Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: The position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles

[edit]

There are two questions:

  1. Should guidance be added to the Manual of Style regarding the position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles?
  2. If guidance is to be added, which form should be recommended?
    A. X is an American retired actor.
    B. X is a retired American actor.

Khiikiat (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • C - Neither Not everything needs to be mentioned in the opening sentence. I would omit the word “retired” from the first sentence (so: “X is an American actor”) and mention the retirement in a subsequent sentence later in the first paragraph. Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and Neither: the order of adjectives in English is not something that we ought to be prescribing in the MOS, it's a matter of grammar. Option B is the standard order, whereas option A sounds distinctly odd to this native speaker. As to whether "retired" or "former" should be in the opening sentence, I would say no as a general rule – though there are no doubt exceptional cases where "former"/"retired" is actually a defining characteristic, such as for a person currently notable in one field and formerly notable in a totally different capacity. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Previous discussion on same question here (2022). Schazjmd (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A is generally wrong: A proper adjective (e.g. 'American') goes closest to the noun, except for qualifier/purpose adjectives. Sample ref: Adjective Word Order at Study.com. Nurg (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to question 1 (too specialized), so question 2 is irrelevant. Gawaon (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. In general I would avoid "retired" or "former" in the opening sentence. If someone is notable for being an actor then that's what the first sentence should say. If they haven't acted for a while, that can be explained in more detail later. On those occasions when "former" is needed (such as someone being notable for having left a situation, such as former political prisoner) and the word former is leading to possible ambiguity, it should always be possible to remove the ambiguity without making it harder to read, e.g. Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a Namibian politician, former anti-apartheid activist and political prisoner, not Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a former Namibian anti-apartheid activist or Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a Namibian former anti-apartheid activist. Mgp28 (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No And, like a few others here, I think the use of either adjective in the opening should be avoided unless being retired/former is a key component of understanding the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and neither. MOS is not a guide to English grammar like others pointed above. The hyper-specific guidance leans into WP:CREEP territory. Ca talk to me! 02:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and Neither I feel this isn't something the MOS needs to specify - nor do I see much reasoning for why we should. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
¬ ,¬ ∨ . This seems like a SNOW close. Also, this issue has been raised independently at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Use of "former" to describe occupations. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gender identity: removing "waiter/waitress/server"

[edit]

@GnocchiFan and David Eppstein: I'm not in the interest of edit warring on a high-profile guideline, so I won't revert twice, but I would encourage David to self-revert back to the status quo, at least until a proper consensus develops.

Obviously, language is evolving to ungender many nouns, and there are many where traditionally male forms are now acceptable for all people. And of course we shouldn't go out of our way to use archaic, uncommon, or invented forms e.g. firewoman, doctoress when the gender-neutral firefighter and doctor exist and are widely accepted.

If a (traditionally) gendered term for an occupation exists, which we (or sources) would normally use for a cis person in that profession, then I think it's generally preferable that articles should insistently use those terms when describing binary trans people, and try to avoid them when describing non-binary people. This prescription circumvents an... unfortunate trend where speakers (unconsciously or maliciously) use ungendered language specifically for trans men and women, while gendering our cis counterparts.

In this specific case I think referring to a trans woman as either a "server" or a "waitress" is fine. It's possible that a better example exists. But given the choice we should consistently refer to trans women film performers as actresses rather than actors. Even though that term is slowly coming to be understood as gender-neutral, it is traditionally male-specific. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 20:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, in my personal dialect, would use "waiter" for all people who serve food at sit-down restaurants, firefighter for all people whose job it is to fight fires, etc., regardless of gender. To me "waiter" is as gender-free as "doctor" and "firefighter". I don't want to be forced into using gendered noun forms for random subjects merely because those subjects prefer to use gendered pronouns, when I would normally use those nouns in a gender-free way. That is, I think we should act like your expressed sentiment above: "And we obviously should not bend out of our way to use archaic, uncommon, or invented forms e.g. firewoman, doctoress when the gender-neutral firefighter and doctor exist and are widely accepted." But I think that the example of requiring "waiter" for people who identify male, requiring "waitress" for people who identify as female, and forbidding both terms for people who identify in other ways, as the disputed MOS language does, is exactly counter to that sentiment.
If the intended meaning is that when using gendered forms we should use the gendered form that matches the gender identify of the subject, then of course we should. For instance we should not use "waitress" for someone who does not identify as female, obviously. But if that is the intended meaning then it did not come across. If so, we should replace the disputed passage with something that conveys that intent more clearly. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like DE's new version. I was ok with the status quo ante. I see this section used very frequently to deal with garden-variety transphobia, and I've never encountered a dispute over good-faith use of "waitress" vs. "server", or an analogue. I'm sure it happens occasionally. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put the previous wording in while partly rewriting the section after the neopronouns RfC, to emphasize the scope of "gendered terms". I think this change still accomplishes that, so no objection here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'd like to say that no malice was intended with my edit. David Eppstein expressed my concerns with the previous wording much better than I could myself, and I much prefer the current version. Thank you everyone for keeping it civil, as I know this is a very contentious topic area. GnocchiFan (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titles and posts (i.e.jobs)

[edit]

Where a post has more than one word we continually see very odd looking capitalisation (note my spelling. Please do not alter it. British spelling and conventions are important in this discussion) I have never seen such posts as Governor general or Lord lieutenant written in that way anywhere outside Wikipedia. They are always written "Governor General" or "Lord Lieutenant." Very occasionally you might see "governor general" or "lord lieutenant" To my mind using only one capital is incorrect anywhere. Does it happen differently in US? Is the "Vice President " written "vice President" or "Vice president ?" If so the rules should be different with articles about British subjects to articles about USA or other countries that do not follow British conventions. For the moment if I see somebody described as "Governor general of Canada," . "Lord lieutenant of Leicestershire " or "high Sheriff of Nottingham" I shall change them. Spinney Hill (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a WP:ENGVAR issue. The second word should not be lowercased if the first word is capitalised in any variety of English unless it's the first word of a sentence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of "president"

[edit]

"The incident has been regarded as the most significant security failure by the Secret Service since the attempted assassination of president Ronald Reagan in 1981."

In this sentence, should "president" be capitalized? So far, a very brief discussion has been unable to provide an answer to this question, so I am raising this issue at this page. –Gluonz talk contribs 15:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be capitalized. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. GiantSnowman 15:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:JOBTITLES:

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: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.

—Bagumba (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that thread, for an added twist, it would be "US president Ronald Reagan", as "US president" is a modified title. —Bagumba (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything so far In "President Ronald Reagan " it is part of his name. In "US president Ronald Reagan" it is not. But if it were written "President of the USA Ronald Reagan" that would be correct. It would not be part of Reagan's name but it is a specific office which is a name itself. Spinney Hill (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • President, like other titles, should only be capitalized immediately before someone's name. In all other instances, it should be lowercase (recognizing there could be limited exceptions). --Enos733 (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think MoS is as simple as Chris the speller puts it . It says :
    Capitals should be used "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:"
    I don't think it matters whether this is in the body of the article or in the info box. Consider the following ststements:
    Alfred was not a king of England.
    Alfred was King of Wessex.
    Athelstan was an English king and later became King of the English.
    Joe Biden is President of the United States
    Abraham Lincoln was a president of the United States
    All these appear to me to be correct. Spinney Hill (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knighthoods, lordships, and similar honorific titles

[edit]

What about cases where a person holding one of the above titles is mentionedn in an article, but is not the subject of the article themselves??

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]

MOS:SIR may have the information you're looking for. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization in infoboxes

[edit]

A footnote throughout the MOS states "Wikipedia uses sentence case for sentences, article titles, section titles, table headers, image captions, list entries (in most cases), and entries in infoboxes and similar templates, among other things. Any instructions in MoS about the start of a sentence apply to items using sentence case.". This footnote is mentioned once in the relevant guideline here, MOS:JOBTITLES. However, as we see in most if not all infoboxes for politicians, sentence case is not applied to the offices they've held (the two articles primarily in question being Steve Beshear and Janet Mills, though other examples of this include Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Kathy Hochul, Glenn Youngkin, etc, etc, etc).

So the question to which I seek the comments of other editors would be whether or not these titles should be capitalized (eg. "75th Governor of Maine", "45th President of the United States", etc.)? Or whether they fall under the "descriptions" side of JOBTITLES or the "titles" side of JOBTITLES? estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: @Chris the speller estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Quick correction to my opening statement: the aforementioned footnote is not once mentioned in JOBTITLES, but rather in MOS:PEOPLETITLES as a note on hyphenated/unhyphenated titles. estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These look like proper names to me. Thus President of the United States, King of the Belgians, Sultan of Turkey, Lord Mayor of Sheffield, Chief of the Imperial General Staff etc, Spinney Hill (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS says to use lower case for "37th president of the United States", and this is from long-standing consensus. This discussion, started by Estar8806, is not to ask if that looks right to all editors, but to determine whether this style also applies to templates such as infobox officeholder. The footnote in the MoS says it does, and nowhere in the MoS is there an exception for infoboxes. I see a lot of overcapitalization in infoboxes (e.g. "Actor, Singer, Playwright, Comedian") that in the body of articles is rare and quickly fixed, but that doesn't mean we should condone or encourage it in infoboxes. Does maintaining two standards, one for running text and one for items in infoboxes, help any readers, or make work easier for editors, or make WP look more professional? I don't see how. Chris the speller yack 14:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every office is commonly numbered. French presidents and UK prime ministers are examples of this. Does maintaining a separate standard for them versus those which are commonly numbered (like U.S. presidents or state governors) make Wikipedia look more professional? estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We capitalize in these instances (i.e infoboxes) regardless of a numbering or not. Please let's not change this, thus cause more inconsistencies & possible edit wars. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If what you do is common practice, shouldn't it be specified somewhere in the MoS? Chris the speller yack 16:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, write it in. Just pointing out, if you started downsizing at bios of (for example) Australian & New Zealand governors-general, prime ministers, etc. You'd likely get reverted by editors who frequent those pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should say what I mean. What I should have said is that if a group of people are propagating a style, shouldn't they be doing it for a good reason instead of for no reason, and isn't the best reason that it is what editors have specified in the MoS after reaching a consensus? Won't people be tempted to use upper case for modified job titles in the body of an article if we have trained them to do so in infoboxes? Wikipedia does not capitalize common nouns in articles, titles, section headings or table headings (except the first word of a sentence), so what's the need for it in infoboxes? I'm not saying we need to change any case of French presidents or "Prime Minister of Australia" unless it is preceded by a modifier, as in "Quentin Elmhurst was a very unpopular prime minister of Australia" or "James Scullin (1930) became the first prime minister of Australia to exercise complete discretion ..." Chris the speller yack 22:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We capitalize in the infoboxes of office holders. Best to leave it that way, rather than stir up a mess. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my edit at "Capitalization of presidents" Spinney Hill (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography&oldid=1248150083"