View source for Wiki143 talk:Manual of Style/Biography

{{talk header|shortcut=WT:MOSBIO|noarchive=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Manual of Style}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(45d)
| archive             = Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/%(year)d archive
| archiveheader       = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft      = 4
}}
{{archive box|age=45|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|search=yes|
*[[/Archive April 2005|2005 categorized contributions]]
*[[/2007-2008 archive: British nationality|2007–2008 discussion on British nationality]]
*[[/2008 archive: Honorific prefixes|2008 discussion on honorific prefixes]]
*[[/Archive Feb 20 2003|Jan 2003 – Feb 2003]]
*[[/Archive 3|Oct 2003 – Sep 2004]]
*[[/Archive 4|Oct 2004 – Jan 2006]]
*[[/Archive 5|Jan 2006 – Feb 2007]]
*[[/Archive 6|Feb 2007 – Dec 2007]]
*{{hlist|[[/2007 archive|2007]]|[[/2008 archive|2008]]|[[/2009 archive|2009]]|[[/2010 archive|2010]]|[[/2011 archive|2011]]|[[/2012 archive|2012]]|[[/2013 archive|2013]]|[[/2014 archive|2014]]|[[/2015 archive|2015]]|[[/2016 archive|2016]]|[[/2017 archive|2017]]|[[/2018 archive|2018]]|[[/2019 archive|2019]]|[[/2020 archive|2020]]|[[/2021 archive|2021]]|[[/2022 archive|2022]]|[[/2023 archive|2023]]|[[/2024 archive|2024]]}}
}}

==[[MOS:POSTNOM]]==
The removal of postnoms from the lead under these new guidelines has started to create some problems. While I am not opposed to this in principle, I ''am'' opposed to the removal of information. Some editors are "enforcing" these new guidelines by removing postnoms (often on dozens of articles at a time) where there is no infobox showing them. If there is no infobox then the postnoms should remain in the first line until an infobox is added. It doesn't matter if the honours are included in the body of the article - it is extremely useful to have an indication of what the person's correct style is at the top of an article where it can be seen at a glance. This problem is compounded by the sniffiness of some Wikipedia editors about infoboxes, especially those involved in projects relating to cultural figures. An example of this can be seen on the article for [[Michael Hordern]], where his CBE has been removed from the first sentence but an editor is resisting the addition of an infobox (and, indeed, deleting one that has been added) showing his CBE. Postnominals are important in the UK and other Commonwealth countries and removing useful information like this is not helpful. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 14:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Agreed. I don't think the changes have been thought through very well, to be honest. -- [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|talk]] 17:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:+1. In Commonwealth countries, every publication includes a person's post-nominals like KBE, AO, at first mention. It's defining, and having to include a clumsy phrase in the lead to convey that information is a backwards step: it leads to more clutter and verbiage, not less. This should be discussed again. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 19:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Agreed with {{u|Michael Bednarek}}. In Commonwealth countries, the post-nominals are defining; we should not be losing information from articles. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 19:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't really see what purpose removing the information achieves assuming it is sourced properly. Post-nominals take up little space and putting them after the name is an easy way to naturally introduce them into an article. Mass removal of content based on a MOS guideline shouldn't happen as the MOS is only a guideline.
:Although if it is being removed because it is unsourced that is a different matter. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 20:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:I would support reversing the previous decision about removing these from the lead sentence - that seems a reasonable place for them to be. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 00:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Same, though in the opposite direction we need to undo [[WP:ROYALTY]] and [[WP:NOBILTY]]'s usurpation of infobox fields for pre-nominal titles and for names, to instead hold salultations and peerage/nobility titles, respectively. It's just unbearably bad. See [[Margaret Thatcher]] for typical example. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Agreed that ''some'' post noms should be in the lede, and also agree that not all need to be in the infobox. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 08:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:See also [[#Formatting post-nominals examples]], above, for related recent discussion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, a poorly thought-through decision which should be reversed. I suggest anyone interested read the thread Stanton linked above. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]]  ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, I couldn't agree more with all of the points made by {{u|Necrothesp}} and {{u|Michael Bednarek}}. [[User:Paora|Paora]] ([[User talk:Paora|talk]]) 20:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am opposed to the removal of postnoms from their normal position after people's names. Some screenreaders cannot read infoboxes, so putting the postnom there instead is no solution. [[User:DrThneed|DrThneed]] ([[User talk:DrThneed|talk]]) 03:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I completely agree with everyone. Particularly in Canada (and the UK along with the other Commonwealth countries), post-nominal letters are very important and heavily used. Post-nominals letters should not be removed from the lead at all, and I don't believe any of the changes impacting this policy were necessary or justified. There's no reason to be losing this information, and it seems like this was not thought through well at all. –  <strong style="color:green;"><i>Handoto</i></strong> (<small>[[User talk:Handoto|talk]]</small>) 21:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:Finally some common-sense, the previous decision was ill-conceived and should be reverted as soon as possible. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 04:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::I totally agree. I came across this issue only just now when checking [[Reg Sprigg|an Australian article]] and finding the post-nominals missing from the opening sentence - still in the infobox, but not blue-linked; mentioned in full in the "Awards and honours" section, but just as one item, also not blue-linked, in a list of 11 (including major academic and business awards, as well as having a genus, a mineral, and a main-belt asteroid named after him!) My immediate reaction was to revert the deletion, before following the thread back to the RfC and this discussion. IMHO the RfC outcome was a poor decision, and needs to be reversed. [[User:Bahudhara|Bahudhara]] ([[User talk:Bahudhara|talk]]) 12:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:<s>No objection to amending MOS:POSTNOM. If there's no infobox? than postnoms should be in lead. Gotta show'em somewhere. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
::Everything in the infobox should be a summary of material in the article itself. Putting it only in the infobox is inadequate. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 17:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::As mentioned earlier by another editor. The infobox at [[Margaret Thatcher]] concerning postnoms, is overkill. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

*What do other encyclopedias do? Britannica and ODNB avoid post-nominals. The Canadian Encyclopedia uses them, but only for Canadian orders, so British and foreign orders are not shown, e.g. compare https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sir-john-alexander-macdonald and https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/brian-mulroney. Most, if not all, encyclopedias either avoid or restrict them. We should do the same. Post-noms are not shown in comparable works. Long strings of letters after a person's name are intrusive and interruptive. Honours are not usually the primary reason for a person's notability and so should not be the first thing to be mentioned about them (though there are exceptions). For people before the modern age, post-noms are anachronistic. Post-nominals associated with foreign orders awarded to non-citizens are not used in that person's country of citizenship. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 08:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::The people objecting here to the outcome of [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies|that RfC]] have made it clear that some post-nominals in some countries are widely used in the press and other publications and almost never omitted from the subject's first mention. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 09:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::They have made that claim, but I know from my own experience that such claims are dubious. In practice, strings of post-nominals are not used in the Commonwealth press. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 10:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:Agreed. To add, I think moving post-nominals from the lede to the body ruins the flow of the text and is out place. The RfC about exclusion of post-nominals from the lede in my view presents a rather fastidious case of instructions [[WP:CREEP]] [[User:SigillumVert|SigillumVert]] ([[User talk:SigillumVert|talk]]) 18:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:Agree. I have removed postnoms from the lead of several articles, but kept them in the infobox – or moved them there if they were missing there. [[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] ([[User talk:HandsomeFella|talk]]) 19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:Best to stick with ''not'' having the postnoms in the lead. Respect the RFC results. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:I agree with DrKay's comment. Post-nominals are fine in infoboxes, but keep that clutter out of the lead sentences please. Average readers reading [[JK Rowling]]'s article wouldn't care that she's {{tq|Joanne Rowling '''CH OBE FRSL'''}}. If those post-nominals are important or noteworthy, then they should be explained in the body of the article in prose. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 19:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::They are explained in prose: 'She has received an OBE and made a Companion of Honour for services to literature and philanthropy' and 'She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature (FRSL), the Royal Society of Edinburgh (HonFRSE), and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (FRCPE).' [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 20:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Which they should be considering the post-nominals appear in the infobox. I don't see the need for them in the lead sentence though. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This suggestion of including the postnominals as parentheticals in the part of the article where these recognitions are detailed makes sense to me and I have started applying it to other articles where postnominals are relevant.
:::I wish the gnomes who are just going around blindly removing all postnominals from article text based on the previous RFC would take more time and do something like this. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 07:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|David Eppstein}} This would indeed be a best practice in my mind. We could (should?) add it as a specific example into POSTNOM so 1) those "gnomes", as you describe them, can emulate it and 2) it's extremely obvious that they're violating the guideline. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 18:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
: Seems to me there is overwhelming support for overturning the previous RFC. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 01:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Perhaps that seeming overwhelming support is because nobody has notified those who participated in the previous RFC of this discussion? Including the [[User:The ed17|initiator]] and [[User:Ixtal|closer]] of the discussion, the latter of whom said they welcomed discussion of it through their talk page? Personally, I did not participate in the previous RFC but would affirm its conclusion. [[User:Melcous|Melcous]] ([[User talk:Melcous|talk]]) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Melcous}} Thanks for the ping as the initiator of the 2023 RfC. I think it's obvious that any unadvertised discussion won't have enough [[WP:CONLEVEL|weight]] to overturn a formal RfC. However, in line with {{u|Ixtal}}'s read of the RfC consensus, we could tweak POSTNOM to address the OP's core complaint, making it explicitly clear that post-nominals can be listed elsewhere in a lead and/or in an infobox (if the info is in the article body). [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 05:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Given the previous consensus and fair concern noted in the OP, I've boldly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography&diff=prev&oldid=1271257886 tweaked] the guideline. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 06:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Oh I agree, a new RFC would need to be adequately advertised, unlike the previous one. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 05:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Nford24}} You are of course free to point out any specific area(s) of concern that you had with the previous RfC, but there's no need for snide comments. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 06:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::This discussion evidently indicates that the previous RFC wasn't properly advertised. By my count, 16 editors here who didn't participate in it have called for its reversal. Additionally, over the past 12 months, I've encountered 4 more editors (not here) who weren't involved and disagree with the outcome. My statement wasn't snide, it however is pointed at the concern I'm raising.
::::::"{{tq|Perhaps that seeming overwhelming support is because nobody has [been] notified...}}" That reflects my sentiments exactly. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 21:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:At bare-minimum I believe the removal of such information is well beyond the scope of the newly-written [[MOS:POSTNOM]]. I '''strongly second''' the initiator's opinion. Secondly, for the record, I moderately disagree with 'banning' post-nominals from the lede, and I would support overturning such a rule. [[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]] ([[User talk:MWFwiki|talk]]) 02:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think the new policy of removal of postnominals from the lead sentence is a bad one. ~<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Darth Stabro|Darth Stabro]]</span><sup>[[User_talk:Darth_Stabro|Talk]]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}[[Special:Contributions/Darth_Stabro|Contribs]]</sup> 18:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
::I agree. I was very surprised at this new instruction. I think it should be reconsidered. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 20:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
:::People could always start a new RfC regarding the inclusion of postnominals in the ''lead sentence''. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 00:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
So, has this discussion ended? It seems inconclusive and stalemated at present. Is someone going to challenge the RfC and propose its being reversed? Or start a new RfC regarding the inclusion of postnominals in the lead sentence? (I don't know how to do either of these.) Or do we leave it as is, and actively remove postnominals from all lead sentences? [[User:Masato.harada|Masato.harada]] ([[User talk:Masato.harada|talk]]) 11:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
:HELLO, IS THERE ANYBODY THERE? This discussion has petered out without any action. The guideline currently reads "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 any part of the article ''other'' than the lead sentence.[under discussion]". Is someone going to challenge the RfC and propose its being reversed? [[User:Masato.harada|Masato.harada]] ([[User talk:Masato.harada|talk]]) 11:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
::Since that hasn't happened, the reasonable thing seems to be to just remove the "[under discussion]", considering that no now consensus has emerged (or seems likely to emerge soon). [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 18:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Since this discussion hasn't concluded, it's not reasonable to remove that tag. [[WP:There is no deadline]]. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 03:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
:There's clearly a problem with removing post-nominal letters from the lead. This completely goes against formatting for all Commonwealth country's honours and the site's status quo for the last decade. If "clutter" is the argument, then the rule could instead possibly be amended so that if there are more than four or five, then they can be omitted, but there's absolutely no reason to strip out one or two. They don't take up space. This is also problematic for articles that don't have an infobox at all. –  <strong style="color:green;"><i>Handoto</i></strong> (<small>[[User talk:Handoto|talk]]</small>) 02:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
::Agree. IMO this should never have passed in the first place. It might be an idea to post this link to the Canadian and Australian Wikipedians' noticeboards, if further input is needed. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 03:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
:::In Canada we remove these because of first sentence clutter and move them to the info box whenever possible..... simply no need for acronyms that no one understands twice in the lead. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 03:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
::::I tend to agree with the concerns about clutter in the lead sentence. If you use a screen reader, these issues become even worse. I'm not quite sure what the benefit of including them in the first sentence is supposed to be if they are already included in the infobox and sourced in the body (presumably along with the year awarded). – [[User:Notwally|notwally]] ([[User talk:Notwally|talk]]) 19:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
::::But many bios don't have infoboxes, and in any case infoboxes serve a different purpose. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 23:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:I really have nothing but derision for all this silliness. Put the postnoms back. If a person comes from a country that doesn't use postnoms or rarely uses them then don't include postnoms. I'll restrain myself from saying anything more. '''[[User:5225C|5225<sub>C</sub>]]'''&nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 14:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
::Can someone please move forward on this per the above proposal to start a new RFC? Most of us here think that the change was a bad move, and in the meantime there are a number of of over-zealous and/or inexperienced editors removing the postnoms in multiple articles. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 14:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
<br><br>
'''ALL — I [[User_talk:Necrothesp#RfC_RE:_MOS:POSTNOMS|have requested]] that the initiator of this discussion start an RfC to move this forward one way or another.''' Otherwise, I will. [[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]] ([[User talk:MWFwiki|talk]]) 20:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

== RfC on simplifying MOS:JOBTITLES ==

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 23:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1741215669}}
[[MOS:JOBTITLES]] currently reads:

{{quote|Offices, titles, and positions ... are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically. They are capitalized only in the following cases:
#When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: {{xt|President Nixon}}, not {{!xt|president Nixon}}; {{xt|Pope John XXIII}}, not {{!xt|pope John XXIII}}.
#When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., {{xt|the King}}, not {{!xt|the king}} (referring to [[Charles&nbsp;III]]); {{xt|the Pope}}, not {{!xt|the pope}} (referring to [[Pope Francis|Francis]]).
#When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description}}
Should we simplify [[MOS:JOBTITLES]] by removing exceptions #2 and/or #3? [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 22:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:'''Support'''.  The policies and guidelines on this site should be as clear and simple as possible, in order to minimize the amount of text any editor need wade through to get it right.  Reducing this creep would be in support of the overall desire to encourage more editors and more frequent editing.'''~[[User:True Pagan Warrior|T]][[User talk:True Pagan Warrior|P]][[Special:Contributions/True Pagan Warrior|W]]''' 13:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

===Examples===
:{| class="wikitable"|style="background:transparent"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
! style="width:500pt;"<!--undersized width specification means actual column width determined by widest word/unbreakable string in the column-->| Currently prescribed by MOS:JOBTITLES
! style="width:500pt;"| Simplified MOS:JOBTITLES
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
|{{plainlist|
*Donald Trump is the president of the United States.
*Donald Trump is President of the United States.
*Donald Trump is US president.
*The President was inaugurated on 20 January 2025.
*The president is inaugurated on 20 January.
*He had a meeting with President Trump.
*The king of Jerusalem, Fulk, defeated Pons, Count of Tripoli.}}
| {{plainlist|
*Donald Trump is the president of the United States.
*Donald Trump is president of the United States.
*Donald Trump is US president.
*The president was inaugurated on 20 January 2025.
*The president is inaugurated on 20 January.
*He had a meeting with President Trump.
*The king of Jerusalem, Fulk, defeated Pons, count of Tripoli.
}}
|}

===Survey===

*'''Remove both #2 and #3'''. These elaborate exceptions have turned [[MOS:JOBTITLES]] into rocket science. Experienced editors struggle to make heads or tails of it. The readers may be distracted by the constantly changing case. We, the editors, certainly are distracted by the frequent disputes on who is interpreting JOBTITLES correctly. No other style guide is so complicated: the likes of ''Oxford Style Guide'', ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'', ''[[AP Stylebook]]'', etc, advise only to capitalize titles preceding the name. It is time that we take our cue from them. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 22:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
*:How would "current president Trump" be treated? According to the current MOS:JOBTITLES, that would be lowercase because it's modified by "current". Does your proposal capitalize "President" in this case? —[[User talk:Eyer|<span style="color:hotpink;"><b>Eyer</b></span>]] (he/him) <small>If you [[H:TP#Replying to an existing thread|reply]], add <code><small>&#123;&#123;reply to|Eyer&#125;&#125;</small></code> to your message.</small> 23:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I do not think MOS:JOBTITLES is presently clear on whether it should be "current president Trump" or "current President Trump". On one hand, it is ''modified''; on the other, it is followed by a person's name. ''Chicago'' is strict and clear: never capitalize unless it precedes a name, and if it precedes a name, always capitalize. In my opinion, there should always be a comma before the name in such a case because "current president" is [[apposition]]. Thus, I would always write "to the current president, Donald Trump" rather than either "to current President Trump" or "to current president Trump". [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 00:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::The current wording at #3 of {{tq|is not preceded by a modifier|q=yes}} would make it "current president Trump", as it's modified by ''current''.  There's also this current example in the MOS: {{tq|Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972.|q=yes}} —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 08:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I'd recast the sentence.  The word "current" mostly smacks of recentism, and there surely are other ways to phrase it such as "Trump, who was president at the time." '''~[[User:True Pagan Warrior|T]][[User talk:True Pagan Warrior|P]][[Special:Contributions/True Pagan Warrior|W]]''' 13:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
* '''Keep both'''. I don't see them as "exceptions", but as common-sense usage when using a job title to refer to a specific person, rather than the position itself. E.g.: "Many popes are from Italy", versus, "The Pope is not from Italy." This natural usage promotes understanding by readers regarding who or what is being discussed; therefore, keep. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
*:"Common sense" has a neurotypical bias baked in which in this case is not necessary.'''~[[User:True Pagan Warrior|T]][[User talk:True Pagan Warrior|P]][[Special:Contributions/True Pagan Warrior|W]]''' 13:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
: P.S., as a housekeeping issue, {{u|Surtsicna}}, you placed your [[WP:!vote]] in the {{slink||Discussion section}}, but I believe it is more conventional to place it in the {{slink||Survey}} section. In any case, the closer will find it there, but let's not make it harder for them. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 10:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
::How is this usage natural when it is not common (if attested at all) in reliable sources? Can you name one style guide that promotes this "Many popes are from Italy" vs "The Pope is not from Italy" distinction? [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 10:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
::: {{moved to|[[#Discussion]]}}
* Use the simplified version. No part of MoS sees more confusion and debate than this section, and we've needed to simplify it for a long time. Previous attempts have stalled despite a general desire to get it done, so let's get it done. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 00:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
* '''Remove #2 and #3'''. Based on the ''The Cambridge Guide to English Usage'' quoted below, this seems like the modern practice. [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 14:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
*:I'd be on board with that too. The very fact of "do it differently when ..." inconsistency and exception making (with quite complicated exception rules no one can seem to quite remember) is the entire source of conflict and confusion about this segment of MoS. It would be better to have a simple rule, if a somewhat arbitrary one, than to continue to have a grotesquely complicated rule that has been made complicated simply to appease aficionados of some particular capitalization habits.  Our entire site (like many modern style guidese including ''Cambridge'' and ''CMoS'', reflecting shifts in real-world usage) is more and more "down-style" (lower-case by default) with every passing year. It's not possible for this (or any other shift) to make every single person perfectly happy, but it is certainly possible to just go with this flow using a much simpler rule, which in the end will make far fewer people active unhappy and fighting with their editorial neighbors. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 01:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
*I'm not sure how this fits in with this proposal, but I would certainly be against any proposal which requires us not to capitalise British peerage titles, which are capitalised in standard usage when the full title is used (i.e. "the earl entered the room" is fine, but "the Earl of Arundel entered the room" is standard, as is "John, Earl of Arundel, entered the room"). It seems to be accepted in the discussion below that this is clearly necessary when there is no "of" in the title ("earl Spencer entered the room" or "lord Palmerston entered the room" are obviously wrong), and even apart from the standard usage issue, we certainly don't want a situation where we're switching capitalisation depending on the format of the title ("the duke of Norfolk, the marquess of Salisbury, Marquess Camden, the earl of Shrewsbury, the earl of Devon, Earl Spencer, Viscount Hereford, the viscount of Arbuthnott and Lord de Ros entered the room"). [[User:Proteus|Proteus]] [[User_talk:Proteus|(Talk)]] 14:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
*:Unfortunately, @[[User:Proteus|Proteus]], we are already in a situation where we switch capitalization seemingly at random: "the duke of Norfolk participates in the coronation of the king or queen", but "the Duke of Norfolk participated in the Queen's coronation". The proposal would reduce these inconsistencies, which must be puzzling to the reader. In my experience, the standard differs depending on the type of publication (and the level of deference the publisher wishes to express): government publications prefer to capitalize, and so do etiquette authorities, while academia and journalism do not. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, for example, consistently uses lower case, so they have "John, earl of Arundel". See @[[User:Ham II|Ham II]]'s analysis down at [[#king/Count example]]. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 15:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
*::If we have to be consistent, we should consistently capitalise. And I'm afraid I don't agree with you that journalists do not capitalise: at least in the UK, they do. I've just run searches for "the Earl of" on BBC News, the ''Times'' and the ''Telegraph'', and they all capitalise "Earl". Even the ''Guardian'' - hardly known for its deference to the establishment! - does the same. [[User:Proteus|Proteus]] [[User_talk:Proteus|(Talk)]] 15:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::Consistently capitalizing would put as at odds with the academic practice, i.e. with what we consider to be our most reliable sources. Wikipedia should be in sync with them. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 16:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::We're going to have to agree to disagree then. My view is that our primary guiding principle is to follow common usage, and it's clear that in this case that is capitalising peerage titles. If that puts us at odds with academic texts, then so be it. [[User:Proteus|Proteus]] [[User_talk:Proteus|(Talk)]] 16:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::To be fair, ''common usage'' would have us use "their" instead of "there" and vice versa :) [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 20:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
*::Proteus's claims don't entirely match my experience as a reader and researcher. I pore through enormous amounts of material that references the British peerage, and it's pretty common to see constructions like "earl of Foo" (and "earls of Foo" and "earldom of Foo") when not attached to a name of a specific individual (as in "Robert, Earl of Foo, was robbed by highwaymen in June 1742"), or not standing in for the name of a specific individual (as in "Smith's second letter to the Earl of Foo in 1894"), or not a reference to the title itself (as in "the Earl [or "Earldom"] of Foo was created in the 12th century by Henry I"), and even some of the latter two sorts are sometimes in lowercase. The only near-universally uppercase version is attachment to an individual's name. The "uppercase it no matter what" habits are primarily found in a) old material that pre-dates English's shift (after about the middle of the 20th century) to avoiding unnecessary uppercase; and b) British conservative-leaning news, which is highly classist and very deferential toward people with titles. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 01:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::These two ("the <u>duke</u> of Norfolk participates in the coronation of the king or queen" and "the <u>Duke</u> of Norfolk participated in the Queen's coronation") have different meanings.  The first is similar to "a person holding this title/office" and the second is "this exact person".  It isn't random.  It is subtle. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::It is random because that distinction does not exist in the world outside Wikipedia. The reader should not be expected to pick up on the subtle differences in meaning that Wikipedia has invented. It is not useful. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 23:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I would be very surprised if an analysis of usage outside Wikipedia found that "{{xtn|the queen}}" was more often used than "{{xtn|the Queen}}" for Elizabeth II. [[User:Ham II|Ham II]] ([[User talk:Ham II|talk]]) 09:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
*::::::So would I. The official UK government usage is pervasive and the UK media have generally been very keen to express deference. The US media (e.g. [https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.washingtonpost.com+%22the+queen%22&sca_esv=30209e78bfc53c65&sxsrf=AHTn8zo6IW9QPC5PjqMpgPWFFG2hP_4sXw%3A1740853816776&ei=OFLDZ8GML-zNwPAP8sfI-QE&ved=0ahUKEwjBiOvqwemLAxXsJhAIHfIjMh8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=site%3Awww.washingtonpost.com+%22the+queen%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJ3NpdGU6d3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbSAidGhlIHF1ZWVuIkjEDFCKAViJCHABeAGQAQCYAZ0BoAGzBqoBAzAuNrgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAqACrgHCAgoQABiwAxjWBBhHwgIFEAAY7wWYAwCIBgGQBgiSBwMxLjGgB40G&sclient=gws-wiz-serp the Washington Post]) have, of course, not felt the need to bend orthography for the British monarch. And, tellingly, the BBC does not capitalize when it refers to e.g. the Dutch queen as "the queen".[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22340046][https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22356534] The orthographical deference in the British media is thus reserved for the British monarchy. Would it be right for Wikipedia to so elevate the British royals over other royals and over republican heads of state? Either way, Elizabeth II is not the only queen the world has ever seen. It does not make sense to me that our article on e.g. [[Cleopatra]] should call her "the Queen" throughout to accommodate Elizabeth when the modern academic sources we use for historical figures do not capitalize; nor does it seem right that this should translate to cases such as "the Baron", "the Mayor", "the Minister", etc. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 18:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::"[[Talk:Julian_(emperor)#Capitalization_of_"emperor"|The Emperor]]" is another example which has come up recently. Your points about "the Mayor" and "the Minister" are especially good ones, because those titles aren't a part of the British peerage or its equivalents elsewhere – so no-one would consider them to be part of the person's name – but it's hard to see how or why one would formulate different rules for the titles "queen", "baron", "mayor", "minister", etc. [[User:Ham II|Ham II]] ([[User talk:Ham II|talk]])
*:::::::On the other hand, what about the use of "{{xtn|the Shah}}" in [[Mohammad Reza Pahlavi]]? It looks as if references to "{{xtn|the [[Aga Khan]]}}" would have to retain their capital letters, judging from [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Aga+Khan%2CAga+khan%2Baga+khan&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 ngrams]. [[User:Ham II|Ham II]] ([[User talk:Ham II|talk]]) 08:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)  
*:::::It is ''not'' something that Wikipedia has invented.  You capitalize a title when it is used as a substitute for a person's name.  Compare:
*:::::* After his announcement about the storm, a nervous passenger asked, "Oh, <u>Captain</u>, is it as bad as all that?"
*:::::* After his announcement about the storm, a nervous passenger asked, "<u>Captain</u> Smith, is it as bad as all that?"
*:::::* After his announcement about the storm, a nervous passenger said, "The <u>captain</u> makes it sound very bad."
*:::::[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
*::::::See also ''The Daily Telegraph Style Guide'':[https://ereader.perlego.com/1/book/2067294/9]
*::::::"By convention, the names of bishops and archbishops always follow the title of their office: the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams (use Christian and surname). Then Dr Williams or <u>the Archbishop</u>." (pg. 40)
*::::::"For example, Prince Philip is the Duke of Edinburgh on first mention and then <u>the Duke</u>. Prince Charles should be referred to as the Prince of Wales at first mention and then as <u>the Prince</u>. Princess Anne should be <u>the Princess Royal</u> at first mention and then <u>the Princess</u>."
*::::::This means that it is correct to write "Picking up the decanter, the Duke asked the Archbishop whether he would like a drink", and also correct to write "I saw three earls and a duke at the wedding". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
*::::::From ''The Wall Street Journal Essential Guide to Business Style and Usage'':
*::::::"TITLES: Capitalize formal titles immediately before a name. Lowercase formal titles used alone or in constructions that set them off from a name by commas. Lowercase terms that are job descriptions rather than formal titles." (pg. 36)
*::::::"The male heir to the throne normally is designated Prince of Wales, and the title becomes an alternative name. The queen’s eldest son is Charles, Prince of Wales; <u>the Prince of Wales</u>; the prince. Prince Charles remains in informal usage.Charles, Prince of Wales, married Lady Diana Spencer, who became <u>the Princess of Wales</u>. Their two children are Prince William and Prince Harry." (pg. 167)
*::::::"On the editorial page, capitalize President in all references to a President of the U.S." (pg. 191; but they take the opposite approach in news articles)
*::::::Also, from ''Writing Skills for Public Relations'':
*::::::"For titles that are both formal and descriptive, such as President, use capitals for a full reference, as in <u>John Smith, President</u>, of XYZ Association. Subsequent mentions could just be <u>John Smith, the president</u>. The same applies to royalty: Prince Charles becomes ‘the prince’ and the Princess Royal ‘the princess’ in subsequent references. A following reference to Her Majesty the Queen should be written as either Her Majesty or <u>the Queen</u>."
*::::::On the diversity of existing practice:  "Note that if office holders are referred to only by their office, the titles prime minister, chancellor of the exchequer, foreign secretary and so on are in lower case in some national newspapers. Most will use capitals when the complete name and formal title are given. You will never be criticised if you always put such titles in capitals. But you will soon be in trouble with the purists if you don’t." (pg. 28)
*::::::"Use capitals for proper nouns, names of companies and formal titles." (pg. 29; "He is the president" is not a formal title; "He is the President of the United States" is a formal title) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
*::In general I am opposed to using capitalization as a form of deference or to signal importance.  It's inconsistently applied in all English dialects and just causes confusion.'''~[[User:True Pagan Warrior|T]][[User talk:True Pagan Warrior|P]][[Special:Contributions/True Pagan Warrior|W]]''' 13:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Remove #3 and #2, especially #3'''. Frankly, I understand rocket science much better than I understand exception 3. It is convoluted and unnecessary. Exception 2 makes some sense, but it is not necessary, and if we're moving towards decapitalization and simplification then I can support removing it. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 10:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Reword entirely''', broadly in line with the Cambridge Guide to English Usage overview given below, and especially the first point {{tq|Official titles and offices are capitalized whenever they are used to name a particular holder or incumbent}}. I'd tend to argue that #2 ought to be moot anyway, as referring to a specific titleholder by their title it is at odds with [[MOS:LASTNAME]]. [[User:Rosbif73|Rosbif73]] ([[User talk:Rosbif73|talk]]) 13:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
::The proposed removal of exceptions #2 and #3 would make the style perfectly in line with Cambridge, [[User:Rosbif73|Rosbif73]]. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 18:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:::More or less, yes. But it recommends capitalisation of titles ''when referring to a specific person'' rather than ''when followed by a person's name'', thereby resolving concerns about peers. [[User:Rosbif73|Rosbif73]] ([[User talk:Rosbif73|talk]]) 08:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
::::The example it gives is what this proposal would include, though: "Cardinal Newman". In its third point it makes it clear that capitalizing titles used instead of a person's name is an outdated practice in British English–"and Americans just would not". If in modern times neither Cambridge nor Oxford worry about offending British aristocracy by referring to them with uncapitalized titles, then (''I think'') we should not have such concerns either. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 20:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
::I support a rewording like this one that would vastly simplify the text of MOS:JOBTITLES without much changing the practice. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 12:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Keep exceptions''' Mainly per Proteus. I believe the reader expects more capitalization than we give them, given the number of edits I see to restore it. Also per the (at present unsigned) comment immediately above me.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 13:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
*:It is now signed, by Rosbif73. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 18:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
*:Does that mean that Wikipedia should insist on outdated capitalization in a show of deference to the British aristocracy even if it puts us at odds with Oxford, Cambridge, Chicago, etc, and quite possibly with all our academic sources? [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 18:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
*::We're not an academic journal and we should consider our readership. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 02:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::I've been reunited with my copy of ''[[New Hart's Rules: The Oxford Style Guide]]'' (2014 edition), and it turns out that Oxford University Press is more ambivalent on this than an analysis of the ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'' would suggest. Among other guidance in its section on "Titles of office, rank and relationship" (pp.&nbsp;102–103; all my quoted examples are from p.&nbsp;102) it says the following: "{{xtn|Historians often impose minimal capitalization, particularly in contexts where the subjects of their writing bear titles: ''the duke of Somerset''. This style can be distracting in works for a general readership.}}" {{pb}} The section begins as follows: "{{xtn|Words for titles and ranks are generally lower case unless they are used before a name, as a name, or in forms of address}}"; "{{xtn|the rank of a duke}}" and "{{xtn|the Duke of Wellington}}" are two of the examples that follow. Although it doesn't have an example like the article title [[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]], that would presumably be one of the valid exceptions to the general rule of lowercasing because it has a title or rank ("Duke") before a name ("Wellington"). A search of the [[Oxford Reference]] site for "duke of Wellington" brings up mixed usage in the OUP's reference works, but with apparently more instances of "Duke" with a capital D. {{pb}} That section of ''New Hart's Rules'' also gives "{{xtn|Prince of Wales}}", "{{xtn|Princess Royal}}" and some other titles as exceptions "{{xtn|which in many styles are capitalized in all contexts}}" because they "{{xtn|are unique compound titles that have no non-specific meaning}}"; note that this is not the ''ODNB''{{'s}} style. Also, "{{xtn|references to specific holders of a rank or title are often capitalized}}", and "{{xtn|[i]t is usual to capitalise ''the Pope'' and the reigning monarch (''the King''/''Queen'') but not all styles do}}". (There is a general absence of firm rulings in all these quotes.) This has me wondering whether the ''ODNB'' is following a different style guide, or whether ''Hart's Rules'' has changed some of its positions since the ''ODNB'' first came out in 2004. [[User:Ham II|Ham II]] ([[User talk:Ham II|talk]]) 20:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I wish we'd go back to upper-casing in all situations. But, I'm resigned to the fact that lower-casing is here to stay :( [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
*:You might find then German more to your liking than English, @[[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]]. It's upper case galore! [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 18:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
*:To my neurodivergent eyes, frequent capitalization is the literary equivalent of drivers hitting a pothole outside my home.  It jangles my nerves and makes thinking difficult.'''~[[User:True Pagan Warrior|T]][[User talk:True Pagan Warrior|P]][[Special:Contributions/True Pagan Warrior|W]]''' 13:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
* '''Keep exceptions''' per Wehwalt and Proteus largely; like GoodDay i regret all the lower case usage which looks wrong (to mine eyes), but i am resigned to accepting that it appears to be the way of the future  ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''<sup>'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]</sup> 14:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
*:Does this mean that you are opposed to Wikipedia joining "the way of the future" mainly out of concern that the British aristocracy would have their titles in lower case? [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 19:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] I strongly recommend that you stop accusing everyone who doesn't !vote on your side of being partial to the British aristocracy before you are accused of [[WP:BADGERING|badgering]]. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 12:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::Proteus's reasoning for objecting to lower case is that it affects our writing about the British aristocracy. I want it to be clear whether other editors object for the same reason so that this discussion, or a next discussion, can take that into consideration. I am sorry that you see that as accusatory. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 07:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
*::Wow, i missed this at the time.  {{U|Surtsicna}}, i hope you didn't intend your comments to come across as entirely obnoxious, but they do.  No, my opinion doesn't mean that i'm opposed to us following the fashion and general usage (which i take is what you mean by {{tq|opposed to Wikipedia joining "the way of the future"}}), nor is it triggered by any concern for aristocracy (i mean, what the heck? are you actively trying to be rude?).  If i am concerned about anything which triggers me, it is my utter love for the English language and its incredible variety, flexibility, and changeability.  That love, and my vague general conservatism leads me to believe that we should not be in the forefront of making language changes, but should be changing only when it is clear that RSs show it necessary and within common usage; not a position i believe we are currently at  ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''<sup>'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]</sup> 19:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::That's a bit much, @[[User:LindsayH|LindsayH]]. You wrote "per Wehwalt and Proteus". Wehwalt in turn wrote "per Proteus". Proteus wrote only that they "would certainly be against any proposal which requires us not to capitalise British peerage titles". That is the sole concern raised by Proteus. How am I being rude when I ask whether this is your concern too? And no, we are not being in the forefront. Virtually all academic style guides have been prescribing lower case for half a century. Oxford and Cambridge are among those cited in the discussion below. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 20:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
*::::You are quite right:  I overreacted on my first time taking a look at this page in a month as i was surprised and felt (wrongly) attacked.  I sincerely apologise  ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''<sup>'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]</sup> 07:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
* '''Keep 2''' and change 3, because it's unidiomatic.  Donald Trump is "the" US president.  It sounds weird to say that "Donald Trump is US president".  (You could say "Donald Trump is president", in some contexts, but you wouldn't normally say "is <u>US</u> president".)  More generally, for the OP and other people who speak languages that don't make much use of [[Article (grammar)|grammatical articles]]:  This list exists in the hope that it will help people with some of the subtler, trickier bits of English conventions.  It's complicated because English is complicated.  Don't worry about what sounds right or seems rational, because English is in many ways a deeply confused language. If you follow the examples here, it will actually ''be'' right even if it seems weird.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
*:Why keep 2? Is making a distinction in meaning between "the president" and "the President" attested outside of Wikipedia? None of the manuals of style we are discussing here advise it or even mention it. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 23:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
*::Item #2 does not contain the word "the", so I'm not sure why you are asking this question.  Making a distinction between "is ____" and "is <u>the</u> ____" is attested in every English grammar book.  The correct and natural use of [[Article (grammar)|the definite article]] is probably very challenging for people who do not speak English natively, but the fact that you don't intuitively grasp the difference doesn't mean that there isn't a correct answer here.
*::There is a difference between "is the president" and "is President" and "is US president".  Trump is "president" (holder of a position); he is also "<u>the</u> US president" (specific and sole holder of a more clearly specified position).  You can even write that he "is President of the United States" (holder of a title; titles and positions have separate rules). However, you would never write in English that he "is US president".   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tqq|It sounds weird to say that 'Donald Trump is US president'}} @[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]: FWIW, that example is from the RfC, and is not currently in the MOS.  The MOS instead has {{tqq|Richard Nixon was President of the United States}} —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 07:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Remove both #2 and #3'''.  I searched books for "the Pope" and found lowercase "the pope" overwhelmingly more common even when referring clearly to a specific pope during his time in the office, so it seems clear that 2 is not something that's commonly done outside WP; and I see no need to make exceptions for the Brits.  And 3 is just confusing and difficult, leading to a combination of arguments and awkward workarounds; where would it end?  John Doe was Mayor?  Formal enough, or not? .  It's simpler and easier on the eyes to just use lowercase for things that are not proper names. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 02:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
* {{edit conflict}} '''Keep both''', mainly per Wehwalt. People already often chafe at the current amount of lowercasing prescribed in the MoS, and I believe these match typical practice. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 02:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
*:Typical practice where? Can you name publications that make the distinction between "the president" and "the President"? Neither the media nor the academia do it. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 08:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
*::Removing the exception would prescribe lowercase. I didn't say typical practice makes a distinction, and I don't know what particular publications do or what style guides prescribe. I suspect typical practice would actually be "Donald Trump is the '''P'''resident of the United States." [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+president+of+the+United+States%2Cthe+President+of+the+United+States&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 This NGrams comparison] seems to confirm that, although the statistical balance seems to be shifting somewhat toward lowercase in recent years. If an indefinite article is used, or if it's plural, it seems more clearly to be a [[common noun]] usage rather than a [[proper name]], and should be lowercase (despite what the NGrams [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=a+president+of+the+United+States%2Ca+President+of+the+United+States&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false] [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Presidents+of+the+United+States%2Cpresidents+of+the+United+States&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3] seem to say). —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 20:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::I suspect that the Google Books Ngrams you are showing include government publications, which capitalize "President" in every instance. A consistent capitalization, while even more anti-academic, would be much easier on our readers than the current mish-mash, where the words are upper case or lower case for reasons that a casual reader cannot understand. That "President of the United States" without an article is proper name usage also seems to be something we on Wikipedia invented over the years to justify JOBTITLES because I cannot find anything about it outside of Wikipedia talk pages. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 07:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Keep both #2 and #3'''.  #2 is logical and clear, but #3 needs a rewrite with a clear example to explain what it means.  The proposal for changes looks like another of these solutions searching for a problem that we don’t really have, and would affect a countless number of articles. [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 04:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Keep both #2 and #3'''.  Per Mathglot, these aren't really "exceptions" at all as if there was some ironclad rule mandating lowercasing, but rather reflecting some common use patterns.  "The President was inaugurated on 20 January 2025." is correct because it's clearly referring to one specific president, not a generic one, and that specific case is often capitalized.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 05:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
*:My point is exactly that capitalizing "President" when it refers to one specific president and otherwise not capitalizing is ''not'' common or even known outside of Wikipedia. The US media does not do it. The academia does not do it. Where have you seen such usage? [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 08:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
*::If the format were being proposed as new, you might have a point - although it has been pointed out before that WP doesn't follow any particular style guide, and taken as a whole the combination of style and format choices here don't reflect those of anywhere else.  But it's the status quo, and therefore you don't have a point.  The question is whether any proposed alternative is any better? [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 10:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::My point is to refute Snowfire's assertion that #2 and #3 reflect common usage. They do not. Nowhere outside of Wikipedia is distinction made between "the President" vs "the president" and "is the president of the United States" vs "is President of the United States". JOBTITLES status quo does not make this incorrect or my point invalid. That Wikipedia's capitalization maze is unattested outside of Wikipedia is in itself a problem. It puts us at odds with modern practice in our sources for no objective reason, causes constant interpretation disputes, and cannot possibly make sense to the reader if long-established editors struggle to understand it. Any alternative that brings us closer in line with the outside world, and chiefly with our sources, is better. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 10:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
*::::It would be better if you let editors respond to this survey of views, without responding personally to so many of them, trying to argue their views.  Be aware of WP:BLUDGEON [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 13:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Keep both #2 and #3''', with reasoning similar to that of [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] above. [[User:Bazza_7|Bazza&nbsp;<span style="color:grey">7</span>]] ([[User_talk:Bazza_7|talk]]) 09:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
* '''Remove both.''' These exceptions are subtle and hard to grasp – with #3 I don't even have much of an idea of what it's trying to say, let alone when it's supposed to apply. I'm pretty sure that they have never been followed consistently and as others have pointed out, they don't reflect common usage outside of Wikipedia either. Without them life will be easier. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 12:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Remove [[MOS:JOBTITLES]] from the MOS'''; while internal consistency inside each article is useful for such questions, we should not prescribe such a style when there are clearly variations between different varieties of English, especially with respect to British nobility. Failing that, '''keep''' the exceptions, or make them work better for nobility. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 17:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Remove both''' Job titles have always begged the question of ''what is important enough to capitalise'' and that is somewhat arbitrary and in contradiction with [[MOS:SIGNIFCAPS]] - we don't capitalise for emphasis, significance or importance. Points 2 and 3 fall foul of this, with some confusion at point 2 as to whether ''the Queen'' would only be used for ER2 while she was alive and all such references at WP should now be changed or do we retain it for references while she lived? Point 3 has work to a degree despite its complexity but KISS would be much better. Regardless, there is an inconsistency between point 3 ({{tq|When a formal title for a specific entity ...}}) and the example {{tq|Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016}}, since the formal tile is {{tq|Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland}}. It is near universal to capitalise an honorific per example 1. I might only suggest by way of example that there is a distinction: {{tq|... after which President Trump joined them ...}} but {{tq|... after which current president Trump joined them ...}}  not {{!xt|... after which current President Trump joined them ...}} since ''current president'' is not being used as an honorific. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 03:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Remove 2 and 3, especially 3'''. The wording of 3 is a total mess and to the extent it does anything, it just creates messes like the Count/count example. 2 is less bad but still seems like an unnecessary exception. Ideally we'd like the base case to cover as much as possible, and there doesn't seem to be any kind of strong motivation for 2. It's certainly not universally agreed on in style guides or anything. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 20:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Remove 2''' unless someone can clarify the issue raised by [[User:Cinderella157]]. I can see no good reason for bullet point 2 to use Charles III and Francis as examples unless the intended meaning is "capitalize when a title is used to ''refer during their time in office'' to a specific person as a substitute for their name". Is this the intended meaning? Confusion arises because an alternative interpretation of bullet point two (as demonstrated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_West&diff=1280338956&oldid=1280338345 here]) is that we capitalize a title such as king or pope when used as a substitute for any historical king’s  or pope’s name when referring to their activities during their time in office. This means we should refer to Prince Albert of York as "the king" between his birth on 14 December 1895 and his ascension to the throne on 11 December 1936, and "the King" from then until 6 February 1952 – but who would use "the king" as a substitute for Albert's name before he was king or after his death? He might be referred to as "the future king" or "the late king" but bullet point 3 already addresses a title preceded by a modifier, rendering rule two useless. I see that FAs, which should serve as models, sometimes follow my interpretation but more often the other, and often are inconsistent. The language could be clearer. [[User:Ewulp|Ewulp]] ([[User talk:Ewulp|talk]]) 04:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::We should include a past tense example. I believe it is about when they were the officeholder, regardless of whether that time is in the past or in the present. "The King ordered his generals to invade Elbonia", describing an action taken as the officeholder. We should add an example that is in the past. I don't believe we are supposed to do mass changes to lowercase when someone dies (such as [[Queen Elizabeth II]]). See also [[Talk:Julian (emperor)#Capitalization of "emperor"]]. Prince Albert of York was not King until he became the king, so we shouldn't be calling him the king before that. Future king is OK, I suppose. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 17:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Keep status quo''' per {{u|Wehwalt}}'s {{tqq|I believe the reader expects more capitalization than we give them}}. Yet, this proposal would lower case more. MOSs are house styles—they don't necessarily fully match <insert your preferred style>.  Standards exist to avoid rehashing arguments and churning edits, and I don't see this as egregious enough to confuse the many editors that do follow the existing style, who undoubtedly will not get the memo, and the busy work to fish out the affected pages.  Back to creating actual content.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 07:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
*:Avoiding rehashing arguments is exactly why this simplification was proposed, @[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]]. See @[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]]'s comment below. Main Page editors constantly deal with disputes about capitalization, especially in the fast-changing ''In the news'' segment, because the current reading of MOS:JOBTITLES is absurdly complicated and counter-intuitive. And as a content creator, with dozens of GAs, especially on medieval kings and queens, I feel that I would rather not invest my time into writing high quality content if it is going to be knocked down to a blog-level entry by outdated orthography that's out of sync with all that we consider to be our reliable sources. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 20:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Keep the status quo''' as well argued by Wehwalt and Begumba. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 09:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
*'''Remove #3, and weak support removing #2'''. Contrary to Wehwalt's argument, real-world analysis shows that a preference for lowercase is not just something favoured by academic publications, but in every-day sources too. In particular, when looking at ngrams for terms such as [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=is+president+of+the+United&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true is president of the United], [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=elected+president+of+the+United&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 elected president of the United], [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=elected+prime+minister&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 elected prime minister], and other similar phrases, every one of them shows either a small or large lead for the lowercased version. News sources such as [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54783016 the BBC], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/kidspost/donald-trump-is-elected-president-of-the-united-states/2016/11/09/58046db4-a684-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html Washington Post] etc. also tend to downcase these "job titles", whether there's a "modifier" or not. Wikipedia's house style of rendering this is as ''Donald Trump was elected President of the United States'', but only under those very specific circumstances where there's no modifier, is very clearly at odds with modern usage across the board. It will also make life ''so'' much easier for those of who work in venues such as ITN, where there's constant wrangling about which hooks have modifiers and which don't, leading to weird-looking inconsistencies between blurbs in the same set. Finally, {{xt|"I believe the reader expects more capitalization than we give them"}} is a completely unsubstantiated comment; basing such decisions on a vocal minority who favour capitalising job titles because we've "always done it that way", in the fact of stark and overwhelming evidence that the world doesn't agree, is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. As I've said many times over the years, I don't feel strongly about capitalisation myself, but I do feel strongly that we should follow what the rest of the world does. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 18:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
*'''Keep status quo''' although I am ''very'' strongly attracted to {{user|Kusma}}'s proposal to scrap [[MOS:JOBTITLES]] entirely, especially given the attempts by some people to apply it beyond the article space. I also feel that this proposal treads on [[WP:ENGVAR]] as it conflicts with the [https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/blog/capital-letters-less-more Australian style guide]. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 21:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
*:You are citing the Australian government's style guide, @[[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]]. All governments in the Anglosphere promote an orthographical deference to themselves. The academics and the journalists dropped this deference about 50 years ago. But in any case, MOS:JOBTITLES already conflicts with the Australian government's style guide: whereas the [https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/titles-honours-forms-address/royalty-vice-royalty-and-nobility#capitalise_governorgeneral_when_its_part_of_the_formal_title government's style guide] prescribes "the Governor-General of Australia", JOBTITLES would have us use "the governor-general of Australia". And perhaps scrapping JOBTITLES altogether is not such a bad idea after all. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 22:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
*::Indeed, that is the fundamental truth which opposers of this proposal don't seem to address at all. MOS:JOBTITLES as it stands is a complete contradiction, given that it mandates using {{xt|"John Smith was Governor-General of Australia"}} on the one hand while arbitrarily changing it to {{xt|"John Smith was the governor-general of Australia"}} where a "modifier" is inserted. This sort of distinction is not at all reflected by real world usage, which generally has the same capitalisation whether a modifier is there or not. e.g.:
*::*[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=was+governor-general+of&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 was the governor-general of] vs [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=was+the+governor-general+of&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 was governor-general of] shows a lead for the capitalised form in either case, while
*::*[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=was+elected+the+president+of&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 was elected the president of] [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=was+elected+president+of&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 was elected president of] shows a lead for capitalisation in the modified form only (!) and a lead for uncapitalized with no modifier.
*::In short, whatever this RFC decides, it should not be to retain the status quo. We should pick a style and stick with it - either always capitalise the job title, or never capitalise it. The current dogs biscuit results in all sorts of complaints about consistency and handwringing on the main page and elsewhere. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 09:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
* '''Remove both'''.  Complexity that does not lead to clarity is one of the factors that discourage participation as editors.  Excessive capitalization, and extremely nuanced rules, can be particularly harmful to neurodivergent editors.  Context-specific rules such as capitalizing when referring to the current holder of the title presumes a lot of updates when a new individual is given the title, and assumes a lot of knowledge by the reader which can't always be drawn from the article itself.'''~[[User:True Pagan Warrior|T]][[User talk:True Pagan Warrior|P]][[Special:Contributions/True Pagan Warrior|W]]''' 13:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Keep both'''. Quite a read, I do agree with Goodday that I would prefer caps as the default setting, beyond that the discourse for keeping seems to be the most reasonable.[[User:Halbared|Halbared]] ([[User talk:Halbared|talk]]) 13:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
* '''Remove #2'''. Using a job title instead of specific person's name does not make the job title a [[proper noun]]. In general, if "the" appears before a job title it is a common noun and does not need to be capitalised. It doesn't matter that there is only one of them, and it doesn't matter how important they are - the president, the king, or the cleaner - by using the [[definite article]] you have implicitly denoted a specific instance (typically, but not necessarily, the current one) so there is no need for capitalisation for disambiguation. If I mention "the cleaner" then the context should already tell the reader which cleaner. If I mention "the queen", the context should already tell the reader which queen. Note that "context" here may be the words the follow: "the cleaner at my workplace", "king of England", "the president of the US". [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 12:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' until an actual systematic survey of major external style guides is conducted. While external usage should guide (not dictate) Wikipedia's, in the whole four months that this has stood open, there's only the proposer's blank, handwaving claim that the proposal matches such guides, without any citations or quotations that could plausibly have informed the discussion. The  quotes from the ''Cambridge Guide'' below are vague and inconclusive. This discussion has just been too poorly informed for any constructive outcome to emerge. --[[User:Paul_012|Paul_012]] ([[User talk:Paul_012|talk]]) 12:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Professor [[Pam Peters]]'s compilation of corpus data from all the major standard varieties of English was published by the University of Cambridge and has been extremely well received. Her findings about capitalization practices are quite clear and well presented below by [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]]. I have referred to the ''Oxford Style Guide'', ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'', and ''[[AP Stylebook]]'', and could quote them too to you (however redundant that would be to Jähmefyysikko's quotes of Peterson's findings), but I have a distinct feeling that you are not looking to be convinced. The clearest and most important fact here, as noted by [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]], is that no English language style guide ever, anywhere, has called for capitalization to depend on whether the noun is preceded by a ''modifier''. Never and nowhere has there been such an illogical, non-intuitive mish-mash of cases. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 18:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
*::I'm looking at CMOS 17, and it says "When a title is used in apposition before a personal name—that is, not alone and as part of the name but as an equivalent to it, usually preceded by the or by a modifier—it is considered not a title but rather a descriptive phrase and is therefore lowercased."
*::That's an example of a style guide that calls for capitalization to depend on whether the title is preceded by a modifier. —[[User talk:Eyer|<span style="color:hotpink;"><b>Eyer</b></span>]] (he/him) <small>If you [[H:TP#Replying to an existing thread|reply]], add <code><small>&#123;&#123;reply to|Eyer&#125;&#125;</small></code> to your message.</small> 18:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::No, that a style guide which tells you not to capitalise a title which would otherwise be capitalised, if it's an appostion. This covers the specific difference between ''President of the United States Donald Trump'' and ''the president of the United States, Donald Trump''. It is not intended as a general rule that the casing of all titles is dictated by the presence of a modifier, as per our guideline. [https://www.grammarly.com/blog/punctuation-capitalization/capitalize-job-titles/ This page here] has a useful guide to it all, which it says reflects all the major style guides, and that's {{xt|"if the job title comes immediately before a name and there’s no comma between them, capitalize it"}} plus a few other exceptions such as where the title is used as a direct replacement for the person's name. But certainly ''Donald Trump was elected president of the United States'' should be used just as much as ''Donald Trump was elected as the president of the United Statws''. That's not an appositive. Since all style guides are united on these points, it is a no brainier that we should also align our guideline that way. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 19:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
*::I am looking to be convinced, or I wouldn't be asking for specific references. The specific/generic distinction (point 2) is one that I've always understood to be an established rule, but I did learn that long ago, so I would very much like to see proof that things have indeed changed. However, the Cambridge Guide doesn't address this at all, and only makes mention of "titles used on their own," which is why I called it vague. It cites the 2002 Oxford Guide to Style, which actually says {{tq|Capitals are preferred... when a short-form mention of a title is used as synonym for a specified person,}} and says that the historians' style of minimal capitalisation {{tq|may be followed providing it is imposed consistently throughout a work and it does not introduce ambiguity.}} Merely an allowance, not a prescription as the Cambridge Guide might seem to suggest. The 2014 New Hart's Rules, quoted by Ham II above, says the historians' style {{tq|can be distracting in works for a general readership,}} so definitely not a general recommendation. The ''often'' in {{tq|references to specific holders of a rank or title are often capitalized}} does suggest a weakening from ''preferred'', but by no means can I read this as an instruction to abolish the practice. Online references to CMOS and AP style do say that they use lowercase for titles when used instead of the name, so that does appear to be consistent among American guides. (Though interestingly, the 1st edition of CMOS said to capitalise President, Czar, Kaiser, Sultan, and Pope if and only if referring to that of the United States, Russia, Germany, Turkey, and Rome.) Ultimately, I don't see that there's agreement across the Atlantic to abolish the specific/generic distinction (which again, is/was established practice, not something made up by Wikipedia as you seem to have been asserting a lot). The examples from the Telegraph's and the WSJ's style guides provided by WhatamIdoing also support this—British styles generally make the distinction; American ones don't. <br />I agree that the preceded-by-modifier bit of point 3 is just weird and needs to be reworded, but again, I don't see that the style guides support throwing it away altogether, as British usage does capitalise titles of office unless plural or generic. If there's something in the New Hart's Rules that show this not to be the case, please do provide quotes. --[[User:Paul_012|Paul_012]] ([[User talk:Paul_012|talk]]) 02:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::Can you please quote a British style guide that calls for capitalization of titles "unless plural or generic"? Frankly, I would not mind adopting the 2002 Oxford Guide to Style: it allows me to write articles using the style that is actually used in all the academic sources that I cite (the "historians' style"). I do not care one bit if "the duke" is capitalized in an article about a pudding. My concern is that the history articles I spend weeks bringing to [[WP:FAC|"a professional standard"]] do not end up reduced to a blog-level entry by unprofessional overcapitalization. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 21:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::I took that from the Cambridge Guide: "Neither would put a capital on generic or plural references to an office," implying that British and American usage differs on the inverse. But indeed I'm not seeing it worded that way in specific sources. It seems to be the Cambridge Guide's own summary? --[[User:Paul_012|Paul_012]] ([[User talk:Paul_012|talk]]) 18:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

===Discussion===

==== many popes / many Popes ====

{{moved from|[[#Survey]]}}
{{hatnote|The 11:15, 30 Jan post below and the rest of this thread was originally follow-up to the 10:29, 30 Jan post in section {{slink||Survey}}, above.}}
::: Style guides, unlike articles, are not based on reliable sources but on the style we wish to recommend in our guidelines. That said, we often are influenced, but not governed, by them. Rather than relying on other style guides, to which we are in no way beholden, I would prefer to rely on common usage. Ngrams shows many reliable sources for "many pope"s: ([https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=many+popes%2C+many+Popes&year_start=1984&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 search 'many popes' vs. 'many Popes']. But even were it not the majority (which it is), Wikipedia has the right to define our style guidelines as we wish. That implies that, despite the fact that "many popes" appears to be the most common usage, we do not have to adhere to that, if you can present an argument why we should not. Do you have one? [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 11:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
::::We ''should'' have "many popes" because job titles are nearly universally lowercased in modern academic publications and journalism, i.e. in what we consider to be our highest quality sources. But we should also consistently have "the pope" for the same reason. No distinction in meaning is made between "the pope" and "the Pope" in reliable sources and we should not require editors to make this distinction or readers to understand it. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 11:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'd personally prefer that our style guide take its queues from reliable published style guides, and I'd love to see someone give a comparative view. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 08:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: There are innumerable small distinctions of style in [[WP:MOS]]—the use of [[MOS:ITALICS|italics]] or [[MOS:HYPHEN|hyphens]] are probably good examples—that are probably lost on many reading our articles, but that doesn't mean they are a bad thing. If the rule is well conceived, then its application will help those readers who do understand it in a small way, just like having a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence or a period/full stop at the end helps in a small way. Those readers who don't understand it are not required to do anything, and may yet learn the distinction in meaning by repeated exposure to it and if so, things will be one quantum clearer to them when they do. Just as proper use of a hyphen in the verb helps us to correctly understand "{{xt|He resigned his post}}", when we are talking about a cabinet minister's Twitter message or their career path.
::::: However, this may be devolving into a threaded discussion about the proper scope and size of a style guide, with, I suspect, your position being more on the minimalist side, and mine more the opposite. That's a valid issue to discuss, but exceeds the scope of this Rfc (and especially, this one [[WP:!Vote|!vote]]), although the existence of this Rfc and our apparent disagreement about what outcome is best may be a small manifestation of that larger topic. I wonder whether we might agree, though, on an Rfc meta-issue, namely that the {{slink||Survey}} section is mostly for [[WP:!Vote|!votes]] and occasional brief replies, ripostes, and clarifications, but that at some point, and ongoing threadedd discussion under somebody's !vote is better placed in the {{slink||Discussion}} section. If you have no objection, I would move this thread to the {{slink||Discussion}} section, starting either with your 10:39 post, or my reply to it, or feel free to do so as you see fit. Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 09:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I do not mind moving this to Discussion. My point is that nobody outside of Wikipedia can understand our distinction between "the pope" and "the Pope" because it does not exist in the outside world. What's more, only very few of us ''on'' Wikipedia understand this difference that we've made up, as is clear from the ceaseless disputes and questions for clarification. In [[Talk:Foreign_Secretary#Requested_move_26_January_2025|this latest example]] I had to explain it to [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]], an administrator who has been on this project for 19 years, because we have invented a distinction between [[Foreign Secretary]] and [[foreign secretary]]. Nobody benefits from this. You said you would "prefer to rely on common usage". Well, this is not common usage, not nearly. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 09:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: (Moved.) [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 00:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::: How do we know that it is not in common use? [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+pope%2Cthe+Pope&year_start=1980&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false This ngrams graph] showing usage since 1980 seems to show they are used about equally. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 00:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The distinction is not in common use. Show me a newspaper that makes the distinction between "the pope" and "the Pope". Show me an academic journal. Show me an academic press. Show me anyone, anything really. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 00:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::This from ''[[The Australian]]'''s [https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/pope-looks-to-his-legacy-and-creates-21-new-cardinals/news-story/8405728def1f1f83fbf4be44a79e04aa "Pope looks to his legacy and creates 21 new cardinals"], 8 December 2024 {{subscription}} supports Surtsicna's point: "he became pope", "the pope told the group", "The pope, who has", "The Argentine pope", "a new pope", "The pope has ", " the pope's new choices", "Pope" only when followed by "Francis". So what's the support for the 2nd bulletpoint at [[MOS:JOBTITLE]]? -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 02:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::[https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2018/05/the-one-and-only-female-pope.html]: {{quote|People have long been fascinated with the idea and imagery of a female pope. In the later Middle Ages, there was an oft-repeated story about Pope Joan...}} [[User:Bazza_7|Bazza&nbsp;<span style="color:grey">7</span>]] ([[User_talk:Bazza_7|talk]]) 10:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::What does that prove, @[[User:Bazza 7|Bazza 7]]? Nobody is proposing that it should be "pope Joan". That is should be "Pope Joan" is universal in academic style guides. It is "the Pope" vs "the pope" that is being debated. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 10:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
:Use "many popes"; as a plural instead of as a singular title directly attached to an individual's name, it is necessarily a common-noun descriptor not a proper name or part of one. In what way is the guideline somehow still unclear about this? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 00:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

==== king/Count example ====

An example of JOBTITLES' inane results that I frequently have to deal with would be the sentence: {{nowrap|{{green|"The king of Jerusalem, Fulk, defeated Pons, Count of Tripoli."}}}} What sense does this make? [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 23:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
: I find the wording awkward and in need of improvement ("{{xt|King Fulk of Jerusalem defeated Count Pons of Tripoli}}" seems natural enough) but I see no ambiguity or opportunity for misunderstanding, and I'm not even sure how it relates to the topic of this Rfc. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 00:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
::Deflecting is not helpful. That sentence may very well be {{nowrap|{{green|The king of Jerusalem, Fulk of Anjou, defeated Pons of Toulouse, Count of Tripoli.}}}} It relates to the topic of this RfC because this incomprehensible capitalization is the product of JOBTITLES's exception #3. Without exception #3, it would be {{nowrap|{{green|The king of Jerusalem, Fulk of Anjou, defeated Pons of Toulouse, count of Tripoli.}}}} [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 00:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
::: I looked around at Scholar, and while I found a lot of variation across sources in their choices, I don't find much variation within individual sources, although to be fair none of the couple dozen I looked at seemed to use both meanings. I guess you could say my investigation on that score was inconclusive. It could be as you say, that there are few sources using it both ways, with a distinction in meaning. If so, I'm not sure if that should be decisive in our decision or not. Anyway, we both know what each other's position is, pretty much, and I would certainly welcome more data and other voices at this point, so this is probably a good time for me to go quiet and lurk while others chime in. If some wholly new issues arise that are worth debating, I may pop back in. Thanks for starting this worthwhile Rfc. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 01:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:Should be "Pons, count of Tripoli" since the latter phrase is a parenthetical description and not directly part of the name string. The guideline already covers this, too, but in wording that (like other aspects of this section) could use some clarity. We've approached revising it several times but not quite crossed the finish line. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 00:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::I have never seen JOBTITLES interpreted that way; exception #3 to me clearly suggests that the title should be capitalized, and that is why we do not even have [[Pons, count of Tripoli]] as a redirect to [[Pons, Count of Tripoli]], let alone as the page title. In any case, it is time that we bring this in line with modern academic and journalistic practice. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 07:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:Presumably the simplified version of [[MOS:JOBTITLES]] would affect article titles as well as running text, including many of the examples given at [[WP:NCROY]] (but not, I think, any of the actual advice it gives, which doesn't mention capitalisation once) – so we would have the article titles {{xt|[[Stephen, king of England]]}}; {{xt|[[Mary, queen of Scots]]}}; {{xt|[[William, prince of Wales]]}}; {{xt|[[Anne, princess royal]]}}; {{xt|[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st duke of Wellington]]}}; {{xt|[[Georgiana Cavendish, duchess of Devonshire]]}}; and {{xt|[[Sir John Brunner, 2nd baronet]]}}. Those are all quite similar to how those titles appear in the ''[[Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]]'' (e.g., {{xt|[https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/705 Arthur, prince of Wales]}}; {{xt|[https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/36654 Mary, princess royal]}}; {{xt|[https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/29001 <nowiki>Wellesley [formerly Wesley], Arthur, first duke of Wellington</nowiki>]}}; {{xt|[https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/4934 <nowiki>Cavendish [née Spencer], Georgiana, duchess of Devonshire</nowiki>]}}; {{xt|[https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/37236 Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson, first baronet]}}), so they presumably follow the recommendations in ''[[Hart's Rules]]'' (I haven't got my copy to hand).{{pb}}While the ''ODNB'' treats most royal and aristocratic titles this way, it does use an initial capital letter for titles which are immediately followed by a surname or a place name, without the word "of" in between: so it has {{xt|[https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/27112 Temple, Henry John, third Viscount Palmerston]}}; {{xt|[https://doi.org/10.1093/odnb/9780198614128.013.90000381630 <nowiki>Jones, Arthur [Alun] Gwynne, Baron Chalfont</nowiki>]}}; and {{xt|[https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/27137 Tennyson, Alfred, first Baron Tennyson]}}. That suggests to me that our article titles {{xt|[[Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston]]}}; {{xt|[[Alun Gwynne Jones, Baron Chalfont]]}}; and {{xt|[[Alfred, Lord Tennyson]]}} should keep their capitals in "Viscount", "Baron" and "Lord". Tennyson's case fits exception #1 of [[MOS:JOBTITLES]], and perhaps that exception could be expanded to cover cases like Palmerston's and Chalfont's, or there could be an additional exception for those.{{pb}}The simplified version of MOS:JOBTITLES would also iron out some of the problems noted in {{section link|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France- and French-related articles#Noble titles}}; it says that capitalisation in that subject area "{{tq|is currently chaotic}}" – e.g., we have {{xt|[[Catherine de Vivonne, marquise de Rambouillet]]}}, but {{xt|[[Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon]]}}. [[User:Ham II|Ham II]] ([[User talk:Ham II|talk]]) 16:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you. Yes to all of that, and ODNB is exactly the type of reference we need for the peer page titles. But I should note that [[Mary, Queen of Scots]] is a unique case because "Mary, Queen of Scots" is practically a full personal name, very commonly written "Mary Queen of Scots" without even the comma. I had wondered about Palmerston, etc cases. You make a good point. I think it would be best to subsume them into the one exception that we retain. The goal, after all, is to simplify by reducing the exceptions 😁 [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 22:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

=== Cambridge Guide to English Usage ===
''[[The Cambridge Guide to English Usage]]'' ([https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/books/cambridge-guide-to-english-usage/c/B3576E1AE86C8FB71AB92B8A572C6EE2?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=bookmark WP Library link]) is supposedly based on corpus data and gives an overview of different style guides. Here's what it has to say on this issue:
{{blockquote|
* Official titles and offices are capitalized whenever they are used to name a particular holder or incumbent (e.g. {{tq|Cardinal Newman}}).
* When the title or office is used in apposition to the individual's name, capitalization practices vary. American English is less inclined to capitalize, whether the title follows the name or precedes it without being part of it (e.g. {{tq|Fiorello La Guardia, mayor of New York}}) 
* In British English, such titles carry capital letters when they come before the individual's name but not if they follow, according to Ritter (2002). So a reference to {{tq|French President De Gaulle}} would be fully capitalized. Older British style put capitals on titles used on their own, as in {{tq|the Bishop of London was in attendance}} (Hart's Rules, 1983), but this is no longer necessary except to prevent ambiguity (Ritter), and Americans just would not, according to the Chicago Manual (2003). Neither would put a capital on generic or plural references to an office: {{tq|when he became king}}; {{tq|the prime ministers of England}}. British and American practices also coincide on using upper case / capitals in honorific titles and forms of address such as {{tq|His Grace}}, {{tq|Her Majesty}}, {{tq|Your Excellency}}.
* Senior titles and office-holders in institutions other than church and state are not regularly capitalized. In newspapers and other general publications, references to chief executive officers in business and industry are typically lower-cased, as in: {{tq|chairman of Kraft Foods}}.
}}
{{emdash}} [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 09:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:Right. This is the modern practice to which I am referring. Let us replace our confusing mess with this. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 10:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::I am very surprised to see the claim that Americans capitalize less, unless academic sources form a majority of the corpus. Most Americans have the intuition that while an officeholder has a title, a specific office is a proper noun phrase. There are many attorneys general, but the Attorney General of the United States is a proper noun phrase, not equivalent in meaning to an attorney general who works for the United States, unless an author uses lowercase to signal that as their intent. To put it differently, these phrases are capitalized for reasons other than being a title, and from my vantage, title is seen as secondary to office. We are seeing this on very consistent edits on the pages of U.S. cabinet positions where editors have insisted on adhering to this style guide (in a way I am not entirely sure was intended when written, but we have what we have). The result is that the phrase announcing the subject in the lead is written as "The '''[[United States Secretary of State|United States secretary of state]]'''..." which reads as ''very'' bizarre for an American, so obviously wrong that the immediate impulse for many readers has been to correct what they sense as a glaring oversight, while other articles maintain the capitalization in the lead, such as "The '''[[United States Secretary of Defense]]'''..."
::Particularly bizarre for American readers is the idea that the article "the" would modify a title like [[President of the United States]] or [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]] so as to render it generic; at at least my educational experience has emphasized the [[definiteness]] intended by the author to be decisive in the use of capitalization, and this would be the case regardless of the title's country of origin, (e.g. the King of Spain, the Supreme Leader of North Korea) so it is difficult to see it as a POV issue. The absence of capitalization in other cases would be used specifically to make it clear that you were ''not'' talking about a specific entity (inherent to the concept of a proper noun), such as in the case of the pentagon shape of the white house down the block not referring to the Pentagon and the White House, which illustrates that presence or absence of the definite article does little to signal to a reader the ''intent'' of the author to designate a class of objects vs. a single entity. The sun at the center of another galaxy is not [[Sun|the Sun]], etc. (another inconsistency in Wikipedia that borders on humorous). You can see the same intuition in the 3rd [[Dalai Lama]]. As the kind of person who does chafe at reading "the United States secretary of state" (so I notice when it is written) I just have to observe that I've never seen someone write it in that way without explicitly referring to MOS:JOBTITLES, which tells me that the insistence that presence/absence of the definite article is directly determinative of capitalization is a Wiki MOS contrivance that most readers of articles in the category of American politics find puzzling and various degrees of annoying.
::My reading of UK news suggests that the trend is in the opposite direction. At least in the Guardian, they are very averse to capitalization. We say U.S. Marines, they say U.S. marines. We say NATO, they say Nato. I'm quite sure they are lowercase maximalists, and I would be interested to see a counter example. Not sure how it is for other UK publications.
::Apparently when an academic talks about the U.S. army, they mean the land force that happens to be associated with the U.S. Yet, most Americans think of the U.S. Army as a proper noun by virtue of being a specific institution, while in the category of armies, and it makes sense to retain the ability to differentiate between the U.S. Army as an institution and legal entity versus the U.S. army that fought opposite the Soviet army, while also being able to refer to the institutional constraints of the Soviet Army. The U.S. Army is an army, and in an American context, the Army is an army, just like the Italian Army is an army, but no American would use the capitalization in the phrase "the Italian army" without a very specific contextual reason to emphasize that the referent is not the institution of the Italian Army. And in the context of a discussion of the President of the United States, if I told you the President is a president, you would no doubt understand this without ambiguity as having a meaning that is not a simple tautology.
::So it's hard for me to wrap my head around this. We want to sacrifice a clearly understood indicator of a linguistic property (definiteness), but only in this one category of job titles, for what? Would an American labor union president and an American university president and an American who became President of Mexico all be members of the set "presidents of the United States"? Would they all be members of the set "American presidents"? Can the sets "American Presidents" and "American presidents" be distinguished? "U.S. Presidents" and "U.S. presidents"?
::this has gone on long enough i dont know about you but i think we gain so much from reacting against linguistic formalism dont you it shows that we arent beholden to outdated social hierarchy when we refuse to acquiesce to tradition and endow the words of the establishment with authority [[User:Ihpkt|Ihpkt]] ([[User talk:Ihpkt|talk]]) 08:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Small follow up, [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/12/us/politics/bessent-trump-treasury-tariffs.html in the New York Times] at least, even when the word "secretary" is lowercase as a description, particularly when used in different word order from the official office, "Treasury" is still capitalized, but this is for some reason not preserved for the Defense, State, and other departments (which are capitalized as Defense Department, State Department, etc even when the official word order is Department of Defense). I'm not sure the Times is well-advised in such a confusing set of conventions, but they also have the luxury of a paid staff of writers (a minor difference between journalism, academia, and Wikipedia).
:::I'm certain Wikipedia readers are not helped by the ambiguity of the lowercase "state," particularly in a country with 50ish secretaries of state but only one Secretary of State, and whose referent is not an abstract state, but [[United States Department of State|State]].
:::This sentence is indicated by the style guide: "[[Alexander Hamilton]] took the oath of office as the first [[United States Secretary of the Treasury|secretary of the treasury]] on September 11, 1789."
:::However this sentence is also indicated by the style guide: "[[Alexander Hamilton]] took the oath of office as 1st [[United States Secretary of the Treasury|Secretary of the Treasury]] on September 11, 1789."
:::????????? [[User:Ihpkt|Ihpkt]] ([[User talk:Ihpkt|talk]]) 17:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
::::From a strictly factual basis, it is not at all clear to me that Alexander Hamilton was the first secretary of the treasury, as this is a description of a generic category that presumably includes those who held the office of [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]] prior to 1789. He may have been the first American secretary of the treasury, I'd have to look at the [[Articles of Confederation]] to determine whether a previous officeholder would have met that description, but it's not clear why one would be interested in communicating this set of facts (hopefully I've been clear about the set logic of the grammar here) outside of a conversation of comparative political systems (what I understand to be the chief academic reason for lowercase in contexts such as this). But clearly, the fact that he was the first [[United States Secretary of the Treasury]] is unambiguous and without controversy, and therefore a convention likely of interest for encyclopedic readers who are often trying to parse information of a vast scope. [[User:Ihpkt|Ihpkt]] ([[User talk:Ihpkt|talk]]) 21:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::Alexander Hamilton was in fact ''not'' [[Superintendent of Finance of the United States|the first American treasury secretary]]. [[User:Ihpkt|Ihpkt]] ([[User talk:Ihpkt|talk]]) 06:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

== RfC [[MOS:NICKNAME]]: Only for nicknames that are article titles? ==
{{Closed rfc top|result=There is a consensus against mandating the particular pattern of either A or B. However, based on the arguments made in the discussion, it may be possible to agree on some guidelines for use cases of each pattern with further discussion. <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 13:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)}}
[[MOS:NICKNAME]] says: "If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial." Does that apply only to nicknames that are our article titles, or to all nicknames that are sufficiently prominent to be in the lead sentence? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 21:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

For example, at least these seven articles currently use this format without the nicknames being the article titles:
* [[Martha Jefferson Randolph]]: '''Martha "Patsy" Randolph''' ...
* [[Rose Cleveland]]: '''Rose Elizabeth "Libby" Cleveland''' ...
* [[Helen Herron Taft]]: '''Helen Louise "Nellie" Taft''' ...
* [[Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis]]: '''Jacqueline Lee "Jackie" Kennedy Onassis''' ...
* [[Condoleezza Rice]]: '''Condoleezza "Condi" Rice'''  ...
* [[Cornelia Cole Fairbanks]]: '''Cornelia "Nellie" Cole Fairbanks''' ...
* [[Mariette Rheiner Garner]]: '''Mariette Elizabeth "Ettie" Rheiner Garner''' ...

Higher on this page you will see a large number of very experienced editors disagreeing at length, so I think this is worth coming to consensus. The options proposed:

:'''A''': Clarify [[MOS:NICKNAME]] that this style '''only''' applies to nicknames that are the article titles, and change the first sentence of each of those articles to something like [[Carol and Eric Hafner]] currently reads: "'''Carol Hafner''' (also known as '''Kitty Hafner''') ..."
:'''B''': Clarify [[MOS:NICKNAME]] that this style '''also''' applies to nicknames that are '''not''' the article titles, and change [[Carol and Eric Hafner]] so it reads "'''Carol "Kitty" Hafner'''..."
: '''C''': Don't clarify anything, let editors argue it out on each individual article talk page
: '''D''': (To be determined - not proposed yet, but I'm quite sure someone will propose a D in the discussion below, that's just the way we Wikipedia editors do things. I only hope we don't get to E and F.) --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 21:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

* Personally I prefer '''B''', but mainly because it's shorter. I could also accept A. I just don't think we should leave a clearly ambiguous guideline to be ambiguous, those are the worst. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 21:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
* I think it has to be '''A''' - if a nickname is so widely used that it merits inclusion in the opening bold type, then it is arguably the COMMONNAME and the article should be moved, to match the [[Magic Johnson]] example at MOS:NICKNAME. Otherwise the nickname can go elsewhere in the lede/article. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 22:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
* As I mentioned earlier, the answer cannot be one size fits all. [[Magic Johnson]] is different than [[Mark Twain]]. Common (often familial) nicknames such as ''Elizabeth'' and ''Liz'' should be treated differently than a nickname "Bambino" in [[Babe Ruth]]. --[[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 22:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
*:Can you be specific ''how'' you believe the common (often familial) nicknames in these seven articles should be treated in the lead? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 22:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
*::I generally don't think they need to be listed or it it is the common name, put in the title, see [[Chuck Schumer]], [[Chris Sununu]], [[Jackie Kelly]], [[Liz Truss]], [[Robert F. Kennedy]]. - [[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 23:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::Bingo - if it's so widely used, it should surely be the article title. If it's not, why mention it at all? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::The purpose of having a significant alternative name in bold in the lead sentence is to tell readers they have arrived at the correct article. Not every alternative name needs to be included in the lead sentence or lead paragraph, but when an alternative name is widely used and can be concisely conveyed, it generally should be. There is no reason some special exception should be made excluding nicknames from the normal functioning of  [[MOS:ALTNAME]].--[[User:Trystan|Trystan]] ([[User talk:Trystan|talk]]) 14:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::As I have said multiple times, I have ZERO issues with "significant alternative name in bold in the lead sentence" AT ALL. The issue here is that nickname being in the opening boldface, e.g.:
*:::::'''George Bush''', known as '''Dubya'''
*:::::OR
*:::::'''George "Dubya" Bush
*:::::I think the first is fine, the second is not. That is what is under discussion here. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Sources do not routinely refer to "Dubya Bush", so that example doesn't meet the requirements already in [[MOS:NICKNAME]] for that format. But "Nellie Taft" ''is'' a widely used alternative name (i.e. it is widely used in normal contexts to refer to the person), so what is problematic about {{tq|'''Helen Louise "Nellie" Taft'''}}? Why would that format be recommended when it is the most common name (and thus the article title, like {{tq|Claudia Alta "Lady Bird" Johnson}}), but be prohibited when it is a widely used alternative name?--[[User:Trystan|Trystan]] ([[User talk:Trystan|talk]]) 21:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::No, he ''is'' routinely referred to as Dubya though. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::And if 'Nellie' is so widely used for Mrs Taft, then move her article. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Actually, 'Nellie' is a "common hypocorism" for 'Helen', so MOS:NICKNAME applies anyway for Mrs Taft. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::The question for the RFC is essentially how nicknames that are signficant alternative names should be formatted (i.e., whether an [[WP:ALTNAME]] should follow [[MOS:NICKNAME]]), so saying to just "move the article" doesn't address the issue. I don't think Nellie as a variant of Helen is something most readers would be familiar with. But I've taken up too much of this !vote already, so I will leave it there.--[[User:Trystan|Trystan]] ([[User talk:Trystan|talk]]) 15:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''B''', with the caveat that there may be other parts of MOS:NICKNAME that lead to a different result in some cases. I'm not sure any specific additional wording is actually needed, but [[Helen Herron Taft]] would be a good example to add. She is widely referred to in reliable sources as Nellie Taft, but not quite to the level that it is her common name. The guidance in MOS:NICKNAME supports {{tq|'''Helen Louise "Nellie" Taft'''}}, which is preferable to the more cumbersome {{tq|'''Helen Louise Taft''', also known by the nickname '''Nellie'''}}.--[[User:Trystan|Trystan]] ([[User talk:Trystan|talk]]) 22:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''Cish''' - Like every other bit of info on Wikipedia, editors can turn to reliable sources to determine whether a nickname is prominent enough for inclusion in the opening sentence. Every situation is going to be different. For example, in the list above I'd absolutely expect the nickname to appear in the lead of Helen Herron Taft (article: ''<nowiki>'</nowiki>Throughout her life, she went by "Nellie"<nowiki>'</nowiki>'') and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (article: ''<nowiki>'</nowiki>became the target of paparazzi who followed her everywhere and nicknamed her "Jackie O"<nowiki>'</nowiki> ... <nowiki>'</nowiki>Dubbed the "Jackie" look<nowiki>'</nowiki>'' etc.). On the flip side, I would not necessarily expect to see it in Condoleezza Rice (AFAIK her full name is/was the primary form of address with public audiences) and Martha Jefferson Randolph (whose article gives no reason or citation for the nickname). That said, we should clarify this guideline to note that including a prominent nickname in the first sentence is allowable even if it's not the article title.  [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 23:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
*:Allowable, but not necessarily preferred.  It really depends on the individual. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 00:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
* From my point of view, we should think about the function of the title. Every time, we should consider if the title is clear for the reader and concise at the same time. Additionally, the writer should also consider why the article is written (is it a singer, a poet, or a queen). I would use the nickname if there could be significant number of people who know the person by the nickname only. Otherwise, I would mention it somewhere in the text (also depends on context, eg. the fact that the nickname of the Queen Elizabeth II was Lilibeth is not important for the article, it does not have to be in the first sentence or paragraph). --[[User:Martin Tauchman|Martin Tauchman]] ([[User talk:Martin Tauchman|talk]]) 09:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''C''' The breadth of how humans approach names and nicknames makes trying to support a one size fits all rule here untenable. [[User:Parabolist|Parabolist]] ([[User talk:Parabolist|talk]]) 01:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
*'''B or C'''. A is too restrictive: there may be other issues than whether a nickname is widely known or widely used governing the choice of article title. For instance, [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] is titled by his formal name, but his nickname "Ike" is widely enough known to be worthy of the lead sentence. In this specific example, the current lead sentence puts the nickname separately from the boldface full legal name (which is nevertheless not the actual article title), but there should be no prohibition on the quotation-mark-in-name format in this case and similar cases, just as there is no prohibition (in fact the opposite!) for using full legal names that do not exactly match the article title. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
*:The method used in [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] ('''Dwight David Eisenhower''', also known by his nickname '''Ike'''...) is one I fully agree with and is actually in full compliance with option '''A''' that you have poo-pooed. Option B would have it as '''Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower''', which is awful.
*:The number of editors here who seem ignorant about the fact we are talking about the opening boldface only shows how poor the RfC has been set out. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 09:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
*::Despite your borderline-personal-attack about ignorance in my contribution, you are missing its point: I do not want the MOS to tell me I have to phrase things in one way and not in another. You are trying to tell me that I should only phrase such articles in the way the Eisenhower article does and not with a quoted nickname at the start. I do not agree. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:*'''B''' - I would say seems to be the most logical.  I don't mind either format.  'Helen Louse "Nellie" Taft' seems preferable over Helen Louse Taft (Also known as "Nellie").
:[[User:MaximusEditor|MaximusEditor]] ([[User talk:MaximusEditor|talk]]) 22:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
::But under MOS:NICKNAME we wouldn't have either - given that Nellie is an established nickname for Helen. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 10:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
:::"Nellie" may be an established nickname for Helen, but it doesn't seem very common or recognizable as such for most readers. It's not like [[Tom, Dick and Harry]]. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 22:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
::::I think you'd be surprised how many young people I come across who don't even know about Harry/Henry or Jack/John etc. - but we are not to dumb down for those kind of people. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::Common sense would indicate that we should present the nickname explicitly if we think a lot of people wouldn't be familiar with the name and the association between the nickname/diminutive and the formal name (and couldn't easily guess it, as with a simple shortening of a long multisyllabic name). Some judgment is required, and the familiarity of names is something that certainly changes with time. [[MOS:HYPOCORISM]] contains some discussion and guidance. I suppose the basic point is that it seems silly and overly pedantic to explicitly explain that a Susan is called Sue or that a William is called Bill. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 21:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::Even for William, it can be worth pointing out that someone's usual nickname is Bill, Will, Billy, Willy, or even Liam. If we don't say it, how are readers to guess which one it is? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 00:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I suppose the idea is that if the title of the article is [[Bill Clinton|Bill [Something]]] or we just start referring to the person as Bill, even though we say their name is William in the opening sentence, it should be pretty obvious which one it is. For me, "Liam" is across the borderline of obviousness for William, although I suppose there is [[Liam Neeson|evidence of a different opinion]]. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 00:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Re "or we just start referring to the person as Bill": our standard is to just start referring to them by their surname, so this shouldn't happen much. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 01:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::If a person doesn't realise that 'William Clinton' in the lede of the 'Bill Clinton' article is the same person, then God help us all... [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::You do realize our readers do not all come from English-speaking countries where that nickname is common, right? Why should we expect all readers to have the same knowledge of standard and common nickname forms that are not merely shortenings of the actual name, like Bill for William, Sasha for Alexander, Pino for Giuseppe, etc? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 17:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Then why do we have MOS:NICKNAME at all, by that logic? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''C''' I'm not seeing a particular benefit to one style over the others for an issue with relatively little impact either way. I can see why some variations would be beneficial for different circumstances. – [[User:Notwally|notwally]] ([[User talk:Notwally|talk]]) 04:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Cish''' - Sure, per B clarify [[MOS:NICKNAME]] to include the thought that nickname doesn’t have to be in the article title.  If nothing else, keep the perspective that [[WP:TITLE]] is a policy which outranks just a MOS, especially when the MOS is only saying how a nickname is “usually” presented which implicitly means not always so.  The MOS really should clarify much more strongly that usages vary a lot and should vary a lot from this one style.  There may be further guidances possible, perhaps on how prominent the nickname is versus their actual name and that editors should figure it out case-by-case.   There are for example people known almost only by the unquoted nickname - for example [[Alfred the Great]], [[Magic Johnson]], [[Lady Gaga]], [[Snoop Dogg]], [[Billy the kid]], [[Mark Twain]].   The presentation for those kinds of nicknames really do and should differ from those of people who usually used their nickname [[Bing Crosby]], [[Babe Ruth]], [[Buzz Aldrin]].  And presentation should also differ for that of people who have well-known nicknames not commonly used by them such as [[John Wayne]] or [[Jack Nicklaus]].  Frankly, nicknames are ubiquitous in a certain era - the local common name or military slang for the person as “shorty” or “red” or “doc” and “sparks” or something else - so how or if to show this seems a ubiquitous question for any BLP and BDP.  Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 15:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
*:Magic Johnson is the same 'type' of nickname as Babe Ruth, so you've undermined your own point there... [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
**'''A-ish''': I say "ish" because some wiggle room is fine, but the article name (and [[WP:COMMONNAME]]) is good a standard. Putting a nickname in the middle of the article's initial recitation of their name suggests the nickname is as (or more) important as the rest of their names. For someone like [[Magic Johnson|Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr.]], that's all well and good, because he ''is'' known to the public as "Magic Johnson". But many of the examples listed are personal/familial nicknames that are not in common public use. [[Condoleeza Rice|Condoleeza "Condi" Rice]]? Sure, she's "Condi" to her friends and family (and an overly-familiar and/or insulting pundit, sure), but she's only ever been "Condoleeza" in her professional career. Same with [[Rose Cleveland|Rose "Libby" Cleveland]], who was a published author as "Rose Cleveland", and is referred to by academics and scholars as "Rose Cleveland" — "Libby" was only used in her personal life. Nicknames like these (aside from often falling afoul of [[MOS:HYPOCORISM]]) are borderline trivia, and don't need to be put front-and-centre. Of course, if someone's nickname is not their common name but still ''noteworthy'', it can (and should) be mentioned later in the lead. Like how we do it with [[Babe Ruth]] as "the Bambino". — [[User:Kawnhr|Kawnhr]] ([[User_talk:Kawnhr|talk]]) 20:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
*:Very well said! [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 22:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
{{Closed rfc bottom}}

== RfC on MOS:NATIONALITY for First Nations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Australians ==

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 10:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1745316076}}

As per [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia#First Nations group names in the first sentence of bio articles?]]: 

A: Can belonging to an [[Aboriginal Australians|Aboriginal Australian]] or [[Torres Strait Islanders|Torres Strait Islander]] group be considered a form of [[nationality]]?

B: Should [[MOS:NATIONALITY]] be edited to include an example of someone belonging to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander nation with that nationality named as a demonym in the first sentence of the lead, similarly to the example given for Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians? E.g. the first sentence of the [[Ashleigh Barty]] article reads: 

{{tq|'''Ashleigh Jacinta Barty''' {{post-nominals|size=100%|country=AUS|AO}} (born 24 April 1996) is an Australian ([[Ngarigo]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/10/grounded-and-meticulous-ash-barty-writing-tennis-history-of-her-own|title=Grounded and meticulous Ash Barty writing tennis history of her own|first=Richard|last=Evans|work=The Guardian|date=10 July 2021|quote=Barty, a Ngarigo woman and deeply proud of her Indigenous heritage}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theage.com.au/sport/tennis/open-hearts-indigenous-kids-bring-joy-for-barty-goolagong-cawley-20230118-p5cdil.html|title=Open hearts: Indigenous kids bring joy for Barty, Goolagong Cawley|first=Scott|last=Spits|work=The Age|date=18 January 2023|quote=Ngarigo woman Barty admitted it felt “a bit strange” to be back in Melbourne with a relaxed frame of mind}}</ref>) former professional [[tennis]] player and [[cricket]]er.}}

[[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 09:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

*{{ping|FropFrop|Michael Bednarek|ITBF}} Pinging you as you were involved in my original WikiProject talk page discussion, please feel free to add any further comments or replies here!
*{{ping|Moroike|Knowledgework69|HiLo48|Turnagra|Traumnovelle|Aydoh8|Notcharizard|MWQs|BilledMammal|Vladimir.copic|Happily888|Bduke|Reywas92|Dfadden|Contrawwftw|Newimpartial|ModernDayTrilobite|HTGS|Aemilius Adolphin|Chipmunkdavis|Safes007|HappyWaldo}} Pinging you too as we'd been involved in talk page discussions on Lidia Thorpe, K'gari, and/or early Australian history in the last year or so. How do you all feel about my suggestion for the MOS regarding First Nations group names in the first sentence of bio articles? 
*{{ping|Poketama|Aircorn|Hobomok|NE0mAn7o!|Subtropical-man|Skyring|GoodDay|The Logical Positivist|Endwise|5225C|Muzi|Dan arndt|Pakoire|GadigalGuy|IronBattalion|Visviva|Geelongite|Canley|Roger 8 Roger|The Drover's Wife|Spekkios|Graeme Bartlett|Simulaun|Randwicked|Seggallion|Mhawk10|thorpewilliam|FOARP|Mitch Ames|Gusfriend|Laterthanyouthink}} Pinging you all as well, as you contributed to [[Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 61#RfC for inclusion of Australian Indigenous placenames within the lead and infobox of articles|the discussion on Indigenous placenames back in 2022]] - this discussion has similarities, but with the added context of bio articles and nationality, and less focus on language. Any of your thoughts and inputs on this RfC would be welcome. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 05:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
*:[[User:Redrose64]] has kindly informed me that my comment above won't have notified anyone because it included more than 50 mentions as per [[WP:MENTION]]. Therefore, just pinging again across two comments, hoping this works.  {{ping|FropFrop|ITBF|Moroike|Knowledgework69|HiLo48|Turnagra|Traumnovelle|Aydoh8|Notcharizard|MWQs|BilledMammal|Vladimir.copic|Happily888|Bduke|Reywas92|Dfadden|Contrawwftw|Newimpartial|ModernDayTrilobite|HTGS|Aemilius Adolphin|Safes007|HappyWaldo}} See above. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 22:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
*::And {{ping|Poketama|Aircorn|Hobomok|NE0mAn7o!|Subtropical-man|Skyring|GoodDay|The Logical Positivist|Endwise|5225C|Muzi|Dan arndt|Pakoire|GadigalGuy|IronBattalion|Visviva|Geelongite|Canley|Roger 8 Roger|The Drover's Wife|Spekkios|Graeme Bartlett|Simulaun|Randwicked|Seggallion|Mhawk10|Thorpewilliam|FOARP|Mitch Ames|Gusfriend|Laterthanyouthink}} See above. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 22:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::'''Comment''' Two of the users you pinged have been blocked as sockpuppets. [[User:Aydoh8|Aydo]][[User talk:Aydoh8|h8]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aydoh8|[contribs]]]</sup> 05:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*Surely it’s an ethnically derived identity, akin to African-American, rather than a nationality per se? [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 13:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
*Agree - we should not include 'citizens' of tribes, whether in US/Canada or Australia or elsewhere. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
*:It is more fitting as an ethnic group, per [[WP:WEIGHT]] of coverage and usual meanings for [[Nationality]] that involve  the Legal system.  Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 21:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
*::{{ping|MapReader|GiantSnowman|Markbassett}} As I posited on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia#First Nations group names in the first sentence of bio articles?|the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia talk page]], First Nations groups in Australia can be understood as social organisations where collective identities have emerged from a combination of shared language, history, ethnicity, culture, territory and society, as in the [[Nation]] article. There is plenty of academic literature on this over the last 30 years,[https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:16df501/Tempus_Vol5.pdf#page=59][https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8497.00257][https://web.archive.org/web/20190803004736id_/http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p73361/pdf/ch0648.pdf][https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=8bd34fbc78f97f3c3a4a8b222ec4079d3437ba14][https://intergentes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/First-Nations-and-the-Colonial-Project_Watson.pdf][https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315628318-2/aboriginal-nations-australian-nation-state-indigenous-international-legal-traditions-ambellin-kwaymullina][https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/divided-against-itself-plural-sovereignties-and-the-australian-st][https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/9C801189FC1BBAD82663370B295A3906/S2398772321000088a.pdf/div-class-title-the-potential-impact-of-indigenous-rights-on-the-international-law-of-nationality-div.pdf][https://posh.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/MelbULawRw/2023/1.html][https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14443058.2023.2255943] albeit not yet reflected in the Nation or Nationality articles. Wikipedia's coverage of Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander topics appears incomplete, e.g. [[First Nations Australian traditional custodianship]] did not exist until last year. 
*::The comparison to African-Americans seems odd when we are talking about recognised cultural ties to lands these peoples have lived on continuously for tens of thousands of years, not communities with roots in migration or the slave trade. GiantSnowman, the term "tribe" is not used in an Australian context FYI, and are you suggesting that the current [[MOS:NATIONALITY]] example for Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians should be edited or removed? Also, the Australian legal system recognises that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have [[Indigenous Australian customary law|their own sets of laws and customs]] separate to Australian law (see ''[[Mabo v Queensland (No 2)]]''). So while Australian law does not recognise separate nationalities for First Nations Australians, it does recognise separate sets of legal norms, which can have their own interpretations of nationality or compatible concepts. I think this is a sufficiently unique case to warrant an example in the MOS. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 23:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
* '''Questions''': Is there any RFCBEFORE discussion to read? [[MOS:NATIONALITY]] notes that "Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity." Is Aboriginal Australian and Torres Strait Islander status likewise based on citizenship? (I'm not knowledgeable about this.) '''Comment''': [https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/first-peoples-australia The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies] says "Each [First Nations Australian] person has their own specific clans, groups, communities, islands and/or nations that they identify with," which suggests that some people who identify as First Australians may not think of it as a citizenship status. I'd appreciate some additional information. The [[Aboriginal Australians|Aboriginal Australian]] and [[Torres Strait Islanders|Torres Strait Islander]] articles don't address this.  [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 22:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
*Not sure this is the norm for Canada as implied above ie [[Wab Kinew]] or [[Mary Simon]]. These types of acknowledgment are generally moved to another area of the article to avoid first clutter. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 23:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
*:{{ping|FactOrOpinion|Moxy}} Apologies, this is my first RfC - does RFCBEFORE just mean previous discussions on this topic? I initially mentioned [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia#First Nations group names in the first sentence of bio articles?]], and I have now also linked ten relevant academic papers in a reply above. I would further recommend [[Australian Indigenous sovereignty]], ''[[Mabo v Queensland (No 2)]]'', [[Indigenous Australian customary law]], and perhaps [[Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 61#RfC for inclusion of Australian Indigenous placenames within the lead and infobox of articles]] for further context. 
*:From my understanding (noting I am not First Nations myself), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identities are not based on "citizenship" in the same way as First Nations people in the US and Canada (as outlined at [[WP:NATIVE-IDENTITY]]). Rather, the Australian [[Mabo v Queensland (No 2)#Legal definition of an "Indigenous person"|legal definition of an "Indigenous person"]] stems from this line in the ''Mabo'' judgment: {{tq|Membership of the indigenous people depends on biological descent from the indigenous people and on mutual recognition of a particular person's membership by that person and by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people.}} That judgment also makes repeated references to the "laws and customs" of Indigenous Australians as distinct from the Australian legal system. I'm not sure if this distinction exists in US or Canadian law, so if we are defining nationality on the basis of law, I think it is worth asking whose law, and whether/why we would limit this to the legal systems of sovereign states. Especially since nations (or nation-like groups) existed on Australian land before it was proclaimed part of a different sovereign state by colonial settlers. 
*:I share Moxy's assessment that what I propose does not appear to be the norm for bio articles of First Nations people in Canada, which is interesting given the specific mention of Indigenous Canadians in [[MOS:NATIONALITY]]. I note that your two examples are of people directly involved in Canadian political systems. For those working in the arts and activism, mentions of a tribal identity in the first sentence of the lead seem more common (although not universal), e.g. [[Graham Greene (actor)]], [[Devery Jacobs]], [[Gary Farmer]], [[Kiawentiio]], [[Michael Greyeyes]], [[Anna Mae Aquash]]. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 00:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
*::I apologize. Yes, often people use the term RFCBEFORE (or WP:RFCBEFORE) to refer to discussion that took place before starting the RfC. (Strangely, though, I see that the section titled [[WP:RFCBEFORE]] doesn't actually say anything about preceding discussion.) Linking to prior discussion(s) shows editors that there was an attempt to resolve the issue without opening an RfC and, if there is an RfC, it provides background info for those participating in the RfC (though participants aren't expected to read it, it's just there in case someone wants more background). I should have seen that you linked to the prior discussion in the question itself (often people will identify the RFCBEFORE discussion separately). 
*::Re: the RfC question, it may come down to whether the group that a First Nations Australian identifies with considers itself a nation (and perhaps whether it's considered a nation by others / interacts with the Australian government as a nation), or if the group identifies itself in some other way (e.g., as a clan). I have a bit of background knowledge about these issues with respect to American Indian / Alaska Native nations in the US, but I have no background knowledge at all about Aboriginal Australian and Torres Strait Islander groups, which makes it hard for me to respond thoughtfully to the RfC unless I first spend a bunch of time reading up on this. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 01:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Question''' in what way is Native American status a form of nationality? Aren't those living in the US, US citizens? Same for Canada? Do they have dual citizenship? Confused. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]]  ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 06:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
*:Not a complete answer, but I think at least in part the word “nation” is used in this context, such as [[First Nations in Canada]] or [[Sioux Nation]] and [[Comanche Nation]] as a group terminology now preferred over “indian tribe”.   (The word “nation” is also used for other groups such as the nations of Spain or Kurds, but I’m thinking the WP usages of “nationality” ties more to legalisms than to group identities.  See also [[WP:Nationality]] coverage of Native Americans, and [[WP:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom]].)   Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 09:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
*::Thanks Mark, agreed that the current consensus is to base nationality on legal definitions. I mentioned ''Mabo'' and the recognised independence of First Nations laws and customs in earlier replies for this reason. 
*::Just linking this back to Australia, where the term "First Nations" is commonly used and increasingly preferred to "Indigenous".[https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/first-peoples-australia#toc-what-term-is-best-to-use-] By way of comparison, I've had a browse through [[List of Australian Aboriginal group names]] to identify Aboriginal Australian groups that are referred to as nations in their Wiki articles - certainly not claiming this is an accurate or comprehensive list, just reflecting what is currently on Wikipedia: 
*::Groups introduced as "nations" in the lead:
*::* [[Bundjalung people|Bundjalung]]; [[Dharug]]; [[Gamilaraay]] (or Kamilaroi); [[Gumbaynggirr]]; [[Gunaikurnai people|Gunaikurnai]] (or Kurnai); [[Gugu-Badhun]]; [[Kulin nation]]; [[Ngiyampaa]]; [[Nyangumarta people|Nyangumarta]]; [[Wadawurrung]]; [[Yuin]] 
*::Groups mentioned as "nations" later in their articles:
*::* [[Darumbal]]; [[Eora]]; [[Gunditjmara]]; [[Jarildekald people|Jarildekald]] (or Yaralde); [[Jugun]] (or Djukun); [[Kaiadilt]]; [[Karajarri]]; [[Kaurareg]]; [[Kokatha]]; [[Ngarrindjeri]]; [[Ngunnawal]]; [[Noongar]]; [[Pangerang]] (or Bangerang); [[Ramindjeri]]; [[Tanganekald people|Tanganekald]]; [[Warumungu]]; [[Yamatji]]; [[Yorta Yorta]]; [[Yugambeh people|Yugambeh]] 
*::I also counted 30 more Aboriginal group names that were mentioned as "nations" in articles other than their own. Furthermore, I would not be surprised if some articles for First Nations Australian groups had references to a "nation" removed since the [[2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum]] campaign, when First Nations rights became the subject of a high-profile [[culture war]] in Australian federal politics and mass media.[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/29/world/australia/voice-aboriginal-indigenous.html]
*::Also, I would like to correct a statement I made in an earlier comment: I claimed "the term "tribe" is not used in an Australian context" as a blanket statement in reply to GiantSnowman above. It would appear that some First Nations Australian groups have referred to themselves as tribes at least historically, for example within the [[Bundjalung Nation]], but to my knowledge the majority of First Nations Australians across this continent do not use this term. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 11:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::Tribe vs. Nation is semantics. We tend to think of nations as [[nation-state]]s. The distinction relevant to manual of style is that "nationality" is based on formal membership of a group. A lot of American groups are officially called tribes. This is a distinction that Wikipedia makes. [[User:CarroGil|CarroGil]] ([[User talk:CarroGil|talk]]) 16:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
*:I don't know about Canada, but [https://www.justice.gov/otj/native-american-policies in the US], native nations are considered "domestic dependent nations." American Indians and Alaska natives have US citizenship, and might or might not have tribal citizenship, depending on whether they're [https://www.bia.gov/faqs/are-american-indians-and-alaska-natives-citizens-united-states enrolled members] of their tribe. [[Tribal sovereignty in the United States]] likely has more info. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 01:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
*::I’m not seeing anything that reveals a significant difference between Aboriginal Australians and Native Americans or Canadians in this respect. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]]  ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 10:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::There is a significant difference in the legal concept of citizenship: recognised by the courts in Canada and the US, rejected in Australia. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 11:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
*:There's been extension conversations about how to include citizenship into Indigenous nations in bios. Consensus has held that the Native nations should be listed in the "citizenship" perimeter in infoboxes not "nationality." Yes, they can be listed in the introductory sentence since often these are fundamental to an individual's core identity. For non-Native people, the politics realities of being a tribal citizen (following tribal laws, using tribal courts, voting in tribal elections, etc.) might seem invisible, so I suggest [[Tribal sovereignty in the United States]] as a good resource to read to begin understanding the reality of tribal citizenship today. [[User:Yuchitown|Yuchitown]] ([[User talk:Yuchitown|talk]]) 15:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose A and B''' per [[MOS:BIO]] and [[MOS:NATIONALITY]] and [[MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE]]. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 06:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
*:Could you clarify your rationale? The RfC is proposing a change to [[MOS:NATIONALITY]], so I fail to see how you can cite [[MOS:NATIONALITY]] as a reason to oppose. [[User:Rosbif73|Rosbif73]] ([[User talk:Rosbif73|talk]]) 07:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
*::MOS:NATIONALITY: a) "Ethnicity … should generally not be in the lead"; b) "status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity". Ngarigo or any other ATSI peoples don't have a separate citizenship. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 09:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::a) What I'm putting forward is that membership of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander groups can be considered a nationality.
*:::b) While the [[Australian Indigenous sovereignty|sovereignty of First Nations groups]] has been rejected by Australian courts thus far (''[[Wik Peoples v Queensland]]''), the fact that they have their own separate laws and customs has been accepted by Australian courts (''[[Mabo v Queensland (No 2)]]''). First Nations Australian groups typically have [[Country (Indigenous Australians)|strong and complex relationships with their lands]], which I would argue is no less significant than nationality or citizenship. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 11:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{tq|"Ethnicity … should generally not be in the lead"}} The point of this was to discuss whether or not being a member of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Nation can be considered a form of Nationality. Would you like some more sources of it being considered a form of nationality? {{tq| "status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity"}} That quote is from the following sentence {{tq|Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity. Indigenous persons' citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names.}}, it is specifically referring to the topic of Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians, which has many parallels to but is not the same as the topic of Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders. As Neegzistuoja pointed out, Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders have different ways of defining community membership. [[User:FropFrop|FropFrop]] ([[User talk:FropFrop|talk]]) 00:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': my understanding of the Australian situation isn't good enough to have a firm standpoint on the specific questions asked. But my overall take is that, if a person's {{tq|strong and complex relationships}} with their indigenous identity result in multiple reliable sources "defining" them by that identity, then it is reasonable to include it in the opening sentence, just as it is reasonable to include any "defining characteristic" in the opening sentence. However, I remain to be convinced one way or the other that we can make a general rule here. [[User:Rosbif73|Rosbif73]] ([[User talk:Rosbif73|talk]]) 13:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
* I was pinged above. I don't have a strong opinion on MOS:NATIONALITY, but as general information, to my understanding the questions of identity in Australia do not have the legal frameworks established in Canada and the United States, so it does not meet that specific definition of "nationality". It can be however a very strong part of identity, although this is not a simple question. Individuals can identify with different peoples, and nations are sometimes part of wider regional identities. A general rule may be difficult. The [https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/accessible-and-inclusive-content/inclusive-language/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples Australian Government Style Manual] is clear on what should be avoided but less so on what should be used, noting "there are very few hard rules". One example given is that capitalisation expectations vary between communities. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''A: ''Yes''''', being a member of an Aboriginal Australian or Torres Strait Islander group (often called 'Nations') can and is often considered a form of nationality.<ref>{{cite web|title=Map of Indigenous Australia|url=https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/map-indigenous-australia}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Indigenous Australians: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people|url=https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/first-peoples-australia}}</ref> '''B: ''Yes''''' First Nation identity/membership is just as significant to the First Nations peoples of Australia as it is to the those of the Americas. [[User:FropFrop|FropFrop]] ([[User talk:FropFrop|talk]]) 23:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
*A: '''Yes, in one sense''', but B: '''Oppose''' on several grounds: firstly, that the legal situation is not the same as it appears to be in the US or Canada; secondly, that although pre-settlement/invasion many groups regarded themselves as nations, the sub-groupings and clans of many Aboriginal peoples were complicated (as to which level of grouping would be considered the "nation"); thirdly, that few Aboriginal people live on their traditional lands, many having been forcibly removed from their lands and/or their parents; fourthly, that many current-day Aboriginal people either have complex ancestry from multiple "nations", or don't actually know who their people were. Some who have traced their ancestry refer to themselves as A/B/C/D people (where each letter is an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander nation/language group). IMO it would just be too messy to try to implement, considering the hundreds of possible nations, and means little to non-Australians (and even most white Australians). I tend to mention that they're Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander in the first sentence or lead if it is important to their identity as an activist/writer/artist/ whatever, but otherwise put it in the Early life and education section. Having said all that, I am not an Indigenous Australian and don't presume to speak for anyone in those groups. This is just what I have picked up in my reading and editing. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 00:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*:Thanks Laterthanyouthink, I think you've put the valid critiques of what I'm proposing in the clearest way I've seen in this discussion so far. Appreciate your input. I will address the four grounds of your opposition to my original Question B in turn:
*:1. {{tq|the legal situation is not the same as it appears to be in the US or Canada}}: The Australian legal system acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have their own sets of laws and customs independently of the Australian legal system (''[[Mabo v Queensland (No 2)|Mabo]]''). I agree this is not equivalent to the US' recognition of "domestic dependent nations" (''[[Cherokee Nation v. Georgia]]'') or Canada's recognition of meaningful "treaty rights" ([[Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982|Section 35 of the ''Constitution Act, 1982'']]). However, when you consider Australian courts' acknowledgement of First Nations laws and customs alongside the well-studied and widely-acknowledged concept of [[Country (Indigenous Australians)|Country]],[https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=aprci][https://www.commonground.org.au/article/what-is-country] it appears that First Nations groups are acknowledged as socio-cultural groups with strong and complex ties to land and their own distinct sets of laws. I posit that this status is significant enough to be treated similarly to nationality (or citizenship in the case of First Nations peoples in North America) in the MOS. 
*:2. {{tq|the sub-groupings and clans of many Aboriginal peoples were complicated}}: Agreed they are complicated, and while I can admittedly foresee this increasing the likelihood of future edit conflicts, I am hopeful that with [[WP:CIVIL]] in mind, the outcomes of those interactions would ultimately be positive in terms of improving peoples' awareness and understanding of the complex reality and diversity of [[Australian Aboriginal identity|First Nations identities]]. Moreover, I don't see how this is any different from the situation for Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians, for whom an example is currently given under [[MOS:NATIONALITY]] with "Cherokee Nation" in the first sentence of the lead. 
*:3. {{tq|few Aboriginal people live on their traditional lands}}: Thanks for raising this, I was too dismissive of this in an earlier comment when I claimed First Nations Australians are "not communities with roots in migration". [[Stolen Generations]], [[Aboriginal Tasmanians#Resettlement of the Aboriginal population]], and [[Christian mission#British Empire]] are important reading here. I would again default to the point that this applies equally to Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians, as per [[Indian removal]], [[American Indian boarding schools]], and [[Canadian Indian residential school system]]. 
*:4. {{tq|many current-day Aboriginal people either have complex ancestry from multiple "nations", or don't actually know who their people were}}: I take your point here, and as far as I'm aware (although happy to be challenged on this), this would be a potential issue for a greater proportion of First Nations peoples in Australia than in North America, where colonisation and delineation of legal territorial boundaries began earlier. I would, however, push back on the assertion that this information means little to most white Australians or non-Australians. I had no issue with finding 24 [[WP:RSP]] sources referring to the sample of 12 prominent First Nations Australian people whose bio articles I edited (two each on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia#First Nations group names in the first sentence of bio articles?|the bio articles listed in dot points here]]) using their Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander group name/s as an [[Demonym|adjectival demonym]], e.g. "Ngarigo woman Barty". These reliable sources were predominantly  Australian news websites, but not exclusively. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 02:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose both''' these are not nationalities. I'm not sure why you think this change is needed either — a person's indigenous ancestry can be and is often already covered in articles. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 00:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Traumnovelle}} {{tq| “I'm not sure why you think this change is needed either — a person's indigenous ancestry can be and is often already covered in articles”}}
*:The change would allow-for/require/suggest a person’s tribal nationality to be listed in the {{em|lead or lead sentence}}, in contrast to [[MOS:ETHNICITY]], which does not allow ethnicity to be listed except where relevant to their notability. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 11:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose both''' – Not nationalities, simple as that. Of course there are some individuals whose ancestry is especially significant and this can be mentioned in the lead as appropriate. '''[[User:5225C|5225<sub>C</sub>]]'''&nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 01:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*:May I ask whether/why you are opposed to including an example of this in the MOS for those First Nations Australian individuals whose ancestry is especially significant? [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 03:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': [[MOS:CONTEXTBIO]] says (with my emphasis here) "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for {{em|that which made the person notable}}. Whether a person's Indigeneity and/or specific nationality/ethnicity is what makes them notable will very much depend on the person. [[Pat Dodson]]'s Aboriginality (and by extension, [[Yawuru]]) is clearly part of his notability - he is "an Australian indigenous rights activist". However [[Ashleigh Barty]] is notable for being a tennis (and cricket) player, who played for Australia (and Queensland); she did {{em|not}} play for [[Ngarigo]]. She is National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador, but that's not what made her notable. It would be reasonable to say in the 4th paragraph "She <ins>is [[Ngarigo]] and</ins> serves as the National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador ...", but in this case Ngarigo is not lead-sentence material. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 07:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*:In that case, would you support including Pat Dodson as an example under [[MOS:NATIONALITY]]? 
*:If we leave it up to individual editors to decide whether someone's First Nations group name warrants mention in the first sentence/lead, I fear this would introduce more ambiguity and edit conflicts. The dichotomy you present between indigenous rights activists and athletes representing Australia may not always apply. For example, [[Adam Goodes]] is an Australian rules footballer who played for the Australian national team (as well as, for what it's worth, the [[Indigenous All-Stars (Australian rules football)|Indigenous All-Stars team]]), but he is arguably more widely known for his community work and anti-racism advocacy as an Aboriginal ([[Adnyamathanha]] and [[Narungga]]) man, which are similar fields to those Pat Dodson is notable for. Along these lines, I think  Barty's Aboriginality is a part of what makes her notable; headlines about her from reputable news sources mention "the joy of being a Ngarigo woman",[https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/ash-barty-on-identity-inspiration-and-the-joy-and-her-relationship-with-mentor-evonne-goolagong-crawley-in-her-memoir/zaus4yxza] "An extremely proud Indigenous woman",[https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/an-extremely-proud-indigenous-woman-barty-follows-in-the-footsteps-of-goolagong-cawley/qgfqy0ebt] "an historic moment for Indigenous people",[https://theconversation.com/the-stars-aligned-ash-bartys-wimbledon-win-is-an-historic-moment-for-indigenous-people-and-women-in-sport-164305] and "proud indigenous star".[https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/the-special-bond-that-inspired-proud-indigenous-star-ash-barty/news-story/fcf36b2abcfa48ed4e2f1c3f21c1d482] I think an added example in MOS:NATIONALITY could help to clarify whether First Nations Australians group names are only lead-worthy in some, and not all, bio articles of First Nations Australians. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 09:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*::{{tqq|would you support including Pat Dodson as an example}} {{mdash}} I can't answer the question without sample wording of all of: proposed text of Dodson first sentence; explanatory text (to be included in MOS:NATIONALITY) for that example (as MOS:NATIONALITY has for other examples); relevant change to the general text of  MOS:NATIONALITY (eg as is done for Native American/Canadian) if appropriate, which is probably required to explain why we are mentioning two apparently overlapping nationalities (Australian and Yawuru). Such an example would probably also help other editors decide, independently of my comment.
*::{{tqq| The dichotomy you present between indigenous rights activists and athletes representing Australia}} {{mdash}} The contrast (not a [[dichotomy]]) I present has nothing to do with athletes representing Australia - it is between someone notable primarily for Indigenous advocacy, and someone who is notable primarily for something unrelated to Aboriginality nationality/ethnicity, ie being good at tennis. Barty is (described in the first 3{{fraction|1|2}} paragraphs of the article as) a tennis player, who happens (1 sentence in 4th paragraph) to have Aboriginal heritage; she is not notable for being an Aboriginal person, who happens to play tennis.
*::{{tqq| an added example in MOS:NATIONALITY could help to clarify whether First Nations Australians group names are only lead-worthy in some, and not all, bio articles}} {{ mdash}} It needs more than an example, it needs text describing the "rule" that we use to decide whether or not..., so as to avoid {{tqq| leav[ing] it up to individual editors to decide}}. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 12:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose both''' - It's one thing to have mention of this if it is important in the prose section, but the lead? It's possible if that is the sole reason someone is notable but usually that is not the case and editors want to add it because it's important to them. Barty is not mentioned in most contexts as anything other than an Australian tennis player and her lead does mention and important distinction of serving as the National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador for Tennis Australia. That's easily enough. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose both''' The term "first nations" in Australia is based on no actual nationhood unless we define the term so loosely as to render it meaningless. [https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aca2007254/ Australian law] defines citizenship precisely and makes no allowance for any indigenous or ethnic basis. There have been attempts to create Aboriginial passports on some form of assumed sovereignty - note [[Michael Mansell]]'s example where Gaddaffi's Libya recognised its validity - but it would be wrong to say that these have been effective in creating any form of global diplomatic recognition. The matter is akin to claiming citizenship of some [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation#Initial_developments_in_Australia:_1970%E2%80%931981 micronation]. Using these terms in the lede is confusing. Mansell's biographical article is a good example. In law and reality he is an Australian citizen, subject to Australian law, taxes etc. and is not treated as having some special diplomatic status. [[User:Skyring|Skyring]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 08:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*:I think Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups are meaningfully different to micronations. As I have argued above, these are groups with up to tens of thousands of years of history, strong and complex connections to specific lands or "Country", unique socio-cultural identities, and their own distinct sets of laws and customs as recognised by Australian law in ''Mabo''. Diplomatic recognition is a prerequisite for sovereign statehood, not for nationality. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 09:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*::There have certainly been human beings in Australia for tens of thousands of years but saying that they documented their existence and activities - which is what history is - is going too far. We don't know the name of any Australian who died before Europeans arrived and began writing things down, let alone what they did and how they saw their cultural entities and organisational structures at the time. Oral history aside, of course, and even that is seen through the lens of colonisation via English words and contemporary terminology. Go back a thousand years and there is no Australian equivalent to the Domesday Book, no Bede, no Tacitus, no Pliny the Elder. ''Mabo'' didn't recognise any distinct nationality, merely noting that the laws and customs of the pre-existing residents - Torres Strait Islanders - still had currency to the extent where they had not been extinguished by subsequent acts and that this was in accordance with English law which is what held force in Australia after the arrival of Governor Phillip in 1788. There is, SFAIK, no reference to specific Indigenous nationhood or nationality in Australian law. The recent - like within the last ten years or so - use of phrases such as the Eora nation within popular culture has no legal force and is best compared to self-declared micronations or distinct cultural groups such as the Amish rather than anything we can find in the structure of Australian or international government. Wikipedia is here to record matters of fact, not to help in micronational struggles for identity. If there are court battles such as ''Mabo'', we are there to record the outcomes, not as active participants for one side or the other. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 21:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{tqq|saying that they documented their existence and activities ... is going too far.}} {{mdash}} {{cl|Rock art in Australia}} has numerous examples of pre-European Aboriginal people documenting their existence and activities. Just because they didn't write their names does not mean it didn't happen. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 00:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose both''' on legalistic and stylistic grounds, but noting that First Nations affinities that can be treated as an exception when it's relevant to notability. For most readers the Australian legal nationality will be important in setting a recognizable context for the subject, and sticking the name of an indigenous people in alongside the legal nationality results in poor and ugly prose. By all means use "[[Indigenous Australian]]" in the first sentence, if relevant to notability.  It will normally be relevant for rights activists and often for artists (in a wide sense; e.g. [[Christine Anu]].) I hope this explains sufficiently that the intention not to discount or disparage the First Nations and their history, just to acknowledge the reality that "Australian" is a more effective way to set context for a general reader. I don't think the number of articles involved merits an example in MoS, and I think that your edit proposed change at [[Ashleigh Barty]], provides an anti-exemplar, where it's not relevant to notability and results in awful prose. [[User:William Avery|William Avery]] ([[User talk:William Avery|talk]]) 09:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*:Could you clarify what you mean by "poor and ugly" or "awful prose"? I don't see how one word (sometimes more) in brackets fits this description. If reliable sources refer to, for example, Barty as an Australian woman and a Ngarigo woman, why would we not introduce her as an Australian (Ngarigo) former tennis player? [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 21:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose both''' I'm not convinced on either proposal. In the case of '''A''' I'm of the view nationality is a primarily a legal definition referring to citizens of a [[sovereign state]], or the country where they were born. In the case of Indigenous Australians, this would make their nationality Australian. With that said, clans, Indigenous nations or even entire language groups can certainly be considered distinct [[ethnicity|ethnic identities]]. However, per [[WP:ETHNICITY]], this is not generally included in the lead unless it is relevant to notability and I see no need to amend '''B'''. In the case of Ash Barty, her Aboriginality is far less relevant to wikipedia than eg. [[Vincent Lingiari]] or [[Dexter Daniels (Aboriginal activist)|Dexter Daniels]]. If change were to occur in the future that gave Aboriginal nations some kind of special legal status or jurisdiction independent of the Federal government, then I would be open to reconsider. [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk:Dfadden|talk]]) 12:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*:{{small|{{tqq|If change were to occur ... that gave Aboriginal nations some kind of special legal status or jurisdiction}} {{mdash}} ... like an [[Indigenous Voice to Parliament]]? That's [[2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum|not very likely to happen]]. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 13:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)}}
*::{{tq|like an Indigenous Voice to Parliament?}} a purely academic question given its unlikely at least in the current political climate. I'm not sure that the voice as it was proposed would have met the threshold of sovereignty though, as it was essentially an advisory body. It would have not been able to independently legislate and the functions, powers and procedures of the body would still have been subject to parliamentary approval and judicial review. [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk:Dfadden|talk]]) 20:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*:There are many examples of bio articles with nationality in the first sentence referring to an identity that is not recognised as a sovereign state: Taiwanese, Palestinian, Catalan, Scottish, Mohawk, etc. [[MOS:NATIONALITY]] makes no reference to sovereign states. I am positing that First Nations Australian groups are sufficiently similar to such constituent nations to be treated similarly in the MOS. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 21:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose both''' (to give clear !vote) as said before, per [[MOS:BIO]] and [[MOS:NATIONALITY]] and [[MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE]].  While in cases of tribal groups mentioning membership is recommended, WP seems clear that it should not be  as a nationality.  The WP mentions of Nationality is tied to legalisms of groupings that current RS or [[WP:V]] identify as sovereign nations, e.g. members of the United Nations.  Ethnic groups, defunct nations, unrecognized nations, etcetera may be mentioned and casual or informal use of the word “nation” in RS may be conveyed but are not Nationality for the purposes of RS.   I could support editing guidance for clarity about that, but think this RFC is trying to go the wrong way, and what is there is fine by empirical evidence of just not seeing failures to prove a change is needed.  This seems the third RFC on this that I’ve seen when the answer is simple: WP recognizes legal international RS for defining what nations exist.  Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 13:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment.''' We often describe people as ''Scottish'', ''English ''or ''Welsh ''rather than ''British'', preferably depending on relevance. Those countries don't have seats at the UN or teams at the Olympics, but do for example have national teams in the FIFA World Cup and other major sporting contests, and of course used to be independent. [[MOS:NATIONALITY]] doesn't mention those descriptions and we have no established consensus to uniformly permit or exclude them. The essay [[Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom]] seeks to document the situation and ends with sound advice which I think describes working practice well: {{tq|It is not possible to create a uniform guideline when such strong disagreement exists on the relative importance of the labels. Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency—making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities—is strongly discouraged. Such imposed uniformity cannot, in any case, be sustained.}} Similar advice, and much of the preceding advice in the essay, might be appropriate here. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 13:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
* '''A''' is not a question for a style guide. '''B''': '''No (in most cases)'''. 
:For the purposes of the style guide, nationality should mean what most people understand it to mean. Interpreting nationality so broadly smells like rules lawyering to me. Our goal is to describe a person as they would best be understood to the average reading audience. In most cases for people of indigenous ethnicity, or people with some “national” membership, they will be best understood as Australians (or Canadians, or Americans) first. Here, I am imagining some politician in the Australian Parliament, or an [[Aussie rules football]] player.  In some cases, and especially for people living on reservation land, under reservation law, their lives {{em|will}} make more sense if described as members of some indigenous nation. These people are rare though; for instance, [[Wilma Mankiller]] is one, but she was principal chief of her nation, and most (all?) of her notability is tied into her roles within that world. For someone whose life is mostly or entirely lived within the realm of Aboriginal Australian life, I could see it making sense to list that early within their lead. In short, this is the type of decision where we should be treating the manual of style as a style {{em|guide}}, and not a set of rules. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 11:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

===Updated proposal=== 
Thanks all for your inputs. Taking your feedback onboard, acknowledging others' concerns that Ash Barty's Aboriginality is not what she became notable for, I would like to now instead propose the following text and example to be added to [[MOS:NATIONALITY]]. 

{{tqb|While Australian law does not recognise [[Indigenous Australians|Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander]] groups as nations, it does recognise their distinct sets of laws and customs and strong ties to "[[Country (Indigenous Australians)|Country]]". Membership of one or more such groups, where relevant to a reason for the First Nations person's notability and cited in reliable sources, can be listed parenthetically, or in a clause after their names.

*'''Patrick Lionel Djargun Dodson''' (born 29 January 1948) is an Australian ([[Yawuru]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/28/pat-dodson-indigenous-politicians-truth-telling-voice-referendum-failure|title=Pat Dodson and other Indigenous politicians back focus on truth-telling after voice referendum failure|first=Josh|last=Butler|work=The Guardian|date=28 November 2023|quote=Dodson, a Yawuru man, on Tuesday announced he would retire as a Western Australian senator due to ill health.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theage.com.au/national/age-may-weary-him-but-the-warrior-will-live-on-20040906-gdyl2b.html|title=Age may weary him, but the warrior will live on|work=The Age|date=6 September 2004|quote=Dodson, a Yawuru man from Broome, believes in "the Law".}}</ref>) indigenous rights activist and former politician.}}

====Discussion and Survey====
{{ping|MapReader|GiantSnowman|Markbassett|FactOrOpinion|Moxy|Michael Bednarek|Rosbif73|Chipmunkdavis|Laterthanyouthink|Traumnovelle|5225C|Mitch Ames|Fyunck(click)|Skyring|William Avery|Dfadden}} Does this address your concerns? I'm not claiming that First Nations groups are nations, just trying to succinctly note what is unique about them that warrants inclusion. Happy to refine wording as needed, thanks. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 22:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
:My concern is primarily around the legal and political distinctions between Nationality and Ethnicity. I don't think resolving this is as straightword as just amending the MOS with a general use case. Since you have given North American First Nations groups as an example, I think it's worth considering the complexities described in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities]]. Perhaps this discussion would be better raised at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia]] to seek a consensus and develop a proposal there first? [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk:Dfadden|talk]]) 22:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
::This discussion began at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia#First Nations group names in the first sentence of bio articles?]], where there was support and opposition, but only three users participated over the course of a month, and it was suggested that I raise it here as a next step. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 22:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Ok thanks, I missed that. [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk:Dfadden|talk]]) 22:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
:::'''Comment''' If this proposal were to be accepted by consensus, it may be worth considering as per the current MOS for indigenous peoples of North America, perhaps rather than leading with the clan or first nation identity, it would be better to say "Australian Aboriginal" in the first sentence and then clarify in the next? This would be more easily identifiable for non-Australian readers, but also helps in cases like [[Lidia Thorpe]], who identifies ancestry from multiple groups. [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk:Dfadden|talk]]) 23:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Missed this while I was typing, but would agree with this. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 23:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
:I still don't think it's necessary or helpful to mention the nation in the first sentence, for the reasons I stated above, and while Australian news sites may mention a specific identity, I would still hold that the majority of our readers, Australian and non-Australian, are not familiar with the names or affinities of the hundreds of groups. Exceptions may be made in the case of people who are linguists or have compiled a dictionary in their language, or perhaps been involved in a specific native title claim or other representation of their people.{{pb}}My other objection to your example above is on stylistic grounds - 2 things. According to [[WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY]], which is what I endeavour to implement, we don't cite in the lead, but in the body. Secondly, in Australia when referring to people, we always capitalise Indigenous and Aboriginal. FYI, I attempted writing [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Draft style guide1|this style guide]] a long time ago, but there was minimal uptake and so it has never been improved or promoted. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 23:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
::P.S. Just in case anyone in this thread is not familiar with the multiplicity of groups in Australia, see the [https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/map-indigenous-australia AIATSIS map]. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 23:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
::Agree. Except in rare instances it would usually not be lead-worthy. Parentheticals after names all too often become cluttered. It's why we should use notes to fix that. We wouldn't need anything in MOS for those rare instances. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Just clarifying what you mean by "use notes to fix that"? Would you propose (for the relevant articles) including the First Nations group name in an endnote after "Australian" in the first sentence, rather than in brackets? [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 01:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
	
:'''Oppose''' TL;DR - the legal points are misrepresented. Claiming a specific identity in the Lede may be a BLP vio.
:The talk of "distinct laws and customs" being recognised by Australian law is misleading. The ''Mabo'' decisions didn't recognise any specific matter of culture or ethnicity or race, merely that the descendants of the pre-existing residents had been in Australia since before English law arrived and that their possessions and rights persisted to the extent that they had not been extinguished by subsequent actions. This is ''English'' law not Indigenous law. We see the same thing occurring with the Norman Conquest a thousand years earlier. There was no recognition of Anglo-Saxon or Celtic residents as having special privileges due to their ancestry, merely that the ownership and traditional rights continued after sovereignty passed by conquest to the Duke of Normandy who took the English throne. He didn't acquire ownership of the lands and traditional rights of the English people.{{pb}}English legislation held force in Australian government after 1788 - as if the colonisers were willing or able to accept or comprehend whatever indigenous law systems may have obtained prior - and with it the English common law under which ''Mabo'' was decided.{{pb}}Your proposal is confusing. By putting an Indigenous tribal name in brackets after Australian - as per your example - it gives the impression that the two are equivalent in some sense and that (as per your example) "Yawuru" is a translation of "[[Australian]]"{{pb}}I think that, as per your example of [[Ash Barty]], Aboriginality or Indigenous identity or ancestry varies from person to person in that they may not identify as such or that they see themselves as existing within contemporary Australian culture or that it is simply not important in whatever part of their lives we recognise as notable.{{pb}}A person's Australian nationality is unambiguous and in most cases non-controversial. It is a matter of law, in particular the requirement under s44 of the Constitution about sitting in Parliament and that has beaten a path to the High Court often enough in recent years to be well-known and understood. The identity, importance, and membership of the subject of a Wikipedia BLP's Indigenous ancestry or current participation is fluid or uncertain, depending on points of view, not least that of the subject themselves. We should be looking at the specific circumstances on a case by case basis. Do we have good sources, is it something for which they are notable, does the subject embrace, renounce, or is indifferent to the labels we are seeking to stick on them?
:It might be that the subject of an article would not be comfortable with such a label. What do we tell them when they inevitably complain? "Sorry, but Wikipolicy clearly states … " Or we may get it wrong, if we are depending on some of the very low-level sources I have seen used here. Again, what do we tell them? "Your own family is not a source. The Sutherland District Tennis Society newsletter clearly states … "{{pb}}Blasting out, as a matter of high importance in the first few words of a BLP article, a possibly contentious, generally non-notable, and often poorly-sourced claim about ethnicity strikes me as very dubious practice. We should be very careful before enshrining this in any sort of Wikipolicy document.{{pb}}I have no problem with such material - subject to he usual BLP caveats - appearing in a Background, Ancestry, or Personal Life type section.--[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 23:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
::I have a slightly different interpretation of ''Mabo''; when you say it acknowledged "possessions and rights", I don't see how this meaningfully differs from laws and customs as I have described them. To quote from the judgment of Deane and Gaudron JJ (noting some of the 1992 language is outdated e.g. "tribal"): {{tq|Under the laws or customs of the relevant locality, particular tribes or clans were, either on their own or with others, custodians of the areas of land from which they derived their sustenance and from which they often took their tribal names. Their laws or customs were elaborate and obligatory.}} 
::Would it be clearer if the proposed example for MOS:NATIONALITY read "an Aboriginal Australian (Yawuru)" rather than "an Australian (Yawuru)"?
::The Sutherland District Tennis Society newsletter is not what I had in mind for a reliable source. Since Dodson has been described as a Yawuru man by ''The Age'' and ''The Guardian'' (among others) over a period of decades, I think that if he wanted to dispute this, he would be more inclined to start with those newspapers rather than Wikipedia in the first place. If future journalistic coverage changed as a result then we could adapt to that here. Could it also be relevant to look at works written by them in which they describe themselves this way (with the caveat of [[WP:ABOUTSELF]])?
::I want to make very clear that I do not support including ethnicity in the lead of BLP articles across the board, and I thought including an example in the MOS could help clarify that this should not be done for other BLP articles outside of this First Nations context. I maintain that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups involve connections to land and different systems of "laws" to the Australian legal system, which to me feels more similar to "nationality" than to "ethnicity". [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 01:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
:::The laws and customs referred to by ''Mabo'' refer to the connection and ownership of land in the absence of any records such as property deeds. For example, the Mer people traditionally delineated plots of land by cairns and these plots were handed down along family lines. Community access to hunting, fishing, and gathering activities was likewise a matter of customary tradition, such as adjoining groups dividing or sharing seasonal access. The principle by which native title was recognised was a part of the English common law and had been for centuries. There was no question of Indigenous laws somehow superseding the existing law of Australia.
:::See my comments re BLP. I don't think we need to attach labels relating to ancestral race or ethnicity in the first few words of a BLP. Trying to portray all Australians of Indigenous ancestry as having some sort of uniform approach to how they wish to be identified (if at all) is ludicrous. We cannot reasonably do anything but take each article on a case by case basis.
:::A quick look at some [[Lists of Indigenous Australians|Indigenous Australians]] in Wikipedia shows a wide disparity in sourcing, from high quality sources such as ''The Guardian'' to none. In most cases we see non-Indigenous ancestry mentioned. Should we mention all ancestries in the first sentence, say putting Irish ahead of Yawuru on the basis of alphabetic order, or should we look at percentages? The matter seems fraught and contentious if we try to apply some hard and fast guideline.
:::Given that the [[WP:Lede|lede]] should reflect the body, it seems to me that if the matter of a specific Indigenous group identity is given prominence in the body of the article then any mention in the lead should reflect that, Is such an identification important, for example in the style of art or music? Do they personally emphasise their Indigenous heritage, or promote the culture in some way? If they just happen to have Indigenous ancestry in the same way as (say) Irish or Chinese or Turkish ancestry, why should we mention it at all?
:::I don't think we need to go through all Australians of sufficient notability to warrant a Wikipedia article and attach racial labels in the first few words of their article, heedless of whether it is important in the life of the subject or not. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 03:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks Pete, appreciate the thought you are putting into this. 
::::If there was a suggestion that Indigenous laws supersede Australian laws, then I might suggest replacing  "Australian" with the First Nations group name in the lead. As it stands, their laws and customs are recognised to exist alongside Australian law, hence my suggestion to include the First Nations group name alongside "Australian" or "Aboriginal Australian" in the lead. 
::::As I have put forward in comments above, I think membership of a First Nations Australian group is meaningfully different to the other ethnicities and ancestries of other Australians, and is more similar (although not identical) to the status of Native Americans, which does have an example sentence in the MOS. By including something similar for First Nations Australians, we could encourage editors to follow the example set by high-quality reliable sources that use First Nations group names to refer to the person; it shouldn't be up to us to decide if their Aboriginality is a notable part of their identity or something they "just happen to have". 
::::For example, [[Linda Burney]] claims Wiradjuri and Scottish descent, as covered in her "Early life and education" section where it belongs ("Personal life" would also make sense), but she is referred to in multiple reliable sources as a Wiradjuri woman, never as a Scottish or Scottish Australian woman. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 03:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm not sure that you are seeing my point. Why should Wikipedia pigeonhole people according to race or ethnicity as a blanket rule, and why should one ancestry rather than another be prioritised? If there is good reason to mention some Indigenous grouping, then sure. Otherwise, I think we should cover ancestry of notable Australians in an appropriate section of the body, not the first few words of the lede. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 06:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::By this logic, are you opposed to the example currently given under MOS:NATIONALITY for Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians? Or is their use of the word "citizen" sufficient for you to consider this closer to a nationality than an ethnicity? [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 06:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Could you answer my question, please?
:::::::To answer yours, the North American colonisation experience took the position of regarding native peoples as tribal nations and dealt with them accordingly, signing treaties, allocating territories and so on. This approach resulted in certain contemporary cultural quirks where there are organised Native American entities with certain autonomous powers. Running casinos and supervising alcohol sales are commonplace, for example, and these and many other community government functions have their place within federal and state/province laws.
:::::::This is not the case in Australia. Indigenous groupings were not regarded as nations then or now. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 06:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Apologies, my response to that question is similar to what I've put forward in other replies here. I do not think Wikipedia should pigeonhole people according to race or ethnicity, and I do not think one ancestry rather than another should be prioritised. I think membership of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander group (dependent on biological descent and mutual recognition by the person and elders) is more than ethnicity or ancestry or race. That's why I think we should clarify that membership of a First Nations group has more in common with the concept of nationality than the concept of ethnicity alone. Hopefully that's clear? 
::::::::I just don't understand why we would treat First Nations Australians so differently from Native Americans and First Nations Canadians in this regard. Is running community government functions a prerequisite for nationhood? It appears the only reason for the difference between the MOS advising the inclusion of group names in the lead of bio articles of Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians, but not First Nations Australians, is how the governments and judiciaries of the sovereign states they were colonised by have chosen to refer to them. These are communities with their own laws and strong ties to their lands, so why don't we follow the lead of reliable sources and consider them important enough to warrant mention as introductory adjectives in bio articles? 
::::::::I think you could infer, from the increasing use of "First Nations" by Australian governments and writers of reliable sources, that a large and growing number of people think of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups as nations. Many of these groups call themselves nations, including those I listed in a previous comment. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 07:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::You should read our article on [[Tribal sovereignty in the United States]] and you will see how and why Native Americans have a limited form of sovereignty and a significant place within the framework of American federal and state law. Membership of these tribal nations is a matter of law and their internal government structures pay close attention as to who is and who is not a member of the community. These structures have historical foundations and in the USA at least derive from their constitution and the law developed from that.
:::::::::Native sovereignty in Australia was extinguished through conquest and the matter has not been entertained by the High Court. The laws of the Commonwealth prevail. It makes no sense to treat Indigenous Australians as if they sit in the same legal place as members of the various North American tribal nations even if you assign them the same descriptive name. The legal framework of tribal sovereignty does not exist in Australia.
:::::::::I see the use of "First Nations" as a term as having no legal force and is just one in a long line of terms used to describe the native peoples of Australia, albeit less offensive than some used in the past. I would certainly not say that there is growing support for the sense of an Indigenous nationhood, given the result of the 2023 referendum on constitutional recognition. The question has been put twice (the first in 1999) and soundly rejected both times. Indigenous Australians themselves were divided on the matter, with a few pushing for a YES vote and a few promoting a NO vote and most of the million such people having no public profile one way or the other.
:::::::::Calling yourself a nation does not create one in reality and I raised the subject of [[micronations]] where the [[Hutt River Province]] is the most visible Australian micronation with purported laws, currency, stamps, orders of nobility and so on, none of which were recognised by any Australian government at any level.
:::::::::In the framework of Wikilaw, we can take note of [[WP:OTHER]] which basically says that just because other stuff exists somewhere on Wikipedia, it should not be taken as justification to do something similar elsewhere. The US and Canadian examples are quite different.
:::::::::Again, if an Australian has some notability through their Indigenous ancestry or community, then we should mention it, though not in the first few words of the lede unless there is some overwhelming good reason to do so. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 08:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I think one could argue that membership of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander group is still "a matter of law" in Australia. Aside from the three-part test in ''Mabo'', definitions of Aboriginality feature in at least six Acts of Parliament.[https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/essentially-yours-the-protection-of-human-genetic-information-in-australia-alrc-report-96/36-kinship-and-identity/legal-definitions-of-aboriginality/] I acknowledge this is not equivalent to tribal sovereignty in North America.
::::::::::Claims of [[Australian Indigenous sovereignty]] are ongoing and, at least in my opinion, not without merit. The legal system of the sovereign state that exists on these lands does not recognise this, but that in itself does not eliminate the potential for these groups to be considered nations, or for the demonym-identities deriving from them to be relevant to leads of bio articles. E.g. many people are introduced in bio articles as Taiwanese, Palestinian, or Catalan, which are not recognised as sovereign by the legal systems of (respectively) China, Israel, and Spain. 
::::::::::I take your point on lack of support in Australia, though I will note that the questions in the two referendums you mention did not explicitly ask about nationhood for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. On 2023's, [https://csrm.cass.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/2024/11/Detailed_analysis_of_the_2023_Voice_to_Parliament_Referendum_and_related_social_and_political_attitudes.pdf analysis] suggests more than "a few" First Nations Australians supported the Yes campaign, while many of those promoting a No vote did so because they felt the Voice did not go far enough on sovereignty, but this feels irrelevant to the present discussion. I wonder if there is a gap on views of Aboriginal nationality between the people who write for reliable sources and the general public. 
::::::::::There is an important difference between First Nations Australian groups and micronations: the Australian legal system recognises that First Nations Australian groups exist, and that they have their own laws and strong connections to their lands, even if it does not consider them sovereign. 
::::::::::My reading of [[WP:OTHER]] is that it applies to articles, not to the contents of key guidelines like the MOS. 
::::::::::Pete, may I just confirm that your position is to make no change to the MOS? If so, do you at least think that editors could benefit from further guidance on how to handle nationality and ethnicity for bio articles on First Nations Australians? Perhaps we could think about where this might belong if not the MOS. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 10:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tqq|... how to handle nationality and ethnicity for bio articles on First Nations Australians? Perhaps we could think about where this might belong}} {{mdash}} [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Conventions/Indigenous draft]]. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 11:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Excellent, thank you for sharing! I hadn't come across that yet (curiously, despite raising this topic at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia]] over a month ago - but I suppose that's really on me for not doing more of my own research). And {{Ping|Laterthanyouthink}} thank you too for sharing the related [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia/Draft style guide1]] in an earlier comment. If I may be ever so briefly frank and unprofessional, I am disappointed by the lack of support for my proposals, but grateful to have a draft set of conventions towards which I can channel my passion for this subject in the future :) [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 11:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
::{{tqq|Claiming a specific identity in the Lede may be a BLP vio}} {{mdash}} {{em|Where}} a person's specific Indigenous nation is mentioned (1st sentence, 1st paragraph, lead section, elsewhere) is completely independent of whether it is a BLP violation. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 02:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
:::I was thinking about sourcing. In many cases there seems to be sources for this information that are not quite what we require of BLP. Like, sometimes, none. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 03:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
:I still disagree with the manner it is implemented (as a parenthetical after the nationality) which can easily confuse a reader and imply things that are not true. There is no need to enshrine anything in the MOS and plenty of good examples of how to mention indigenous ethnicity (when appropriate) in the lead. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 00:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
:Others above have already given very good explanations why this is poor practice. All I will add is that the importance of an individual's Indigenous ancestry and the importance of the specific group they are a part of varies quite widely. There is no need for a general use case like the above. '''[[User:5225C|5225<sub>C</sub>]]'''&nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 00:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
:The MOS should not be interpreting Australian case law. The parenthetical addition also seems a bit poor, if it's not a significant part of identity it'd be odd to show it like that, if it is a significant part of identity it should be explained far better. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Provisional support of some variation''' - that given RS coverage a (possibly parenthetical) mention of tribe, nation, country, ethnicity or other sub-citizenship status is acceptable, broadly speaking. For example consider [[List of Sámi people]]. There no hyphens or parenthesis seem to be used (e.g. "Norwegian Sámi"). [[List of Kurds]] is also interesting (e.g. "Iranian Kurdish"). This could be limited to cases where RS coverage makes such distinction significant. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 02:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
*:Thanks DIYeditor. I worry that including ethnicity here may be a [[slippery slope]], but happy to have the conversation. I note that both of your examples are of nations with territory that overlaps multiple sovereign state boundaries (e.g. Norwegian Sámi vs Swedish Sámi, Iranian Kurdish vs Turkish Kurdish), which does not apply to First Nations Australians. In my experience, reliable sources refer to someone like Pat Dodson as Australian, Aboriginal, First Nations, Aboriginal Australian, First Nations Australian, and/or Yawuru, but never "Australian Yawuru". [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 03:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
*::Wikipedia should pick one of the most common names in RS and use it uniformly for a topic area, according to Wikipedia's own conventions and taxonomical needs. A general rule in the MOS that says so might be more useful than additional specific provisions. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 04:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

*In the proposed addition to NATIONALITY, I suggest this change: {{tqq|reason for the <del>First Nations</del> <ins>Indigenous</ins> person's notability}}. We've already said that {{tqq|Australian law does not recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups as nations}} so then using the word "Nations" to describe the person is contradictory and potentially confusing.{{pb}}I also suggest this change: {{tqq|where relevant to <del>a reason for</del> the First Nations person's notability}}.{{pb}}(Just to be clear, I'm not supporting or opposing the addition yet, but I think the wording could be improved.) [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 03:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
*:I understand your logic, but I am also conscious of the following from [[Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies|AIATSIS]]: {{tq|Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do not like to be referred to as ‘Indigenous’ because it is considered too generic and can be applied to all indigenous peoples of the world. There is a growing preference for First Nations Australians as a more encompassing term, because while it also is generic, it acknowledges the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.}}[https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/first-peoples-australia#toc-what-term-is-best-to-use-] I note "Indigenous Australian" remains the accepted term on Wikipedia, but I think this could benefit from further (perhaps a separate) discussion. 
*:Agree with your suggestion of removing "a reason for". As a procedural sidenote (noting this is my first RfC), if I wanted to edit my updated proposal with that change (I'm also leaning towards changing "an Australian (Yawuru)" to "an Aboriginal Australian (Yawuru)"), is it best practice to edit that directly in the current "Updated proposal" subsection, or to share the updated updated proposal with a new talk quote block in a new subsection? [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 03:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
*::{{tqq|do not like ... 'Indigenous' because it is considered too generic}} {{mdash}} In this context it is clear we are talking about Indigenous Australians, not Indigenous people of another country. There are also [[First Nations]] of other countries, so First Nations alone is not specific either. We could say {{tqq|... reason for the <del>First Nations</del> <ins>Indigenous Australian</ins> person's notability}} but that is unnecessarily wordy. A shorter alternative would be {{tqq|... reason for <del>the First Nations person's</del> <ins>an Indigenous Australian's</ins> notability}}. (The change from "the" to "a" seems natural to me, but is unrelated to the First Nations vs Indigenous Australian issue.) Actually we could probably just safely say {{tqq|relevant to the person's notability}}, because the scope - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, or any alternative term - should be obvious from the preceding sentence. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 09:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Opposed''' as in this is a lazy way of doing this..... Things should be written out  giving proper weight to their heritage not just the lazy link..ie {{green|Mary Jeannie May Simon (born August 21, 1947) is a Canadian civil servant, diplomat, and governor general of Canada.... She is Inuk on her mother's side, making her the first Indigenous person to hold the office}}. This follows the Canadian encyclopedia format [https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/mary-simon]<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 03:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
*:To be clear, I'm proposing an update to the MOS specifically for Aboriginal Australian and Torres Strait Islander people. Indigenous Canadian status is already mentioned under Nationality examples in [[MOS:NATIONALITY]]; based on my reading, "Inuk" could be moved around in the first two sentences of [[Mary Simon]] without contravening the MOS. I'm not familiar with ''The Canadian Encyclopedia'' and am unaware of an Australian equivalent. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 04:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' (roughly): I see this as kind of just sneaking past [[MOS:ETHNICITY]]. If you want to list someone’s “clan”, it should pass MOS:ETHNICITY; but that may well be a lower bar than you think it is in many cases. If someone is an “Australian indigenous rights activist”, then editors at that bio may decide that the subject’s being Australian Aboriginal is worth mentioning (via their reasons for notability), but I can't see their membership of a specific tribe, clan, group or nation as worthy of inclusion in the lead in such a way. On the other hand, as I commented in the section above, if some person existed in some indigenous nation in a sense separate from the rest of Australia, in a way that the average person reading would understand their context better as Aboriginal—and tribal—than as Australian, then it should be given more prominence than a mere parenthetical. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 11:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - having the tribe in brackets after Australian would not work. However, I don't have issue with the following wording, if a person's indigenous background is relevant to their notability - "John Smith is an Australian artist. A member of the X tribe/people, he is known for his...".
*'''Oppose all''' I tend to agree with @HTGS and the comment by @Neby is a good indicator: i.e: just like using British instead of English, Welsh, or Scottish etc, this should really be on a case by case basis. --[[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 07:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
*'''Already covered''' - this is not needed as [[MOS:NATIONALITY]] already covers it.  ("Indigenous persons' citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names.")   Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 04:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
*:That phrase applies to the preceding group of North American indigenous persons. It's clear that the concept of "citizenship" does not apply in the Australian Indigenous context. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 04:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
*::No, I think in that line "Indigenous persons'" is not limited so the style seems indicated for showing the citizenship of *any* indigenous persons.  That the prior line uses the example of citizenship for North American cases ("Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity."), is not a limit and is enough -- excess examples should not be added when what is here suffices.  We do not want to detail all cases one by one -- various South American indigenous peoples, various European indigenous persons, various Asian indigenous peoples, etcetera.  The presentation of all cases should be consistent with the guidance and if anything is within parens it should be their nation of citizenship, not their ethnic or tribal affiliation.   And "nation" meaning a formally recognized group of citizens per [[WP:V]] documentation of what nations there are.  Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 05:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

===Editor who initiated RfC stepping back===
Hi all, thanks again for your inputs. [[User:Mitch Ames]] has kindly informed me of the existence of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Conventions/Indigenous draft]], which I will be channeling my interest in this subject towards in the future. I note the significant levels of opposition to my proposals thus far. In the interests of transparency, I was motivated by an aim of increasing awareness of the diversity (and claims to sovereignty) of the First Nations on the continent of Australia. Hopefully I have at least achieved this aim on a small scale among this small community of Wikipedians. I believe that my proposals did reflect a legitimate ambiguity in [[MOS:NATIONALITY]] (the inclusion of an example for First Nations people in North America, but not in Australia) to the extent that this conversation was at least valid and useful, regardless of my intentions. However, I intend to be more mindful of this [[WP:Activist]] [[WP:Bias?]] going forward. I invite and welcome other editors to continue the discussion here to whatever extent they wish, but I note that I will be making a conscious effort to tune out of the conversation on this page unless I am pinged directly. I accept that a consensus for change to MOS:NATIONALITY is unlikely, and I hope that the clarity provided by this reaction is useful. Thank you all and I wish you  much peace and happiness in your lives. [[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]] ([[User talk:Neegzistuoja|talk]]) 12:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Neegzistuoja}} Thank you for initiating the discussion. FWIW, I appreciate your motivation but for reasons stated above did not think it practicable or a good idea for infobox and lead. As the original author of that draft back in 2019, I would like to see it get a second life and find a place in the MOS somewhere, so that we are all working to the same standards. If anyone can suggest a good place to initiate a new discussion on this, please do. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 01:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Neegzistuoja|Neegzistuoja]], I appreciate your having opened the discussion. I did not contribute much above, as I simply felt too ignorant about the topic. In case it's useful for future discussions or is simply of interest, you might look at the [https://whoseknowledge.org/ Whose Knowledge?] campaign (also see its [[metawiki:Whose_Knowledge?|metawiki page]]), which is relevant to whose perspectives get elevated in this kind of discussion. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 14:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
:Also for your first RfC, it's very well formatted and pretty orderly, which makes the [[WP:CLOSE|closer]]'s job much easier. Well done [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 20:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@ {{u|Neegzistuoja}} As I am now working in Archaeology, have worked at Reconciliation Australia, and have recently consulted on a research project on the state of representation in Australian Wikipedia - I'll give some feedback here.
Proposing something like this has value because it moves things forward and in this particular instance very likely reflects the attitudes of the vast majority of Aboriginal people in Australia. But, without First Nations consultation its not going to reflect what is actually appropriate or wanted. This kind of stuff really should be handled by a coordinated working group funded by the Wikimedia Foundation or one of the universities. It should not be handled or decided by a vote of non-expert non-Aboriginal people, (in many cases even non-Australians). The fact that Wikimedia hasn't done this and the rules on here handle these kind of issues extremely poorly and favour a tyranny of the Eurocentric majority doesn't give me me great hope for that. Having discussions around something like this is a constant mine-field of dealing with bad faith actors and non-enforcement of the rules around them - so be aware of this.[[User:Poketama|Poketama]] ([[User talk:Poketama|talk]]) 04:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Poketama}} I am still hoping that this can be done based on what I started at the link mentioned above. I now have a few more contacts in Wikimedia relating to the topic, so will see if I can garner some interest. I was working off established style guides based on work done by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including Reconciliation Australia, if I recall correctly, but agree that we need input from and consensus by a working group that includes a number of First Nations people. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 06:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::Hi @[[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]]I think you've done a good job. I think Reconciliation Australia's guides for the basics are generally going to be good and applicable. However, care must be taken to include diverse voices as Reconciliation Australia represents only one political segment of First Nations people. Regardless, we get a bit stuck when we get to the nitty gritty like where exactly should First Nations placenames be on a page? That needs consultation. 
::I'm glad you have contacts in Wikimedia have you been able to talk about these issues? I'd also recommend contacting contacting UTS people who are working on similar subjects. https://www.uts.edu.au/news/2024/10/how-australia-represented-wikipedia-and-why-it-matters
::I'd like to get this done some time, but it really requires a lot of work and funding and Wikimedia should be putting that in. [[User:Poketama|Poketama]] ([[User talk:Poketama|talk]]) 08:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Also please check out this paper https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/166700/3/Wikimedia%20Australia%20and%20First%20Nations%20Metadata-%20ATSILIRN%20Protocols%20for%20Description%20and%20Access%20Discussion%20paper%20FINAL.pdf [[User:Poketama|Poketama]] ([[User talk:Poketama|talk]]) 08:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
* '''SUPPORT''' inclusion of Australian First Nations including Torres Strait Islanders in infobox and first sentence. Truly the people whose opinions on this who actually matter are citizens of Australian First Nations. [[User:Yuchitown|Yuchitown]] ([[User talk:Yuchitown|talk]]) 15:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}

== Updates to §Gender identity ― for clarity only, not an endorsement of policy ==

I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FBiography&diff=1287709080&oldid=1287700389 three edits] to [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Gender identity|§Gender identity]] in the article. Those edits are only to add clarity to existing policy, based on what I learned at [[Talk:Sarah McBride#Notable by the previous name]].<br>
I actually disagree with this policy, and believe that a trans person's birth/former name is no different than a [[maiden name]]. In my opinion, if the former name has been reported in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], there is absolutely no reason not to include the former name in the article, just like maiden names are included in biographical articles. [[User:Green Montanan|Green Montanan]] ([[User talk:Green Montanan|talk]]) 23:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:If you thought a bit longer, I'm sure you could come up with one or two ways they might be different. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|stalk]]) 02:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::I'm having difficulties seeing the differences. In both cases a person changes their name by their own free will. They're not forced to change their name. [[User:Green Montanan|Green Montanan]] ([[User talk:Green Montanan|talk]]) 02:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Maiden-naming is not linked with depression and suicidality,[https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(18)30085-5/fulltext], and 58% of married cis women do not report being harassed with their maiden names.[https://galop.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Trans-Hate-Crime-Report-2020.pdf] Married cis women don't appear to feel misgendered, outed, or invalidated by their maiden names, and rarely go to great lengths to conceal them from the public. Aside from [[identity theft]] or subjects only notable under a [[pseudonym]], a cisgender BLP's birth name is not traditionally considered [[WP:BLPPRIVACY|private information]] in the same way a trans person's non-public [[deadname]] is. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|stalk]]) 03:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::It becomes public information once it's reported in [[WP:RS]]. [[User:Green Montanan|Green Montanan]] ([[User talk:Green Montanan|talk]]) 15:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::What is "public information" in some sense and what Wikipedia publishes to its mainspace are two different things. In case you're unaware, this is an issue which has been [[WP:MOSGENCHRON|discussed many times]], and community consensus has settled on treating deadnames as a privacy issue in most cases for years. '''[[User:AviationFreak|AviationFreak]]'''[[User_talk:AviationFreak|💬]] 22:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::Not sure what's the point. Anybody could Google "Sarah McBride birth name" and get the answer within seconds. It's public information. [[User:Green Montanan|Green Montanan]] ([[User talk:Green Montanan|talk]]) 23:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Again, {{xt|what is "public information" in some sense and what Wikipedia publishes to its mainspace are two different things}}. A person's home address, full name, and birthdate are often ''techincally'' accessible to the public (i.e., public information), but they are treated on Wikipedia as a [[WP:BLPPRIVACY|privacy interest]]. If you have some interest in knowing the deadnames of notable trans people, it's true that that information likely exists as publicly-accessible information - it's just not something that Wikipedia is in the business of dissemminating. If you don't understand ''why'' the community has made this decision, I'd recommend reading through one of the RFCs linked [[WP:MOSGENCHRON|here]], or our article on [[deadnaming]]. '''[[User:AviationFreak|AviationFreak]]'''[[User_talk:AviationFreak|💬]] 00:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Not sure what the point is.
::::::::* Home addresses are not encyclopedic. They could become encyclopedic after the person passes away and the home becomes a museum (see [[Birthplace of Richard Nixon]]), or notable for some other reason (see [[Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad]]).
::::::::* Birthdates and full birth names are always shown in biographical articles if publicly available. Even trans people have their birthdates shown, but for "privacy concerns", trans people's full birth names cannot be shown, unless they had a Wikipedia article prior to the transition (or could have had a Wikipedia article that would have passed Wikipedia's notability guideline) even if publicly known.
::::::::I don't think that makes sense, but those are the rules, and rules don't have to make sense. [[User:Green Montanan|Green Montanan]] ([[User talk:Green Montanan|talk]]) 03:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::It is important to keep in mind though that consensus can change over time, especially if there are good arguments supporting that change. If there are also others who disagree with the policy as it is currently (other than me and Green Montanan) who are willing to voice their opinion, then it might be a good idea to reopen the discussion and see if we still have this same consensus, especially as the political landscape is changing.
::::::After all, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform. Since we live in a different political landscape, one where intentional deadnaming has become more common, it might be more helpful to actually include that information at least once in the article. For example, if someone only hears the deadname, that can create confusion as to who that person is. People might think the two different names refer to two different people, so Wikipedia can clarify for people that both names actually do refer to the same person and educate them on what their actual name is. If you are against deadnaming, this is a good thing, because it can educate more people about the potential harms that can be caused by it. In my opinion, suppressing the deadname can actually lead to more deadnaming by people who are doing it unintentionally.
::::::If I were to propose a change to Wikipedia policy, my recommendation would be to include the deadname in an article (for a living person) exactly once and not more than once, if that name is reported in reliable sources, but make it very clear that it is a deadname and include a wikilink to the Wikipedia page on [[deadnaming]], so that they can also understand why deadnaming is considered to be harmful. This strikes a good balance between providing information to the reader and also respecting the person's wishes as well. It also improves neutrality as well, by helping avoid the appearance that Wikipedia applies different standards to name changes depending on whether a person is transgender or not.
::::::My understanding of BLP policy is that it is also a defense against legal liability. If you defame someone or include any false/private information about them on the site, then that could result costly lawsuits for the Wikimedia Foundation, and nobody wants that to happen. This wouldn't be the case for deadnaming if the deadname is already reported in reliable sources, so I don't think Wikipedia has to worry about being sued over this.  [[User:Anonymous Libertarian|Anonymous Libertarian]] ([[User talk:Anonymous Libertarian|talk]]) 01:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:{{re|Green Montanan}} Given your clearly expressed position on [[MOS:DEADNAME]] and specifically its application at [[Sarah McBride]], your addition of an [[Special:Diff/1288426887|explanatory footnote]] which calls out that article as an example reads as an attempt to prove your point that she was {{xt|widely known}} by her deadname at [[American University]] so Wikipedia ought to include it.
:While some workshopped text clarifying exactly what it means to be [[WP:notable]] by one's deadname—I think [[WP:GNG]] might be the wrong link given alternate criteria like [[WP:NSPORTS]] and [[WP:NARTIST]]—might be acceptable, the footnote should be removed. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|stalk]]) 15:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::While my position is clearly outlined at the top of this thread, I don't think that should serve as a reason to remove the clarifying footnote. But if the consensus is that the footnote is disruptive, then I suppose we could leave it out. I invite anybody watching this page to chime in. [[User:Green Montanan|Green Montanan]] ([[User talk:Green Montanan|talk]]) 15:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I think the footnote is a helpful example. The MOS is clear "unless a living transgender or non-binary person was notable (by Wikipedia's standards) under a former name" the former name should not be included. If Sarah McBride had not passed [[WP:NPOL]] as an elected official, she would not meet [[WP:GNG]] as a president of a university student body. Being widely known does not mean that the subject passes [[WP:N|our standards of notability]]. - [[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 16:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:In general, I think it would weaken our guidance to repeatedly re-define our terms. The concept of notability is all over the page, and it's just one of the many Wikipedia concepts that has a distinct meaning from its common language analogue.
:More specifically, I don't think we need a specific example of someone who had some prominence but not Wikipedia notability before transition. If we do decide an example is needed, we should create an fictitious one, or add details to the "Jane Smith" example currently. The major thrust of the guideline is to treat pre-transition identity as a privacy interest, so it weakens both the guideline and the project to call more attention to one living person's pre-transition identity. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 17:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::I don't understand your point about using real examples. The section already uses four different people ([[Laverne Cox]], [[Rachel Levine]], [[Chelsea Manning]], and [[Elliot Page]]) as real examples. Why should the footnote be any different? [[User:Green Montanan|Green Montanan]] ([[User talk:Green Montanan|talk]]) 17:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Happy to explain! It's about the specifics of the proposed example, which guide a reader toward exactly where they'd go to discover the non-notable pre-transition identity. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 17:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::I didn't really understand this "word salad", but the additional sentence below clarifies that you are against using real examples as a whole, not just in the case for the proposed footnote. [[User:Green Montanan|Green Montanan]] ([[User talk:Green Montanan|talk]]) 17:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Oof. Was it that bad? Lol. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 17:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Also, I do think it would be an improvement to solely use fictional examples for the non-notable pre-transition cases. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 17:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

===Proposal for a new clarifying footnote===
The way I am reading the discussion above, there is a consensus for a clarifying footnote, but opposition to using [[Sarah McBride]] as a specific example. Here is a proposal for a new footnote, which is general, and does not use any examples: neither real nor hypothetical.
:''If the subject of the biography had a Wikipedia article prior to the transition, the former name can be shown in the article as specified in this page. However, since the existence of an article does not establish notability, it is legitimate to discuss in the talk page whether the subject of the article was notable prior to the transition (an [[ex-post facto]] [[WP:AfD|AfD]]). If the subject of the biography did not have a Wikipedia article prior to the transition, only references that use the former name with a date prior to the transition can be used to evaluate whether they are sufficient to have sustained the article in an AfD discussion had the article been created prior to the transition.
I think the new footnote explains why in McBride's case we do not include her former name without explicitly naming her. In her case, the only [[WP:RS]] that are available prior to her transition is her university's student newspaper, which is not enough to meet the [[WP:Notability]] requirement of '''multiple''' sources independent of the subject. [[User:Green Montanan|Green Montanan]] ([[User talk:Green Montanan|talk]]) 15:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The gist of the footnote is to say that the existence of the article (or lack there of) pre-transition is an indication on whether the pre-transition name can be mentioned in the article, but that's not a guarantee. The rest of the footnote gives a process for not following the pre-transition article existence indicator. [[User:Green Montanan|Green Montanan]] ([[User talk:Green Montanan|talk]]) 16:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:[[WP:KUDZU]]. The guideline already explains why we don't include Congresswoman McBride's deadname: she was not notable by it. Phrasing this in terms of {{xt|pre-transition articles}} and {{xt|ex-post facto AfD/AfC}} <small>(we'll need a new noticeboard for those...)</small> provides no clarity and is in fact much more confusing. Maybe "{{xt|Was Bob notable under his deadname?}}" could be logically equivalent to "{{xt|If a Wikipedia article had hypothetically been written about Bob using only sources published prior to coming out which mention his deadname, would it have survived a hypothetical AfD? Or, given that we really did have such an article about Bob, should we have deleted it?}}" but I see no added value in the latter. We agree that [[WP:ARTN|article content does not determine notability]] so whether a subject did/could've/would've/should've had a Wikipedia article under their deadname is irrelevant.
:A useful version of this footnote would basically just be a restatement of [[WP:GNG]] or [[WP:NBASIC]], which I think this is unnecessary since the link to policy has the same effect. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|stalk]]) 19:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
===Proposal #2===
Although the above proposed footnote is long, it is not an [[WP:CREEP|instructions creep]], as it does not add instructions. It adds clarification. Of course, dilutes the effectiveness of the additional clarification. So here is a new proposed clarifying footnote which is much shorter:
: ''If the subject of the biography had a Wikipedia article that met the Wikipedia's notability criteria prior to the transition, or could reasonably have had such a biographical article prior to the transition, then the former name can be shown in the article as specified in this page.''
It basically explains what it means to be notable from the Wikipedia point of view. [[User:Green Montanan|Green Montanan]] ([[User talk:Green Montanan|talk]]) 20:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I do not see any farsighted benefit in a footnote that essentially stops and tries again to state the plain meaning of the sentence it's attached to. I'm lost—what is presently unclear about the sentence as written? Whatever it is, this double cover is not a good way to solve it for anyone who isn't deciding here to add it—folks will wonder why it's there. Forgive me if I've missed something, but after additional passes it seems like we're contemplating patches to cover holes in site guidelines that only one editor seems to have a predisposition for falling into, and only when they're in the vicinity of one article in particular—that's really backwards to me! <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 12:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

==Italics in née?==
I feel like the current section for [[MOS:NEE]] should mention whether italics should or shouldn't be included in it. [[Template:Nee]] does not include italics automatically. However, some editors would format the text to be <code><nowiki>''née''</nowiki></code>, with italics. I feel like there is quite a lot of inconsistency on pages regarding this. To sum it up, I'm mostly questioning if it is preferred for "née" to be in italics or not? <span style="font-family:cursive;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>[[User:Alexeyevitch|Alexeyevitch]]</span><sup>([[User talk:Alexeyevitch|talk]])</sup></span> 06:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:From [[MOS:FOREIGN]]: {{tq|A rule of thumb is to not italicize words that appear unitalicized in major general-purpose English dictionaries.}} Most don't. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 06:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::As this applys to "née", I think [[MOS:NEE]] should mention that it's "typically unitalicized". I, and a few others, were unsure of it. Mentioning that it's "typically unitalicized" would likely avoid confusion. <span style="font-family:cursive;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>[[User:Alexeyevitch|Alexeyevitch]]</span><sup>([[User talk:Alexeyevitch|talk]])</sup></span> 06:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::There's also [[MOS:FOREIGNITALIC]]: {{tq2|This does not apply to loanwords or phrases that see everyday use in non-specialized English}} "Née" is generally in English dictionaries. The examples at [[MOS:NEE]] also do not show italics. —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 14:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I have updated it to avoid ambiguity, in case anyone wonders. <span style="font-family:cursive;color:darkblue;cursor:help"><span>[[User:Alexeyevitch|Alexeyevitch]]</span><sup>([[User talk:Alexeyevitch|talk]])</sup></span> 02:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

== When to use a given name or surname in body text ==

[[Kou Yang]] is referred to in English sources as "Dr. Yang" and "Yang" per American and English-language custom documented in [[MOS:SURNAME]] - but among Hmong he would go by Kou since the last name is a clan name (and thus very common: 18 Hmong clans exist, so there are about 18 standard Hmong last names) - per [[MOS:GIVENNAME]]. I wrote the article body following the conventions of the sources but I am wondering if I should switch from "Yang" to "Kou" for better clarity, particularly when citing sources by someone of the same clan? Per [[MOS:SAMESURNAME]]. I'm uncertain here and would appreciate input. Do I follow the sources or the cultural convention? (I also posted this question at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans#Naming conventions for Hmong Americans]].) [[User:Pingnova|Pingnova]] ([[User talk:Pingnova|talk]]) 20:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:The usual practice would be to follow high-quality ''English''-language sources. I would suggest replacing the boilerplate hatnote with a specific footnote that explains how Hmong names work, but adds that he (sometimes?) uses "Yang" as a surname in English. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 20:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::It is probably a good idea to make a footnote explaining how the name appears in reliable sources in English. I recall having a discussion about this kind of issues (name in sources does not follow the conventions) regarding [[Mrs. Ngô Bá Thành]] a while back (see also that article's talk page and [[User_talk:Kusma/Archive_43#Phạm_Thị_Thanh_Vân]]). Something like Footnote 1 there could be beneficial also for Kou Yang. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 21:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:UndercoverClassicist|UndercoverClassicist]] thanks for both of your inputs. I continued contemplating this and noted Hmong-language commenters on a Hmong-language news program used his name per the Hmong convention (clan name then given name). I will come up with a footnote to explain that since the majority of sources on Kou Yang are English, I'll follow the sources, and also since he gained notability in the United States, with all of the English-language conventions, I use the same. 
:::Perhaps someone who gained prominence elsewhere should use the other convention. It might be good to work out some sort of MOS guideline for future situations like this. I write a lot about Hmong Americans, who mostly use English conventions, but I'm sure I'll run into multi-national figures in the future where it is less clear. [[User:Pingnova|Pingnova]] ([[User talk:Pingnova|talk]]) 23:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

== The Catalan/Spanish label again in Catalan-related biographies ==

There is presently an RfC on the Catalan/Spanish label issue for [[Ramon Casas]]: [[Talk: Ramon Casas#Request for Comment: Subject lead label Catalan or Spanish?]]. Since starting the Casas RfC, I learned about the pervasiveness of the question. There was an RfC in 2018 on this question on this talk page: [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2018_archive#RfC_on_use_of_Spanish_regional_identity_in_biography_leads]].  I have since learned that this conflict is widespread, and, frankly, unresolved by the 2018 RfC.  For Catalan personages, there are editors who are systematically and insistently changing "Catalan" to "Spanish" as the primary label for the subject in the lead.  A random example, [[Isidre Nonell]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isidre_Nonell&diff=1284727155&oldid=1284557380 diff1],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isidre_Nonell&diff=1284553311&oldid=1282682704 diff2],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isidre_Nonell&diff=1282680800&oldid=1267025795 diff3],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isidre_Nonell&diff=1172380161&oldid=1172379285 diff4],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isidre_Nonell&diff=1172379285&oldid=1166295803 diff5],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isidre_Nonell&diff=946923027&oldid=933828478 diff6], etc.  Notice there is no discussion of the issue on the article Talk page.  One can pick just about any other article with a Catalan subject and find similar, sometimes with an edit summary "Catalonia is not a country!"  I leave aside motivations for this low-level, but on-going, widespread edit warring.  I was brave or foolish enough to start the RfC on the question (labels matter.), but most often the revert back and forth goes undiscussed (a small issue, not worth the time, let the reverts continue?).  Is there a way to resolve this on-going conflict, or are we to form our own gangs of editors and, on a weekly basis, say, go through all the articles and change them back from what the other gang did?  Ultimately, it appears that your original RfC did not resolve the question; as I read its resolution, it left too much gray area for interpretation (How does one show that a subject "self-identifies"?).  It would be an exhausting task to go through all the Catalan biographical articles and litigate each one, with vast polemics, separately.  Perhaps one strategy would be to contest several key articles with RfCs, such as to develop a body of precedence.  (Note that this question turns on what a label is, generally, which I've raised on these pages before, I believe.  That a subject is consistent with a technical definition of a label, does not mean they should necessarily be identified by that label, e.g., "He has Spanish nationality, so he should be labeled Spanish." C.f., an essay [[Wikipedia:Crime labels]];  Using a simple, superficial label is often just bad writing.) [[User:Bdushaw|Bdushaw]] ([[User talk:Bdushaw|talk]]) 13:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
:Another available RfC: [[Talk:Carles_Puigdemont/Archive_5#RFC_on_nationality]] [[User:Bdushaw|Bdushaw]] ([[User talk:Bdushaw|talk]]) 11:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The present Manual of Style could be made clearer, with respect to the main question here. Per [[MOS:NATIONALITY]], {{tq|The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident}} and that {{tq|neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability}}. The key concept here is where the subject was notable. But the statement plays rather vaguely about what nationality means - that won't do in Catalan-Spanish controversies.  One new consideration for me is what exactly is a "country" or "nationality" in this context?  I had thought that Scotland was not a country, for example, but that's not exactly true.  Within the Commonwealth, it is a country, but one not recognized internationally.  Similar, Palestine - going strictly by formally recognized nation definition, are Palestinian politicians to be called Israeli politicians (apologizes; what a horror). By these looser definitions of "country", is Catalonia a "country"? It has its own well-defined region, language, flag, government, culture, etc. Most often the subjects of such articles self-identify as "Catalan", though it can be problematic to find reliable sources to this effect for historical figures. Then, the statement above seems to pertain to living biographies, whereas the general problem here extends back in history.  [[User:Bdushaw|Bdushaw]] ([[User talk:Bdushaw|talk]]) 13:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The guidance also declares that ethnicity is not to be included in the lead. But where does ethnicity begin and end in this case - is Catalan an ethnicity? [[User:Bdushaw|Bdushaw]] ([[User talk:Bdushaw|talk]]) 13:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

People get so dogmatic about the person's country of citizenship that they overlook the less common cases when another identification is actually more germane to their notability. That's why it's essential to look at sources and see if they are calling someone, for example, a Catalan politician or a Spanish politician. [[User:Bdushaw|Bdushaw]] ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 04:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

== Formatting of creative accomplishments as lists ==

Is there any consensus about whether accomplishments by creative professionals (published works; art exhibitions or installations; music concerts or performances, book tours, and so on) may be included in a biography and formatted as a bullet list in an article section? This question is inspired by Teahouse questioner {{u|Naomi Hennig}} at [[WP:Teahouse#how to deal with arrogance and unwillingness to answer questions?|this Teahouse question]] regarding whether {{t|resume-like}} templates [[Special:Diff/1289067052|placed]] without comment by {{u|Doubledoublex2}} to three sections of BLP [[Regine Schumann]], namely these: {{slink|Regine Schumann|Art installations in public places|nopage=yes}}, {{slink|Regine Schumann|Solo exhibitions|nopage=yes}}, and {{slink|Regine Schumann|Group exhibitions|nopage=yes}} are appropriate at the article. The templates have since been removed. I can see how it might appear rather cv-like in the aggregate, but not sure if we have a guideline about this. Further comments by {{u|Hoary}} at the Teahouse discussion and [[Talk:Regine Schumann]]  may be relevant.  [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 21:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:I haven't seen guidance on it, that I can recall. It's fairly common in authors' articles to list their books, and we list discographies for musicians and filmographies for actors, so it seems like exhibitions would be generally equivalent for artists. [[:Template:Resume-like]] emphasizes the promotional language aspect of résumés; I think a list of a creative person's products/accomplishments is more informational than promotional. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 22:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:: What you say makes a lot of sense to me. Let's see what other feedback we get, but if this view holds up, I think we probably should add something to the guideline and/or the template, just to clarify the uncertainty about it and avoid future dust-ups of this nature. Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 22:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::This project page is a weird mix of MOS-type guidance and rules for contentious "flashpoints"; there's really very little guidance for the body of the article (other than present tense, chronological). Anyway, I came across [[MOS:TIMELINE]], which says {{tq|Lists of works of individuals or groups, such as bibliographies, discographies, filmographies, album personnel and track listings are typically presented in simple list format, though it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points, and that if the lists become unwieldy, they are split off into stand-alone lists per WP:Summary style.}} It, in turn, points to [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works]], which only calls out books, movies, and music. Perhaps there would be the right place to add guidance for artists (and who else are we missing?). [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 22:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::: Great sleuthing to locate those, thanks. While mulling it over before your last response, I was starting to think about things like encyclopedic content vs. [[WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE]], i.e., a summary of just the most important points (maybe an exhaustive list is sometimes encyclopedic, other times not; what determines that, other than case-by-case consensus?) What if the article is [[Lope de Vega]] (over 1,500 plays), [[Isaac Asimov]] (> 500 books), or [[Pablo Picasso]] (> 50,000 artworks)? And if we don't list their whole output (or split it to a child article) why should younger/less-prolific creatives get their entire output listed?  And, WWBD (What Would Britannica Do?). [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 22:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::: Who else: authors, artists, actors (and other film-related occupations), poets, musicians, bands, playwrights, inventors, photographers, architects, fashion designers, dancers, composers, scientists, judges, politicians. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 23:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Good list! And good questions. One approach could be "if supported by an independent source" for accomplishment lists. But I think there'd be a huge outcry if there was a suggestion that not ''every'' album and ''every'' acting role should be listed for someone. I think...that I'm going to have think about this some more. (edited to add: I'm going to read through the archives of [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works]] tomorrow, see if there's any previous discussion outside of the book/music/movie aspects.) [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 23:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::tldr: Not much past discussion outside of bibliography/filmography/discography lists of works; ongoing tension between completionism vs. selectivism{{pb}}
::::::*Filmographies should be complete (2006) [[Wikipedia_talk:Filmographies#All films or some?|link]]
::::::*Discussion comment: {{tq|Visual artists--yes, I realize I have not discussed that group--it has a different set of problems--There are a few, the most extensive being the group under List of Picasso artworks (by decade). I do not know about completeness or quality. Perhaps we should postpone this part--enough complications for the time being.}} (2007) [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works/Archive_2|link]]
::::::{{pb}}[[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works/Archive_2]] has some interesting discussion on completionism (main proponent, {{noping|Awadewit}}, sadly deceased) (main opponent, {{ping|Hoary}}). But the attention is more focused on separate "list of work" articles than embedded lists.{{pb}}
::::::*2009 completionism discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Porn star filmographies|link]]
::::::*2011 tentative proposal (now redlink) on scientists/academics, didn't go anywhere [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Discussion of lists for scientists and academics|link]]
::::::*2014 sort of a request for guidance on visual arts [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Iconography|link]]
::::::*2014 {{u|Rhododendrites}} questioned completionism aspect of {{tq|Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists}} [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Lists of all non-notable works|link]]
::::::*2018 {{u|Tronvillain}} asks what about scientists? [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Scientific_Publications|link]]
::::::*2020 {{u|Buidhe}} questions completionism vs. [[WP:NOTDIR]] [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Complete_list_of_works_vs._NOTDIR/NOTCV|link]]
::::::*2020 {{u|Masem}} suggests differentiating between journalists/academics and "more creative work types" [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Including advise related to more verbose writers (journalists/academics) as related to a NOTBIBLOGRAPHIC redirect|link]]
::::::*2022 completionism for discography [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Acceptable sources for discography entries|link]]
::::::*2024 tangentially related discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Are references required for lists of works?|link]]
:::::: [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 14:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I tend to think a work should be included in the list if it itself has been covered by at least one independent source with sigcov or is likely to be if it's a recent publication. In practice, this means including books on academics' articles, while leaving off almost all journal articles. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 20:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I find this a very interesting and helpful discussion. One reason for me to list some exhibitions is that you can also see the titles of the exhibitions, and thus perhaps look at them further in other public sources according to your own interests. I normally do write for the German Wikipedia, and up to now my idea is 10 Solo-exhibitions and 20 Group-exhibitions if they seem relevant and can be referenced. There are various German articles with very long lists and then we do write on the discussion-site of the article that we don't want a complete list of every exhibition. I do have google-news-alerts for all the artists i wrote about up to now, and can see when there are new exhibitions. I store them in my "wikipedia"-file and after a while, i try to update the info on the list and erase older exhibitions. It seems that this is not at all usus in the English Wikipedia though. At the present i don't know - should i shorten the list of exhibitions and how short would be welcome - 3-5 or only exhibitions in museums, etc. Would love your opinion on this. Kind regards, [[User:Naomi Hennig|Naomi Hennig]] ([[User talk:Naomi Hennig|talk]]) 13:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Above: "(main opponent, {{ping|Hoary}})". I'd quite forgotten. I clicked on the link and was/am appalled at the sight of my 18-years-ago verbosity. I hope that since then I've learned to be rather more concise. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 23:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: Up to now iM still not quite sure how to handle this. Am i being condemned if i keep on with the lists, or??? The discussion here leaves me a bit unsecure about it. Kind regards, --[[User:Naomi Hennig|Naomi Hennig]] ([[User talk:Naomi Hennig|talk]]) 10:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[MOS:GENDERID]], transmen, and lists of women where they qualified pre-transition ==

* {{la|List of female chefs with Michelin stars}}
An entry was {{Diff|List of female chefs with Michelin stars|1289578701|1288434215|recently removed from this list|diffonly=yes}} on the grounds that he now identifies as transgender and masculine. (Comment: I think I read the editor's summary correctly that the chef in question identifies as masculine, so I am using masculine pronouns based on that but without further verification.) However, he identified as female when he received a Michelin star. He is not notable, but the restaurant is. Is [[MOS:GENDERID]] a reason to delete the entry? —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 14:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:According to [https://wck.org/en-us/events/feeding-hope-dc a WCK event listing] chef Marcelle Afram is non-binary and uses they/he pronouns, so he does not belong on a list of female chefs.
:If there were article text discussing a notable pre-transition achievement as e.g., a trans man who was considered "the first woman to do X", we might keep it, but it seems correct under GENDERID that categories and lists follow most recent self-ID. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|stalk]]) 15:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

== Article title - name variability ==

Looking for some guidance on naming a biography article (already checked out the naming conventions MOS page, didn't look like that talk page got much traffic). I'm developing an article on the visual artist known currently as "Lotus L. Kang", she's been featured in an array of solid publications and notable exhibitions (highlights: monograph published by Chisenhale Gallery [museum] in '23, 2024 Whitney Biennial, currently on the cover of Frieze magazine's May issue/was on the cover of Art Monthly mag in 2023), so the notability, etc. all check out. But she has gone by several different names over the last few years, reflected in the sources I'm looking at. Through the early 2020s she went professionally as "Laurie Kang", in the early 2020s she switched to "Lotus Laurie Kang" and in the past 2 years she's switched to "Lotus L. Kang". As far as I can tell from reading the profiles and coverage of the artist both before/during/after the name switches, it's not a question of gender identity or presentation, so I don't think that's what would guide this situation. But what makes the most sense for the title? I would think either "Lotus Laurie Kang" to capture all her names or "Lotus L. Kang" to be in line with how sources currently identify her, but I didn't just want to assume. The most recent sources go with "Lotus L. Kang", and the current red-link on Wiki (on the 2024 Whitney Biennial article) goes with "Lotus L. Kang". Thanks for any help! [[User:19h00s|19h00s]] ([[User talk:19h00s|talk]]) 21:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:19h00s|19h00s]], I'd go with current name (Lotus L. Kang), with redirects from the other names she's used. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 23:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

== Specific case to have [[MOS:NICKNAME]] include common hypocorisms ==

While I understand why we wouldn't want common nicknames in most cases, I think it is of substantial value if the article title does not have a nickname in it. This is because the nickname is very frequently is not mentioned anywhere in the lead, even when it is the way the person is most commonly referred to. For example, [[Helen Herron Taft]] was most frequently referred to as Nellie throughout her life, but because "Nellie" is considered a common hypocorism of "Helen" (I have some issues with this too, but that's a different matter), basically the only place where it is mentioned is once in the [[Helen Herron Taft#Childhood|childhood section]]. This needs to be much, much more prominent. It was decided in [[Talk:MrBeast/Archive 3#RfC "Jimmy Donaldson"|an RfC]] to do this for YouTuber [[MrBeast]], because the personal name he most frequently used was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MrBeast&oldid=1169352889 essentially not mentioned anywhere in the article at the time]. This was a good decision but since there are other cases where it should apply, it should go into the MOS. [[User:Ladtrack|Ladtrack]] ([[User talk:Ladtrack|talk]]) 01:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:It does seem sensible that prominent names should be prominently displayed in the article. Where they are the common name, that will be in the title, but for [[MOS:ALTNAME|significant alternative names]], it will need to be in the lead. The purpose of not listing common short forms is to avoid redundancy, but the need to clearly convey all significant names to the reader is much more important. Also agree readers can't reasonably be expected to recognize Nellie as a short form of Helen.--[[User:Trystan|Trystan]] ([[User talk:Trystan|talk]]) 03:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:I wouldn't have considered Nellie a common variant of Helen. Neither does Wikipedia apparently - it's not listed in the infobox in [[Helen (given name)]]. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 08:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::What are your thoughts on including common nicknames when the article title doesn't have the nickname in it? [[User:Ladtrack|Ladtrack]] ([[User talk:Ladtrack|talk]]) 23:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

== RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM ==

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 01:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750208468}}
Should the provision [[MOS:POSTNOM]] (under [[WP:MOSBIO]]) that allows [[post-nominal letters]] only outside the <u>'''''LEAD SENTENCE'''''</u> be overturned, maintained, or modified? Specifically, the guideline currently reads: {{tq|"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 any part of the article other than the lead sentence."}} Obviously, this RfC would also invite alternative solutions, etc. I will add options if so-requested. As such;

*'''Option 1''': ''Full Reversal of the Exclusion''
**Overturn the existing guideline entirely so that post‐nominal letters may be included in the lead sentence. Order will be determined by awarding-nation's order of precedence (I.e. the higher-ranking award is listed first after the name). If one award is from one nation, and the second award is from another nation, list them in chronological order of receipt (assuming they do not recognize each other, such as Commonwealth awards).
*'''Option 2''': ''Maintain MOS:POSTNOM As-Is''
**Maintain existing guidelines.
*'''Option 3''': ''Conditional Inclusion Based on Infobox Presence''
**Allow post‐nominal letters in the lead sentence only when an infobox is absent. If an article provides an infobox, then post‐nominals should be confined there (with full details in the body text '''''OTHER THAN THE LEAD SENTENCE''''').
*'''Option 4''': ''Partial Inclusion with Limits''
** Allow a limited number of post‐nominal letters (for example, one or two of the most important honors) to remain in the lead sentence, with any extra post‐nominals moved into the infobox or detailed in the article body. Order will be determined by awarding-nation's order of precedence (I.e. the higher-ranking award is listed first). If one award is from one nation, and the second award is from another nation, list them in order of receipt (assuming they do not recognize each other, such as Commonwealth awards).
*'''Option 5''': ''Open-Ended Policy''
**Refrain from requiring ''or'' excluding post-nominals within the guidelines. Refrain from limiting the number of post-nominals in either the lead, body, or infobox. Require consensus on an article-by-article basis on their relevant Talk pages (if-so required).

AGAIN, THIS PERTAINS TO THE <u>'''''LEAD SENTENCE'''''</u> OF AN ARTICLE. 

EDIT: the order of precedence stuff can probably be ignored.<br />
EDIT 2: For transparency, I have attempted to manually ping each participant in the original discussion. I apologize if I missed you, it was a long discussion and my thumbs and eyes grow weary.

This RfC invites discussion on whether excluding post‐nominals from the lead remains justified, or if a revision is warranted given concerns about clarity, consistency, and the conveyance of useful information. [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#MOS:POSTNOM|The original discussion]] was not an RfC proper, and as such, I have taken it upon myself to start one. The discussion was productive enough that I feel it warranted an RfC. This is my first RfC, so, I apologize in advance for any mistakes.

[[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]] ([[User talk:MWFwiki|talk]]) 00:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:For background: there was [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2023_archive#Proposal:_Moving_post-nominals_from_lead_sentences_to_article_bodies|a previous RfC on this topic in 2023]] that led to [[MOS:POSTNOM]] as seen today. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 01:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::Can you (or anyone who's bored) ping all the participants from that RfC? [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 03:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah. I'd assumed that'd been done. I've sent out notices to those RfC participants and hope I got everyone (except you, as you've noticed this already!). [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 18:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

===Survey (POSTNOM)===
*'''Option 1 or 4''': should not be mandatory to either include or exclude, but up to consensus and depending on the specifics of the case. That being said, I don't think the commentary about ordering is necessary. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 00:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*:Added a fifth option, cheers [[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]] ([[User talk:MWFwiki|talk]]) 00:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*:I'm trying to imagine how this would be implemented in practice. What factors do you think should be considered when making that determination in a particular case? [[User:Graham11|Graham]] ([[User talk:Graham11|talk]]) 04:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' Simply no need to jam random letters people don't understand right after someone's name in the lead sentence. Personally also think there's no need for them in the infobox if they're only acronyms....... does zero for understanding of the topics at hand.<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 00:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. Postnominals are an important indicator of someone's notability. I think our readers expect to see them used ''as post-nominals''. They should of course have explanation and sources later in the article. I would have opposed the previous change in MOS:POSTNOM had I known a discussion was taking place. I am not a supporter of Option 3 as it is my understanding that not all screenreaders manage infoboxes well and so being able to see postnominals would become an accessibility issue. I think a sensible limit to what is placed in the first sentence could be suggested to cover instances where there are very many postnominals. [[User:DrThneed|DrThneed]] ([[User talk:DrThneed|talk]]) 00:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' The average reader doesn't care about post-nominals, so please keep that clutter out of the lead sentence. Really, the post-noms in {{purple|Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill,[a] '''KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA''' (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965)}} look ridiculous.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winston_Churchill&oldid=1115891306] Inclusion in the infobox is fine as long as the post-nominals are explained in prose in the body of the article. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 00:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 (first choice) or 4''': On the main matter: The exclusion was basically well-meaning but very poorly thought-out and has led to problems and strife, which is the opposite of MoS's purpose. For any (probably American) editors who just don't get it, if something is about on the prestige level of the Congressional Medal of Honor or Presidential Medal of Freedom, or something granted by a highly regarded organization like the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzer Prize, we would include that prominently in the lead, and often in the lead sentence. British Commonwealth and similar honours that take post-nominal initials provide a convenient and compact way of doing this that is meaningful to readers who care about the honours, and which is far less cumbersome in the lead than writing out something like "a Pulizer Prize-winning&nbsp;..." or "...&nbsp;and recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor". (The main body of the artile should still spell out what the honours are, since our content is intended to be usable offline, so just linking an acronym like "KBE" isn't sufficient, though appropriate in the lead and infobox, where concision matters).<!-- --><p><s>Option 3 isn't really viable because infoboxes are intended to summarize information already provided in the article, and only the most important ones. They are not for holding, as the sole location, information on the subject, nor a dumping ground for details that someone wants to suppress from the lead or rest of the body (rather the opposite).</s> Option 3 would be my last (acceptable) choice, as presently written (i.e. also requiring the information be in the article body somewhere).</p><!-- --><p>Nikkimaria is correct that per-article consensus is a factor, as it is in anything. Option 4 is less desirable because a one-size-fits-all solution will not actually fit all. Someone may have 5 honours that are very notable (and 7 more that are not), while someone else might have 2 that are both trivial (e.g. fellowships in tiny organizations without any reputation, or even a negative rep). The sensible thing to do in the first case is include the grand 5 in the lead, while what to do in the second case is include neither. And exactly what Nikkimaria said about ordering of postnominals. All that attempted nit-picky rule-mongering is not appropriate for an MoS section ([[WP:MOSBLOAT]], [[WP:CREEP]]). People who care a lot about (especially Commonwealth) honours will already know how to appropriately order these, and WP's and MoS's job is not to stand as a replacement for ''Debrett's Handbook''.</p><!-- --><p>PS: The late-added option 5 is operationally the same as option 1, since the pre-exclusionary-change wording permitted, did not reqire, postnoms and didn't have CREEPing rules about number and order of them. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 00:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC); revised 11:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)</p>
*:I am not sure I understand your interpretation of option 3, as what you say against it looks actually aligned with the proposal. You say {{tq|They are not for holding, as the sole location, information on the subject, nor a dumping ground for details that someone wants to suppress from the lead or rest of the body}}. It literally says that the full details would be in the body, meaning that putting the post-nominal letters there is precisely concisely summarizing information that is meant to be in the body in any case. <span style="font-family:serif">[[User:Choucas0|'''Choucas0''' &#128038;&#8205;&#11035;]]⋅[[User talk:Choucas0|&#128172;]]⋅[[Special:Contributions/Choucas0|&#128203;]]</span> 10:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*::The text at the top has been altered several times. Either I didn't notice the also-in-the-body requirement in the original version, or it was added later. Regardless, I've revised my take on option 3, above. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 11:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*:<small>An increasingly lenghty debate about aspects of the above !vote has been refactored to the discussion section below. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 21:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)</small>
*'''Option 2'''. [[MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE]] tells us that lead sentences should "{{green|''introduce the topic, and tell [[Wikipedia:GENAUD|the nonspecialist reader]] ''what'' or ''who'' the subject is, and often ''when'' or ''where''. It should be in [[plain English]].''}}" Post-nominal letters/acronyms fail each of those points.
*#They do not introduce the topic—adding the acronyms "LG OM DStJ PC FRS HonFRSC" to the first sentence of [[Margaret Thatcher]] would not help a reader understand her importance, nor would "RWP, RSP, VSV, USP" do anything for [[Sarath Fonseka]].
*#They do not tell a nonspecialist reader anything about a person. Including them prioritizes people with a high educational level—the sort of individuals who are more likely to understand what those acronyms mean—over all others.
*#They are certainly not plain English. I would find it hard to believe that a random person off the street, even in a Commonwealth country, would be able to name a majority of post-nominal acronyms.
:<p>In sum, we should follow our existing policies and guidelines, which tell us to communicate a person's notability through actual words. If the honor is important enough to be listed in the lead sentence, let's write things in a way are simple to understand (e.g. as done in [[Edward Holland (Canadian Army officer)]]). [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 01:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)</p>
::::I've updated this !vote to make sure it's clear that my first preference is option 2. Only if that is completely unworkable would I be okay with option 3 (distant second preference) or option 4 (light years-distant third preference). [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 19:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
::I don't particularly like that lead, as it elevates the medal over the action. [[User:Jahaza|Jahaza]] ([[User talk:Jahaza|talk]]) 17:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 or 5''' – It is perfectly ordinary in reference works to quote a person's full title, including postnominals. If a person comes from a country that does not award or make prominent use of postnominals, they can simply be excluded. '''[[User:5225C|5225<sub>C</sub>]]'''&nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 01:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 or 4''': Publications in Commonwealth countries use postnominals regularly as part of a person's name. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 02:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' — (moderate) — Total expungement from the lead is not appropriate and is overreach. These letters are seemingly very important to several societies and cultures and virtually become a de facto part of a person's name. The [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2023_archive#Proposal:_Moving_post-nominals_from_lead_sentences_to_article_bodies|original consensus statement]] simply hand-waved this away without actually addressing it. Additionally; {{tq|"In particular, opposers did not successfully challenge the claim that most post-nominals do not significantly define the subject in question such that they provide the reader with an essential understanding of who the subject is..."}} is not a sufficient explanation for a finding of consensus to support excluding post-nominals. This is, in my opinion, a long way of saying "I don't find this argument persuasive because I don't find it persuasive." All of that being said, some blend of options 1 and 5 would be my ideal resolution. Leaving it up to articles on a case-by-case basis, and not requiring them nor excluding them is ideal. There may very well be cases where editors feel that the subject's post-nominal letters significantly add to the subject's identity or are otherwise so important to the subject's identity that they deserve to be noted immediately.[[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]] ([[User talk:MWFwiki|talk]]) 02:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
**{{ping|MWFwiki}} "Total expungement from the lead" is an incorrect read of the current guideline, which says "post‐nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence." [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 02:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
**:...lead sentence. Pretty sure everyone understands. Thanks. Glad we got that cleared-up. Luckily, "lead sentence" is mentioned in the first sentence of the opening of the RfC. [[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]] ([[User talk:MWFwiki|talk]]) 02:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
**:The problem is that including them elsewhere in the article is bizarre. It doesn't make sense to not include them on first reference and then add them on later reference where a shorter form of the name would typically be used. [[User:Jahaza|Jahaza]] ([[User talk:Jahaza|talk]]) 02:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
**::Yes, this problem is actually the proximal cause of this RfC, as I recall from discussions leading up to it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 11:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
**:Apart from the infobox (which, per [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]], typically does not include information that isn't included elsewhere in the article), what other part of the article do you imagine they might be included? [[User:Graham11|Graham]] ([[User talk:Graham11|talk]]) 02:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' The previous RFC was a massive over reach resulting a numerous discussions taking place with disagreeing editors. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 02:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*: As an addition to my statement. Option 1 best aligns with the global nature of Wikipedia and respects the cultural contexts in which post-nominal letters hold real significance. In many countries, particularly across the Commonwealth, post-nominal honours are not merely decorative or obscure; they are central to a person’s public identity and recognition. To exclude them from the lead sentence, where the full name is traditionally introduced, is to apply a culturally narrow standard that disadvantages subjects from societies where such honours carry weight. Wikipedia aims to reflect how people are known and presented in reliable sources. In formal contexts, particularly in obituaries, biographies, academic and professional references, post-nominals are regularly included. Denying their use in the lead sentence under the current guideline contradicts this long-standing convention and introduces a stylistic inconsistency across articles based more on regional unfamiliarity than editorial principle. Moreover, the argument that “average readers won’t understand the acronyms” undervalues our audience. Post-nominals can (and should) be linked or explained in the article body, and those who care will click; those who don’t can skip them. We already link numerous specialist terms in all domains, this is no different. Their compact form also allows for a concise conveyance of notability in the lead without resorting to clunky explanatory phrasing. Finally, Option 1 restores editorial discretion, which is fundamental to Wikipedia’s collaborative model. Rather than enforcing a one-size-fits-all restriction, Option 1 lets editors exercise judgment based on relevance, cultural context, and consensus, allowing for post-nominals to be used where appropriate, and omitted where not. This is not about cluttering leads, it’s about recognizing the diversity of traditions, upholding encyclopaedic convention, and trusting the community to apply sensible standards on a case-by-case basis. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 06:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*::I second this opinion. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 08:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*<s>'''Option 4'''. If I'm understanding this correctly, some of the options would allow for their use at every mention of a subject's name. That's way too permissive. The first sentence should contain a reasonable number of post-nominal letters. Every relevant honor awarded should be summarized and cited in an appropriate section of the article (either in prose or a list as appropriate). Additional post-nominal letters can go in the infobox if it really enhances our readers' understanding.</s> [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Voorts}} Then you are not understanding this correctly. It's about use in the opening sentence of the lead, as is clearly spelled out. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 02:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*::Option 1 would allow them in the first sentence and the current guideline says "post‐nominal letters may be included in any part of the article <em>other than</em> the lead sentence". As I read option 1 (which is difficult when it uses odd phrasing like "full reversal of the exclusion"), it would mean that post-nominal letters could be included anywhere in the article, including the first sentence. <s>The opposite should be the general rule: nowhere but the first sentence.</s> [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 03:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*:Ultimately, option 1 could probably be worded to permit editors to, on a case-by-case basis, determine a limit to the number of post-nominal permitted (in the opening sentence). As [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]] already pointed-out, this RfC specifically pertains to the lead sentence. [[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]] ([[User talk:MWFwiki|talk]]) 03:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*:'''Ban the use of post-nominal letters and summarize important awards/honors in the body of the article.''' I highly doubt most of our readers know what they mean or care about them and I agree with Ed. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 03:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 (4 as a second choice)''' largely per Nikkimaria, and should be based on consensus in the particular case. The existing MOS on this is a significant overreach. I was not aware of the previous RfC and would have opposed it. We need rules on presentation and formatting, but this sort of mission creep in the MOS is highly undesirable. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]]  ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 02:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' a bit reluctantly; to be honest I think these things are mostly nonsense, especially since they started handing them out mostly to entertainers.  That said, I don't see any good reason to have a particular rule that they can't appear in the lead sentence.  I note that the close of the RfC didn't really follow a logical path to excluding postnominals from the lead sentence in all cases; rather, what Ixtal said was {{tq|I believe that supporters of the proposal had a stronger argument for why the post-nominals should not, by default, be included in the lead sentence}}, which is not the same thing as saying they can't appear there based on consensus of the editors at the particular article. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 03:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' per Ed [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 04:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' (preferred); '''Option 4''' (second choice); '''oppose other options''': I had missed the previous RfC and was quite aghast when I saw what had been decided. I can only imagine that this was swung by editors from countries where honours are not the done thing. In Commonwealth countries, for example, this is quite an affair that people take notice of. I prefer option 1 as that restores the previous situation; I see absolutely nothing wrong with what we had. If we really have to impose limits, then option 4 would achieve that. I'm opposed to the current situation, which rules out option 2. Option 3 isn't workable as the infobox is supposed to summarise the most important information; it's not there to be a depository of information that would otherwise be summarised in the lead. I'm strongly opposed to option 5; surely, we don't want to waste our time making decisions on an article-by-article basis. An RfC should give clarity so that situations described in option 5 can be avoided. '''[[User:Schwede66|<span style="color:var(--color-base, #202122);">Schwede</span>]][[User talk:Schwede66|<span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>]]''' 05:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 4'''.  The lead sentence is where someone’s full name is presented, which often contains obscure information (in the sense of not being used or widely known, even for very famous people) about their middle names, or full birth name in the case of someone who became notable under another description. For British knights the 'Sir..' is already included before the name, and for British peers the noble title follows the full name, after a comma.  Including important military or civil or professional honours after the name, as part of someone’s correct, full formal title of address, seems natural and logical.  I have chosen option 4 to avoid the possibility of clutter, also reflecting common British usage where someone who has major honours would never use a full title that continued to list out all their more minor postnominals.  Some postnominals are available to everyone in a country ("Esq."), some relate to qualifications such as degrees that are commonplace nowadays, and some to professional qualifications that aren’t in themselves particularly notable or hard to achieve.  Thus I would expect sensible discretion to be used in articles, and certainly wouldn’t want to see "BA (hons)" stuck into zillions of lead sentences just because very many subsequently notable people nowadays will have gone to university, or to list out people’s accountancy qualifications.  [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 05:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' (preferred). Weak support for options 4 or 5. Rightly or wrong, in particular, honours conferred by the government (and indirectly the British monarch) are regarded as important with regard to notability in the Australian and British contexts and I would think in other Commonwealth countries too. University qualifications are not included in post-noms. There is a limited list for each country, e.g. for Australia, [[Template:Post-nominals/AUS|this list]]. I too, would have voted against the previous change had I known it was happening. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 06:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*:p.s. I think someone mentioned that some of them are "obscure". To this I would reply, not if you know what they mean, and if you don't, clicking on the letters will explain what they are. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 07:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*::{{ping|Laterthanyouthink}} To "clicking on the letters": for clarity, should post-nominal letters be an exception to [[WP:EASTEREGG]]? [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 14:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::No, they're not an easter egg - the articles describe exactly what they are, no surprises. Same as any other abbreviation that may be wikilinked in the body of an article. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 01:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::In general, I would hope that common sense applies to the few individuals such as Churchill who have the potential for a string of post-noms, and just list the first couple of important ones. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 01:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*::To the extent any are "obscure" in an encyclopedic sense (pertain to things either non-notable at all or not important in the scope of someone's notability), they should not be included in the lead at all, which is why to leave the particulars to consensus on a case-by-case basis. Zero of the options in this RfC would mandate including in the lead section every postnom that could possibly apply. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 11:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' (first); '''Option 3''' (second). The latter can cause grief because I've noticed some people don't like infoboxes. Options 4 and 5 will likely generate a lot of debate (especially 4 in determining which honours makes the cut). &mdash;[[User:Simon Harley|Simon Harley]] ([[User talk:Simon Harley|Talk]]). 07:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' per [[MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE]] and as explained clearly by Ed above. There is no reason notable honours cannot be included/explained elsewhere in the lead. Option 1 takes us back to where we were before, where all kinds of minor, incomprehensible and even meaningless post-nominals were included in the opening sentence of many articles simply because they could be. If Option 2 fails, there needs to be a much better thought through proposal than simply that. [[User:Melcous|Melcous]] ([[User talk:Melcous|talk]]) 08:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' per Ed and Melcous. Adding a series of post-nominals will impede readability, while also potentially serving as a cruft magnet. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 09:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' (first); '''Option 1'''. I share the concern with other responses that too many of these in the lead section can be overwhelming and detrimental to the impact of the lede (deprioritizing Option 1), but at the same time, these establish notability and are highly relevant to the national or regional setting in many cases (ruling out Option 2). Other options, including open-end policy will contribute to a lot of confusion. [[User:WeWake|<span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:0 2px;color:#000;font-weight:700;background:#fff;">We</span><span style="color:#000;font-weight:700;">Wa</span><span style="color:#000;">ke</span>]] ([[User talk:WeWake|talk]]) 09:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' when there is an infobox, '''Option 2''' otherwise – Every part of [[MOS:FIRST]] exists for a very good reason, and the potential value of any kind of post-nominal letters really does not justify a deviation from it. The lead sentence is for readers, not editors. While I understand that not everyone wants bios to have an infobox, post-nominal letters are in my opinion actually among the best things to confine there; what they mean and their award should in any case be in the body of the article. <span style="font-family:serif">[[User:Choucas0|'''Choucas0''' &#128038;&#8205;&#11035;]]⋅[[User talk:Choucas0|&#128172;]]⋅[[Special:Contributions/Choucas0|&#128203;]]</span> 09:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' as not every biography has an infobox. I know that sounds like I should prefer '''Option 3''', but we should be consistent. -- [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|talk]] 13:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 5''' but stress that readability is important. Second choice is '''Option 2''' as they’re pretty meaningless and just not due for the first sentence, but if there’s this much disagreement over this, it shouldn’t be a policy. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 16:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''.  It's a cruft magnet for something that doesn't matter and isn't used in your average source to discuss a person.  For sufficiently famous people (like the Churchill example above), it reads ridiculously and draws far too much attention to it (Winston Churchill KG OM CH TD DL FRS RA?).  But at least Churchill's post-nominals are of somewhat notable awards; there are other post-nominals that just plain don't matter at all.  The only ''possible'' exception might be for people who have post-nominals as part of their COMMONNAME, but this is insanely rare, the kind of thing that only really happens with fictional characters who are modeling themselves after the Major-General of Gilbert & Sullivan.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 16:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3'''. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 18:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (p.s. whatever policy is agreed, I only wish it could be implemented by a bot).
*'''Option 2''' Most of the first sentences in Wikipedia articles are already over stuff with details, they need to be simplified rather than adding further clutter. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 18:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' as we want to have the information while still keeping extraneous honors out of the lead. [[User:JuxtaposedJacob|JuxtaposedJacob]] <small>([[User talk:JuxtaposedJacob|talk]]) &#124; :) &#124; he/him &#124; </small> 18:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' with the note that the infobox is a far better place to include these. In the midst of prose, these letters weigh down the name and not all are instantly recognizable. It is better to omit those but speak to those accomplishments later in the lede. But the infobox is far easier to see these without the distraction of prose. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 18:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 2''' per Ed. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 18:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' (Option 5 or 4 also acceptable). I think there is a strong divide between those from countries where postnominals are common and expected to appear vs. from areas where they appear to be superfluous. I would view this as similar to [[MOS:ENGVAR]] and the decision on inclusion within the lede sentence may vary depending upon the subject and strong national ties to the use of postnominals. The argument that "readers don't care" is a non-encyclopedic argument in line with [[WP:IDL]]. [[User:Tcr25|—Carter (Tcr25)]] ([[User talk:Tcr25|talk]]) 18:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' Not all biographies have infoboxes. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 19:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' as first choice; option 5 (ostensibly the same as option 1) as second. I missed the original RfC and was horrified to find out about it too late. I think there was a cultural disconnect on many of the comments in the first RfC from those whose countries don't use post noms and those that do (not entirely, but largely). We now have a situation where some people's honours are buried down at the bottom of an article, rather than being shown in the lead, where they should be. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 19:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
* '''Strongly oppose option 1'''. The original guideline before the first RfC restricted post-noms to a reasonable number and only those from the subject's state of citizenship or residence. What is now proposed is an open-ended number from any nation or organization. That will lead to absurdly long strings of irrelevant post-noms on heads of state and other senior figures who have multiple awards from multiple nations that they never actually use. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 20:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*:Option 1 simply reverts to the pre-existing status quo, so it shouldn't be confused with Option 5, which is open-ended. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 09:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''', among those presented, but really '''ban the use of post-nominals''', and explain them in the text as any award should be. Most countries ''don't'' use post-nominal (or pre-nominal) abbreviations for their awards, and most significant awards are ''not'' habitually covered in the lead sentence of a biography, as some people above claim. I spotchecked 10 FAs of people who received significant honors or awards: only two mention an award in the lead sentence (and in my view, are the worse for doing so). Allowing post-nominals in the lead isn't reversing some injustice against post-nominal awards, it is requiring them to be treated on par with other awards. Furthermore, we want lead sentences to be comprehensible - written in plain English, as Ed points out above. A lengthy alphabet soup following a name is the opposite of this - most readers are unlikely to know what they mean, and they lack the context they would be provided in the prose. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 20:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1, or 4 at a pinch'''. There are two angles here -- one, as mentioned above, not all biographies have infoboxes, so stating that they should be placed there effectively becomes a kind of instruction creep to include an infobox in the first place. More significantly, there's a major difference in practice between (in particular) Commonwealth and other countries; in the UK and similar countries, it is the norm in a formal biography, obituary etc to give someone's postnominals with their name, so we should allow editors to follow suit (in particular) for subjects coming from these places, just as we allow them to use other conventions of spelling, vocabulary, etc. There may be individual cases where a list of postnominals is so long as to make reading difficult, they are misordered, or so on, but those are better handled by consensus on the article itself (or a future RFC with smaller scope) than by blanket rules. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 20:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' I'm not opposed to including the letters if the person is actually usually referred to with them, but in reality it's almost never the case. It's ridiculous that we used to jam our articles full of these when newspapers, books, etc even from Commonwealth countries generally don't use them when introducing a person. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 21:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*:On the contrary, many publications routinely append post-noms to some individuals - google Sam Mostyn for one example. Government sites and the major art galleries regularly use them Books are different because, unless it's a potted summary, they are telling a longer version of the story. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 18:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*::The government gave Mostyn her  postnominal letters so it would make sense for the government to use them in its written works. We should follow the example you cite of books, as we are writing biographies and not press releases. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard">[[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]] ([[User talk:Dan Leonard|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dan Leonard|contribs]])</span> 19:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' obviously not ''everything'' needs to be included, but postnominals are important and I don't see why they should be excluded when they give such an easy summary of a person's occupation and accomplishments. No, they are not "gibberish"; if you don't know what a given one means you can click on it to find out.  Post-nominals needn't be included if they are obscure or redundant (e.g., "Jane Smith {{sc|MP}} is a Canadian politician representing the riding...") but in many cases they are valuable. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keir_Starmer&oldid=1251703523 here] the first (KCB) is arguably redundant because there's already a "sir" in front of his name, but the latter is useful, because it says in a concise, widely recognizable way that Starmer's a KC, something I otherwise wouldn't learn until the second paragraph. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre_Trudeau&oldid=1256369202 This] is a mite excessive, and should be slimmed down, but if I was, say, an Indian who'd never heard of Trudeau (Sr.) the {{sc|OC}} would straight away give me an idea of the level of respect and importance the man had; the further post-nominals amplify this.
*Yes, these are acronyms, but the reader is easily elucidated as to their meaning by hovering over the link. This is not a very big problem. Post-nominals are in my view a clear net-positive. [[User talk:Cremastra|''Cremastra'']] ([[User:Cremastra|u]] — [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|c]]) 22:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 4, a variant''': allow a ''very small'' number of specific p-ns, mostly for Commonwealth countries. These would include: FRS, SJ (for Jesuits), OM, RA for artists. But eg Winston Churchill should have none, or only OM, although he was an honourary FRS & RA (not an SJ though). The ones I've mentioned are arguably part of the COMMONNAME. I'm not sure Americans have any p-n in similar use - it's a bit odd the Nobel Prize hasn't developed "NP" or something.  [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 2''' per Buidhe. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 22:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. per Ed. We should focus on readability, awards and honors should be described elsewhere. --[[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 23:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. Placing these in the first sentence draws more attention than is [[WP:DUE]]. It gives greater prominence to certain honours/awards than we give to all other honours, activities, and distinguishing characteristics of comparable significance, just because some of them happen to officially have letters. I agree with SnowFire and Vanamonde93 that the normal way honours/awards are covered is not in the first sentence. In cases where it is really that essential to a person's notability, it should be spelled out as such. [[User:Adumbrativus|Adumbrativus]] ([[User talk:Adumbrativus|talk]]) 06:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*:Regarding [[WP:DUE]], the alternative of spelling out the honors elsewhere in the article leads to things like the lede of [[Edward Holland (Canadian Army officer)]], which puts more of an emphasis on the award than on the man's actions that earned him the honor. If we simply used Edward Holland {{postnom|CAN|VC}} then the article could get into who Holland was and why he was notable in a more straightforward manner. Postnominals are a normal way for these sorts of honors to be written and used in some countries; they are unusual in others, but their proper use in an encyclopedia shouldn't be barred because equivalent honors or awards in some places don't use them. [[User:Tcr25|—Carter (Tcr25)]] ([[User talk:Tcr25|talk]]) 12:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*::{{ping|Tcr25}} That's a bit of a misnomer. In that example, the honors could just as easily be spelled out later in a properly written/expanded lead. They don't ''have'' to be put in the first sentence if the subject doesn't warrant it. Meanwhile, post-nominal acronyms—VC in this case—obscure the honor(s) for most readers. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 15:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:The ed17|Ed]], no one is saying that the postnominals alone should be the sole mention of the honors, simply that in places where they are a commonly used they should be allowable for inclusion with the person's name. Similarly, I would expect that inclusion of the postnominals would mean the honor is listed elsewhere in the article. Including the postnominals, when warranted by customary usage in the place the person gains their notability, is in line with reasonable expectations for the first mention of the person's full name. That they aren't common or used universally or that there are comparable honors from other places that don't include postnominals doesn't negate that. [[User:Tcr25|—Carter (Tcr25)]] ([[User talk:Tcr25|talk]]) 15:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', but '''Option 4''' OK too. Sometimes the first sentence is just the most natural place to put this information, especially as it follows a tradition for obituaries in many other publications. Listing the honours later can seem much more intrusive and artificial. Some titles like FRS (= Fellow of the Royal Society) immediately conveys an important aspect of status. It is fine to give some general guidance, but each case needs deciding individually. [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 08:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' per Melcous and Buidhe. Gongs gone. ''[[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Fortuna,]] [[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Imperatrix]] [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Mundi]]'' 08:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 1''' -- Per SMcCandlish, Nford24, Carter (Tcr25) and UndercoverClassicist, to name just a few. To those arguments I might add anecdotally that of the 62 military bios (all Commonwealth) I've been involved in taking to FA, the average number of post-noms is 2 or 3 (a bit over 2.5 to be more precise, and that includes [[Medal bar|bars]] to awards) -- not a lot of "clutter" IMO... Cheers, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 12:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', or 5, just sensible really. Normal for a formal biography. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 15:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 or 5''', maybe 4, NOT option 2.  I contributed at length to the previous discussion, I won't be taking the time and effort to do so here, you can read my thoughts in the previous discussion.  However I don't recall lead ''sentence'' being a significant component of the previous discussion, but rather the lead in general.  A Postnominal is "post" (after) "nominal" (name)- it goes after a name, and a wikipedia article has the name in the first sentence, it is extremely awkward to work it in anywhere else.  Would you demand that a middle name or birth/death dates gets mentioned, in text, somewhere outside of the lead sentence?  I'm not sure there can be a one-size-fits-all hard rule for everywhere- It's a balancing act between importance & notability on one hand vs. readability, and that balance will be different in different countries.  Option 3 gets into all the comments about Infoboxes, which I'll leave to more experienced editors.  Some version of Option 4 could work, but not based on an arbitrary wikipedia-editor determination of a number, but again based on balancing importance & notability vs readability within each societies usage standards.  It's true that not every Postnominal should be used, they occupy a wide spectrum, but to exclude all because of the unimportance of the lesser is nonsensical.  Side note: Options 1 & 4 talks about when they have from multiple countries- it's rare enough for someone to have important postnominals from multiple countries that I'm not sure if such should even warrant mentioning in an overview MoS (per [[WP:MOSBLOAT]]).  I had planned to contest the prior close but a variety of factors came up (plus I significantly reduced my wikipedia contribution time and effort due to time constraints and bad interactions elsewhere with wiki administrators) so it's good to see it being re-discussed.  While the previous discussions were long, I believe they were persuasive.  [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 17:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''': The lead sentence is about readability and filling it with acronyms will just lead to clutter. Vanamonde93 is correct that most awards are not covered in the first sentence or even the lead paragraph, so including this arbitrary and very country-specific list is undue. I'm very swayed by Vanamonde93's opinion that they should be '''banned altogether in article prose'''. Professionally published biographies don't do this so I don't see any reason why we should. I also feel that postnominal letters divorce mention of awards from the reason they were awarded. [[Albert Einstein]], for instance, is best recognized for his work on relativity but received the Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect. Had mention of his award been quashed into postnominal letters, readers would not be able to easily discern which of his contributions to science led to his award and might actually become confused. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard">[[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]] ([[User talk:Dan Leonard|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dan Leonard|contribs]])</span> 18:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*:I'd like to propose '''Option 6: ban use of postnominal titles in article prose''' like "Mr." and "Mrs." in [[MOS:MR]] or "PBUH" in [[MOS:PBUH]]. They should be treated like any award, described in prose text in context. Appending letters to a name should not be done anywhere. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard">[[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]] ([[User talk:Dan Leonard|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dan Leonard|contribs]])</span> 20:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' SMcCandlish believes American editors are downplaying Commonwealth achievements comparable to national and international honors, but it is not common to list Nobel prizes (arguably the most recognizable award) in the lead sentence. Further, as buidhe rebuts, others' statements that Option 2 voters are unfamiliar with Commonwealth sources is demeaning and counter to our experiences. Per Ed, the current form of [[MOS:POSTNOM]] embraces [[MOS:LEADSENTENCE]]'s focus on introducing the subject, while the other options clutter the introduction by presenting awards before the achievements that underlie them (see Dan Leonard above on how this breeds confusion). Option 4 is unworkably subjective in proposing that earlier low-ranked awards from one nation take priority over a subsequent top award of another country. SMcCandlish notes that if excluded from the first sentence, [[post-nominal letters]] are unlikely to appear elsewhere in article prose, but this seems fine because articles still get to explain when and why awards were given in the body. Finally, the repeated claim that the 2023 discussion was about broader inclusion in leads, rather than the lead sentence, is undercut by Ed opening that proposal with reference to [[MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE]] and the obvious reality that if there was consensus for "moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies" (the proposal title), that entails exclusion from the lead sentence at the least. [[User:ViridianPenguin|<span style="color:#40826D">ViridianPenguin🐧</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:ViridianPenguin|💬]]) 19:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*:As an addition, the given example of "a Pulitzer Prize-winning ..." is also something that we consider promotional tone if in the very first sentence. That is not a neutral way to introduce someone's occupation, and neither is a flurry of post-nominals. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 19:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' for the same reason we don't let people add things like "his high holiest most excellent most royal most pluperfect labutnum crunchwrap supreme." It takes up space, doesn't communicate much, and confuses the reader. It also makes certain people seem more important, because they have all these fancy letters, when it's just an aspect of certain cultures. The location of postnoms in infoboxes is the right place to put them. If someone doesn't have an infobox, then that information can be communicated in the body without a bunch of acronyms that are meaningless to most readers. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 22:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. Consistent with the practice and style of other biographies and encyclopedias, e.g.[https://www.britannica.com/biography/Winston-Churchill][https://www.biography.com/political-figures/winston-churchill][https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1953/churchill/biographical/][https://archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/collections/churchill-papers/churchill-biography/][https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/winston-churchill] (just do your own web search for further multiple examples). Most readers do not expect, or want, this kind of clutter, which is also often applied retrospectively and anachronistically to people in the past or foreigners who did not actually use post-nominals. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 08:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' and extend prohibition of contextless listing of postnominals to the rest of the article body. Just like other awards, these should be spelled out, ideally with explanation of when and why the award/title was granted. A string of letters appended to the subject's name do not serve an encyclopedic purpose or the reader. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 16:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' I feel that it is best to decide the use of postnomial letters on an article-by-article basis. [[User:Opm581|<span style="color:#00c0c0;">Opm581</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Opm581|<span style="color:#83D27A">(talk</span>]] <span style="color:#E77979;">&#124;</span> <span style="color:#68AAE8;">he/him)</span></sup> 00:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' (preferred) or '''Option 5''' Post-nominal letters seem pretty standard in publications in the Commonwealth countries, as well as for Catholic clergy worldwide ([[Jesuits|SJ]], [[Sisters of Mercy|RSM]], etc.). They immediately and concisely communicate the degree of a person's notability or their clerical status. I don't know why we wouldn't include them in the lede. --<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]]  •  [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 01:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 2, keep as is'''. Summarising my comments from the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2023_archive#Proposal:_Moving_post-nominals_from_lead_sentences_to_article_bodies 2023 RFC]:
:# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2023_archive#c-Mitch_Ames-20230305082500-David_Eppstein-20230305072600 They are not part of the name.] (By definition [[post-nominal letters]] come after the name so are not part of the name.)
:# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2023_archive#c-Mitch_Ames-20230305003100-David_Eppstein-20230304060300 The lead sentence should explain notability, but generally a person is not notable because they have post-nominals;] they have post-nominals because they have done something notable (and it's the "something notable" that we should mention in the lead sentence, not the post-nominals.
:# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2023_archive#c-Mitch_Ames-20230310003500-Hawkeye7-20230309225400 We don't generally include other prefixes or suffixes], per [[MOS:PREFIX]].
:# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2023_archive#c-Mitch_Ames-20230311041700-Colin_M-20230310152200 They are not part of a person's identity], like middle name or date of birth. (We don't use them as disambiguators for same-named people), they are not required on passports.)
:<small>FYI, I am from a Commonwealth country, Australia.</small>
: [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 06:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
*{{summoned by bot}} '''Option 2''' - I can think of many cases where removing the guideline would lead to a bunch of disruption to important articles, but I'm not convinced there is some major loss for our readers when we don't mention these in the first sentence. I do not think there are a reasonable number of readers who expect to get their information from the first line itself. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 19:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''', primarily by the thinking aligning with Buidhe and Ed. We've generally realized project-wide that getting reads out of a soup of information most are not immediately going to grok is a good idea, and this is part and parcel of that. [[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">talk</span>]]</small></sup> 17:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' per Ed. These are often unrecognizable abbreviations that are not so integral that they must be identified first, before any other description of the person. They reduce readbility and do not aid in understanding or identifying the subject. They may be appropriate in the infobox or elsewhere in the lead, but not in the first sentence. [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]<sup>[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]</sup> 19:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
*:Everything you just wrote is incorrect. Congratulations. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 01:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
*::For readers from places that don't commonly use such honorifics (except perhaps for the occasional academic degree), it is correct. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 01:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
*::What a worthless response. Why did you feel the need to make this crass, arrogant comment to me when there are dozens of people above who agree with me and said the same thing? I'll say it again, these should not be right at the start of the article because they are not needed to introduce the topic.<span id="Reywas92:1747794996637:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNManual_of_Style/Biography" class="FTTCmt"> [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]<sup>[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]</sup> 02:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)</span>
*'''Option 1'''. In Commonwealth countries, postnoms are important and are commonly listed in biographies. Any opposition is no more than [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. So what if other countries don't use them? Commonwealth nations do. But they should, of course, be restricted to state honours (and only those that genuinely have postnoms, not made-up abbreviations for countries that don't use them) and fellowships, not academic qualifications, memberships, etc. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
*:I don't think it's that clearcut. I think [[RA]] is useful for artists, not really state sponsored, and more prestigious and defining than some things that have state-sponsored postnominals like, say, that [[Territorial Decoration]] (TD). The elephant in the room is of course things like FRSA, which are neither prestigious (today) nor statesponsored. [[User:Jahaza|Jahaza]] ([[User talk:Jahaza|talk]]) 23:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
*::Yes, I agree that things like RA should be there, but that is essentially equivalent to a fellowship, even if not called one. TD should certainly be there. I agree that FRSA is less clear-cut, but then, unlike most fellowships it's bought and paid for, not awarded for merit. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 23:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5 (or 1)''' – A MOS is supposed to focus on stating a preferred presentation, which should avoid mandating or excluding, and avoid being about what to have as content.  The MOS gives a rationale of conciseness, but that conflicts with the postnominal representing both a major (or sole) reason for notability and so should have a matching prominence of LEAD and perhaps [[MOS:FIRST]] and [[MOS:REFERS]].  Otherwise, it is quite normal and polite usage to give a person's full title including postnominals, so it seems quite acceptable for WP editors to choose to do, and it even seems a bit disrespectful to skip it in formal usage such as an encyclopedia.   At most I would consider rewording the MOS to say editors should 'consider' limiting postnominals to highlight only major civil and military honours or the appointments such as MP or QC while current, and not giving equivalence of similar treatment for more common professional memberships or academic degrees such as MBA or BSc.  I would also consider it acceptable if the MOS were to mention presentation guidance of [[Post-nominal letters]] or from the Debrett's Handbook on the presentation order.  But not as a dictatorial mandate or exclusion.    Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 17:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' The current rule seems to make sense to avoid filling the lead sentence with too much information, especially for individuals with disabilities who have to use screen readers. Further, post-nominal letters by themselves do not seem particularly helpful. As with other awards and honors, these seem better suited to being discussed more fully in the body of the article and mentioned later in the lead when relevant. I think Ed explains my concerns more fully. – [[User:Notwally|notwally]] ([[User talk:Notwally|talk]]) 18:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
* '''Strongly oppose all flavors of alphabet soup''' except perhaps in the infobox if we must, per Vanamonde, Buidhe, and others above. These postnomials are not broadly understood and elevate the subset of honors that happen to come with postnomials above others. I believe this comes down to option 2. [[User:Rusalkii|<span style="color:#1C7E85"><b>Rusalkii</b></span>]] ([[User talk:Rusalkii|talk]]) 22:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1 or 4''': they are "postnominals", and a reader expects to find them after the subject's name, in the lead sentence. If a scientist is a [[Fellow of the Royal Society|FRS]], or a soldier won a [[Victoria Cross|VC]], or someone has been appointed [[Order of the British Empire|OBE]], or a lawyer is a [[King's Counsel|KC]], then this should be included in the opening of the article, and it is what a British reader would expect to see. It is used in all sorts of publications, as normal style: like [https://www.nscd.ac.uk/blog/remembering-nadine-senior-2024/  this] and [https://ibme.ox.ac.uk/2023/04/11/professor-molly-stevens-freng-frs-joins-university-of-oxford-as-john-black-professor-of-bionanoscience/ this] and [https://www.sofo.org.uk/tmbtm-frederickaugustussmithvc/ this] . Not all postnominals, of course: we don't need academic degrees, or paid-for fellowships of obscure professional bodies. But major honours should be there.  [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 20:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''': postnoms in the lede sentence were not a problem, no more than listing the subject's full or original name and dates of birth and death, and are widely used in many jurisdictions in this style (such as biographical dictionaries): included at the first formal mention, but not necessarily afterwards. They are also a succinct indicator of the subject's notability as per [[WP:ANYBIO]]: {{tq|The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor...}}. In certain cases, such as Winston Churchill, discretion should be exercised around the number and significance of post-nominal letters, but I don't believe an outright ban is appropriate. --[[User:Canley|Canley]] ([[User talk:Canley|talk]]) 03:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', at least for articles in British English. Concur with the comments of PamD and Canley above. [[User:Wire723|Wire723]] ([[User talk:Wire723|talk]]) 09:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' per Vanamonde93. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 18:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' per Ed. If an award/honor is sufficiently weighty for the specific person to be included in the first sentence, it should be discussed in some more comprehensive and understandable way rather than via a few-letter acronym. -[[User:Ljleppan|''Ljleppan'']] ([[User talk:Ljleppan|talk]]) 07:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. Lead sentences should be as easy to understand as possible. Postnominal letters will, I expect, be unfamiliar and confusing to most non-British readers (and even to many British readers). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
*''''Option 1'''. The name as first out in the lead is exactly the place where the post-nominals should be. This is standard biographical information, and that is the place. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em">–&nbsp;[[User:Finnusertop|Finnusertop]]</span> ([[User talk:Finnusertop|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Finnusertop|contribs]]) 12:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' by a strong mile. This is literally what post-nominal letters ARE. They are also heavily used by the entire Commonwealth and other nation states too. State honours and decorations also contribute to notability. –  <strong style="color:green;"><i>Handoto</i></strong> (<small>[[User talk:Handoto|talk]]</small>) 23:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' Just adds clutter to the lead sentence and comes across as being promotional. ViridianPenguin, Chaotic Enby, and CaptainEek hit the nail on the head with their comments. We seem to make a ton of special exceptions for Commonwealth countries by allowing all sorts of titles and honorifics and whatnot that would never be allowed on the page of any non-Commonwealth resident (indeed, we have [[MOS:PBUH|an entire policy specifically forbidding the use of a "post-nominal" that about 2 billion people would claim is pretty damn important]]). The world does not revolve around the UK anymore, this is a global encyclopedia and we should start acting like it. [[User:Mlb96|Mlb96]] ([[User talk:Mlb96|talk]]) 03:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
*:As a global encyclopedia, we should describe things in the context of how they are described locally with an eye towards informing the global audience. It's not about "special exceptions", it's about how people's names are commonly stated. They're no more clutter than a rarely used middle name, birth/death dates, or a native language form of a name, all of which are rightly common in the first sentence of an article. [[User:Tcr25|—Carter (Tcr25)]] ([[User talk:Tcr25|talk]]) 14:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
*::So, "we've already got clutter, so why not add some more"? But I'm not sure peoples' names are "commonly stated" with post-nominals, especially in newspapers, unless it's in their obituary... [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 14:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
*::There are arguments you can make about post-nominals, but "it's ... how people's names are commonly stated" isn't one of them. They're certainly not used in casual conversation, and in secondary sources like newspapers or the ''[[Dictionary of National Biography|Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]]'' (the exact sort of place you'd expect them to be!), they are rarely if ever used. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 16:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::Of course not, but you will note that the words “lead sentence” are in bold, in capitals and underlined, in the intro to this RfC.  This is about how individuals are referred to, once in their article, within the opening sentence.  How they are commonly referred to is therefore irrelevant.  Individuals’ middle names are routinely included within the lead sentence despite their hardly ever being used within general sources, the media or conversation. [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 17:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::I was responding to Tcr25's contention that these acroyms are "commonly stated" (I've fixed the indenting to reflect that). But if we're going to try to compare them to middle names, I might gently suggest that there is a yawning chasm of a gap between using a person's entire real name and displaying the post-nominal letters a person is entitled to. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 17:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
*::Absolutely no one puts the letters "KG OM CH TD DL FRS RA" after Winston Churchill's name in pretty much any context ever outside the UK, and I highly doubt people usually do that even in the UK. People's names are not "commonly stated" with post-nominals. [[User:Mlb96|Mlb96]] ([[User talk:Mlb96|talk]]) 23:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::That’s an overly narrow and Anglocentric view that doesn’t reflect global norms or formal usage. In countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Malaysia, and many other Commonwealth nations, postnominals are not only use, they are expected in formal, academic, military, and government contexts. Your views don’t negate their widespread and legitimate use elsewhere.
*:::Winston Churchill’s postnominals — KG OM CH TD DL FRS RA — are formally correct and often included in academic writing, honours databases, official government publications, and historical records. That they are not commonly used in casual media headlines is irrelevant — Wikipedia is not a tabloid. It aims for encyclopedic completeness, not stylistic minimalism at the expense of cultural accuracy.
*:::The blanket assertion that “no one uses postnominals” outside the UK is simply incorrect. Try telling an Australian Victoria Cross recipient, a Canadian Order of Canada recipient, or a New Zealand KC that their postnominals don’t matter.
*:::This isn’t just about letters — it’s about respecting international customs and properly recognising individuals’ achievements in an encyclopedic context. Wikipedia is global, and its formatting should reflect that. [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E411:2500:C13C:901C:82FE:5F6B|2001:8003:E411:2500:C13C:901C:82FE:5F6B]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:E411:2500:C13C:901C:82FE:5F6B|talk]]) 23:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::See [[#c-Celia_Homeford-20250516081400-Survey_(POSTNOM)|Celia Homeford's comment]] above, illustrating that Churchill's name in biographies and encyclopedias is not adorned by KG OM CH TD DL FRS RA in common practice. [[User:Adumbrativus|Adumbrativus]] ([[User talk:Adumbrativus|talk]]) 03:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I have found plenty they do, so all I see is selective referencing. [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E411:2500:84E9:AE36:DD87:F080|2001:8003:E411:2500:84E9:AE36:DD87:F080]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:E411:2500:84E9:AE36:DD87:F080|talk]]) 19:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::::What are the examples you have found? – [[User:Notwally|notwally]] ([[User talk:Notwally|talk]]) 21:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::If you want to talk about respecting international customs, then let's start putting PBUH after Muhammad's name. And if you want to talk about properly recognizing individuals' achievements, then let's put the word "President" in front of the name of every U.S. president. Your argument has no logical consistency. [[User:Mlb96|Mlb96]] ([[User talk:Mlb96|talk]]) 05:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I'd leave it be. The language and (particularly) the typography reads to me like the IP's comment was copied from a LLM. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 05:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Once again, this Rfc is about the opening sentence of the lead, only.  Not about “every”. [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 06:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''', I think that concerns about including a large quantity of postnominals are well founded, but that it really depends case by case, so it really should be down to local consensus whether postnoms are included, to what extent, etc. [[User:Weirdguyz|Weirdguyz]] ([[User talk:Weirdguyz|talk]]) 02:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

===Discussion (POSTNOM)===

There probably are not many people who think the same from what I see in the survey, but I somewhat wish there was a sort of intermediary option between 2 and 3. Something along the lines of keeping the exclusion from the lead sentence that we already have, but also confining post-nominal letters to the infobox on pages that have one, while detailing the titles in the body in any case. <span style="font-family:serif">[[User:Choucas0|'''Choucas0''' &#128038;&#8205;&#11035;]]⋅[[User talk:Choucas0|&#128172;]]⋅[[Special:Contributions/Choucas0|&#128203;]]</span> 09:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:Isn't that already Option 2? I have seen post-nominals in the infobox when there is one. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 10:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::They already can be there yes, but currently [[MOS:POSTNOM]] states that {{tqi|post-nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence}}. If they are in the infobox, and what they correspond to is explained in the body (which should be the case anyhow), then I think that we should not clutter the body with them either, especially changing them chronologically through the article as soon as the associated title is awarded to the subject (like POSTNOM also implies can be done). <span style="font-family:serif">[[User:Choucas0|'''Choucas0''' &#128038;&#8205;&#11035;]]⋅[[User talk:Choucas0|&#128172;]]⋅[[Special:Contributions/Choucas0|&#128203;]]</span> 10:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if those contributing to the survey should note whether or not they live in a Commonwealth country. I suspect that there may be a difference in understanding of the significance of the civil honours systems. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 10:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:There certainly would be. Then again, I would assume that any average Wikipedia editor would be more likely to understand simply because [[WP:SYSTEMICBIAS|they tend to have more education than the wider population and are more likely to be from the Commonwealth]]. And as I've said above, if you went off-wiki to grab a random person off the street in any Commonwealth country, I wouldn't be surprised if you found that they did not understand the majority of available ''acronyms''—which is the question put to us above. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 14:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::I have a feeling that part of the confusion here is that some people are talking about the usability of the acronyms, and others are talking about the honors themselves or their value. That is leading to the choice of different options for reasons that sometimes feel very similar to me. <span style="font-family:serif">[[User:Choucas0|'''Choucas0''' &#128038;&#8205;&#11035;]]⋅[[User talk:Choucas0|&#128172;]]⋅[[Special:Contributions/Choucas0|&#128203;]]</span> 16:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:That probably is not appropriate, neutrality-wise, and how would one enforce this? [[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]] ([[User talk:MWFwiki|talk]]) 23:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

As a quick side comment, there were some analogies to winners of important US awards for why inclusion of post-nominals can be good.  But this analogy doesn't work.  In the rare cases where the awards are of ''titanic'' importance, they probably go in the 2nd or 3rd sentence anyway (not the 1st sentence), and then they deserved to be spelled out in plain English, not in a cryptic abbreviation.  See [[Audie Murphy]] for an example - it doesn't try to jam all the awards he won in the first sentence, but simply describes them in an accessible overview in the second sentence.  That seems correct to me.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 17:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:This is a wonderful example. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 22:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::It is a nice example, of what it is. But it really doesn't have any implications. If British (etc.) honours were not conventionally abbreviated, then we would treat them the same way as in the Murphy article, with longer-winded second-or-later-sentence explanation. If American honors of the sort Murphy received {{em|were}} conventionally treated as postnominal letters, then our article would be treating them that way, as we do with British (and Australian, Canadian, etc.) notables. Trying to impose a one-size-fits-all solution is kind of pointless when one particular approach is not the most appropriate for every circumstance, and the cases are not parallel (conventions for UK and US hono[u]rs are simply different, not because WP said so but because real-world usage says so). What's going on here is basically the inversion of the false dichotomy fallacy: trying to force an actual, attestable dichotomy to no longer be one. Also a case of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. PS: I say all this as an American, and one in strenuous opposition to the continuance of the British class system. Americans' and other non-Commonwealth-people's lack of familiarity with or liking for how Commonwealth names and postnoms are conventionally done isn't a reason for WP to avoid using the established convention. Don't mix politics (or ignorance) with writing style and norms. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 11:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The average reader may not understand why some people get letters after their name, while some don't. There may be subtle bias introduced against people in non-postnominal areas if we make a point of including postnominals so strongly. [[User:JuxtaposedJacob|JuxtaposedJacob]] <small>([[User talk:JuxtaposedJacob|talk]]) &#124; :) &#124; he/him &#124; </small> 18:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
: The same argument could be said for excluding them as being culturally biased. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 06:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::If someone "may not understand why some people get letters after their name", they will never learn the answer if they don't click on one of them and find out. "Protecting" a reader with little societal awareness beyond their own immediate surroundings from the horror of learning something new isn't exactly one of WP's goals.  <small>NB: I don't know why this stuff was attached as followup commentary to my own !vote, since it's not particular to anything I've said that others haven't also. Thus, I've refactored it into the discussion section.</small> <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 11:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::Which is why I'd view this as something similar to [[MOS:ENGVAR]] and that [[MOS:TIES]] is applicable. [[User:Tcr25|—Carter (Tcr25)]] ([[User talk:Tcr25|talk]]) 15:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::It is {{em|conceptually}} ENGVAR-like, in a sense, but ENGVAR and thus TIES only cover basic dialectal variance (e.g. ''colour'' versus ''color'', ''Dr'' versus ''Dr.'', ''boot'' versus ''trunk'' of a car, etc.), not higher-order communication and information architecture, like common conventionali[s|z]ation of certain types of information presentation in works in one dialect, versus normal expectations in the publishing word of another variety of English. So your "is applicable" ... isn't applicable. One might wish, off-the-cuff, that it were, to make this debate resolve more conveniently. But there would be many devils unleashed in the details of generalizing the ENVAR/TIES concept beyond what it presently covers. (Yours wouldn't be the first idea of such an expansion; such proposals have always met with a shouting-down for good reasons involving fallout consequences.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 21:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tq|...wouldn't be the first idea of such an expansion; such proposals have always met with a shouting-down for good reasons involving fallout consequences.}}
::::I'd like to read up on this but am not finding anything, can you guide me where to look? (There are over 200 pages in the archive for that page, the index lists over 50 discussions with "ENGVAR" in the title, I clicked on the 15 most seemingly likely from the title, but found nothing even remotely like what you described).  [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 21:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::I've not memorized which of various MoS-page talkpages (and other ones) and when. Much of this stuff was years ago. One such push comes forcefully to mind, but details are off-topic here, so I'll hit up your user-talk page. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 22:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes, Please do.  The issue of ENGVAR came up a few times in the original discussion, and I always struggled to appropriately articulate the reasoning, since it seemed so fundamental- being able to read such discussion might have been helpful on forming that vocabulary.  [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 22:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::It is the ''conceptual similarity'' that I'm going on for this and the resulting idea that a different styling is allowable when relevant to the subject and that a single standard may not be in the best interest of the readers or the project. The counter would be [[MOS:LAKH]] and the deference to [[MOS:COMMONALITY]], but I have trouble believing the potential confusion that would arise from "Edward Holland {{postnom|CAN|VC}}" are equivalent to "30 crore and 12 lakh" (30,12,00,000 vs. 301,200,000). The comparison doesn't automatically open the door to widespread changes in my mind, but I'm open to reconsidering. [[User:Tcr25|—Carter (Tcr25)]] ([[User talk:Tcr25|talk]]) 12:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
I disagree on your [SMcCandlish's] statement that {{tq|if something is about on the prestige level of the Congressional Medal of Honor or Presidential Medal of Freedom, or something granted by a highly regarded organization like the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzer Prize, we would include that prominently in the lead, and often in the lead sentence}}. Medal of Honor recipients are generally career military veterans ''who are notable solely on the basis of receiving the medal'' and so its receipt is due for inclusion in the lead. Even still, articles like [[Thomas Payne (soldier)]] and [[Michael A. Monsoor]] mention their medals in the second sentence. Of the first six [[List of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients#Awarded by Joe Biden|Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients from Joe Biden]], only [[Simone Biles]] and [[Steve Jobs]] mention the medal in the lead, and both times in the last paragraph rather than first sentence. The other articles don't mention the medal until a much later section of the article. A goal of {{tq|provid[ing] a convenient and compact way of doing this that is meaningful to readers who care about the honours}} isn't really worthwhile for our readers. Nobody is going directly to biographies to learn whether someone is a recipient of a specific honor, [[List of fellows of the Royal Society|we have list articles for that]]. Unless a reader is intuitively familiar with the concept of postnominal letters ''and'' knows the letters for the specific title received by the subject of the article they're reading, it appears as complete nonsense and clutter. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard">[[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]] ([[User talk:Dan Leonard|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dan Leonard|contribs]])</span> 18:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:"Nobody is going directly to biographies to learn whether someone is a recipient of a specific honor, we have list articles for that"
:In fact, I bet people do that often. It's hard to know in advance whether we have a list article for a particular honor or exactly how it's titled, while it's easy to go to the individual's article. [[User:Jahaza|Jahaza]] ([[User talk:Jahaza|talk]]) 19:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::It strains credulity that we can expect readers to be familiar with post-nominal letters but cannot consider them competent enough to arrive at our list articles either directly or through redirects. To speak for Dan, it is not that no one would use a biography article to learn about the subject's honors, but rather that such use is not significant enough to justify inclusion of post-nominal letters in the first lead sentence, as opposed to explaining the honor in the body. [[User:ViridianPenguin|<span style="color:#40826D">ViridianPenguin🐧</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:ViridianPenguin|💬]]) 20:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks for speaking for me there, I was writing quickly and didn't compose my thoughts well. A better wording of my thoughts would be that {{tq|readers who care about the honours}} are not a subset of readers to whom we should cater our biographical lead sentences. I find it hard to imagine that there even exist a subset of our readers who have a specific and strongly-held interest in awards received by article subjects that come with postnominal letters. Awards the subject received ''in general'' maybe, but the arbitrary class of Commonwealth state awards that come with titles? Certainly not enough readers to justify inclusion in the lead sentence instead of a prose explanation. I have no data to back it up but will nonetheless defend to the hilt that I believe the majority of our readers do not intuitively understand most of the acronyms of postnominal letters, and so for whom their inclusion is an arbitrary list that leads to confusion. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard">[[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]] ([[User talk:Dan Leonard|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dan Leonard|contribs]])</span> 20:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::That's even worse that your original formulation. We should do useful things for whatever non-trivially-sized subsets of readers we can identify when it comes at low or no cost to other subsets. This isn't "catering" to anyone, though your couching it in such negative terms comes off as jingoistic. So does your raw disbelief that anyone actually cares about postnoms. That's just reality denial. We would not be having this discussion (which is a repeat of any prior ones) if no one cared. The fact that you think these honours are "arbitrary" strongly indicates you may not really know what you're talking about. "I have no data to back it up but will nonetheless defend to the hilt" tells us all we need to know, especially when at least two of us are, right here, telling you to your face that we make actual use (as readers) of these postnoms in bio leads. Brings to mind another acronym, "FFS". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 21:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|jingoistic}}? Come on, man. Don't go there. I could make the same case that Commonwealth editors loving their titles are the ones being jingoistic. We're talking about the ''first words of an article'', which [[MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE|{{xt|should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where ... in plain English}}]] and which should not [[MOS:LEADCLUTTER|{{xt|describ[e] everything notable about the subject}}]]. {{oldid|Winston Churchill|1115891306|This}} isn't plain English to me. My use of "arbitrary" was about the awards as a subset of awards generally, there's no intuitive reason why Commonwealth countries use letters and other countries don't for their state awards, and so readers would see this distinction as arbitrary. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard">[[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]] ([[User talk:Dan Leonard|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dan Leonard|contribs]])</span> 21:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Fine, consider the term retracted. I may have over-associated your responses with tonically similar ones in here that are more clearly American-centric. But yours still feel a bit that way to me, despite me being American. Maybe it's just a perception issue on my end.<!--
--><p>Much more substantively, this is a key, if not {{em|the}} issue here: {{tq|there's no intuitive reason why Commonwealth countries use letters and other countries don't for their state awards}}. There's no intuitive reason {{em|to you}}, but more importantly yet, {{em|it is a fact}} that the post-nominal abbreviations are a standardized style for Commonwealth persons. There's no escaping that. There is no objective reason I can discern for "readers [to] see this distinction as arbitrary"; they're not categorically stupid nor utterly unexposed to writing outside their own country's publications. That is, your "and so" leading into that clause is equivalent to "ergo" or "thus", but the one does not actually follow from the other as a consequence.</p><p><!--
-->Further toward the meat of the matter, the idea that postnominal abbreviations are not used in the US is actually false. Quite a few of them are (look at the credits in any American movie or TV show and you'll see several). High-end tech professionals use lots of them, even on their social media pages. So do nurses and other medical people. There's a societal difference in that these American postnoms are usually guilds, unions, medical registrations, certifications, and other professional details, not awards/honors, so probably not lead-worthy except in unusual circumstances. However, many Americans actually have British honours; I know quite a number of [[Society of Antiquaries of Scotland|FSAScot]] who are Americans, just because of the circles I run in. There are American (and other non-Commonwealth) fellows of more prestigious British institutions than that one. Yes, these people usually use the postnoms. So, the rather "us vs. them, Americans vs. Brits" taint in the air throughout this thread is misguided from the start. If a British fellowship (or royal/governmental award) of significance were awarded to an American subject, and it were significant enough to their notability (regardless of the person's citizenship) to include in the lead at all, there would be no reason to exclude that postnom from the lead sentence (under RfC options 1, 4, or 5). That is, this really is not about British/Commonwealth versus American/other subjects, or readers, or editors, or dialects. It's about the fact that postnoms are entirely conventional for particular things, and not for others; and that among those they are conventional for, some are lead-worthy and some are not. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 21:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)</p>
:::{{ec}}That's fallacious twice over, ViridianPenguin, since it circular-reasoning presumes the truth of the proposition you and Dan are trying to advance (that readers must already be familiar with the letters), against multiple editors' reasoned opposition and refutation; and it uses false analogy to essentially equate and set up a bogus if-then construction out of two totally unrelated realms of knowledge. One might as well say "We can't expect readers to click links if they can't also edit Lua modules". There just is no connection. Your assertion/opinion about "not significant enough" strikes me as worse than meaningless. It's not just telling us what your preferences are in information hunting, it's denying that those of us with different preferences have any right or reason to diverge from yours. The utility for many of including actually important postnoms in this form at the start of the lead costs nothing but half a second of eye-scanning time for those who don't find them useful (a bit longer for screen-reader users, given). This is far less time that it would cost those who do experience that utility to instead have to scour the article body in detail for full names of honours. If it really came down to this false-dichotomy of choices, then the only semi-viable compromise would be to include them in long-form in the lead (second or later sentence) as we would do with comparable American or whatever hono[u]rs. Suppression from the lead entirely is just out of the question (absent consensus at the article that the honours in question are not relevant for that particular subject's lead). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 20:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::My reply was to Dan and Jahaza discussing the subset of readers who care about the honors and therefore know the letters. I am aware that other Option 1 voters believe even readers unaware of post-nominal meanings are well-served by their inclusion because of wikilinks explaining them. The gap between understanding post-nominals and navigating Wikipedia is so obviously smaller than the gap between understanding wikilinks and back-end Lua coding to not merit rebuttal. Whether post-nominals are distracting is the subjective core of this debate, so I cannot convince you of my experience. Your claimed compromise suggests misunderstanding: long-form listing of Commonwealth honors in the lead is already permissible under the current wording of [[MOS:POSTNOM]], which only refers to first-sentence initial listing. [[User:ViridianPenguin|<span style="color:#40826D">ViridianPenguin🐧</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:ViridianPenguin|💬]]) 00:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::{{ec|3}} I do! Pretty frequently, I wonder whether a particular person (whose name I know and whose overall prominence I have a sense of) has some kind of Order of {{var|Whatever}} honour and whether it's a knight/damehood or not; I do not need to know, and certainly do not already know, which order and which level within the order it might be, nor do I have them all memorized. The idea that I would comb through dozens of lists articles blindly is just absurd. Dan Leonard's "... ''and'' knows the letters for the specific title ..." just isn't correct at all. I have no need to already know what ISO or DCVO or whatever stand for, since they'll be linked. And they take up very little room while telling us something important (at least in this sort of case, not so much with, say, [[Scottish Tartans Society|FSTS]] – not all postnoms are lead-worthy) about the notability of the subject. The rest of Leonard's response is too pettily hair-splitting for me want to bother with, especially all that dwelling on the nature of one particular American honor which was just given as an example among others; and first- versus second-sentence placement of an hono[u]r that is not an abbreviated postnom. [sigh] <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 20:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|especially all that dwelling on the nature of one particular American honor}} was a comparison of describing honors (the two highest honors given in the US, and which you brought up initially) ''in prose contextually'', which I support, versus postnominal letters, which I find superfluous. I don't think it was hair-splitting, I think it's the main crux of the issue. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard">[[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]] ([[User talk:Dan Leonard|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dan Leonard|contribs]])</span> 21:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::The hairplitting was in going on and on about the MoH in particular. More importantly, postnoms in the lead sentence cannot be "superfluous" if they're they only, and concise, appearance in the lead (and the honours are actually lead-worthy). If the postnoms are there, then re-mentioning the honours in long-name form in the lead (not in the post-lead body, which should happen regardless since leads summarize bodies) would be what's superfluous. If the postnoms are available, as they are for a large number of Commonwealth honours and some non-Commonwealth ones, then there also isn't a very solid rationale to ignore them in favor of a long-winded version, since doing the latter costs more reading time, is not conventional for those honours, and to any reader unfamiliar with a particular honour, a blathery version isn't going to be any more convenient than the conventionally abbreviated one (they'll still need to click, or hover-card, on it to find out what it's about). Maybe we just need a table of costs and benefits of each approach? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 21:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
What's the difference between "option 1" and "option 5"? —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 22:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think that option 1 is more prescriptive. I would be happy with either really. Anything but an outright ban, which seems totally unnecessary to me. A general guideline such as "up to 3 important honours" would suffice, in my view. Most editors are sensible. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 00:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

====MOS:LEADCLUTTER====
So if we decide that they should be in the first sentence should these be mentioned at [[MOS:LEADCLUTTER]] that currently states "Avoid cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthetical containing items like alternative spellings and pronunciations" we go on to mention "This information should be placed elsewhere, such as in the |pronunciation= or |native_name= parameters of an infobox, or in an explanatory footnote, to avoid clutter" . [[MOS:FIRSTBIO]] and [[MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE]] also gives us examples of explanatory footnote to avoid clutter.<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 22:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:How did it work previously? When postnoms were permitted in the LS, I mean? Genuinely asking, as I don't recall. [[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]] ([[User talk:MWFwiki|talk]]) 23:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::Like explanatory notes themselves.... I think there is a wide variety of display formats..... with more  updated articles incorporating most clutter in a note. That said the vast majority of articles still have massive first sentence clutter. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 23:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Option 4 caters for limits. Most sensible editors would limit the number of post-noms for those few people who have more than 3, I would think. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 01:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::In my experience, most bios would include between 1 and 3 post-noms, and usually just the 1, usually civil honours conferred by the monarch or government. There is another option here, and that is to make a hard limit on post-noms, such as 3? [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 01:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::Here's comparing to how it was in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography&oldid=1131613015#Post-nominal_letters| Jan 2023] compared to now.  The 4 relevant portions read (Underlining added for emphasis):
::A) {{tq|...post-nominal letters may be included <u>in the lead section</u>.}}
::B) {{tq|The lead sentence should be concise: Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article, along with the above, but should be omitted from the lead<u>, as should superseded honors (e.g., the lesser of two grades in an order), and those issued by other entities (e.g., sub-national organizations)</u>.}}
::C) {{tq|When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters or seldom uses them (common among heads of state and members of royal families), they should be omitted from the lead, and the titles only described in the main body of the article.}}
::D) {{tq|Post-nominals should <u>not be added except to a biography subject's own lead sentence</u>, in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material, and in other special circumstances such as...}}
::became
::A) {{tq|...post-nominal letters may be included <u>in any part of the article ''other'' than the lead sentence</u>.}}
::B) {{tq|The lead sentence should be concise: Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article, along with the above, but should be omitted from the lead}} (rest removed)
::C) was deleted entirely
::D) {{tq|Post-nominals should <u>only be mentioned at relevant places in a biography subject's own article (excepting the lead sentence)</u>, in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material, and in other special circumstances such as...}}
::[[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 19:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

====Lead sentence vs. Lead more broadly====
I couldn't get past why there's so much focus this time around on lead '''sentence''', so I've been investigating- I don't want to get drawn into the larger debate but it's worth clarifying this small component - hopefully by staying away from the subjective parts and focusing on just a factual point I won't be drawn too far into this debate.

The previous discussion, though titled about "Lead sentence", wasn't worded to apply narrowly to only the lead sentence.  It was titled as such, because, I suspect, the previous placement WAS the lead sentence, but the meat of the discussion was about lead vs. body.  Ed's proposal was worded: {{tq|...would advise that post-nominals be placed in the body of the article.}} and the previous discussion was held on that basis, not the specific basis of excluding it from the lead sentence only (not sure such a different understanding would of changed anything relevant though).  The original proposal continued that there was meant to be a followup {{tq|If needed, the exact wording of this revised section will be determined after this RfC concludes}} and the need for a part 2 discussion was repeated [[User_talk:Ixtal/Archives/2023/May#Your_recent_discussion_closure_at_MoS/Bio| elsewhere]], but a follow-up was never held as far as I'm aware (I was however gone from wikipedia for a while so may have missed it)...  (There was tangentially [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2024_archive#Formatting_post-nominals_examples| this]] but it never went anywhere.)

Meanwhile, after the previous discussion, the MOS was changed to {{tq|...may be included in the main body of the article.}}, matching the proposal and meaning not anywhere in the lead, as was discussed.
In Aug 2024 Asilvering changed it to {{tq|...may be included in the main body of the article, but not in the lead sentence of the article.}}, being ambiguous as to whether the rest of the lead was allowable or not.
Ignoring some minor formatting changes, the next significant change was in Jan 2025 when Ed changed it to {{tq|...may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence}}, presumably to clarify the previously introduced ambiguity but inadvertently now indicating that another part of the lead ''was'' allowable, and included a link to [[J. K. Rowling]] as an exemplar of such usage in both lead & body, even though neither case in that particular example is done well in my view (but that's an aside)

Now that it's being discussed again, with all the intervening piecemeal changes, some folks are focusing on the lead sentence title bit of the previous discussion rather than the lead versus body substance of that discussion.  Appears a similar distinction was made in the tangentially related follow up I linked above.  Some folks want to have it in the infobox and not the lead, but others are pointing out (or did point out, in the previous discussion) that it can't be in the infobox if it's not somewhere in the article text (Though I seem to remember one person somewhere arguing that it can be amongst the "minor statistical facts & figures" if quoted directly within the infobox, but I can't re-find that - and that's a whole different side discussion about infobox's and whether or not you should have citations inside infobox's, a commonly quoted concept but not in [[WP:INFOBOXCITE]]).  So if you are going to include it in the infobox, then it seemingly needs to also be in the text, but there's only 2 places that make logical sense to do so in the text- to use the postnominal(s) actually postnominally (like it is designed to be used, ie after the name, which 99.9% of the time going to be in the lead sentence) OR include a separate wordy and awkward section, but including separate sections for styles and the like has also been challenged and/or found to be confusing [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2022_archive#RfC:_'Titles_and_Styles'_sections| like here for example]].  In the previous discussion at least a few editors seemed to be deliberately forcing such a catch-22 because they actually wanted ALL postnominals removed everywhere (I respect Vanamonde93 & Dan Leonards posts above where they explicitly lay out that that is their goal- I disagree with them, but I appreciate & respect that they're upfront about it and are not trying to back-door it like some previous editors have attempted).  For me it boils down to two questions- #1) For postnominals are we using all, some, or none in Wikipedia?  (My answer would be "some", but I don't want to get drawn into the subjective parts of this discussion) Then, #2) Unless you answered #1 with 'none', then you have to figure out ''where'' to so include them? with the name, which happens to be in the lead sentence, is the best place (and optionally additionally and in any infobox, as well).  It's no more of an imposition on the various lead MoS guidelines's than including the middle name or birth/death dates are.  But now I'm getting into this very debate which I said I don't want to be drawn into.  argh! 

Unless the answer to #1 is "none", then you ALSO must answer #2 - you lot figure that out, I'm done. [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Gecko G}} We disagree on post-nominal placement and we aren't going to convince each other differently, but that's okay. I'd like to speak to a couple of the other points you brought up. :-) As you know, the closer [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2023_archive#c-Ixtal-20230414144100-Proposal:_Moving_post-nominals_from_lead_sentences_to_article_bodies found] that there was a consensus to keep post-nominals out of lead sentences. Because Wikipedia works on consensus, sometimes that can differ from an original proposal. There was no "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2023_archive#c-The_ed17-20230304042200-Proposal:_Moving_post-nominals_from_lead_sentences_to_article_bodies if needed]" follow-up RfC because another editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography&diff=prev&oldid=1156528363 implemented] the consensus and no one pushed back ([[Wikipedia:Silence and consensus]]).
:My later January 2025 tweak was an attempt to address a comment from {{u|David Eppstein}} about people misunderstanding/misapplying the guideline. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#c-The_ed17-20250123180600-David_Eppstein-20250123071800 my comment to David] and my [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#c-The_ed17-20250123062000-The_ed17-20250123051700 noting what I'd done]. Perhaps those changes were clumsy, and I'd welcome your proposed improvements after this RfC (if applicable). [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 03:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::To add on, Ed opened the 2023 proposal with a reference to [[MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE]], showing that its consensus clearly accepted exclusion of post-nominal letters from the lead sentence. Given that it was Ed who added the reference to [[J. K. Rowling]], which uses the [[OBE]] initialization in the lead, it should be clear that voters for the Option 2 status quo are not wholly opposed to some post-nominal use but simply disagree that "the lead sentence is the best place." [[User:ViridianPenguin|<span style="color:#40826D">ViridianPenguin🐧</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:ViridianPenguin|💬]]) 03:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ec}}It's better to get a clarification directly from Ed since he's here rather than argue amongst ourselves so please excuse me for not replying more directly ViridianPenguin (love the username btw!) [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 04:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::{{ec}} Ed- On Ixtal's page you said {{tq| and now it's time to sort out that can of worms}}.  I was gone from Wikipedia at the time, but the others from the discussion were presumably still here- was that follow up ever had? (I was actually trying to ask that elsewhere- but since you replied here and not there, I'll move it here)
::Thank you for explaining your January changes.  The original change to the MOS (done by Celia - the one with "no pushback" as you rightly point out) was in line with the 2023 discussion - no conflict there. However, then it looks to me like through a series of incremental changes, each one individually in good faith, the meaning was inadvertently subtly changed, instead of the previous discussion's merits of "a" vs "b" resulting in "b", it instead became "c".  Instead of anywhere in the lead vs anywhere in the body it morphed into lead sentence vs anywhere else (lead or body).
::Was your intent 2 years ago to allow postnoms elsewhere in the lead, just not the first sentence?  At the time, the guidance of the day was specifically to place them in the lead sentence- Was your mentions about lead sentence just because that was the suggested placement at the time or were you in fact being specific and making a distinction which was lost on me (and from reading what others wrote, apparently others missed as well)?  Ultimately it doesn't change anything about how I would of approached that now closed discussion, but people stepping into the discussion 2 years later (Like ViridianPenguin directly above) are viewing it as having been explicitly such, I suspect because of the subsequent changes to the MoS. - which is the first part of what I am trying (and perhaps failing) to limit this particular subsection to.  To tie it into ViridianPenguin's post, when you added Rowling as an examplar - which has OBE elsewhere in the lead just not the first sentence - was that in connection to the MoS as it was worded at that particular moment, or in line with the intent of your original proposal?  
::To anyone else here from the 2023 discussion- did you take it as lead vs. body or as lead sentence vs anywhere else? 
::In the previous 2023 discussion, every time our side tried to ask about what the alternative was to be, the reply was usually that it would be sorted out in the future- I'm trying to find out if that was ultimately done while I was gone and if not, the second point of this subsection is trying to make sure that the outcome of the above discussion (whatever that ends up being - I'm trying to stay out of it any further than what I've already wrote) doesn't result in a similar situation of years later it's still not settled or even inadvertently changed to some third reading.  Hence I'm calling for both questions to be considered simultaneously- #1 Should Wikipedia use some, all, or none of postnoms? AND #2 unless the answer to the first is "none" Where and how should they be used?  If the above discussion only determines consensus for #1 but not #2, that won't be helpful.
::I am trying to resist the urge to discuss other parts here, but I do want to limit this subsection particularly and I don't want to be drawn back into the larger debate, though I'm really clenching my teeth to not do so.  [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 04:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Gecko G}} I have to confess to being confused. The correct time to challenge the 2023 RfC's closure was 25 months ago. You apparently [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ixtal/Archives/2023/May#c-Gecko_G-20230416154100-Ixtal-20230416100100 wanted to do just that] but did not despite the closer [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ixtal/Archives/2023/May#c-Ixtal-20230428193100-Ixtal-20230416160400 pinging to remind you of your intent]. I'm not going to relitigate that RfC in 2025, especially when we're in the midst of a new RfC on the same topic.
:::Separately and meant kindly, you may want to review [[WP:WALLOFTEXT]]. I'm not saying you're being disruptive, but I am saying that your arguments are diluted by the amount of text you're using to put them across. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 05:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::::The 2023 RfC has been revisited and questioned multiple times, and it’s clear that a stable consensus was not fully established at the time, otherwise, we likely wouldn’t be having this renewed discussion now, where there appears to be a strong emerging consensus to reverse the 2023 outcome. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 05:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Agree, and can't believe how long and drawn out this discussion has become, considering we're talking about a few letters behind a name in a biography. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 13:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::::(I haven’t used my mobile account in ages, I’m struggling with this different interface trying to get the formatting right - hope it’s readable)
::::I’ll boil it down to “A” or “B”.
::::I’m not attempting to relitigate the previous debate (your answer here doesn’t substantially effect anything about my own viewpoint, either then or now) but we can’t discuss the possibility of maybe reversing a prior debate outcome if we are not all on the same page as to what that prior debate was about. 
::::——key Question—-
::::Prior to the previous debate, the guidance at the time was to put postnoms specifically in the lead sentence.  Was the intent of your proposal ''at the time'' to:
::::*A) move them out of the lead sentence and specifically into the body, or 
::::*B) just out of the lead sentence, and where they ended up elsewhere, be it in the body or elsewhere in the lead, didn’t matter?  
::::<u>The initial change to the MoS in the aftermath of the prior debate was A. Overtime it gradually and quietly shifted to become B</u>. 
::::—- end key question—-
::::In this subsection specifically I’m not trying to advocate for or against A nor B, nor for or against any of the options in the larger new debate, I’m instead seeking a clarification (one of 2 goals, but set the other aside for now).  I personally don’t care if it is A or B but some
::::debaters above seem to be approaching it from A, others from B.  I want to streamline and facilitate the larger debate by making sure everyone is on the same starting point.
::::A or B? [[User:Gecko GMobile|Gecko GMobile]] ([[User talk:Gecko GMobile|talk]]) 19:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm not entirely sure what the intention or thinking was behind the original proposal, but post-noms just look stupid anywhere else but behind the name in the first sentence. Usual practice in Australian bios has been to add the post-noms in the first sentence and expand and cite them in the body (usually in a separate section called Recognition and honours or something similar), stating date of conferral and citation (i.e. for what reason), if appropriate. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 22:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm personally in agreement with you, however your post belongs above in the discussion or survey sections, not here.  Cheers.  [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 00:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

== Ethnicity for Jews in Germany and Austria during the 1930s ==

Being a Jew at the 1930s in Germany was a completely different than being a German. '''Oficialy''' Jews where not Germens after 1935. So for Jewish people that lived in Germany during that time to call them just Germans is misleading. They were not Germens according to the low they where Jews.
That situation should reflect in Wikipedia rules where to mention ethnicity. [[User:Eyal Morag|Eyal Morag]] ([[User talk:Eyal Morag|talk]]) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:Because Nazi policy made Jewish people stateless we shouldn't call them Germans? [[User:Soetermans|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">soetermans</span>]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|<sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A <span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''TALK'''</span></sup>]] 16:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::sorry… don’t care what Nazis say.  If reliable sources considered someone ethnically German before and after the period when the Nazis we’re in power, that’s good enough for me. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 18:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Ethnicity, when properly sourced, is generally fine for the body, but not the lead. An exception is when the ethnicity becomes relevant for the life story of the subject. For Jews in or escaping Nazi Germany and Austria, at that time, it was very relevant, so can generally be mentioned in the lead. We should still mention the nationality, though, despite what the Nazis would have claimed about it. One cause for care is that the people persecuted as Jews by the Nazis and the people who would be considered Jewish by Jews are not the same; when in doubt, use "of Jewish descent" rather than "Jewish". —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Another complication to this is that German was considered an ethnicity as well. I was working on [[Wolfgang Sternberg]] and I'm not sure where he was born, but he is considered German (and Jewish), but attended the University of Breslau and under some definitions may be considered Polish as well. [[User:Jahaza|Jahaza]] ([[User talk:Jahaza|talk]]) 01:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm with Blueboar. Who was and who was not considered Jewish in the Nazi period was complicated. I could explain it, but it is all bulldust anyway. Issues regarding ethnicity usually wind up at [[WP:LAME]].  [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 01:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:I will (1) not perpetuate the crimes of the Nazis, and (2) respect the wishes and/or decisions (if known) of victims; see [[German Citizenship Restoration]], and in particular: "...  shall, on application, have their citizenship restored. They shall be deemed never to have been deprived of their citizenship if they ...". [[User:Elrondil|Elrondil]] ([[User talk:Elrondil|talk]]) 08:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

== Regarding [[MOS:NEOPRONOUNS]] ==

Current policy is to use they/them for people who go by neopronouns. I couldn't find any explicit rationale for that, but I'd imagine that it's because neopronouns are confusing to people who aren't already familiar with them. It's my personal view that correctly gendering people is more important than readability, and in an ideal world everyone would be familiar with neopronouns, though I don't expect everyone to share that view. And it shouldn't be a matter of they/them being the "default" pronouns that everyone is OK with, because that's simply false: anecdotally, I know several neopronoun users who get dysphoria from being referred to with they/them.

In any case, couldn't the readability problem be solved ''without'' misgendering people by having a template on biographies of people who go by neopronouns saying something like "This article uses the ''xe/xem'' neopronouns" with a link explaining what those neopronouns are and how they work. I'd draw an analogy to how lots of linguistics articles have a template saying "This article contains IPA symbols. Without proper rendering support it'll be broken, and here's a link to where you can learn to read the IPA." [[User:Luggifer4|Luggifer4]] ([[User talk:Luggifer4|talk]]) 12:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:The relevant discussion is the [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2022 archive#Neopronouns RfC (moved)|2022 Neopronouns RfC]]. Though possibly not to your or my satisfaction, the argument that {{tq|failure to use neopronouns when an article subject requests the use of neopronouns is disrespectful to the article subject}} was accounted for in the closure. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|stalk]]) 13:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

== Pronunciation and its sourcing ==

I've been discussing whether pronunciations should be included in leads after reverting an  edit by {{ping|Washi189}} adding one to [[Sarah Pochin]]. I used the [[Keir Starmer]] article as an example of a pronunciation of one potentially problematic name being given in a footnote rather than cluttering the lead, but then thought: "where's the source?".

Anyone who listens to the news in the UK knows that it's "KEER" or the equivalent in IPA. But is that good enough sourcing for a Wikipedia article? Along the way I looked at the first 5 A-Z listed FAs on politicians, and only one, [[Spiro Agnew]], had a pronunciation shown (cluttering the lead, not just as a footnote), but I didn't see a source.

So:
# Should a pronunciation be included in the lead sentence of a biographical article? If not routinely, then when? And should it be the IPA visible, or in a footnote? ([[MOS:FULLNAME]] deprecates it for one cluttered example but is otherwise silent, and the example used, [[Muammar Gaddafi]], currently has a footnote).
# If the pronunciation is to be included, what source is acceptable? Is "that’s the usual pronunciation in southern British English — just went with how it’s normally said around here" enough?  If it's obvious, we don't need to state it; if it's not obvious, we need a source ... but what about the [[Keir Starmer]] and [[Spiro Agnew]] (FA) examples above? (And yes, I just checked, Spiro already had the unsourced - as far as I can see - pronunciation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spiro_Agnew&oldid=806164537 when] he was promoted to FA in 2017.) [[Muammar Gaddafi]]'s footnote is at least partly sourced, but to a book so I can't see whether the pronunciation, as opposed to the romanisation, is sourced.
[[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 08:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:My suggestion would be that we add to [[MOS:FULLNAME]] something on the lines of:
:{{quote|If the pronunciation is not obvious from the spelling of the name, and a reliable source can be found for the pronunciation, then it may be included in a footnote rather than adding clutter to the lead sentence.}}
:or even a rule:
:{{quote|IPA pronunciation should not be included in the lead sentence. If the pronunciation is not obvious from the spelling of the name, and a reliable source can be found for the pronunciation, then it may be included in a footnote rather than adding clutter to the lead sentence.}}
:which could be qualified with "unless there is a consensus among editors that it is appropriate in this case" [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 09:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
::I would lean towards not including pronunciation, as it's a moving/malleable item, and the largest difference between American and British (and Northern English and southern) pronincuations can be left to the reader to work out. There are some notable examples where talk seems to be constant on pronunciation, so as it's already part of the discourse it might be helpful on a wiki page; JK Rowling, Richard Dreyfuss, Nigel Farage spring to mind.[[User:Halbared|Halbared]] ([[User talk:Halbared|talk]]) 09:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I'd personally be in favor of defaulting to using a footnote unless there is a talk page consensus to include it in the article proper. I imagine there would be a consensus like that for the examples shared by [[User:Halbared|Halbared]] above. [[MOS:FIRST]] heavily emphasizes the need to communicate the basics about an article topic in the first sentence, and pronunciations are a significant interruption in a reader's flow. The question of sourcing could be useful—I often see them without citations—but it's perhaps one for [[WT:V]]. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 13:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
:I agree. I support guidance that pronunciation generally belongs in footnotes. I would probably oppose a categorical requirement for a source and citation; either way, Ed's right that we'd be better off discussing that part at WT:V. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
::I too agree. No clutter at the top, but footnote OK if reliably sourced, otherwise none. Never any when pronunciation according to normal English [[phonetics]] and rhyming is obvious. Also, none at all for pronunciation in a foreign language, ever. They are usually arbitrary or, at best, unsourceable, and I see no reason to have them anyway. Wikipedia is not a foreign-language school. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 17:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I think this is a tricky one. Two issues at hand:
* '''First sentence or not'''? Personally, I'm in favour of pronunciation in the first sentence: "how do I say/subvocalise this?" is an important piece of information. With my teacher hat on, it's considered good practice in education to make sure that you introduce the pronunciations of new names/technical terms when you introduce those terms, and we take for granted that many of our readers will not be familiar with an article's subject before coming across it. 
* '''Require citation?''' I'd generally be inclined to avoid instruction creep here, given that most common pronunciations are not often explicitly stated in print: [[WP:V]] requires citation for {{green|direct quotations, material whose verifiability has been challenged, material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.}} Adding "and pronunciation guides" does not seem right to me, but someone could always contest that e.g. [[Colin Powell]] really did pronounce his name as "COH-lin" -- and ''then'' we have to go looking for a source. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 19:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
My feeling is that a citation is only necessary if the ''pronunciation'' (not the name itself) is unusual and atypical. So, [[Keir Starmer]] benefits from having the pronunciation respelling, because "Keir" is an uncommon name that is sure to trip up some readers; but we don't need to ''cite'' that it's pronounced "KEER", because that is the typical way that name is pronounced (and, relatedly, means that the pronunciation isn't something that normally gets discussed in the press). On the other hand, [[Colin Powell]] ''does'' benefit from a cite, because "COH-lin" is not how most people say "Colin". Similarly, [[Anthony Albanese]] benefits from a cite (and a footnote), because multiple pronunciations are in common use and it's worth mentioning that both are arguably correct. — [[User:Kawnhr|Kawnhr]] ([[User_talk:Kawnhr|talk]]) 17:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:Citation is absolutely necessary - why wouldn't it be? Why is that an exception to usual rules about sourcing/verifiability etc.? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
::Quite so - the "typical way that name is pronounced" is either totally obvious from the spelling (so needn't be given), or not obvious and therefore offers more than one possibility and needs a source. "Sarah" can be pronounced SAIRA or SAHRA. Whose version of "typical"? We don't allow other content in the encyclopedia on the basis of "I know it", we insist on a [[WP:RS]]. [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 20:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Citation is not absolutely necessary; it's only necessary {{tq|for any material challenged or likely to be challenged}} (from [[WP:CITE]]). Most pronunciations, like e.g. 'Sarah', will fall in that category, but not all (although it's doubtful whether minor variations add to an article's encyclopedic value). Some names, e.g. 'Keir' or Ralph Vaughan Williams, have pronunciations unfamiliar to some readers, especially those from non-English speaking countries, but there is no dispute. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 01:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
::::If it's unlikely to be challenged it should not be stated in the lead because it's uninformative to readers. In cases like "Maya" that have two or more distinct valid pronunciations (is the first syllable "may" or "my"?), we need a source to be sure we have the right one; personal knowledge isn't good enough. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 01:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

==Military ranks==
I note that under this guideline prefixs should now not include..."styles and honorifics that used military ranks, including officers and enlisted personnel in the armed forces, police, intelligence agencies and other institutions". This guideline is being used to justify the removal of military ranks from the opening lines of article leads and from the top of infoboxes. (see [[Nick Carter (British Army officer)|Nick Carter]]). Please can someone explain to me why this change was made? [[User:Dormskirk|Dormskirk]] ([[User talk:Dormskirk|talk]]) 12:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Dormskirk}} <s>I believe that wording (or wording similar to it) has been in the guideline for years.</s> Assuming you're referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Carter_%28British_Army_officer%29&diff=1292890834&oldid=1291863396 this edit], "general" is not an "honorific prefix". It is a rank. There are several discussions on military ranks in the archives, but perhaps [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2020_archive#How_to_address_military_rank_honorifics|this one]] is useful to skim. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 13:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:The ed17|Ed]] - That's really helpful. I was referring to that edit and am delighted that you agree that, in this context, "general" is not an "honorific prefix". Se also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernard_Montgomery&diff=1292890714&oldid=1292341453 this edit] and others. Best. [[User:Dormskirk|Dormskirk]] ([[User talk:Dormskirk|talk]]) 18:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Dormskirk}} On a second look—I moved too quickly when making my comment. That specific wording appears to have been added by {{u|Absolutiva}} in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography&diff=prev&oldid=1289874972 this edit] on May 11th without discussion. I'd invite them to comment.
:::My personal view is that military ranks should be removed from the honorific field in infoboxes for the very simple reason that it's redundant with the existing <code>|rank=</code> field. Plus (at the risk of repeating myself): it's a military rank, not an honorific.
:::On the flip side, as written I believe Absolutiva's wording would ban ranks from lead sentences. That's a bad change, in my view. See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Biographies]] for that project's advice. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 19:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
::::[[User:The ed17|Ed]] - Again, I agree with you. I would prefer to see the rank at the start of the first sentence of the lead. I am not so bothered about the top of the infobox. Best, [[User:Dormskirk|Dormskirk]] ([[User talk:Dormskirk|talk]]) 19:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::As I explained, military ranks do not belong <code>|honorific_prefix=</code> parameter for infobox and lead sections. [[User:Absolutiva|Absolutiva]] ([[User talk:Absolutiva|talk]]) 21:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Well it seems that military ranks only don't belong  in the lead because you changed the guideline on 11 May without discussion. [[User:Dormskirk|Dormskirk]] ([[User talk:Dormskirk|talk]]) 21:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I've made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_military_person%2Fdoc&diff=1292995304&oldid=1292995207 this] change in {{tl|Infobox military person}}'s documentation to make it clear that ranks don't belong in the honorific field. That should be sufficient for linking to in edit summaries. I've removed the overbroad language from [[MOS:PREFIX]] until it can be discussed further. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 01:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Great. Many thanks, [[User:Dormskirk|Dormskirk]] ([[User talk:Dormskirk|talk]]) 09:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I totally disagree with this. Of course ranks belong in the honorific prefix field. This is getting ridiculously proscriptive. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 13:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::It's a documentation page for {{tl|Infobox military person}}, which contains a <code>|rank=</code> field ''for a person's military rank''. Beyond that, I'd also note that for professional military officers, their rank is their job. It's not an honorific. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 17:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Then why do they keep their rank after they retire? -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 12:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Technically, retired military personnel (US) can be recalled to active duty, and their retirement benefits are considered reduced payment for reduced service rather than a pension. They still hold their rank, they just aren't actively serving. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 15:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Agree. Very bad change. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 13:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::What about in the lead section? [[User:Absolutiva|Absolutiva]] ([[User talk:Absolutiva|talk]]) 13:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
*Thing is, ''some'' military ranks ''can'' be an honorific.  First there is the tradition of senior officers retaining the stylization (Colonel, General, Admiral etc) after retirement.  We also have things like “Kentucky Colonels” which are purely honorific (think Colonel Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken fame). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 14:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
*:For example, some US military personnel [[Robert E. Lee]], [[Stonewall Jackson]], [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] and [[Douglas MacArthur]] doesn't need military ranks in infoboxes and lead sections that are rarely used. [[User:Absolutiva|Absolutiva]] ([[User talk:Absolutiva|talk]]) 14:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
*:On the retired point, to me they'd retain typical military use ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Biographies|listing major and ranks above]]). We're an encyclopedia documenting their life, after all. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 17:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

== Question about order of events? ==

I wanna ask about [[MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL]].
This is probably a stupid question but I am gonna ask it anyway.

What if we don't know the exact time a certain event took place or a source doesn't say when this event took place?
The reason I ask is because I am writing biographies about a few historical figures. The issue is that the sources say that this person did this thing and that thing but it doesn't say the date when all these events took place. [[User:CycoMa2|CycoMa2]] ([[User talk:CycoMa2|talk]]) 15:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

== Is MOS:ETHNICITY about modern figures or applies to historical figures as well? ==

Hey,

MOS:ETHNICITY states that "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region... Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability."

As I read it and had been universally interpreted across Wikipedia (e.g. [[Martin Luther]], [[Muhammad]], [[Aristotle]], [[Augustine of Hippo]]) it's talking about cases where a modern, defined nationality exists. So basically it's saying:

'''(Correct)''' Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman.

'''(Incorrect)''' Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a White American politician, media personality, and businessman.

But in cases such as [[Euripides]], who is Greek by ethnicity and had no formal nationality, his Greek origin serves as "that which made the person notable." However, in certain articles involving Iranians and Islam, such as [[Rumi]], [[Avicenna]] and [[Al-Khwarizmi]], certain editors insist to remove their Iranian origin from the first paragraph. Rumi's first paragraph has essentially made the article confusing; I mean, "Hanafi faqih (jurist), Maturidi theologian (mutakallim)", really? Really? Is that what makes Rumi notable? [[User:Falka-Sol|Falka-Sol]] ([[User talk:Falka-Sol|talk]]) 11:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)