WikiProject Manual of Style | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
![]() Archives |
---|
|
Threads older than 45 days may be archived by lowercase sigmabot III. |
Contents
post-nominal letters re: "closely associated"
I'm looking to understand applications of the definition of "closely associated" in MOS:POSTNOMs. Using Bill Gates as example: Microsoft has in excess of 10,000 employees in the UK. Gates is personally involved in many UK projects ie: [1]. I would define that as being "closely associated". Further, a substantial working life, or earning a degree, in Britain, or even having British parents, might well be described as being "closely associated". Thoughts? (Gates aside, I do not see this specific MOS:POSTNOM discussion anywhere; please redirect me should it be better stated or resolved elsewhere.) Thank you, AHampton (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- @AHampton: A close association isn't remote/minor/in passing, its long term, strong, and self-evident: eg, there is a clear difference between "being related" and "being closely related" to someone (great-aunt/second cousin vs parent/child/sibling). Looking at your example: Microsoft having employees in the UK means Microsoft is associated with the UK, not Gates; being involved in UK projects means Gates is associated but not closely associated. Earning a degree or having British parents/ancestry also would be (barely) associated. On the other hand, "a substantial working life" would: Kevin Spacey is a good example of that, having spent a decade+ being based in the UK, and so his honorary KBE is shown in the lede. Long term residence, a decoration awarded while serving alongside or for a foreign nation, etc, would be fine. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting notes, thank you. I suppose we differ in that I would consider myself to be closely associated with the city and state of my own, distant alma mater, though I only studied there for six years. As for Gates, to say that Microsoft has 10,000 employees is saying that Gates has 10,000 de facto employees — though he may own just 4% now, he has been a majority shareholder and founder, so that seems to be splitting hairs. Separately, just how many UK-based projects would such as he need to be personally involved in for him to be considered "closely associated", then? I'd also be very curious, Gaia Octavia Agrippa, to know your opinion on this individual, in the same context, as having led me to this issue, shared with the Gates' page: Ratan Tata. Is someone, briefly, born in (then) British India who owns British-founded companies, and now personally meets with the PM of England, also not to be considered as "closely associated"? AHampton (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Simple answer to Ratan Tata: I can't see anything that indicates a "close association" with the UK, so no, his GBE should be treated like any other foreign honour. The company Microsoft is not the same as the person Bill Gates. If we look at the full guideline its states: "a state, or a widely recognized organization, with which the subject has been closely associated": the person in question, not their companies. India having been a British colony at the time of Tata's birth does not mean he is "closely associated" with the UK; his companies having absorbed some famous British brands does not mean Tata himself is "closely associated" with the UK. Lots of foreign business people meet with the British PM: it soesn't make them "closely associated" with the UK, its just part of doing global business.
- Perhaps there is a cultural difference between you and I, and you consider your Great Aunt a close-related family member? Perhaps a better analogy if this is the case would be: someone related to you (the individual's home country/current citizenship), your best friend ("close association"), and other people people you are friends with (not at a level to include in the lede). The UK is not the best friend of Bill Gates or Ratan Tata.
- As for how many projects would Bill Gates have to be involved in? As one of the richest men on the world in give money to projects all over the globe. Nice if him, but for the purpose of satisfy a "close association": maybe if he set up a Gates UK foundation that he was personally involved with? I'm not sure.
- As a side note, I've googled synonyms for "closely associated" [2]. Examples include: intimately connected, intrinsically linked to, deeply involved. Basically, this is a very high bar of personal association that Wikipedia is setting. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 01:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond in detail, and for reminding me to call my Great-Aunt, with whom, yes, I am closely associated. Does being British-born and knighted automatically qualify a subject's profile to display post-noms? While I am well aware of the difference between an individual and a corporate entity, I account for the fact that the corporation is founded and led by individuals. Each of tho individuals used as examples here could be described is "deeply involved" with the United Kingdom, and moreso than many born there. (And this comes from someone who would vote to abolish the peerage, on principle, given the chance.) At bottom, I'd venture to say that it would better serve WP to have the term replaced with a more definitive explanation, thus avoiding what now occurs without it. AHampton (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's a stretch to say he's British-born. He was born in India. He is Indian. He resides in India. We might say 'British-born' when someone is born in Britain but does not hold British citizenship or reside in Britain, but not when someone clearly wasn't born in Britain. DrKay (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- DrKay: the question was general, and not in reference to Tata. AHampton (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- So was the answer. Switch 'British' and 'Indian' for any two nationalities. Same goes. DrKay (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I think if someone is British-born then their article should display any British postnominals they've received; that's certainly a close enough relationship (as is having spent a long time in Britain, such as Kevin Spacey or Gillian Anderson). Although in reality most people who are British-born still hold British citizenship in any case (very few people renounce British citizenship on acquiring another citizenship, as it is not a legal requirement to do so), so their postnominals are substantive and not honorary. Of course, most British men who are knighted do not have any postnominals. Tata is not a straightforward case, as he was born in a country that received substantive, and not honorary, British honours until he was 12; in fact, his grandfather held a substantive knighthood. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, DrKay, but that was not the question, which was: Does being British-born and knighted automatically qualify a subject's profile to display post-noms? AHampton (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- No, I do not expect British post-nominals to be listed after the names of Princess Margriet of the Netherlands or Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia. I think it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, with consensus determined at each talk page based on the practice adopted by most reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Foreign royals and heads of state and government (whether "British-born" or not) are always special cases, as their honours are often awarded as a matter of course for diplomatic reasons and not for any specific achievement and they frequently have long lists of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- No, I do not expect British post-nominals to be listed after the names of Princess Margriet of the Netherlands or Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia. I think it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, with consensus determined at each talk page based on the practice adopted by most reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Necrothesp, I agree that the case of Tata is more complex than is typical, and we would do well to reach a consensus on that, which we do not have here. I do see him as having a"long term, strong, and self-evident" association with the UK, for instance. It seems apparent that "closely associated" is insufficient to the imposed parameters, and should be made more specific. AHampton (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, DrKay, but that was not the question, which was: Does being British-born and knighted automatically qualify a subject's profile to display post-noms? AHampton (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- DrKay: the question was general, and not in reference to Tata. AHampton (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's a stretch to say he's British-born. He was born in India. He is Indian. He resides in India. We might say 'British-born' when someone is born in Britain but does not hold British citizenship or reside in Britain, but not when someone clearly wasn't born in Britain. DrKay (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond in detail, and for reminding me to call my Great-Aunt, with whom, yes, I am closely associated. Does being British-born and knighted automatically qualify a subject's profile to display post-noms? While I am well aware of the difference between an individual and a corporate entity, I account for the fact that the corporation is founded and led by individuals. Each of tho individuals used as examples here could be described is "deeply involved" with the United Kingdom, and moreso than many born there. (And this comes from someone who would vote to abolish the peerage, on principle, given the chance.) At bottom, I'd venture to say that it would better serve WP to have the term replaced with a more definitive explanation, thus avoiding what now occurs without it. AHampton (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting notes, thank you. I suppose we differ in that I would consider myself to be closely associated with the city and state of my own, distant alma mater, though I only studied there for six years. As for Gates, to say that Microsoft has 10,000 employees is saying that Gates has 10,000 de facto employees — though he may own just 4% now, he has been a majority shareholder and founder, so that seems to be splitting hairs. Separately, just how many UK-based projects would such as he need to be personally involved in for him to be considered "closely associated", then? I'd also be very curious, Gaia Octavia Agrippa, to know your opinion on this individual, in the same context, as having led me to this issue, shared with the Gates' page: Ratan Tata. Is someone, briefly, born in (then) British India who owns British-founded companies, and now personally meets with the PM of England, also not to be considered as "closely associated"? AHampton (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I strongly concur with Gaia Octavia Agrippa's take on this, and that the "Microsoft has 10K employees in the UK ergo Gates personally has a close association with the UK" is wishful thinking and a twisting of the intent of the guideline to try to make it mean nearly opposite of what it means. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Two-editor circular stuff that is mostly a personality conflict ...
|
---|
|
MOS:JOBTITLES for infobox
I'm not sure where the conversations are all at or if they've been archived, but I know there was at least some ambiguity about whether to implement the MOS on the infoboxes for presidents, etc. What makes the infobox listing exempt from the style guide when the phrasing is the exact same as the article's body (e.g. 16th [P/p]resident of the United States)? UpdateNerd (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm the fellow who implemented president of the United States & vice president of the United States into the intros of those bios. This much I know, it's near impossible to get consistency across the US governors & lieutenant governors bios & other US officials, not to mentions officials in other countries. Like any MOS, it's impossible to get consistency across all bio articles, concerning JOBTITLES. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but the reasoning for not implementing the style in the infobox... ? UpdateNerd (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- My reasoning, it's better capitalized in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:UpdateNerd I think info boxes generally are individual discretion, but also that usage might well be viewed as a proper noun and so capitalised. In addition, some (such as myself) go further and hold that the MOS anti-capitalised stance put in JOBTITLES last year was simply incorrect. I’d suggest refer to the more modest guide circa April 2018 as solid, and expect anything saying to avoid capitals as just something where practice varies. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see anything different regarding capitalization as of the April 2018 style guide; could you link that "stable" version? UpdateNerd (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- And what Markbassett is really saying is "consensus didn't go the way I want so I will defy it and agitate that others do so." WP doesn't work that way. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but the reasoning for not implementing the style in the infobox... ? UpdateNerd (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Commons category for single pictures?
Should the {{commons category}}
box be added to biography articles in which the only picture in commons is the same one as the infobox? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- As a matter of practice (and I've added probably a dozen thousand of these templates) usually no. I usually don't even create a commons category if only one picture exists. If a cat already exists, I ensure that it's connected via Wikidata, but I don't add the template to the external links section of the article. GMGtalk 21:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Personally I might do it, in case other pics arrive later. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Note re discussion on Naming conventions in articles/citation
A discussion about using naming initials in article text vice naming initials in citations is posted at HERE. Interested editors are invited to comment. – S. Rich (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
More on postnominals
There is a discussion above (perm) about the meaning of the phrase "closely associated". I have seen this come up in two other places, first involving Paul Erdős (discussion part 1 and part 2) and then more recently involving Claude Shannon (discussion, active ANI thread (perm)). All these discussions involve people wanting to add British postnominals to very important or prominent non-British people with many similar accolades and no strong relation to the UK. I propose that the wording of the first sentence/paragraph be modified to emphasize the requirement of a strong relationship, an perhaps to include an illustrative example or two. Here is one possible phrasing along those lines:
When the subject of an article has received national or international honours or appointments issued by a state or a widely recognized organization with which the subject has been closely associated (e.g., as detailed in the article body), post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section.
Thoughts? Better suggestions? As far as illustrative examples, I feel like Bill Gates (from above) in an excellent example of someone who shouldn't have British post-nominals, ditto Erdos or Shannon (but maybe they are less widely known); I'm sure a positive example could be included as well (from the recent absurd episode maybe Victor Goldschmidt is a good choice). --JBL (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that Gates, Erdős, and Shannon should not use these. On the other hand, I imagine that an FRS in a different country of the British commonwealth where other postnominals are still common might well also use the FRS. So I'm not sure that close association is exactly the right test. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't find that clearer, and would suggest something like received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject. DrKay (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- That rules out people like Kevin Spacey and Gillian Anderson, who have received honours from a country in which they have lived and worked for a substantial time but of which they do not actually have citizenship. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Amended. DrKay (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- The problem with "has been associated" is that it's weaker than the current "closely associated" -- indeed, under the standard you've proposed, Albert Einstein should get ForMFRS or whatever because he was associated with the RS (namely, they offered him membership and he accepted). This kind of weak association is what I would like to more explicitly rule out. --JBL (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Amended. DrKay (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- So, if I understand, the current proposal is to write the following?
When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section.
- (It was not clear to me if you wanted to eliminate the parenthetical I introduced; I have left it out here.) I would be happy with this -- "sources regularly associate" is a clearer/harder standard of the sort I am hoping for. --JBL (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the proposal as amended. DrKay (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Great. Not having seen any objections, I am going to WP:BOLDly implement the latest version. --JBL (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Could it be changed to "subject's state of citizenship or long-term residence" or "subject's state of citizenship or permanent residence", either of which is clearer than "subject's state of citizenship or residence". Wording it simply as "residence" might end up widening the scope from original WP:POSTNOM. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Great. Not having seen any objections, I am going to WP:BOLDly implement the latest version. --JBL (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the proposal as amended. DrKay (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Amended. DrKay (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- The problem with "has been associated" is that it's weaker than the current "closely associated" -- indeed, under the standard you've proposed, Albert Einstein should get ForMFRS or whatever because he was associated with the RS (namely, they offered him membership and he accepted). This kind of weak association is what I would like to more explicitly rule out. --JBL (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Amended. DrKay (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- That rules out people like Kevin Spacey and Gillian Anderson, who have received honours from a country in which they have lived and worked for a substantial time but of which they do not actually have citizenship. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
No discussion of the MOS to be found here. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I started that discussion above, and was rebuked for the effort. As predicted, the issue remained. (I will not weigh in on the topic now, as already quite discounted right here.) Nonetheless, am glad to see a useful discussion finally emerged, though in a sort of clubhouse, as it were. Better late than never, I suppose. AHampton (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
A case in point would be Kylie Minogue. Her (featured) article gives her the post-nominals AO and OBE. She's a dual citizen, so she's entitled to use both post-nominals, but not at the same time. Except on Wikipedia apparently. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
|
MOS:HYPOCORISM
Does this policy apply even for fictional characters? At Jackie Burkhart, I removed the quoted nickname from Jacqueline "Jackie" Beulah Burkhart since Jackie sounds like an obvious dimunitive of Jacqueline, but AussieLegend reverted it, saying, "This is about a fictional character and the name used in the series should be used." --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- No reason it shouldn't also apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Necrothesp, the question is: was AussieLegend right or wrong to do so? Based on whether it is or not, I'll re-edit the article. Similarly, at Bran Stark, I removed Brandon Stark, typically called Bran to retain just Brandon Stark in accordance with MOS:HYPOCORISM, but TedEdwards reverted it, saying, "WP:HYPOCORISM refers to genuine biographies. This article is not a biography". --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- For Burkhart, the hypocorism should definitely be removed, as Jackie is a clear and well-known hypocorism of Jacqueline. It shouldn't matter whether she's fictional or real. Bran Stark is less clear-cut, as he's a fantasy character and real-world naming conventions do not apply, although it should of course be blatantly obvious to anyone that Bran is a hypocorism of Brandon, so using the rules of common sense it shouldn't be necessary to include it given it's in the article title. But given it's not been plonked in the middle of his name like it was with Jackie Burkhart I probably would retain it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Necrothesp, the question is: was AussieLegend right or wrong to do so? Based on whether it is or not, I'll re-edit the article. Similarly, at Bran Stark, I removed Brandon Stark, typically called Bran to retain just Brandon Stark in accordance with MOS:HYPOCORISM, but TedEdwards reverted it, saying, "WP:HYPOCORISM refers to genuine biographies. This article is not a biography". --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. There's no reason it would not apply. It's not about whether it's a real person with preferences, or anything like that, it's about whether we're going to brow-beat readers with redundant blather as if they have severe brain damage. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'd have to question why Bart Simpson still has the "Bart" when (Bartholomew -> Bart) is one of the listed Hypocorisms. Although Marge Simpson would be different since many would assume her full name to be Margaret (as in Matt Groening's mother's name), so it is more interesting to note it is short for Marjorie. I also have to question Ray Stantz lead sentence since Ray is a hypocorism of Raymond. But names like Michael "Mike" or Elizabeth "Liz" should definitely be removed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I’d suggest a different approach that would avoid the issue altogether. MOS:BIO is about people, not fictional entities. As WP:WAF makes clear, there should be no presumption that fictional characters are treated by the standards developed for real people. The only mention of fictional characters in MOS:BIO is an example of this, as it states that subsequent mentions of fictional entities should use common names, not surnames.
- I think a similar standard should be used for the lead sentence: refer to the character by their common name (“Jackie Burkhart is...”, “Bart Simpson is...”). For a real person, the full name has a significance that does not translate to the fictional context. For fictional characters, full names are often obscure and rarely mentioned trivia, more appropriate for the body of the article. Middle names in particular are often written as one-off jokes. Leading with an obscure full name sets an inappropriate in-universe tone for an article.--Trystan (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I fall into Trystan's camp here. --Izno (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Saving the full name for later is a good option too; that can be for cases where the character is never referred to by full name except in an obscure episode naming as with Vash the Stampede. I could use that scheme for many of the character names in List of My Name Is Earl characters and List of New Girl characters#Schmidt (This edit) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC) updated 23:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I fall into Trystan's camp here. --Izno (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The difference between fictional characters and real people is that the fictional characters are almost always referred to by their credited name and not by their full name, which is normally a minor factoid if it is revealed at all, For example,
"Fez" real name and even his origin were never revealed. Similarly, in The Big Bang Theory, Penny's full name is not known and the producers have said it never will be so she is only ever referred to as Penny. "Jacqueline Beulah Burkhart" is not how Jackie Burkhart is ever known in the program. She is always referred to as Jackie so it's quite silly to give the formal name prominence. It has nothing to do with "preference", it's just how characters are credited.
Jackie is a clear and well-known hypocorism of Jacqueline
- That may be true but that doesn't mean that someone referred to as "Jackie" will always be formally named "Jacqueline". Some people name their children using the shortened form. I have known several females named "Penny". Some have "Penelope" on their birth certificates while some have "Penny". The full formal name is used in fictional character articles so that they comply with MOS:BIO as much as is possible for fictional characters but the viewing audience only know them by the name credited on-screen. Putting just "Jacqueline Beulah Burkhart" is going to confuse readers who may not be "into" the character's backstory as much as some Wikipedia editors obviously are. And what about "Raj" on The Big Bang Theory? His full name is "Rajesh Ramayan Koothrappali". Is "Raj" a normal hypocrism of "Rajesh" or is that something that non-Indians might just assume?
We need to remember that fiction does not always follow the laws of the real world and sometimes we have to suspend normal rules and beliefs because of that. The program in which Jackie Burkhart appeared is a classic example of that. Over an 8-year broadcast period it only covered 3.5 years of "real" time. For this reason I agree with Trystan and think that "Jackie Burkhart is" is better for fictional characters than trying to comply with MOS:BIO in the lede. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Frankly, I think that pretty much everything you've just said could apply to real people too! So I don't quite get why fictional characters should be so much of a different case. If Penny's real name is not known then we don't make one up for her, any more than we would for a real person whose full name we didn't know; but presumably Jackie Burkhart's full name has appeared somewhere given it's listed in the article. In that case, the same rules should apply to her as to real people. And Raj isn't really relevant here, as he is frequently called Rajesh as well as Raj in the series and his surname, if not his middle name, is also commonly known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that pretty much everything you've just said could apply to real people too!
- except that real people usually start with a real name first and add the fictional name later while fictional characters start with (usually) a single, onscreen name first and add the real name later. For example, Reginald Kenneth Dwight became Elton John many years after he was born. If he was a fictional character he'd have first been known as Elton John and then much later it would have been revealed that he was originally Reginald Kenneth Dwight. That's actually a big difference. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)- I believe the common justification given for giving the full name in the lead sentence of a biography is that it is a core biographical detail. For non-biographical articles, MOS:FIRST says to use the title as the subject of the first sentence. The question is then whether we approach an article about a fictional character as a fictional biography, and WP:WAF is clear that we should not (though it may contain one as a subsection).--Trystan (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Fictional characters are not real people, we don't treat them as such, as stated in WP:WAF. The name of the article and the name in the lead should be based on common usage and credit. Oliver Queen (Arrowverse) is "Oliver Queen", not "Oliver 'Ollie' Jonas Queen", his "fictional legal name" because Stephen Amell isn't credited that way, and it's not the common usage for the character. Although there are pages that are doing this, I would argue they shouldn't be, because these aren't real people. They don't have "legal names" like an actual person does. Oliver Queen is Oliver Queen. For story purposes, at some pointe, a character notes that his middle name is "Jonas". That's irrelevant for fictional characters. There seems to be a push to put in more information that reflects a treatment of WP:BIO with fictional characters, and it's a little unsettling to see how far it's getting. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Bignole, never did I say the lead of Oliver Queen should be Oliver "Ollie" Jonas Queen. Because Ollie is an obvious hypocorism and not part of the article's title. But it would be annoying if someone wrote Walter Hartwell "Walt" White rather than simply Walter Hartwell White or James Morgan "Jimmy" McGill instead of James Morgan McGill, right? That is why I believe MOS:HYPOCORISM is meant to combat such redundancy, regardless of whether the subject is fiction or reality. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- My Oliver Queen example is merely an example, not meant to be a specific indication of something done. It's the first name that came to mind. The section being discussed says "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym.", the problem is that fictional characters are not real and thus do not have "legal names", nor do they have pseudonyms. They have "aliases"...well, superheroes and the like do, but not pseudonyms...because they aren't real. In the case of Jackie, her lead name should match her article title, because her name is Jackie. She's credited as Jackie. She isn't credited as Jacqueline (sp). She isn't real, and she doesn't have a legal name. So, the answer to the question of whether she should be "Jacqueline 'Jackie' Burkhart" is superseded by the fact that "Jacqueline" shouldn't even be there in the first place. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- That depends if the show uses Jacqueline in any noticeable and recurring manner besides the one-off wedding / reveal your middle name episodes. In a list of characters, she would just be Jackie Burkhart, or just Jackie if her last name is also trivial and only mentioned in those kinds of episodes. I have a bunch of cases at Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) where they just go by common name, even though there are episodes where given names (CEO -> Carl) and full names (Tom -> Thomas, Ben -> Benjamin, MC -> Maurice Claremont) are revealed later. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- That I couldn't tell you. I'm not super knowledgable about that show, and I only ever recall "Jackie" used. But, your point is the point I think that I was trying to make. For fictional characters, they don't really fall under how BIO treats names, because they don't have legal names. They have their credited name, which is more often than not (excusing some exceptions that may exist) the common usage on the show. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Some characters' full names should be mentioned without hypocorisms, eg:
FrankFrancis Joseph Underwood. Because even though he is commonly called Frank, his wife always called him Francis onscreen, and this has some relevance to the plot. But I get what Bignole says: if the character's full name isn't common, it shouldn't be included in the lead, and automatically that means no hypocorism either so I'll respect that. On an unrelated note, the character's full name should be mentioned somewhere in the article right? Eg: "Donald Fauntleroy Duck" appears only twice in the article, but certainly not the lead section (whether the full name is still canon or not isn't relevant here). So what about Oliver Jonas Queen whose full name is canon? On a more related note, should Kim Wexler, Chuck McGill and Gus Fring retain the characters' legal names in the lead or not? I think the names Kimberly, Charles and Gustavo are quite commonly used in Better Call Saul. Anyone who has seen the series may argue. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)- I support a consistent approach where the lead always uses the common name. The recognizability of common hypocorisms works both ways, so a user looking for an article on "Francis Underwood" is not likely to be confused when reading an intro that starts "Frank Underwood is...". The full name is suitable for the infobox and a fictional biography section, if there is one. If there is significance to Clair Underwood calling her husband 'Francis', then that can be discussed in the body of the article.--Trystan (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I concur with Trystan. Whether Oliver Queen's middle name is Jonas or not isn't a real-world fact to verify or care about, but a minor plot point. Frank Underwood being called Francis by his wife is similarly a plot point (maybe a meaningful one), and has no impact on the purpose of the lead sentence making it clear that the reader has arrived at the right page (anyone watching that show will already know that Francis and Frank are the same person). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I support a consistent approach where the lead always uses the common name. The recognizability of common hypocorisms works both ways, so a user looking for an article on "Francis Underwood" is not likely to be confused when reading an intro that starts "Frank Underwood is...". The full name is suitable for the infobox and a fictional biography section, if there is one. If there is significance to Clair Underwood calling her husband 'Francis', then that can be discussed in the body of the article.--Trystan (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Some characters' full names should be mentioned without hypocorisms, eg:
- That I couldn't tell you. I'm not super knowledgable about that show, and I only ever recall "Jackie" used. But, your point is the point I think that I was trying to make. For fictional characters, they don't really fall under how BIO treats names, because they don't have legal names. They have their credited name, which is more often than not (excusing some exceptions that may exist) the common usage on the show. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- That depends if the show uses Jacqueline in any noticeable and recurring manner besides the one-off wedding / reveal your middle name episodes. In a list of characters, she would just be Jackie Burkhart, or just Jackie if her last name is also trivial and only mentioned in those kinds of episodes. I have a bunch of cases at Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) where they just go by common name, even though there are episodes where given names (CEO -> Carl) and full names (Tom -> Thomas, Ben -> Benjamin, MC -> Maurice Claremont) are revealed later. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- My Oliver Queen example is merely an example, not meant to be a specific indication of something done. It's the first name that came to mind. The section being discussed says "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym.", the problem is that fictional characters are not real and thus do not have "legal names", nor do they have pseudonyms. They have "aliases"...well, superheroes and the like do, but not pseudonyms...because they aren't real. In the case of Jackie, her lead name should match her article title, because her name is Jackie. She's credited as Jackie. She isn't credited as Jacqueline (sp). She isn't real, and she doesn't have a legal name. So, the answer to the question of whether she should be "Jacqueline 'Jackie' Burkhart" is superseded by the fact that "Jacqueline" shouldn't even be there in the first place. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Bignole, never did I say the lead of Oliver Queen should be Oliver "Ollie" Jonas Queen. Because Ollie is an obvious hypocorism and not part of the article's title. But it would be annoying if someone wrote Walter Hartwell "Walt" White rather than simply Walter Hartwell White or James Morgan "Jimmy" McGill instead of James Morgan McGill, right? That is why I believe MOS:HYPOCORISM is meant to combat such redundancy, regardless of whether the subject is fiction or reality. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Fictional characters are not real people, we don't treat them as such, as stated in WP:WAF. The name of the article and the name in the lead should be based on common usage and credit. Oliver Queen (Arrowverse) is "Oliver Queen", not "Oliver 'Ollie' Jonas Queen", his "fictional legal name" because Stephen Amell isn't credited that way, and it's not the common usage for the character. Although there are pages that are doing this, I would argue they shouldn't be, because these aren't real people. They don't have "legal names" like an actual person does. Oliver Queen is Oliver Queen. For story purposes, at some pointe, a character notes that his middle name is "Jonas". That's irrelevant for fictional characters. There seems to be a push to put in more information that reflects a treatment of WP:BIO with fictional characters, and it's a little unsettling to see how far it's getting. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Names in articles
Hi, I'm hoping you could clarify something for me. I've been doing a GA review of 2007 Welsh Open (snooker), which is a knockout snooker competition. To me, it's rather confusing to only refer to players (at one point, there are a total of 48 different players), by surname only, in different sections. I understand this is important in Biographical articles, however, is this the correct way to distinguish the players throughout the article?
If I was starting a new subsection on the article; I'd want to clarify who each player was. I couldn't find much in terms of details on how this was handled (I probably missed a massive article on it, however), if someone could let me know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am not sure why using surname would be confusing, if two or more people have the same surname then fine use the first name to distinguish them but I dont believe it is needed if the Surname is unique in the context of the article, and they linked out to an individual article somewhere on the page. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Since you are on this talk page, I assume you are already aware of MOS:SURNAME at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography? It does say to "generally" refer to them by their surname. Consensus at a given article could be that a person was mentioned long enough ago that their full name bears repeating.—Bagumba (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Clarification: "if two or more people have the same surname then fine use the first name to distinguish them" should read "add the first name to distinguish them". Its not okay to write "Steve won the April 2007 qualifying tournament, 5–2, against Mark." What the OP might be angling for is just that – to write sports articles here in a sports-journalism style, which is against policy ("Wikipedia is not written in news style.") But I think the point is probably actually that the OP wants to use first and and surname together, which is perfectly fine, just not when done over and over again in the same section. In article like those under discussion, sections may be linked to from somewhere else, so just a surname may make no sense to the reader in their current reading context. (By contrast, "Trump" makes perfect sense to the reader if they arrived by section link at Donald Trump#Campaign rhetoric.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that's pretty much it. I just wanted to confirm if there was a limit in terms of prose length that it would be wise to use a full name again. Such that say in Section 1, introduces Ryan Day, and then in section 4, you were to refer to him as Day. To me, I'd want to remind people of his full name especially when there are tonnes of other names being thrown around. If this is completely in policy, I'll pass the GA.
- for reference, I wasn't suggesting to just use a first name, but to reiterate the full name.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Clarification: "if two or more people have the same surname then fine use the first name to distinguish them" should read "add the first name to distinguish them". Its not okay to write "Steve won the April 2007 qualifying tournament, 5–2, against Mark." What the OP might be angling for is just that – to write sports articles here in a sports-journalism style, which is against policy ("Wikipedia is not written in news style.") But I think the point is probably actually that the OP wants to use first and and surname together, which is perfectly fine, just not when done over and over again in the same section. In article like those under discussion, sections may be linked to from somewhere else, so just a surname may make no sense to the reader in their current reading context. (By contrast, "Trump" makes perfect sense to the reader if they arrived by section link at Donald Trump#Campaign rhetoric.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
MOS:ETHNICITY
MOS:ETHNICITY states "Ethnicity... should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." What kinds of things would make ethnicity "relevant" enough to belong in the lede? Jayjg (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- If it's a core part of why they are notable e.g. Barack Obama being African American or Jeremy Lin being Asian American.—Bagumba (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- How would one differentiate between something that is "a core part" versus something that seems "relevant" versus something that is just "also notable"? Is it all just a matter of personal opinion? Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- What do sources say? If a source comments on the ethnicity linked to notability then that's a good indicator. GiantSnowman 18:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- A good test is often how easy it is to concisely articulate the relevance. “First African American POTUS” is quite clearly relevant. Or “Much of Sedaris's humor is ostensibly autobiographical and self-deprecating and often concerns his family life, his middle-class upbringing in the suburbs of Raleigh, North Carolina, his Greek heritage...” On the other hand, if what is proposed is just a bald statement of the ethnicity because it feels vaguely relevant, it shouldn’t be included.--Trystan (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also the very start of the lede should always be "NAME is a NATIONALITY PROFESSION" and not 'NAME is a ETHNICITY PROFESSION'. GiantSnowman 18:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed; when I see ethnicity in the first sentence, I pretty much always remove it, unless it's someone like Elie Wiesel or Anne Frank. Even the biographies of people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks don't use "ETHNICITY PROFESSION" in the first sentence. The reason I've come here looking for answers is exactly that problem; I've been involved in a discussion for the past couple of days at Talk:Jackie Walker (activist), but don't seem to be making any headway. Is this one of the rare exceptions? Am I missing some nuance? I'm trying to figure it out. Jayjg (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also the very start of the lede should always be "NAME is a NATIONALITY PROFESSION" and not 'NAME is a ETHNICITY PROFESSION'. GiantSnowman 18:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- A good test is often how easy it is to concisely articulate the relevance. “First African American POTUS” is quite clearly relevant. Or “Much of Sedaris's humor is ostensibly autobiographical and self-deprecating and often concerns his family life, his middle-class upbringing in the suburbs of Raleigh, North Carolina, his Greek heritage...” On the other hand, if what is proposed is just a bald statement of the ethnicity because it feels vaguely relevant, it shouldn’t be included.--Trystan (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- What do sources say? If a source comments on the ethnicity linked to notability then that's a good indicator. GiantSnowman 18:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- How would one differentiate between something that is "a core part" versus something that seems "relevant" versus something that is just "also notable"? Is it all just a matter of personal opinion? Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)