Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archives:

Contents

[edit] "Current surveys" listing

The guideline proposal has been listed on Wikipedia:Current surveys ("discussions" section), please add further comments below: ...

The only new comment after a few weeks "current surveys" listing is this one I found on Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict:

Is there a guideline on how to apply dismabiguating phrases to articles on peopple with common names? For example, Bill White is a common name. Right now we have three dismabiguated as (baseball), (mayor), and (activist). The last of those is being questioned, but I can't find the guideline for how to proceed. Any suggestions? -Willmcw 22:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

see also the guideline proposal Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between brackets or parentheses and the talk page of that proposal: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) --Francis Schonken 16:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! -Willmcw 19:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Several other references could be given of this guideline being asked for, for example Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive#Name articles.

So I'm moving "Naming conventions (people)" from "proposed" to "naming conventions" guideline, remove the "current surveys" listing, and update wikipedia:Naming conventions accordingly. --Francis Schonken 11:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia articles about people are badly titled

Archived here from village pump Steve block talk 11:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am deeply troubled that Wikipedia uses a badly biased naming scheme of entries for people. I have two important things to say.

A., Why there are articles titled like "Marilyn Monroe"? It should only exist as a redirect! Why is "Norma Jean" a redirect, when it should be the title of the article about the silver screen godess? You can't escape your name. When you are born it is written in both the church book and the state/secular register. Everything else or later is just a pseudonym. Especially the artists and celebs change their pseudonyms often, e.g. why move the silicon megabreast scandal lady article every two weeks when a certain "Pamela Anderson" adds Denis or Lee to her signature?

Policy is to use the most common name, to reduce confusion by readers. This is a bit of a judgement call but seems to work (but see Gdansk). ~~ N (t/c) 12:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Even if that is a common TLA and far from the most common usage of that TLA? See Avi as an example. Vegaswikian 21:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should always use the birth name of people, because that is the only thing unchangeable and objective. An encyclopedia must have stability and lack of stability is currently the biggest problem of wikipedia.

I don't follow. ~~ N (t/c) 12:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, this would eliminate inherently controversial article titles like "Queen Elisabeth II" or "Pope John Paul II". These should only exist as an automatic redirect that points to the person's birth name, wich is the article title. The USA does not recognize any kind of nobility or monarchic title. Many many people and countries of the world are offended by such claims of title, since the idea of nobility and feudalism are against the nature and the only source of authority is the body of population. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which is a kind of thingie invented by the enlightment movement, it should follow that philosophycal ideology, which states liberty, egality, fraternity and thus all people are equal by nature and that is unchangeable. Thus inheritable or feudal/religious titles are out of the question.

For Wikipedia to explicitly take an anti-monarchial position would be POV. These people are most commonly known by their titles. ~~ N (t/c) 12:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
For Wikipedia to follow any ideology at all would be inherently POV. Wikipedia is in the business of objectively documenting facts and occurances, and thus needs to use either the most commonly recognized name or the name that the person self-identifies with (in most cases these are the same). If Wikipedia did otherwise, it would be going out of its way to push a particular viewpoint, which is bad and quite the definition of POV. -- Tyler 17:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If you use the birth name only and always the birth name of people for article titles, not even the monarchists can accuse you of bias, because it is an objective matter of fact, written in ink on the register's paper. As a sidenote, monarchs can be removed and that happens sometimes. If this happens you do not need to change the name of the article, only its contents. E.g. there is a very small finite possibility the crowned lady of UK will end her days cleaning streets in the Islamic Republic of England, where UBL is the ajatollah. In this case neither article needs to be renamed if you use the birth names.

Renaming articles is easy and not that obtrusive. ~~ N (t/c) 12:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
No, that's wrong. Someone who holds a title that they are best known by continues to be referred to with that title in histories after they have died or been deposed. There's no reason that Pope Pius X should be renamed simply because he's not the current Pope. -- Tyler 17:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

B.,

> Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) starts from the idea that names in the format > <First name> <Last name> are usually the least problematic as page name for an article on a single person.

Please note, even this sentence is very problematic, because most non-native speakers of english cannot reliably remember what "first name" and "last name" mean and the whole idea is inherently ambigious. Please always use the phrases "family name" (e.g. McPherson) and "given name" (e.g. John) so everybody understands what is it about!

But whether "first name" = "given name" depends on the language - see Kim Jong-il. ~~ N (t/c) 12:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. I briefly worked with Far Eastern students at a UK university; one of the standard password-generation algorithms involved the first name and surname. It was essentially random which way round the system had decided their names went...
To address the original problem - "birth name" being eternal is a relatively local phenomenon anyway. In some western countries alone -
  • a name can legally be changed irrevocably with nothing more than personal whim - I decide that henceforth I am to be known as John Smith, and that's the end of it
  • historically, someone could be known by a geographical name - see, say, Leonardo da Vinci, which is much the same as the US President being "George of New Haven" - with the correct name being almost unknown (or potentially even unrecorded)
  • a child can be registered at birth with no name given to the registrar, simply "infant child" or the like
  • may be changed for political or personal reasons in adulthood; if we named Pope Alexander VI as Rodrigo Borgia, we'd still be 'wrong', as he was Rodrigo Lanzol until he was 14
  • historically, may have been latinised - Carolus Linnaeus rather than Carl Linnaeus, or the great Erasmus
When someone is known most commonly in English by a name different from the "correct" one in their native language, we use that. So why not extend the same courtesy to those whose native language happens to be English? Shimgray | talk | 13:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Regards: Tamas Feher from Hungary <etomcat at freemail.hu> 195.70.32.136 11:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know for certain, but I would imagine Wikipedia is not alone in listing Norma Jean under the article title Marilyn Monroe.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which is a kind of thingie invented by the enlightment movement.
Can this go at the top of the Main Page please? --bodnotbod 12:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The current policy is fine. "Marilyn Monroe" is the name she went by as a public figure, which I believe ends the discussion. If the terms "first name" and "last name" are unfamiliar to readers in some countries, well, they can learn. It's not worth having a bot go through and try to correct every single culturally-local term in Wikipedia. Tempshill 16:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is there consensus for this guideline?

A few remarks from the archive:

These seems like reinventing the wheel. I oppose the entire basis of this page. There's a reason we've spent years working out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). john k 06:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I oppose this policy proposal. It clearly will lead to yet more rules (cf instruction creepism) instead of simplification. Besides, the royalty and nobility NC, which has been one of the original tarhets of this proposal (knowing the history behind its presentation), are needed because of reuse of particularly identical first names among royal dynasties, which makes pre-emptive disambiguation a very desirable thing, and means that it actually is more laborious to check those persons individually than to follow a systematic naming convention for them. Arrigo 18:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I strongly oppose adoption of this proposal in anywhere near the present form. Septentrionalis 03:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Please do not base Opinion on Nonsense. --Francis Schonken 07:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can gather from the note above ("Current surveys" listing) Francis Schonken feels that by listing his proposal on "current surveys" for a while — even though it didn't actually generate any comments — entitles him to slap a guideline tag on it :) This does not seem intuitive to me — especially with remarks such as the above in the archived discussion. I'll contact the people listed above and ask them if their objections have been met and they now support this page. - Haukur 07:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

On closer inspection Arrigo and Septentrionalis haven't been active for some time now but I'll contact John. - Haukur 07:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, there is a consensus for this guideline. --Francis Schonken 10:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

On what basis do you make that statement? I thought this whole thing was forgotten about, and I certainly continue to object. john k 14:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Presently you're the only one. Further, I challenge you to explain me in what sense "These seems like reinventing the wheel. I oppose the entire basis of this page. There's a reason we've spent years working out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)." would still apply to the present version of the guideline. They're two separate guidelines, without conflict nor overlap (apart from this guideline referring to the other).
I took your prior comments into account, as far as they were relevant, thank you. And then I think I was very polite to your unpolite comment somebody thought necessary to get from under the dust.
I rallied support for the guideline. I got it. So, don't take your wishes for reality. --Francis Schonken 14:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas

You're adding a new paragraph, Francis, and your wording sounds to me like it goes against the "most common" principle which is why I made that slight change. Maybe you can explain why you prefer your original wording. - Haukur 10:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

From wikipedia:naming conventions (common names):

For articles on people some minor practical exceptions are contained in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)

This is one of these practical exceptions:
--Francis Schonken 10:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so it's an exception from the "common names" principle. But what makes it a "minor and practical" one? Can I call my Norse mythology guideline a minor practical exception too? :) - Haukur 10:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that I don't use the Duke of Berry as example in the "people" NC - the Duke of Berry is Nobility, so part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), as mentioned in the common names NC:

For articles on people some minor practical exceptions are contained in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) - these are however hardly sufficient to cover the complexities for naming royals and other nobility: hence Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), and several other nobility-related Naming Conventions guidelines, contain many detailed exceptions.

This doesn't mean that the people NC should deliberately choose a formulation that is in opposition to the "names and titles" NC. --Francis Schonken 11:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Very well, then. I'm throwing in the towel in this revert war. But I don't agree that exceptions like this are minor so I'm removing that word from the link here. - Haukur 11:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parenthetical disambiguators

I put in a request that Thomas F. Bayard (1828-1898) be moved to Thomas F. Bayard, Sr.. In Talk:Thomas F. Bayard (1828-1898)#Requested move, stilltim opposed this and wrote that:

There were many Bayard's, even in Delaware, and it's very hard for many people to keep them straight. I have just finished correcting several articles confused between father and son. Sr. & Jr. would seem to work in this case, because right now I know of only the two Thomas'- but there are more than two with other names, and I would prefer a consistent way of dealing with this problem. The only clean, consistent way is clearly to use dates. That's what the published encyclopedias do. The convention was written by people thinking of a smaller encyclopedia and not focused on the issue of many (say) James Smith's that were lawyers in California (for example). So why not bite the bullet and understand we need to just use dates. This concept is not original to me, see William Bradford, but would ask that everyone seriously consider it.

I think that stilltim has a point, especially when you deal with political families in which you need to distinguish between several individuals with the same name and nearly the same occupation. We can still have occupational disambiguators as redirects—as somebody has written, redirects are cheap—but the article itself should use the dates of birth and death as the parenthetical disambiguator, if one is needed. Moreover, it avoids clashes when an individual has engaged in several occupations, and it's not certain which one should dominate. In short, I propose the following rule to replace the current rule on parenthetial disambiguation:

If a parenthetical disambiguator is needed, use the dates of birth and death. The dates should be connected by an en-dash character.

Comments?

— DLJessup (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This should certainly not be unconditional policy. The Bayards were mostly Ametican politicians, so occupation does not disambiguate them well. But consider the essentially occupational split of William Morris (disambiguation), which is much clearer than dates. (I'm sure there are better examples.)

For the Bayards, I would prefer, and seriously recommend, doing what is customary for non-royal English families: find a good complete genealogy, and distinguish by (parenthesized) roman numerals. Dusambiguating by dates should be the last resort, not the first, if only out of kindness to the readers. Septentrionalis 06:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, in the present wikipedia context, I don't think a fixed rule on non-noble/royal persons is possible:
There are too many fixed & very common habits in this respect: so I'd always look for how persons like the Bayards are usually disambiguated in literature, and then apply the English "people" naming conventions to the best of your abilities. If there is a real problem, like e.g. the two Roger Taylor (drummer)'s, then you can always notify here, if you can't get it figured out. (note that the Roger Taylor's were solved without needing additional help from this guideline).
Further re. using date of birth/decease: then you'd have the inevitable discussion over which separator should be used: - or – or — Which is a ludicrous discussion (I know, you'd probably find hundreds of wikipedians prepared to fill hundreds of talk pages on the desirability of the one or the other): Dates are IMHO, as said by Sept/Pmand, only last resort; and in that case, I'd say, don't add another layer of complexity by not using what most people have as a separate key on their keyboard, i.e. standard hyphen. --Francis Schonken 09:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
PS, see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Articles on people --Francis Schonken 09:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Another PS: Thinking further about it I'd *specifically* avoid using ordinals for non-monarchical rulers, think e.g. George II of the United States would be so POV/confusing (while implying something monarchical), that it couldn't even be used as a redirect IMHO, per Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?; similarly George Bush II doesn't seem very suitable to me for a content page (and as a redirect page, after all the issues that have been over the naming of George W. Bush's page, nobody seems to have ever *suggested* that as a possible alternative, not even as a redirect candidate) --Francis Schonken 10:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basis for this being approved as a guideline?

I see several objections on this page, and absolutely no support from anyone except its creator. That clearly isn't a consensus. Nor is it clear what its intended scope is with regard pre-existing NC pages that overlap with it. More plausible descriptors for this would seem to be "proposed guideline", "rejected guideline", or "essay". In full anticipation of a reponse freely using the word "nonsense", Alai 04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention for Dutchmen

I don't know if this is the right venue to discuss this, but I have noticed two problems with the naming convention on wikipedia for Dutchmen whose family name starts with the word "Van" (eg Marco van Basten):

  1. The letter "v" in "van" is invariantly spelt with a lowercase; however from my knowledge and experience many Dutchmen do have names with a capital "V" in "Van".
  2. When being categorised "van" would invariantly be treated as part of the given name (ie Marco van Basten would be categorised by means of, say, [[Category:A.C. Milan players|Basten, Marco van]]). However from my understanding the word "van" is part of the family name, not give name (ie "Mr. Van Basten", not "Mr. Basten").

Please let me know where shall we have the above issues resolved. Thanks. --Pkchan 16:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As for your first point: I don't know if the English language has capitalisation rules for Dutch names, but in Dutch, the "v" in "van" is not capitalised when it is preceded by (a part of) the given name. So: "Marco van Basten", "M. van Basten", "Van Basten", "Mr. Van Basten".
On your second point: "Van" is not treated as part of the given name, but as part of the surname without any effect on alphabetical ordering. This is the standard way of ordering surnames in the Netherlands.
Note that in Belgium, even in the Dutch speaking part, the "v" is (almost) always capitalised, and taken into account in alphabetical listings. Eugene van der Pijll 17:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, sorry, if this repeats most of Eugene's answer:)

If I remember well, in Dutch standard use for names that have an independent "van", "vande", "vanden" or "vander" starting the last name is to write it lowercase when preceded by the first name. When the surname is used independently, or followed by the first name, the "v" becomes an uppercase "V".
So, in Dutch one would write:
  • ... het feit dat Van Basten zes doelpunten scoorde ...
  • ... was Marco van Basten sinds het begin van zijn aantreden ...
(copied that from nl:Marco van Basten)
Also "Van Basten, Marco" could be written when sorting by last name.
In fact, in Dutch there are two systems for ordering alphabetically:
  • The way phonebooks do (at least in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, can't speak for Holland, nor for Italian phonebooks, when living in Milan), under "V": "Van Basten, Marco"
  • The way archives and so do, under "B": "Basten, Marco van"
Dutch wikipedia apparently chose the second system for their "category sort keys", but I wouldn't follow that for English wikipedia (don't know whether that's in a guideline somewhere or not).
Just checked Britannica also (printed edition), as usual, a mess:
  • "Van Buren, Martin" (8th US president, but a quite Dutch last name)
  • "Van de Graaff, Robert Jemison" (20th century US inventor, also quite Dutch last name)
  • "Van Depoele, Charles Joseph" (19th century Belgian, moved to US)
  • "Van Dyck, Anthony" (16th century Flemish painter, lived and worked in England for a part of his life)
  • "van 't Hoff, Jacobus Henricus" (from the Netherlands, 19th/20th century chemist, lived in several European countries, ultimately in Berlin)
  • "Waals, Johannes Diederik van der" (19th century, from Holland)
This doesn't seem workable for Wikipedia to me. If following this system when trying to find someone in an alphabetical list one first has to know from what country the person is; then, whether or not he's still associated with that country (is Van Basten associated with Italy or with the Netherlands?), and it supposes native English speakers are all aware of the different sort key for those still associated with the Netherlands... where would that end...
So, I'd advise [[Category:A.C. Milan players|Van Basten, Marco]] in English wikipedia, whatever the habits on Dutch wikipedia.
Anyway whether written "van" or "Van", that word is part of Marco's last name, no doubt about that. --Francis Schonken 18:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Just a few remarks:
  • in Dutch phonebooks (i.e. in the Netherlands), names are sorted like "Basten, Marco van". Most Dutch people would be very surprised to find Van Basten listed under the "V", and would correct that, I think.
  • most of the people you mention have an uppercase "V", which means they are either Belgian, or "foreign" (i.e. not Dutch anymore). That Van Buren and Van de Graaff are listed under the "V" is appropriate. The only inconsistency is between Van't Hoff and Van der Waals, which may be explained by the typo in one of the names. In the online edition [1], the name has been corrected ("van 't Hoff", with a space), and is listed as "Hoff, Jacobus Henricus van 't". Eugene van der Pijll 18:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tx for the extra clarifications! Of course, in English wikipedia the "principle of least surprise" is best applied for what the majority of the visitors of the English encyclopedia would expect.

As far as the upper case/lower case v's are concerned Belgium and the Netherlands apply *exactly* the same rules (it's only the sorting that is different), apart from maybe the old rule that nobility have a lower case - that applies to, for example, "d'Udekem d'Acoz" (nobility) or "D'Hondt" (no nobility), but I think the system is no longer in use, and even don't know whether it ever applied to van/Van. As I said some Belgian archives use the Dutch sorting system (I assisted in designing a database system for an archive in Antwerp once, they required *two separate fields* for the last names, one for the "van"/"vanden"/"vander"/"van de"/... etc., if applicable; the sorting was done on the other surname field.

See also the three points I just added to Wikipedia:Categorization#Category sorting --Francis Schonken 19:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Having taken notice of Eugene's explanation of the convention in the Netherlands, I am nevertheless inclined to agree with Francis that sorting rules in the English Wikipedia may better depart from the original Dutch rules and adapt the rules of Belgium instead. To most English speakers, who aren't aware of the Dutch sorting rules, it would be an even bigger surprise to find Van Basten listed in an alphabetical listing under "B" rather than under "V".
As to whether the capitalisation of "V" in article names and contents, I am also inclined to think that in the English Wikipedia we may have to devise a naming convention which is different from the native Dutch usage and more in line with the current English usage. The rule that the capitalisation depends on whether it follows a first name (or part of it) or not is obviously a rule not found in the English grammar. And as far as I know the English media seldom follow this rule -- see a rather liberal piece of capitalisation here [2], though this one [3] appears to have gotten it right. If we are to follow the Dutch rule we may have introduced some new rules into the English grammar.
One extra point I would like to seek extra clarification here: do the same rules as elaborated above apply to other common multi-word Dutch family names ("van der" &c.) as well? --Pkchan 19:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
But wouldn't finding "Van Beethoven" under the "V" be a surprise as well?
The Dutch rules apply to all Dutch names with prefixes, including "van der" and "de". Eugene van der Pijll 19:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I added Beethoven as an exception to Wikipedia:Categorization#Category sorting - yeah, how did that come? I've no clue whatsoever: he came from Belgian descendance, and is generally associated with Germany; no reason to apply Dutch rules afaik; just it happens to be that way that he's known as Beethoven rather than van Beethoven or Van Beethoven.
Beethoven was Low German, from Bonn; doubtless the same name element as the Dutch. Often capitalized in his case to make clear that it is not the ennobling von. Septentrionalis 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't know whether there would be other examples in this sense, but at the moment I can't think of any. --Francis Schonken 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Compare, for example, for the former Dutch prime minister, one would never speak about him as "Agt", that would always be "Van Agt"/"Dries van Agt" (nonetheless: alphabetical sorting on "Agt van" in the Netherlands) - so for Beethoven it's just something that happened for other reasons I suppose. --Francis Schonken 20:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The information that Francis Schonken and Eugene van der Pijll provided about the Netherlands is correct (I dunno about Belgium) and I have nothing to add, except that, as a Dutchman, I find it unnatural and even somewhat repulsive to find e.g. the Dutch name "Marco van Basten" sorted under the "V" instead of under the "B", though I understand of course that this is the English Wikipedia. Andries

Martin Van Buren was New York Dutch, and alphabetizing him under B is violation of established usage. The same should apply to other American names of the same class, even when written separately, whatever is done about Belgian or Dutch names; and usually, as with Vanderbilt, they are written solidly. Septentrionalis 17:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing was already settled in Wikipedia:Categorization#Category sorting, as mentioned above, also mentioning some notable exceptions like Beethoven and Montesquieu. --Francis Schonken 22:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About given names not usually used

Many people are baptised and given more than one christian name (or similar for people of other religions), but then only one of the names are acctually used together with the surname. In the article about the person, all the names ought to be mentioned, but what is the best way of presenting them?

One example: Swedish olympic skier Anja Pärson's full name is Anja Sofia Tess Pärson, but noone calls her that (with the possible exception of letters from the Tax Authority). The article's name should of course be Anja Pärson, since this is what she is known as, but what is the best way of presenting the other names? I suggest the best way is to begin the article with the full name but with only the used names in bold letters, like this: Anja Sofia Tess Pärson. And Tony Blair should then be presented not as Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (as he is now) but as Anthony Charles Lynton (Tony) Blair on the page about him.

That's my opinion. What do you think? John Anderson 10:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi John, the naming conventions series of guidelines is only about article names, not about article text. The Manual of Style series of guidelines is probably where you should direct your question, for example Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names is about the topic you raise here. Maybe move your question/suggestion to the talk page of that style guide? --Francis Schonken 13:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but article texts about a person always starts with the name of the person, so I don't think it would be wrong to discuss it here too... but I see that the topic has already been resolved there... John Anderson 16:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

After a recent (friendly) dispute over an article name, I think this guide could use a little more clarification about widely used nicknames being okay for article titles. It seems that we name articles after a public person's nickname if they are almost exclusively known by that name, e.g. Prince (artist) and Madonna (entertainer). These are not exactly pen or stage names, as is kind of already adressed, it just left me a bit confused. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this page doesn't seem to explicitly say what to do with nicknames... it lead to some confusion with a less obvious example.

So uh, maybe I still sound a bit confused. I'll take a stab at improving the examples after I think about it a bit more, but I'd like to hear people's thoughts first. --W.marsh 23:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

(same guy answering)
  • Had a look at the Dr. Drew example. Dunno what I'd do (don't know the guy). But something came to my mind: maybe ask yourself: if the guy would publish a book, or would put his name under a newspaper article: what's the name he would use (of course in the assumption he wants people to know that it's the Loveline host who publishes the book/article)?
  • One rule for all will be quite difficult. Still don't know what name to put on the Contamine article used as example. Wrestlers (they got me involved in that with similar questions) are even more difficult: some of them have half a dozen very well known nicknames/stagenames. So, then, it's sometimes easier to resort to the real name, that is often not very well known.
  • So "widely used nicknames" can be OK for article titles. The general rule is to use the most common name and hope that that name can be written down in an unambiguous "<first name> <last name>" format. If that isn't the case: use your common sense to the best of your abilities. The guideline points to a lot of things that can be done to come to acceptable solutions, using real examples as much as possible. Of course that doesn't cover everything yet, and examples of good solutions to particular problems are welcome.
--Francis Schonken 00:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal on spacing of initials in names

Dozens of famous people of Indian origin have been known by two initials plus their last name, where those first two initials are used in place of the first name. Just a few examples include P.C. Sorcar, V.S. Naipaul, and A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. In each of these cases, the official spelling and punctuation of their names does NOT include a space between the first two initials. That is, P.C. Sorcar is correct, while P. C. Sorcar is not. Becuase of this usage amongst so many notable persons, I would propose that the Manual of Style specifically allows the correct usage in article names and articles. Thanks. Abpatak 05:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people of India and Sri Lanka) was maybe what you were looking for. That is a proposal (not a guideline yet). I was planning to dunk it to {{historical}} if activity on that proposal remains as low as it is now (1 person, apart from me adding the "proposal" tag, and that was three months ago). So feel free to expand that proposal. If it works there, I don't see why we shouldn't link it from the "people" and/or "names & titles" NC guidelines.
But there's work on the proposal... the "people of India & Sri Lanka" proposal proposes things that are not nearly followed overall in wikipedia. E.g. "The main article should make plain which parts of an individual's name are honorific, and what they mean in English.", I couldn't find anything of the kind in the A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada article - and by the BTW, why isn't he just called "Swami Prabhupada", isn't that how his name would be most easily recognised by most people? and isn't it "unambiguous"?
What I didn't like about your question (or was it meant as an "instruction"?) is the way you are slamming with "official"... recognisability is "official" naming policy in wikipedia (see "policy in a nutshell" at the wikipedia:naming conventions policy page). I wouldn't know what kind of "official" supersedes that? The swami's "official" name is also Abhay Charan De, or was that a kind of "official" not to your taste? No, the "official" game doesn't lead anywhere, apart from of course "official" policies at wikipedia, for wikipedia content. --Francis Schonken 12:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, when I said "official", I meant the generally accepted spelling of the most commonly used version of that person's name. Thus, "William H. Gates III" may be his official name, but the encyclopedia entry should be, and IS, titled "Bill Gates". As for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people of India and Sri Lanka), I've commented on that and think it's a good guideline, but it's a separate issue. I think one of the reasons there's little feedback is because the suggestion is pretty non-controversial, so I'm planning on adding it to the guideline unless someone objects. Abpatak 04:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Tx! - Re. the issue of whether to write "X.Y.<space><rest of name>" or "X.<space>Y.<space><rest of name>" I maybe should clarify a bit:

  • Without space between two abbreviated letters is also my preference (and is I think most common practice after all);
  • Nonetheless I had put the "with space except for well-accepted nicknames that also leave out the periods" in the present version of the guideline. The thing is, "with space" had resulted from prior discussions (I had drawn that from wikipedia:naming conventions (common names) which used to include the "H. G. Wells" example); The nickname exception I had added resulted from the "B. G. James"/"BG James" article naming discussion.
  • I suppose a very broad consensus would be needed to change the people NC guideline on this point. It would also involve moving several pages to a new name, which can't be done unless there is consensus to do so.

So,

  • I wouldn't object to inscribing the "without space" version in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people of India and Sri Lanka) guideline, if this is indeed the most spread fashion to write these names. If that guideline proposal gets accepted, it already settles the issue for pages on people of India & Sri Lanka;
  • Neither would I object to attempts to find consensus to adapt the general people NC accordingly. I'm not going to take a lead in these efforts for changing the general people NC (I don't think the change is all that vital to justify a major effort). But whatever rewriting of the guideline is proposed, I suppose I'd give my opinion whether I think it a good idea or not, and hope others do so too.
  • Changing the general guideline would maybe be easier, and take less effort, if the principle is accepted for the people of India and Sri Lanka NC first.

--Francis Schonken 08:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Page moves I've been moving pages that are titled "X.Y. Lastname" and "X.Y. Lastname" to "X. Y. Lastname" for two reasons:

For articles that are well-written and edited by many users, they are in the form of "X. Y. Lastname" (e.g. C. S. Lewis and H. G. Wells)
There is already a naming convention about this.

I'm going to continue unless I get a compelling reason to do otherwise. Let me know what you think. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is no consensus for such naming conventions, indeed I think that A.B. Foo is far more common, easier to read and more logical than and A. B. Foo. Since there is no consensus, there should be no moving of pages unnecessarily because you prefer one or the other since that would create chaos and violate WP:POINT. — Dunc|☺ 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I rarely if ever see spaces added. I always see J.F.K. never J. F. K. , F.D.R. not F. D. R. Similarly Irish people write of W.T. Cosgrave, not W. T. Cosgrave. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autobiographical request for lowercase name

Hi, does anyone know of a precedent for this particular issue? There's a researcher by the name of Danah Boyd (or depending who you ask, danah boyd), who when interviewed or quoted in major media (NY Times, USA Today, NPR, Fox News, etc.), has her name spelled as Danah Boyd. However, she is requesting (in rather strong terms) that her Wikipedia bio have the spelling that she personally prefers, which is "danah boyd". So, which version should the Wikipedia article title use? --Elonka 22:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of common titles within articles

Though I am sure that there is one somewhere, I cannot find any concrete recommendation on the use of regular titles (e.g. Ms., Mr., Fr., Rev.) within articles. I came to think of this when I found these articles:

Nevermind that these articles are likely to be in breach of other guidelines. It does not seem very attractive to list names with titles in the manner that has been done. rxnd ( t | € | c ) 10:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names comes closer to what you're looking for (although not exactly the issue you mention).
The "Naming conventions" series of guidelines is, conventionally, only about the naming of articles, not really about how naming happens in article text (for which there is a lot more freedom). Regarding the "Rev."s and "Fr."s you seem to allude to I can't really see a problem in the Salesian High School article you mention (if extending the biographies MoS that a first mentioning of a person in an article can always include a reference to the title); Maybe the Fr. should be omitted from the second time Fr. John and Fr. Pallithanam are mentioned in the Punarnirmaan article (again, if extending that other MoS guideline beyond its current borders).
The "Mr."s are maybe a bit redundant, even in lists, and not at all usual in wikipedia practice, but I couldn't exactly name a MoS guideline that contradicts the use of "Mr." in such case. Maybe there is one, but I didn't see it yet. --Francis Schonken 11:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Most articles do not have "Mr."'s etc. but I too could not find a MOS guideline. I personally prefer the "Mr." or "Ms." or other title format as opposed to just the last name in subsequent references -- Samir धर्म 05:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Use of Ordinals

The guideline states

Ordinals
Examples:
   * Henry VIII (for monarchs this is usually combined with the previous, so the page name is actually Henry VIII of England)
   * Henry Ford II (Grandson of Henry Ford)
   * Martin Luther King III
 Disambiguation: only when naming the ordinal explicitly is the commonest way to refer to the person.

However I've encountered several cases when ordinals are used when the individual in question never used such format in their lives. For instance see the Josiah Wedgwood (disambiguation) page. As far as I know none of the Josiah Wedgwoods ever used ordinals and note that they aren't even in strict father son order (and the first and most famous Josiah Wedgwood doesn't have an ordinal). The same happens with the Joseph Frys and Joseph Storrs Frys (see Fry Family (Chocolate). Admittedly most of these don't yet have separate articles (and may never do so). In both cases many of the people with the same name are in the same business (pottery for Wedgwoods and chocolate making for Frys) so occupation disambiguation doesn't help. Yet I don't think wikipedia should be creating an usage that doesn't already exist. I would prefer dates in such cases. Do others have other suggestions?

The question is: do other people commonly use numerals when referring to them? I don't know the answer about the Wedgwoods, although I would be surprised if a historian of the firm had not done so. For the Bernouillis, and the Berkeleys, the usage and numeration is clear, although WP diverges from it with the Lords Berkeley. Septentrionalis 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
For the Wedgwoods, those are the commonly used term. Ordinals are usually restricted to monarchs, but as you can see Josiah Wedgwood II, it is generally used when referring to them. As far as that is generally appliable, you would have to take each case as it comes. — Dunc|☺ 19:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
JWII I'll accept but not JWIII or JWIV or JWV or JWVI (JWIII isn't even the ancestor of the latter three). It was also usual for the Josiah not to be the eldest son (the only one that was is JWIII) and add in that other Wedgwoods also used Josiah, for instance Ruth Wedgwood's husband and son are both Josiah (she is a fairly prominent apologist for the Bush administration).--Erp 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually that's again common use, the son of ho was the son of Josiah Wedgwood II was Josiah Wedgwood III, but then they skip two generations to JWIII's great-nephew Josiah Wedgwood IV who is better known as the 1st Baron Wedgwood, and then his son Josiah Wedgwood V. AFAIK the numerals are reserved for descendents of Josiah Wedgwood I who are also involved in the Wedgwood pottery firm which would rule out any use by somewhat distant American cousins (and I think they are cousins who have just latched onto the name). I think the JW-VI is still alive, btw. I'd like to see the geneaology though, btwII. But I emphasise that this is a special case. — Dunc|☺ 21:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Correction, Ruth Wedgwood is née Glushien [4], her husband is a great-grandson of Josiah Wedgwood V but his father is Ralph J. Wedgwood, and I don't know through which of the three nay, two sons of Josiah Wedgwood V he is descended. Quite what number he would be assigned therefore in this numbering scheme, I don't know, nor whether it is worthwhile to continue it now that Wedgwood is not family-owned. — Dunc|☺ 21:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the family tree on me and the copy I have access to only goes up to births to 1960 (with a few penciled later additions). Without looking things up I think her husband is a grandson of the fifth Josiah and not great grandson (Ralph was publishing medical papers in 1953 so must have been born in the 1920s or early 1930s at the latest). BTW I note that as far as company connections, the fourth Josiah had no active role in the company. Terms like fourth Josiah or fifth Josiah seem to be used but ordinals after seem rare until wikipedia came along (I note the Dictionary of National Biography does not use ordinals for the Josiah Wedgwoods). The Wedgwood museum web site does in places but I'm not sure how recent that is. In any case what might be true for the Wedgwoods does not apply to the Frys so I should change Joseph Storrs Fry II back (and probably put a merge suggestion for that article back in the Fry Family article since there isn't much in the article)--Erp 23:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Afaik, the family tree issue is non-relevant. Compare Johann Strauss III, Sextus Julius Caesar I etc... only the format of the name that is usually used for disambiguation between people with the same name. If it's an ordinal, then it's an ordinal; if it's something else, then it's something else; if there's no *usual* disambiguation format, then use a parenthical disambiguator. --Francis Schonken 07:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stage Names

I would suggest revising the current section on nicknames, stage names, et. al. Specifically the sections relating to wrestler B.G. James. B.G. James is incorrectly listed as a stage name, when in fact it is really a character name. The characters on wrestling shows are generally trademarked by the companies, and most wrestlers are forbidden from portraying that character for another company. WWF (now WWE) actually sued WCW over this multiple times. Proper practice here should be to index the individual wrestlers under their real names, NOT their character names, especially since most wrestlers portray multiple characters over the course of their careers. Character names should generally redirect to the wrestler who plays the character, unless there is a particular reason for giving the character its own page separate and apart from the wrestler (c.f. Doug Ross, George Clooney). Indeed, in the example given, B.G. James is indexed under his real name (Brian Gerard James), which makes it that much more strange that the guideline seems to suggest using the character name instead.

[edit] Jr. and Sr. - comma or no comma?

I wanted to mention (half of you probably saw it already via your watchlists to some extent) that I sort of went on a rampage just now changing as many NJ-related names with "Jr." or "Sr." in them to not have commas. Therefore, Thomas Kean, Jr. became Thomas Kean Jr.. I did this for two main reasons:

  • The comma is falling out of disfavor, and logic, Chicago proof, and Strunk/White (Elements of Style) all support not having the comma.
  • Half of the articles said stuff like "Thomas Kean, Jr. is involved in politics." The comma freak that I am, this is wrong (look at my Chicago proof link above), as there should be a comma after Jr., too, in this case, becuase it's being used as nonrestrictive. Rather than correc this, I figured I'd just get rid of them (and, like I said, logic suggests that the Jr. is restrictive (aka no commas) because Jr. and Sr. are two different people.)

I hope this isn't a big deal, but it just seems more fitting, and I think it looks better. One other thing to keep in mind is that when doing it in reverse name order, use the comma. Kean, Thomas, Jr., not Kean Jr., Thomas. //MrD9 04:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest this be brought up at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). I'm not sure there is a policy on this yet, and if you feel strongly about it, perhaps it should become policy. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I had also tried to go through the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and I was quite surprised to find no clear policy on how to handle suffixes (Jr. , Sr. III, etc.) in names in general and particularly in the titles of articles. Among some notables who meet this criteria are Martin Luther King, Jr. and Albert Gore, Sr., where in both cases the article title does include the comma. (Al Gore is a junior, but chooses not to go by his full name, a la Bill Clinton and Thomas Kean, so that doesn't provide any evidence either way). I have always leant towards use of the comma as a separator (including a comma after the nonrestrictive Jr. when preceded by a comma), but I recognize that the Chicago Manual of Style and Strunk & White are strong arguments for the alternative. I would suggest that this issue be raised as a Manual of Style issue and that any existing pages remain as is until we have more definiitive Wikipedia consensus for elimination of the comma. Alansohn 13:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have seen it both ways on Wikipedia, and ironically, William Strunk Jr. has no comma (well, maybe it's not that ironic... I will, however, submit it to MOS (prob. tomorrow). I simply thought removing them would be much easier than trying to go thrhough them adding commas, and if anyone's strongly opposed, I'll go back and revert/remove/add-in-commas. //MrD9 23:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I ended up having time today, so the proposal. //MrD9 00:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Has anything become of this discussion? Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Senior_and_junior still notes "In the case of senior/junior the most common format, that is, adding ', Sr.' or alternatively ', Jr.' after the name, is preferred." (Among other concerns listed above, according to whom is this "the most common format?") Alan smithee 20:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of sports biographies

It may also be useful to point out in the policy that the titles of most of our articles on baseball players from Latin America retain the accents on the accented letters in the players' names. Our ice hockey articles, like the Petr Prucha example already cited in the policy, tend to use more Americanized spellings. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal on middle names

My proposal is to permit middle names to appear in the title when the article for that title has not been created yet (red title). It doesn't have to be in the title itself, it could just be shown in the pop-up window. That could provide an instant disambiguation or knowledge of a fact that otherwise could not be found elsewhere on the Wikipedia. This is specially useful for sports database, where the chance for two names to coincide is extremely high. --Arinsau 09:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this can lead to creation of articles with middle names in titles which would have to be moved. If you need to store information without creating the article, you can do so using an HTML comment (<!-- -->); but I think that information like middle names is generally readily available in case someone starts an article. Conscious 10:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
But what about pop-up labels? Would it be so messy to state it there? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in that case, wouldn't the link stay ok, with no need to be moved? --Arinsau 10:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subarticles' titles

Could we agree on a convention concerning the naming of sub-articles for people. For example should we use the format "... of someone" (like Early life of Jan Smuts) or "Someone's ..." (like Isaac Newton's early life and achievements)? CG 19:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't know whether Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Subsidiary articles would help? Currently the only rule is "if you can't find a really "common name" for a subarticle, an exception to the "common names" rule is permitted" - a bit tautological, the idea is that you make a navigational template connecting the "main" article and the "sub-articles", as also described in wikipedia:summary style#Sub-article navigation: since practically the only way to arrive at the subarticle (not counting in the "random article" function) is via the navigational template, the naming is not all that important to impose complex and hard-to-agree-upon detailed rules for the sub-article naming. There are less redundant problems to solve regarding article naming.
Category sorting (insofar categorisation in the same category is needed), would be numerical I suppose. Something in the vein of [[Category:Biographies|Smuts, Jan 1]] - [[Category:Biographies|Smuts, Jan 2]] - etc..., listing the subarticles chronologically. --Francis Schonken 20:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Naming conventions are necessary for some kind of consistency. And, the one I'm proposing in neither controversial nor complex. We just need to agree on one format, maybe by a vote. As for the categorisation you proposed, I liked it, and it could also be included in the guideline. CG 09:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Jadwiga of Lithuania

Suggestions if and to what we should rename this article would be appreciated. The person, from royal family, was never given any surname or nickname, and was the daughter of King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania - but Jadwiga of Poland is already taken...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudonyms: is Wikipedia about marketing or correctness?

What is Wikipedia's purpose? To be an adjunct of a famous person's marketing arm? To tell the facts as is?

I'll go for the second option, that factual accuracy is important at Wikipedia.

If so, why do we play into marketing efforts and use incorrect names for famous people for article titles? For example, why is the article named Paul Reubens but not his actual name, Paul Rubenfeld? How about Tom Hanks versus Thomas Jeffrey Hanks? Or Demi Moore versus Demetria Gene Guynes?

If someone types the stage name into the search engine, a simple redirect can direct the person to the proper page.

Nova SS 02:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

When a person is almost universally known by one form of their name, that is the one we use. - Jmabel | Talk 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Why? Nova SS 20:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Because our policy is to make it easy for people to find pages. Also, people can change their names. Someone's birth name is not necessarily their "correct" name. john k 23:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
That policy is easily satisfied by redirects. Isn't it also Wikipedia's policy to be accurate? What's more accurate, a made up name or the person's current legal name? Nova SS 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
A made up name is more accurate, of course. It's the name that is most widely understood, and therefore most clearly describes the subject. Eugène van der Pijll 23:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
What makes you say that "Demetria Gene Guynes" is Demi Moore's current legal name? Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim? john k 10:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It's in the Wikipedia article. Are you saying that Wikipedia would be incorrect? ;-)
Do you even understand what other people are saying to you? The wikipedia article says the "Demetria Gene Guynes" is Demi Moore's birth name. I asked what makes you say it's her current legal name. She took the surname "Moore" due to her marriage with Freddy Moore, and kept it after their divorce. It's not a "made up name" - it's her married name, and there's a decent number of women who keep the surname of their first husband, even after they marry again. "Demi" isn't a "made up name" either - it's a nickname, and we have tons of articles of people at the nickname they're best known by. Jimmy Carter, for instance. Not including the middle name is also standard practice. Is our non-inclusion of James Garfield's middle name due to our desire to be an adjunct to President Garfield's omnipresent marketing team? The example you've chosen is completely inappropriate. Demi Moore's name is "Demi Moore." "Demi Moore" is not some marketing derived name that we made up. It's her actual name, that she derived in the way normal people derive their name - using a shortened form of her given name, not using her middle name, and using her first husband's surname. As far as I can gather, your opinion is that everyone is stuck with the name that they have on their birth certificate. Are you suggesting that we have our article at Margaret Hilda Roberts, too? john k 16:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, that was a bad example. Take Tom Cruise vs. Thomas Cruise Mapother IV. It seems that the latter is his real name. Nova SS 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again, that was his birth name. You have no evidence that he hasn't legally changed his name to "Cruise". His kid's name is "Suri Cruise." That would suggest that he has legally changed his surname to Cruise. People are allowed to do that, and do do it. See Name change. Note particularly the following:
In California the usage method is sufficient to change one's name. In states which allow the usage method, any person or agency with whom one does business must be notified of the new name, and the new name must be used exclusively, by the person changing their name, once the name is changed.
Do you really think that Cruise's current legal name is "Thomas Mapother"? Could you present any evidence to back up such a claim? john k 11:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
That specific issue is a diversion from the argument. If the real name of a person is known, then I think that should be the article title. A bridge from the better known but incorrect name can be built to the correctly-titled article with a redirect. Nova SS 15:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
So you've said; there is long-standing consensus the other way. We write to be understood, not to be "correct"; correctness often involves somebody's PoV about what is correct. Septentrionalis 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Where is documentation of this consensus?
Si documentum requiris, circumspice. to paraphrase Christopher Wren. Septentrionalis 22:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
There's also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). john k 12:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If correctness is not Wikipedia's goal, then what is it? To make up whatever suits us? Nova SS 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Verifiability, not truth. Septentrionalis 22:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You have no idea if what you are advocating is "correct." You have made no effort to determine if any of these people have legally changed their names. One of your original examples was of somebody who took her husband's name. Some commitment to accuracy. As Septentrionalis notes, wikipedia is based on verifiability rather than truth. Someone's birth name is verifiable, as is the name someone is commonly known by (and referred to by in major media publications. The New York Times used to refer to Meat Loaf as "Mr. Loaf." Who are we to think ourselves better than the paper of record?) Their current legal name is often much harder to determine - I have no idea how one would go about this. john k 12:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Certainly wrong but what is right?

We have an article about a Swedish nobleman with the obviously inappropriate article title of Axel von Fersen, Jr., but I have no idea what the article should be called. Can someone who knows how Scandinavian nobles called themselves help out? - Jmabel | Talk 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

According to sv.wikipedia: sv:Axel von Fersen d.y.; "d.y" stands for "den yngre" if I may believe the redirect. I think this is usually translated, as "the younger". See for example Willem van de Velde the younger. -- Eugène van der Pijll 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed ammendment for "conjoined" nicknames

I have witnessed several debates about the people whose nickname is so "conjoined" with their real name to the extent that they're seldom if ever referred to without it. See:

etc.

I think that an addition to section "Nick names, pen names, stage names, cognomens" is called for, in order to justify that, relatively common but also relatively opposed practice; current wording of the section is not clear enough. I suggest ammendment along the lines:

When the person's nickname is "conjoined" with his real name to the extent that he or she is almost always referred to with it, the article title should contain the nickname as well, preferably embedded in quotes: Joe "King" Oliver. Use the most common ordering, which would typically (but not necessarily) be Name "Nickname" Surname. This should apply only in conjunction with "use common names" principle, i.e. artificial titles should be avoided.

Note, however, that many pages in scope of Wikiproject professional wrestling don't match it; they may be listed as exception or changed to fit. Opinions welcome in any case. Duja► 10:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Murat Bernard "Chic" Young, Julius Henry "Groucho" Marx and John Birks "Dizzy" Gillespie don't use quotation marks in their titles... -24.18.245.105 06:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
John Birks "Dizzy" Gillespie fails WP:NC(CN) for a lightyear. That's out of the scope of my proposal, and I'd like it clarified if it's not clear. I'm talking only about the people known under both the real name and nickname used together. Duja► 20:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

Does the article Helmuth von Moltke the Elder follow with the Elder/Younger guidlines? The elder was not referenced in his time as the elder. Should the article be moved to "Helmuth Graf von Moltke", since he is more renouned as a Count than as an Elder? Xlegiofalco 22:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How on earth is he more renowned as a Count than as an Elder? What are you talking about? He is best known as "Moltke the Elder," in order to distinguish him from his nephew, "Moltke the Younger." This has been the case for the last century, or thereabouts. The fact that he was not called this in his own lifetime is no more problematic than the fact that the Edward the Black Prince was not called that in his lifetime, or that Charlemagne was not called that until after his death, or whatever other posthumously applied name you want to mention. john k 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, granted the merits of your arguments, and that Im not quite so sure of the topic, but I was wondering if being called the elder in Moltke's case has become formal. I'm convinced of your point of view, but i was wondering if historians have been referencing the older Moltke as the elder in essays since his time or if it is a case of, for example, referencing George Herbert Walker Bush as the father to George W Bush instead of by his name (like calling him Father Bush). Xlegiofalco 07:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Ever snce Moltke the Younger became well known, his uncle is called "Moltke the Elder" when it is needed to distinguish between the two. Helmuth von Moltke the Elder is the most natural way to disambiguate between the two, imo. john k 14:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidance lacking when known under several versions of name

This page is woefully lacking in guidance with regard to those huge numbers of people known by various versions of their names, whether this occurs in different fields of activity (stage names, pen names, etc.), in different times (after a change of residence), and in different languages or whatever, and especially names that have been Anglicized. This is very common, something that applies to thousands of articles on Wikipedia and needs much more than what is available now.

People move. They often use different versions of their name after they move, adapting to the conventions, the language, and the alphabet or other writing system in the place to which they have moved. Other people are known because of competitions in which they participate, because of books they write, and so on. Sometimes an author's name will appear differently on books translated to another language than it did in the original publication. The English-language versions will have the greatest effect on how a person is known in English.

Usually it is the last version used for the person's name, not the first, which will be most relevant to how they are generally known, especially for people who lived in the past two or three centuries.

Up above, there are many people who take issue with both User:195.70.32.136's and Novasource/Nova SS's ideas about "birth names" and some magical "correctness" inherent in them. The notion that this would automatically be the proper choice for the one slot available for an article's title has been resoundingly rejected not only in the discussions above, but in many other discussions spread throughout Wikipedia. Many have made it clear that this is not supposed to be the Wikipedia policy, including, it looks to me, like the following editors at least:

#Wikipedia articles about people are badly titled

#Pseudonyms: is Wikipedia about marketing or correctness?

It is time for those who follow this page to get out of their ivory towers, get off their duffs and get out in the trenches where real editors such as User:Mibelz are making real moves of articles on the same nonsense notion of some "correct" name being the person's birth name (but in the spelling conventions common in some 20th century version of some foreign language, not necessarily any spelling ever actually used).

Reverting these moves is under discussion at Talk:Árpád Élő. Is anybody ready to back up the platitudes discussed here with some work out in the trenches to see that standard naming conventions practices are followed? Gene Nygaard 20:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to delete page or rewrite IAW de facto standards

Oh, well. I tried. Guess we might just as well write this page off as dead, and nominate it for deletion.
There are far too many like User:195.70.32.136, Novasource/Nova SS, Mibelz, Husond, Valentinian, etc. pushing for a notion of correctness of someone birth name. spelled in some foreign language, and using that for the name of the article if the language is written in some variant of the Latin alphabet.
So let's either delete this page, or rewrite it in light of the developing de facto standard. Here's a rough draft of some suggested wording, something along these lines:
  • Always use a person's birth name for the name of the article. Use either the language of the country the person was born in (pick one at random if the country has more than one official language), or a language other than English spoken by at least one of the person's parents. If you do not know exactly how it was actually spelled at the time of the person's birth, invent a spelling based your best guess at what the proper spelling would be in modern spelling practices in that language. If the language isn't written in some variant of the Latin alphabet, then Romanize the spelling according to current practices in scholarly journals in the field of history.
With respect to the need for including the part about the language of the parents, see Pál Benkő and the discussion at Talk:Árpád Élő. Gene Nygaard 18:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
For another parent's language discussion and with respect to people pushing for the latter part of inventing new Romanizations, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/More macrons discussion#Ἀπόλω Антон Ohno (who does, however, remain at Apolo Anton Ohno so maybe that part can be omitted from the rewritten rule).
Does anyone have any suggestions for improving the language of this rough draft before I make a more formal proposal, or a preference for deletion instead?
Note that if a closing administrator of the discussion at Talk:Árpád Élő closes it as "no consensus", then the moves by Mibelz stand as the de facto standard. If that happens, our guidelines ought to reflect that. Gene Nygaard 18:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames appearing in quotation marks

I did not find this addressed on this page or on the main naming conventions page (the closest thing I found was a related discussion on this talk page that did not come to a conclusion). I am wondering if it is ever appropriate to have a nickname appear in quotation marks, and if it is sometimes appropriate, when. I think that when it is decided, it should be added to the naming conventions page for people. My opinion is that the nickname should not appear in quotations unless the person's name is almost always written that way. I think that very few names would qualify. Finally, I think that double quotes (") should be used. -- Kjkolb 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to straighten that out above, but didn't receive any input from the community. Basically, I agree with you—maybe I should have been bold and ammend the page. There is some existing practice, but there's also the question of wording the policy: as far as I get your opinion, we want to preserve the nickname-in-quotes only for a few cases where "the person's name is almost always written that way", thus discourage editors from overdoing it. Duja► 14:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/m/Wikipedia_talk%7ENaming_conventions_%28people%29_0118.html"