Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Readers' knowledge of approximate date of death of historical figures

I've provisionally deleted this parenthetical statement:

(readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it)

The statement is misleading because Wikipedia users searching for historical figures are generally well aware of the approximate date of death of the subject for whom they're searching, and dates of death are therefore very useful to Wikipedia users on a disambiguation page which lists several individuals with the same name from different historical periods. NinaGreen (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added an example of two articles created in 2009 on historical figures with the same name and occupation which were disambiguated by date of death, as there was no example on the page. NinaGreen (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Birth date format conformity (second round)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Above we achieved consensus that we should pursue uniformity when using birth dates as a secondary form of disambiguation. Before presenting the options let me remind you of the types of examples that led to this discussion:

Michael Green: Mike Green (footballer born 1946), Mike Green (footballer born 1989), Michael Green (cricketer), Michael Green (cricketer, born 1951), Mike Green (basketball), Michael Green (basketball, born 1985), Mike Green (ice hockey b. 1979), Mike Green (ice hockey b. 1985)

Robert Williams: Robert Williams (1767–1847), Robert Williams (1811–1890), Robbie Williams (footballer born 1979), Robbie Williams (footballer born 1984), Bobby Williams (footballer born 1932), Bobby Williams (footballer born 1940)

John Smith: John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1826), John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1831), John Smith (Medal of Honor, 1880), John Smith (cricketer, born 1833), John Smith (cricketer, born 1834), John Smith (cricketer, born 1835), John Smith (cricketer, born 1924), John Smith (footballer born 1855), John Smith (footballer born 1866), John Smith (footballer born 1921), John Smith (footballer born 1927), John Smith (1930s footballer), John Smith (footballer)

David Jones: Dave Jones (footballer born 1932), Dave Jones (footballer born 1956), David Jones (footballer born 1914), David Jones (footballer born 1940), David Jones (footballer born 1955), David Jones (footballer born 1964), David Jones (footballer born 1984), David Jones (cricketer, born 1914), David Jones (cricketer)

Tom Smith: Tom Smith (cricketer born 1985), Tom Smith (cricketer born 1987), Tom Smith (footballer born 1876), Tom Smith (footballer born 1877), Tom Smith (footballer born 1900), Tom Smith (footballer born 1909), Tom Smith (footballer born 1973), Tom Smith (rugby union player born 1893), Tom Smith (rugby union player born 1971), Tom Smith (rugby union player born 1985)

The wide ranging types above can be classified as five types of disambiguation.

1. Name (subject born YYYY)
2. Name (subject, born YYYY)
3. Name (subject b. YYYY)
4. Name (subject, b. YYYY)
5. Name (YYYY–YYYY)
6. Name (subject, YYYY-YYYY)

Since we have agreed that we should pursue uniformity, now we must choose one of these methods of disambiguation. Below please state which of the above formats you feel would be most appropriate to use in all instances when dates are necessary as a secondary form of disambiguation. If there is no majority on the first round, we will have a second discussion about the highest vote-getters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion (2)

Preferrable format would be a statement including the bolded phrase "Support option #X".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• The examples above include some "subject"s which are "field of endeavour" and others which are "occupation of the person" (eg "basketball" or "cricketer"). This is not the place for discussion about whether both forms should be used, in different subject areas, but it may be that "(cricketer born 1902)" is good and "(basketball born 1902)" needs a comma. The person is a cricketer, but is not a basketball (though "(ice hockey born 1902)" is almost as clumsy).

That said, I support "born" rather than the cryptic "b." (and "died" for "d.", in cases where it is death dates which are the known distinguishers between two people, as in early British Members of Parliament etc). I support a comma in the "field of endeavour" cases - there are two facts: s/he was known for playing basketball, and s/he was born in 1902. For cricket, s/he was a "cricketer born 1902", one description, but I'm neutral on whether it has a comma. I doubt that we often need to include both birth and death dates for one person, as in example 5 (and what's happened to their first-level descriptor? They must be notable for something, to merit an enyclopedia entry). If we have two "Joe Bloggs (cricketer born 1902)"s, then, and only then, do we need to go into "Joe Bloggs (cricketer 1902-1990) etc. PamD 10:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I consider that weak support for #2. It would be great if you could bold something like "Support option #2".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, sorry about verbosity (though the heading does say "discussion", not "!votes"): Support option 2, though happy with option 1 when "subject" is descriptive of the person and not their field (eg "cricketer" but not "basketball"). PamD 18:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support option #2. --John (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Option 4 - Coherent, concise, and grammatical. Second choice is option 2, but that is wordier than it needs to be by spelling out b-o-r-n, which is self-evident from b. Carrite (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Option 2. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Instead of choosing a one size fits all solution, we should present a prioritized list, and expect that in some cases, none of the options fit and yet another choice works best. Apteva (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support option #1 or 2 Doesn't matter either way, but you need to have the word "born", there no reason to abbreviate a four letter word to a single letter. Dream Focus 15:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Definitely agree with that. It is way too much nitpicking to be concerned about whether there is a comma there or not. Apteva (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Option 2 - option 1 would work for me too. Notable for basketball doesn't mean notable for being a basketball. SchreiberBike (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. As an aside do we really need to make a choice? Isn't it sufficient to just say "The most common types of disambiguation using birth date are the following:

1. Name (subject born YYYY)
2. Name (subject, born YYYY)
3. Name (subject b. YYYY)
4. Name (subject, b. YYYY)
5. Name (YYYY–YYYY)

Although if we wanted we could order the list as to which actually was the most common. Apteva (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The prior debate was whether we should have a uniform policy. It passed approximately 20 to 7 (see above). That discussion is over.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why on earth should we use different formats for the same thing? What's the point of having any kind of guidelines about style if we can't make decisions about stuff like whether "born" should be abbreviated, or whether there should be a comma? I more or less prefer option 2 or option 4, although for persons who are deceased I'd prefer the format "Name (subject, YYYY-YYYY)", and using "Name (subject, born YYYY)" only for living persons. I'd also say that I'd prefer any consistent format over not making a choice. john k (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support option 4 although 2, 3 and 1 (in that order) are also fine. I don't like option 5 because the subject should be the primary disambiguator. Pichpich (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support options 2 and 1 in that order of preference. Oppose 5. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support 2 (1st preference) or 1 (2nd preference) for living subjects and where date of death is unknown, Support "name (subject, YYYY-YYYY)" (1st preference) or "name (subject YYYY-YYYY)" (2nd preference) for deceased subjects. Where date of birth is not known I support as for living subjects but with "died" replacing "born". I oppose all nested parentheses and trailing short horizontal lines. I very strongly oppose unbalanced parentheses. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support 2. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support option 4, followed by 2 3, 1. Dislike 1, 3, and 5 ( added 1,3 to dislike ). Don't see the need to spell out "born", but don't see a problem with it either. A comma should be between subject and birth date. Subject should be more important than year, also option 5 have issues for living people. Does the page get moved when they passed? Finally with some of the debates on hyphens, dashes, and the like it's probably best just to side step that debate. PaleAqua (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

  Dislike option 6 except in the cases where two people with the same subject are born in the same year and no other disambiguation works. Also I'm assuming 6 was supposed to be 'name (subject, YYYY–YYYY)" PaleAqua (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC) I also think just using the year of death as suggested by others might work if the birth year and everything else is the same. What about using the birth month if known in those case. e.g. "John Smith (roboticist, b. May 2015)" and "John Smith (roboticist, b. June 2015)"?

• Support, in order: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. — Cirt (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Support 2 and 4. Oppose the syntax in 1 and 3. Option 5 does little for readers to know the difference unless they know the years they were born and died. Mkdw^talk 18:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support option 5 plus subject for deceased subject, option 4 for living ones. I agree with johnk: the best option for deceased subjects is "Name (subject, YYYY-YYYY)". The point being that when you are at the point of having to disambiguate based on subject AND dates, the more clues for the reader, the better, and because in many cases the death date is more likely known (or estimatable) than the birth date alone.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• I have added option 6,which is subject plus dates ; the reasoning is that given by talk:Arxiloxos. It helps to have both. The idea is to guide the readers to the right article, and we cannot predict which of the 2 they will know. (I am assuming for living people that means Name, subject (XXXX– ) in order to have in uniform, but I would not object to having it different for living people as option 4). DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've already voted but let me add that I really don't like option 6. Moreover there's a basic syntax problem with the current proposal. As written, there's either an extra bracket or a missing bracket. It should be either Name (subject, (YYYY-YYYY)) or Name (subject, YYYY-YYYY). I dislike both but I hate the first one with more passion. :-) Pichpich (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Inquiry for option 5 & 6 camp I think we can reasonably assume that while not being able to predict what exactly the person is searching, we can reasonably assume they know something about the subject, otherwise they would not be searching. I find it more likely they will know the profession of the person opposed to their birthday. In fact, I think we're looking at probably a less than one in one hundred will have memorized the birthday of the subject to be able to identify that person. Possibly more. Where as I think we're looking at a much higher rate where the person will know if they're a singer, or an athlete. By intentionally leaving out the profession and solely relying on the date of birth and in some cases death, you are essentially leaving it to a trial and error system. Unless I am missing something, and someone in the 5 and 6 camp can explain, but the reasonable expectation that they will know a subject by date of birth, or that we shouldn't help them additionally because of unpredictability of knowledge seems to be separated by such a large margin that making the date of birthday almost pointless to include against subject. Even in popular circumstances like Michael Jordan (1957-) and Michael Jordan (1963-). How likely are you to know the year of the basketball player over the politician? Mkdw^talk 04:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• A new idea started bouncing around in my head after I had cast my vote above. How would people feel about Name (country subject)? It seems to me that when looking for a person it's easier to think country than YYYY. Of course there's got to be at least two English football players named John Smith and then you're back to something like Name (country subject, born YYYY). SchreiberBike (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a common method of disambiguation. For a random example, see Daniel Sanchez (French footballer), Daniel Sanchez (Peruvian footballer), Daniel Sánchez (Spanish footballer), Daniel Sánchez (Uruguayan footballer). Pichpich (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is not a discussion about when disambiguating by date is to be used. It is about what format to use when it is used. If birth date is third to country, we still need to decide the standard format.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, as an indication of subject is important in providing recognisability. Oppose #5. Prefer "subject" to be generic occupation of the person, such as "sportsman", "politician", businessman", etc. Asusming #6 means "Name (subject, YYYY-YYYY)" Prefer #1, #2, #6 over #3 & #4 as we can offord the extra characters and abbreviation diminished accessibility, even if the degree is slight.

  I think "we should pursue uniformity" is a bit strong. This should be a suggested/recommended title format for new biographry articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support option 2. Rationale. Why not 3 or 4: A large part of our audience consists of people who are not native speakers, and some of our readers are blind and will hear "b." read aloud as "B period". In both cases, abbreviating "born" to "b." can lead to unnecessary confusion. Why not 1: The comma is needed for "politics" though not for "politician". With the comma it's correct either way => greater uniformity and the rule is easier to remember. Why not 5: It would be weird to disambiguate some people by field and others by life dates. Why not 6: Reasonable, but only works for people who are dead, while 2 works for everybody. Choosing 2 as the standard doesn't mean that 6 can never be used. If two people in the same field were born in the same year, we can still use either 6 or "died YYYY", which also works for people whose year of birth is not known. It's just the vast majority of cases that should be uniform; special cases will always arise. Hans Adler 12:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support option 6, but without the extra parens in this version, "name (subject, YYYY-YYYY)", with options where only the birth or death years are known with certainty, i.e., "name (subject, born YYYY)" and "name (subject, died YYYY)". I really don't like using abbreviations like "b." or "d.", as I think there is less clarity for non-native speakers. I oppose option 5 in that some identifying subject is always preferable to bare birth/death years. older ≠ wiser 13:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose version #5 or #6(in addition to my comments above): too much risk of problems with hyphens/dashes. If two people indistinguishable by subject can be distinguished by "yyyy-yyyy", then they differ in one or other, and if the birth dates are identical we should use death dates. PamD 13:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support option 4 with #2 as the backup. Definitely not #5, since it's untypeable for the vast majority of people and at odds with common sense, but #6 with its hyphen would be reasonable. Nyttend (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Option 3 then 1 They are most concise options. -DJSasso (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support #2 or #6. Avoid abbreviations and always use an occupation etc if possible. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Summary of scored responses of Discussion (2)

File:Discussion scores tabulated.png

If I score responses, giving 2 for preferred, 1 for lesser preferred, 0 for neutral or unstated, -1 for oppose, -2 for strong oppose (see File:Discussion scores tabulated.png, why are wiki tables so hard?),:

• the clear leader in preference is #2 at 28 (unopposed!),
• followed by #4 at 14.
• #1 and #6 score 7 and 6
• #3 and #5 are not supported.

Do we all accept #2 "Name (subject, born YYYY)"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• I requested an admin close this. I think we might need a third round of #2 vs. #4. I'll see what the closer says.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

My strong support, above, for option 2 doesn't seem to be in the table - so the result is even stronger than outlined here. PamD 08:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What to do about Icelandic people (letters þ and ð)?

Hi, see Ari Þorgilsson was changed to Ari Thorgilsson, that is an important person in Icelandic history (Icelandic sagas). We use the Latin alphabet mostly. Þþ and Ðð (along with Ææ) where used in (Old) English. See: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Wjhonson#Icelandic_letters_.28regarding_your_name_change.29 comp.arch (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem with using the Icelandic letters in the article and also in the article name provided that there is a redirect that uses non-Icelandic letters the first line of the lede shows both - for example the first line of the article should read

Ari Þorgilsson (Ari Thorgilsson) (1067–1148 AD) was Iceland's most prominent medieval chronicler.

Martinvl (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed the page itself but couldn't make the actual (title) name change. What I wanted to know was is this officially allowed and should it be clearer from the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people). comp.arch (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Usage should follow that used in reliable English language sources, if there is no clear usage in reliable English language sources, for Norse Gods, people in sagas etc consult Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology) of further guidance. -- PBS (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Enacting the new policy

Let's try to hold the discussion on enacting this in one place (here). I need some help rewriting the policy from the closed discussion above across WP at places like WP:QUALIFIER, WP:NATURAL, WP:DAB, etc. More importantly, how do we go about beginning to move the thousands of pages that need to be moved and update the disambiguation pages?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not a new policy it is new guidance! There is no need to go moving thousands of pages, none of them need to be moved it can happen gradually over time. -- PBS (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh and another point in the past the date of birth was not recorded instead less frequently than is ideal the baptism date is what tends to be recorded so dates at the turn of the year tend to be rather uncertain. If someone came from a non-notable background and become notable during their lifetimes then their date of death is much more likely to be recorded than their date of birth. This is particularly true of military men who have a habit of dying during a war. -- PBS (talk)

They would be more notable if they were victorious and did not die, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

See John Hampden for an example of what I mean. While for a modern sports person DoB is convenient as a disambiguation if they play the same sport, it is often not as convenient or useful as some other identification for other types of people, it depends on the person and for many dead white males DOD may be more convenient, (or the place they resided or their clan chief number -- place is being used this week by the BBC to distinguish between Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (the naughty one) and Lord MacKenzie of Culkein. No mention in the news of their date of birth!). -- PBS (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion did not resolve to encourage the use of birthdates. It just says that when birthdates are used do so with a consistent format.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that it clearly encouraged use of birthdates over deathdates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I see now that the original question assumed the use of birthdates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"Enact" is the wrong word ... implying that this is a "rule" that must be "enforced" in all articles right now, and all at once. We don't need to do that. It will not hurt the project to go slowly. I agree with PBS... a gradual implementation will be less disruptive. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought the above was tending to conclude the following:

Where a biography requires disambiguation, the following format is preferred:

Name (subject, born YYYY)

I do not recommend moving thousands of pages. Not yet certainly. Give this new preference time to mature.

Most existing biographies do not need further disambiguation, certainly not the prominent biographies.

For biographies, I submit that they are mostly borderline-notable, as the low hanging fruit is long since picked. New biography articles ought to be recommended to adopt the preferred format.

Reasonable variations should be welcome. Eg:

• Name (subject, born circa YY00) or Name (subject, born ca.YYYY)
• Name (subject, born 8th century AD) especially "born 8th century AD" is what the sources say
• Name (subject, died YYYY), especially where the death date is significant and birth year very uncertain
• Name (subject, active 1600BC)

on a case-by-case basis.

I suggest further guidance, along the lines of: "For "subject", the generic field is preferable to an overly precise field. "athlete" is preferred over "110 metres hurdler"; "scientist" is preferred over "condensed matter physicist". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, Please reread the above discussion and note that the discussion above began with a consideration of when using birth dates as a secondary form of disambiguation. It was only a discussion of formatting in the event that birth date is required for disambiguation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the following better?

Where a biography requires disambiguation using birth dates, the following format is preferred:

Name (subject, born YYYY)

Don't hesitate to de-bold my suggestion above and write something better below. I assume the point is to add text to this guideline. I am possibly missing important assumptions behind your post starting this thread. Do I need to review things at WP:QUALIFIER, WP:NATURAL, WP:DAB to be able to participate here? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think your quote should include "secondary form", since the subject is the primary form.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You mean the following?

Where a biography requires secondary form disambiguation using birth dates, the following format is preferred:

Name (subject, born YYYY)

I think the underlined words are more likely to confuse than help. Would this be suitable. "Secondary disambiguation" being the subsection header? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Your change is redundant with my change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You mean with these edits. Yes. I think the the page could use a short summary, having a lot of words, and noting that my attention wandered before getting to what you had changed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

Two concerns - one, why were affected WikiProjects not notified? Ball park figure but this will affect upwards of 10,000 articles covered by WP:FOOTBALL, for instance, so it would have been nice for us to have had a hand in the discussion. Two, what actual difference is there between NAME (OCCUPATION born YEAR) and NAME (OCCUPATION, born YEAR)? GiantSnowman 08:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

At least no one can accuse Wikipedia of being democratic. Why should the wider world know what is going on, when a group of about 20 editors can decide on a policy to be imposed on the rest of us? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As a disambiguation topic, this WP:LOCALCONSENSUS might want to be broadened to include a wider audience, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation for instance. Widefox; talk 12:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no actual difference in meaning between NAME (OCCUPATION born YEAR) and NAME (OCCUPATION, born YEAR). However, the intention is to be consistent across all of Wikipedia in order for a more professional approach, rather than have different projects picking their own disambiguation style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Right - and so how has picking the convention used (as far as I can see) by only one WikiProject (cricket) helped matters? GiantSnowman 12:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This was the preferred method of disambiguation when all the options were discussed. See the discussion. I also would have preferred option 1, but there's no fundamental difference - consistency is the key here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

To achieve the stated cross-project success, I would suggest immediately toning down the wording policy to guidance in all headings/project postings, crossout any urgent "we have to rename thousands of articles" and seek to gain wider consensus that way, to avoid it appearing (whatever the merits above) to be a local consensus being imposed on other projects. Widefox; talk 12:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

...which is exactly how it has appeared to us over at WP:FOOTBALL. "Change the way you have successfully disambiguated tens of thousands of articles over the past decade NOW!" GiantSnowman 12:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I chuckled when I saw TonyTheTiger's post on WT:HOCKEY. As imperious as ever, and unlikely to endear support for this guidline. Resolute 16:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup, anyone? This is not a policy change, since it's being applied to a guideline. It doesn't mean everything has to be changed immediately or even at all. It's simply a guideline. Now can we all stop being dramatic... -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point, tone down this section header policy to put storm back in teacup! :) Widefox; talk 13:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Precisely - do not talk about "enacting policy" if that is now what you are doing. If this is just a guideline then we will IAR and continue on as we have. GiantSnowman 13:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Which is what I would assume any project that has long been using one method will continue to do. I don't think there was nearly enough participation in this RfC to change 10s of thousands of articles. (especially since guidelines are suppose to describe use not prescribe it.) -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think simply ignoring the new guideline is appropriate behaviour. As you can see, the issue is to bring uniformity to Wikipedia in order to increase its perception as a professional publication and this has been done in good faith. If the football project wish to make a point, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, this isn't really a positive move. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

We would be ignoring the guidelines in protest of what I see as LOCALCONSENSUS here. GiantSnowman 15:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed on a Wiki-wide level, and any change here should filter down to subject-specific projects, which should not be at variance with the parent guideline (i.e. this one). Your "protest" would definitely be seen as WP:POINTY. WP:IAR exists to help improve Wikipedia, and the improvement that is trying to be implemented here is one of uniformity. Ignoring it would not be in the spirit of WP:IAR, more in the spirit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What exactly do you think is wrong with the change to the guideline? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A "Wiki-wide level" which didn't include a large WikiProject that would have thousands and thousands of articles affected? How does moving 10,000+ articles to NAME (FOOTBALLER born YEAR) to NAME (FOOTBALLER, born YEAR) "improve Wikipedia"? I am positive there are a damn sight more currently at the former than the latter, it would make more sense to move those, would it not? GiantSnowman 15:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The improvement is the uniformity in disambiguation - presently we have a variety of different methods being used - the purpose of the discussion was to bring them all in line, so that we have a consistency, which brings with it an air of professionality. Personally, I also prefer the option used by the football project, and was surprised that it was not the method chosen, but consensus in the discussion above favoured option 2. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know if any tech-savvy person can find out how many articles use NAME (OCCUPATION born YEAR) and how many use NAME (OCCUPATION, born YEAR). GiantSnowman 15:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there a simple way to change the name of a moved article on every page where it is used? I'm in the process of compiling a list a players to have represented my football club and am changing them as and when I need to, but it's hard going. Changing the name of one article can effect dozens of other main pages, disambiguation pages and templates. I apologise now if I've annoyed anyone by spamming their watchlist with page moves, especially those who might not see much point in this change. I'm on my fence. On one hand it's important to have uniformity, but then WikiProject Football has had a set way of disambiguating for as long as I've been editing. Walls of Jericho (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Late response: WP:VPP, WP:TITLE, WP:WPDIS, WP:WPBIO, WP:DAB, Template:Centralized discussion were all notified and a notice was posted at WP:POST. Not sure how much wider it could have been announced.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That assumes all interested editors follow those pages, which we obviously don't. If you used articles within our scope for your examples - and you used many! - then it would have been sensible/polite to notify us. GiantSnowman 14:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no. Certainly it would have been nice if Tony had done so, but at the same time, literally every project that has biographical articles would be affected, and it would be impractical for anyone to notify them all individually. That is why there are numerous central noticeboards. For my own part, I participated slightly in the first RFC, but failed to note the second, and I count that as a failure on my part. I understand the point of this change, and don't consider "b. date" vs. "born date" to be that big of a deal. At the same time, however, I'm not going to bother hunting for and renaming any article within the hockey project's scope that would be affected. We are consistent internally, and if someone else wants to push for site wide consistency using this RFC, I would say they are free... and free to do the work themselves. Resolute 16:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Correcting my comment above - I see now the projects listed were notified, so well done. Still, I cannot understand why an experienced editor with a good guideline would declare it as "policy" needing article renames, and when pointed out, doesn't change that incorrect assertion. Widefox; talk 18:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't we look for other options first?

• To some extent, this entire RFC was pointless... because surely date of birth is a really piss poor way to disambiguate ... If we have two articles that could be given the title John Doe (American Politician) surely there are far better options for disambiguation than adding a date to the parenthetical. What about doing away with the parenthetical all together, and instead disambiguating by adding middle names?... John Foo Doe and John Bar Doe would (in my opinion) both be far better than the long and complex parentheticals being discussed. I would think they would be preferred as hitting three out of the five of the basic principles set out at WP:AT (Naturalness, Precision and Conciseness). And if we can not find the subject's middle names, look for some other way to disambiguate... using date of birth should be a LAST choice, when we really can't find any other way to separate the articles. Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Because not everyone is known by their middle name / not every person's middle name is known. Date of birth is actually a very good way of disambiguating as it tends to be the one thing that is well-documented about people. GiantSnowman 16:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• The point of the discussion was not to say when to use date of birth or whether it is good or "piss poor". The point was that when we are relegated to using date of birth in disambiguation should we have a consistent manner of doing so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It isn't ideal, but when we have to use dates, we should be consistent. And the guideline does recommend other options first... --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Conflict with MOS:IDENTITY, and proposed change

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Another_proposal.2C_based_on_consistency_with_MOS:IDENTITY. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

there is a larger discussion about this at wp:at talk page. Plz join there instead of starting a fractured discussion here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Choice of first name

See Talk:Doctor_Who#Jenna_.28Louise.29 for more, but basically Jenna-Louise Coleman is an actress in Doctor Who and has, to date, been credited so. However, she has publicly stated (as attested by a reliable source: [1]) that she has decided to now go just as "Jenna Coleman". So, in the Doctor Who article and elsewhere, do we reflect past usage and call her "Jenna-Louise Coleman" or her preferred "Jenna Coleman"? I initially felt the tone of WP:BLP suggests we should err on the side of what she wants, but I came and checked here and, while I couldn't anything directly on this sort of case, the implication is that popular usage trumps preference. That would imply we should go with "Jenna-Louise" for now, but "Jenna" will probably soon become more common and we then change.

Do people agree? And should this sort of case be explicitly addressed in this article? Bondegezou (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems like MOS:IDENTITY might apply here. PaleAqua (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a case where Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Conflict_with_MOS:IDENTITY.2C_and_proposed_change would be applicable; if adopted that proposal would require "Jenna Coleman". By the way I don't think it is inconsistent with current policy to use that name, either. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

My advice would be: there is no rush... WAIT... Wikipeida follows the sources, so don't change it (yet)... see what reliable sources do. If reliable sources start to routinely refer to her as Jenna (which is likely) then we can (and should) switch to Jenna. However, If they continue to call her Jenna-Louise, then so should we. Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice for disambiguating

I'm working on updating some of the biographical articles for the 13th century Byzantine Empire & have encountered a tricky problem of disambiguation. What should one do to disambiguate between individuals of the same name when these people have no recorded date of birth, or death, & share the same occupation/station in life?

In my case, I have information on 7 women by the name of "Theodora Kantakouzenos". Four of these women have no attested middle name, although 2 do share the same middle name (Palaiologina). Two of these were Empresses of Trebizond (which provides material to disambiguate one more). (If one shouldn't need to write the article, then there is no problem to be solved!) While several more will prove not notable enough for an entry, I am still left with at least one who will be known simply as "Theodora Kantakouzenos", & she may not prove to be the best known individual of that name -- meaning her article should be of the form "Theodora Kantakouzenos (modifer)". So what would be an acceptible modifer so the article on the woman could be identified as "Theodora Kantakouzenos (modifer)"? The simplest modifers I can think of in this case (based on the information available) would be either "daughter of X" or "wife of Y", but these could end up causing more problems than the effort is worth. (The reason why these would cause problems is left as an exercise for the reader.) Anyone have a better solution? One I don't want to use is one a newbie came up with: invent a middle name for the woman. -- llywrch (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

(entertainer)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The questions for this RfC are: 1) should we continue to encourage/allow the use of "(entertainer)" as a disambiguator in entertainment-related articles, and 2) if so, under what circumstances. Dohn joe (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent months have seen a number of requested moves to replace the "(entertainer)" disambiguator. Results have been mixed. Each individual RM has had relatively limited participation, so it would be nice to see if we can come to wider consensus on the issue, or if going case-by-case is necessary.

Why drop (entertainer)? It can be a vague, ambiguous catchall that in itself is not very descriptive. It's often only used sparingly in sources to describe a given person. One editor has suggested that the term only rightly applies to jesters, vaudevillians, burlesque acts and the like.

Why keep (entertainer)? In the case where a person is notable across multiple areas of entertainment (i.e., as a singer and a dancer), choosing one of those areas to disambiguate may be misleading or less accurate than using an umbrella term.

There are two fundamental questions to answer first. One is the definition of the word itself. One definition of "entertainer" is "a singer, comedian, dancer, reciter, or the like, especially a professional one". This would seem to at least allow for the possibility of its use on WP. The second question is how important WP:AT is in choosing a disambiguator. We rely heavily on sources for the actual name of a subject. Is that reliance lessened when we choose disambiguation? Does "entertainer" itself need to be found in sources, or can it be used to disambiguate when it makes sense otherwise?

What are the options?

1. Eliminate (or strongly discourage) "(entertainer)". There is (almost) always a better option.
2. Use "(entertainer)" only in the rare case where a person is most often referred to as an entertainer, or where no other reasonable alternative exists.
3. Allow "(entertainer)" only in cases where no particular area of entertainment predominates over another.
4. Allow "(entertainer)" whenever a person is notable for more than one area of entertainment.
5. Allow "(entertainer)" even when a person is notable for only one area of entertainment.
6. Disambiguate using each area for which a person is notable (i.e., "(singer/actress)" or "(comedian/musician)").

Please feel free to alert the relevant WikiProjects or others. Dohn joe (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Please indicate the number(s) of your preferred options here, along with a brief explanation if you wish. Please use the "Discussion" section below for responses or other comments.

• Leave it alone - Dohn Joe keeps removing my response from its initial place in the list. It's a clear objection to unneeded WP:CREEP, and also appropriate to a highly POV RfC proposal misrepresenting the many RMs which have gone against Dohn Joe's support for (entertainer) as a dab for BLPs not known as "entertainer" in printed sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• 4, 3, 6, 2, 5, 1. When a person is genuinely notable for more than one thing, it is inaccurate and imprecise to use just one to disambiguate. Dohn joe (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

What about people who actually are really wikt:entertainers in print sources such as the Scottish music-hall comedian Harry Gordon (entertainer) (1893-1957), people who multi-perform in the same show? should we perhaps introduce (music hall entertainer) to distinguish from (singer with a few film credits)? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• 3 is by far my first preference. I'm sympathetic to 1 and 2 and very opposed to 5 and 6. 4 reflects the status quo to a certain extent, but should really be avoided when a person is notable mostly for one form of entertainment. A (singer) shouldn't become an (entertainer) just because she appears in a few films. --BDD (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• 2 or 3. Otherwise, there is almost always a dominant thing that person is known for. Remember, the point of the dab is not to describe the person's life, but rather to help the reader quickly know this is the right one. If we overuse entertainer, we may have an absurd situation where singer (sometime actor) John Smith and actor (once singer) John Smith are both John Smith (entertainer).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• None of the above / handle on an individual basis without creating additional policies or guidelines per WP:CREEP and WP:BROKE. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• 3, 2, 1, 4, 6, 5 - this is a very problematic custom which damages the very concept of disambiguation (as Obiwan says), and only slightly less annoying than abusing "artist" to describe everybody from Picasso to a record-scratcher/DJ. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• 3 if modified (first choice) or 6 (second choice) or 4 (third choice). Entertainer makes sense in cases where the person's profession is truly mixed, with no strong predominance - very much an actor and very much a singer, for instance. My question, though, is how we determine what "proportion" of a person is devoted to one profession or another. Can we really say they're 40% singer, 40% actor, and 20% non-acting-non-singing person? I would prefer 3 to be reworded so as to admit that "predominance" is not easily defined. We could say "where no particular area of entertainment strongly predominates over another." That would make it more clear. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• '4 and 5. There should be no limitations placed on the disambiguator "entertainer". It should be allowed in any and all situations where it seems appropriate. The argument that the word is archaic is ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• 4, 5, 3. I don't see there is any benefit to restricting use of "entertainer" as a disambiguating term. older ≠ wiser 16:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Leave it alone - per WP:CREEP - for the time being at least. The majority of RMs (around 20 of them) have already gone against use of "entertainer" as a neologism and/or imprecise per Talk:Drake (rapper), Chris Brown, Talk:Sinbad (comedian) etc. The only 2 exceptions as far as I know are Talk:Madonna (entertainer) and Talk:Usher (entertainer). Although for certain pop-star articles there is strong WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in favour both of the FOO (entertainer) title dab, and "the entertainer FOO" in leads", fundamentally (entertainer) is an umbrella Category:American entertainers which per WP:CRITERIA for recognizability and sources can normally be entrusted to WP:RS without legislation. If editors recognise the principle of using language found in sources they hopefully won't hold out for "the entertainer FOO" against "the actor FOO" "the singer FOO" forever on the basis of 1% or 2% of sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally we do have some "and" dabs already on en.wp Junaid Khan (actor and singer). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that I'm fairly pissed off about the way that my reply was removed from the first place in the responses and tucked down at the bottom. Put back in place. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The survey section is for those who wish to participate in the survey. The discussion section is for other comments, such as the above, which is why I moved it in the first place, and do so again. I apologize for not making that clear with the initial instructions for the survey section or for the initial move of the comment - that was my bad. Dohn joe (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no one is obliged to listen to your "instructions" or format their response as you wish. My response to the question was 'Leave it alone, your response is twice to move it (twice) to the bottom? You do not have my permission to move my reply to RfC to the bottom, please restore it. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Leave what alone? There's no proposal to change any policy page, just an attempt to find consensus on the use of "(entertainer)". Also, you may have noticed that Chris Brown was kept at "(American entertainer)" over "(American singer)" - it was a later RM that decided he was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "Chris Brown". Dohn joe (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. You described the essential question of the RFC as how/whether "to encourage/allow the use of '(entertainer)' as a disambiguator in entertainment-related articles"; how would the community encourage/allow anything without adding direction on this point into official guidance? Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We do things informally all the time. Not all consensus, even of guidance, is written officially somewhere. Dohn joe (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

But if a consensus did develop here, and you wanted people to heed that consensus in their future actions, why wouldn't you add it to one of our guidelines? I don't mean to sound accusatory, but everything about the originally posted discussion sounds to me like you're proposing adding an instruction somewhere, until someone said it would be "instruction creep", and then it's, "No, we're not adding any instructions, we're just going to decide here how things should be done and then when someone does something else, we'll change it" (I guess?). Maybe it's just my lack of understanding, but I can't express an opinion in the survey because I don't understand what the options mean when they say "eliminate" or "allow". My general feelings about use of "entertainer" as a disambiguator are encompassed by Wikipedia:Article titles: it should be used when it's the term that will make it easiest for users to identify the subject they're seeking. That could be because they naturally identify that subject as an entertainer, or it could be because a more specific term, such as "actor", would confuse a significant number of users who would identify the subject as a singer, not an actor. If an article is titled with "entertainer" and someone thinks a different term would be better, that's what WP:RM is for. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This was just meant to be a discussion on the relative merits of "(entertainer)" and when it might be appropriate to use. There have been a lot of recent RMs that might have been unnecessary or less contentious if we had a consensus on that issue. I don't know that we necessarily need official guidance on such a relatively minor issue. I was just trying to raise the awareness of it beyond the six people who seem to repeat the same phrases over and over (yours truly included). Dohn joe (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly as User:Theoldsparkle. As for Chris Brown, or Lillian Smith (trick shooter), counting articles which are not at (entertainer) is not relevant. Madonna (entertainer) (1) has a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and (2) has has "entertainer Madonna" 169 hits so isn't a model for the whole of en.wp where hits for entertainer = zero. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As for Chris Brown, you brought it up as an example of an RM that went against "(entertainer)" as "a neologism and/or imprecise". I just pointed out that wasn't the case, for clarity's sake. Dohn joe (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the comments, (entertainer) was a contibuting factor in the RMs, it remains the case that only 2 of 20 plus RMs have held on to the (entertainer) dabs. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think I have to share this point from the WP:RM queue:

• Oppose. She was notable as a singer as well as a musician (guitar and banjo). "Musician" would be more accurate than "singer". Dohn joe (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

We have another 10,000 (singer) articles who can be renamed (entertainer) because they could play a guitar. This "oppose" flies in the face of WP:AT CRITERIA 1,2,3,5. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This to me expresses part of the problem - WP:CRITERIA No.5, the tiny number of (entertainer) articles are largely there because they were undiscussed moved without reference to print source usage, or simply ill-considered. We don't title the bulk of Category:Singers as (entertainer) simply because most singers can play a guitar. That goes against WP:CRITERIA 1. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#WP:COMMONDAB.3F that you started? The consensus there was that WP:AT does apply to dabs, but with less rigor, because dabs are an artificial WP construction. No one searches for "singer X" or "X (singer)". They search for "X", and we provide a helpful dab when required. Most of the time, that dab should follow WP:AT. But just like any other title decision, it's a balancing decision. If a person is well-known as both a singer and a dancer, it's okay to choose "entertainer" sometimes. Dohn joe (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is your interpretation of the responses there, and is not my interpretation - nor of WP:AT as written. I do not see any consensus for exempting parenthetical sections of titles from WP:AT policy or for disregarding WP:CRITERIA. In particular no-one is taking your view that 2. Naturalness "actually called" is not applicable to parenthetical sections of titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Whose view are you talking about?

• "I would say that they should apply, but less rigorously than for the "meat" of the title." (Dohn joe - i.e., me)
• "I think the criteria apply, but with caveats - a dab is inherently odd, it's a Wikipedia creation meant to avoid namespace collision" (Obi-Wan Kenobi)
• "The non-parenthetical bit clearly falls under WP:AT, but the parenthetical bit, I think, has a bit more leeway attached." (CaseyPenk)

Dohn joe (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about your view: if a subject is well-known as both A and B, it's okay to choose as title C. But the subject isn't well known as C. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

With the actual title, that would never fly, of course. But with dabs we get more leeway. Dohn joe (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The notion of an all-around entertainer a la Charlie Chaplin may be an antique concept with people increasingly specialized these days, but not necessarily a defunct one. See this article, which says:

Justin Timberlake, now 32, has spent years building on his eminent charm in music, film, and even comedy to revive the idea of the all-around entertainer for a new generation.

It would seem that the NYTimes Magazine thinks of entertainers as people proficient in a multitude of fields (at least 2 but ideally 3 or more). That's a rather stringent criteria, meaning that entertainers are rather far and few between, but still existent. This seems like reasonable guidance for when to use entertainer, although it seems a high bar, since journalistic organizations such as magazines don't have to worry about page titles nor the many less-popular people we cover on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, it's some concrete advice that I think she would consider. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So, taking this comment and the one above, would it be fair to say that you would call "(entertainer)" an appropriate disambiguator when a person is proficient in 2 or more fields of entertainment, and none of them strongly predominates over another - or how would you word it? Dohn joe (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@CaseyPenk: I would read that NYTimes "all-around entertainer" as consistent with "all-around entertainer" as the phrase is used in Google Books meaning an entertainer who is wikt:all-around, not a binary entertainer, not someone with 2 hats, not someone with one big hat they wear every day and one little hat they wear once a year.

This also relates to the old variety, music-hall, LGBT, burlesque, cabaret, Las Vegas show, use of "entertainer" as someone multi-functioning within one show. I don't know if Justin Timberlake can do drag act, magic, comedy and sing all in one night, but despite the NYT blog cited above Google Books still counts him "the singer Justin Timberlake"

FWIW I ran a sources check on Talk:Madonna (entertainer) yesterday, as pretty much the ground-zero for the en.wp craze for (entertainer) dabs, and found that in Google Books "singer Madonna" outnumbered "actress Madonna" "entertainer Madonna" at something like 10:1, as you'd expect since she's a singer. I would hazard a guess that for some of her fans the semi-honorific title "entertainer" makes her sound more talented, more important, better than mere singers like Pink, Lady Gaga, etc. since the same is true of gratuitous "song by the American entertainer Jennifer Lopez" leads across en.wp, also with a slightly WP:HONORIFIC and WP:NPOV tinge to them. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggested short cut for Single name

I've temporarily inserted a shortlink box into Single name for discussion purposes. However the three suggested links are redlinks. Personally have no preference as which/what, but some shortcut would be helpful. Please anyone feel free to reduce/activate/revert/commentwhatever. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone watch this page? :) Unless anyone objects going to create WP:Mononym as a short cut. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Maternal last name - A-OK?

So, I thought that when you have a Spanish-heritage person with two apellidos, or last names, (one from the dad, one from the mom), we usually just go with the paternal name (see Nuria_Domínguez, where her maternal surname is in the first sentence of the article but not in the title; however, see José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero as a counterexample). But when we need to disambiguate due to lack of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC... well, then what? Should we use maternal surnames to disambiguate naturally? (I was convinced that this needed a discussion by this discussion, where a lengthy unnatural disambiguator was chosen over a concise, natural one). Red Slash 23:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

We never use full names to disambiguate if they're not actually commonly used, whether that's natural disambiguation or not. If both names are commonly used, it's fine to use them; if not, then we need parenthetical disambiguation as per usual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A surnames in English can begin with small letter?

It is my firm opinion that all (legally registered) surnames in English(-language countries) always begin with a capital letter, e.g. De Havilland (not de Havilland) or Von Bismarck (not von Bismark), and I know for a fact that hotel and airline computers in countries that use English will not accept any surname that is written with a lower case letter first. Am I wrong? It seems so, since English Wikipedia does not comply in some cases. Can we get a guideline on this, please? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you can call yourself what you like, it's irrelevant to Wikipedia article naming what the legal surname may or may not be. What's relevant is the surname that is actually used. In any case, the London Gazette frequently uses surnames beginning with lower case letters in official announcements, which suggests they're legal in the UK at least. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think it is far from standard. Both Tess of the d'Urbervilles and Tess of the D'Urbervilles are present in sources. I think it is more usual to see "von" uncapitalized. But these are foreign-looking names. O'Conner etc is always with a capital O. Macdonald is always with a capital M, the D being variable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Simone de Beauvoir

Hi, am wondering what the WP convention is for someone like Simone de Beauvoir. Multiple academic books sources seem to refer to her as de Beauvoir and many others just Beauvoir. Any thoughts or guidelines to look to? Cheers. Span (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Spanglej is correct in that both are used. My impression is that "de Beauvoir" is the older and more established convention. "Beauvoir" seems to be used more in recent books. I'd be in favor of keeping the older usage unless it becomes clear that it has been entirely displaced. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Does the guideline for consecutive initials WP:INITS contradict WP:ENGVAR?

Please see discussions at Talk:E.W. Hornung#Requested move and Talk:List of works by E.W. Hornung#Requested move. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• The result of this RfC would have repercussions for all other British bios with initials in them, so maybe it would be better to have the RfC here than there. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Does the guideline for consecutive initials WP:INITS contradict WP:ENGVAR?

Does the guideline for consecutive initials WP:INITS contradict WP:ENGVAR? The opinions at Talk:E.W. Hornung#Requested move and Talk:List of works by E.W. Hornung#Requested move would seem to suggest so, in which case provision would need to be made in this guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

To give some context, MoS's guidlines for formatting middle names and initials (WP:INITS) requires a space between initials, such as in I. M. Pei, D. B. Cooper, W. E. B. Du Bois, or C. R. M. F. Cruttwell. Some editors believe that this contradicts British usage (which places no space between initials which some editors affirm places no space between initials), and cite the MoS's guidelines for handling national varieties of English (WP:ENGVAR). WP:INITS does provide for exceptions: "There are, however, exceptions, such as k.d. lang and CC Sabathia." Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no such rule in British English. DrKiernan (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you're very much mistaken with that. Did you bother to look at any of relevant style or grammer guides? - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not mistaken. Please don't comment about editors. DrKiernan (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, you are. (And I'm not making a comment about you, just pointing out that your opinion is mistaken. - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• No. Nothing contradicts WP:ENGVAR. WP:ENGVAR is so basic it permeates all of Wikipedia. WP:INITS is little more than a little section of a MOS guideline page that say little more than "follow the sources". (in reliable sources, initial are mostly spaced, but not always) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• A few points:
  • There is a precedent for bios of British articles with spaced initials: J. R. R. Tolkien, J. K. Rowling
  • For articles that have no strong affiliation with any particular brand of English, will this reading of ENGVAR apply if the article is written in British English?
  • I see this as similar to Wikipedia's preference for logical quotes, which does not allow concessions to national preferences
  • If ENGVAR is given precedence, then the hundreds of bios of British articles that already exist with spaced initials will have to be moved: A. A. Milne, D. H. Lawrence, F. R. Leavis, H. G. Wells, P. D. James, T. E. Lawrence ... or is consistency not desirable?
• Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• I find it hard to believe that there is really a strong national preference for spaced or non-space initials. I don't think this is really a WP:ENGVAR issue, but would appreciate helpful links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• There's no difference in this regard between "American" and "British" English. This started on the E W Hornung page, but there are hundreds of British sources that use a space: [2][3][4][5][6][7], etc. Also see style guides at the University of Oxford[8] "use a space to separate each initial" and Cambridge University Press [9], which also spaces initials. DrKiernan (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Hundreds"? Ignore the general website usage: most people don't know most of the rules of grammar and are likely to err in usage. Instead refer to The Guardian: : "Do not use full points in abbreviations, or spaces between initials, including those in proper names"; the BBC: "For names with initials, we avoid full stops and spaces (ie JK Rowling and WH Smith)."; and The Economist: "Initials in people's names, or in companies named after them, take points (with a space between initials and name, but not between initials). Thus F.W. de Klerk, V.P. Singh, E.I. du Pont de Nemours, F.W. Woolworth". - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oxford and Cambridge know the rules of grammar. This is a style issue only, and while there are different styles they are not "American" or "British", they are merely "spaced" or "unspaced". The universities use spaced, the BBC use unspaced. The same goes for American sources: some use spaced some unspaced. The difference does not depend on location. DrKiernan (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's not the universities, it's the associated publishing houses, which is slightly different, as they are to a lot of use (thus the Oxford Style, which, among other things, includes the use of ~ize in place of ~ise. - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• British English almost always uses spaces between initials when used in names. Not doing so is personal choice, nothing more. What it often does not do is use full stops after them. However, this is a long-standing convention on Wikipedia and I believe we should retain it, although I do not actually use full stops in this way outside Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• To be quite honest, I think this should be left as a personal choice, and not enforced prescriptively by the MOS... particularly when sources prefer one spelling over the other. There are cases when no sources use spaces (while writing F.D.J. Pangemanann I did not find any sources which spaced the F. D. and J., nor did I find any information of what those initials stood for). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NC calls for consistency. An MOS is important to achieve this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Added to which, many editors (including myself) will automatically move article titles to the house style with spaces whenever we see them without. What's the point of getting into edit wars when all we're doing is following the MOS? It makes no sense to title articles according to personal preference, which is entirely what this issue is all about (it's quite clear this is not an ENGVAR issue). It makes Wikipedia look scruffy and ridiculous. We have to have some consistency. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Except that moving articles to names not supported by sources (as in my Pangemanann example above) is borderline OR, and against WP:COMMONNAME. That means two parts of the MOS may conflict with each other. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not at all. Style is not sourced. That's what our MOS is for. F.D.J. Pangemanann, F. D. J. Pangemanann, FDJ Pangemanann and F D J Pangemanann are all exactly the same name, each just styled differently, and we should choose which style to use based on our in-house style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, a simple google search will show some sources for Pangemanann with spaces, some without, and some with no full stops. Another indication of nothing more than house style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that style is never sourced. The title of our k.d. lang article is a good example of a situation where source usage was a factor in choosing how to style to title... and source usage was a huge factor in resolving the Deadmou5 debate. I'm not saying that our MOS is bad... I certainly don't have a problem with following it when source usage is mixed (it makes for a good "tie breaker" in those situations)... but when the sources overwhelmingly agree on something contrary to the preference stated in our MOS, the sources should take precedence. Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

k.d. lang and Deadmau5 are examples of an entirely different kind. It has been demonstrated that publications that favour the space spell Hornung's name with a space, and those that don't, don't. There is no indication that Hornung cared, nor is there any indication that any of the writers who wrote about him cared about anything more than conforming to a house style. WP:COMMONNAME could only apply to typography when that typography is clearly a conscious choice, and there is zero evidence to indicate that is the case with Hornung—nor is it the argument the authors of the article have presented: they maintain it's an ENGVAR issue, as reflected in the title of this RfC. More than one editor has pointed out (with sources) that it is not an ENGVAR issue, assuming ENGVAR ever even applied to punctuation and spacing (for which I see no convincing argument). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

where did the material for the creation of the ethnicities and tribes guideline come from here?

According to https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ethnicities_and_tribes)&oldid=487207083 Onceinawhile], saying "New article as proposed - text moved from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)"? I've tried finding the lift/transfer in the history of this guideline, where was it and was it identical? There is someone disputed that NCET is even valid because it hasn't had an RfC, but if the passage in question (re self-identification) is from this guideline, that's a moot point. And I realize also that WP:UNDAB is only an essay though based in CRITERIA and TITLE, that has been disputed also as being relevant, even though it very much is in terms of countless redirects, all the work of the author who augmented NCL to justify his thousands of moves of articles from "FOO" to "FOO people", many of which are just redirects to current title; see my user contributions first 500, about 1/3 way down, for examples, as I've launched RMs to revert those undiscussed moves, now being told there is no centralized discussion and all should be thrown out (as stated by that same author), even though I made an attempt to launch bulk RMs and was criticized for not filing separate RMs. Also, re "FOO people" as a construction, the standard for that especially in category titles is "people who are FOO" or "people from FOO".Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)