Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2009 archive

Linking names that have titles

I'm probably sticking my fingers into a wasps' nest with this question (and I'm not even sure if I'm asking it in the right place), but is there an agreed convention for linking to a person who has a title? For example, should I write

Previous conductors of the orchestra include Sir Colin Davis, Sir Simon Rattle ...

or

Previous conductors of the orchestra include Sir Colin Davis, Sir Simon Rattle ...

or

Previous conductors of the orchestra include Colin Davis, Simon Rattle ...

And does it make a difference whether or not they were 'Sir' at the time that they conducted the orchestra? Colonies Chris (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My personal preference is for these titles to be part of the link. Guidelines state that the name or style used should be what they held at the time the you're writing about. In those sentences about, you are using the present tense, so perhaps it should be their names as they are now. If it was within an article, e.g. "after Simon Rattle became chief conductor in 1980." there would be no title if he didn't have it at the time of taking up the post. In that case, he was knighted while still the conductor anyway. Bulleted lists with dates usually use the names as they were at the time they stood down. JRawle (Talk) 22:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think also the titles should to be part of the link, since they are also bolded together with the given names in the first sentence. Demophon (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The title should definitely be part of the link, piped if necessary. The title should only be listed if they held it at the time they held the post described; otherwise it's anachronistic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the reason for the title being part of the link? I see no value in this. Deb (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

One reason for not including Sir in the article title is to make it simple to link without including the title (especially for references before the knighthood, when it would look odd; consider men like Sir Georg Solti, who were not even British subjects much of their lives). The other is that for some knighthoods are conferred at the knight's deathbed, and are not what the knight is usually called. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The title should never usually be part of the article title. The question is whether it should be piped as part of a link - mainly because it looks better to link the whole name, not just part of it. Incidentally, Sir George Solti is invariably known in Britain as Sir George Solti, a title he used for 25 years! -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of Music disagrees, listing him as Sir Georg Solti. At least in referring to Chicago, I have always heard it thus, in two syllables: Ge-org, in the German manner. (At least we don't have a lobby for György.) ;-?

Delinking nationalities in leads

There seems to be a script out there that delinks nationalities in the leads of articles. When this is taken up with the users, they quote WP:OVERLINK. While I can see that some articles are overlinked, I do consider that nationalities are so critical to the individual that they should be linked. Thoughts? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The script only unlinks commonly recognised nationalities; links to lesser known nationalities are left as-is. Nobody is suggesting that nationalities aren't important in bios, just that there is usually no benefit to linking the most commonly known ones. How many of our readers are likely to click on British or French, for example? Almost none, I would think. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree. Is there a policy regarding linking nationalities in the lead? I think it is a benefit to the reader to be able to click on a nationality and learn more. Who or how will it be determined which nationalities are "commonly recognised"?? --Tom 16:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

But readers will only find a link beneficial if the nationality is one they aren't familiar with. There are far too many articles that begin, for example, "Jane Doe is an American actress and singer." All of these attributes are important elements of the bio, but none of them need to be linked. And yes, 'commonly recognised' is a matter of judgment, like so many other things. If you disagree with someone who's unlinked something, whether they're using a script or not, you have a discussion about it.Colonies Chris (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should they not be linked if they are "important elements of the bio"??? Again, you are making assuptions about the readers of these articles and their knoweledge base. --Tom 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Like Tom, I too disagree with this proposal in the spirit of countering systemic bias. We should not assume that all readers are highly literate and come from the West, and therefore are familiar with appellations such as "American", "British" and "French". Furthermore, it doesn't hurt to be consistent and link all nationalities in leads. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We make judgments about the knowledge base of our readers all the time by what we choose to link or leave unlinked. As things stand we're severely underestimating them by overlinking. It's reasonable to assume that anyone who has enough intelligence, curiosity and knowledge of English to be consulting the English wikipedia, is reasonably familiar with concepts such as 'singer' or 'America'. In the extremely unlikely event that they don't know what these things are, nothing is stopping them from cutting and pasting into the search box. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Colonies Chris, just for disclosure, iam a serious deletionist/minimalist/skeptic and hate overlinking and try to unlink where possible, but the lead is an excellent place for linking so people can click without having to cut and paste. Your example of "American singer" has merrit, but most bios are more involved and linking does add "value". Again, if we are talking about linking repeatidly or See also sections, I will be the first to delink and remove due repeativeness. I sort of stumbled by here but is this "delinking of lead items" being seriously considered? I hope not. --Tom 21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are a reasonably intelligent, curious and knowledgeable person. Can I assume that you know where Laotians, Malaysians and Singaporeans come from, and therefore not link those terms? Why not avoid edit wars and prolonged, fruitless talk page discussions by sticking to the status quo, which is to permit linking of nationalities in lead sections where editors think fit? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue of British nationality is so complex and contentious (see earlier in this page) that I doubt if many readers are familiar with what it means. (On the other hand, linking it does not necessarily help!) Bluewave (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Tom, facts like these are in the article because they're important elements of the bio, but that has nothing to do with whether or not to link them. The two things are completely separate. The point of a link is to make it easy for readers to find out more about the linked item, but if that item is so commonly understood that no-one will use the link, then the link is valueless. That doesn't mean the information is valueless, just the link.

JackLee, no-one's proposing to ban linking of nationalities in leads or anywhere else. It's simply that there is a script available to anyone who wishes to use it, that can be used to unlink common terms, including some of the better-known nationalities. This is in line with WP:OVERLINK; there's no value in linking terms that are so well known that very few readers will use the links; that just dilutes the value of the more useful links and makes articles read as though the authors had eight-year-olds in mind as the expected readership. If an editor thinks there would really be a benefit to linking American in a bio, no-one's proposing to stop them, but many editors would consider it overlinking and remove it, with or without a script. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What are these "better-known" nationalities that are delinked by the script? (What, by the way, is a script? Is it like a bot?) Knowing what they are may give editors involved in this discussion a better idea if there is indeed agreement as to whether these nationalities are "commonly recognized". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A bot runs automatically, without human intervention, whereas a script is executed by an editor, as a way of making a set of standard changes to an article at one go. For example, there is a script that will allow an editor to unlink autoformatted dates, now that this has been deprecated, and will also convert all the dates in an article to either dmy or mdy format (your choice) as it goes (because many articles have a mixture of formats). This would be tedious work to do manually, so it's all packaged up in the script. But ultimately it's the human editor using the script who makes the decisions about which of the script's changes to save and which to reject. To find out exactly which common terms - including nationalities - the script considers 'commonly known', I suggest you ask the author at User talk:Lightmouse. But no script imposes itself on anyone. If you don't like it, you don't use it. If you mostly like it but don't agree with all of it, you can use it for the stuff you're happy with and undo the changes you don't agree with before saving. If someone else uses a script to make changes that you don't think are an improvement to the article, you take it up with them in exactly the same way you would if they'd made the edits fully manually. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Many editors would consider it overlinking and remove it, with or without a script." For the record, before people started using this script recently, I had never seen a single instance of delinking of nationality in the lead (and I write a lot of biographies for Wikipedia). Which suggests that this is a spurious remark and the script is encouraging users to do something they wouldn't have thought of doing beforehand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I work on a lot of articles, including biographies, and I've been doing such delinking for a long time, both with and without a script. WP:OVERLINK says "What generally should not be linked: Items that would be familiar to most readers of the article ..." How will a link to a universally understood term such as American, for example, be of any benefit to a reader? I doubt whether anyone has ever clicked on any of those links, or ever will. And what's wrong with encouraging editors to do something that benefits the encyclopaedia by bringing it into line with its own Manual of Style? Colonies Chris (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think that the disputes that may arise over whether a nationality term is "universally understood" or not outweigh the utility of routinely delinking such terms. Perhaps "American" is an example of a term that is truly unversally understood (and I'm sure some people would disagree), but is "British"? A lot of people in the world think that "English" means "British" (strictly speaking, it doesn't), so it is useful to provide links to "England" and "United Kingdom" respectively. And moving down the list, what about "Brazilian", "Dutch", "Indonesian" and "Kenyan"? Are these well known enough not to be linked? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the section of WP:OVERLINK which says we shouldn't link common geographic terms appears to have only existed since July 2008, was inserted without discussion (on a fairly obscure section of the MoS), and seems to only be supported by a small cabal of editors, led by the developer of the script we're talking about. Which all speaks volumes really! How incredibly subjective to decide which countries are and are not well-known. Perhaps Colonies Chris, as one of the supporters of this project, would like to tell us which countries he and his fellow script users have decided should not be linked and why. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe I made a similar point about who and how we define which countries are and are not well-known. We are talking about the lede(lead) here and I still strongly believe that linking the nationality of a person is NOT what overlink had in mind in its spirt. This is coming from a deletionist/minimalist/ person who does remove overlinking when possible. The point about the MOS being changed as described above also concerns me. --Tom 14:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK has always said "What generally should not be linked: Items that would be familiar to most readers of the article ..."; the sentence giving examples of the kind of thing that usually falls into that category was added in July - and there was discussion about it. If, as you claim, Necrothesp, it was inserted by a 'small cabal of editors', I suggest you get together a larger cabal of editors to get the change reversed. But until then it's what the Manual of Style says. And, if you have an objection to any delinking that I or anyone else has done, quote an example and we can discuss it. Yes, of course, deciding which nationalities, professions, places etc. are 'commonly recognised' is subjective, but as I stated much earlier in this discussion, we make this kind of judgment all the time by what we choose to link or leave unlinked. Why should nationalities be some sort of special case that must always be linked? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There was some discussion after it was inserted (not before, as far as I can see). The discussion was not conclusive. The attitude of the editor who inserted it seems to be that he knows best and everyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. None of this appears to show any sort of consensus for mass delinking of nationalities in the lead of biographical articles. As Jacklee points out above, the definition of British as a nationality is not particularly clear, and this is, in any case, extremely subjective. How on earth do we decide which nationalities are familiar and which are not? Is Dutch familiar as the nationality of people from the Netherlands? Is Bulgaria well-known enough not to link? Uruguay? Ghana? Nobody really has the right to make that sort of judgement and impose it on all Wikipedia readers and editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat, since you obviously weren't listening the first time - nobody is imposing anything. A script is available, which any editor can use or not use as they wish. And if you're unhappy with a particular editor's unlinking decisions, whether using the script or not, take it up with them on the talk pages in the usual way. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but is that not what I'm doing? This is the appropriate forum for discussion on biographical articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Jr.

I am working on the article Tropic Thunder and talk about one of its main actors, Robert Downey, Jr. throughout it. After the first occurrence, should I continue using Downey, Jr. or switch to just Downey for the rest of the article? It looks like the actor's article it sticks with just Downey, but I want to be sure before I go through deleting anything. I didn't see any mention of this throughout the manual of style. Thanks for your help in advance. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely just Downey. The "Jr" is just an added identifier, not part of his surname. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already changed it but thanks for the confirmation. Maybe it would be beneficial it this could be mentioned somewhere in the manual for future editors. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images

I recall that non-free portrait images, even with a {{fair use rationale}} are not permitted to be used in the infoboxes of biographies but I can't find the policy/guideline for this. Can someone point me to it if indeed correct? TIA ww2censor (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images of living persons can't be used anywhere in Wikipedia articles, not just in infoboxes. The use of such images violates criterion 1 of the non-free content criteria. This is because such images are considered "replaceable" – it is regarded as possible for someone to take a new photograph of the person and to license it freely to Wikipedia. Thus, use of the non-free image may not qualify as fair. See "Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images", example 12: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JackLee, I should have been more precise. I am aware of the living people prohibition because the images are "replaceable". What is the position for dead people, but specifically the use of non-free image use in infoboxes? ww2censor (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any specific prohibition against the use of non-free portraits of deceased persons in infoboxes. (Other editors are free to correct me if I'm wrong.) In my view, if the subject of an article is dead and no free images of him or her are available, criterion 1 of the non-free content criteria is satisfied since it is no longer theoretically possible to take a new photograph of the person. Nonetheless, the non-free image must comply with other criteria, particularly criteria 3a and 3b (minimal usage; minimal extent of use). Therefore, one non-free image in the article is enough – do not use multiple non-free images of the person. The non-free image should be small and of low resolution so as not to significantly affect the copyright owner's commercial exploitation of the original high-resolution image. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Place of birth after date of birth

Is there a rule that says the place of birth should not be used in parenthesis after the person's name and birthdate (Ex: Jesús Paulino Sánchez (born October 11, 1974 in Nizao, Dominican Republic). For larger articles that have an early life section or something similar, i can understand, but in stub articles that consist of only one section with a couple sentences, I like this better. For example, in Jesús Sánchez, it looks bad if it says

"Jesús Paulino Sánchez (born October 11, 1974)) is a former professional baseball player who pitched in Major League Baseball from 1998-2004. He was born in Nizao, Dominican Republic."

as compared to what it is now. Thoughts? Jackal4 (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There definitely was something to give the guidance that birth place should not be in parenthesis. However, I tried to find it the other day, and couldn't. Stubs are not meant to be permanent in that form, so it would be a good idea to start it in the right way for later expansion. Ty 01:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I recall such a rule too, although I do not know whether it was actually stated in this guideline or whether it was something a Good Article or Featured Article reviewer mentioned. However, I note that:

• none of the examples in the guideline show the place of birth within the parenthesis; and
• since the lead section is meant to be a brief summary of the article, there is no real need to mention the subject's place of birth in it unless it is significant to his or her life or career in some way. I prefer to go with "Jesús Paulino Sánchez (born October 11, 1974) is a former professional baseball player who pitched in Major League Baseball from 1998 to 2004" in the lead, and "Jesús Paulino Sánchez was born on October 11, 1974 in Nizao, Dominican Republic" in the main body of the article.

By the way, note that "who pitched ... from 1998–2004" is wrong. Either write "who pitched ... 1998–2004" or "who pitched ... from 1998 to 2004". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would only add that if we give the date of birth in the lead, we needn't repeat it a few sentences below in the main body, but can just say "Jesús Paulino Sánchez was born in Nizao, Dominican Republic, the son of a rancher father" or whatever. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I like to think of the lead as a free-standing summary, in which case the main body of the article should contain all the information that is in the lead, including the date of birth. This may be a matter of preference, though. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the places of birth and death featuring in the lead brackets. This information belongs in the body of the article. I can understand why that may look better for a stub, but the problem is that it frequently stays after the stub is expanded. Neither do I think it is necessary to repeat the dates of birth and death in the body of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think having the date of birth (or dates of birth and death, as the case may be) in the lead is useful as it indicates what era the subject of the article lived in. But the place of birth is less crucial – unless it features in the person's life or career in some way – especially if the nationality of the person is stated. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there appears to be unanimity about not including place(s) of birth (and death) in the lead paragraph paranthesis where birth and death dates are given, I suggest we add this to the MoS explicitly. I'll do it if somebody else who is more familiar with editing this page doesn't beat me to it. __meco (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationality in the lede of bios

There is a dispute over including nationality in the lede sentence of bios, see my contribution list for a few examples. Per WP:MOSBIO, can others chime in? Thanks, --Tom 19:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the practice of including nationalities in the lead sentence has gotten out of hand. For virtually every biography of someone who has lived in more than one country, the nationality becomes a point of edit-warring (Nikoli Tesla and Emma Goldman come to mind). Removing the nationality completely is usually impossible, as it is considered virtually mandatory by many editors (due to the guidelines here). We should state that in the case where the nationality is contentious or unclear, no nationality should be mentioned in the lead sentence. Kaldari (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for articles where the subject was born in one place and moved, or holds dual citizenship, or came from a "former" country ect, great care is needed in wording the lead so all parties are treated fairly and NPOV. I am talking about vanilla generic, cut and dry cases where the parties nationality is not disputed. My favorite dispute is Andy Murray :). --Tom 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears there is also an issue of redundancy (see Tom's contribution list). Some people believe that listing a person's nationality is not necessary in the lead sentence if it already states where the person is from or is based. How should the nationality be handled in this situation? Kaldari (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The way to handle this is per MOSBIO. List there nationality in the lede and then go into greater detail about where they have and where the currently live further into the article unless it effects their notability. --Tom 20:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ps the Nikoli Tesla article actually reads pretty well and conveys all the important biographical material it seems. How long did that take and how often does it get reverted :) --Tom 19:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Although both Nikoli Tesla and Emma Goldman have resolved their nationality edit wars in the lead paragraph (Tesla by explaining things in detail, Goldman by omitting it completely), both still get the occasional drive-by edits—for Tesla: American, Serbian, or Croation; for Goldman: American, Lithuanian, or Russian. Kaldari (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm entirely in agreement with Tom here. In most cases the nationality is uncontroversial and should be included. The MoS is pretty unambiguous. Almost every encyclopaedia includes the nationality in the first line of biographies, it's a major factor in most people's identity, and I see no reason why Wikipedia needs to be or should be any different. It is most definitely Wikidemon who is being unreasonable in this situation by accusing him of edit warring over an issue which has long-standing consensus in the MOS. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[E/C] This comes up frequently on certain articles, as already stated here. One that I see changed monthly is Roman Polanski (French, Polish, French-Polish, repeat). There's a problem with the ledes in general in that the function like a quasi-infobox. Is the date of birth the most important thing to say about someone? Are we giving excess prominence to nationality to place it at the beginning of an article? Or is it simplest just to get that basic information out of the way? If all biographies had infoboxes, we could relegate this type of info there. If categories could be added without either having to be mentioned in the text, or be endlessly sharpened down to obscure categories, then it could be relegated to the categories. Like ethnicity, religion, dates of birth and death, and alma maters, nationality is basic biographic that may have little actual bearing on the subject's notability. I think the current situation, which calls for the lede to focus on the subject's notability, contradicts the logical desire to include basic information at the outset. I'm not sure what the solution is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Will, again, I totally agree that "complicated" nationalities are special cases and need greater care. These cases usually go out of there way NOT to mention nationality as a compromise which is fine with me. I am taking about vanilla, no brainers here(especially since I am such a simpleton :)) --Tom 20:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

When I look at a biographical article, the first things I look for are dates of birth and death, nationality and occupation, all of which we include in the lead. It's important information to an historian such as myself, although possibly not so much to a non-historian. And infoboxes? I hate them. Cheap, nasty, ugly and unbalancing. Give me a proper lead paragraph any day. This is an encyclopaedia, not a design exercise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the abstract need to give attributions of nationality, or the specific dispute Tom brought up? In the former case we have a series of cascading style guidelines, all of which are aimed at communicating information in the clearest, most useful encyclopedic fashion. They are there in the service of good writing, not a substitute for it. The point of mentioning nationality in the lead is to convey crucial context to the reader who may not know, and to avoid a Balkanized encyclopedia where country-specific articles are meaningful only to those already familiar with the locale, or that convey a typically American or UK-centric view of things. Thus, rather than saying "Tony is a bruiser from deep southeast" we could say "Tony is an American boxer." But the rule does not compel us to change "David Dinkins was the Mayor of New York City" to "David Dinkins was the American Mayor of New York City" or "Barack Obama is the President-elect of the United States" to "Barack Obama is an American politician who is President-elect of the United States." If we need to include certain standard information by rote, that is what categories, hyperlinks, lists, infoboxes, portals, etc., are for.

The particular dispute is that Tom has mechanically and in many cases clumsily added the adjective "American" to the introductory sentence of a series of 10-15 bios I have written or worked on for people both living and dead, citing MOSBIO. These changes, which are more like the Barack Obama example than Tony the boxer, cause a variety of stylistic and content problems. In some cases they call undue attention to questions of citizenship that are already implicit or explicit in the article but, frankly, are not sourced or biographically important. In nearly all cases they are redundant because a more specific residency is included in the lead. If someone is a resident of New York one need not necessarily add for the reader that this makes them an American resident of New YOrk. To do it or not is a style question and again, style is in the service of content, not vice versa. In some cases the changes create jarring syntax, as when Kitundu is called an "American instrument maker" based in San Francisco, California. Does he make American instruments? Or is he an American maker? Are we distinguishing this from American instrument makers in other cities, or from non-American instrument makers in San Francisco? One can sort it out with a moment's thought and by perusing the rest of the article but the effect is jarring and degrades, rather than improves, the presentation of the material. Finally, in some cases Tom has replaced the specific locations that are important to communicating notability with a simple statement that a person is American, e.g. changing the statement that Mark Nadler is a "New York-based" cabaret singer, to that he is an "American" cabaret singer. New York cabaret is a specific genre that is culturally, artistically, historically, and economically distinct. Removing that from the lead makes the lead less effective at quickly communicating who he is and how he is notable.

I am particularly frustrated with Tom's approach to edit more than a dozen articles at a time, edit war his changes in place up to 3RR, then declare that I need to establish consensus to overturn him because (he claims) MOSBIO is on his side. These are stylistic decisions and we each have our own interpretation. Making and then edit warring on mass non-consensus edits claiming one is on a mission from a guideline page is fairly disruptive behavior. Experience on AN/I, 3RR noticeboard, arbcom, etc., has shown that when an editor feels emboldened in this way and won't stop, the outcome is rarely good.

- Wikidemon (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Wikidemon on this. Indeed, one of our example leads in the guidelines does not explicitly state the nationality: "Cleopatra VII Philopator was a queen of ancient Egypt." Not "Cleopatra VII Philopator was an Egyptian queen of ancient Egypt." The nationality is not always necessary when it can be reasonably inferred. Kaldari (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not the case with the bios in dispute though. --Tom 20:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there are many residents of NY that are not American, so their nationality should be made clear. I agree that sometimes nationality is not needed, like Obama, or many other US politicians, but for the bios in dispute, this is just not the case. --Tom 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted only those where it was clearly unhelpful or harmful to the article. If you disagree we have a difference of opinion on article style for which you need consensus, not a position trumping all others that you can edit war to 3RR across a dozen articles. Wikidemon (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the vast majority of people who live in New York are considered "Americans" (even if they are not native-born), isn't it reasonable to assume that someone who lives and works in New York is American if it doesn't give their nationality explicitly? Kaldari (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Especially in NYC. If they lived and worked in Goffercrouch, PA, then maybe, but this is a non issue it seems. We have a MOS for a very good reason. Why not follow it? Again, I am fine with working on a case by case basis, but for vanilla generic cases, what is the real issue here? --Tom 21:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It does sound like maybe this should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Kaldari, if the nationality in the bio is contensious, I usually don't edit them. --Tom 21:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)(edit conflict) Wikidemon, why not list the bios here that you feel nationality in the lead is not needed and let consensus work through them? --Tom 21:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you're wikigaming. Why don't you self-revert the aftermath of your edit warring, and if you feel strongly enough about specific articles you can deal with them on a case by case basis using Wikipedia's many available dispute resolution processes? Wikidemon (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. We're talking about two entirely different things here. "Barack Obama is the President-Elect of the United States". Fine, the country is in the lead; the "American" is unnecessary. "John Smith is an entertainer in New York". The country is not in the lead, ergo it needs to be added. And for the record, in my opinion Tom has not engaged in edit warring - he is merely adding something which almost every editor adds to the lead of articles and which is mandated in MOSBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in these articles. He adds it. I remove it. He adds it again, I remove it again. He adds it again. What part of WP:EW does that not fit? He seems to be stalking / harassing me now, expanding this to other articles I have been editing. This is not in good faith, and is blockable disruptive behavior. If he does not stop now, this is an AN/I issue, not an MOS issue. Wikidemon (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't nationality be in these articles? --Tom 21:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikidemon, you are the one going against MOSBIO guidelines. Tom is merely following them. You are expressing a POV; he is following a guideline established by the Wikipedia community. There is a difference. In addition, if he adds it and you remove it, he adds it again, you remove it again, why is he the one doing the edit warring? You're removing something he's added, not vice versa. You effectively initiated the 'war' by reverting a good faith edit without good reason. That suggests you believe you own the article. If his additions were incorrect or contrary to guidelines then I'd agree with you, but they aren't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

????]]

My version, in the cases I have selectively reverted, is the better version that as a whole more closely honors Wikipedia's style norms. You may disagree, and Tom may disagree, and that's what WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD are for. Repeatedly making the same edit in the face of an objection is edit warring. He is changing the articles from their prior stable state. I am restoring them to the stable version. We would both be edit warring, except that I prefer to follow the behavioral policies on avoiding disruption. Tom, on the other hand, has a bad block history for this kind of behavior, and does not seem to understand the collaborative nature of editing the encyclopedia. Mass edit warring across multiple articles is particularly nasty, and is no way to deal with a dispute with another editor or on a point that obviously, per the few comments here, does not have consensus. At this point the edits are simply - rather than horoning that we are in a dispute resolution process he just expanded the edit war to several other articles. He is not participating in this discussion in good faith so I do not see any point continuing it. I have filed a report on WP:AN/I, which is the next logical stop. Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to bring up another thread of discussion if I may, and I would like to hear other opinions as best to resolve several disputes, and possibly improve biography and catagory articles in regards to this dispute. In American English it has become common to catagorize people of different ethnic descent to be described as "(insert ethnicity)-American" (sometimes/often leaving the hyphen out). Therefore you end up with African American, Hispanic American, Chinese American, etc. However, as stated in the article American the word itself has different meaning depending on where it is used, and how inclusive/exclusive that word can be. Furthermore in the context of ethnicty-nationality adjective to describe an individual or group, the word has been called into further question whether it is more inclusive and extends to not only US Nationals and/or US Citizens but also to anyone whom resides in the United States who are of that particular ethnicty (to include people regardless of legal nationality and/or citizenship and/or residency), or whether the word in this context is more exclusive and is limited to those who are US Nationals (who most often are also US Citizens)). Perhaps this is such a large discussion it warrents its own Guideline, such as there is a quazi-guideline regarding nationality in the United Kingdom. In particular this is brought up due to the differences between the opening sections of the Vietnamese American page, Filipino American page, and the French American page. For the first example is more inclusive, the third is more exclusive, and the second is more exclusive in its openning, but more inclusive in its content.--207.114.206.48 (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Automatic archiving of this talk page?

Any objections to setting up automatic archiving of this talk page by Miszabot? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not opposed, but only with a long time period (e.g. 4 weeks or possibly above). There is quite a bit of self-referencing to earlier sections here on the talk page. --Xeeron (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've set up automatic archiving with a period of 60 days. Contributors should feel free to create special named pages to archive particularly significant discussions (as I've done for the lengthy discussion on British nationality) and add them to the {{archive box}} template. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Honorific titles

Could the people responsible for formulating this policy please re-write this section? It is incomprehensible legalese. Something short and sweet like "In-line honorifics should only be used where it is customary to do so in the person's place of residence" would be best. If a simple rule can't be developed, then a table of when to use and when not to use honorifics, with examples would be better than the gibberish that currently exists. --Surturz (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comma before Jr., Sr., II, III?

This blog seems to suggest that for Jr. (and presumably thus also Sr.) it is okay either way, and for Roman numerals, no comma should be used. In any event, I think we ought to have a rule for where the article sits (and a redirect from where it doesn't). Cheers! bd2412 T 01:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this should depend on how the person himself usually sets out his name, if this can be reliably ascertained. I have never seen a comma being used before a Roman numeral. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Supposing we can't figure out how each person does it with their own name, shouldn't we have a default? bd2412 T 04:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The comma before Jr. (and others) is one that has disappeared in modern times. Both AP and Chicago style guides say do not precede with a comma. And that blog quote from Strunk and White is wrong -- probably from an old edition. Strunk and White actually reads: "Although Junior, with its abbreviation Jr., has commonly been regarded as parenthetic, logic suggests that it is, in fact restrictive and therefore not in need of a comma." (with the example James Wright Jr.) If you don't have S&W on our shelf, you can check out page three here. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My intention is not to champion one form or another, but to suggest that we should have a consistently applied rule - one which applies to article titles absent some specific reason to do otherwise. bd2412 T 16:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we do decide to choose a default, I guess it would be easier for the comma to be omitted. No point having editors insert extra punctuation marks if it can be avoided. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, pursuant to the above discussion, I would like to add to the project page:

The use of a comma before Jr. and Sr. has disappeared in modern times, and is rejected by both the Associated Press and Chicago Manual of Style. The use of a comma before a Roman numeral as part of a name (II, III, IV, etc.) has never been accepted. Neither article names nor headers should include a comma before a Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation, unless it can be demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers.

Any objections? bd2412 T 19:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Could that be simplified? Just state the rule, and put the justifications (i.e., use of a comma deprecated by AP and the Chicago Manual of Style) in a footnote. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. bd2412 T 16:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added the section, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Child named for parent or predecessor, but I am still a bit unsure. The very next section has Jr. after a comma as an example. Also, when is it appropriate to use "Sr." or "I" (e.g. Henry I? Does having a son named after you always get you a Sr.? bd2412 T 16:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine. I think the example in the next section is all right – perhaps that person prefers to use a comma. I think there's no hard and fast rule concerning the use of the suffix "Sr."; it depends on individual usage. I have to say that I haven't really seen much use of "I" in ordinary names, which should probably be distinguished from its use in royal titles (e.g., Henry I). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fashion model templates

See discussions on fashion model templates at Talk:Sports_Illustrated_Swimsuit_Issue#End_the_sexism_now_-_Swimsuit_Issue and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion#End_the_sexism_now_-_Magazine_templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternate spellings of names

How do you note an alternate spelling of a name? For example, Lyoto Carvalho Machida's first name is sometimes spelled "Ryoto" because it's Japanese and the language doesn't distinguish between R and L sounds. What would be the correct way to note this in the article? -Captain Crawdad (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Since a long explanation is required, I'd suggest that you either put the information in a footnote or a separate "Name" section. A footnote is probably better, since there may not be enough information to justify a whole section devoted to the subject. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't include an explanation in the article because I don't have any references to back it up. I just want to acknowledge both spellings in the header somehow. -Captain Crawdad (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm. What about indicating the alternative spelling in a footnote, and adding some citations that use this alternative spelling? The citations will not explain why there is an alternative spelling, but will at least evidence that it exists. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames

I just admonished, gently, an editor who is changing the lead sentence in many, many biographical articles to include the person's nickname in quotes — e.g., in the Joe Schmoe article he would change the leading Joseph P. Schmoe to Joseph P. "Joe" Schmoe. Besides being redundant of the title and, to me at least, rather jarring, it contradicts the MOS:BIO page. At least it does the way I read it, but I don't see it explicitly addressed. The example of using William Jefferson Clinton in the Bill Clinton article would argue against the usage I corrected, but nowhere does it explicitly say Do not use William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton in the intro to the Bill Clinton article. If I am correct, I think this should be expressly addressed in the project page. (If it is not correct, I have a lot of reverts to undo.) Thanks. --Kbh3^rdtalk 02:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Middle" names

I would like to ask about those names which have in the middle a "Van", "Di", "Della" etc, which are sometimes capitalized and sometimes not? Is it always the same - i.e., is one form always correct for a particular person, as with "Mc" and "Mac" in Scottish names? And if not, is there a Wikipedia policy about which to use? Robina Fox (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no hard and fast rules for the spelling of names. The use of "van" might be lowercase like Vincent van Gogh or capitalized like Dick Van Dike. Macdonald can be all lower case like John Sandfield Macdonald or capitalized like Jeanette MacDonald. In general, the rule is to spell and capitalize the name in the manner which the person did -- or in the manner by which they are most commonly identified in their work or biographies. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Usually these name elements are all lower case for people from the countries where the elements originate (e.g. "von" in Germany, "van" in the Netherlands and Belgium, "de" in France, etc). For usage in countries other than the originating country we have to be guided by the way in which the person actually spells/spelt their name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationality in first paragraph

See recent discussion at Talk:Michael Everson for an example of a difficulty with the guideline to put a subject's nationality in the opening paragraph. Essentially the problem here is that to discuss "the subject's nationality" is difficult when a person has more than one nationality. The MoS should take this into account. -- Evertype·✆ 16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bishops and Cardinals

Can anyone clarify the situation with cardinals and bishops? It seems there's very little consistency in how titles and honorifics are employed in the cases of senior clergy. For example Friedrich Wetter is never referred to as "Cardinal Friedrich Wetter" anywhere in the article (or indeed as the alternative "Friedrich Cardinal Wetter"). My reading of the relevant parts of MOS and naming conventions is that:
1. The names of articles should generally be in the format [first name] [surname] ("Vincent Nichols").
2. The space above the infobox is the only place that might legitimately include honorifics ("Most Rev. Vincent Gerard Nichols").
3. The opening sentence, as I understand it, may contain titles ("Sir", "Baron", "Prince"). Preumably the correct opening form would be "Archbishop Vincent Gerard Nichols" etc.
Is this correct? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 15:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally I think you are correct. However, the conventions are not 100% clear. Personally, I think I would include Cardinal in the first line, but not Archbishop. My preferred version would be:

• Cardinal Friedrich Wetter is a German Roman Catholic prelate who is Archbishop Emeritus of Munich.
• Vincent Gerard Nichols is an English Roman Catholic prelate. He is Archbishop of Birmingham and Archbishop-elect of Westminster.

I would only use the terms Archbishop and Bishop as pretitles if the individual only held that title as a rank and not an actual position. I wouldn't include honorifics such as "The Right Reverend". -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Despite what I've written above, I wasn't sure about the correctness of "Archbishop Vincent Gerard Nichols" and I now wonder if it sounds a little odd, in fact I'm not sure if "Bishop" is allowed as a name or form of address unless it is followed by "of" ("The Archbishop of Canterbury") - I presume that is why you reject it here? It would be nice if a consistent approach could be agreed and included in the manual of style. It's less of a problem with bishops who usually hold a position but with cardinals some clarity would be good, an agreed convention on when and how to use Cardinal in the opening line. There's also a very old discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Clergy) about whether the correct style of a cardinal is "Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor" or "Cardinal Cormac...", though it didn't result in much consensus. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the RC Church (although not the Anglican Church) sometimes confers the rank of bishop or archbishop on a senior Vatican official without making them a diocesan bishop. I may be wrong in that, but if I'm right I may add it to the beginning of their name to indicate ecclesiastical rank (Monsignor is another example). Yes, I remember that discussion. I think that despite archaic usage, "Cardinal" these days is invariably put before the first name when the cardinal is referred to using his full name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of whether the word cardinal should be included in the opening, as a title rather than an honorific, do you think it would be worth inserting something into the MOS? Regarding where the word cardinal goes, I still see it after the first name. I suspect there's an element of personal preference too, just as retired Anglican archbishops decide whether to style themselves Most Rev. or Right Rev. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 14:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

MOS:DERM

I am working on a manual of style for dermatology-related content, and am looking to create a list of suggested sections for biographies about dermatologists (see Category:Dermatologists for example articles). With that being stated, I wanted to know if someone from the biographies MoS would consider helping me? Anyone? ---kilbad (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC on name in lead section of Gene Robinson

Talk: Gene Robinson#RfC: Is adding Robinson's legal name of Vicky Gene instead of V. Gene appropriate for the lede of this BLP?

Your input is welcome. JamesMLane t c 05:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Burials

This is a brief suggestion for a style change regarding the language used to describe the internment of people's bodies. Comments are appreciated. (Crossposted at WT:EJ, WT:MOSB, WT:TTD, WT:EJ, and WT:WTA) -Stevertigo 21:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Headings

I have added the following line to the page: "Avoid section headings called "Biography", as the the reader should already know that the entire article is a biography of the person. Instead, use headings entitled "Life" or more specific ones such as "Early life" and "Career"." I hope this is self-explanatory, but it is obvious that the entire encyclopedia article about a person is a biography. There is no need to point out that only part of the article is the biography. Although it is to distinguish it from other sections, other titles would be better and more descriptive. Reywas92^Talk 22:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no real need for a heading "Life" either. Either it's a long biography which can be broke down into different sections, or it's a short one that doesn't need headings at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just come from a string of articles featuring just this stylistic. I'm for a section header "biography" or "Life" being redundant. Maybe because two years ago it was convention to have the sections ==Early life==, ==Career== (and whatever falls within that: various kinds of work, influences, conroversy, legacy, honours, etc) and ==Later years and death==, ==Personal life==. Since then there seems to be a "Time Magazine" effect on articles. I appreciate some headings even in smaller articles to save their stubbiness, but I'm finding articles (mostly of actors or musicians) with a main head ==Biography== and everything else is a subsection, are over-cooked, classification-wise. Recent example, Naomi Watts. A country doesn't have then a heading "Country" with everything subsectioned. Best, Julia Rossi (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree. Also a little irritating is the obsession some people have with adding headings even if the article is only a few sentences long. It's completely unnecessary and makes the article into effectively no more than a series of bullet points. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made many articles with a section "biography", and I see no reason to stop this: Biography - Bibliography - Awards - Notes- External links (e.g. François Craenhals. AndI'm not the only one doing this, e.g. the GA Hayley Westenra. It's clear and unambiguous. I have no objection to giving people the choice, if you prefer "Life" instead of "Biography" in your articles, why not?, but I see no reason at all to avoid the use of a "biography" section (as long as the life of the person is described in one section of course: when it is split, different descriptive titles are necessary). I understand the impulse to avoid "biography" on very short and on very long articles,but for the large group of articles inbetween, this section header should not be avoided at all. Fram (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Every article about a person is by definition a biography in its entirety. A biography section is therefore wholly unnecessary. It's likely to make up the vast majority of the article and therefore putting a biography header with subheaders encompassing most of the rest of the article simply makes it look weird in the extreme. The fact some others do it is not a reason to do it yourself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Then how would you handle e.g. the example François Craenhals? Fram (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a special case to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a special case, there are thousands of such mid-length biographies with multiple sections where only one is a true biography, and the others provide additional information. However, in your proposal, the first section should be renamed or should disappear completely into the lead, or what? Fram (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The latter. It's not long enough to be subdivided. I don't see the problem. You seem to be creating a problem out of nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not creating a problem out of nothing, the proposed change to this MoS creates a new problem where there was none before. WP:LEAD states "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" and "This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body: in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." A lead should also have max four paragraphs, and for a short article, maximum two: François Craenhals (a short article) has four, William Vance (also reasonably short) has five, Arcangelo Corelli has ten, while much longer articles with a biography section (Mateiu Caragiale, Grigore Cugler, Bono, Francis Bacon, Mervyn Peake... ) would not fit in this scheme either. I couldn't find any article with your proposed solution in my short check (all had either a biography ora life section, or many sections describing the life), and I don't believe that your solution fits with other policies and guidelines or with current accepted practice. Guidelines should not suddenly proscribe something which goes directly against current practice without a very good reason, and the semantic squabble that an article which is as such a biography should not have a specific biography section is not worth changing the guideline to contradict common practice. Fram (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So subdivide longer articles! Easy. It's not "current practice" to include a biography section at all. Some people do it, many more don't. I've written many biographical articles for Wikipedia. Not one of them has had a biography section. And to be honest, until fairly recently I could count the number of biographical articles I've seen that did have such a section on the fingers of one hand. It's still a clear minority. Hardly "current practice"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(deindent): I've looked at a number (not all) of Good Articles starting with an A: with biography section: Amon Tobin, Amanda Bynes, Anne Hathaway (actress), Auguste Rodin, Axl Rose; without: Amy Adams, Andrew Johnston (singer), Andrew Robinson (actor), André Morell, Andy Harries, Arthur Sullivan, Ashlee Simpson, Ashley Tisdale, Astrid Kirchherr, Astrid Peth. So even among the Good Articles, one in three has a section labelled "biography", and no one has failed it for that reason or raised considerable concern about it. It's hardly an exceptional occurrence, and depends largely on the article and the preference of the author(s). To impose one system above another, when the latter one is also often used, even in Good Articles, is not an improvement of the encyclopedia but instruction creep. Fram (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the use of a "Biography" section making sense:

• Where the article is short as in the example given François Craenhals it is a simple header that shows where the story of someone's life starts and finishes and is clearly more general than "Career", which doesn't actually fit here (and "Life" would seem a bit odd, as it must ultimately also include someone's death)
• In the longer article, like Hayley Westenra, you have a number of sections dealing with their life (and in general you might have "Birth", "Career" and "Death") and we use sections and subsections to group like elements (you might have "Works" with subsections for novels and another for screenplays, for example) and it also helps us flag the key section of an article about a person, separating it from the appendices (bibliography/filmography, references and links). This has important implications for things like accessibility (and the Semantic Web) as structure gives meaning and section headers are an important part of that [1]. Using a section like that allows us to flag the area of the article that is actually about the person's life so that things like browsers for the blind can identify where that specific information starts and ends.

So I see plenty of reasons to do this and the main argument against being that it isn't "current practice" when Fram's quite survey shows it is pretty widespread. Even those without an explicit Biography section are almost doing that by a different name: Andrew Johnston (singer) and Arthur Sullivan but have somehow made a distinction between "Life and history"/"History" and "Personal life" which doesn't really make much sense (especially drawing the distinction between life and history and perosnal life. They also use their own naming system Having a standard main heading like "Biography" would also help standardise a top level section rather than relying on idiosyncratic naming systems - flagging when the actual story of someone's life starts and ends.

So in summary, such a section is useful with small sections and provides consistency and meaning where you have a number of sections dealing with someone's life. The counter-argument seems to be we don't do it like that, when we clearly do. (Emperor (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

No, the counter-argument is that the entire article is a biography! In short articles there's no need for headers in any case. Some editors seem to have a mania about adding headers to all articles, no matter how short. They are not necessary in short articles. I am forever deleting headers in articles with about six sentences, which someone has insisted on dividing into several sections with about one sentence each. In longer articles, there should be headers dealing with each phase or aspect of a person's life, but there is no need to have a superheader of "Biography". In what way is that necessary? And what is the mania with having "standard" headers? It is perfectly natural for headers to vary according to what people did in their lives. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of the examples given or this whole discussion is about stubs that are so short they don't need sections. We are discussing mid-length articles (from Start class up to GA class, mainly), where there are always sections, and which discuss the actual life of the person in one section, and his or her work in another. I don't think a section called "biography" should be mandatory, far from it, so your argument that headers may vary is perfectly allright, but then you shouldn't try to impose your standard that they may vary, as long as they are not called "biography". Because your argument is fundamentally flawed: the entire article is often not a biography, the biography is part of it, just like the bibliography or discography is. Look e.g. at what Allmusic does: they have a section for an artist (comparable to our article), with subsections (comparable to our sections) called overview (lead), biography, discography, songs, credits, and charts & awards.[2] This is nearly exactly the same as we do. IMDb as well: the overview contains a date of bith and death, a mini biography, and a filmography.[3]. Fram (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm against the "Biography" heading for developed articles. The François Craenhals article is okay by me, because at present, that's an undeveloped article, in which all the biographical material falls under one section anyway. But for longer articles, "Biography" is redundant. None of the ones Fram mentions, for example, look good. Why should, for example, Amanda Bynes' article be subdived this way? If those four sections are so disparate in their focus, then why isn't that sufficient for them to be their own sections? "Early life" can be one, "As a designer" can be grouped under Career, since last time I checked, being a designer is a career, and Personal life can be its own section. Putting all of that under "Biography" is redundant, since the entire articles is a biography. It's why those are referred to as Biographies of Living Persons. The "Biography" section is also arbitrary and meaningless, because it implies that what Awards she won, for example, or the films comprising her Filmography, are not a part of her "biography", which makes no sense. How are Amon Tobin's "Live performances" not part of his biography? Why are Auguste Rodin's "Later years" not a part of his Biography? For that matter, why is "Aesthetic" given as a Level 1 section in between "Biography" and "Later years"? These are good articles? Doesn't look like it. Andrew Robinson? His article has no "Biography" section, nor did it at the time of Fran's post above on February 24. Sections and subsections should denote disparate areas, IMO, and there should not be one Level 1 heading used for so much of one article. Such large sections need to be better balanced throughout the article, based on their content. As for imdb, imdb is not only not considered a reliable source, it's not an encyclopedia, nor are its bio pages proper "articles". The size of its bio pages are a poor model for Wikipedia. Nightscream (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

---

I would like to add this back in. There is no reason why articles about people should have a Biography header when the entire article is a biography. Obviously some exceptions are acceptable, namely when the article is too short for many headers but too long for none, but there are much better alternatives. Even if the sections aren't huge, I'd rather see Personal Life and Career. Or perhaps Early Life and Later Life. Or simply a Life header to separate it from others; that is actually more specific than Biography. What I hate the most is when there is lead followed by Biography with many subsections, and then nothing else, just refs/external links. It is stupid to put the entire article under a single header. There are examples given above of GAs that have biography sections. This means absolutely nothing; I feel that most of them should not have that header. Being GA simply means that one reviewer finds the article high quality - it does not make it perfect. Reywas92^Talk 16:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Change of name and birth name

I notice that there is no policy about this. Say a living person had a birth name John Quincy Adams (before, say, any notability) but for personal reasons changed his name to Quincy Smith. A lot of times when a name change is made the "old" name is not very welcome to the person for a variety of reasons, like privacy, or not wanting to have to talk about the change or whatever. What is the Wikipedia policy on this? Quincy Smith (né John Quincy Adams) would be formally correct, but might be offensive to the living person, if for instance the birth name had hurtful associations or something. I'm not sure how to phrase this question. Aye-Aye (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I found this. Aye-Aye (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Try looking at Jack Benny for a name change. If the original name can be sourced properly, there is no reason not to include it. Collect (talk) 15

35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the participants in the discussion at Talk:Gene Robinson referenced by Aye-Aye. Anyone looking at it should note that the current state of the article is manifestly not in keeping with the results of the RfC. I may return to try to fix it, but frankly, I just got tired of dealing with people who were determined to keep the bio subject's real first name (Vicki) out of the first sentence, because they considered it embarrassing. Some sources state that Robinson changed his name, but best information now appears to be that he didn't. He's like Thomas Woodrow Wilson, who never changed his name but who used his middle name. JamesMLane t c 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

At least it isn't David Dwight Eisenhower which is a lot more confusing than TWW. Collect (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Order of categories

Is there any guidance on the order in which categories should appear, please? I think birth and death year should appear first and then others, ideally in alphabetical order, but I notice some editors are moving the lifetime template to the end so the years appear there.--Cavrdg (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have found zero consistency in such. "Vaguely alphabetical" seems favoured, but not always exactly followed. Others place similar categories together -- such as all the education ones together for a person. I suggest it is not very important. Collect (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Sir" for hereditary title

In Fascism, one editor insists that no titles hould be used for anyone, and cites "Mr." as an example. I noted the distinction here between hereditary and honourary titles, but he says if it is not obvious that a title is hereditary, that it should not be used. Oswald Mosely was 6th baronet Mosely, and I suggest that being "6th" suggests the title is, in fact, hereditary. Any opinions will be welcomed on the Talk:Fascsim page, topic "use of "Sir". Many thanks! Collect (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Honorary does not mean non-hereditary. Honorary titles are bestowed on foreign subjects who have no allegiance to the monarch, and therefore do not elevate the persons' status. Typically honorary titles may not be used in a person's native country. Examples include Bob Geldoff and Colin Powell.

My reading of the MOS is that titles should appear at the beginning of subjects' biographies, but should not be used for repeated references to them or where their names appear in other articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

US law concerning citizen's use of foreign titles is paramount for Colin Powell etc. The person in question was, in fact, a UK subject, and Baronet. The "Honours List" moreover in the UK happens to deal with ... "Honours" of all things. The title should appear at the first usage of a person;s name in any article, which is what the manuals of style pretty uniformly say. The NYT, for example, uses titles for the first use of a name in virtually all cases. The issue of "honorary titles" has absolutely nothing to do with the case raised/ Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Colin Powell is not in fact a "UK subject". Anyway WP is read by people both inside and outside the US. I suppose the UK and Commonwealth are more democratic than you claim the NYT is and treat all titles equally. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As I made it clear that "US law" is what applies to Colin Powell, I doubt that anyone could claim I called him a UK subject <g>. The (London) Times uses the same style by the way -- so your feeling that the UK is "more egalitarian" is not borne out. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can gain support for the view that WP should show a respect for British baronets that it does not afford American presidents and senators, then I welcome the discussion. Perhaps you could start some sort of RfC about this. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Straw argument. US newspapers use the titles, and the "egalitarian" argument therefore fails. Your assertion that some knights outrank baronets has been shown to be straw -- the orders you named (one of which is defunct) have only a hlf dozen or so members who bear no other titles. Now if the WP MoS says something, the NYT MoS agrees, and you disagree, the weight goes to the established manuals of style. Meanwhile, it was George Washington who set the American practice of "Mr. President." Collect (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The WP MoS does not say this, that is merely an inference. As for following a newspaper's MoS, please note that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The proposal is not practical anyway. Few people have access to lists of knights and baronets and have little understanding of the British honors system anyway. I note that someone has been quick to update Christopher Lee's biography, but it would be difficult to now edit the countless articles in which his name is mentioned. However all one has to do is click on the piped links to learn about his knighthood. Incidentally the UK newspapers that use titles continue to use them throughout. Following that style, we would refer to "Sir Christopher Lee" when his name is first mentioned in any article and Sir Christopher on following occasions. Any article discussing past British politics would be very confusing as many politicians later are elevated to the Lords or receive knighthoods. Perhaps Washington was right to eschew titles and we should follow his lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Birth name in case of transsexuality

WP:MOSBIO#Names seems to be widely supported practice, as far as listing alternative names (birth names, pseudonyms, and so on). Some editors have suggested that following this practice on biographies of transsexual persons violates the biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policy, while others seem to feel that listing alternative names is encyclopedic practice. Is a more nuanced approach called for, in this sort of case? This recently came up at Talk:Caroline Cossey#Birth name (where Talk:Calpernia Addams has also been mentioned, if there's pertinent discussion there). I realize there is probably not a "silver bullet" solution to answer all questions, here, but a general guideline might not be a bad idea. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'd imagine there are enough WP:N articles out there in this general area, that a little bit of guideline might be a good idea. — Ched :  ?  21:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There's already an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies‎ - can we shift this conversation there, so we don't wind up having it in three places? Rebecca (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I am surprised this is not dealt with in any detail already - and I agree that the discussion needs to be on LGBT studies project - but I think we need to bring the outcome of that discussion back here and move to have a coherent policy and guideline established that can be referred to in the event of future disputes. Mish (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• link — Ched :  ?  17:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo size

Do we have a recommended size for the lead photo on a biographic encyclopedia entry?

I generally do 200px (presumably because this was the average size when I first started editing), but lately I've been noticing that a lot of articles do 300px, which strikes me as ridiculously huge, though maybe that's just my browser settings.

Anyhow, is there a policy on this somewhere? And, if not, should there be?

Adam_sk (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The general rule is that a forced size should not be used for images, including lead photographs: see "MOS:IMAGES" (which does list some exceptions to the rule). If the lead photograph is in portrait format (its height is greater than its length), use the "upright" parameter so that the width of the image is reduced. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Post-nominal initials

According to my copy of Collins English Gem Dictionary (1987, ISBN 0004583299), the following order applies to the initials after the name:

Orders, decorations, degrees, qualifications, letters denoting professions appear in that order. Degrees start with the lowest but orders start with the highest.

I was looking at this because I wondered what order to use in one article. Should we add this to the guidelines? I like this adivice because it isn't too specific, but covers most situations. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, where it would be appropriate to list all the post-nominals. I think current consensus is to avoid having them in the lead. -- œ^™ 22:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in particular we do not list people's degrees, qualifications and letters denoting professions: see "WP:CREDENTIAL". However, orders and decorations are acceptable: see WP:INITIAL. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

interpretation clarification

• copied from WT:BLP#interpretation clarification

With regards to a BLP, if a reliable source describes the subject as a "native" and a "local" of a given town, is that sufficient to interpret that the subject is also of the nationality of the town? I.e. if I were described by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as a "native" and "local" to Seattle, does it follow (for the purposes of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on sourcing & BLP categorization) that I am therefore an American? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The OED defines native as, among other things, "[a] person born in a specified place, region, or country, whether subsequently resident there or not" and "[a] person resident in a particular place or locale; a citizen". Local is defined as "[a] person who is attached by his occupation, function, etc. to some particular place or district; an inhabitant of a particular locality". If one wants to be strict about it, describing a person as a "native" or "local" of a certain place doesn't really conclusively say anything about his or her nationality. One can be a "native of Seattle", having been born and bred there, but hold French citizenship. Similarly, a person "local to Seattle", having lived and worked there for many years, may have been born in China and be a Chinese national. But I am inclined to think that it is not unreasonable to assume that a person is a national of a particular country if he or she was born there and has lived and worked for significant periods there. If there is some contrary evidence – for instance, the person has been living abroad for a long time, or his or her parents are not from the country in question – then it may be safer to say the person is "Seattle-born" or "based in Seattle" and avoid mentioning anything about nationality until more facts are known. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My take would sort of mirror above unless there is some dispute. If nationality is disputed with edit war or fact tag or whatever(as pointed out above), then I would insist on have a reliable source determine nationality rather than going with "native" or "local" or "whatever" and just assuming their nationality based on that. It should be clearly stated that Joe Blow is an XYZer, ect by a RS. If there is NO dispute and Joe Blow is a "native" XYZer, then you can probably go with that. Just my take. Was there a perticular bio that could use more eyes? Anyways, good luck, --Tom (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

MOSBIO eyes needed in MOSNUM discussion ...

could experienced MOSBIO editors have a look at this discussion, please? thank you kindly ... Sssoul (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Soviet nationals

Is there similar advice for people born in the Soviet Union (or late Russian Empire inhabitants who became Soviet citizens), as exists for the United Kingdom? Many of the same problems exist with Soviet constituent republics as for UK constituent countries. TheGrappler (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Born into an X family" ethnicity insertion

Returning to the perennial question of pointing out non-notable ethnicity in biographies: I've been coming across a growing insistence that if the subject isn't described as a particular ethnicity in the lede, then in a following paragraph the individual is noted as being "born into an [insert ethnicity] family." This appears to be particularly in vogue with Jewish biographies, although it can be found with many others. The language makes it sounds as though there is something unique or unusual about being born to such parentage.

I came across this in the bio for the recently deceased deejay Adam Goldstein -- where the original impetus from anonymous editors was to insert language that he was a "JEW" (from the pre-factored talk page). In the case of Goldstein, there's nothing to indicate that he was notable as a Jewish deejay, and no article which suggests he had a particular affinity or interest in his Jewish heritage. The same criteria should be applied to inclusion of familial ethnicity as it would be to an individual's: it's only notable to mention due to some particular connection, identification or controversy the family has to that ethnicity. It's appropriate to point out Jewish heritage for example, on Benjamin Disraeli and Matisyahu, but unnecessary for Goldstein or any number of other individuals for whom Judaism was not a defining characteristic.

Just as it's considered inappropriate to emphasize ethnicity in the bio lede, "born to an X family" is unnecessary and problematic. It should be clear enough to have such information in the bio-box and in the categorization. --HidariMigi (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Example in guideline misleading

In WP:SURNAME, Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester is given as an example for the usage of names before elevation to the peerage. In his case "Robert Dudley", or "Dudley" is prescribed. Now that is strictly speaking incorrect, as he was a duke's son and universally known as "(the) Lord Robert" by contemporaries (even while being a prisoner in the Tower; foreign ambassadors called him Milord Roberto); he is often called "Lord Robert Dudley" by historians. I understand the point of the guideline, but this case is more like Lady Antonia Fraser; perhaps a less problematic example would do better in the guideline? As it stands, it is wrong, unless it is explained that he was called Lord Robert (Dudley) and why this is not o.k. in Wikipedia. Buchraeumer (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I've found a better example for the guideline's purposes: John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, who was John Churchill, and then, Earl of Marlborough before he became a duke. An easy case. Buchraeumer (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames in boldtitles

At Danny Drinkwater (and hundreds of other articles, but this is one that is causing problems at the moment), the article's boldtitle reads:

Daniel Noel "Danny" Drinkwater

However, User:JRRobinson has changed the boldtitle to read:

Daniel Noel "Danny" Drinkwater

so that the inverted commas that surround the subject's nickname are bolded along with the rest of his name. Some time ago, on another article, I was led to believe that the inverted commas should not be bolded as they are not part of the subject's name, and so it is a practice that I have kept up. User:JRRobinson has suggested to me that this is "complete nonsense", but I just thought I'd bring the discussion here for some clarification on the issue. – PeeJay 21:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it looks better bolded.. speaking purely from an aesthetics standpoint, others may see it oppositely. And it's easier to type out, the less redundant apostrophes in the edit text the better. -- œ^™ 04:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of academic titles an degrees in infoboxes

According to WP:CREDENTIAL (part of WP:MOSBIO):

Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name.

Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name.

Does this also apply for infoboxes? WP:MOSBIO does apply for the whole article (and infoboxes are part of the article) unless specified. What are the guideline for this kind of situations? See for example the infobox of Michaëlle Jean, which has a vast list of all sort of honorary degrees. Strictly taken, does it follows her name and should it be therefore omitted from the infobox? What are the guidlines for this kind of situations? Demophon (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The stipulation regarding titles doesn't apply; post-nomnial letters are not titles. The second tenet, however, is rather vague. If WP:INITIAL's instruction that "post-nominal letters... issued by other entities may be mentioned in the article, but generally should be omitted from the lead," is to be read in conjunction with WP:CREDENTIAL, the academic post-noms are permissable in the infobox as it doesn't constitute a part of the lead. At least, that's been my interpretation for some time now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree. WP:CREDENTIAL says: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. ... Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name." Since infoboxes are part of articles, I think that WP:CREDENTIAL applies to them as well. In any case, many infoboxes have an |alma mater= or |education= parameter that you can use to display information about educational qualifications. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you read the sentence from WP:CREDENTIAL that pertains to post-nominal letters as saying that those of an academic nature are banned outright from following persons' names? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead section and nationality/citizenship

It has been my understanding that for people who repatriated before they became famous, that neither their ethnicity, religion, or countries in which they were born or in which they resided before becoming famous should be listed in the lead due to the fact that this attracts edit warring. (Unless of course these things are significant in some major way for the subject). However, while the description of the lead certainly gives this spirit, one particular editor seems to believe that because the description does not specifically exclude the inclusion of such irrelevant material in the lead, that it's okay, even though it leads to disputes about whether to include it and whether to use e.g. Russian-born rather than Russian American. Typically sources can be found which will support either and the latter has the advantage of being an informative link. Rather than encourage this sort of dispute, which can get quite "patriotic" if national borders have changed since the subject's birth, I believe we should revise the description of the lead to specifically exclude the inclusion of this unnecessary information. (Of course, if the subject repatriates after becoming famous, that would be a different matter). If having the place of birth near the top of the article is considered important, we should rely on infoboxes and not put xxx-born in the first sentence. Yworo (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO, User:Yworo's unilateral decisions to delete any mention of where a person was born from the lead is erroneous and lacks support. Hence, the user initiated an edit war based on their own opinions. MOS should not be changed based on someone's personal opinions. Previous discussions about this are on Talk:Al_Jolson#American_or_Russian-American?.

There is an implication that calling someone a "Russian-American" would suggest dual citizenship, which may not always be the case, especially where the person was brought to the U.S. as a young child. Hence, describing a person as a "Russian-born American" is a logical statement which does not imply dual citizenship. Another example, besides Isaac Asimov, before User:Yworo changed it, is Joseph Conrad, who is shown as a "Polish-born British novelist," since he became famous while living in England, and where he became a citizen. However, Yworo is unilaterally declaring a new rule, whereby it is unacceptable to give a person's country of birth in the lead. One does not unilaterally make rules for the Wiki MOS without clear and substantial justification and/or consensus. My last attempt to ask Yworo to stop their edit warring on their talk page was immediately deleted. Until such time as this important issue is resolved, his earlier removals of numerous notable Americans' foreign countries of birth, should be restored, and the 3-revert rule should be waived as the user is now attempting to shield his edits behind it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Wikiwatcher1's characterization of this dispute. Hyphenated terms do not imply dual citizenship in any case, they refer to either previous nationality or ethnic background. Really unless the birthplace is somehow significant to the subject, there is no reason to mention in in the first sentence. I must credit you with discussing the issue, but you somehow seem to assume that you are right and I am wrong, and don't seem to have the patience to wait for other editors to weigh in, immediately reverting me and deliberately precipitating an edit war, despite being warned about 3RR. There is no hurry! Yworo (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. there is not real reason to override 3RR. If other editors agree with you, they will support you. If they agree with me, they will support me. If they see a third path, they will make a change. Again, if you simply had paitience and would wait for other editors rather than immediately reverting me, you'd see what other editors think, even if it takes a day or two. Yworo (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

PPS. Feel free to follow the dispute resolution process and request a third opinion or a request for comment instead of repeatedly reverting me. I've tried several different solutions and have even cited the use of the hyphenated terms for the particular subject in biographical works, but you simply revert to your preferred way every time, pausing only to tell me I'm wrong instead of engaging in real discussion. Yworo (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As you admit, your new rule, "unless the birthplace is somehow significant to the subject, there is no reason to mention in in the first sentence" should not dictate the MOS and affect a number of bios before consensus and discussion. Hence, I will restore to the description before your edits where such places of birth were removed, pending such final outcome. I assume this is an acceptable step in that the earlier lead descriptions had existed uncontested for many months. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If in doing so you violate WP:3RR, I will report it. There is no need to prefer either way. In my opinion, the MOS already prohibits mention of nationalities other than those held when the subject became famous. You are simply misreading it and not understanding the reason for mentioning only the nationality(s) associated with their fame. I don't consider it a new rule, only a clarification of the existing rule. Yworo (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Yworo here - that MOSBIO pretty much already implies that foreign birthplaces shouldn't be included, and that this policy should be stated explicitly in the MOS. The example you guys are tussling over, Al Jolson, seems pretty clear-cut to me - Jolson immigrated to the U.S. when he was eight or nine (and he was not a child actor), so just "American" should be what's in the intro. All Hallow's (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Foreign country of birth in the lead?

(Outdent) All Hallow, since Yworo is taking your opinion as consensus, and has once again deleted birth-places from the lead, I'll add a few more points: There seem to be two separate issues here that have been bundled together and shouldn't be. First, whether someone like Al Jolson is properly called an American or a Russian-American. It looks like everyone agrees that "American" is the correct term based on the MOSBIO.

The second issue is whether, under any circumstance, the lead should have a person's birthplace. This is indirectly related to his nationality, but is still a separate issue. I can find nowhere, except User:Yworo's preference for creating this rule, that supports this. In fact, your saying "American should be in the intro." does not deal with this question.

But there are plenty of examples that include birthplaces to the bios of famous people when they are "foreign born." The following references all use the style of "Russian-born American" description in the opening line of bios.

• American Heritage Dictionary
• Columbia Encyclopedia
• Encyclopedia of World Biography
• International Who's Who
• Macmillan Desk Reference
• NY Times Encyclopedia Almanac
• Encyclopedia Brittanica Almanac

I propose adding a special line to the MOSBIO for the Introduction using these with cites to indicate that it is customary to "describe a famous person who was foreign born with their country of birth alongside their nationality, i.e. "Russian-born American." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Encyclopedia Brittanica article on Al Jolson that I could find describes him as a "popular U.S. singer", rather than "Russian-born U.S. singer" (it lists "born May 26, 1886, Srednike, Russia - died Oct. 23, 1950, San Francisco" in a separate notation outside of the context of biographical text, and nowhere else). This entry at the Encyclopedia of World Biography doesn't describe his nationality in the intro at all. The write-up from the Columbia Encyclopedia describes him as an "American entertainer" before going on with biographical data. I think clearly, there's no real concensus in the "encyclopedic world" about this. Aside from that, we're not other encyclopedias. We have a different format and standard than all of them (i.e. our infoboxes, for starters). We kind of do "our own thing", and the standard we use in this case should reflect our consensus on the matter, whatever that may be. All Hallow's (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

When I scanned the above references I didn't pick any one person but wanted to see their general format for intros. For instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac] or The Cambridge guide to American theatre. It only took a few minutes to see that the format was very common. As for Wiki's standards, it would seem that until some reasonable consensus and discussion was undetaken, that letting anyone make their own "rules" (not simple edits) is a recipe for edit warring. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, so a discussion and reasonable consensus should indeed be undertaken. Like I said, I fall on the side of not including foreign birthplace, because it really isn't relevant in most cases. Jolson's is a pretty clear-cut one - likely nothing about his career and notable works would be different had his parents immigrated nine years before they did, and he was born in the U.S. instead of Russia. If he spent significant time in Russia and that time is written about in a couple of paragraphs in the article itself, then that fact can simply be summarized in the header in a different way (i.e. "Al Jolson (???? - ????) was an American entertainer. Born in Russia and raised in New York City, he began working as...", etc.) All Hallow's (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

i don't think any "one size fits all" type solution will be adequate to deal with this - there are times when the country of birth is relevant and times when it isn't; and when it's "relevant enough" to be mentioned in the lead varies. it needs to be sorted out on an individual basis, by the editors of the idividual articles - not through edit-warring, but not by introducing blanket MoS rulings either. Sssoul (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that the country of birth should be in the header when it's relevant. The discussion seems to be about including it, or not including it, when it's not relevant. All Hallow's (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) yes, i follow that. what i'm saying is: if the argument between Yworo and Wikiwatcher1 is whether the country of birth is "relevant enough" to mention in the lead of some particular article, proposing "one size fits all" MoS rules isn't a good way to resolve that. i oppose Wikiwatcher1's proposal above (that it's "customary" to mention the country of birth in the lead in articles about foreign-born subjects), just as i would oppose any (hypothetical) rule that would prohibit ever mentioning the country of birth in the lead. meanwhile, if the Asimov example in the "Academic titles" section is a point of contention, i suggest using someone else's bio to illustrate the point about titles. Sssoul (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not proposing there be a hard and fast rule, but something should be said and I have added a statement about it. However, I am happy to discuss the exact wording, so please no reverting, let's work it out here and I will modify when we've achieved a consensus wording. I am certainly not opposed to the mentioning of place of birth or other nationalities in the case that some significant biographical event took place there. Though not necessarily in the first sentence! Yworo (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

adding something like what it says under "ethnicity" seems appropriate: "Previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Sssoul (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that is better than what I've done and will change it to your suggestion. Yworo (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, instead of Isaac Asimov, maybe we can use Bob Hope, "a British-born American comedian," as an alternative example, since he also immigrated here when 5-years-old and there seems to be no mention that he started performing or doing stand-up comedy before that time, making his birthplace similarly irrelevent to his notability. There's also Zbigniew Brzezinski, a "Polish-born American political scientist," who also immigrated as a child with no mention in the article that he had been thinking about global affairs, or even playing chess, before that time. In case those two examples aren't enough, you can add Mario Andretti, an "Italian-born American automobile racing driver" who immigrated as a child with no indication that he played with toy cars before that time, although it's possible, but not cited, that his parents drove him around in a real one and inspired his love of fast driving. In any case there seems to be no shortage of notable Americans who immigrated as children and way before they became notable in their fields, all of which have their country of birth in the first paragraph or line of the lead. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Just becuase their articles currently make that mistake (?), doesn't mean the MOS should reflect it, instead of help change it. I still have to fight off people who revert ethnicity back into the header (i.e. see Talisa Soto recently). All Hallow's (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There was once a rule...

... about not inserting birthplace in the lead parenthesis, like this: "John Johnson (born 1 January 2000 in Johnsville)" <--my emphasis. Is this rule no more? I can't find it. Geschichte (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's not so much said than implied. WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph, for example, does not list birth place as a piece of information to be included for biographical articles. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I still think it used to be explicitly stated though. Geschichte (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It used to say explicitly, as one of the bullet points at WP:MOSNUM#Dates of birth and death, that "Locations of birth and death are given subsequently rather than being entangled with the dates". This was removed quite recently following this discussion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So it seems the position is now that editors can either insert birth and death places in the lead parenthesis or choose not to; neither style is more "correct" than the other, and editors should not change one format to another without a good reason. I wish PMAnderson's advice in the debate had been followed: "Leave this, as often, to the judgment of the writers of the article; and state our reasons in text so we don't have to go through this again. That's what guidelines are for." Perhaps some suitable wording should be added to WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph noting the consensus on the matter? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be pretty confusing to say it can be done either this way or that, potentially leading to a lot of needless edit wars. I think a clear, across-the-board rule (or guideline) is better. Since most articles now lean towards excluding the birthplace from header, that's the side I'd come down on. All Hallow's (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. I think that is not consistent with the discussion. (To clarify, I'm reacting (hopefully without ruffling any feathers) to AHW's good-faith edit today removing the birthplace from a lead on the basis that "(rmv birthplace ... from header per WP:MOSBIO....)". That language was deleted because it no longer reflected consensus. When you say that most articles lean a certain way now -- well sure, that is because there used to be rule that required as much. That's not I would suggest indicia of the way to lean at all, given that that rule has been changed as no longer reflecting consensus (if anything, that militates in favor of the opposite approach). That would be like locking people up post-Prohibition for selling alcohol because the prior week during Prohibition it was illegal. Make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Honorific prefixes

As I write this, item 3 from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes begins:

3. Styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty, including but not limited to His Holiness and Her Majesty, should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper. Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy).

This is followed by the inconsistent part:

In the cases of certain historic persons, an honorific is so commonly attached to their names that it should be included. For example, the honorific should be included for "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin), the 1930s priest and broadcaster; Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian.

The parts stricken out are examples that do not correspond/comport with current practice: the "Father Couglin" article is named Charles Coughlin and the "Father Joseph article is named François Leclerc du Tremblay.

What about these examples?

• Should it be Mother Abagail or Abagail Freemantle?
• Should it be Mother Basilea or Basilea Schlink?
• Should it be Mother Antonia or Mary Clarke?
• Should it be Mother Cabrini or Frances Xavier Cabrini?
• Should it be Mother Delille or Henriette DeLille?
• Should it be Mother Eugenia Elisabetta Ravasio or ...
• Should it be Mother Frances Mary Teresa Ball or ...
• Should it be Mother Irini or ...

• Should it be Father Albert or George Albert Hammes?
• Should it be Father Fidel Maíz or ...
• Should it be Father Hendricks or ...
• Should it be Father James Devlin or ...
• Should it be Father Joe Maier or ...
• Should it be Father John B. DeValles or ...
• Should it be Father Kenneth A. Bray or Kenneth A. Bray?

For those listed above with two links, you'll find the answer isn't always the same. All of these examples suggest either that the MOS need to be updated or these articles need to be renamed. Thanks. 72.244.207.68 (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

Including the names of minor children in a living person biography

What is the policy/MOS on this? I am reviewing an article on Dan Povenmire for Featured Article status. The editor has listed two very young children of the subject, including birthdays and names, and it seems to me that this is potentially problematic. They themselves are not notable, although the subject may have named a character after one of his daughters. Would someone, such as a project coordinator, weigh in on this at the review? Soon, please? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

At lot of discussion about this over in WP:BLPNAME. Rather than repeat that content here, please refer to that policy. patsw (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is exactly what I needed.  :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Common name, birth name and post-nominal initials

I noticed an editor making a excellent job of cleaning up bios to conform with the MOS. In one case Mark Evaloarjuk, I notice that the style guide does not give any information as to the correct format. Is the current opening correct, with the exception that "nee" should be "ne", or should it be '''Mark Evaloarjuk''' (né '''Evaluarjuk'''), [[Order of Canada|CM]] (died [[July 3]], [[2002]] By the way would it be possible to rewrite Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Maiden names so that it applied to both women and men? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 07:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)