Template talk:Nee

The mouseover dots

I can see the purpose of the simplified spelling ,and the optional parameter for the &nbsp, but why not just link to née like [sic], rather than the somewhat unsettling mouseover popup? I had never come across this before, and I personally find the dots more than a little annoying: it looks as if my graphics card is failing, or my browser is attempting to do a spell-check. Furthermore, née is a perfectly good loanword like attaché and touché. Should I fear the arrival of {{café}} or {{soufflé}} to further clutter my interface? >MinorProphet (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

British English only?

@Mlpearc, with your edit are you saying that this template must not be used for articles written in Australian, Indian, Jamaican, South African, ... flavors of English? Really? I think a citation supporting that is needed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Sorry, I mean not in American English articles, I'll try and re-word it but, not sure the proper way. Any ideas :) Mlpearc (open channel) 18:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but why should it not be used then in American English articles? My Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1987 – yeah, I know, old) lists née as the preferred spelling; wikt:née doesn't discriminate; the redirect née does not discriminate. So, why not in American English articles?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it an American English term ? I've never came across it before Wikipedia. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I know that Jacqueline Kennedy's birth surname is Bouvier because I remember reading it in newspapers and magazines long before there was an internet. For some reason, her name was often written 'Jacqueline Kennedy née Bouvier' or in some similar variant. So, anecdotal (for whatever that is worth) evidence that née does occur in American English. And, of course, my American English dictionary supports the usage as of 1987 ...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Link target

I have come across many instances of ([[married and maiden names|née]] XXX) Should the link target be added to the template ? Mlpearc (open channel) 13:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it to link to née, which specifically discusses the term. The template used to link to your suggestion, but was removed and replaced with the hover text a while back. Per WP:NOSYMBOLS, this behaviour is specifically discouraged. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't this redirect to the correct spelling, with the "é"?

If anything, the fact that the é is 'harder to type' should bolster the argument for redirecting. At the very least, this template should display as née. — Hugh 22:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Which redirects to which is pretty irrelevant. That's the point of having redirects...using either gets the same result. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove TfD template

I have closed the TfD discussion as it was based on false pretenses. Please remove the TfD template as soon as possible. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Use for name changes other than due to marrige

According to the recent Rfc Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC on the use of née and né, Any of ["née", "né", and "born"] may be used to indicate the original birth name, or birth surname if "née" or "né" is used, regardless of the reason for the change of name. and the MOS is being or has been changed to say so. Users of this template should take note, and I have edited the documentation accordingly. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Ne

Just a heads up: I've set up the equivalent template for the male form. Schwede66 22:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Schwede66, awesome, thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 03:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

equivalent ... male form yet the documentation says "a shortcut for maiden or birth names"?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Trappist, are you asserting that the concept of maiden doesn't apply to men? Seriously though, there's a good case for abandoning the term's, and this template's, use, and to replace it universally with "born", especially in an age where there are apparently more genders than can be expressed wit né and née. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

We do live in an analog world ... If the definitions of {{nee}} and {{ne}} are, as stated in the templates' documentation, identical except for spelling, then is there a need for both templates? Does confusion not follow? And maiden-for-men does have a rather nice ring to it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Please italicize "née"; that is how the term most often appears, including in the MOS entry on the use of the term. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you established a consensus for this change? I'm thinking that there is a conflict between MOS:MULTINAMES and MOS:FOREIGN. I can find née in my Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (c. 1987) so perhaps MOS:MULTINAMES is the thing that needs fixing?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Everywhere I've seen it (newspapers, written manually on Wikipedia, etc.) has italicized it; it's common practice as far as I can tell. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Here are some simple insource: searches that give some sense of how née is used in en.wiki:

plain: née – 42600+ pages

wikilinked italicized: ''[[née]]'' – 500+ pages

unlinked italicized: ''née'' – 6000+ pages

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Huh. I wonder if it's a regional variation thing, then. I was going to suggest adding an |it=yes parameter to allow for optional italicizing, but I suppose it would take fewer keystrokes to just type ''{{nee}}''. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The template is used in 1425 articles. A similar search to those above finds:

template italicized: ''{{nee}}'' – 21 pages

This brings me back to the question of the conflict between MOS:MULTINAMES and MOS:FOREIGN. Which of these is correct? Finding the answer to that question seems the proper next step,

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

MOS:MULTINAMES has née italicized as well. I see no reason not to make this change. We need to make sure any manually italicized uses of this template are rendered properly after the change as well, but that's a purely technical matter. Kranix (talk | contribs) 23:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Should certainly be italicized. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

If it's foreign enough that it should be italicized, then we shouldn't be using it at all; we should be using the corresponding English word "born" instead. On the other hand, if it's accepted enough as an English word to be used here, then as an English word it needs no italicization. I lean towards the "it's English, don't italicize it" camp but I can see the "it's French, don't use it" argument as being reasonable. I don't think it makes sense to advocate using it but italicizing it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)