Per the English Wikipedia's naming conventions policy, the most commonly attested name for the subject in English-language sources is used throughout the article. The article's title will not be changed to her legal name or any other that does not conform to the aforementioned policy.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Latest comment: 24 days ago11 comments11 people in discussion
The operative policy is WP:COMMONNAME. Quoting User:Zzzs: we should not and will not change the article title based on arguments like "Polish scientists should be recognised!" and "The French had enough scientists!". Remsense ‥ 论23:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.
I think it should be Marie Skłodowska-Curie. This choice would satisfy everyone, without omitting an important part of her identity, one that some people are obsessed to hide under many excuses (hard to pronounce, not necessary, was french etc.) Awhileo (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just want you guys to know that we should not and will not change the article title based on arguments like "Polish scientists should be recognised!" and "The French had enough scientists!" against policies and guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME. ZZZ'S15:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.
Latest comment: 8 days ago9 comments7 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
she was Polish, don’t just type her birth last name, when she married Pierre Curie she insisted on being called Maria SKŁODOWSKA-Curie, please fix it or i’ll do it myself Nikolairaskolnikov (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, this has also been discussed repeatedly, and would require a consensus developed here AS WELL AS reliable sources. PianoDan (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to remind about this issue. As for the sources, my best bet at the moment would be the PWN Encyclopedia[1], I don't think she ever mentioned it outright, that she wanted to be addressed by her full name because of her heritage, but there are a lot of letters, in which she describes her attitude towards her homeland[2]. Other that that, I think the sole fact that her signature often contained her full name[3], and the fact that she named an element after Poland should be indicative enough. 2A02:A31B:2081:8D80:A045:4247:3827:2312 (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The statement reads "please provide reliable sources". Are the sources given above are not valid? And if they are not sufficient enough, are there any reliable sources that would suggest omitting the "Skłodowska" part of her name? Or is this an exception for some reason? 2A02:A31B:2081:8D80:D54B:FC2B:9EB:CE21 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then cite sources for why she should be called Marie Curie. Marie Curie is clearly not the consensus option for her name. Maria Skłodowska-Curie is at least not hiding her identity and nationality. Essasitopapopito (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago13 comments8 people in discussion
Dont say "know as Marie Curie" she is must and will be know as Marie Skłodowska-Curie, thats her name. But when you dont put her full name into the title, you make her know in her husbands name, not her. Change that. Chloreenek (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
"must and will be known as" are not our business - Wikipedia is not an attempt to shape the way things are discussed or to predict the future. We reflect how things are discussed in reliable sources: see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I agree with you that it would be better if she wasn't associated with her husband's name, but that's not the test here.
As for "is...known as", I just don't know that that's true. It seems that the vast majority of sources call her Marie Curie, and that this is how she is discussed in media and everyday conversation most of the time. If you want to see the article changed, you will need to make a case that she is more often referred to as "Marie Skłodowska-Curie" than as "Marie Curie" in reliable sources. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
With all respect but even Sklodowska Curie used sign 'Maria Sklodowska Curie' not 'Maria Curie' and many times she says that she's polish scientist. This is really disrespectful for the one of the greatest womans in history of science 92.31.69.227 (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again, I agree with you that it would be better to refer to her that way. But Wikipedia does not write what I think would be best, Wikipedia writes what most reliable sources say. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
1. In Nobel Prize documents she is called "Maria Skłodowska Curie" - [4]
So you think that a Polish woman marrying a French man automatically becomes French? Got it. Now stop disrespecting the Polish nation and her own wishes and change the title according to her legal name. She chose to be Polish and we cannot show her false name in a wikipedia title. This seriously should not be an argument. Essasitopapopito (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This in itself is not the best argument, but I would believe that there is a reason to change.
Please see MOS:PL which claims that for polish names you should use the polish name and spelling unless there is clear evidence for the person themselves preferring a different spelling.
MOS:BIOEXCEPT also says that - if the person themselves used that name, and the name was actually used by verifiable sources, then there is a fair reason to use that name in the article name.
If you find good sources on Marie using "Skłodowska-Curie" surname more than "Curie", and sources (eg. newspapers from the time) where they also call her "Maria Skłodowska-Curie" then you might have a chance of solving this dispute.
PS: I also believe that this very article might've kind of done a WP:CIRCULAR by making other sites just use "Marie Curie" instead of "Marie Skłodowska-Curie" which has been used frequently in the past to refer to Marie.
If MOS:PL doesn't explicitly say so, it absolutely should that WP:NC trumps its particular guidelines, which would only come into consideration if there is no clear common name in English. It's also not circular—her common name in English has solidly been as such for the entire 20th century, and it's not close.
To be blunt, please don't give people who don't care about our rules more ammo to waste our time with. There's no debate to be had. Remsense ‥ 论21:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Remsense I would strongly disagree with that there is no debate at all to be had, and I do think that in the end the article name should probably be changed, but the way these people are going around trying to do that is I don't like.
Example on Wikipedia is Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach who's article name is spelled fully even though commonly he's known as C. P. E. Bach, so its not unprecedented for the full name to be included in a Wikipedia article when it's more accurate, even when less used. (example from WP:INITS)
What I mean to say is: there is no debate to be had if one is 1) a native English speaker—this is not meant as prejudice, I'm merely making as clear as possible how predominant this form is while acknowledging it is very likely different in other languages, such as Polish—and 2) adequately familiar with site policy. You continue to cite snippets that are either irrelevant or totally subservient to the most important one, which is given first and most plainly atop WP:NC for a reason. What you seem to miss here is the reasoning plainly given by WP:MAIDEN, which explicitly repeats that a better known form without a maiden or mother's surname is unambiguously more correct. Also, you can't just point to other pages without deeper reasoning—frankly, I am not aware why the article shouldn't be C. P. E. Bach, perhaps it should be changed—but we are discussing this article, not that one (cf. WP:OTHERCONTENT). Remsense ‥ 论18:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just checked the chemistry text (the 11th edition of Chemistry by Zumdahl, Zumdahl, and DeCoste, copyright 2024) used at the community college I work at. She is referred to as Marie Sklowdoska Curie in situations where male scientists would have their middle names presented. In general text, she is always referred to as Marie Curie. As far as this website influencing outside usage, the form "Marie Curie" has been standard usage as far back as I can remember encountering her name. That would be the mid 1980s, longer if you count the age of some of the books I read about her. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Missing mother and father information in the infobox
Latest comment: 30 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Considering the volume of repetitive inquiries about the article title, should we put in place one of those flashy editnotices to inform of the current consensus? As a page mover, I can make it, if there is consensus for that. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)22:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The amount of fights suggests that there is no consensus. I would suggest against that for this moment, as cementing the title as is, would shape the discourse and her future recognition along a very western, british and french perspective and would not account for her recognition in her country of origin and her own wishes. Maciej Kisling (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You'd be wrong: policy is extraordinarily clear, and just because there are several editors who are not familiar with what policy says or do not care, does not mean there is a lack of consensus regarding how it applies. You'd know that if you read WP:Consensus. Remsense ‥ 论02:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It's Marie Sklodowska-Curie, not Marie Curie, forgetting first of her surnames in title is wrong, and disrespectful. She always used both, even on her Nobel prize there was Marie Sklodowska-Curie. If in documents there were her both surnames it means that forgetting it is just a mistake. Noone has right to change it. 2A02:A420:581:1612:8DD1:6ACB:87C5:1D97 (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Please see WP:COMMONNAME. Her full name is given at the start of the article. BelowTheSun (T•C) 13:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
![[4]](http://pl.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Plik:Marie_Sk%C5%82odowska-Curie%27s_Nobel_Prize_in_Chemistry_1911.jpg){kind=link}