Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Proposal to import a line-item from WP:JUDAISMSTYLE into MOS:BIO

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

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

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

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

I've thought for years it's absurd that we go on at such length about never using "PBUH" while completely ignoring the much more common NPOV issue of "Jesus Christ". To be clear for anyone unfamiliar, this isn't just a technical etymological "gotcha". Many Jews—and, I assume, many other kinds of non-Christian person—actively avoid using the word "Christ" to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, because it is an explicit statement of faith, even if some non-Christians do use it without meaning that due to cultural osmosis. I didn't know there was guidance on this in WikiProject Judaism's style guide, but now that you've raised this, yes, I definitely strongly support adding this to MOS:HONORIFIC, although it probably can be pared down a bit. I would suggest just

Jesus should not be referred to in Wikipedia's own voice as Christ or Jesus Christ; the word Christ is an honorific title ('The Anointed') which expresses the belief that Jesus is the messiah. Acceptable names include Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, and, in Muslim contexts, Isa.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

End jokes.

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

MOS:POSTNOM

The removal of postnoms from the lead under these new guidelines has started to create some problems. While I am not opposed to this in principle, I am opposed to the removal of information. Some editors are "enforcing" these new guidelines by removing postnoms (often on dozens of articles at a time) where there is no infobox showing them. If there is no infobox then the postnoms should remain in the first line until an infobox is added. It doesn't matter if the honours are included in the body of the article - it is extremely useful to have an indication of what the person's correct style is at the top of an article where it can be seen at a glance. This problem is compounded by the sniffiness of some Wikipedia editors about infoboxes, especially those involved in projects relating to cultural figures. An example of this can be seen on the article for Michael Hordern, where his CBE has been removed from the first sentence but an editor is resisting the addition of an infobox (and, indeed, deleting one that has been added) showing his CBE. Postnominals are important in the UK and other Commonwealth countries and removing useful information like this is not helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think the changes have been thought through very well, to be honest. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

+1. In Commonwealth countries, every publication includes a person's post-nominals like KBE, AO, at first mention. It's defining, and having to include a clumsy phrase in the lead to convey that information is a backwards step: it leads to more clutter and verbiage, not less. This should be discussed again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Michael Bednarek. In Commonwealth countries, the post-nominals are defining; we should not be losing information from articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see what purpose removing the information achieves assuming it is sourced properly. Post-nominals take up little space and putting them after the name is an easy way to naturally introduce them into an article. Mass removal of content based on a MOS guideline shouldn't happen as the MOS is only a guideline.

Although if it is being removed because it is unsourced that is a different matter. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I would support reversing the previous decision about removing these from the lead sentence - that seems a reasonable place for them to be. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Same, though in the opposite direction we need to undo WP:ROYALTY and WP:NOBILTY's usurpation of infobox fields for pre-nominal titles and for names, to instead hold salultations and peerage/nobility titles, respectively. It's just unbearably bad. See Margaret Thatcher for typical example.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that some post noms should be in the lede, and also agree that not all need to be in the infobox. GiantSnowman 08:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

See also #Formatting post-nominals examples, above, for related recent discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a poorly thought-through decision which should be reversed. I suggest anyone interested read the thread Stanton linked above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't agree more with all of the points made by Necrothesp and Michael Bednarek. Paora (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I am opposed to the removal of postnoms from their normal position after people's names. Some screenreaders cannot read infoboxes, so putting the postnom there instead is no solution. DrThneed (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with everyone. Particularly in Canada (and the UK along with the other Commonwealth countries), post-nominal letters are very important and heavily used. Post-nominals letters should not be removed from the lead at all, and I don't believe any of the changes impacting this policy were necessary or justified. There's no reason to be losing this information, and it seems like this was not thought through well at all. – Handoto (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Finally some common-sense, the previous decision was ill-conceived and should be reverted as soon as possible. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I totally agree. I came across this issue only just now when checking an Australian article and finding the post-nominals missing from the opening sentence - still in the infobox, but not blue-linked; mentioned in full in the "Awards and honours" section, but just as one item, also not blue-linked, in a list of 11 (including major academic and business awards, as well as having a genus, a mineral, and a main-belt asteroid named after him!) My immediate reaction was to revert the deletion, before following the thread back to the RfC and this discussion. IMHO the RfC outcome was a poor decision, and needs to be reversed. Bahudhara (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

No objection to amending MOS:POSTNOM. If there's no infobox? than postnoms should be in lead. Gotta show'em somewhere. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Everything in the infobox should be a summary of material in the article itself. Putting it only in the infobox is inadequate. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier by another editor. The infobox at Margaret Thatcher concerning postnoms, is overkill. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• What do other encyclopedias do? Britannica and ODNB avoid post-nominals. The Canadian Encyclopedia uses them, but only for Canadian orders, so British and foreign orders are not shown, e.g. compare https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sir-john-alexander-macdonald and https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/brian-mulroney. Most, if not all, encyclopedias either avoid or restrict them. We should do the same. Post-noms are not shown in comparable works. Long strings of letters after a person's name are intrusive and interruptive. Honours are not usually the primary reason for a person's notability and so should not be the first thing to be mentioned about them (though there are exceptions). For people before the modern age, post-noms are anachronistic. Post-nominals associated with foreign orders awarded to non-citizens are not used in that person's country of citizenship. DrKay (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The people objecting here to the outcome of that RfC have made it clear that some post-nominals in some countries are widely used in the press and other publications and almost never omitted from the subject's first mention. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

They have made that claim, but I know from my own experience that such claims are dubious. In practice, strings of post-nominals are not used in the Commonwealth press. DrKay (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. To add, I think moving post-nominals from the lede to the body ruins the flow of the text and is out place. The RfC about exclusion of post-nominals from the lede in my view presents a rather fastidious case of instructions WP:CREEP SigillumVert (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree. I have removed postnoms from the lead of several articles, but kept them in the infobox – or moved them there if they were missing there. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Best to stick with not having the postnoms in the lead. Respect the RFC results. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with DrKay's comment. Post-nominals are fine in infoboxes, but keep that clutter out of the lead sentences please. Average readers reading JK Rowling's article wouldn't care that she's Joanne Rowling CH OBE FRSL. If those post-nominals are important or noteworthy, then they should be explained in the body of the article in prose. Some1 (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

They are explained in prose: 'She has received an OBE and made a Companion of Honour for services to literature and philanthropy' and 'She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature (FRSL), the Royal Society of Edinburgh (HonFRSE), and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (FRCPE).' Traumnovelle (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Which they should be considering the post-nominals appear in the infobox. I don't see the need for them in the lead sentence though. Some1 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This suggestion of including the postnominals as parentheticals in the part of the article where these recognitions are detailed makes sense to me and I have started applying it to other articles where postnominals are relevant.

I wish the gnomes who are just going around blindly removing all postnominals from article text based on the previous RFC would take more time and do something like this. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: This would indeed be a best practice in my mind. We could (should?) add it as a specific example into POSTNOM so 1) those "gnomes", as you describe them, can emulate it and 2) it's extremely obvious that they're violating the guideline. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me there is overwhelming support for overturning the previous RFC. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps that seeming overwhelming support is because nobody has notified those who participated in the previous RFC of this discussion? Including the initiator and closer of the discussion, the latter of whom said they welcomed discussion of it through their talk page? Personally, I did not participate in the previous RFC but would affirm its conclusion. Melcous (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Melcous: Thanks for the ping as the initiator of the 2023 RfC. I think it's obvious that any unadvertised discussion won't have enough weight to overturn a formal RfC. However, in line with Ixtal's read of the RfC consensus, we could tweak POSTNOM to address the OP's core complaint, making it explicitly clear that post-nominals can be listed elsewhere in a lead and/or in an infobox (if the info is in the article body). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Given the previous consensus and fair concern noted in the OP, I've boldly tweaked the guideline. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh I agree, a new RFC would need to be adequately advertised, unlike the previous one. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nford24: You are of course free to point out any specific area(s) of concern that you had with the previous RfC, but there's no need for snide comments. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This discussion evidently indicates that the previous RFC wasn't properly advertised. By my count, 16 editors here who didn't participate in it have called for its reversal. Additionally, over the past 12 months, I've encountered 4 more editors (not here) who weren't involved and disagree with the outcome. My statement wasn't snide, it however is pointed at the concern I'm raising.

"Perhaps that seeming overwhelming support is because nobody has [been] notified..." That reflects my sentiments exactly. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

At bare-minimum I believe the removal of such information is well beyond the scope of the newly-written MOS:POSTNOM. I strongly second the initiator's opinion. Secondly, for the record, I moderately disagree with 'banning' post-nominals from the lede, and I would support overturning such a rule. MWFwiki (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Appropriateness of using given names in bio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name usage in other articles

A debate is going on at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#"Mama_Cass" about Cass Elliot's name usage in List_of_common_misconceptions#Popular_music. The question is whether she should be referred to in the article as Cass Elliot (of The Mamas & the Papas) or as Mama Cass.

I realize that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Names focuses on how to use a person's name in said person's article, but this is the closest I could find in WP: regarding this question.

Could someone help me figure out what policy or norm would apply to this situation? Thank you, Kingturtle = (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Place of birth etc. in the infobox is potential overlinking?

Moved to WT:MOSLINK

 – Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Correct infobox template for living people?

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

Birth and death places [...] not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates.

I see editors removing these places from the lead even when this information is not mentioned elsewhere in the body. Can we write some guidance that this should not happen, and that people should either move it to the body or leave it well alone, but not simply remove it? Especially in stubs, this only makes the article worse, not better. Example: [1]. Fram (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Summarizing, as I understand the situation:

1. Birthplace is being removed from the lead sentence of stubs when it's next to birthdates per MOS:BIRTHPLACE (emphasis added):

   Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates.

2. The information remains in the infobox.
3. MOS:INFOBOX says :

   Be aware that although all information in an infobox ideally should also be found in the main body of an article, there isn't perfect compliance with this guideline

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

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

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

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

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

So people think it is better not to have this information in the text at all than to have it in the lead? That this is actually worse than this? That seems very reader-unfriendly. Fram (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on simplifying MOS:JOBTITLES

MOS:JOBTITLES currently reads:

Offices, titles, and positions ... are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically. They are capitalized only in the following cases:

1. When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
2. When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the King, not the king (referring to Charles III); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).
3. When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description

Should we simplify MOS:JOBTITLES by removing exceptions #2 and/or #3? Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Examples

Currently prescribed by MOS:JOBTITLES	Simplified MOS:JOBTITLES
Donald Trump is the president of the United States. Donald Trump is President of the United States. Donald Trump is US president. The President was inaugurated on 20 January 2025. The president is inaugurated on 20 January. He had a meeting with President Trump. The king of Jerusalem, Fulk, defeated Pons, Count of Tripoli.	Donald Trump is the president of the United States. Donald Trump is president of the United States. Donald Trump is US president. The president was inaugurated on 20 January 2025. The president is inaugurated on 20 January. He had a meeting with President Trump. The king of Jerusalem, Fulk, defeated Pons, count of Tripoli.

Survey

• Remove both #2 and #3. These elaborate exceptions have turned MOS:JOBTITLES into rocket science. Experienced editors struggle to make heads or tails of it. The readers may be distracted by the constantly changing case. We, the editors, certainly are distracted by the frequent disputes on who is interpreting JOBTITLES correctly. No other style guide is so complicated: the likes of Oxford Style Guide, The Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, etc, advise only to capitalize titles preceding the name. It is time that we take our cue from them. Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  How would "current president Trump" be treated? According to the current MOS:JOBTITLES, that would be lowercase because it's modified by "current". Does your proposal capitalize "President" in this case? —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 23:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  I do not think MOS:JOBTITLES is presently clear on whether it should be "current president Trump" or "current President Trump". On one hand, it is modified; on the other, it is followed by a person's name. Chicago is strict and clear: never capitalize unless it precedes a name, and if it precedes a name, always capitalize. In my opinion, there should always be a comma before the name in such a case because "current president" is apposition. Thus, I would always write "to the current president, Donald Trump" rather than either "to current President Trump" or "to current president Trump". Surtsicna (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  The current wording at #3 of is not preceded by a modifier would make it "current president Trump", as it's modified by current. There's also this current example in the MOS: Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972. —Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep both. I don't see them as "exceptions", but as common-sense usage when using a job title to refer to a specific person, rather than the position itself. E.g.: "Many popes are from Italy", versus, "The Pope is not from Italy." This natural usage promotes understanding by readers regarding who or what is being discussed; therefore, keep. Mathglot (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

P.S., as a housekeeping issue, Surtsicna, you placed your WP:!vote in the § Discussion section, but I believe it is more conventional to place it in the § Survey section. In any case, the closer will find it there, but let's not make it harder for them. Mathglot (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

How is this usage natural when it is not common (if attested at all) in reliable sources? Can you name one style guide that promotes this "Many popes are from Italy" vs "The Pope is not from Italy" distinction? Surtsicna (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Moved to #Discussion

Discussion

many popes / many Popes

Moved from #Survey

The 11:15, 30 Jan post below and the rest of this thread was originally follow-up to the 10:29, 30 Jan post in section § Survey, above.

Style guides, unlike articles, are not based on reliable sources but on the style we wish to recommend in our guidelines. That said, we often are influenced, but not governed, by them. Rather than relying on other style guides, to which we are in no way beholden, I would prefer to rely on common usage. Ngrams shows many reliable sources for "many pope"s: (search 'many popes' vs. 'many Popes'. But even were it not the majority (which it is), Wikipedia has the right to define our style guidelines as we wish. That implies that, despite the fact that "many popes" appears to be the most common usage, we do not have to adhere to that, if you can present an argument why we should not. Do you have one? Mathglot (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

We should have "many popes" because job titles are nearly universally lowercased in modern academic publications and journalism, i.e. in what we consider to be our highest quality sources. But we should also consistently have "the pope" for the same reason. No distinction in meaning is made between "the pope" and "the Pope" in reliable sources and we should not require editors to make this distinction or readers to understand it. Surtsicna (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer that our style guide take its queues from reliable published style guides, and I'd love to see someone give a comparative view. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 08:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

There are innumerable small distinctions of style in WP:MOS—the use of italics or hyphens are probably good examples—that are probably lost on many reading our articles, but that doesn't mean they are a bad thing. If the rule is well conceived, then its application will help those readers who do understand it in a small way, just like having a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence or a period/full stop at the end helps in a small way. Those readers who don't understand it are not required to do anything, and may yet learn the distinction in meaning by repeated exposure to it and if so, things will be one quantum clearer to them when they do. Just as proper use of a hyphen in the verb helps us to correctly understand "He resigned his post", when we are talking about a cabinet minister's Twitter message or their career path.

However, this may be devolving into a threaded discussion about the proper scope and size of a style guide, with, I suspect, your position being more on the minimalist side, and mine more the opposite. That's a valid issue to discuss, but exceeds the scope of this Rfc (and especially, this one !vote), although the existence of this Rfc and our apparent disagreement about what outcome is best may be a small manifestation of that larger topic. I wonder whether we might agree, though, on an Rfc meta-issue, namely that the § Survey section is mostly for !votes and occasional brief replies, ripostes, and clarifications, but that at some point, and ongoing threadedd discussion under somebody's !vote is better placed in the § Discussion section. If you have no objection, I would move this thread to the § Discussion section, starting either with your 10:39 post, or my reply to it, or feel free to do so as you see fit. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not mind moving this to Discussion. My point is that nobody outside of Wikipedia can understand our distinction between "the pope" and "the Pope" because it does not exist in the outside world. What's more, only very few of us on Wikipedia understand this difference that we've made up, as is clear from the ceaseless disputes and questions for clarification. In this latest example I had to explain it to Nyttend, an administrator who has been on this project for 19 years, because we have invented a distinction between Foreign Secretary and foreign secretary. Nobody benefits from this. You said you would "prefer to rely on common usage". Well, this is not common usage, not nearly. Surtsicna (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

(Moved.) Mathglot (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

How do we know that it is not in common use? This ngrams graph showing usage since 1980 seems to show they are used about equally. Mathglot (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The distinction is not in common use. Show me a newspaper that makes the distinction between "the pope" and "the Pope". Show me an academic journal. Show me an academic press. Show me anyone, anything really. Surtsicna (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

This from The Australian's "Pope looks to his legacy and creates 21 new cardinals", 8 December 2024 (subscription required) supports Surtsicna's point: "he became pope", "the pope told the group", "The pope, who has", "The Argentine pope", "a new pope", "The pope has ", " the pope's new choices", "Pope" only when followed by "Francis". So what's the support for the 2nd bulletpoint at MOS:JOBTITLE? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

king/Count example

An example of JOBTITLES' inane results that I frequently have to deal with would be the sentence: "The king of Jerusalem, Fulk, defeated Pons, Count of Tripoli." What sense does this make? Surtsicna (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I find the wording awkward and in need of improvement ("King Fulk of Jerusalem defeated Count Pons of Tripoli" seems natural enough) but I see no ambiguity or opportunity for misunderstanding, and I'm not even sure how it relates to the topic of this Rfc. Mathglot (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Deflecting is not helpful. That sentence may very well be The king of Jerusalem, Fulk of Anjou, defeated Pons of Toulouse, Count of Tripoli. It relates to the topic of this RfC because this incomprehensible capitalization is the product of JOBTITLES's exception #3. Without exception #3, it would be The king of Jerusalem, Fulk of Anjou, defeated Pons of Toulouse, count of Tripoli. Surtsicna (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I looked around at Scholar, and while I found a lot of variation across sources in their choices, I don't find much variation within individual sources, although to be fair none of the couple dozen I looked at seemed to use both meanings. I guess you could say my investigation on that score was inconclusive. It could be as you say, that there are few sources using it both ways, with a distinction in meaning. If so, I'm not sure if that should be decisive in our decision or not. Anyway, we both know what each other's position is, pretty much, and I would certainly welcome more data and other voices at this point, so this is probably a good time for me to go quiet and lurk while others chime in. If some wholly new issues arise that are worth debating, I may pop back in. Thanks for starting this worthwhile Rfc. Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Adjectival form of Botswana in describing nationality

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

• Botswanan (MW, AHD, OED, CALD)
• Motswana (OED, CALD, DSAE, CIA)
• Botswanian (OED)

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

If it is useful to the discussion, Google Ngrams show "Botswanan" being used more than "Motswana." Google Scholar gives 5,150 hits for "Botswanan" and 3,040 hits for "Motswana." ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

MOS:BIOEXCEPT: and/or

MOS:BIOEXCEPT says to stick with conventions unless:

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

I bring this up in the case of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Sources predominantly refer to him as "RFK Jr.", not the standard initializing.[2][3][4] However, he doesn't use his initials like that often at all, sticking with his full name, and so the first point is not met.

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

Don't have a copy of the AP Stylebook to compare but I found that Turabian rule 24.2.1 is the following:

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

Unless there are Wikipedia articles that would violate this (pages where the full name is given with periods) then it might be better to add this rule to MOS:INITIALS rather than change MOS:BIOEXCEPT. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

How should we interpret MOS:NICKNAME?

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

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

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

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