Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✔ This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus.
Shortcuts:
WP:MOSBIO
WP:NAMES
MOS:BIO
Style and formatting
Manual of Style and its subpages
Related policies and guidelines
Other advice, including essays and proposals
Related to specific cultures
"WP:NAMES" redirects here. For naming conventions in general, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. For usernames, see Wikipedia:Username.

The objective of this Manual of Style (or style guide) is to provide guidelines for maintaining visual and textual consistency in biographical articles. Adherence to the following guidelines is not required; however, usage of these guidelines is recommended. Maintaining consistency will allow Wikipedia to be read, written, edited, navigated, and used more easily by readers and editors alike.

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography.

Contents

[edit] Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph should give:

  1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles));
  2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death);
  3. Nationality –
    1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the talk page and archives.)
    2. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.
  4. What the person did;
  5. Why the person is significant.

For example:

[edit] Names

While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version. For example:

In some cases, subjects have legally changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well:

[edit] Maiden names

It is common to give the maiden family name (last name, surname) of a woman better known under her married name, for example:

  • Lucy Washington (née Payne) (1772?–1846), widow of Major George Steptoe Washington, became the wife of Thomas Todd. She was the first woman married in the White House, in 1812.

An alternate form, Lucy (Payne) Washington, is also widely accepted in genealogical circles.

But in all cases, a woman should be called by the name she is most widely known under. Elizabeth Taylor, even though she was married eight times, would not be referred to under those other surnames.

[edit] Pseudonyms, stage names and common names

For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:

Alternatively, the legal name can appear in apposition to the pseudonym:

  • Boris Karloff (November 23, 1887 – February 2, 1969), born William Henry Pratt, was an actor best known for his roles in horror films. He was initially billed as "Karloff" and sometimes as "Karloff the Uncanny".

It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name. Therefore, a lead that reads Johnny Reid "John" Edwards (born June 10, 1953) …" is preferable to one that states John Edwards was born with the name Johnny Reid Edwards.

Once the most common name has been determined, remember to add the full names and alternate names as redirects. For example, "William Jefferson Clinton" would be added as a redirect to "Bill Clinton". This will prevent others from moving the article later, to what they may believe is the proper name for the article. This also lets future editors know that the chosen shortened name was not an oversight, but was thoughtfully planned.

[edit] Honorific prefixes

The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles has proved controversial on Wikipedia. Wikipedia currently distinguishes between three groups: nobles, government officials, and members of royal families and clergy.

  1. Styles and honorifics which are derived from noble title, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable, should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.
  2. Styles and honorifics which are derived from political activities, including but not limited to The Right Honourable for being a Member of the Privy Council, should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.
  3. Styles should not be used to open articles on royalty and clergy. Thus the article on Pope Benedict XVI should not begin "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI... " nor should the article on Queen Victoria begin "Her Majesty Queen Victoria..." Such styles should, however, be discussed in the article proper. Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy).
  4. The prenominals Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are honorific titles discussed in the Honorific Titles section below. Note: honorary knights and dames are not entitled to "Sir" or "Dame", only the post-nominal letters.

An example of such discussion would be the inclusion of a special graphic known as an infobox, giving the official, spoken and alternative versions of a style for a member of a royal family or pope, would be included in the article. (ex. Template:Infobox UKkingstyles)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) for their use in article titles.

In the cases of certain historic persons, an honorific is so commonly attached to their names that it should be included. For example, the honorific should be included for "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin), the 1930s priest and broadcaster; Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian.

[edit] Academic titles

Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead. In cases where the person is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not), it may be included as described above. Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name.

For example:

[edit] Post-nominal initials

Post-nominal letters should be included when they are issued by a country or organization the subject has been closely associated with. Honors issued by other entities may be mentioned in the article, but generally should be omitted from the lead.

Writers should remember that the meaning of the most obvious (to them) post-nominal initials will not be obvious to some readers. When post-nominal initials are used the meaning should be readily available to the reader. This is most easily done with a piped link to an article with the appropriate title thus:

Joe Bloggs, [[Victoria Cross|VC]]     gives     Joe Bloggs, VC

ensuring that readers who hover over the initials see the expanded abbreviation as a hint and in the status bar at the bottom of the window. Readers who click immediately on the link, missing hints will hopefully see a short article with the definition clear and near the start. Often one line article will suffice, with appropriate links to further information, thus: Jack Brabham, OBE. (see above in regards to academic titles and post-nominal initials)

[edit] Honorific Titles

Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics. Honorific titles (e.g. "Sir"/"Dame" prenominals used by some knights), not to be confused with honorary titles, simultaneously possess properties of both honorifics and titles. Because of this, their use inline has been controversial. This guideline permits inline use of honorific titles that in general have significant sourced usage or recognition (e.g. in general media) outside of the country or system in which they were given. To be clear, this paragraph is the guideline for permitting a particular class of honorific titles and not a particular instance for a given person. For further guidance, refer to the guideline for criteria for use inline of regular titles. Consensus has determined that the honorific titles 'Sir'/'Dame' and 'Lord'/'Lady' from the British honours system have met the above criteria. Consensus has not yet rejected any honorific titles; if/when they do so, they will be listed here. Open a discussion on the MoS Bio talk page if there is an honorific title that needs consensus.

Regarding the use of a permitted honorific title for a particular person, it should be recognized by Wikipedia editors that the use of honorific titles inline is intended only to describe the person as holding a particular title, and not prescribe a style or method of addressing or referring to the person or other holders of such titles (thus using it as an honorific). Therefore, as with regular titles, the honorific title should be included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but is strictly optional upon subsequent references since mandatory usage inline implies its application as an honorific rather than a title. Except for the initial reference and infobox picture, editors should not add honorific titles to already existing instances of a person's name where it is absent, since doing so implies that the unedited version is incorrect (similar in spirit to the guideline on British vs. U.S. English spelling). Correspondingly honorific titles should not be deleted from inline usage for a particular person unless there is consensus it is being used excessively inline as an honorific rather than a title. Editors should also take care after the first reference to not excessively impose an honorific title prefix inline on people who have received a title but which is not significantly mentioned in general media when discussing that particular person. Absence of an honorific title from inline usage does not and should not imply that the person does not hold a particular title that is associated with that (absent) honorific title - the infobox is the canonical location for all titles and honors. If there is a person for which the status of their use of an honorific title is particularly misunderstood, the reader should be explicitly informed of this fact by a section detailing the confusion in the article (e.g. Bob_Geldof#Awards_and_honours) rather than leaving the reader to imply the situation from inline usage. Honorific titles prepended to the given name only (without the surname) exhibit an unencyclopedic level of familiarity with the person and should be avoided (as are given-name-only references for those without honorific titles) unless this form is heavily preferred in popular usage such that the addition of the surname or use of the surname alone renders the entire name unrecognizable.

[edit] Subsequent uses of names

After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only. For example:

Fred Smith was a cubist painter in the 15th century. He moved to Genoa, where he met John Doe. Smith later commented: "D'oh!"

The person may be referred to by given name in the case of royalty, or as "Prince/ss John/Jane," or "The Duke," "The Earl," "The Duchess," "The Countess," etc. For other subjects, it is preferable to refer to the person by surname, not given name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant.

A member of the nobility may be referred to by title if that form of address would have been the customary way to refer to him or her; for example Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester may become "the Earl of Leicester" or just "Leicester" in subsequent mentions. Be careful not to give someone a title too soon; for example, one should use "Robert Dudley" or "Dudley" when describing events prior to his elevation to the peerage in 1563.

People who are best known by a pseudonym shall be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (i.e. Madonna, Snoop Dogg, The Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is to be used. For people well-known by one-word names, nicknames or pseudonyms, but who often also use their legal names professionally (i.e. musician/actors Beyoncé Knowles, André Benjamin, Jennifer Lopez; doctor/broadcaster Dr. Drew Pinsky), use the legal surname.

For people with academic or professional titles, subsequent uses of names should omit them, with surnames used only. For example, use "Asimov", "Hawking", and "Westheimer"; not "Dr. Asimov", "Professor Hawking" or "Dr. Ruth".

[edit] Family members with the same surname

To disambiguate between family members with the same surname, use given names or complete names to refer to relatives upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to relatives by given name for clarity and brevity. When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members.

For example, in the text of an article on Ronald Reagan:

Incorrect:    Ronald and Nancy Reagan arrived separately; Ronald Reagan by helicopter and Nancy Reagan by car.
Correct Ronald and Nancy Reagan arrived separately; Reagan by helicopter and Nancy by car.
Correct The Reagans arrived separately; Ronald by helicopter and Nancy by car.

In the text of an article about the Brothers Grimm:

Incorrect: Jacob Grimm was thirteen months older than his brother, Wilhelm Grimm.
Correct: Jacob Grimm was thirteen months older than his brother, Wilhelm.

[edit] Tense

Biographies of living persons should generally be written in the present tense, and biographies of deceased persons in the past tense. When making the change upon the death of a subject, the entire article should be reviewed for consistency. If a person is living but has retired, use the present tense "is a former" rather than the past tense "was", e.g.

  • John B. Smith (1946–2003) was a baseball pitcher...
  • John A. Smith (born 1946) is a former baseball pitcher...

Historical events should be written in the past tense in all biographies:

  • Smith played for the Baltimore Orioles between 1968 and 1972...

[edit] Out-of-date material

Be careful not to include information that may become inaccurate in time, especially for articles about living people. Always give a date for any time-sensitive information that you include. For example, when giving a living person's age, state the year the age has been calculated for. When writing about an event on a particular date, the person's age on that date can be mentioned. But do not use phrases like "currently", "this year", "most recently", or "latest", as these phrases date very quickly. Instead, use the phrase "As of 2008" or "in 2008". See WP:DATED.

(Whether dynamic age information can be used, with a template like Template:age (backlinks, edit), is still under discussion.)

[edit] See also