kind enough to express] w rgd my original question?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Re. "WP's style book ought to come out in favor of one position or the other" – nonsense, current guidance is clear enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Also, this seems like a wild goose chase in search of a problem (where no actual problem whatsoever has been demonstrated). When I explained why the example given in the OP does not, by far, indicate a problem with the current Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) guidance, that comment is collapsed out of sight... Not the way to go. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I've contributed a number of biographical beginnings/stubs. I used to include academics' middle initials (per their scholarly pubs) but started to leave them out (per users' usual searches for them) and think WP itself ought to encourage contributors to go one way or the other in such cases where the choice IMHO otherwise seems quite random.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, err, current guidance should be followed. Can you give an *actual* problem of this kind that could not be resolved per current guidance (for avoiding Wikipedia:Solutions looking for a problem)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I've the recurring question over and over. Eg when the scandal article mentioned above becomes converted to a blp (which it will soon), ought it include Jessica's middle initial of A. or not? More: In 2019 I think it was I contributed "Benjamin Park," per some instances of his being referenced in news reports, yet virtually every one of both his books and articles are bylined w his mid initial. And, for the other bookend, if memory serves, I think the 1st time I encountered the Q - with there being any number of such contributions in between - is some years back when I started a stub @ "Nathan B. Oman." Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "when the scandal article mentioned above becomes converted to a blp (which it will soon), ought it include Jessica's middle initial of A. or not?" – again, should best be decided by WP:RM anyhow. For clarity, don't believe your "which it will soon" prediction either – might as well soon go to WP:AfD, to assess whether it falls, or not, under WP:BLP1E.
Re. "I started a stub @ "Nathan B. Oman."" – you didn't, apparently, afaics: so, still, hypothetical problem. Not an actual problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
A bit of "oppositional" tone has developed w/in this thread. Human nature, s'pose. But I'm not a newbie. I had a diff. user name back when "Nathan B. Oman" was first contributed (if by me or not I don't now recall). I'd later asked for a name change. So it's all good. In any case, referencing eg (recently) "Quincy D. Newell" & {long ago) "Matthew J. Grow" (or in between: "Brigham D. Madsen"...& seemingly ad infinitum.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Re."I had a diff. user name back when "Nathan B. Oman" was first contributed (if by me or not I don't now recall)" – your former username does not appear in related edit histories, so, afaics, the username change is completely unrelated.
Re. "Quincy D. Newell" – afaics, no page moves, no talk page discussion about the article title: the article title appears completely unproblematic.
Same for Matthew Grow and Brigham D. Madsen – no page name issues whatsoever apparent. Please explain what in your view the problem exactly is? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
My curiosity's being aroused: I checked Nathan Oman namespace myself. Fwiw my former user name first two edits there in 2009.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Nothing too complex. Maybe its simplicity is what's throwing you off? In any case: all other things being relatively equal (that means formal academic citations at a more formal name including a middle initial against popular media citations using a less formal one without), it would be helpful for WP to have a default preference one way or another in my personal opinion.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
When all other things are equal, then, according to the fourth of the five WP:CRITERIA (which is policy), the shorter one should be chosen, that is the one without the middle initial. Or, looking at it via the WP:NCP guideline: "<First name> <Last name>" is the standard format (see guideline's intro), not "<First name> <Middle initial(s)> <Last name>" – so, the choice is already embedded in current policy and other guidance. In other words: nothing needs to change. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you verrrry much, user:Francis Schonken! I'm referring readers who land upon wp:Middle initials to these other guidelines. Again, thanks!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Current guidance is to follow the principle of “what would be most recognizable to the reader?”... see WP:COMMONNAME. Look at a wide variety of sources that mention the person. If a clear majority include the initial, then Wikipedia does so as well (Example: John F. Kennedy). If a clear majority do not include the initial, neither does Wikipedia (Example: Barack Obama). If the sources are mixed, it does not really matter (both are equally recognizable), so the article creator can decide whether to include it or not. Note that, in some cases, including the initial can help with disambiguation (so, when there is a choice, my personal preference is to include it... but that IS just a personal preference). Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Just make sure that every plausible version of the name provides access, via a redirect, hatnote or dab page entry. Then run "what links here" to (a) feel happy about red links turned blue and/or (b) sort out the ones which need disambiguation because that red link was in a 1920s sports article and isn't the BLP you're writing! Oh and add them to any existing surname list page too, or redirect if it's unique to them. PamD 19:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • OP's note - I suggest the following addition @ wp:Middle initials:

    " * If reliable sources write out an individual's middle initial nearly as often as they leave them out, according to the fourth of the five criteria, the shorter should be chosen: the one without the middle initial."

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I would oppose that... it takes the criteria of “conciseness” to a silly extreme. Omitting or including one letter does not make a name more or less concise (conciseness isn’t about character counting). Also, conciseness needs to be balanced with precision (the third point in WP:Criteria), and adding the initial can make the title more precise. The fact is, deciding whether to omit or include an initial simply isn’t something we can make a firm and fast rule about. It’s often a judgement call that has to take a multitude of factors into account. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
When Jess Wade's blp for Clarice Phelps failed wikipublication but new sources came out, I drafted a stub (available on the wayback machine) for her @ "Clarice E. Phelps" -- which I mistakenly believed was WP's preferred form. (It's the name she signed her academic articles with/by and which she was mentioned in her lab's in-house news organ, [Edited: even the name WaPo had recently used for her, I believe, in Wade's co-authored op-ed there about Wikipedia's women STEM blp's, since WaPo's style manual emphasizes precision].) Wade's other STEM blp's, however: Julie Ezold, Gina Tourassi, etc.--seems not not entitled by more formal of names. I now agree with Wade, that these shorter version are, more so or generally speaking, WP's default. As, the operative word here is default position and not hard and fast.
I mean, the WaPo (nytimes/WSJ) sometimes omit the initial from a person's formal name, on occasion, when the circumstances seem to call for it. Yet, per in-house style manual, it (they) write Donald J. Trump (I dunno: Chris J. Christie; Joseph R. Biden; Hillary Rodham Clinton; etc. I mean, there is a little Afghan boy out there named Donald Trump as well <attempting humor>). Wikipedia obviously doesn't follow suit. So, actually laying WP's general preference out there would be of service IMO.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Correction: The WaPo article[2] chose to make an exception to its usual "rule" and uses the more informal rendering of Ms. Phelps's name.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I think there's something of a transatlantic difference here: you don't hear British people referred to as "name initial name" in the way that we hear about Americans. Sure, if I was publishing something academic it would probably appear authored by "Pamela M. D...". If I had a wikipedia article I'd expect to see it at Pam D..., which is what I'm known as. The form of name used in an academic's departmental profile can be helpful... but I suspect that different departments/universities have different rules as to whether I'd be "Professor Pamela M. D..." or "Professor Pam D..." (if I had such elevated status). In general I think "Forename Surname" is our best title (but there again, American women seem more often to use a double surname - Margaret Thatcher would never have been referred to in the UK as Margaret Roberts Thatcher, though it seems standard across the pond). I think it needs to be left to the editors of each article to choose the most appropriate title, using our existing rules. PamD 14:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
And my favoured UK style guide, from The Guardian, makes no mention under "I" for "initials" or "M" for "Middle name/initial". PamD 14:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
user:PamD: nytimes[3] - ". . One exception is women who aspire to power positions, he said. “Instead of writing Ann Louise Smith, they’ll put A. L. Smith,” he said, “so the person who sees the letter or email doesn’t know it’s a man or woman and doesn’t make preconceived notions on gender.” Joanne Rowling is a great example of this. When the former secretary was preparing to publish her first novel for young readers, her publisher feared boys wouldn’t want to read a book by a woman, so he pressed her to choose two initials. Having not been given a middle name, Ms. Rowling chose to honor her grandmother, Kathleen, and published her book as J. K. Rowling. . . "--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
More:
  1. from the same nytimes opinion piece[4]: ". . Is the middle initial in decline? The short answer is yes. John Q. Public has spoken: Time to K.O. the Q. The middle initial is actually a relatively recent invention. Middle names first began to appear in Europe in the late Middle Ages, but they weren’t widely used until the 19th century, when populations boomed and people needed more names to distinguish themselves. Studies show that fewer than 5 percent of Americans born during the Revolutionary Era had middle names; by 1900, nearly every American had one. With middle names more common, middle initials became ubiquitous in the 20th century. . . Newspapers, like this one, have long been a bastion of middle initials in bylines . . '. . But in the Internet age, he continued, the middle initial conveys a formality that can be a barrier. “It feels a bit ostentatious, even priggish,' Mr. [ Nicholas] Kristof wrote. . ."
  2. vox[5] - You Should Start Using a Middle Initial
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Use of middle initials for disambiguation purposes

What is the policy for use of middle initials for disambiguation purposes? My understanding of this page is that parenthetical disambiguation should be used and middle initials should not be added solely for disambiguation. Nevertheless, this happens all the time, as individuals with common names have pages including their middle initials while most of them are not commonly known by version of their names containing their middle initials. I think this policy should be clarified. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

"Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and initials. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguating. PamD 15:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
It may not be “advised”, but it certainly isn’t prohibited. It’s really a judgement call, made after examining several other factors... and can be dealt with via consensus on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Any preference on WP for middle initials in blp titles?

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.
There is a consensus against changing the guideline as proposed (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


@ wp:Middle initial I propose adding this text:

"(Note: In cases where reliable sources include a subject's middle initial along with a subject's first and last names as often as they do not include the middle initial, since Wikipedia has no default preference, either form is acceptable.)"

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Note: The content at wp:Middle initial doesn't even address their use in blp titles involving the very common question of whether to use first name–last name or first name–middle initial–last name. (The text there does however say that WP's preference is to include a full [namely, more than two-name] name rather than initials in cases where the choice is between, for example, J. John Doe vs. Jason John Doe or Joseph Marion Blough vs. Joseph M. Blough – when citations to either form of the name within reliable sources are equally split.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Any specificity?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Opposed - unnecessary instruction creep. Except for clear cut COMMONNAME situations, it really DOES NOT MATTER whether you include the middle initial or not. It is OK to include middle initials ... BUT it is equally OK to omit them. We don’t need a “rule” one way or the other. It is a judgement call that can be left up to article creators. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
True (but, in actual fact, what the proposed text explains to potential contributors is what you just said).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
My point is that there is no need for the guideline to actually spell it out. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless it's for disambiguation purposes. Unecessary red tape otherwise. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2020 (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.

Cognomens section

@Francis Schonken:: The text you reverted has stood at this page since 13 June 2019, i.e. some 16 months, introduced by User:PBS around here. It is preposterous to claim that you haven't seen it since and that you're reverting to a stable version. Anyway, here's the list of problems with "your" version:

  • Terminology: it talks about "page names" (that we call "article titles") and "notable distinctions" (distinctions of what?)
  • Notable distinctions can be explained in the article, but avoid (for example) adding a nickname, – a "but" should contradict something, but the two sentences have no logical connection, and better function as two.
  • I don't have a quibble with four short paragraphs rather than one longer, but whatever.
  • It omits the unless it is the form most frequently used in independent reliable sources (see § Middle names and initials). disclaimer, which I think is important to stress. I do grant, however, that it appeared twice in the text in close vicinity.
  • I disagree that the last paragraph of the section is not a summary of that section.

For the sake of peace, I'm going to merge the versions, taking your objections in order, but I can't escape the impression that you're merely stonewalling any development and exhibiting an unhealthy WP:OWNership on this page. No such user (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with about everything of that, including that I would have claimed not having "seen it since" – which I didn't. So, no, this was a rather unfortunate rewrite, primarily for reinterpreting this as a set of separate rules, which can be read in isolation, which this is not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
You haven't even read the compromise version, have you? No such user (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I read your version thoroughly enough to see that it is not a "compromise" version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I.e, thoroughly enough to conclude that it differs from your preferred version. No such user (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Minor MOS:BIO consolidation proposal

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Proposal to better address "The"/"the" in names of performers (etc.) and groups thereof
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Finished MOS:DIACRITICS merge from MOS:CAPS to WP:MOS

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

See RfC on changing DEADNAME on crediting individuals for previously released works

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
This potentially would affect a significant number of articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Transliterated names - common vs subject's own spelling

Hello. One thing this convention doesn't seem to cover is what to do about people from countries that do not use the Latin alphabet. In particular, what to do when someone's preferred spelling of their name is not the common way it is spelt in English sources. Do we go with WP:COMMONNAME (which, in the absence of any other guideline or convention I can find, seems to be the answer), or should we defer to their preferred spelling? And what if the person is not consistent in how they spell their name in Latin letters? For anyone interested, there is a discussion at Talk:Galit Distel-Etebaryan about this. Cheers, Number 57 21:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested addition to stagenames section

In this section, it might be helpful to add whether you should or should not use part of a stagename as a surname. For example, sometimes you see something like this: Snoop Dogg is an Amenrican Hip Hop Artist. Dogg's career began in... In this example, Dogg is used as a Surname, which is weird to me. I think we should specify that either the artist's given surname, or full stagename should be used. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This guideline is about article titles rather than what goes in the body, but this problem is addressed in the MoS at MOS:SURNAME. It actually includes Snoop Dogg as an example, but says that his full pseudonym should be used at each subsequent mention, since "Dogg" isn't really recognizable as even a pseudonymous surname. The actual Snoop Dogg article is a bit of a mess, alternating between "Snoop Dogg", "Snoop", and "Broadus" (his legal surname). Colin M (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, thank you! Yep, this is exactly what I was looking for, didn't realize my mistake. Much appreciated. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Careful about making rules based on just one example. In this case, a lot depends on what the pseudonym is. Compare the Snoop Dogg example to what we do at Mark Twain (although I suppose you could quibble that the pseudonym is a “pen name” and not a “stage name”, I think it is comparable). We refer to him simply as “Twain” through most of the article… And it makes sense to do so. Blueboar (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Blueboar. I've seen this come up on the talk page of more than one hip-hop artist for example, Lil Nas X and Snoop Dogg. Editors seem to want to know what to use in these cases. I think Mark Twain and Snoop Dogg are not quite comparable, as hip hop names rarely follow first name, last name conventions, whereas pen names nearly always do. I think there should be some guidance about hip hop names somewhere. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Name changes

I know that the guideline says that you should give more weight to later sources, but what if there are no secondary sources on the subject published after the change? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources can be useful, but otherwise we operate based on those sources that do exist. — HTGS (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
If there are tons of primary sources that use the new name, but the aforementioned issue applies, what is the answer? QuicoleJR (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • How recent was the change? If very recent, it may simply be a case of being patient, and waiting for reliable secondary sources to catch up.
On the other hand, if not recent, it may be a case where reliable sources have rejected the name change. An example if this would be a building or bridge that “officially” gets renamed in honor of some local politician… but continues to be referred to in source material by its previous (perhaps geographic) name. WP:COMMONNAME might indicate that we should reflect that “rejection”. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
No, the problem is, there are ZERO sources even mentioning the subject since the change. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
It depends on what sort of primary sources you mean and the context of the name change. If the primary source is self-published in a way that is reliable and its a MOS:GENDERID related name change then I'd say that per WP:BLPSPS, we should change the name (with the keeping the other caveats listed there in mind). If it's a name change related to a professional name or just a name someone prefers, in general we want either independent reliable sources to use the new name and/or we have sufficient self-published sources to show it is consistently used to begin consider.
So if you have a case it might, it may make sense to share more details/specifics. Skynxnex (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
A notable Twitch streamer/YouTuber went transgender and now I want to write an article about them. Those are the specifics. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I am not an expert in this topic but based on my reading, particularly in the case of no independent sources that contradict it, is to write it with their current self-expressed gender and name. If, and only if, they were sufficiently notable before transitioning, then we can include the previous name, often not in the lead paragraph, using the guidance in MOS:GENDERID. Skynxnex (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Was this person notable prior to transition? Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, they were. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Shalini (disambiguation)

There is a discussion at Talk:Shalini (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 July 2023 about moving Shalini (disambiguation) to Shalini. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)/Archive_14&oldid=1189143127"