Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2025 archive#Death announcements with no exact death date

{{moved to|WT:MOSLINK|2= Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}

Am I right in believing that Template:Infobox YouTube personality is pretty much redundant now and Template:Infobox person is the correct way to go?𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 15:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I just ran across an article about a retired US Navy admiral Mike Dumont, who in the second paragraph, it said "In 2017 or earlier, Mike served as a vice director of Joint Chiefs of Staff at Pentagon....". I changed this to his last name citing WP:BIO in the edit summary due to the fact that a bio of an adult like this shouldn't refer to the subject by his/her given name, as I had recalled seeing that it was part of the MoS from several years ago. I now can't find it in the MoS. Was it removed at some point in the past? I still consider it inappropriate. rogerd (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:Surname should be used. GiantSnowman 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

::MOS:SURNAME Schazjmd (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:::It can be used in certain situations in order to differentiate from other family members who share the same surname who are being mentioned in close proximity. For example, after explaining who someone’s mother was, starting the next sentence with “Mike …”. But other than that, there is rarely justification for it, and it is too informal for an encyclopaedia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Thanks! rogerd (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

::::I quite agree. rogerd (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

::Yes, I knew that, I was just looking for the operative policy. Thanks! rogerd (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:::The relevant shortcut is MOS:SURNAME. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I see editors removing these places from the lead even when this information is not mentioned elsewhere in the body. Can we write some guidance that this should not happen, and that people should either move it to the body or leave it well alone, but not simply remove it? Especially in stubs, this only makes the article worse, not better. Example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_Planckaert&diff=prev&oldid=1272527101]. Fram (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I only continue to do this due to the places of birth and death being mentioned in the infobox. Someone wants to add to the lead paragraph, body of the article, fine. But I was told that MOS: specified (which it does) that it does not go in the parentheses. Now, if it's nowhere else to be found, I do not remove it. The NFL, NBA, NHL and so on ... never a problem with getting this done. P.S. I didn't set out to make someone lose sleep over it, it's what I've been doing for some time now without a single hitch. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:The infobox should only contain material already present in the body of the article, information like birthplace should not be in the infobox but not in the article itself. Infoboxes are summaries of some key points from the text, and people should get all the information without reading the infobox (which isn't even visible in all skins/environments IIRC). Fram (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Summarizing, as I understand the situation:

1. Birthplace is being removed from the lead sentence of stubs when it's next to birthdates per MOS:BIRTHPLACE (emphasis added): {{tq2|Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates.}}
2. The information remains in the infobox.
3. MOS:INFOBOX says : {{tq2|Be aware that although all information in an infobox ideally should also be found in the main body of an article, there isn't perfect compliance with this guideline|q=yes}}

—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:I do my best to make sure places are shown with the dates. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::If that's your agenda, we really should amend MOS. Got to admit, that's being bold, lol. Bringingthewood (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with Bagumba on all points, with the sole exception that "if known" should be replaced by "if reliably sourced". Knowing a birthdate or birthplace is not the same as having an acceptable source for it.

:::In particular places should not appear with the parenthetical dates in the lead sentence. My opinion (more of a minority position but a position that the MOS allows) is that in most cases only the years should appear in those parenthetical dates. More precise dates are clutter there and can be left for later unless there is some strong reason for including them in the lead. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

So people think it is better not to have this information in the text at all than to have it in the lead? That [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_Planckaert&oldid=1272570781 this] is actually worse than [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_Planckaert&oldid=1272527101 this]? That seems very reader-unfriendly. Fram (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:Where place of birth is included in brackets and was added at the same time as sources, I wouldn't remove it myself without first checking that it's not in the cited sources. In stubs that don't yet have an appropriate section to hold place of birth in text, I think it may be best to let the place of birth stay in the brackets, because adding a whole sentence on the subject gives it disproportionate prominence, so it is not an improvement. Therefore in the case you raised, I'd leave it in the brackets. It would be premature, and I feel the same when a coherent single-paragraph stub is broken up into half a dozen one-line sections. William Avery (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I now see what Fram meant with messages to myself. I started to respond to Fram and Bagumba on my talk page, but I forget to ping Fram with this: "Revert everything I did, I don't give a shit. You won. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC).

I meant that. I wasn't replying to myself, I forgot to direct the message. Just like I'd like to forget all of this. Also, I don't need to be aware of anything, I reverted what you did before I contacted a couple of people. I asked you to have a little patience at that time. You have plenty of edits, and I hope you don't mind reverting everything I did. I'm not much for chasing my own tail. Stay well and good luck in the future. John. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:They shouldn't be blindly reverted, as they don't belong next to the birthdate per the MOS. The birthplace can be WP:PRESERVED somewhere else. —Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It should not be in the lead, but I agree that if it's not anywhere else then it should be left alone. Deletion of information is never acceptable. However, in this instance if it's in the infobox then it can be deleted from the lead. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:So "an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored" from MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE {{em|can}} be ignored for birth and death places? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::What I'm saying is that I'd rather they were in the body of the article, but having them in the infobox is better than having them in the lead (where they really don't belong) or deleting information completely (as has happened with the postnom "enforcers"). Unthinkingly enforcing "rules" is rarely a good idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=This is not a discussion, this is a disruptive rant by GOAT Bones231012. GiantSnowman 09:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)}}

I’m sorry but having the "T" in "The Greatest" not capitalized is a crime. Please refer to Muhammad Ali page if you don’t know what I am talking about. It just looks plain weird not to have it capitalized, am I wrong? I don’t know who wrote this section, but I found the following on Grammarly: Because they are proper nouns, a person’s first and last names are capitalized. Likewise, capitalize middle names, nicknames, and suffixes like Jr.

Example:

After getting his start in wrestling, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson became a popular actor. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Oh please, don’t all agree at once. Wouldn’t want to rush into anything. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::Looks like Grammarly disagrees with our long-standing guideline at MOS:THENICKNAME, which says "the" is not capitalized in a nickname, pseudonym, or other alias. As far as I know, Grammarly is not considered a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE. If you want to propose a change in the guideline here, you'll need to find reliable sources that support it. Vpab15 (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::According to The Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition), titles and honorifics, especially those associated with significant individuals or achievements, should be capitalized when they are used as formal designations or when they carry a sense of unique identity. In Section 8.87, it is outlined that titles like “The Greatest” are capitalized when they function as a formal or specialized title. Ali’s self-proclaimed title “The Greatest” functions as more than just a descriptive adjective; it is a mark of distinction that aligns with his public identity and legendary status.

:::This title is not simply describing Ali as a great boxer, but as a unique figure whose achievements in the sport made him a global symbol of excellence. In this context, “The Greatest” is not just a reference, but a formalized title, much like how other nicknames or epithets of historical figures (e.g., “The King” for Elvis Presley) are capitalized. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Section 8.56 of The Chicago Manual of Style discusses the capitalization of nicknames. It notes that when a nickname is recognized as an integral part of a person’s identity, especially one used widely in both formal and informal contexts, it should be capitalized. The section provides examples such as “The Boss” for Bruce Springsteen or “The King” for Elvis Presley.

::::In the case of Muhammad Ali, “The Greatest” became an intrinsic part of his identity, used by media outlets, fans, and commentators alike. It transcended casual language and became a title of recognition, which in line with The Chicago Manual of Style’s guidance, should be capitalized to reflect its status as more than just a casual descriptor. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Section 8.64 of The Chicago Manual of Style deals with the capitalization of specific words used for emphasis, particularly when those words serve to define a unique, established concept or identity. Muhammad Ali’s title “The Greatest” can be seen as such a case, where the capitalization reflects the monumental identity he built around the concept of greatness.

:::::Section 8.65 further elaborates on the capitalization of words or phrases that act as self-defined monikers. It states that when an individual uses a title as a unique identifier (as Ali did), the phrase becomes capitalized as part of their recognized identity. This further justifies the decision to capitalize “The Greatest,” as it is a term specifically associated with Ali’s persona and branding. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Finally, Section 8.100 provides guidelines for when to capitalize certain phrases used in specific contexts. In the case of Ali, the phrase “The Greatest” is not just a general term but a recognized, proper noun that is applied specifically to him within the context of his boxing career and his larger cultural impact. As such, “The Greatest” is capitalized, as it functions as a proper title that is unique to him. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I’ll just continue talking to myself then:

:::::::The Associated Press (AP) Stylebook advises that epithets or nicknames that are used as formal identifiers, especially when they are associated with a specific individual in a prominent and widely recognized manner, should be capitalized. It is noted that epithets such as “The King” (Elvis Presley) and “The Greatest” (Muhammad Ali) are capitalized because they function as more than just descriptive terms—they serve as official titles that have become part of the person’s identity and are recognized universally.

:::::::In this case, “The Greatest” functions as a unique title, denoting not just general greatness but a particular identity tied directly to Ali’s legacy. It is a mark of distinction that has become synonymous with him, and as such, the AP Stylebook supports its capitalization. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::First, WP is not written to AP Stylebook rules, and American news publishers who follow that book do not write to conform to our MoS; they are radically different style guides, for completely different kinds of writing, and our MoS has taken very close to zero elements of any kind from AP Stylebook, while it directly conflicts with our style in over 100 ways. Second,, WP is not written in news style, as a matter of clear policy. Third, "the King" for Presley and "the Greatest" for Ali are not "formal identifiers" of any kind in the first place. Writing "The King" and "The Greatest" is simply pointless mid-sentence capitalization for no sensible reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::So no matter what I say, cite or reference, nothing will change the current MoS that was made up of Wikipedia members' contributions. I can throw the kitchen sink and it still wouldn’t work. Is that what you’re saying? The people who wrote this MoS are god, we are all their loyal disciples and the MoS is the Bible? Like I’m just genuinely curious, everyone else on planet earth is wrong about this? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I’ll just continue this fight alone while the rest of you stay silent.

::::::::::The MLA Handbook provides guidelines for capitalizing titles and proper names. In general, it recommends capitalizing the first and last words of titles, along with any principal words, which include nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. The guide specifically treats words like “The” as capitalized if they are the first word in a title or a name.

::::::::::When it comes to nicknames, MLA’s treatment of capitalization doesn’t differ significantly from titles. In the case of a nickname like The Greatest (used for someone like Muhammad Ali), “The” is considered an integral part of the proper noun, not just a generic article. As the first word of the nickname, “The” follows MLA’s rule that the first word of a title or a name is always capitalized. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::More you say?

:::::::::::The Oxford Style Manual also recommends capitalizing the first and last words in titles and names, including when “The” appears as the first word in a nickname. According to Oxford style, “The” is capitalized when it is part of a title or proper noun, particularly when it begins a name, such as The Greatest.

:::::::::::This approach is rooted in the notion that a nickname, like any proper noun, follows the same rules of capitalization as formal titles. Since “The” is the first word of the nickname The Greatest, it is capitalized to adhere to the convention of capitalizing the initial word in a proper noun or title. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Ignored? No problem. I just hope the Wikipedia Mafia don’t ban me for speaking my mind, but until then, project #capitalizetheT continues until someone other than SMcCandlish, who probably wrote the WP MoS, replies:

::::::::::::The Cambridge Guide to English Usage addresses capitalization in titles and names, emphasizing that the first word in a title or a proper name should always be capitalized. In the case of a nickname like The Greatest, “The” is part of the full proper noun and is therefore capitalized. This guide treats “The” as an integral part of the nickname, just as it would for any formal title.

::::::::::::“Capitalize the first and last words in a title or proper name, regardless of whether they are ordinarily capitalized in a sentence” (Cambridge Guide to English Usage, p. 350).

::::::::::::Since The Greatest functions as a proper noun, “The” is capitalized. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Wikipedia Mafia silently reading this, realizing they’re wrong, but ignoring it because god forbid somebody questions their precious MoS🤥

:::::::::::::Me, the one army, who won’t rest until this injustice has been righted💪 GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::A small debate, a question asked,

::::::::::::::Of titles, names, in rules unmasked.

::::::::::::::Is “The” to rise or stay so small,

::::::::::::::When “The Greatest” stands tall?

::::::::::::::A nickname bright, a legend true,

::::::::::::::Muhammad’s name, to all we knew.

::::::::::::::But should the T, so bold and proud,

::::::::::::::Be kept in lower case, or loud?

::::::::::::::Style guides claim their proper way,

::::::::::::::The rules of language in display.

::::::::::::::“The” at the start must lead the charge,

::::::::::::::In titles grand, it takes its large.

::::::::::::::The MLA, with scholarly grace,

::::::::::::::Says “The” must stand, it takes its place.

::::::::::::::The Oxford too, with careful hand,

::::::::::::::Insists on rules that clearly stand.

::::::::::::::Chicago speaks with measured tone,

::::::::::::::The first word up, it stands alone.

::::::::::::::And Garner’s guide, with careful pen,

::::::::::::::Calls for “The” to rise again.

::::::::::::::So let us fix this small distress,

::::::::::::::And make our titles clean, no less.

::::::::::::::“The Greatest” stands, with honor bright,

::::::::::::::The “T” will shine in proper light. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::In the realm of words, a quiet fight,

:::::::::::::::A question lingers in the night:

:::::::::::::::Should “The” be small, or stand up tall,

:::::::::::::::When legends rise and titles call?

:::::::::::::::Muhammad’s name, a truth we see,

:::::::::::::::A nickname strong, a legacy.

:::::::::::::::But how to write this honor bright,

:::::::::::::::With “The” that beckons, bold in sight?

:::::::::::::::The style books speak with solemn grace,

:::::::::::::::Each one with rules, a clear embrace.

:::::::::::::::In MLA, the capital’s clear,

:::::::::::::::The first word shines, it has no fear.

:::::::::::::::The Oxford too, with wisdom old,

:::::::::::::::Commands the capital, bright and bold.

:::::::::::::::And Chicago’s voice, a steady guide,

:::::::::::::::Tells us to let “The” rise with pride.

:::::::::::::::Garner’s hand, with careful art,

:::::::::::::::Knows “The” belongs to play its part.

:::::::::::::::For in a name, it takes its place,

:::::::::::::::With elegance, it shows its face.

:::::::::::::::So let us lift this tiny cause,

:::::::::::::::And follow style with measured pause.

:::::::::::::::“The Greatest” stands with perfect grace,

:::::::::::::::And “The” is proud to take its place. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Please stop. You have made your point, now let other editors decide if they agree with you. Your ramblings and insults are probably not going to help though. Vpab15 (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Wow I finally got a response, I don’t even care that it was negative. Please just let me know your thoughts about this. I really want to get your take. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Great, just wanted to politely tell me to shut up and not give any of his own thoughts on the matter. Amazing. Why should I have expected any differently? And now you understand the endless ramblings, for if I did or didn’t, I’d still get no response. It’s like I’m speaking into the abyss. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Another lovely poem for you all:

:::::::::::::::::::The “T” in “The Greatest” deserves its height,

:::::::::::::::::::A towering letter, bold and bright.

:::::::::::::::::::For “The” is not just any word,

:::::::::::::::::::It’s the key to greatness, where it’s heard.

:::::::::::::::::::It leads the way, a noble start,

:::::::::::::::::::A title born from soul and heart.

:::::::::::::::::::Without that “T,” the phrase would fall,

:::::::::::::::::::A whisper, not a triumph’s call.

:::::::::::::::::::It marks the moment, sets apart

:::::::::::::::::::The legends known for every art.

:::::::::::::::::::“The Greatest” stands, both proud and tall,

:::::::::::::::::::A crown for those who rise, who sprawl.

:::::::::::::::::::So let the “T” be proud and true,

:::::::::::::::::::A symbol strong, in every view.

:::::::::::::::::::For “The Greatest” needs its crown,

:::::::::::::::::::The “T” alone will hold it down. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{discussion top|reason={{Moved discussion to|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC on the names of people known only by their initials|2=Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)}}}}

MOS:BIOEXCEPT says to stick with conventions unless:

• the person has clearly declared and consistently used a preferred exceptional style for their own name; and
• an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that exceptional style.

I bring this up in the case of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Sources predominantly refer to him as "RFK Jr.", not the standard initializing.[https://apnews.com/article/trump-cabinet-kennedy-rfk-health-secretary-vote-842455e48b1f9b79fb2312937dff29f6][https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/politics/video/senator-bill-cassidy-explains-rfk-jr-vote-digvid][https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-to-watch-on-tulsi-gabbard-rfk-jr/] However, he doesn't use his initials like that often at all, sticking with his full name, and so the first point is not met.

Since "RFK Jr." is preferred by the sources, I believe we should use it. The fact that the subject has no apparent preference shouldn't stop that. One of those two parameters should be sufficient. I propose changing the "and" to an "or" in MOS:BIOEXCEPT. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:Don't have a copy of the AP Stylebook to compare but I found that Turabian rule 24.2.1 is the following:{{Blockquote|text=Some individuals are known primarily by initials in place of a first and/or middle name. Such initials should be followed by a period and a space. If you abbreviate an entire name, however, omit periods and spaces.
G. K. Chesterton but JFK
M. F. K. Fisher but FDR}}Unless there are Wikipedia articles that would violate this (pages where the full name is given with periods) then it might be better to add this rule to MOS:INITIALS rather than change MOS:BIOEXCEPT. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{vanchor|Nah}}. It's a two-part {{em|and}}-test (emphasized in the original), not an {{em|or}}-test, and we do not appear to have any evidence that he called himself "RFK Jr." consistently. Second, only a certain class of sources spell it the "RFK" way, namely those that favor dot-dropping and lean toward hyper-compression, which WP does not. We have a consensus to treat human initials differently from non-human acronyms/initialisms like "ATM" and "NASA", based on overwhelming real-world practice. We only make an exception to this when it has implications for a living subject's strongly stated personal preferences {{em|{{strong|{{sc|and}}}}}} virtually all sources go along with it. The canonical example is CCH Pounder, who is virtually never referred to in RS as "C. C. H. Pounder" or "C.C.H. Pounder" or by her full name or by any other name than "CCH Pounder". This Kennedy is most often referred to as "Robert F. Kennedy Jr.", while "RFK Jr." verges on politico-slang and headlinese (and punctuation of that sort is almost always dropped from headlines, except "U.S." in all-caps headlines and other cases where an acronym/initialism would be confused with a regular word like "us"). As with the thread below, WP's MoS is not based on AP Stylebook (for writing news) or Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (for writing undergraduate schoolwork), and those writing for one of those stylesheets is not following our MoS. They are different style guides, for generally good reasons. The main ones here would be consistency for readers and avoidance of inter-editor "style fighting", as usual; if we permit "RFK" and "FDR" then we're going to see no end to people demanding dot-and-space dropping for everyone under the sun to suit their personal preference for maximum compression at all costs, which is something we don't need for multiple reasons: WP:NOT#PAPER, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

{{discussion bottom}}

When describing a person as "from Botswana," there are many inconsistencies among prescribed style. Sources I have found have so far included these three:

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22is+a+Botswanan%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 Botswanan] (MW, [https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Botswana AHD], OED, [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/botswanan?q=Botswanan CALD])
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22is+a+Motswana%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 Motswana] (OED, [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/motswana?q=Motswana CALD], [https://dsae.co.za/entry/motswana/e04953 DSAE], [https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/botswana/ CIA])
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22is+a+Botswanian%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 Botswanian] (OED)

Usage on Wikipedia appears to be dividied between "Motswana" and "Botswanan." Should there be an addition to manual of style prescribing/proscribing one word when describing the nationality of people from Botswana? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:If it is useful to the discussion, [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Botswanian%2CMotswana%2CBotswanan&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 Google Ngrams] show "Botswanan" being used more than "Motswana." Google Scholar gives [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Botswanan%22&btnG= 5,150] hits for "Botswanan" and [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Motswana%22&btnG=&oq=%22%22 3,040] hits for "Motswana." ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:: That's useful as a start, but be careful when interpreting it, because you may run into an apple vs oranges problem. Ngrams tallies number of matches, not how they are used (well, at least not in that query). So for example, if you didn't already know, and wanted to find out what to call people from Spain, and ran a query of [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Spaniard%2CSpanish&year_start=1992&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false Spaniard vs. Spanish] and took that as your result, you would conclude that they are predominantly called "Spanish", by several orders of magnitude. Same problem with Scot/Scottish, Finn*, Swede*, Briton/British, Icelander/ic, and so on. Other, more refined queries may be needed if you want to elicit meaningful information from ngrams, and it might not be possible. Mathglot (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hey there! Yes there should be a MoS. I've been thinking about it :). As someone from Botswana myself a person from here (as well as the Tswana peoples in South Africa and elsewhere) is known as a "Motswana" and "Batswana" for plural. The rest are mere bastardisations. Aficionado538 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::The Dictionary of South African English supports your claim that it is the correct word, since it includes the word "Motswana" but not "Botswanan." According to MOS:TIES, the variety of English used in an article should reflect the nationality of the article's subject, so as far as I can tell "Motswana" should be the exclusive form used since the DSAE does not list "Botswanan" as a word at all. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Precisely. Aficionado538 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I would suppose there is an exception if the article is written in American English, in which case Botswanan should be used since that is the dominant form in the U.S. In any event, this should not impact the articles of people from Botswana, since those should typically be written in South African English. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:Use Botswanan both because it doesn't require specialized (regionally familiar or linguistically steeped) knowledge, and it's actually demonstrably more common.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::Can you demonstrate per MOS:TIES that Botswanan is actually a word in South African / Motswana English? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe MOS:COMMONALITY is relevant? Without having seen this discussion I would have no idea what "Motswana" means nor how to pluralize it, but (as a speaker of American English) I would easily recognize "Botswanan". —David Eppstein (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::If we're going by commonality then Motswana should still be applicable, no? The word appears in South African dictionary, British dictionary (Cambridge), and an American source (CIA Factbook). In any event this usage should mainly apply to people from Botswana, so there will already be strong national ties to the topic, thereby dictating the preferred style of English. If the article is written in American English, then Botswanan would be more fitting. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::My point is that if one word nis widely or universally understood and one is not, we should write to be understood. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Neither word appears to be applicable then. We can't cater to both South African / Botswana English speakers and American speakers at the same time. Or we could just awkwardly say "from Botswana" every time. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::As a maybe clarifying or maybe muddying example of the same phenomenon, we have maybe 40 articles calling people "Bajan", a commonly-used term in their local vernacular for their nationality. Should that be kept because it is the common term, or should it be replaced by "Barbadian", the more widely recognizable term (and the one much more commonly used in our other articles)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs) 09:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: Based on WP:ENC, and we write for all our readers, I think it's clear that it must be Barbadian. Mathglot (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The [https://books.google.be/books?redir_esc=y&id=PmvSk13sIc0C Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage] (pages 71, 80) includes both words. Website of [https://www.gov.bb/Visit-Barbados/demographics Govt of Barbados] uses the word Barbadian to refer to the nationality and Bajan to the English vernacular ({{tpq|A regional variant of English referred to locally as Bajan is spoken by most Barbadians in everyday life, especially in informal settings.}}). ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Barbadian should be used for reason of commonality, as far as I can tell. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::@David Eppstein, the thing is, the word "{{xt|Motswana}}" is the only way "{{xt|Batswana}}" (the plural term) and other neighbouring ethnicities, for that matter, refer to themselves. "{{!xt|Botswanan}}" or any other variant is simply a term borne out of ignorance or a lack of regard for local nomenclature. For instance, up until 1969 the capital city of {{xt|Gaborone}} was incorrectly referred to as "{{!xt|Gaberones}}" by the colonial administration and other non-natives, but that did not change the fact that the correct term remained "{{xt|Gaborone}}."

::::In my opinion, it is best to follow MOS:TIES regarding correspondence involving {{xt|Batswana}}. The same logic should apply to the other Sotho-Tswana country, Lesotho. A person from Lesotho is called a "{{xt|Mosotho}}," not a "{{!xt|Lesothoan}}." Aficionado538 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::: That's because the term you were looking for is Lesothan; see [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Lesothan&btnG= 500 academic articles] with the term. As for Botswanan, here are [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=Botswanan&nfpr=1 5,000 academic articles] that use the term. So I think the question is whether we want to prefer reader understanding, or MOS:TIES. Mathglot (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Mathglot Genuine spelling mistake on my part, apologies. But I think we must use MOS:TIES regardless. Aficionado538 (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Because, a misnomer being used in academia or elsewhere doesn't change the fact that it is a misnomer. Aficionado538 (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: You have that exactly backwards. Proper usage is not something defined by some magic source outside academia [or other reliable sources] that writers need to conform to. Flipping that around: if a term is used by academia and reliable sources elsewhere, then it is not a misnomer, it is standard usage by definition. Lexicographers will look at what terms academia and other reliable sources use, and then write their dictionaries based on that, not the other way round. Mathglot (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Except in this case it isn't a "magic source", is it? Which is why the Dictionary of South African English or the Oxford English Dictionary recognise the term "Motswana" as a (singular) demonym for Batswana :) Aficionado538 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::: First, lexicographers do not base their contents on tertiary sources like other dictionaries, so your example makes no sense in this context. Second: even if tertiary sources recognize a given word, that doesn't mean it is the most common word for a topic, or are you claiming it is? OED also recognizes [https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=Botswanan Botswanan], and defines it as "{{xt|a native or inhabitant of the republic of Botswana}}". MOS:TIES does not support using regional varieties that only locals will recognize, and will leave everyone else scratching their head or looking it up, when a perfectly good word already exists that everybody understands. Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Well no, the problem is that the word “Botswanan” isn’t recognized in Botswana and South Africa. Motswana govt websites use Motswana exclusively. The dictionary of South African doesn't even list “Botswanan” as a word, and the Historical Dictionary of Botswana uses “MoTswana.” Both South Africa and Botswana use English in an official capacity, so they have their own preferred vocabulary. Meanwhile, “Botswanan” has only been included in dictionaries outside Africa, such as Merriam-Webster and AUH (which prescribe specifically an American vocabulary, not a global one.) The only way to resolve this issue, as I see it, is to let articles using American spelling/vocabulary write “Botswanan” and those using South African/Motswana spelling write “Motswana.” ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::*Dictionary of South African English ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Official usage is largely irrelevant to Wikipedia's choice of terminology. Where the official name for something is useful is in the Infobox, under official_name, or in a section of the article where official usage is discussed. The rest of the article should use a term that is recognizable by the majority of readers, and readers of English will universally recognize the word Botswanan and understand what it means. And don't forget that English Wikipedia, by far the largest one, is read by huge numbers of people from countries and languages around the world, and when a Japanese speaker, a German, a Brazilian, and a Lithuanian with some knowledge of English read the article, they are all going to recognize the word "Botswanan" and know what it means, and I'd wager that not 1 in 100 or 1,000 of them will recognize "Motswana" or have any idea what it is. And not 1 in 10,000 of them will have any idea or care what the Dictionary of South African English has to say. Am willing to be proved wrong, but the onus is on you. Mathglot (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Unless evidence is provided that "Botswanan" is actually common usage in Motswana or South African English literature, then MOS:TIES dictates we use the regional word. We apply the same standard to every variety of English spelling and vocabulary, whether it be the Philippines, United Kingdom, Nigeria, Canada, Hong Kong, and yes, Botswana. As I said before, there is no problem with using "Botswanan" in articles which use other varieties of English, but "Motswana" should be used in articles which have strong national ties to the country or to South Africa, since per the South African English dictionary and my own gleaning of usage in regional publications, the word "Botswanan" does not even exist. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: MOS:TIES does not dictate anything. It is a guideline, that yields to policy, consensus, and common sense. There is no need for us to feel we are trapped in some sort of bureaucatic dictatorship and must march in lockstep to a guideline, when clearly the best solution for the maximum number of readers is to avoid use of a word almost nobody understands. Mathglot (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::: Aficionado538, you said:

:::::: {{talk quote|[T]he thing is, the word "Motswana" is the only way "Batswana" (the plural term) and other neighbouring ethnicities, for that matter, refer to themselves.}}

::::: That has zero impact on how this Wikipedia article should refer to the people. The word {{lang|tn|Motswana}} is a Tswana word, as you know, and is the endonym for "Botswanan", just as {{lang|de|Deutcshe}} is the endonym for "German". Our article on Germans is called 'Germans', not Deutsche. In English, the term Motswana is a loanword taken directly from the Tswana word, and is uncommon outside the region and some academic tomes. Until Motswana becomes a general and widely accepted term in English for "Botswanan", there is no reason to prefer it. Endonyms carry no weight in terminology choice in policy or guideline. Mathglot (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Educate, don’t argue. The key to situations like this is to provide clear explanation of terms in the article text. When TIES indicates that we should use a given “regional” word in an article, but that word is rarely used outside the region… we need to explain it! We can use “Motswana” when referring to the people who live in Botswana… but for the benefit of our general audience readers who may never have seen this usage (as was the case with me prior to reading this thread), we need to explain that this is the name that people from Botswana call themselves (and perhaps also listing other alternatives). Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Please see the Rfc at WT:MOS#RfC: Gentilic form of Botswana. Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

This is about my and User:GiantSnowman's discussion at Talk:Carol_and_Eric_Hafner#Carol_"Kitty"_Hafner_and_MOS:NICKNAME (where I said I would bring it up here in a day or two, and it turned out to be a month - sorry - {{smiley|embarrassed}}!). MOS:NICKNAME says "If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial." I interpret that as saying that the article subject in question should be introduced in the first sentence as "Carol "Kitty" Hafner..." . GiantSnowman disagrees, writing {{tq|Either a nickname is so widely used that it should be the article name per COMMONNAME, or it is not, in which case it does not merit mention in the opening sentence.}} I cited the following examples of articles about American political-adjacent women with bolded, quoted nicknames of the subject in the first sentence that are not the article name:

• Martha Jefferson Randolph: Martha "Patsy" Randolph
• Rose Cleveland: Rose Elizabeth "Libby" Cleveland - Wikipedia:Good article
• Helen Herron Taft: Helen Louise "Nellie" Taft - Wikipedia:Good article
• Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis: Jacqueline Lee "Jackie" Kennedy Onassis
• Condoleezza Rice: Condoleezza "Condi" Rice
• Cornelia Cole Fairbanks: Cornelia "Nellie" Cole Fairbanks
• Mariette Rheiner Garner: Mariette Elizabeth "Ettie" Rheiner Garner

to which GiantSnowman's response was {{tq|WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS}}. We currently have a compromise in the article as: "Carol Hafner (also known as Kitty Hafner) ..." (which is, of course, a {{tq|mention in the opening sentence}}, so I'm no longer completely clear why GiantSnowman objects to putting it the way MOS:NICKNAME suggests, but he clearly does, and no doubt will soon be here to explain). So, gentle editors, your opinions please. Should this be a formal WP:RFC or can we settle this more quickly? --GRuban (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:My position is simple - if a person is so well known by a nickname so that it merits inclusion in the opening boldface, then WP:COMMONNAME applies and the article should be located at that name, a la Bunny Berigan. If the nickname is more informal (for want of a better word) then it should not be placed in the opening boldface. GiantSnowman 21:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::There are many people who are widely referred to both by their actual name and a nickname, and including both is a concise way of letting all readers know whether they have reached the correct article. I don't see any reason why nicknames should be categorically excluded from mention as WP:OTHERNAMES, or to depart from the style suggested by NICKNAME when it is included.--Trystan (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I have no issue with the nickname being mentioned later in the lede - my issue is with the opening boldface. We do not have 'Paul "Gazza" Gascgoine' or 'George W. "Dubya" Bush' do we? GiantSnowman 16:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Not all nicknames meet the WP:OTHERNAMES test of being a "significant alternative name", but some do. When they do, they should be included in the opening boldface per OTHERNAMES and NICKNAME. I don't see any rationale for departing from the normal operation of those policies and guidelines.--Trystan (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't think "significant alternative name" (mentioned in the lead) is the same thing as "most common name" (title of the article). There can only be one title of the article, but there can easily be multiple significant alternative names. And as long as we're mentioning it in bold in the lead, we might as well do it the way that our manual of style tells us to. --GRuban (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree. A significant alternative name is by definition not the title of the article; it is alternative to the title. A nickname could either be the most common name, in which case it would be used in the article title, a significant alternative name, or a less-than-signficant alternative name. In either of the first two cases, it should be given in quotes and bold as part of the name.--Trystan (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::But it is not 'normal' operation, as I have evidenced above. NICKNAME itself says "Do not cram multiple hypocorisms and nicknames into the name in the lead sentence; complicated naming should be explained separately", and a later example given as "Earl Strickland, nicknamed "Earl the Pearl"". GiantSnowman 09:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:MOS:NICKNAME's examples are limited to cases where the nickname is part of the page title. However, MOS:BOLDNICK says: {{tq2|Common nicknames, aliases, and variants are usually given in boldface in the lead, especially if they redirect to the article, or are found on a disambiguation page or hatnote and link from those other names to the article.}} Perhaps, BOLDNICK can be enhanced with examples on how such leads should look when the nickname is not in the page title.—Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::Which for me should be the Earl the Pearl example above, or Magic Johnson etc. If a nickname so common, then WP:COMMONNAME should be invoked and the article should be moved accordingly. GiantSnowman 09:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::The MOS example of "Earl the Pearl" is bad becuase it's no longer in Earl Strickland's lead. I think you're looking for the MOS to have an example, say for Karl Malone, to not have {{!xt|Karl Anthony "the Mailman" Malone (born July 24, 1963)}} but instead {{xt|Karl Anthony Malone (born July 24, 1963) ... Nicknamed "the Mailman"}} —Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, that is exactly how I think these nicknames should be displayed. GiantSnowman 14:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq| Perhaps, BOLDNICK can be enhanced with examples on how such leads should look when the nickname is not in the page title.}} MOS:NICKNAME already contains extensive guidance on how to format nicknames, including ones that are bolded. BOLDNICK should link to that guidance, rather than creating conflicting rules.--Trystan (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:The word "usually" is in there for a reason. If someone is very commonly referred to by something that's ultimately a nickname, drop the quotation marks. The quotation marks are generally used when the nickname is included inline: {{tq|Carol "Kitty" Hafner}}, or when presented separately as a press or other popular appellation that wasn't necessarily used by the subject personally, e.g.: {{tq|Meyer Lansky (born Maier Suchowljansky; July 4, 1902 – January 15, 1983), known as the "Mob's Accountant", was an American organized crime figure who ...}}. As to the article title, either Kitty and Eric Hafner or Eric and Kitty Hafner would be fine, {{em|iff}} RS usage indicate that Carol is mostly referred to as Kitty (outside of formal contexts like legal cases), and {{em|depending}} on which of the two is more notable. If they're equally notable, I would use either Carol and Eric Hafner or Eric and Kitty Hafner, as alphabetical order, depending on the Carol vs. Kitty determination. I've created those as redirects, along with Eric and Carol Hafner, so readers get to the article regardless which name they pick and which order they use. As to the third matter, it's correct that "significant alternative name" and "most common name" are not the same thing, so "if a person is so well known by a nickname so that it merits inclusion in the opening boldface, then WP:COMMONNAME applies ...[but] If the nickname is more informal ... then it should not be placed in the opening boldface" isn't using applicable reasoning. Nor does inclusion of a single nickname conflict with "Do not cram multiple hypocorisms and nicknames into the name in the lead sentence".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} I strongly disagree with GiantSnowman here. I have seen many instances of people such as academics who use one name in formal professional contexts (for instance, as the name they publish their scholarly work under) but are widely known by a nickname. In such cases, and when such a person is known for their professional work, our article should follow the name they use professionally, but it still may well be the case that the nickname is lead-worthy and first-line worthy. We should not have to resort to clunky workarounds to work the nickname in somewhere else when the first line is the most natural place for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:I'll repeat - I have no issues with nicknames being in the lede, indeed no issues with them being placed deftly after the opening boldface. However, an informal nickname in the opening boldface is UNDUE and inappropriate. GiantSnowman 14:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::Vladimir Guerrero is a perfect example of how I think it should be displayed. GiantSnowman 13:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Huh? Unless the article was changed right out from under you, the "Vlad the Impaler" nickname (which is a very different kind of nickname, a sports-journalism and and possibly fandom appellation, not a name the subject goes by personally, like "Kitty" above being used personally by Hafner) {{em|is}} in the opening boldface: {{tq|Vladimir Guerrero Alvino (born February 9, 1975), nicknamed "Vlad the Impaler", is a Dominican former professional baseball player who ....}} It simply happens to be separated from the name {{lang|la|per se}} for flow reasons, but is right there in the same sentence and same boldface markup. Nothing is stopping this from being rewritten as {{tq|Vladimir "Vlad the Impaler" Guerrero Alvino (born February 9, 1975) is a Dominican former professional baseball player who ...}}, other than MOS:RETAIN (i.e. someone would need to make a case that this version flowed better, or otherwise provide a defensible rationale beyond their own personal preference). We have various bios that use exactly that pattern. They're equivalent, and the sentence-structure difference between them doesn't even seem to have any implications for this discussion. That said, I think a case could separately be made to {{em|not}} boldface this sort of journalistic and aggrandizing sobriquet (same with press-invented criminal "nicknames"), specially because they are not like nicknames in the usual sense (chosen/adopted and regularly used as name replacements by the subject), there are often multiple of them for the same person ascribable to different writers, and many of them are one-shot instances of purple prose that don't become widespread. I recall a problem across many pro snooker player articles in which bullshitty "nicknames" never used by more than one or two writers were being added all over the place as MOS:PUFFERY (genuinely WP:UNDUE), but these have mostly been removed in recent years. The problem likely affects a lot of other sports bios, though (which I generally don't pay attention to outside of cue sports).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::So ... looks like we don't have consensus without a formal WP:RFC, correct? If so, considering some pretty experienced editors are disagreeing on a rather fundamental point of this guideline, we should probably have one. --GRuban (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I think the guidance that would steer away from {{tq|Vladimir "Vlad the Impaler" Guerrero Alvino}} is {{tq|If a nickname is used in place of the subject's entire name, it is usually given separately.}} To the extent "Vlad the Impaler" is actually used to refer to the subject (which I agree should be subject to some scrutiny for these quasi-titles), it would presumably stand alone. I agree such epithets should be treated differently than functional nicknames commonly used in the place of a name.--Trystan (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's nice, but what about Martha "Patsy" Randolph, Rose Elizabeth "Libby" Cleveland, Helen Louise "Nellie" Taft, Jacqueline Lee "Jackie" Kennedy Onassis, Condoleezza "Condi" Rice, Cornelia "Nellie" Cole Fairbanks, Mariette Elizabeth "Ettie" Rheiner Garner, and, dare I ask, the original question, Carol "Kitty" Hafner? --GRuban (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::What about them? They follow MOS:NICKNAME as written. To take Helen Herron Taft as an example, she is widely referred to in reliable sources as Nellie Taft, but not quite to the level that it is her common name. Why would it be preferable in such cases to prohibit {{tq|Helen Louise "Nellie" Taft}} and require the more cumbersome {{tq|Helen Louise Taft, also known by the nickname Nellie}}?--Trystan (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Excellent. Looks like User:GiantSnowman alone disagrees. Is that enough of a consensus to say that he is wrong, or do we need to hold an RFC? --GRuban (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Nothing has been resolved. Elizabeth Holloway Marston had a childhood, family nickname of 'Sadie' - are you going to mention that in the lede? No - UNDUE, UNDUE, UNDUE! GiantSnowman 18:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Also you've missed Enos733 below and SMcCandlish above who agree with me... - I hope not deliberately... GiantSnowman 18:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::OK, thanks. Not deliberately, this has been a confusing conversation; for one thing I am pretty sure SMcCandlish explicitly wrote {{tq|Carol "Kitty" Hafner}} in his comment - no? Clearly confusing if I thought he agreed with me and you thought he agreed with you. Anyways. Time to RfC. If no one else beats me to it, I'll make one in a day or so. (Which I also wrote when we started this and turned out to be a month, sigh.)--GRuban (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree with SMcCandlish that if the nickname is not name the subject goes by personally, the nickname should not be in the first bold name. If the nickname is common Chuck Berry, the nickname would not be bolded, however a redirect may be appropriate (Charles Berry > Chuck Berry). If the common name is a nickname, I think editors can choose whether the common name should be in the first bold name Magic Johnson or separated Mark Twain, probably with a preference toward a singular name in quotes while a double nickname is separate. - Enos733 (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• There is no single “correct” way to present nicknames. So this is something we should be flexible about. Give guidance on options, and avoid one-size-fits-all rules. Not all articles need to do it the same way. Blueboar (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• :So what do we do if I do it one way and GiantSnowman comes in and changes it? What's the point of a Manual of Style if it does not at least help resolve these questions? --GRuban (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::We go to the talk page to discuss and try and reach agreement... GiantSnowman 19:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::And if (after discussion) the two of you can’t agree, you ask others to take a look and join the discussion. Eventually a consensus forms and you go with that. Note that the consensus might be different at a different article. That’s ok. Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Formal RfC started below at #RfC_MOS:NICKNAME:_Only_for_nicknames_that_are_article_titles? --GRuban (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there any guidance as to whether surnames should be capitalised when used without their associated first names. For example, at Thunderbolts*, should we refer to Valentina Allegra de Fontaine as "de Fontaine" or "De Fontaine" on subsequent uses of her name? I know in Dutch it is the rule to capitalise the tussenvoegsel, but do we have a guideline for what to do with names in other languages? – PeeJay 12:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:Considering Wikipedia generally adheres to a logical style over else, i.e. we do logical quotation marks over in-quote punctuation, "[lorem]", over "[lorem]," I'd say it's logical to refer to one as "d" over "D". BarntToust 17:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{br}}I don't know if this is specifically codified but I think practice is pretty standard. If the word is capitalized in the full name as spelled out (e.g. {{xt|John Dos Passos}}) then it's capitalized whenever the surname is used ({{xt|Hemingway and others fell out with Dos Passos over his disillusionment with communism}}). If it's not capitalized in the full name as spelled out ({{xt|John von Neumann}}), then use sentence case. That is, don't capitalize in the middle of a sentence (use {{xt|Gödel wrote to von Neumann with words of encouragement}}), but do capitalize at the start of a sentence ({{xt|Von Neumann is considered one of the most important mathematicians of the twentieth century}}). --Trovatore (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::This was my understanding as well, though I'm not sure where I learned that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I believe the [https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/capitalization/sentence-case APA style guide on sentence case] covers this, which should be taken into consideration more for American English language articles than a British English language style guide. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Just took the opportunity to read that link. I don't think it really addresses this specific issue. Perhaps some strong-arming by a particularly motivated reader could make it go one way or the other, but it doesn't really strike me as overly helpful. – PeeJay 19:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is one suggested link. I also provided a link to the Chicago Style guide that you mentioned below. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::It would be nice to be able to substantiate that position with something external, rather than just saying "this is what we've always done" without any explanation. The [https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/names#people BBC News style guide] actually does specify that Dutch and Italian names should capitalise the particle when used without a surname. Can we do better? Perhaps the Chicago Manual of Style has something to say on it? – PeeJay 22:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::: I don't know; I haven't looked. I would say though that when you have an inherently plausible style that's used pretty consistently across Wikipedia, over at least hundreds of articles, changing it is going to be a heavy lift, and the fact that it doesn't agree with one particular external style guide is not going to be seen as an especially strong argument.

::: I can recall one case where such a thing was done unfortunately, in my opinion, but that's neither here nor there. You can probably find it by following MOS:BIRDS(Hmm, no, that didn't work — just search in the archives of WT:MOS for "birds"). You might notice that this was an enormous argument that has probably left lingering bad feelings. --Trovatore (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Per this [https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Documentation/faq0363.html#:~:text=CMOS%208.5%20says%20the%20particle%20is%20“always%20capitalized,that%20begins%20with%20a%20lowercase%20particle%3B%20see%208.5%29.” FAQ article discussing CMoS' take], "{{Tq|CMOS 8.5 says the particle is “always capitalized when beginning a sentence or a note.” But CMOS 14.21 says, “A bibliography entry starts with a capital letter unless the first word would normally be lowercased (as in a last name that begins with a lowercase particle; see 8.5).”}}" Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:ADDENDUM TO LAST POINT: Article titles and section headings are also in sentence case. Therefore do not use the {{tl|lowercase}} template in articles like von Neumann universe. The title will appear with a capital V on the page, as it should. --Trovatore (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::MOS:LCITEMS covers this. Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style and we follow it, not the manual of styles used by other publications which we generally ignore completely. Basically we use the names as spelled and capitalized by the person who has that name or reliable sources about the person. If components of the name are lower case we honor that except at the beginning of a sentence. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::This is covered by MOS:PERSONAL. The advice is {{tq|Use the style that dominates for that person in reliable sources; for a living subject, prefer the spelling consistently used in the subject's own publications.}} Cinderella157 (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::For French surnames, "de" can be omitted: "Fontaine first appeared …" and "Beaumarchais left France …"; the same applies to German "von": "Bismarck was instrumental …", "Goethe wrote …". Dutch/Belgian {{lang|nl|tussenvoegsel}} are a separate case. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::And sometimes is isn't - see Wernher von Braun for example. Generally we go with common usage for how a person is referred to. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Where did Wikipedia's Manual of Style come from? It certainly wasn't developed out of thin air. Wikipedia's Manual of Style doesn't have any guidelines about whether to capitalise the "de", "von" and "da" particles, so how do we create such a guideline? We base it on what other publications do, obviously. – PeeJay 16:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It was developed by community consensus through the years, like everything else on Wikipedia. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Based on what? Just their opinion? I doubt it. People will have based their suggestions on what they've seen done in other publications. – PeeJay 16:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I was not involved in those discussions, so I can not say for sure. Multiple editors have provided explanations and their rationales regarding this. I don't think dissection the Wikipedia Manual of Style is necessary here just because you disagree with one part of it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't disagree with any of it, since – as I've pointed out multiple times – the MOS doesn't make any pronouncements about this particular topic. That is, after all, why I started this discussion. I just want to know what our fellow editors have based their opinions on. It wouldn't be helpful to start making modifications to the MOS based simply on people's unfounded opinions. – PeeJay 17:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Which is why these discussions take place. Editors have already provided examples of this instance, not just basing rationales off of their opinions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::MOS:PERSONAL is part of the Wiki MOS and exactly covers this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It does not. I'm talking about what we should do when the person is referred to by only their surname. – PeeJay 11:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You asked "Is there any guidance as to whether surnames should be capitalised when used without their associated first names.". From PERSONAL: "Use the style that dominates for that person in reliable sources; for a living subject, prefer the spelling consistently used in the subject's own publications". Another issue is what is their surname. "Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra" is refereed to as Cervantes in running text as that is the style that dominates in sources. Other names have rules for modifications such as MOS:CT for titles of works, and MOS:THEBAND for band names. PERSONAL permits no modifications of names in running text, even to the component parts of the full name we use to generally refer to the person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I disagree, I don't think MOS:PERSONAL either allows or prohibits "modifications". Dutch surnames specifically should be written with a capital letter when written without a first name, even if a lower case letter would be used otherwise (see Tussenvoegsel). The BBC's style guide supports that, and also specifies that Italian names should follow the same convention. – PeeJay 18:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::We go with what predominates in reliable sources is the main point of PERSONAL. Sometimes the "van" is just dropped completely, it depends on the person and how commonly known. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::That makes sense to me. In that case, I'd like to see how De Fontaine is referred to in reliable sources and deal with this case on its own merits. – PeeJay 22:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I propose the addition of an example in the nationalities (MOS:CONTEXTBIO) section that reflects a unique and relevant case. Currently, some of the following unique examples are presented:

• Peter Lorre: Both nationalities (Hungarian and American) are included because his career was significantly developed in both Hungary and the United States.
• Arnold Schwarzenegger: His dual citizenship (Austrian and American) is highlighted due to the political weight it carries in the context of his career.
• Isaac Asimov: Although he was born in Russia, he always identified with his country of adoption (the United States).

None of these examples are similar to Camila Cabello’s case. Her case is unique and relevant to expanding the understanding of national identity. Camila Cabello was born in Cuba and, thanks to her parents' Mexican nationality, she automatically obtained Mexican citizenship at birth. She was raised between both countries and, at the age of 7, emigrated to the United States, where she obtained U.S. citizenship in 2008. However, despite having completed her studies and artistic career in the United States and currently residing there, she did not renounce her Cuban or Mexican citizenship and continues to identify as Cuban and Mexican/Cuban-Mexican (not ethnically, but as two nationalities; in Spanish, demonym adjectives are used together, so it could be understood that Cabello refers to herself as "Cuban-Mexican" because in Spanish it is said cubano-mexicana/cubanomexicana).

It is important to highlight hat, despite being a U.S. citizen, Camila Cabello does not identify as American. Instead of adopting the identity of "American" as her identification, she continues to refer to herself as "Cuban and Mexican/Cuban-Mexican." This should not be interpreted as referring to her ethnicity (because, besides being ethnically Cuban and Mexican, she also holds citizenship from both Mexico and Cuba), but rather as a way of describing her national identity based on her connection to both countries.

In this case, U.S. citizenship has remained more of a political and legal category due to her residence in the U.S. as a migrant, while her identity as "Cuban and Mexican/Cuban-Mexican" holds more significance in her personal and cultural context. This example illustrates how a person, who is a citizen of one country, can identify with other nations where, despite no longer residing in them, they maintain their citizenship and identity, rather than adopting the identity of the country where they developed artistically and currently reside.

I await a response to my proposal. Camilizer2025 (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:In the lead sentence she's described as "American" though. Gawaon (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::The right answer is to stop putting so much emphasis on nationality in the first place. If it's at all complicated, just leave it out of the first sentence, and explain the situation further down. --Trovatore (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::As you pointed out, “she’s described” as American in the lead sentence. However, that is not how she actually identifies herself. The Camila Cabello article is based on that headlining, describing her as "American" precisely because there isn’t an example similar to hers in MOS:CONTEXTBIO. This is exactly why I am requesting her case be added here. If we wish to change the headlining of the article, there must be a similar example from MOS:CONTEXTBIO—and what better example than Camila Cabello herself? Camilizer2025 (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, we generally go by what reliable sources say, not by what people think about themselves. (I may wish to be a Brazilian, or a great poet, and I may even describe myself to my friends as such, but that doesn't automatically make me so.) Plus if "Her case is unique", as you said above, it can't be suitable as a general example. Gawaon (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It's not that Cabello identifies as Cuban and Mexican out of mere desire—nothing like someone simply wanting to be Brazilian. Cabello identifies that way because she is indeed Cuban and Mexican, not only culturally but also legally, as she holds both Cuban and Mexican citizenships. Despite also being a U.S. citizen, she has repeatedly stated that she does not identify as American. Being Cuban and Mexican is a central aspect of her personal life and career.

::::Your example of "I may wish to be a Brazilian" is completely unrelated because—if you meant it ironically—you were not born in Brazil, you have no Brazilian ancestry, you do not hold Brazilian citizenship, and you do not live in Brazil. In contrast, Camila Cabello can rightfully consider herself Cuban and Mexican because she was born in Cuba and acquired Mexican citizenship at birth through her parents. She grew up between Cuba and Mexico and was raised as a Cuban and Mexican, not as an American.

::::Please refer to the discussion on her talk page for more details. When I mentioned that “her case is unique,” I was specifically referring to the examples already presented in MOS:CONTEXTBIO, where there is no similar case. For that reason, I believe her case should be included as an example. Camilizer2025 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::The only thing unique about this situation is her personal desire to identify as her birth nationalities even though she came to the US as a child, became a US citizen, grew up in the US, permanently resides in the US and has a notable career in the US. Examples of immigrants with notable activites only in one country should apply here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• I would say that in 99+% of bios, nationality is pretty straight forward. For the other <1%, we need to hash it out on the talk page until consensus is reached, and that is ok. --Malerooster (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

How should death announcements without the exact death date be written in the lead sentence?

Often a person's death is announced, with no initial details on the exact date. In extreme cases, a person's death might not be publicly announced for months. For example Fritz Peterson's death was announced in April 2024, but days later it was confirmed that he died in October 2023.[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/13/sports/baseball/fritz-peterson-dead.html]

In a recent case at Al Matthews (American football), his death was announced on 11 March, but no details on his actual death date were given.[https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/former-packers-db-al-matthews-dies-at-77]

His lead read {{tqq|Alvin Leon Matthews (November 7, 1947 – {{circa|March 11, 2025}})}}. {{u|Jkaharper}} modified it due to "inappropriate use of template", in reference to {{tl|circa}}, changing it to:

{{tqq|Alvin Leon Matthews (November 7, 1947 – {{circa|March 11, 2025}}March 2025)}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Matthews_(American_football)&diff=prev&oldid=1280274376] In an extreme scenario, there's no guarantee he necessarily died in March, the same month his death was initially reported.—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{ping|Bagumba}}, I try to apply common sense when there is no clear date of death provided in a source. However, my understanding has always been that the circa template ({{circa|11 March 2025}}) is reserved for when there is a clear indication in the source provided that they died around the date in which the article/death notice is written.

:Examples of this would be news articles that say "Person X died on the weekend" or "Person X died around 11 March". I also think it's appropriate to use it when a body is discovered by police/relatives and no initial date of death is available. What I don't use it for is when there are no initial clues at all. So in the example of Al Matthews, he may have died 5 days prior so circa would have been inaccurate, hence why I removed it to merely say "March" until a full date is known.

:I don't think MoS has clear or strict guidelines on the use of the circa template, but I'd like to think my application of it (or removal of it in some instances) is sensible. However, I'm happy to hear other ideas or be corrected if there is a clear rule on this. Thanks! --Jkaharper (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Jkaharper: My main issue with {{tqq|(November 7, 1947 – March 2025)}} is that there is no indication yet that he did die in March. circa in my dictionary says "(often preceding a date) approximately", which at least is more compact than the "on or before" suggestion by {{u|GenevieveDEon}} below. Will see if there are better options. —Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'd suggest using 'before': (7 November 1947 - before 11 March 2025)

:It could be 'on or before' if it was considered credible that death occurred on the day of the announcement. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Update While the exact death date is now sourced,[https://www.statesman.com/obituaries/paco1118872] it's still worthwhile to decide on a best practice in the interim when a death is announced without a definitive death date.—Bagumba (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Year only The lead of an article is supposed to be a summary while the fine detail goes below in the body. Putting excessive detail into the first sentence is contrary to WP:LEADCLUTTER as it breaks up the flow of this important sentence. In most cases, the exact date is not important and only the years of birth/death are appropriate to provide some historical context in a conventional way.

: So, for the example given, the first sentence should be:

: {{tqq|Alvin Leon Matthews (1947–2025) was an American professional football player who was a safety for eight seasons in the National Football League (NFL) from 1970 to 1977 for the Green Bay Packers, Seattle Seahawks and San Francisco 49ers.}}

: Notice that the date of his football career is just given as years and we should be consistent in summarising in this way.

: Note that such subjects will always have an infobox and it's better to present the detail of such key dates in a tabular way there. Doing this in a prose sentence doesn't work so well.

: Andrew🐉(talk) 20:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• {{small|(edited)}} before or on or before is fine in such cases, I'd say. It seems most logical since the death cannot have occurred after it was announced, and it doesn't commit itself to a year or month that might turn out to be false. If the announcement was made on 11 March and it cannot be ruled out that the death happened the same date, it should be "before 12 March" or "on or before 11 March" Gawaon (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• :@Gawaon: But it could have occurred on the same day too, not just before. Unless we do "before " —Bagumba (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::As I said above, 'on or before' would be usual where that's a credible possibility. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::You're both right and I have updated my comment accordingly. Gawaon (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Use "circa" with a day or a month when it's clear that the death occurred on or around a given day or month (e.g. it was reported in February they were ill, and then reported in March they had died then "circa March 2025" is correct and preferable). Use "before" or "on or before" when circumstances mean we cannot be more precise than a month. Circa is always preferable when possible. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :These are reasonable options. —Bagumba (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

One important element of what will shortly be at WP:WikiProject Judaism/Style advice is a line-item, targeted by the shortcut WP:JESUSCHRIST, which is entirely correct and addresses a frequently recurring and sometimes disputatious WP writing issue, but has nothing to do with Judaism, really hasn't been seen by much of anyone, and actually belongs in MOS:BIO#Honorifics.

I propose importing that line item about use of "Christ" into that guideline, though with more guideline-appropriate wording:

{{tqb|Jesus should not be referred to in Wikipedia's own voice as "Christ" or "Jesus Christ"; the word Christ is an honorific title ('The Anointed'), used by those who believe specifically that Jesus is the son of God and is the Davidic-line messiah, in Christianity and some related doctrines including Theosophy. Wikipedia asserting this term would be against the neutral point of view policy. Jesus should be referred to simply as "Jesus" or, when more clarity is needed, "Jesus of Nazareth" (or "Isa" in the context of Islam, in which he is considered a prophet).}}

Having a locus for this in that section of MOS:BIO will also provide a place for whatever is eventually decided about Muhammad and "the Prophet" or "the prophet" (used alone or with his name), a subject of some continuing dispute. (An RfC about it earlier this year failed to come to a clear consensus, and it will probably come up again sooner than later.)
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

:I've thought for years it's absurd that we go on at such length about never using "PBUH" while completely ignoring the much more common NPOV issue of "Jesus Christ". To be clear for anyone unfamiliar, this isn't just a technical etymological "gotcha". Many Jews—and, I assume, many other kinds of non-Christian person—actively avoid using the word "Christ" to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, because it is an explicit statement of faith, even if some non-Christians do use it without meaning that due to cultural osmosis. I didn't know there was guidance on this in WikiProject Judaism's style guide, but now that you've raised this, yes, I definitely strongly support adding this to MOS:HONORIFIC, although it probably can be pared down a bit. I would suggest just {{tq2|Jesus should not be referred to in Wikipedia's own voice as {{!xt|Christ}} or {{!xt|Jesus Christ}}; the word Christ is an honorific title ('The Anointed') which expresses the belief that Jesus is the messiah. Acceptable names include {{xt|Jesus}}, {{xt|Jesus of Nazareth}}, and, in Muslim contexts, {{xt|Isa}}.}} -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

::Maybe trivially obvious but I think the difference in practice is mostly that secular usage totally memory-holes that Christ is a title. If I have ever run afoul on this, I'm guessing that's just me having that blind spot. It's clearly a perfectly equivalent situation upon examination though, and I'm glad you brought it up. Remsense ‥ 论 02:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:If "Christ" is a POV title, is "Buddha" as well? "Siddhartha Gautama" would be a name which doesn't take a position from within the belief system, and (thinking specifically about article titles, though this is about running text as well) is one which "{{tq|someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize}}" (the WP:CRITERION of Recognizability) – so it's not as if no such option is available. Ham II (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

::Every title expresses a POV. The issue is Christ very specifically refers to the fulfilment of a concept within Judaism. Remsense ‥ 论 11:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

::No, because independent RS (including those independent of Buddhism) do not refer to him as "Siddhartha Gautama" (except in passing historical background note) but as "Buddha", nearly universally. This is not the case with "Jesus"; he is generally not referred to as "Christ" except in Christianity-dependent media and in low-quality sources that don't know any better (i.e. those that are falling into what you called a memory hole, though sometimes its an ignorance hole).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Those aren't the only contexts in which "Christ" is used. The proposed text in the original post gives NPOV as the reason for disallowing "Christ", but if a similar title is allowed for reasons not to do with POV it would be better not to make such a point of the NPOV policy in the wording. What bearing would this have on MOS:ERA, with its allowing of "BC"? Ham II (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::My position is that MOS:ERA shouldn't itself change. However, in a discussion as to whether an article should change (which MOS:ERA presently expresses as being an option) I would be particularly acquiescent to the argument for changing from BC/AD on Judaism-related articles. I personally am not aware of any other general or domain-specific argument I would be at all compelled by, but others may feel differently and pages may change based on their consensus.

::::I would also find it reasonable for a page like WP:JUDAISMSTYLE to state it as a known argument for editors to consider. Remsense ‥ 论 20:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I had thought that that's how MOS:ERA already works in practice, although on re-reading it I see that it avoids explicitly stating when "BC/AD" is appropriate and when "BCE/CE" is. What I'm talking about, though, is the implications of the proposed rule for the use of "BC" at all in Wikipedia's voice, when it stands for "before Christ". Ham II (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Much of our time terminology has the names of deities in it. We write about Friday without saying we believe in the existence of the Norse deity Frigg; March without saying we believe in the Roman deity Mars. We are rarely actually saying "before Christ" (or Anno Domini, for that matter, which also is based on crediting a position to Jesus), and we say "[Anno Domini|Modern scholars believe that the actual date of birth of Jesus was about 5 BC]" without tripping over anything. None of this is to say that we shouldn't also be using BCE/CE, just that the term BC being derived from "before Christ" doesn't mean we're stating that (and indeed, if you read aloud anything that had BCs in it with said "before Christ" as if you were reading MPH as "miles per hour", you'd sound both awkward and foolish.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::The POV issue with "Christ" isn't the general claim that Jesus was holy or a prophet, it's the claim that he was the Jewish Messiah, because that claim is specifically disputed by another major religion. With saints we have no problem using their title (e.g. Saint Peter). "Buddha" as a title is much more similar to "Saint", since it doesn't hold any meaning outside of Buddhism.

::As an analogy, we usually have no problem calling someone "president" but we would not want to say, for instance, "President Juan Guaidó" in wikivoice. Loki (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::::{{small|There have been twelve RMs trying to move Saint Peter away from that title, so it's not the case that "we have no problem" with it. Ham II (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)}}

:::I think this is a very good point. I think the general question, really, is whether the title is commonly used by nonpartisan (or for that matter conflicting-POV) sources. Secular scholarly sources say "the Buddha"; [https://www.ncregister.com/cna/pope-francis-jesus-and-the-buddha-understood-need-to-overcome-egoism so does Pope Francis]. So it's fine for us to do the same. Glancing around Google Scholar, secular sources seem to avoid "Saint" more than they use it, but so do we: MOS:SAINTS only has us use the word for disambiguation or in names of things. But meanwhile, if we look at [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jesus+Christ Jesus Christ on Google Scholar], most results are written from an explicitly Christian perspective and/or are quite dated. That's the main distinction here, just an application of WP:NPOV. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:Support for at least proscribing “Christ” alone. Would probably be better to merely advise “avoid Jesus Christ” though. It is certainly the most common name for him in English, and far more recognisable than “Jesus of Nazareth”. (We should also make sure to avoid using his middle name when in polite company.)

:End jokes.

:For what it’s worth though, I don’t see MOS:BIO as the logical place for this stuff; it would basically be saying that these are individual biographies who need a carveout, but applied to an entire wing of the encyclopaedia. Better would be to admit that religious topics just need their own place. Not that I would put up any fuss if it ends up here for now. Also, ain’t it weird that :Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (religion) has only Islam-related articles and Latter Day Saints? — HTGS (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::MoS is not a science, is not something like the biological taxonomic nomenclature system. Its arrangement does not have to 100% perfectly suit some particular person's sense of logic, it just has to get the job done for most editors. We are not going to create a new guideline page simply to house one line-item rule. As for the second question, yes it is odd and unhelpful that we have two distinct religion-related guidelines (which are probably making some redundant points) when these would probably be better consolidated. But that would be a big job (and also probably involve importing material from MOS:DOCTCAPS and some other places), to make a "WP:Manual of Style/Religion" merged page. Someone volunteering to do that, and wading through all the consensus wrangling to get community assent to do it (honestly, that would almost certainly be me, since no one else takes on MoS mergers but me) is not an eventuality that we should wait on, or let hold up the fact that we need to address the "Christ" problem now (and really soon the related "the Prophet" problem). MOS:BIO is an adequate place for this, because there is no serious-scholarly-consensus doubt about the histority of Jesus (or Mohammed), only in the historicity of specific claims about them. So, they are in fact biographical figures. Nor would they be the only ones in MOS:BIO which are used as illustrations of exceptions or special rules.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Support -- while it makes for an odd title (I cannot think of anyone else who gets the title Christ in common parlance), it is a title and its accuracy is not uncontroversial. (There may be cases where we need to make sure that the flip isn't being done, where we might talk of someone having foretold the coming of Christ -- i.e., of a messiah -- but not having specified that it would be that particular Nazarene, in which case we should not be saying they foretold the coming of Jesus.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::Yes; that would be a bad WP:OR bit. And there are Christian publications that do engage in that kind of fudging, which is one reason not to treat proselytization materials are reliable sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:Support -- I think Christians - or those from a Christian-based culture - tend to use Jesus and Christ interchangeably. Bart Ehrman and other scholars jokingly suggest that it is seen as a surname. "Joseph and Mary Christ of Nazareth wish to apologise for the recent confusion over the funeral arrangements of their late son Jesus H Christ." Christ the Word comes from the Greek and is unambiguously a title that promotes a certain view within the Christian faith(s). It does, however, go against the teachings of other major religions and we should not be taking sides in a holy wikiwar. Obviously there are cases where Christ, Christ Jesus, and Jesus Christ are appropriate here, such as in direct quotes, or when presenting descriptions of religious dogma. --Pete (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aaaas216%26#c-Aaaas216&-20250312210700-CaptShayan-20250312051800]. I'm struggling to understand it and how this MOS applies.

Thanks.

Doug Doug Weller talk 09:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:It’s about removing post nominals.. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::The guideline says that they can't be included in the lead sentence. They could be placed in an infobox + explained in the article body, just the article body, an explanatory footnote, etc. There was no consensus for entirely removing them from articles.

::All that said, it may be useful to involve WT:MILHIST here as I wonder if Psc (military) or afwc (for "armed forces war course") really qualify as post-nominals for our purposes. Are they "honours or appointments" under our definition? I'm also not seeing articles about generals in other militaries that include those post-nominals. Maybe I just missed them. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::They are similar to BA or MBA or whatever, academic-based qualifications for completing a course of study etc, they are usually a requirement for promotion to higher ranks and hardly an identifying award as tens of thousands of military officers have done these staff courses. Despite the impression one might get from LinkedIn, such things aren't post-noms except when setting forth academic qualifications within the military (no-one else would know what they mean), and you won't see them used as post-noms in Australian military bios on en WP. I fail to see why Bangladesh would be different. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I get the point of not adding the post nominals at the lead section. How ever, what about inboxes? I recently formatted according to British and south asian army officers whom most of the articles contain at least the awards in their honorific suffixes. Should I maintain like this ? Eager to hear from you. Aaaas216& (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Given the info from Peacemaker, we shouldn't include them anywhere in biographical articles. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Psc, ndc, hdmc, awc, ncc and afwc. They are all academic post-nominals that most if not all officers use in their suffixes according to Bangladesh Military. Does that qualify for WP:GNG or MOS:POSTNOM ? Aaaas216& (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@Aaaas216&okay, I got it. What do you think about adding these qualifications such as psc in post nominal but not in infobox such as

::::Waker Uz Zaman, SBP OSP SGP psc and adding only SBP, OSP & SGP in infobox as they are medals?

::::Also what are your thoughts while adding afwc, hdmc and others post nominals, we can create a citation stating the full form?

::::Hence we use these in Bangladesh Armed Forces, I think we should follow the tradition to some extent. CaptShayan (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::These are qualifications, and we don't use any postnoms for qualifications on Wikipedia. We only use postnoms relating to state honours and significant fellowships. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_II_of_Portugal&diff=prev&oldid=1284293759 this edit for context], I do not agree with the creep of the MOS:SIR guideline to encompass foreign titles that are rarely used in English-language sources. Using things like Don Juan Carlos I instead of Juan Carlos I in the first sentence of articles seems unnecessary and potentially confusing. DrKay (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:As someone from somewhere where "Sir" is not a formal title, though I understand we fall back on imitating our sources, it does seem odd that we have a largely Anglophone distinction in whether we "acknowledge" titles here. I mostly defer to those for whom it doesn't seem odd, though—just wanted to establish from the get (if I need to) that these are discussions where there's likely a considerable gulf by region regarding what "feels right". Remsense ‥ 论 19:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|The rough consensus is to treat these cases as acronyms rather than initials, so neither the full stop nor the trailing space are needed.—S Marshall T/C 08:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)|Option 6}}

MOS:INITIALS requires stops and spaces between people's initials:

{{blockquote|{{xt|An initial is capitalized and is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g. {{nowrap|J. R. R. Tolkien}}).}}}}

However, there are seven American political figures known often by their initials in shorthand, and their initials across Wikipedia are used unspaced, in violation of this policy:

1. FDR for Franklin D. Roosevelt
2. JFK for John F. Kennedy
3. JFK Jr. for John F. Kennedy Jr.
4. RFK for Robert F. Kennedy
5. RFK Jr. for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
6. MLK for Martin Luther King Jr.
7. LBJ for Lyndon B. Johnson

The only exception for spaced initials is given at MOS:BIOEXCEPT, which allows formats such as CCH Pounder but requires that the format be used only when

{{blockquote|{{bulleted list|{{xt|the person has clearly declared and consistently used a preferred exceptional style for their own name; {{em|and}}|an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that exceptional style.}}}}}}

While some (but not all) sources currently write these names unspaced, the and requirement of MOS:BIOEXCEPT still restricts this usage as none of these men styled their names without spaces, preferring to go by their full names in nearly all cases. In John F. Kennedy's case, there is evidence he wrote his name with spaced initials.{{cite object |description=Book with President Kennedy's initials |inscription=J. F. K. |id=JFKWHP-KN-20381 |author1-first=Robert |author1-last=Knudsen |museum=John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum |exhibition=White House Photographs |url=https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfkwhp-1962-03-07-f#?image_identifier=JFKWHP-KN-20381}}{{cite object |description=Burning Tree Golf Club Bag Tag |inscription=Sen. J. F. Kennedy |id=MO 63.3724.7 |museum=John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum |url=https://jfk.artifacts.archives.gov/objects/13894/burning-tree-golf-club-bag-tag}}

Some style guides resolve this issue by making a difference in how spaced initials are treated when they are the full name. For instance, Turabian has

{{blockquote|{{xtn|Some individuals are known primarily by initials in place of a first and/or middle name. Such initials should be followed by a period and a space. If you abbreviate an entire name, however, omit periods and spaces.
G. K. Chesterton but JFK
M. F. K. Fisher but FDR}}}}

A previous discussion at {{section link|Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive_8|"RFK Jr." vs "R. F. K. Jr."}} led to a discussion about modifying BIOEXCEPT at {{section link|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography|MOS:BIOEXCEPT: and/or|nopage=y}}, which was inconclusive.

How should this discrepancy be resolved?

• Option 1: No change to the MOS, update all pages to use spaced initials.
• Option 2: Modify MOS:INITIALS to add {{xt|If you abbreviate an entire name, however, omit periods and spaces}} from Turabian.
• Option 3: Modify MOS:BIOEXCEPT to remove the {{xt!|and}}-test and replace it with {{xt|or}}.
• Option 4: As these examples are all Americans, deem this a MOS:ENGVAR issue and leave current styles intact.
• Option 5 "Ignore the MOS if it is not helpful." (Added by Polygnotus without any explanation of what that's supposed to mean operationally.)
• Option 6 ""Periods may be omitted when a person's full name is consistently abbreviated to just their initials, for instance MLK for Martin Luther King, Jr., if the common version of the abbreviation consistently appears without periods." (Added by SportingFlyer.)

— Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

— Options 5 & 6 added, to reflect the actual discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5: Ignore the MOS if it is not helpful. Polygnotus (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Option 6: All of the examples listed above are shorthand for a longer name, not for when initials are used in the person's COMMONNAME. I don't actually think the section on initials applies here. Instead, we simply need something that clarifies saying "Periods may be omitted when a person's full name is consistently abbreviated to just their initials, for instance MLK for Martin Luther King, Jr., if the common version of the abbreviation consistently appears without periods." SportingFlyer T·C 06:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I think that’s the closest response so far. This isn’t about the formatting of A.A.Milne. The use of acronyms (or initialisms) such as JFK is akin to the usage of similar for organisations from the EU and UN through NATO and UNESCO. The use of formulations like U.N.E.S.C.O. is nowadays archaic, and modern practice is to treat the capital letters as forming a word. MapReader (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• As nominator I'm still unsure of what I think is best (waffling between 1 and 2, opposed only to 3), but not all reliable sources use unspaced initials, even if it's common in AP and Turabian. For instance, the New York Times uses periods without spaces{{cite news |author1-first=Sheryl Gay |author1-last=Stolberg |date=2025-01-13 |title=Group of experts says R.F.K. Jr. Would 'significantly undermine' public health |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/13/us/politics/robert-f-kennedy-jr-public-health-secretary.html |url-access=subscription}} and the New Yorker (as always) has their own style.{{cite magazine |author1-first=Dhruv |author1-last=Khullar |date=2024-11-24 |title=The fundamental problem with R.F.K., Jr.,'s nomination to H.H.S. |magazine=The New Yorker |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/12/02/the-fundamental-problem-with-rfk-jrs-nomination-to-hhs |url-access=subscription}} I do sympathize with SMcCandlish's comment in the previous discussion that usage of unspaced initials here {{tq|verges on politico-slang and headlinese}}, serving the news headline space-saving necessity that we aren't bound by, given that searches for "RFK" will often find headlines with the initials but article body text with a full name. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 07:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• :None of the options are going to work until you recognise the difference between how initials are treated when positioned before a surname, and how they are sometimes used as a moniker. You can’t apply the same rules to both. You also need to be aware of potential Engvar differences in usage. MapReader (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I do {{tq|recognise the difference}}, that's the entire point of the RfC and the reason why there are four very clear options for resolving the exiting discrepancy. What's wrong with Option 2 , which adds explicit clarification to the MOS to not {{tq|apply the same rules to both}}? Or Option 4, which relies on engvar as you note with {{tq|You also need to be aware of potential Engvar differences in usage}}? Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• No change necessary. MOS:INITS applies to initials in a name not acronyms. An acronym like LBJ should be written as an acronym, without periods or spaces, as specified at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations. Initials preceding a surname should be written as specified at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography. DrKay (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• :The only mention of personal names at MOS:ABBR is the hatnote {{tq|"For initials in biographical names, see {{section link|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies|Initials}}"}}. If the policy intended to cover fully-abbreviated names, it isn't spelled out explicitly, so an update to the MOS is still in order somewhere to make this reading explicit. For what it's worth, I don't follow the definition of "initials" to exclude the last name, per the definition at Wiktionary or the common "sign one's initials" to mean only initials in place of a spelled-out last name. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

. *Option 1 External publishers like American newspapers are not following our style guide and we are not following theirs. If we are going to say "screw it" and always just do whatever is most popular stylistically in newspapers, then we may as well have no style guide of any kind. There is nothing magically special about this particular topic; it's yet another "mimic what is done in the publications I personally like reading" proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

See more detailed rationale above. I am opposed also to the later-added "Option 6", though it is perhaps the least bad of all the other alternatives to Option 1. But that comment should not be taken as actual support of Option 6. We have absolutely no objective reason to completely switch initials style just because one of them includes the surname, and we especially have no reason to do this on a per-bio basis, introducing random-ass chaos into the equation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• :I really don't understand how Option 6 is supposed to be any different than Option 2. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Option 2 makes dot removal mandatory. Option 6 makes it conditional on "source usage", but for all of these names that really means "mimic American newspaper style as if we are following the AP Stylebook instead of our own style manual", because most the source material about them is American news and other sources that follow AP Stylebook's "kill all punctuation we possibly can" behavior. It'san addiction to hyper-compression and expedience at all costs, including intelligibility and consistency. It's a habit ingrained in news publishers in the era when typesetting was labor-intensive and paper was expensive, then reinforced by news's need to convey the gist as fast as possible because a news story is not actually read by most of the audience but just skimmed for a few seconds. WP is not a newspaper, or printed on paper, or manually typeset; and as a matter of policy, it is {{tq|"not written in news style"}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :{{u|SMcCandlish}} You are supporting “update all pages to include spaced initials” ?? MapReader (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::That is what Option 1 says. Repeat: We have no sensible reason to treat initials which include one for the surname as {{em|mystically different}} from those that precede a spelled-out surname. Never introduce inconsistency if it can be avoided. Put it this way: If the United Kingdom is "UK" and the United Kingdom Ethics Committee Authority is "UK Ethics Committee Authority" for short, then it is "UK ECA" for even-more-short; we would not lose our minds and write it as "U.K. E.C.A." There is no reason to radically change style just because one additional element in the name as been abbreviated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 
• Option 6. There are not the same, so let's not try to put a square peg in a round hole. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Option 6. There is a distinction between how a name is written when including initials with the surname, which MOS:INITIALS deals with and when initials are used as an initialism per the examples of the political figures - covered by Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Abbreviations. If one recognises the difference and distinction, there is not issue to resolve - except perhaps to acknowledge that JFK is being treated as an initialism and the initialism is being treated as an alternative name. That is what the JFK article etc are telling us. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• When unspaced initials are common name or one of the common names, such as JFK and FDR, leave them alone and move on to something else. If this needs to be IAR, fine (which has three letters too). Randy Kryn (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• More than 7: doubt this changes anything, but: RBG, HRC, TR (Teddy Roosevelt), AOC, MBS (Saudi Prince), JLO, CDG. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• No change necessary. Avoid using acronyms for people's names in prose, except for quotations and only if the name is spelled out properly earlier in the article. --Enos733 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• :In looking at the examples of the main biographies, JFK is used once in the prose, FDR is not used at all in the prose (except for "also known as"). The uses of FDR and JFK are found in captions and references. - Enos733 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 6 per my comments above. MapReader (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Option 6: We should go with what sources use, similar to COMMONNAME, so it makes it more recognizable to the reader. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 07:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Option 6 per above; names like JFK fall between initialisms and acronyms and can be treated as a special case when RS agree.
• Option.6. I.agree.that.leaving.out.periods.is.sometimes.more.readable.--GRuban (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Option 6, kind of but not really. Articles themselves should not refer informally to their subjects, so in the article about, say, JFK, he should be referred to as "Kennedy", not "JFK" or "J. F. K.", as neither is the formal tone expected of articles, except for one "also/commonly known as" note which should be the most commonly used version of the abbreviation, determined similarly to the common name for an article's subject. If the title of a reference or a quotation uses it, leave it exactly as the title or quotation has it (so if the hypothetical books or articles "The JFK Presidency" and "J. F. K.'s Administration" are cited, use those titles exactly in the respective citations; don't change them.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Quotations are already a major subject of this RfC. In most of the listed articles, the only uses of the subject's initials are in quotations and there isn't any issue of the initials being used informally in the prose. We don't leave quotes exactly as they were formatted, for typographic conformity across the encyclopedia. Following your proposed rule for this example would break MOS:CONFORM. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Now that the discussion seems to be converging toward undotted initials, I'd like to make the case (as an Option 1 supporter, but that doesn't seem like it's going anywhere) that if we decide on undotted initials Option 6 is untenable and Option 2 should be preferred. I think Option 6, which relies on {{tq|"commonly appears"}}, leaves open too much discretion for editor disputes. For the names in the list, there are already common occurrences of the names using dotted initials in common use, so Option 6 won't actually resolve this issue as anyone could point to The New York Times or similar as a reason to retain dotted initials. It just kicks the can down the road to every article talk page, where there'll probably be no consensus. Option 2, on the other hand, makes a standardized style required of editors, maintaining consistency across the encyclopedia. It's also a much more concise wording and has a specific place where it's planned to fit in the MOS. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2. I think, for consistency, using periods is right, but also it takes up less space and takes less time so I'm okay with a jumble of letters. SWinxy (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}

• I don't think these are equivalent. J. R. R. Tolkien, H. G. Wells, Samuel L. Jackson — these are the person's full name (or at least a representation of it and the person has chosen to style it). But FDR, JFK, AMLO are more like shorthand. They're not how the person publicly identifies, it's essentially an initialism like BBC. And MOS:ACRO says that {{tquote|Wikipedia generally avoids using full point in upper-case acronyms}}, which would seem to rope these in. But either way, I'm not sure there's any particular need to set a rule for this. Referring to a person by their initials on Wikipedia is, if not explicitly forbidden by the MOS, then certainly frowned upon — I've seen several times where an editor replaced a three- or four-letter initialism with the person's actual surname. Even on the pages linked at the start of this discussion, only "RFK" is used regularly in the prose. What inconsistencies exist could be solved by simply editing the pages in question to use more encyclopedic language instead of a shorthand. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. I feel like this whole discussion is based on an over-interpretation of the current MoS text. The existing text, I think, is talking about how you would refer to the person in the title of the article or in running text. Since we would normally not use these initialisms in that way, there is really no change to make. In general something like "JFK" would be mentioned, not used.{{br}}Perhaps we could add an explanatory footnote clarifying this? I don't see an option for that. --Trovatore (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

MOS:SURNAME currently states "For fictional entities, use common names. For example, Jason Voorhees, Luigi, and Albert Wesker." Ironically, I suggested the current wording, following this consensus reached at Project Video games.

Would this apply to regular characters in film and book plots? For example, one editor is now changing surnames in film plots to first names, citing MOS:SURNAME, on the grounds that film characters are typically fictional. See this edit for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skyscraper_%282018_film%29&oldid=prev&diff=1286655979], where the film character Ben Gillespie has his name changed to 'Ben', presumably because the character is more likely to be referred to as Ben in the film, than as his surname. When I proposed the current wording of MOS:SURNAME, I had intended it to apply to famous characters like Luigi and Wesker, not regular fictional characters in mainstream media. Should film characters who are not notable themselves always be referred to as their first names, just because they happen to be fictional? Damien Linnane (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Referring to the characters as they are referred to in the media is best practise, I would be thinking.Halbared (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, I agree with @Halbared. For instance, in Final Destination, we don't refer to Alex Browning and Clear Rivers as "Browning" or "Rivers". Also, in The Last of Us, we only refer to Joel Miller by his first name as well. It would also be a bit weird if in How To Train Your Dragon we referred to Hiccup Horrendous Haddock as "Haddock". HiGuys69420 (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::For the record, {{u|HiGuys69420}} is the editor in question making the contested changes. I started this discussion hoping to get neutral comments from uninvolved editors. In any case, I can see the point Halbared is making, and I don't feel overly strongly about this. I'd just like clarification, as it is typically the reviewers of film articles I have nominated for FAC who tell me to adhere to MOS:SURNAME by crediting characters by their surnames after the first mention. (Not to mention that ironically, the wording you're currently citing as justification for your edits was written by me, though not with what you're using it for in mind). I'm not going to be upset if everyone agrees with you, but I'd like to hear the opinion of at least more person that isn't you HiGuys69420, if we can just leave the commenting to others for the time being. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Ok, let's leave it be until someone else replies. HiGuys69420 (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• I have to agree that MOS:SURNAME does not apply to works of fiction. For example, we refer to “Frodo”, “Sam”, and “Merry”… not “Baggins”, “Gamgee”, and “Brandybuck”.

:However, there are times when the work itself indicates using the last name… (example: “Gatsby”)… So it is not a one-size-fits-all “rule”. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::That makes sense. HiGuys69420 (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Not to mention works that are inconsistent: Resident Evil refers to Chris Redfield as "Chris" but Albert Wesker as "Wesker". Again, reason to follow what the work does rather than insist on one or the other. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see why it shouldn't apply. Just zeroing in on the Jason Voorhees example, it would be strange if the plot summary for Friday the 13th Part III talked about Higgins, Bombay, Klein, Beltrami and Sanchez… but then also Jason, because we've arbitrarily decided that he's famous enough to get the given-name treatment. Or to insist on the masked man being "Voorhees" here, but then "Jason" on his own page. It makes sense to me that we should use the same rule everywhere, including plot summaries.

:There are sure to be some ambiguous cases (works where a character is interchangeably referred to by both their given name and their family name, or fictional characters in a profession heavily associated with surnames, like doctors or police officers, etc), but those can be hashed out on the talk pages if necessary. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah. For instance, in Star Wars, the character Obi-Wan Kenobi is called mainly by his first name in the prequel and original trilogies, but only by his surname in his Disney+ show. HiGuys69420 (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, I am proposing reversing the decision made in 2023, on the grounds that discussion was inadequate and not enough concerned editors involved. I'll ping all the names I can find tomorrow, if someone else doesn't get there first. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:A proposal like that should be formatted as a proper RfC with substantive reasoning (perhaps something about what they would add to people's understanding of article topics, rather than 99 comments from 34 people over the course of 1.5 months not being enough). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::I support the re-consideration of the proposal, but agree with Ed that a proper RfC is the way to do it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, not sure if MOS:SURNAME applies to the first mention in an article's body. @Quaerens-veritatem thinks it does (see {{diff||prev|1272958866}}), while @750h+ thinks it doesn't (see Talk:Ryan Reynolds#MOS:SURNAME). Thedarkknightli (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:To me, MOS:SURNAME means: the lead sentence of the entire article (the first mention) should be spelled out, and every subsequent mention (including the first after the lead, the first in its section, the first in its paragraph, the first in its sentence, etc) should be surname-only, barring rare exceptions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::Agree with David on this… The intent is that the lead presents the full name as the “first use” and the early life section would be a subsequent use (an exception would be if there had been a name change at some point after the “early life” that needed to be explained).

::That said, in practice, we do seem to be all over the place on this. Since I just finished my umpteenth rewatch of LOTR, I looked at how we treated the names for its stars: our articles on most of the cast (Sean Astin and Elijah Wood as examples) give their full names only in the lead, and use last names in the early life sections. Cate Blanchett however, repeats the full name in both. And Sean Bean is a good example where there was a name change (from Shaun to Sean). Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I think, regardless of improper usage in some articles, David has the correct, as MOS:SURNAME is written, and logical view. "After the initial mention" means what it clearly says. Dictionaries Webster, Cambridge, et al. say initial is defined as "of or at the beginning". Of course incorrect usage is not unusual, for example I often see Nationality in Infoboxes that have to be removed per WP:INFONAT. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with David on this. If there is some overriding reason to mention the subject's full name again in the body of the article, it better be good and agreed upon on the talk page by overwhelming consensus. --Malerooster (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::One reason: the intro should be a summary of the sourced material in the article body, allowing us to avoid cluttering the intro with references. An example is Jess Wade where the full name is repeated in the 'Early life' section and this second occurrence is the one that's sourced. Wire723 (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't think Jess Wade is a sufficient example. The cite in Early life could just be placed instead in the lead after Jessica Alice Feinmann Wade BEM (born October 1988)[5] without clutter and since a reference is usually placed after the birth date in a lead anyway. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd think that there are sometimes fairly obvious reasons to repeat the full name. For example, Daisy Bates (author) also mentions her husband, Jack Bates, and her son, Arnold Hamilton Bates. In this context, the article might sometimes repeat their full names to resolve the otherwise unavoidable question "now which Bates was meant by that?" Such cases are self-evident and surely don't need any talk page discussion. Gawaon (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I think careful editing obviates the need to ignore WP:INFNAT's plain language. For example, "It is not known how Baglehole managed to find Bates" could be written "It is not known how Baglehole found his wife", and "Daisy Bates's only child, Arnold Hamilton Bates, was born on 26 August 1886 in Bathurst, New South Wales. While he was officially the son of Jack Bates, some biographers speculate that his actual father was Baglehole" could be written, "Bates's only child, Arnold Hamilton Bates, was born on 26 August 1886 in Bathurst, New South Wales. While Jack Bates was officially the father, some biographers speculate that his actual father was Baglehole. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tqq|fairly obvious reasons to repeat the full name. For example, Daisy Bates (author) also mentions her husband, Jack Bates}} {{mdash}} MOS:SAMESURNAME covers this. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:First mention in the body should have the full name. Everything in the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. The full name should not be provided solely in the lead. – notwally (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::The language of MOS:SURNAME is clear: "After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only". "Initial" means what it says and as commonly defined. If there is confusion using the surname, then it can be used only if editing cannot otherwise dispose of the conflict. All this is common sense and plain English. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not interested in your wikilawywering or condescension. The word "generally" is also clear, and your additional "then it can be used only if" rule is not part of policy. Everything in the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. Why would we ignore that basic editing rule? – notwally (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::"After the initial mention" means what it says, not a matter of wikilawywering. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Refusing to address legitimate policy concerns as well as bizarrely ignoring the word "generally" is wikilawyering. Everything in the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. Why would we ignore that basic editing rule? – notwally (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Plain English is plain English. The initial comment by {{no ping|David Eppstein}} (who is an Administrator) is correct. There is no need to continue this thread as it is just taking up space with nothing added to the discussion. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No, consensus is based on responding to the legitimate policy concerns raised by other editors. An administrator has no more weight to determine what policy means than any other editor. The fact that you refuse to provide any response about (1) why we should ignore the rule that all content in the lead should be based on content already in the body or (2) why we should ignore the plain English of the word "generally" is telling. – notwally (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Your strained interpretation of "generally" as allowing for exceptions so broad that they effectively overturn the rule is incompatible with the meaning of the word "generally". To quote my favorite line of the fictional character Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Intepreting "generally" to mean that the full name is included the first time the mentioned in the lead and the first time mentioned in the body does not "effectively overturn the rule". Indeed, it would make the rule compatible with our general policy of the lead reflecting what is in the body. What a strained interpretation you are making to effectively make "generally" a pointless word. – notwally (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: What MOS:LEAD says is "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." MOS:LEADNO gives date of birth as an example of such a "basic fact". The subject's full name can also perhaps constitute such a "basic fact" in straightforward cases. William Avery (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::If consensus determines that the full name should not be included in the body, I think that would be useful to include that explicitly in the MOS guidance. Given how often names in the lead are modified (either by nicknames, stage names, or changed names), I believe it is better to not make an exception to exclude the full name from the body. – notwally (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::It's already there. I mean, it says "initial mention" – what about that is not clear? A lead not mentioning the subject's name is hard to imagine, so by definition the "initial mention" will always be in the lead. Gawaon (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Right, William Avery, someone's full name sure is a "basic fact" and so MOS:LEAD gives no reason to assume it should be repeated it in the body – while MOS:SURNAME says clearly enough that it should not. Gawaon (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::"Generally" here means "barring some compelling reason otherwise in special cases that don't conform to the normal scenarios". —DIYeditor (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That's a pretty specific understanding and appears to be your take on it, but I'm not sure what discussion ever established that specific meaning for it. If a prior discussion already determined that full names should not be included in the body, despite the ordinary practice of the lead summarizing the body rather, then it may be useful to link to that discussion here. – notwally (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::DIYeditor's interpretation is fully consistent with the general understanding of what the word "generally" means. I also concur with Gawaon's points above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::General understanding based on what? Certainly not ordinary dictionary usage. Words like "generally" or "usually" or a term like "in most cases" (which are all equivalent in every dictionary I have seen) do not mean there must be a "compelling reason" or only "in special cases that don't conform to the normal scenarios". Those are far more restrictive standards than the "general understanding" of the term "generally", unless you are claiming that a prior discussion has formed a consensus about the "general understanding" to give a particular meaning to that term on Wikipedia, in which case simply providing that prior discussion would be the best way to go. – notwally (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You seem to be contending that the word "generally" is broad enough to open up a categorical exception for every biographical article to restate the full name of the subject in the body. That is not how the word "generally" is applied. That's called the exception swallowing the rule.

::::::::::Generally means that "in most cases" you mechanically follow a rule, except for when there is a very compelling reason to not follow that rule. So what the community consensus above is saying is that the word "generally" implies that exceptions should be allowed only on an article-by-article basis for compelling reasons specific to that article. Otherwise, the general rule applies: the full name is given only in the lead sentence and then after that point we refer to the subject of a biographical article by their surname. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::"Generally means that 'in most cases' you mechanically follow a rule, except for when there is a very compelling reason to not follow that rule." No, that is not what generally means. It may be how you think it should be applied, but that's not the same as what the word means. For example, another way to apply it would be to say that it means the full name should be included the initial time it is used in the lead and the initial time it is used in the body, as that comports with our practice of generally having the lead summarize the body. There are other ways to apply it in this particular case as well. So relying on the word "generally" doesn't actually progress this discussion one way or the other, which has been my point this entire time regarding that word. I'm not sure why you are so insistent that one particular application is the only correct way, especially when that is easily contradicted by any dictionary definition.

:::::::::::If there are other considerations for why to include the full name on the initial mention only in the lead, then those are the arguments you should be making. So that way my argument (and others such as Wire723) that the intro should summarize the sourced material in the article (which also avoids cluttering the lead with refs, which can be extremely helpful for those using screen readers), can be compared with your argument for why the full name should not be included in the body. Generally, consensus is based on responding to arguments and valid concerns, rather than wikilawyering over a particular word. As of right now, I am not sure what the substantive reasons are for excluding the full name from the body. And as Blueboar already pointed out, in actual practice, editors do not consistently include or exclude the full name from the body, which would be another reason to not have the MOS prefer one way or the other, as our guidelines are generally supposed to be a reflection of our actual practices. – notwally (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Hello again guys, have we reached a consensus on this issue? I'm not really familiar with the relevant rules. Thedarkknightli (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::No. I have more interesting things to do with my time like work on The White Lotus-related articles, and then more recently we have been having problems with a massive amount of disruptive editing (whitewashing of negative information) on San Francisco-related articles. So I have been tied up going through the dispute resolution process per WP:AGF before I can escalate that issue to WP:ANI for appropriate remedies.

:::::::::::::Again, we are talking about this text in MOS:SURNAME: "After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only". Notwally is saying that "generally" is broad enough to allow for a categorical exception in the body, which effectively treats "generally" as meaning "apply it except when you don't like it". Again, that renders the word "generally" meaningless and is not what that word means in English. As an experienced attorney, I would (1) definitely lose and (2) face possible sanctions if I tried to argue that interpretation of the word before a person in a black robe whom I have to address as "Your Honor".

:::::::::::::For example, Merriam-Webster [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generally provides three definitions], of which the one relevant here (because we are talking about rules) is "as a rule; usually". And Merriam-Webster [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usually defines "usually"] as "according to the usual or ordinary course of things : most often : as a rule". The point is that "generally" means a rule that should be applied "most often", subject to exceptions (as distinguished from a mere nonbinding guideline or an unconditional rule). But those exceptions must be necessarily rare and not common. Because if they become common, then the rule is not being applied "most often".

:::::::::::::The word "generally" is obviously there to accommodate situations where it may be actually necessary to repeatedly use full names in the body for clarity, such as discussing people from multiple generations of the same family who share the exact same full name (e.g., the early life of Bill Gates). But that is rare. Most people aren't that pompous to name their children the same name as a parent and a grandparent. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::{{u|Coolcaesar}}, your claim that my position "effectively treats 'generally' as meaning 'apply it except when you don't like it'" is a bizarrely false characterization of what I have said. I would request that you strike that false claim about me in your comment. – notwally (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Let's examine the pattern above. On 27 March you twice accused Quaerens-veritatem of wikilawyering. You kept calling your interpretation "clear" and "plain English" without pointing to any specific definition. On 28 March I also challenged your interpretation as "strained" and then you retorted that my position was "strained", again without offering any actual definition. On 28 March, Gawaon and William Avery specifically refuted your notion that interpreting "generally" in the way suggested by everyone else is inconsistent in any way with MOS:LEAD. On 4 April, DIYeditor put forth a specific definition of "generally", which you claimed was merely that editor's interpretation, then I concurred with that interpretation, and you retorted that you did not see that as consistent with "ordinary dictionary usage" but, again, did not point to any dictionary definition that supports your interpretation. Finally, on 12 April, Thedarkknightli inquired about whether we had reached consensus. I noticed that on 22 April and tried to move this discussion forward by offering a specific dictionary definition to explain what "generally" actually means and show how that definition applies here. Then you accused me of falsely characterizing your position, rather than responding to the specific definition offered and discussed.

:::::::::::::::On 4 April, you argued again that "another way to apply it would be to say that it means the full name should be included the initial time it is used in the lead and the initial time it is used in the body, as that comports with our practice of generally having the lead summarize the body". But you offered no foundation for this strange interpretation of "generally". When you double down again on an unusual interpretation of the word "generally", after its unusual nature was pointed out to you, and without providing any factual foundation or, even better, any examples of that usage in a reliable published source, the inference is obvious.

:::::::::::::::I stand by that language as an accurate characterization and I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. If it's not already clear, the tone I am trying to convey here is mild exasperation tempered with patience, as required by WP:AGF. Everyone is trying to engage in good faith here. But when you do not reveal the foundation of your own position and simply restate that position, then you will not make progress in shifting community consensus. It becomes impossible to find common ground because we can't see the ground you're standing on. To move this ahead, you need to reveal the actual basis for your interpretation and provide a couple of examples to imply that it is sufficiently common that one can conclude the term "generally" is hopelessly ambiguous, in the sense that a significant minority of readers could reasonably interpret MOS:SURNAME in favor of your position. Then we can discuss whether to leave the language as is or clarify it further. Or you can concede that your understanding of the word is inconsistent with the common understanding of what "generally" means.

:::::::::::::::In the alternative, we can have a separate discussion about whether to restate MOS:SURNAME to expressly authorize your preferred approach. But I suspect most people will not approve of that because it is inconsistent with how biographical encyclopedia articles are traditionally written and WP articles are too cluttered as is. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::{{u|Coolcaesar}}, as my prior comment made clear, your claims about my position are false. And so once again, now that you have been informed of that, please strike that false characterization of my views. As for the actual substance of this discussion, our general policy is to have the lead reflect what is in the body. What are the substantive reasons are for not following this general practice and instead excluding the full name from the body? – notwally (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Those reasons were already fully explained to you above. As Gawaon said, "someone's full name sure is a 'basic fact' and so MOS:LEAD gives no reason to assume it should be repeated it in the body – while MOS:SURNAME says clearly enough that it should not." This is the simplest and most obvious interpretation of MOS:LEAD with MOS:SURNAME that elegantly reconciles them with each other: we don't repeat basic facts in the body that were already covered in the lead, and the full name of the subject is obviously a "basic fact". Under this interpretation, exceptions could be justified only under the qualifier "generally" in MOS:SURNAME, which then opens up the issue of what "generally" actually means. So it doesn't make sense to say that "relying on the word 'generally' doesn't actually progress this discussion one way or the other". It is the entire issue around which this dispute revolves.

:::::::::::::::::And working out what you seem to be missing about the foregoing conversation caused me to finally understand what you are taking offense at. You are offended that I drew a logical inference from your persistent refusal to disclose where you stand on the word "generally", because you believe it is not a fair paraphrasing of your position. I'm not going to strike through my comment because WP is not censored, but to the extent that my drawing that inference could be seen as an unfair or inaccurate paraphrasing of your position, then for that, I do apologize. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|Everything in the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body.}} That's the infobox, not the lead. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

MOS:MR clarifies to use "Mr.", but Mr. clarifies that there's a difference between for "Mr." and "Mr" in American and British English (while noting, though, that articles are not content guidelines). Is there a reason why MOS:MR doesn't clarify this, and should it be updated? -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:"Such as" does the necessary heavy lifting there. —Kusma (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFL § Inconsistent application of nationalities in lead sentences?. Left guide (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Do BLP policies apply to nationalities and ethnic groups, or any group of people? Do we have separate policy? For example, what are the rules about ethnic or national stereotypes. -- GreenC 16:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

There is presently an RfC on the Catalan/Spanish label issue for Ramon Casas: Talk: Ramon Casas#Request for Comment: Subject lead label Catalan or Spanish?. Since starting the Casas RfC, I learned about the pervasiveness of the question. There was an RfC in 2018 on this question on this talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2018_archive#RfC_on_use_of_Spanish_regional_identity_in_biography_leads. I have since learned that this conflict is widespread, and, frankly, unresolved by the 2018 RfC. For Catalan personages, there are editors who are systematically and insistently changing "Catalan" to "Spanish" as the primary label for the subject in the lead. A random example, Isidre Nonell: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isidre_Nonell&diff=1284727155&oldid=1284557380 diff1],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isidre_Nonell&diff=1284553311&oldid=1282682704 diff2],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isidre_Nonell&diff=1282680800&oldid=1267025795 diff3],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isidre_Nonell&diff=1172380161&oldid=1172379285 diff4],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isidre_Nonell&diff=1172379285&oldid=1166295803 diff5],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isidre_Nonell&diff=946923027&oldid=933828478 diff6], etc. Notice there is no discussion of the issue on the article Talk page. One can pick just about any other article with a Catalan subject and find similar, sometimes with an edit summary "Catalonia is not a country!" I leave aside motivations for this low-level, but on-going, widespread edit warring. I was brave or foolish enough to start the RfC on the question (labels matter.), but most often the revert back and forth goes undiscussed (a small issue, not worth the time, let the reverts continue?). Is there a way to resolve this on-going conflict, or are we to form our own gangs of editors and, on a weekly basis, say, go through all the articles and change them back from what the other gang did? Ultimately, it appears that your original RfC did not resolve the question; as I read its resolution, it left too much gray area for interpretation (How does one show that a subject "self-identifies"?). It would be an exhausting task to go through all the Catalan biographical articles and litigate each one, with vast polemics, separately. Perhaps one strategy would be to contest several key articles with RfCs, such as to develop a body of precedence. (Note that this question turns on what a label is, generally, which I've raised on these pages before, I believe. That a subject is consistent with a technical definition of a label, does not mean they should necessarily be identified by that label, e.g., "He has Spanish nationality, so he should be labeled Spanish." C.f., an essay Wikipedia:Crime labels; Using a simple, superficial label is often just bad writing.) Bdushaw (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Another available RfC: Talk:Carles_Puigdemont/Archive_5#RFC_on_nationality Bdushaw (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The present Manual of Style could be made clearer, with respect to the main question here. Per MOS:NATIONALITY, {{tq|The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident}} and that {{tq|neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability}}. The key concept here is where the subject was notable. But the statement plays rather vaguely about what nationality means - that won't do in Catalan-Spanish controversies. One new consideration for me is what exactly is a "country" or "nationality" in this context? I had thought that Scotland was not a country, for example, but that's not exactly true. Within the Commonwealth, it is a country, but one not recognized internationally. Similar, Palestine - going strictly by formally recognized nation definition, are Palestinian politicians to be called Israeli politicians (apologizes; what a horror). By these looser definitions of "country", is Catalonia a "country"? It has its own well-defined region, language, flag, government, culture, etc. Most often the subjects of such articles self-identify as "Catalan", though it can be problematic to find reliable sources to this effect for historical figures. Then, the statement above seems to pertain to living biographies, whereas the general problem here extends back in history. Bdushaw (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The guidance also declares that ethnicity is not to be included in the lead. But where does ethnicity begin and end in this case - is Catalan an ethnicity? Bdushaw (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

People get so dogmatic about the person's country of citizenship that they overlook the less common cases when another identification is actually more germane to their notability. That's why it's essential to look at sources and see if they are calling someone, for example, a Catalan politician or a Spanish politician. Bdushaw (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)