Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography and Template talk:Did you know: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{for|discussion of the "Did you know" section|Wikipedia talk:Did you know}}
{{WPMOS}}
{| align="right" cellspacing="3" width="45%"
{{talkheader}}

{{Archive box|
*[[/Archive Feb 20 2003|Jan 2003 - Feb 2003]]
*[[/Archive 3|Oct 2003 - Sep 2004]]
*[[/Archive 4|Oct 2004 - Jan 2006]]
*[[/Archive April 2005|Categorized Contributions]]
*[[/Archive 5|Jan 2006 - Feb 2007]]
*[[/Archive 6|Feb 2007 - Dec 2007]]
}}

== British, or English, Scottish, Welsh, (Northern) Irish? ==

'''<span style="color:#ce2029">NOTE:</span> The latest discussion (on the 'UK nationality' guideline/essay) is below this archive.'''

{{discussion top}}
This is the current proposed wording of the clarification to the guideline:

{{quotation|The opening passage should give: ... Nationality (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.)<p>
:'''Usage notes''':
:3a. Wherever possible, provide [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|evidence]] of a person's nationality in a note.
:3b. Where there is evidence of a person's preference as to how his or her nationality should be indicated, this should be respected and the evidence referred to in a note.
:3c. Otherwise, if there is other sufficient, undisputed evidence of a person's nationality, such as <u>birth and long residence</u> in a country, nationality of that country may be stated.
:3d. If there is no clear evidence of a person's nationality (''e.g.'', if a person was born in one country and lived and worked partly in that country and partly in another), no nationality should be stated. No assumption regarding a person's nationality based on his or her place of birth or residence should be made.
:3e. '''British nationals''' &ndash; The [[United Kingdom]] is comprised of four [[Constituent country|constituent countries]]: [[England]], [[Northern Ireland]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]]. <u>Although persons from these countries hold [[British nationality law|British nationality]], there is consensus that if usage note 3b or 3c</u> applies, a person should be described as "English", "Northern Irish (or [[Northern Ireland#Citizenship and identity|Irish]])", "Scottish" or "Welsh", as the case may be. In other cases, the person should be described as "British".
:3f. [[Ethnic group|Ethnicity]] should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.}}

(The underlining will be omitted from the final version.) If you have comments on it, please add them to the end of the discussion thread. Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]]. Updated on 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
----
Hi, this issue has probably cropped up umpteen times, but I don't know where to find a definitive answer for it. For, say, a writer who has [[United Kingdom|British]] nationality and was born in [[Cardiff]], [[Wales]], should she be billed as a "Welsh author" or as a "British author from Wales" or "of Welsh extraction", which is what I've been doing? I ask this question, because some edits I made were recently amended on the basis that there was apparently "common consensus". I was referred to the [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|Featured Article]] "[[Charles Darwin]]", but there was no discussion on its talk page on the matter, and I would think that the "[[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS|other stuff exists]]" rule applies here. If there is a consensus on the matter, could it be added to this part of the Manual of Style? Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 13:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:Well, a person from Wales isn't really of Welsh extraction. They're Welsh. "Welsh extraction" implies that they're of Welsh heritage but don't actually come from Wales themselves. Neither would I put they were British from Wales, which sounds rather odd. They're either British or Welsh. Either is acceptable and both are accurate. My preference is usually to put English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish if it's indisputable which they are (i.e. if they were born in that country and there's no suggestion that they identified with any other) and British otherwise. If you put their birthplace in the body of the article then the reader can draw their own conclusions. In any case, whatever you put in your example someone will come round sooner or later and change it to Welsh. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] 14:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a person from, say, Cardiff, is not British ''or'' Welsh, he or she is both. I would have thought that it is better to put that a person is "British... from Wales" as such a person would have British nationality. I don't know whether there are people from other nations where this issue crops up: "Catalan painter", "Florentine sculptor", "Quebecois scientist"? I suppose I don't mind either way, but the preferred approach should be decided upon through consensus and mentioned this in this part of the Manual of Style. Incidentally, I don't think it's a good reason to make a decision one way or another just because other editors are going to come along and amend articles in certain ways. If that were the case, we wouldn't have any guidelines on the use of copyrighted images, because editors keep inserting them into articles. :-) Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, they are both. That's what I meant. However, it is not normal to say a person is British ''and'' Welsh or British from Wales (or England, Scotland or Northern Ireland) - for instance, I would describe myself as British or English depending on the context, but I would certainly never describe myself as British ''and'' English or British from England. British is my legal nationality, English describes my country and culture of origin and is how I happen to prefer to identify myself. Informally, some people prefer to describe themselves as one, some the other, some are equally happy with both. I agree that guidelines should not be dictated by nationalists, but it is still the case that whatever you put a nationalist ''will'' come along and change it to their preferred version. This has been happening since Wikipedia was born and no amount of discussion is likely to change it. It's not an argument against guidelines, merely a statement of fact. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] 16:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::Surely the problem here is that "Welsh" or "English" is indeed about (in Necrothesp's words) how "some people prefer to describe themselves". The difficulty is in finding the evidence for their preference. Simply being born in one of the regions of the UK is insufficient, because it tells us nothing about that preference. Where there is no evidence, shouldn't "British" be the default? [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] 16:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:No British shouldn't be the default, as its not accurate as to how many, indeed, most people in the UK would describe themselves. I agree that being born someone is no sign of nationality, if Sean Connery had been born in, say, Newcastle because his parents were on holiday at the time, that would not make him English. He's clearly Scottish. With most people it is easy to know what they are, with those that arent, then British is good. But we should not have people going round en-masse changing to British, which is what [[User:Darkieboy236]] has been doing. And the reason I exampled Darwin was that as a featured article had there been a massive problem with English, it would have been brought up in the review. It wasnt. In addition, we use English/Scottish/Welsh categories. We have them for a reason. I think that most people on Wiki accept English/Scottish/Welsh, but every now and again people come along on a crusade to change them all to British.--[[User:UpDown|UpDown]] 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm not convinced that "With most people it is easy to know what they are". Do we honestly know that Darwin (the original example) regarded himself as English, rather than British? [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] 17:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Lets look at the facts. Darwin has born in England, to English parents. He lived in England all his life, he died in England. This is how we know. In the same way we known Sean Connery is Scottish, or Tom Jones Welsh. As I say below, the UK is made up of four constituent countries. The 3 on Great Britain all have long histories as indepedent nations and distinct cultural indenties. The union of Crown and Parliament has not changed this. --[[User:UpDown|UpDown]] 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Just because someone was born, lived and died in England, it does not necessarily mean they would regard their nationality as English rather than British. An ICM poll[http://www.alba.org.uk/polls/opinionpollicmindependence.html] concluded that 19% of the people polled in England regarded themselves as British, not English, whereas 11% were English, rather than British. The great majority regarded themselves as some combination of the two. I don't accept that there is a simple test for Englishness. [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] 07:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::There is no "simple test", but we can use our common sense and intelligence. --[[User:UpDown|UpDown]] 18:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bluewave's suggestion seems to be a sensible and pragmatic one. It will be difficult in most instances to find evidence for how people prefer to describe their "culture of origin", as Necrothesp puts it. If there is such evidence, then the Wikipedia article should use the preferred mode of description and refer to the evidence in a footnote. Otherwise, the default should be the nation that the person is from. Yes, there will always be editors who will make changes like the one we're talking about, but perhaps a guideline on the matter in the Manual of Style will help. At least it is a standard that editors can refer to, rather than reliance on unreferenced statements that this is a matter of "common consensus". Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 16:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just realized that this guideline currently states, in the "[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph|Opening paragraph]]" section, that a person's "nationality" should normally be stated. A note continues: "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. ''Ethnicity'' should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Does this suggest that there is in fact a consensus, in the example we've been talking about, in favour of "British" rather than "English", "Scottish", "Welsh" or "Irish"? If so, it would seem to me that a good compromise would be, for instance, "British... from Scotland". Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 16:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:No I don't believe it does. The UK is made up of "four consistuent countries". Each one is a nationality. British is the legal citizenship, not nationality.--[[User:UpDown|UpDown]] 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:Also, note further town when talking about titles in says "English sailor" when referring to Dame Ellen MacArthur. --[[User:UpDown|UpDown]] 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I accept that the United Kingdom consists of "four constituent countries" (see "[[United Kingdom]]") and that at least the three countries that make up Great Britain had long histories as independent nations and distinct cultural identities, as UpDown points out. However, the fact is that following the various unions of the countries they are no longer independent nations but a single nation: the United Kingdom. I'm not convinced that it is right to say that a person born in, say, England has "English nationality". The article "[[British nationality law]]" explains the meaning of ''nationality'', and nowhere does it state that British nationals from each of the four countries in the UK respectively have English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish nationality.

I don't suppose there is a problem with using "English", "Scottish", "Welsh" or "Northern Irish" if the subject of a biographical article was born in a particular UK country and spent most of his or her life there. However, what if a person was born in Edinburgh but was raised in London and lived and worked there most of her life? Would it be accurate to call her Scottish (or English for that matter)? The fact is, without more evidence it is not possible to make a judgment call. Putting the person down as "British" avoids this problem.

In fact, if a person was born in one country (say, New Zealand) but lived for most of his life in another country (say, the UK), and it is not known for sure whether he has taken on citizenship of the second country, editors may have no choice but to avoid all mention of nationality or citizenship until more facts come to light.

As I said earlier, I am happy with either using "British" or "English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish" (though I lean towards "British"), but feel there should be some consistency. At the moment, the Manual of Style guideline is not very precise. It says, "''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" [emphasis added]. Some consensus needs to be reached on this issue, and I would then suggest that the guideline be updated with a specific usage note concerning the UK.

Finally, I don't think that relying on the fact that "[[Charles Darwin]]" was passed as a [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|Featured Article]] helps us resolve the matter. There is no indication on its talk page that the issue was discussed. The editor who passed the article could simply not have thought about it. Also, just because there are categories such as [[:Category:English writers]] and [[:Category:Scottish actors]] (which are perfectly fine) doesn't really, in my view, resolve the issue of whether a person should be described in the article itself as "British". There are also "British" categories. Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:As I have said before (not sure whether here, but I've certainly said it), not all people will fit the English/Scottish/Welsh for whatever reason. And for those people we put British. But these people are in the minority I believe. The problem is there cannot be consistency, and we can't avoid that. Putting British on everyone is not realistic or a good reflection for the reasons I've said before. And as you say not everyone can be English/Welsh/Scottish. We have to accept that we cannot have a blanket policy on this. Our policy should be we use our sensible judgement in each article. I am also strongly against "British actor from England". This I think is confusing and unclear. They should be either a British actor or an English actor, not a mixture of both. And the categories do matter. They are child categories of British, and should be used and British not if possible. My point is if, for the sake of argument, Ioan Gruffudd is in Welsh categories then Welsh should be at the top, not British. It's consistent for one. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:UpDown|UpDown]] ([[User talk:UpDown|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/UpDown|contribs]]) 18:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

::It would be so much simplier to have them all as ''British'', so much easier. Afterall, it's the ''United Kingdom'', not the ''sorta United Kingdom''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 20:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

::: Actually my understanding is that the nationality of those from Northern Ireland is different because of the [[Good Friday Argeement]] - legally individuals from Northern Ireland can legally be recognised as Irish, British or both - this makes the situation different from others in the United Kingdom.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:::: It can be very confusing for outsiders. I'm Canadian, so the usage of ''English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish'' to me, would be the same as using ''British Columbian, Albertan, Quebecer, Ontarian etc'''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::No I don't think it would be. England/Scotland/Wales are known as countries, with their own sport teams, long histories as individual countries, cultures etc. The Canadian states are not countries or nations. --[[User:UpDown|UpDown]] 07:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Like it or not, they're all ''British''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you can have a hard and fast rule. Sean Connery, who is of Irish extraction, presumably has a British passport and lives in the Bahamas should probably be referred to as Scottish. Winston Churchill should probably be referred to as British. If the emphasis is on culture, as with most writers, their cultural identity is probably more important than their passport; so it is likely that Scottish (etc.) will be more appropriate than British. But the decision should be based on how they identify themselves or are generally identified by others, not on any nationalistic point of view of the person editing the article.--[[User:Boson|Boson]] 21:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:It still stinks though. It's like saying the people of the UK are unified, yet not unified. It's quite frustrating. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 21:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly do not see what is so confusing or unclear about the formula "British author... from Scotland". I would have thought that that was an acceptable compromise between simply "British" and "English/Northern Irish (or Irish: see "[[Northern Ireland#Citizenship and identity]]")/Scottish/Welsh". It is not the case that a person is either British or Scottish and not both. Quite the opposite, such is person is certainly both British and Scottish. I would propose the following clarification of the rule:

{{quotation|The opening passage should give: ... Nationality (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.)<p>
:'''Usage notes''':
:3a. Wherever possible, provide [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|evidence]] of a person's nationality in a note.
:3b. Where there is evidence of a person's preference as to how his or her nationality should be indicated, this should be respected and the evidence referred to in a note.
:3c. Otherwise, if there is other sufficient, undisputed evidence of a person's nationality, such as long residence in a country, nationality of that country may be stated.
:3d. If there is no clear evidence of a person's nationality (''e.g.'', if a person was born in one country and lived and worked partly in that country and partly in another), no nationality should be stated. No assumption regarding a person's nationality based on his or her place of birth or residence should be made.
:3e. '''British nationals''' &ndash; The [[United Kingdom]] is comprised of four countries: [[England]], [[Northern Ireland]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]]. If usage note 3b applies, a person should be described as "English", "Northern Irish (or [[Northern Ireland#Citizenship and identity|Irish]])", "Scottish" or "Welsh", as the case may be. In other cases, the person should be described as "British from England/Northern Ireland/Scotland/Wales".
:3f. [[Ethnic group|Ethnicity]] should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.}}

Comments and suggestions for improvement please, particularly regarding notes 3c, 3d and 3e. Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 23:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:As I say above I strongly disagree with the above. I think using "from England/" is deeply misleading and also sounds awful! I think the above is designed knowing that for many finding a reptuable source for English etc would be difficult, meaning many would wrongly be called English. I don't believe we can have a rule for everything, and this is one of those we can't for. We have to use our reasoned judgement. Frankly its a lot easier than you are making out. --[[User:UpDown|UpDown]] 07:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:If somebody is "British from England" then they are English - the two terms are synonymous, but the former looks weird and would never be used in normal speech. If there is confusion about their nation of origin then they are not "British from England" but simply British. Is someone who was born in England but grew up in Wales and then moved back to England "British from England"? That's merely their country of birth. They ''might'' identify as English or Welsh (or maybe both) or simply as British. In this case it is far better to put English or Welsh if they are known to express a specific preference or just British otherwise. If they were born in England and have lived in England all their lives then they are English - that's a fact and their preference is fairly irrelevant, just as we wouldn't list somebody as a "citizen of the world" (which is how some people describe themselves). -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

::Thats a good point about "citizen of the world"!--[[User:UpDown|UpDown]] 11:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel strongly that we need a guideline on this. It's no good saying "we have to use our reasoned judgment", because my reasoned judgment told me (wrongly, according to you), that it would be better to list certain persons as "British" rather than as "English" or "Welsh", which was your preference. If a guideline is not developed, other editors are going have this debate over and over again. All right, what about this?

{{quotation|The opening passage should give: ... Nationality (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.)<p>
:'''Usage notes''':
:3a. Wherever possible, provide [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|evidence]] of a person's nationality in a note.
:3b. Where there is evidence of a person's preference as to how his or her nationality should be indicated, this should be respected and the evidence referred to in a note.
:3c. Otherwise, if there is other sufficient, undisputed evidence of a person's nationality, such as <u>birth and long residence</u> in a country, nationality of that country may be stated.
:3d. If there is no clear evidence of a person's nationality (''e.g.'', if a person was born in one country and lived and worked partly in that country and partly in another), no nationality should be stated. No assumption regarding a person's nationality based on his or her place of birth or residence should be made.
:3e. '''British nationals''' &ndash; The [[United Kingdom]] is comprised of four countries: [[England]], [[Northern Ireland]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]]. <u>Although persons from these countries hold [[British nationality law|British nationality]], there is consensus that if usage note 3b or 3c</u> applies, a person should be described as "English", "Northern Irish (or [[Northern Ireland#Citizenship and identity|Irish]])", "Scottish" or "Welsh", as the case may be. In other cases, the person should be described as "British".
:3f. [[Ethnic group|Ethnicity]] should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.}}

(The underlining will be omitted from the final version.) In this way, only if it is completely unclear which part of the UK a person is from will he or she be called "British". In other cases, "English/(Northern) Irish/Scottish/Welsh" will be used. Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 12:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:Why can't we just say ''British'', and leave it at that? British from Wales? That's like Canadian from Alberta. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 13:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
::I hate to sound patronising, but [[User:GoodDay]] if you don't understand the difference between UK/England and Canada/Alberta then I suggest you do some reading up on our articles. There is a huge difference.--[[User:UpDown|UpDown]] 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
:::The UK is ''divided'' into constituent countries and Canada is divided into provinces & territories. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 20:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
::That sounds a good idea but is probably unimplementable because of the strong feelings it will raise. As far as I know, "British" is the only one that has any legal validity or verifiability, in the UK or anywhere else. Someone becomes British by meeting certain legal conditions. On the other hand, "English", "Scottish" or "Welsh" describes what some believe to be their cultural identity. There is no verifiable test of this, and there is nothing to stop any British person deciding that they are Welsh one day and Scottish the next. Where someone is particularly associated with the cultural identity of one of the countries, there is some point in using the more specific terms: Sean Connery and Tom Jones have been mentioned already. However, at the moment, Wikipedia has got the balance wrong and categorises the great majority of British people as Scottish, Welsh or English, rather than British. We know from the ICM poll that I cited above that a large proportion of people in the UK say that their nationality is British, and this is simply not reflected in Wikipedia at present. [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] 14:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:Have made a slight amendment to the proposed new guidelines above. I hope they represent an adequate compromise position. Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

::[[WP:MOSFLAG]] states we should only ever use the sovereign "upper" nationality in infoboxes (so British in this case). A compromise may be that the lead uses sub-British nationality, whilst the infobox does not. <span style="color:blue;font-size:larger;font-family: Arial;">-- [[User:Jza84|Jza84]] '''·''' ([[User:Jza84|talk]])</span> 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:::[[Patrick Pearse]], for obvious reasons, doesn't use the B-word, or the flag. There's no reason why every article needs to have a nationality stated, either in the lead in words, or through some poxy flag icon in an ugly infobox. If you don't know, don't say. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 17:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Use of flag icons isn't really the issue here, but I accept what [[WP:MOSFLAG]] says about the association between flags and nationality. Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, it's [[Wikipedia:Snowball clause|snowing]] in the United Kingdom. --[[User:Breadandcheese|Breadandcheese]] 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:Actually, with the revised proposed usage notes (see the top of this section), I thought we're quite close to a reasonable compromise. Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:: For one, it seems to have been drafted with little or no understanding of the problems arising here. Firstly, the UK is made up of four [[constituent countries]] - 'four countries' is controversial and is not used on Wikipedia in favour of the former usage. Secondly, the idea of expanding the localised nationalities is ridiculous in the context of people who are clearly primarily defined as being British. --[[User:Breadandcheese|Breadandcheese]] 17:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:::OK, have amended the proposed guideline to read "constituent countries". For the reasons given by [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] above, I don't think we're going to get consensus to use "British" across the board, so the guideline is a compromise that recognizes that many people identify culturally as "English/(Northern) Irish/Scottish/Welsh". If there's evidence that a particular person wishes to be known as "British", then by all means that should be indicated, in line with usage note 3b. Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

::I'm amazed ... I think we may have a guideline!! The second proposal sits fine with me. I especially like "3c.", which I think most UK people would we be able to go in to. As long as the following ''"If there is no clear evidence of a person's nationality (e.g., if a person was born in one country and lived and worked partly in that country and partly in another), no nationality should be stated"'' doesn't apply to actors like Sean Connery who, while obviously, Scottish, don't like in Scotland, then I'm happy. --[[User:UpDown|UpDown]] 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:::--Obviously ''identifies'' as Scottish, though is of Irish ancestry! I'm being mischeivous - forgive me! <span style="color:blue;font-size:larger;font-family: Arial;">-- [[User:Jza84|Jza84]] '''·''' ([[User:Jza84|talk]])</span> 12:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The latest proposal looks fine to me. . . .[[User:LinguisticDemographer|LinguisticDemographer]] 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed a month or two ago on the proposed and rejected [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(United_Kingdom-related_articles)|UK MOS]]. On that occasion, it was felt that the only reason for the proposed MOS was a thinly veilled attempt by some editors to have all UK nationals described as "British". (There is an air of nationalist politics blowing in that direction at the moment.)

The sticking problem then was that even though most people don't explicity declare to be English/Scottish/etc. to the exception of British, the normal way of describing people from the UK is still, for the most part, in those terms. A blanket description of everyone as British, with the exception of declared Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists (which in effect is what it would mean) is quite abnormal.

The proposal above falls into exacly the same trap. --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 18:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:I think that the guideline looks reversed and that we should only use British if the note 3b applies and that the appropriate constituent country should be used in all other cases. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
::I'd go with that. --[[User:UpDown|UpDown]] 08:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:::So am I right that this applies to lead sections and prose, but we maintain "British" in the infobox per policy? (No flags for any). <span style="color:blue;font-size:larger;font-family: Arial;">-- [[User:Jza84|Jza84]] '''·''' ([[User:Jza84|talk]])</span> 12:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


::::No, because there is no policy about insisting on "British" in the infobox. [[User:Lurker|<span style="background-color:lightblue;color:black">Lurker]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Lurker|said]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Lurker|done]])</span> 13:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::This still stinks, the UK's division (constituent countries) shouldn't be getting special treatment. Italy's people are ''Italians'' (not Nepalese, Scillian etc) , France' people are ''French'' (not Normans etc). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 13:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Giving up on this discussion, there's too much nationalism involved. (Northern) Irish, Scottish, English and Welsh peoples seem reluctant to have ''British'' put ahead of their historic nationalities (which IMHO is frustating, but existant). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 14:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::This seems to imply that those who use the constituent country nationality are nationalists, but those who use "British" are not. If you want to leave a debate, please do so without implying that those who disagree with you are being unreasonable- it's not very constructive. [[User:Lurker|<span style="background-color:lightblue;color:black">Lurker]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Lurker|said]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Lurker|done]])</span> 14:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Sorry for my 'slight temper flare', I'm just frustrated with the whole thing. And you're correct, I shouldn't be leaving this discussion in a huff, my apologies. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 14:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::::If you do as you propose, and make the default "English/Scots etc", you are ignoring the fact that only 22% of people in England regard themselves as more English than British and 50% of people in Scotland think they are more Scottish than British (assuming the ICM poll is representative). And, by the way, I don't think I'm a "vociferous advocate of the Union": I really don't much care about the Union but do find it odd that almost no-one mentioned in Wikipedia seems to be of British nationality. [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] 13:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::In fairness, that is only one opinion poll. --[[User:UpDown|UpDown]] 16:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
===This is not simply an issue for the United Kingdom===
On the "taking things to their logical conclusion" principal, what nationality was [[Leonardo da Vinci]], or [[Goethe]], or [[Yehuda Halevi]], or [[Isaac Newton]], or [[Adam Mickiewicz]], or [[Bonnie Prince Charlie]], or [[Muhammad]], or [[Jesus]]?

For that matter, what "nationality" is [[Gordon Brown]]? To the media and the general public he is (almost quintessentially) Scottish, he apparently identifies himself as primarily British (although he has never rejected his Scottish nationality), and technically he is a [[citizen of the European Union]], and approaches his 'Europeanness' with great pride and seriousness if his brave political decisions are an indication of his personal feelings.

What "nationality" is [[Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama]]?

[[Petrarch]], who has long been used as an example on this page, is described as "Italian" here, centuries before the invention of the Italian state.

Please note that this - "''Although persons from these countries hold British nationality...''" - is incomplete. People from those 4 countries are not only citizens of the United Kingdom, but also citizens of the European Union, sometimes also/or of Ireland; and are treated differently under the separate legal systems according to their official [[Domicile (law)|domicile]] (see [[English law]], [[Northern Ireland law]] and [[Scots law]]).

Personally, I am of the opinion that English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh nationalists would absolutely love it if Wikipedia started imposing the adjective "British" all over biographical articles, especially if "English" etc is then added in brackets as a sideswipe ''à la'' [[Colin McRae]]. It sometimes seems to me that the vociferous advocates of the Union here at Wikipedia are actually their own worst enemies. ''Plus ça change''... --[[User:Mais oui!|Mais oui!]] 08:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:I still don't like the idea of one country being treated different from the others. There's too much prominance being given to the UK's divisions. People of Italy aren't called Scillians, Naplese etc (and those former independant countries have just as long of histories). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 13:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
::Because Britain is regarded as a union of countries. If Italy doesn't do that, that's their choice, but Wikipedia should base its articles on facts and not politics. And the fact is that constituent country nationalities are regarded as equally valid as "British", as a look at any UK newspaper will confirm. [[User:Lurker|<span style="background-color:lightblue;color:black">Lurker]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Lurker|said]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Lurker|done]])</span> 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:::BTW, why was a notice about this debate posted on the English, Northern Irish, Welsh And UK Wikiproject pages, but not the Scottish one? Anyone disappointed to see Scots appearing on this talk page? [[User:Lurker|<span style="background-color:lightblue;color:black">Lurker]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Lurker|said]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Lurker|done]])</span> 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::I posted the notice on the various WikiProjects, as I thought that other people would like to express their views on this matter. The notice was not posted on the WikiProject Scotland talk page but on [[Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board]], as instructed at the top of the WikiProject Scotland talk page. Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Not sure who had posted the notices on those WikiProject pages. Also, I'm giving up on this discussion - you're correct about the wide usage of things like ''London, England'', ''Edinburgh, Scotland'', ''Belfast, Northern Ireland'' and ''Cardiff, Wales'' (for example). Hope, someday the people of the UK consider themselve as ''British'' primarily. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 13:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::I think with increasing indepdence to Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish Parliments/Assemblies, thats very unlikely. And there is a huge difference between the UK and other countries. The UK is four nations united. Italy, France and the others are one nation. If you can't see that I suggest you read the relevant articles. With regards to some of the examples above. I believe that politicians should be described as the nationality of their Parliament (to avoid any confusion, saying G. Brown is a Scottish politician might suggest he a MSP). So UK MPs should be British, MSP Scottish and so on. This avoids any confusion in my opinion. --[[User:UpDown|UpDown]] 16:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::Oh heck this one again. (By the way what would you do about politicians who've sat in more than one parliament? Let's leave aside people who've sat in two of Westminster, devolved parliaments and the Dail and look at a few others - [[Richard Casey, Baron Casey|Richard Casey]] was in his career a member of the Australian Parliament and Governor General of Australia. But he was also a member of the British War Cabinet in the Second World War and as a peer a member of the House of Lords. Or [[Ignaz Trebitsch-Lincoln]] - to quote the reference desk "A Hungarian Jew by birth, he went on to become a Liberal MP in the British House of Commons, who subsequently took part in an abortive right-wing coup in Germany, meeting Hitler in the process, finally dying in China in 1943 as a Buddhist monk and a Japanese agent!")
::::::Problem 1 - the terms "nation" and "nationality" are rather more fluid than their uses here imply (indeed a lot of "is Scottish a nationality?" seems to hinge more on what nationality means than anything to do with Scottish). This is especially tricky when we're talking about [[civic nationalism]] - who is passing down rulings from on high that one nation "exists" and the other doesn't? A lot of political states have "forged the nation" by generating a common sense of national identity based on the political state. Also "nationality" is often used interchangably with "citizenship" (particularly on passports
::::::Problem 2: The idea the UK is somehow different from other countries is a little hard to swallow (although I think the examples cited aren't always the best) - is there really no dispute as to whether someone from Montreal is "Canadian"/"Quebecer"/"Québécois"?! Many modern day countries in Africa encorporate various existing identities - South Africa has had numerous (as well as black/white/coloured/Indian, there are many different tribes, some of whom embraced the "independence" of the Bantustans, the Afrikaner-British divide which reflects both ethnicity & civic loyalties but also the historic divide between the four old provinces... one can go on for ever on this). Look for instance at this BBC News story [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7053197.stm] about how "South Africa" has gone from being "a small country of just five million people" that a golfer said he came from to one where the rugby captain felt he had "43 million South Africans" behind him in 1995. But there has been a very proactive effort at "South Africanisation" in that country. I think the reason we get these issues far more with the UK than anywhere else is down to having a lot of Users who hold different views on this, whereas a lot of the other countries there's either a language distinction as well that diverts the positions onto other Wikipedias or far fewer Users here.
::::::Problem 3: Within the individual constituent countries there are very different levels of national identity. Walking around Edinburgh last week I saw far more displays of constituent country identity - saltires flying, shops selling traditional Scottish dress & other products and so forth - than one sees in London. It's been noted in several studies that people from ethnic minorities in England tend to identify as ''British'' first and foremost rather than "English" (although the figures can fluctuate, especially during international sports tournaments), perhaps because "English nationalism" has at times been claimed by ethnic nationalists. One survey (I forget where it is online) was rather more rigid about identity and produced results suggesting that overall people narrowly opted for the constituent countries but when you break it down into results by those countries (as that kind of majoritarianism would suggest) the English opt more for "British".
::::::Problem 4: Historically "English" and "British" were often used interchangably, so even if someone from a past era can be sourced as saying they were "English" it's not clear that they were making the choice the way we'd make it today. For instance [[Andrew Bonar Law]] said he was "Prime Minister of England". But Law was born in Canada of Scottish & Northern Irish descent, came to Scotland at the age of 12 where he was educated and built up a business and during his premiership was the MP for Glasgow Central. There's equally the problem with "England" meaning "England and Wales (and Berwick)" for a significant period, and then there's even the question of Monmouthshire (or perhaps that should be eastern Monmouthshire - part of the problem is it's very much a county of two halves that have historically had more in common with their neighbours than with each other) where retroactively applying the modern day "it's Welsh" position as though it was clearcut then is somewhat anachronistic.
::::::Problem 5: Identity can change depending on the circumstances and many do not feel they have to choose one identity over another. The survey cited above indicated that a lot of people are happy with both "British" and "English" in various proportions and proportions can change. Studies in Northern Ireland have found that a Protestant can feel "British" when contemplating the border, but "Northern Irish" during international football matches and "Irish" during international rugby matches.
::::::Problem 6: The UK isn't as simple as "four [insert preferred word]" - there's Cornwall, Orkney, Shetland and so forth.
::::::Problem 7: Too many users seem to think any attempt to settle this by guidelines and Manuals of Style is a covert way to get some ruling to impose one POV, rather than a wish to avoid having to fight the same issues out on every article and have the outcome determined by who lasts the course in revert wars.
:::::: [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 21:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I think this has veered too much into the area of how a subject self-identifies (which can be discussed in articles if it's important), whereas I think the lead is supposed to reflect '''legal''' national citizenship (whether the law is just or not). Internal political and ethnic conflicts and identity ambiguity can be discussed in the article if relevant. So what about "UK"? This reflects national citizenship more obviously than the more ambiguous "British", and more specifics could follow. Just a thought.
:::::::Also, I think there is a valid analogy to be made between say Scotland/UK, Quebec/Canada, Hawaii/United States, the problems in Belgium, and probably plenty of other contentious national disputes. I'm not absolutely sure what the answer is, but I am wary that the only debate being done here concerns the UK, and that so much weight is being given to polls of how the public self-identifies. I think the opening sentence should stick with legal citizenship realities. Perhaps before this is decided, folks should try to research other similar examples and think through what's most appropriate on a wider scale than just the UK. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::The difference between Scotland/UK and Quebec/Canada and Hawaii/United States is that Scotland is a region of unitary state (the UK) which has recently been granted a degree of local government which may be withdrawn at any time, while Quebec and Hawaii are sovereign constituents of federations with powers irrevocably reserved to them. Quebec and Hawaii are far closer to being legal nations than Scotland is. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 21:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::That's just a wee bit condescending! Do you really think Scotland can have its £431m fully-elected Scottish Parliament’s powers ‘withdrawn at any time’! By who? The Queen? It's a little more than a 'granted degree of local government' to say the least! The in-power Scottish Nationalist Party is negotiating support for their planned referendum on independence in 2010. If the SNP get enough support to follow through (and if enough Scottish people show they want it, they most likely will), and the public then vote ‘yes’, Scotland will become an independent country! It’s the buzz in Scotland – and a major possibility.

:::::::::So how can Hawaii (of all places!) be ‘closer’ to being a legal nation than Scotland? Hawaii has it’s own legislature (as has Scotland for many years), and Hawaiian arms of the Democratic and Republican Parties, but its hardly more autonomous than many other US States, and it’s not exactly bidding for independence (even if it does have various movements). The USA simply doesn’t give up places it owns! It's far more interested in assimilating new ones, in my opinion. Hawaii lost its nation status when it became the 50th State of America. I would certainly support claims to nationhood (and independence) if the idea and movements were strong enough, though – but I’m not sure of the support. I think the Democrats have held majority power for years. Scotland has always has its own laws, and a strong sense of dependence – now it has a Parliament headed by their organised, popular and long-established national party, it may well achieve it.

:::::::::Unlike Hawaii, Quebec is a recognised nation (by Canada). Having been arguably cheated out of ‘sovereignty’ in 1995, it’s odds-on (in my view) they’ll get it their 2010 referendum, though the normally high support seems to have dipped a bit right now. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Matt Lewis|contribs]]) 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::::::Relying on legal nationality is not such a great idea. What legal nationality was [[George Washington]]? [[Michael Collins]]? [[Jan Czyński]]? [[Patrick Pearse]]? [[Bronisław Szwarce]]? Problems, problems. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 22:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] has raised many valid points. I especially agree with his "Problem 7" &ndash; I don't have any vested interest in whether people are referred to as "British" or "English/(Northern) Irish/Scottish/Welsh", and just wanted to find out whether there was any consensus as to which was preferred. If so, "[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)]]" seemed to be the right place for the consensus to be recorded in the form of a guideline.

I didn't think the issue was going to be a straightforward one. The main problem seems to be whether "nationality" refers to legal citizenship or, for want of a better phrase, "cultural nationality". There are pros and cons for either approach. I'm not sure which direction the debate should take now. Should we:
#Stick to trying to achieve consensus on UK first, leaving the issues of other countries to be dealt with in separate discussions?
#Broaden the debate to whether "nationality" should mean legal citizenship or cultural nationality?
#Admit failure and abandon attempts to formulate a guideline through consensus, leaving the issue to be fought out article by article (which, to me, seems the least desirable option)?
Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:Or simply avoid plastering nationalities and flags across articles. Mention them only when important. And if it is important it will be [[WP:V|verifiable]] from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 23:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

===Look Before you Leap===

Jacklee, I see you are from Singapore and studying in the UK. I suggest you learn a bit about the current affairs and history of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland – before jumping in to major things like this. I don't mean to be rude, but...

In the UK, we have learnt to deal with describing our identities '''''without rigid rules'''''!

It is particularly important for Northern Ireland, with the sensitive nature of its past troubles and current stability, and for Scotland, where whether to hold a public referendum on attaining full independence from Britain has been a major issue in recent years. My country, Wales, is likely to be swayed by the tide. I am British and Welsh – please, let me decide when I say which one. People (as usual) can edit away on Wikipedia until a '''happy consensus''' is found for the article in question!

'''TWO FACTS YOU NEED TO KNOW!'''

You might be surprised that ‘Britain’ (and hence the word British) does NOT include Northern Ireland! (you could start by reading the Wikipedia article!). The UK (United Kingdom) is the name for Britain and Northern Ireland! Also, Wales happens not to be represented on the Union Jack (the UK flag). '''Life is flexible here''' – we are an island and a 'melting pot' and always were, we have enough problems with rigid ideas of nationalism regarding immigration etc, as it is. Please - let us Celts in particular choose our own ground. (the Celtic countries, by the way, are Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland.) --Matt Lewis 20:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC) --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

'''SOME FACTS ''YOU'' NEED TO KNOW'''

:: Matt, ''Pretani'' (and hence the terms 'Britain', 'Great Britain', 'British', and 'British Isles') DOES include Northern Ireland. In fact, so does the United Kingdom (as you yourself pointed out). England is a Celtic country also, by the way, by virtue of the fact that it was settled by Celts. --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">[[User:Setanta747|Setanta]]</span> 02:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

::What? You are say "England is a Celtic country also, by the way, by virtue of the fact that it was settled by Celts." Look again at the way you used 'is' and 'was' in the same sentence. Then read a little about logic - and a little about the Roman invasion too. You are the Setanta who says "they are British whether they like it or not". Nice controlling attitude. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

:Matt, don't bite my head off! I never said I was an expert on things relating to the UK. I just wanted to know whether I ought to state persons as "British" or "English/(Northern) Irish/Scottish/Welsh" in articles, after [[User:UpDown|UpDown]] reverted some edits that I had made, claiming there was consensus that the latter should be used. Being unable to find anything in the Manual of Style about this, I suggested that perhaps there ought to be a guideline. Of course it's open to people to choose how they wish their nationality to be referred to: see note 3b of the proposed guidelines. The problem comes when there is no evidence of any choice (which would be most of the time). Can there ever be a "happy consensus" if there isn't a guideline agreed on by consensus to follow? I seriously doubt it.

:By the way, I know that Northern Ireland is not part of ''Great'' Britain, but according to "[[British nationality law]]", residents of Northern Ireland are "British citizens". See also "[[Northern Ireland]]", which states that "[p]eople from Northern Ireland can choose to be British citizens on the same basis as people from any other part of the United Kingdom." It seems, then, that it's perfectly valid to refer to people from Northern Ireland as "British". Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 22:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::Well to really confuse things, isn't "Great Britain" derived from the "British Isles", a term which is used to include Ireland, not the other way round, so "Northern Ireland is British" is not a technically incorrect term. (And yes I'm aware this is a contentious term in Ireland but more with Irish nationalists - I've not heard of Unionists objecting to this one.) [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:::No, Great Britain is derrived from the need for medieval mapmakers to distinguish between two Britains: Britanny and the island of Britain, which were written similarly.
:::If you go back for enough, at about the time of the Roman conquest of Britain, the two islands along with Iceland (and sometimes Norway and Denmark!) are called "Islands of Britain" - but the island today called Britain was at that time called Albion (e.g. "Albion, an Island of Britain" and "Hibernia, an Island of Britain", and "Thule, an Island of Britain", "Thule" is thought most likely to be Iceland). This contracted after the Roman invasion, with Britain first referring to the area conquered by the Romans and then, with time, the whole island. (Albion, in some way some ways flipped around too, becoming a mythical-like word in English, but contracting to mean only Scotland, roughly the area of Albion/Britian unconquered by the Romans, in the Celtic languages of Britain and Ireland.) --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 13:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

::Where does it say in [[British nationality law]] that residents of NI are British citizens? [[User:MurphiaMan|MurphiaMan]] 14:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

:::It's implied rather than express. "[[British nationality law#Classes of British nationality]]" states "British Citizens usually hold this status through a connection with the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man ('United Kingdom and Islands')", and Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. People from NI don't appear to fall under any of the other five categories of British citizenship. The point is put more clearly in from "[[Northern Ireland]]". Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

::To muddle things up even further, read [[Irish nationality law]], [[Ireland]], and [[Northern Ireland]] to see that Northern Irish people are equally Irish nationals also. Eeeek! --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 14:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

:With all due respect Matt, "Britain" (and therefore British) ''does'' include Northern Ireland, since "[[Britain]]" (see the first definition on that page) is commonly used interchangeably with "United Kingdom". ''Great'' Britain isn't, but Britain certainly is. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] 15:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Necrothesp – How can you say ‘NI ''does'' include Britain’ (your italics) with only your purely subjective reasoning that they are 'commonly' interchanged! You would have better said ‘'''''can''''' include Britain’! AND THAT IS MY POINT!!!!! It depends who you speak to!!!!! So why have rigid rules? PS. Using a Wikipedia disambiguation page to prove your point really makes me despair! Where is the Wikipedia article on just Britain? – there isn’t one! Nor does your 'Britain' (without Great) appear anywhere in the Northern Irish page!!!! Even Wikipedia admits that we shouldn't use Wikipedia to prove Wikipedia!

Jacklee - 'Perfectly valid' just isn’t kind of language to use on Wikipedia regarding nationality and Northern Ireland, whatever document you feel you've cleverly gleaned something from, like some kind of lawyer! The UK is a complex place! Perhaps you could work for the Foreign Office and sort it all out for us? We could use some help on Welsh language road signs in Wales – perhaps you are our man? Croeso I Gymru, my son. I'm trying to tell you that the 'rules' you want '''cannot''' ''and'' '''certainly will not''' be applied by the people of the UK ''anything like'' as rigidly as you want them to! We need room to manoeuvre. Please read my above entry again. I suppose I am 'biting your head off' - but it's because you are simply dismissing hard-felt cultural issues surrounding the UK just to make Wikipedia neater and more convenient for people similar to yourself (who have little or no attachment to the UK)!

You must read-up about the UK (which you should have done first), though it’s good you admit you have very little knowledge of us. This is starting to be a whole Wikipedia issue with me though – people fanny around it so carelessly – it really annoys me to be honest, especially with political subjects like this! The UK happens to be deeply complex and diverse! How can people not know that?! Maybe it’s because I’m Welsh I get so cheesed off – so many maps and globes choose not to find space for a label (it is our curse that England is to the right of us), and we are consequently a little less well known internationally. Many of us are particularly keen on placing ‘Wales’ before (or even in place of) British, or UK. We have an economy to look after, after all.

The current 'consensus' I referred to over UK nationalities is unique to each article, and is found though the Wiki process of '''edits, reverts and discussions''' – because it cannot be done by a ‘rule book’! And people then settle on someone (or something) being Welsh or British etc '''''by themselves'''''! You see? Many people you are in discussion with are clearly not from the UK – I am - so listen to me! And with your invitation messages in the Scottish, Welsh and Irish discussion pages you are in serious danger of being wound-up by countless merciless Celts! (either that or completely ignored by them).

If someone needs to know what Welsh or Wales etc means – they can surely click on the words can’t they? I usually use the format ‘from Aberystwyth, Wales, UK’ – but why should I force anyone else to? I then tend to use ‘British’ at some point, but I’ve had it changed to ‘Welsh’ and I’ve let it be – why would I not? ‘UK’ usually remains somewhere in the article – which should be enough for any pedant. Using ‘Principality’ however, is a ‘no no’ with me! I think that one is definitely fair game to remove!

It is a truism to say that people cannot always categorise another 'People' (or two, or three) as easily as they seem to want to! Just look around the globe, as someone else has pointed out. Unless you have a deep 'need' for rigid rules, flexibility of expression where nationalities are concerned needn’t be such a terrible thing! Sometimes ‘woolly areas’ like Wales are just a simple fact of life. Forgive me if I keep ramming this home, but you won’t find many conforming like sheep if your guidelines are passed.

By the way – you won’t get a real feeling of anything just by reading the Wikipedia article on it – '''please read elsewhere too'''! If I could be left with that on my gravestone I’d die a happy man (the whole line, that is - not just ‘please read elsewhere too’!).

(PS. Your other ‘British’ Guidelines – like leaving nationality out when having no proof - are completely BONKERS too.) --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

:"The current 'consensus' I referred to over UK nationalities is unique to each article" Well yes and no. The problem is that individual consensuses have existed in some areas - for example in sport most international players have been given the nationality for the country they play for. But all too often these get challenged by new editors or changed on the basis that some other article uses a different form or because liks can be found to give a different answer and the result is we get ridiculous constructs like "Scottish tennis player who plays for Great Britain" that just confuses even more (it sounds like someone of one country who plays for another country through exploitation of the grandparent rule or equivalent - even though we just call [[Greg Rusedski]] "a former British tennis player", well at least until someone spots this). Frankly in a lot of places it isn't an individual article consensus so much as "which POV can last longer" in revert wars. This in turn causes problems when several people whose nationality is equally clear get written up on the basis of who got there last. That's hardly an ideal solution. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 20:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

:'''Oooh matron!'''

:I’ve honestly never come across any problem, not even awkward constructs that can't be improved by someone till it reads okay. Where do people revert like you say they do? Are you sure this is not all merely a kind of fancy, driven by a rather naughty need for strict discipline?

:And you won't get your 'ideal solution' guys - especially if you try and bring sport into the equation! (it'll be fun watching you try though!) --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 20:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
::I'm back (after having cooled off); another reason I prefer ''British'' over ''English, Welsh, Scottish, (Northern) Irish''? The 'Year' articles- (ex: [[2007]] etc). It's frustrating to see, in the ''birth'' and ''death'' sections - ''Canadian actor'', ''American comedian'', '''English actor''', ''Italian singer'', '''Scottish dancer''', etc. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 22:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I don't see what you're so riled up about. The guideline I'm currently proposing actually ''permits'' editors to indicate "English/(Northern) Irish/Scottish/Welsh" in many situations, since there appears to be a consensus that that is the right way to go where the UK is concerned. I agree with Timrollpickering &ndash; on balance, there's less harm having a guideline than not having one. At least that way if there's a dispute over whether a consensus exists one way or the other, the guideline provides evidence of the current consensus on the matter. And why is proposed note 3d "completely BONKERS"? It advises that a person's nationality should be left out ''when it's not clear what the nationality is''. Following the example in the rule, if, say, I was born in Singapore but was educated in the UK and worked there for half of my life and in Singapore for the other half, and there was at present no other evidence of my nationality, would it be accurate to state that I was "Singaporean" or "British"? Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 05:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

:That's easy! Based on what we know about you, it's as clear as a bell you're not British! Do you get my point? (silly question...) If someone doesn't know about something they shouldn't be editing it!!!! And what ''is'' the current 'harm' in there being no guidlines?! --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 09:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

::Matt, I am well aware that we shouldn't use Wikipedia to prove Wikipedia. I merely provided the link as illustration. I note that nowhere have you provided proof that Britain is not interchangeable with the UK, despite your rant on the subject of people providing proof of their opinions. And while Jack may not be British, I am and I fully understand the differences in terminology. Irish nationalists do not (naturally) regard NI as part of Britain, but most other British people do. Can I prove it? Probably not. Does that mean I'm wrong and you're right? No. And incidentally, may I suggest you calm down and stay civil. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] 12:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt, just because I'm not British doesn't mean I'm not knowledgable about some topics relating to Britain or that I should be barred from editing all British-related articles. The focus of this discussion is on whether the subjects of biographical articles should be termed "British" or "Welsh [''etc.'']". That fact is not always evident from available sources, in which case in accordance with proposed note 3d an editor should not make guesses about nationality. I can't understand why you object to that. If the fact can be discerned with some certainty (notes 3b and 3c), then of course nationality may be stated. In dismissing the example I gave you're missing my point. Of course you can discern my nationality based on information provided on my user page, in which case if you were editing a Wikipedia article about me you could state that fact. But in many cases, there won't be such clear evidence and the person's birth place or place(s) of residence may not provide a conclusive answer. In my view having a guideline along the lines I've proposed provides evidence of consensus on the matter, and may help to reduce disputes over how a person's nationality should be indicated. Obviously, if some editors choose to ignore it not much can be done about that, except reverting their changes. Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 13:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
:I'm in agreement; British editors ''are not'' the custodians of British related articles. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 14:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

'''Don't be so over-dramatic guys!'''

No-one is suggesting ‘barring’ anyone not British! But as a Welsh Brit, I’m entitled to demand that people know what they are talking about, especially if they are playing around with somebody else’s nationality (and doubly especially if it’s my own)! And it’s not 'uncivil' to highlight the simple flaws on your kind of argument, Necrothesp - and your 'tit for tat' reply just kind of proved my point!

And as for your comment on your proposed guidelines, Jacklee ("Obviously, if some editors choose to ignore it not much can be done about that, ''except reverting their changes''.") – that is exactly what I’m worried about! You and your guideline-followers will have to keep reverting articles to fit the guidelines! Reverting will get a lot worse then than you imagine it already is (and I don’t believe the current reverting/arguments are '''''anything like as bad''''' as you are falsely claiming just to push your guidelines through!). So why fix something that isn’t broken? And have you really got the ego to remove ‘Wales’ from an article just because you can’t find proof of Welsh nationality, and no-one else has given it? Don’t you have anything better to do with your time? To me it really is bonkers.

If there was the ’easy answer’ about Britishness that you so want, there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place – and '''''simple guidelines would already be there!''''' They are ''not'' there because Britain exists as a ''flexible'' construct – and always has! The success of Scottish independence and the likelihood of devolution was in the papers and on the news this morning – why not read or watch something like that for an idea about how we see ourselves? And don’t be so rude to say you are not really touching things like that. Look at the lines drawn through Africa, the mess around Jerusalem, countries like Belgium, Russia, China, Spain, Northern Ireland – I wish the world could fit into simple definitions, I really do! But push or guide people into ‘convenient’ slots – and you only stir up trouble. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 21:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

:Matt, why do you allege that other editors are trying to "push... people into 'convenient' slots"? The effect of note 3e of the latest version of the proposed guidelines is that in appropriate circumstances (''i.e.'', when notes 3b and 3c apply) "English [''etc.'']" may be used instead of "British", since there are a number of editors who think this is the preferred approach. This seems to be entirely in line with the views you've expressed. The whole idea behind the proposed guidelines is to record consensus on the issue in an article that is easy for other editors to locate.

:You express concern over proposed rule 3d. Don't you agree that unreferenced facts should not be inserted into articles? I don't go around randomly removing "Scottish [''etc.'']" from articles (yes, I have better things to do than that), but if I happen to be editing an article that I'm interested in why shouldn't I, if neither notes 3b or 3c are satisfied? What you seem to be suggesting is that editors should be free to insert "Welsh [''etc.'']" into articles with little or no basis, but that other editors should not remove such attributions.

:You said earlier that "[p]eople (as usual) can edit away on Wikipedia until a '''happy consensus''' is found for the article in question". If there's a dispute over whether a person should be described as "British" or "English [''etc.'']", it is not likely that a "happy consensus" will be reached. (And at no time did I say the situation was very bad, so I do not appreciate your allegation that I made a false claim.) Why not try to achieve consensus over the guidelines now? Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 22:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

:I'm trying to tell you that it is a different matter ''for each article''! You would have to cover all possiblilies - and what's the point in that? And if a dispute is meaningful it would actually be explained in the article anyway! By trying to work it out universally now, you are trying to squash us into one convenient blob - even if you don't see it!! On council forms and the like I can often put that I am Welsh, or a UK citizen, or British (and the same with using the postal service) – no one minds because we know what we mean ''and'' because we can't enforce even guidelines without offending people. And why offend people?? Wikipedia links to itself - so anyone here who doesn't know where Wales is can soon find out! How do you actually expect to find a collective consensus ‘first’ anyway? How will it happen? Honestly, the only consensus over your guidelines I can envisage would end up with something that simply gives a list of facts about the countries, and states the ways that are used to refer to them (but would that be a guideline? In fact what use would it be?). It’s a rule thing too – you don't seem to get it. Look back at earlier comments on NI (and Scotland) rather than Wales - if that helps --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 00:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
::Sooo, because many British describe themselves as ''English, Scottish, Welsh and (Northern) Irish'' (and foreigners describe them as such, aswell), Wikipedia should reflect this; even though it differs from the others countries of the world. Begrudingly, I'm starting to accept this (as it is what is, not what I want it to be). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 18:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I'm sorry, but referring to other people's comments (and I wasn't actually referring to mine) as "completely bonkers" and implying they don't know what they're talking about ''is'' uncivil. You should be able to voice your opinions (and they are only opinions) without resorting to that. I'm not actually disagreeing with most of what you say, but ranting at those who may disagree with some of it is not helping. We all have strong opinions, but it's best to stay polite. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] 09:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

:Hi, Matt, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the desirability of having a Manual of Style guideline on this matter. &mdash; Cheers, <span id="Jacklee" class="plainlinks">[[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span>]][[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Jacklee|contribs]] <small>•</small> [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Jacklee&site=en.wikipedia.org <span style="color:#002bb8">count</span>]&ndash;</span></sup> 15:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

:You just take it all so lightly!! You cannot mean that all people who are against having guidlines (like me) should 'agree to disagree' with people who are for them (like you)? That would mean keeping things as they are! I expect you just mean me and you - but I'm arguing the points, not you (and it's one you should understand that I am serious about) - so I will carry on, point by point, 'til I decide to stop! --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 16:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

===The Facts===

The facts are that nationality, in the strictest sense when relating to the United Kingdom, is British. I may be an Ulsterman, for example, but that is not my nationality - it's an ethnicity. Citizens of the United Kingdom all have one thing in common: they are British - whether they like it or not. --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">[[User:Setanta747|Setanta]]</span> 02:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:Even if they have 2 passports? [[User:MurphiaMan|MurphiaMan]] 06:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
::Begrudingly, I'm starting to accept these ''English, Scottish, Welsh and (Northern) Irish'' terms. Even the international community uses this terms, in place of ''British''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 18:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

::: A passport is not the be-all and end-all of citizenship. A passport is merely a document which offers proof that a country has accepted a person as a citizen thereof.

::: To answer your question though, [[User:MurphiaMan|MurphiaMan]]: yes - Citizens of the United Kingdom all have one thing in common: they are British - whether they like it or not... even if they are citizens of other countries as well. --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">[[User:Setanta747|Setanta]]</span> 03:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

::: Should anyone admit to some bias here? As someone else pointed out, being pro-'British' is as loaded as, say, being pro-'Scottish'. '''It is a deep political feeling for some to actually be British''' - perhaps that needs pointing out more. Life has been lost over this, after all. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

===Charles Darwin===

Since this example was raised, I've just had a quick glance in the talkpage archives. It seems the only point where this came up was briefly here: [[Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 2#Nationality]] and not generated much discussion there. However the opening description subsequently changed again - my guess is as a result of a merger of various texts due to discussion here [[Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 3#Informal review II: content]] which seems to have been about how to sum up Darwin's scientific contribution and nationality wasn't raised one way or the other.

And that's it it seems, unless there was a revert war that didn't leave a single trace on the talk page (or I've overlooked if it did). Certainly the point hasn't come up in the formal GA and FAC process. But I think this is probably because most people don't regard this as a yay or nay issue for FA status, especially if a wider edit war hasn't yet reached the article. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

===Where are we now?===

Well my summary is...
*The subject of British (etc) nationality is complex and controversial. Strongly-held diverse views have been expressed above. The people of the UK do not have a simple view of nationality, with opinion polls indicating that most of them think they are some combination of British plus Scottish/Welsh/Irish/English.
*There is a school of thought which says that we should use "British" as the nationality for all citizens of the UK. This has some merit in being simple, verifiable and having a meaningful legal status in the UK and internationally. However, it is unlikely ever to achieve any kind of consensus. Also, some of the subjects of Wikipedia articles strongly dissociate themselves from "Britishness".
*There is another school of thought which says that we don't need a guideline at all: we just discuss it at the article level, if necessary, and reach consensus there. The argument against this is that consensus at the article level can mean "which POV can last longer in revert wars".
*If we don't go for either the ubiquitous British or no guidelines at all options, there are some clear-cut cases where we might reach a consensus. For instance:
**People who have associated themselves with a particular nationalist cause (eg Sean Connery - Scottish)
**People who have dissociated themselves from a particular nationalist cause (I think Peter Green is an example of someone who doesn't like "English" and is therefore British).
**People whose lives have been too complex to assign them to anything other than British (maybe John Martyn: born in England, lives in Ireland, speaks with a Glaswegian accent.)
**People primarily associated with national sporting teams.
*That then leaves a lot of people who don't fit into those categories. Here, again, I think there is a division of views. Some would argue that if someone is born in (for example) England and spends most of their life there, it is obvious that we call them "English". The contrary view is that nationality concerns how "people prefer to describe themselves" and that, without any direct verifiable evidence of their preference, we should default to the legal nationality of "British".

Is this a fair summary of the arguments and the possible options and choices? [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] 15:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

:Hi, thanks for this. I was going to attempt a summary but am glad that you've beat me to it. I think you've captured the essence of the discussion so far, and would point out that each of the cases you've identified as matters upon which consensus might be reached are all reflected in the current version of my proposed guideline which is indicated [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#British, or English, Scottish, Welsh, (Northern) Irish?|above]]. There is one more issue &ndash; whether the debate should be widened to whether "nationality" should mean legal citizenship or "cultural nationality". I think it would be preferable to try and achieve consensus on the existing cases (''ie'', the UK situation first) before moving on to that wider issue. &mdash; Cheers, <span id="Jacklee" class="plainlinks">[[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span>]][[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Jacklee|contribs]] <small>•</small> [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Jacklee&site=en.wikipedia.org <span style="color:#002bb8">count</span>]&ndash;</span></sup> 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

:Generally agree, but some for small niggly points (e.g. chosing to be British to the exception of ENG/SCO/WAL/etc. is as much choosing a nationalist association as the other way around). Would add the complexity of Ireland - If we go with all from the UK being British, then logically anyone 1801-1922 from the 26 counties is "British" - that ain't going to go down, as well as being historically retrospective. Also, the complexity of Northern Ireland doesn't bode well for a policy of labelling people from NI as "British", nor is it accurate or verifiable, they could just as simplistically be labelled "Irish" if we are to use legal nationality. (While I'm mentioning retrospecitive histories, "British" as we mean it today is quite new. Even on Britain, Scottish/English is historically the stronger identifier, both internally and externally.)
:Finally, Jack's suggestion to widen the debate on whether "nationality" should mean legal citizenship or "cultural nationality" is a back door argument to label everyone British by blanking other arguments out. The very fact that we cannot reach agreement on this point is down to the fact that legal citizenship alone, in the case of the UK at least, is a dud. --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 16:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree on the main points listed, although with sport there may be a few clarifiers needed.
:1). If I remember correctly the FIFA rules "fix" a player's national team at the adult level so it may be possible that some players have played for multiple countries in their career.
:2). What do we do for players whose career straddles changes in the teams? The only UK related ones I can think of involve the two Irish football teams - the pre partition team carried on as an All Ireland Belfast based team until the 1950s when FIFA made it become Northern Ireland only; a new Dublin All Ireland team was founded in the 1920s and became a Republic only team in the 1950s and there are players who variously played for both and for pre&post (football) partition teams (the Home Nations were not in FIFA between the wars). (And it's possible the solution found may be a precedent for, say, the various Yugoslavia and successor teams.)
:3). Then there's "diaspora" players like Greg Ruzedski - again shall we just take the country they play for?
:4). What do we for sports that are generally played individually - Andy Murray has been a source of particular revert wars and even arguments over how "official" some Scotland vs England match he was once in counts.
:5). What about people who are notable in more than one field - e.g. [[Ken Maginnis]] who's both a very prominent supporter of the All Ireland Rugby Team (so "Irish") and a prominent Ulster Unionist politician (so "British")?
:A couple of others:
:6). With regards "where they've lived all the time" I think this is going to be a very messy rule of thumb, especially as studies have also found most non-white people living in England regard themselves as "British" and see "English" as an ethnicity.
:7). What about politicians - is it best to use which level the politics they operate at (with exemptions for those in one constiuent country only parties)? [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 16:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

'''"Is this a fair summary of the arguments and the possible options and choices?"''' No - Only because unfortunately you ended with the line "we should default to the legal nationality of "British" - and that is all some people want to read!!!!! To be honest, I don't feel you were strong enough about political feeling, especially bearing in mind that some people clearly genuinely feel it shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of rules. Now isn't that just the story of discontentment? There is one particular guy (from Belfast) here who is fervently pro-British - do we need all this? And regarding sport, all I will say is that it's just not cricket! Are the lazy-minded pedants going to sort the ECB out too? I haven't got time to explain everything - it's up to people to look into things ''properly''. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

::Matt. You seem to be objecting to my summary on the basis that, if you extract one phrase, out of context, it argues for particular point of view. The summary was supposed to include all the main points of view that have been expressed and you might have picked out "we don't need a guideline at all" or "it is obvious that we call them English". With regard to the politics, I (perhaps naively) thought the focus of the guidelines should be on the political feelings of the subjects of Wikipedia articles, not those of individual editors. [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] 09:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

::: I think you missed the bitter irony! Your summary covered a lot - but the real problems here to me are the ''clear dismissal'' of politics by some who want to just push this through, and also that some people are focusing singularly on sentences that seem to fit in with a possible guideline - and it can't work like that. You final line was a gift - check out the response! I just tried to bring those two points out - sorry if I sounded rude. Summaries can include emotive language when about emotive issues - and, politically, this ''is'' an emotive issue. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:Northern Irish is a special case because of the different laws pertaining to nationality and citizenship.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

::My thoughts:
::*It may well be that a person's legal or "cultural" nationality may not correspond with the country that he or she plays a sport for. In such a case, it should be made clear that while the person is of a certain nationality he or she plays for one or more countries.
::*The proposed rule that states it's acceptable to put down "Welsh [''etc.'']" if a person is born there and spends most of his or her life there may be a little vague, but it seems the best that can be formulated at this point. It legitimizes a practice that many editors adopt. If better evidence of nationality (''e.g.'', a newspaper article) turns up, the attribution can be affirmed or amended and the evidence cited in a footnote.
::*Sony-youth, by raising the question whether the debate should be widened to considering whether "nationality" should mean legal citizenship or "cultural nationality", it certainly wasn't my intention to covertly "label everyone British by blanking other arguments out". I was merely taking up a point that another editor had raised, and as you can see from my earlier remarks I actually felt that we shouldn't try to deal with that wider issue right now.
::*I'm not sure about the Northern Ireland issue, which seems to be a special case. If either "British" or "Irish" is felt to be unacceptable as a default in the absence of evidence, perhaps people from that region should just be described as "from Northern Ireland".
::*Matt, you are quite happy to permit editors to insert "English [''etc.'']" as they wish &ndash; and as Bluewave has stated in his summary there may be consensus for editors to do so ''where there is sufficient evidence such as birth and long residence in a particular place''. But you appear to be objecting to the use of "British" ''even when there is no such evidence''. Really, you can't have it both ways. And calling people "lazy-minded pedants" doesn't help one way or another.
::&mdash; Cheers, <span id="Jacklee" class="plainlinks">[[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span>]][[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Jacklee|contribs]] <small>•</small> [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Jacklee&site=en.wikipedia.org <span style="color:#002bb8">count</span>]&ndash;</span></sup> 00:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm pretty much with Jack here (I think).
:::*English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish if a person is known to have expressed a particular preference, although if born and brought up elsewhere I think "XXX-born" should be added (e.g. "Scottish-born Welsh").
:::*English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish if a person (has) lived almost all their lives in one country and is not specifically known to have expressed a preference to be known as British.
:::*British where a person (has) moved around and is not known to have expressed a preference for any particular ethnicity ''or'' anyone who is specifically known to have expressed a preference to be known as British.
:::-- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] 11:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

::::These are quite subjective don't you think? Judging how much someone ''feels'' one thing or another. Asking if they have moved around ''much''. (For verifiability they also default to "British" in all but the most exceptional circumstances also.) I (think I) get what you mean, but it kind of puts us where we are right now, doesn't it?
::::How about just codify the current observable consensus (based on how people edit articles), rather than trying to make one up here: for people from the UK is an exception to the current guideline. Use Britsh/English/Scottish/Welsh/(Northern) Irish as agreed on an article-by-article basis. --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 11:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Of course it's subjective. It can't be anything else given the subject. The problem is that there is no agreement or consensus. It's all very well saying that this should be done on an article-by-article basis, but that won't stop the people who go around changing the nationality in every article they can find on a British person to their own perception of what that nationality should be. I am merely laying out my own opinions on the matter and the way I write articles, which is, I think, a fairly balanced way of doing it. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] 12:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::One other problem - Cornish. IIRC the current consensus has been that people from Cornwall are to be described as "British" not "English" but I can't remember where this is set down. (And has there ever been discussion on how Orkney & Shetland are covered - I've read that some consider being called "Scottish" even worse than being called "English"!) [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::Again, that's not necessarily accurate for everybody. I'm Cornish, but I would give my "nationality" as English. It's generally only Cornish nationalists (a small minority) who object strongly to the description. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] 12:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

::Oh for Pete’s sake! I'm having ''what'' "both ways"? That’s just a lazy and wild stab to discredit me – it’s not related to anything – it’s just a ‘suggestive’ stab! How flippin dare you suggest I have something against the word 'British'! Have you read "anything" I have written? A single word?? I have CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY objected to ''anyone'' creating guidelines ''because'' we need '''individual flexibility of national expression in the UK'''! It's how we get on here! As I have said before, I myself happen to be incredibly proud of being both Welsh and British (for very personal reasons) - the point is that ''I'' decide I can be this – and I decide when I use British and when I use Welsh - and I won't accept any disparate group of people ratifying anybody’s 'guide' for me to follow – because guides refer to rules. It's the same for people I know who are just Welsh etc – they don’t want to be told how to do it. Did you know that WP founder Jimbo Wales actually wanted to remove all the ‘rigid’ political info boxes – because he knew the disagreements they stir cannot be dealt with by guidelines? His philosophy is to use balanced text in the article, and to leave it to us. I’ll tell you now - the UK citizens most happy with your kind of guidelines would be English Conservatives and NI Protestants (and you have support here), the ones the most against would generally be the burgeoning Scottish nationalists, and NI Catholics. Wales is pretty mixed, and the word ‘England’ (and especially the use of it’s flag) has grown in marked popularly in recent years – everyone in the UK has remarked on that. There is nothing any self-important people here can do to change the reality of being a UK citizen! Any WP guidelines would have to be about consensus, but you simply won't find it across the UK on nationality! As life has to go on, we incorporate (on the whole) each others notions, labels and views on a "flexible" day-to-day level. Over a number of posts now, I have given quite a few examples of the complex nature of the UK (supporting a consistently ''clear'' argument) - all of which you have ''studiously'' ignored. But even a war of attrition cannot be won here! (I hope anyway – my dystopia is a Wikipedia that’s 100% canards, colour and cant – and there’s no one left who’s wise enough to know!).

::I must also defend my tone of voice, as you highlight it. I have to say first that I find your guideline proposal a personal affront to my national identity – as you are (ultimately) trying to structure how I can express myself. It’s implicit, but you can’t hide from it. Regarding my “lazy pedants” comment, isn’t it ''lazy'' to keep having to admit how little knowledge of the UK you have? '''Where is your research?''' Some wisdom and knowledge of politics, history and world affairs would go not amiss either. Nationalism and national identity are hardly trivial matters! I also feel that you (as the creator of this proposed guideline) have given very little time to properly understand my contributions – yet you do refer to them. And it is fair to say ''pedant'', because you tend to pick out convenient little details (or even admonish the tone) rather than focus on the points that are raised. Such a structure as the UK is awash with little details, which will sometimes contradict each other – you could probably go on forever cherry-picking certain useful ‘facts’- but they will ''never'' build you an acceptable guideline! People don’t use complicated details to describe their nationhood – they generally use passion! And these guidelines are about how people can ''describe'' (in a single word!) a nationality, are they not? Also, you cannot deny that you have consistently made it clear that the very ''neatness'' of your numbered box of 'guidelines' is more important than any matter that has, so far, been held against them! You just can't seem to accept that a flexibility of expression is ''needed'' by UK citizens - however annoyingly untidy it may seem to impatient passers by. Saving writing all that, I thought maybe ‘lazy pedant’?

::And, by the way, your new fancy multi-coloured signature takes up 7 lines of code on my edit box. If we ever needed a guideline - jeez! Sorry – I just can't be monosyllabic about this (and I’m not able to do false politeness) – this is not a WP status fantasy to me – it’s about ''my'' Britain - it's eventful past, it's troubled present, it's uncertain future - all the things you choose to ignore, and I care passionately about. I also find Wikipedia a terrifying prospect for the entire world. Hasn’t anyone noticed that half of us here are ''barking'' mad? --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 16:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:::As pointed out in my previous posts on this matter, Originally, I felt ''British'' was the correct term to use, period. However, common-usage backs ''English, Scottish, Welsh and (Northern) Irish'' (as I pointed out, even the International community uses these). It sure is a balancing act, to say the least. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 15:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Matt, what happened to trying to work with others toward consensus? Others here seem much more willing to listen to others and actually work out a compromise. Your voluminous, over-emotional, and often uncivil commentary has driven me away from this conversation, and perhaps it has others too. You might want to rethink your approach in the future. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] 18:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

::::Hi - hi! Hi - I just wanted to say what lovely people you all are and how nice it is to be here! Er, I don't think we need guidelines here really. ok? ok - thanks for listening to me - ok? ok, er, bye.. bye. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 19:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::Come on guys, keep these comments on your personal pages. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Use Welsh, Scottish etc. You don't need to add British because that's inherent in those nationalities. At least just use one or the other, both is just unnecessary. And Jacklee, given Ioan Gruffudd identifies himself very strongly as a Welshman, for what it's worth I think he'd think Welsh was the way to go. [[User:121.220.58.198|121.220.58.198]] 09:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::Hi, Matt:
::::::*On '''tone''' &ndash; I disagree that your strong feelings on the subject justify your tone. The way you write does not assume others are talking about the matter in good faith and tends towards stifling discussion. And it deflects attention from the focus of the discussion, exactly what you counsel against.
::::::*On '''guidelines''' &ndash; no one has said this is not a complex or controversial issue. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a guideline on it. What are guidelines for? To record consensus and compromises, and to provide guidance for editors who need assistance with certain issues. Not all editors who edit biographical articles about UK people are themselves from the UK, and there will be some UK editors who feel they need guidance on the matter as well. Will there ever be complete consensus on the issue at hand? Probably not. But as Bluewave has summarized above, one compromise is to have a guideline recognizing that some editors have a preference for indicating "Scottish, [''etc.'']" when there are sufficient grounds for this attribution, and for indicating "British" when there aren't. We will have to agree to disagree on the need for guidelines on this matter.
::::::How do you like the new streamlined signature? :) &mdash; Cheers, <span id="Jacklee" class="plainlinks">[[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span>]][[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::: "Record compromises"??! You are talking like this is some kind of international peace treaty! I honestly wonder where some of you guys are coming from! The rule of VETO in this case MUST apply – if a significant group of people feel like I do (believe me I’m not alone) then a tiny group of disparate ‘computer owners’ cannot be allowed to push a guideline through – even if they get over 50% in a tree house vote! Too many people take WP far too seriously for political guidelines like this. Remember Jimmy Wales on nations! Also remember WP on consensus – “Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day”.

:::::: Didn't I answer "agree to disagree" before? Talk about war of attrition! (I get the message though - you refuse to read me due to tone, and you're prepared to begin at your own beginning ad nauseam)

:::::: Anyone see the Crying Game on TV last night, by the way? The (Northern) Irish protagonist allowed himself to be called Scottish the whole film by the gay cross-dresser he was falling in love with. Just a thought. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 16:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Notice how the (Northern) Irish protagonist wanted to shield his identity from the the gay cross-dresser he was falling in love with? --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 01:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Of course. But ''why''? What was Neil Jordan saying about identity? --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 02:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::That those of us that care about our celtic nationality are totally gay?;-) [[User:MurphiaMan|MurphiaMan]] 07:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::This is a good point JL (even more streamlined!) - from memory there certainly were a couple of points that people agreed on, e.g.
:::::::* A member of the Westminster cabinet should be called "British"
:::::::* Anyone with an expressed British/English/Scottish/etc. identity should be put down as that.
:::::::* The 26 counties should be Irish (or, in some notable cases, Anglo-Irish e.g. [[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington|Duke of Wellington]])
:::::::I'm sure there are more. Maybe start with these. --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 13:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::::When I read a line like “A member of the Westminster cabinet should be called "British"” I suppose my personal problem is I find that kind of language unsuitable here (even if it wasn’t phrased that way in a guideline). Like WP founder Jimbo Wales, I think that WP just isn’t the place for this kind of detailing. It might come down to what we want WP to be – I personally hope to god it will never see itself as an authority on theses matters.

:::::::Also (just as an extra thought – not meant to be part of my direct argument) I bump into quite a lot of young and old internet-users who haven’t fully understood the “Wiki” nature of WP – which does scare me. At the moment, WP is filling the top of the screen with (pretty anonymous) quotes describing it as the greatest encyclopaedia ever – there is not much that explicitly explains to people dropping into a page that it maybe (or is often likely in certain political matters) contaminated. (or to go further, with bluff, bias and lies!).--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 17:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Nice'n'all that your musings on Wikipedia are ... ummm, back onto topic - since it's clear that many people do want guidance on when to use "British" and when to use ENG/SCO/WAL/IRE (as I wrote before, I'm not one of them), would you agree that one thing everyone agrees on (as demonstrated by what happens in fact) is that members of the UK central government (or whatever kind of language you do find suitable) should be called "British"? And so, this could be drawn up into a guideline at least. Or is it just guidelines that you don't like (as a matter of your own personal policy)?
::::::::To draw up a line that was said to you earlier, maybe you might considerer chilling your tone, Matt, when dealing with other editors. If you make life uncomfortable for those you are supposed to be engaging in collaboration with then there's little likelihood that we'll have any Wiki in this 'pedia. --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 19:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Everything I say is relevant - in a roundabout way! Try and envision the wisdom of having ''no guidelines'' on this matter at all (kind of like we always have been doing..) – it’s the clever idea I’m trying to get across. I’m trying various methods of doing it, but it seems to be a bit over the brainbow, like one of those difficult IQ questions – and some people consequently won’t acknowledge it, however many examples or tacks I use. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 01:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm for the wisdom of no guidelines (as I wrote above in a non-roubabout way), others want guidance. It's give and take, Matt, working with others. What I'm suggesting is that we start with the things that we agree on. --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 01:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Just curious. How many guidelines do we have on this subject? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 15:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::::I am trying to understand the argument for having no guidelines. It seems to be based on the view that UK nationality requires great flexibility, but I am struggling to see what this flexibility means. If it refers to the complexity of nationality issues in the UK, and the corresponding difficulty in drawing up meaningful guidelines, I would argue that this is a reason for having guidelines: only with guidelines will there be any sort of consistent approach to that complexity. If, on the other hand, it means that individual editors need the flexibility to make their own decisions about people's nationality, in the absence of citable sources, then this sounds like even more of a reason for a guideline! I'm obviously missing something, here - what is it? [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] 15:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: (- -----) ;-) [[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::And I'm trying to understand the 'resistance' to using ''British'' for ''all'' British biographies. Keeping in mind that ''English, Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish'' are used (and sourced), the cry that ''British'' usage is offensive is a lame excuse IMHO. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 18:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::: I certainly agree, which is why it is pointless to even discuss this further. Simple fact is that we have a lot of emotional wrecks and POV-pushers on Wikipedia in relation to this subject and generally they must be included in any consensus. It's an absolutely ridiculous position, which leads to countless edit wars and other problems, but at the moment the absence of a solution is the only way we can move forward.

:::::::::: I will never give support to any guideline which gives an Anglo/Britannocentric view of the constituent countries of the UK and as such I will never back any guidelines which institute special treatment for Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish identities. Plenty will not support use of the word British except where absolutely necessary. It's not something which you, or any of us, will ever solve. --[[User:Breadandcheese|Breadandcheese]] 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::: Great second paragraph, Breadandcheese - summed it up really well. RE first parag (if I understand it correctly) - I think these 'countless edit wars' we are told of are a bit of an exaggeration (in my honest experience) - and the almost-surreptitious, highly-unfair, very un-WP and intrinsically-prejudiced 'source' proviso (for each home nation) that actually holds the proposed guideline together, must be dealt with head-on, as it’s always there. The real (main) other problem should be given a name -'Northern Ireland' (you mentioned anglo/Brit-centricism in the second parag). For me the crazies around are the ones who crave the neatness of a comfortable fix! 'POV' is kind-of 'built-in' with this issue, unfortunately.

::::::::::: For me, the vibrant union of the UK works the way it works – so the differences of approach brought about by diversity are not an untenable situation - more an expected, and expedient one! The whole union has always been a juggling act - it's the way it is. The only fully 'neat' solution would be to end each of the individual unions! (which for the record, I’m personally not a huge fan of, all things considered)--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC

====Where do we go from here?====
Breadandcheese, I hope I'm right in summarizing your position thus: while you disagree with providing special treatment for Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish identities, you recognize that many editors will not support use of the word "British" either except where absolutely necessary. Therefore, you generally agree with Matt Lewis that a guideline is futile.

Where do we go from here? I have two suggestions:

*We could continue the discussion to see if a compromise guideline can be achieved. However, I think it is clear that some of us are of the firm view that no guideline is desirable.
*We could insert into "[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)]]" a short guideline simply stating that apart from situations where there is evidence that a person wishes to have his or her nationality stated in a particular way, there is currently no consensus on the issue, and in the case of the UK provide a link to a [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Non-official essays or proposals|non-official essay]] that summarizes possible options (''e.g.'', "British", "British from Wales [''etc.'']"; "Welsh, [''etc.'']") for editors who would like some views on the matter.

The upshot of adopting the second suggestion is that no editor can justify reverting an edit (for example, reversing the insertion of "English" in place of "British") made by another editor on the ground that there is "consensus" on the matter. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 23:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That’s not a terrible idea, Jack – though I first thought that such guidelines are a bit 'wishy-washy'. But I can understand why some people who don’t understand the UK might look here for guidance (though I maintain that researching via the relevant WP links is better!). And it would give the state of play, though I doubt 'consesus' is used ''that'' much as a reason for changes - most people I feel are correcting to what they personally feel is 'right' for the article! I wrote a very long ‘Points Against’ that was a bit like an essay. I didn’t post it here as things have quietened down so much - and it was very long! It seemed a bit churlish as things stood - and this page is getting pretty big as it is! I was thinking of posting it on Wikimedia (with just a link from here) – but Essays might be better still. Somebody could do it for the ‘For’ arguments, and they both (including any others too of course - could be linked from a note of sorts).

One part my Points Against (pasted below) did offer the idea of a partial-guideline – but it still has intrinsic problems! Perhaps something even simpler (like you suggest) could work, though? I’ve copied the relevant part below. I had earlier questioned whether ‘Style’ is the right place for the guideline, anyway.

BUT PROOF OF FAILURE,
*The related ‘non-sovereign nations flag guideline’, after saying we ‘should’ use the sovereign flags, ended up saying how people have (and will have) different ideas in the UK! It is very wishy-washy too – I’m surprised (and worried) that it got through! It is in prose, rather than point form, and it’s reasonable to see it as a pointer to what is most likely to develop here (in order for the proposal gets passed). Why show bias and risk offence with something like that? Even at best, it could only be something like;
THE ‘WISHY-WASHY’ APPROACH
* ‘People have strongly opposing ideas on the relative importance of labels such as UK, Britain, British, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and English. Consensus has consistently ''not been found'' for a point-by-point guideline.
*In the event of not being able to choose which label fits best in a new situation, we recommend looking at what others have done in similar situations, and/or to consider using the relevant Discussion page to ask for help. If still in doubt, consider leaving it open for someone who has a better feeling for it, or deferring it to someone else. You can always post a request in Discussion for the label to be inserted. Please respect other people’s points of view! It is okay to ‘Be Bold’ and make your choice, but remember that disagreement may arise.
*Before changing an existing label, it is wise to have a solid grounding on the subject (the UK and it’s ‘constituent nations’). Repeatedly changing an expressed consensus to your own preference is strongly discouraged. This behaviour can lead to action being taken by Wikipedia, where all related interaction is considered.’
IS IT WORTH IT?
*It’s a kind of notice of affairs, non-directing guideline, and fair warning of the rules (I don’t know them in detail). Like a more rigid guideline though, it would only have merit if it didn’t step on anyone’s toes. It’s ''ADVANTAGES'' could be that it discourages further shenanigans in here (though this isn’t guaranteed of course), it is somewhere to go for confused people who are looking in ‘guidelines’ for help, and it’s a chance to simply offer a few words of advise on WP. It’s ''DISADVANTAGES'' are that it can be seen as contentious in itself! It mentions the labels (ascribing them value), it makes people hesitate, it makes it an issue, it highlights the negative word ‘disagreement’ (or whichever word is used here), it’s a bit anti-‘be bold’ (the WP philosophy for contributing), it’s a bit ambiguous in places (what constitutes a ‘similar situation’? or a ‘grounding’?), and it’s a bit ‘heavy’ - when few problems actually occur as things stand (sudden conflicts can happen anyway, of course - guideline or no). It also brings up the issue of exactly when consensus in a discussion is reached, and whether it is 100% valid – these are hard things to formulate (though someone who better knows the rules regarding arbitration etc would improve it here).
WHERE TO PUT IT (IF NOT IN STYLE)?
*An appropriate place might be the rather empty (and controversial in itself?) ‘Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)’. If it had to be in Style, ‘Manual of Style (The United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) - related biography articles)’ would be to follow the style of a group of examples already set, such as on Russia and China - though none of them currently include details on constituent nations.--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 00:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

====Arbitrary section break====
(Deindent)
For what it's worth, here is what [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations]] says in this area:

:''The exact definition of a "[[state]]", "[[nation]]" or "[[country]]" is often politically divisive and can result in debates over the choice of flag. For example, [[England]], [[Scotland]], [[Wales]] and [[Northern Ireland]] are referred to by the British government as "countries" within the United Kingdom [http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp]; the Canadian government recently recognised the [[Québécois]] as "a nation within a united Canada.";[http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061127/quebec_motion_061127?s_name=&no_ads=] and the [[United States]] recognizes many [[Native Americans in the United States|Native American]] tribal groupings as semi-independent "nations". Some people may feel stronger identification with such entities than with the wider state of which they are a citizen, and editors sometimes choose, for example, to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_League&oldid=121057730 an English flag rather than a British one]. Such choices can cause debates, or can sometimes mislead if the editor's own political bias is the motivation for the choice, and does not represent the views of the article subject.''

:''In general, ''if'' a flag is felt to be necessary, it should be that of the [[Sovereignty|sovereign state]] (e.g. the [[United States of America]] or [[Canada]]) not of a subnational entity, even if that entity is sometimes considered a "nation" or "country" in its own right. This is partly for the sake of consistency across Wikipedia, but also because a person's legal citizenship is verifiable, whereas "nationality" within a country can be porous, indeterminate and shifting; an English person's passport describes them as "British", for example, not "English", and being English is a matter of self-identification, not verifiable legality in most cases. Many editors, however, feel that the UK's subnations in particular are an exception, most especially in sporting contexts, and disputes are likely to arise if this sovereign state maxim is enforced in articles on subnational British topics.''

...and of course the reverse applies as well as some of the examples linked show.

In terms of whether we need guidelines or not, I think frankly ''something'' has to be set down covering the UK, not least because so many Wikipedia policies (let alone consensuses) use terms like "country", "nation" and "nationality" without always covering set-ups such as the UK (which is not a unique situation) and individual pages are often left with these arguments that do often drift into how the terms are basically applied. Then even when something has been sorted, someone comes along and changes it "in line with other relevant pages", then others start changing those pages to try and fit everything their way. Currently [[Tim Henman]] is described as "a former English tennis player" in spite of the fact that in international tennis the country one plays for is "Great Britain" - these seems to be an overspill of debate about [[Andy Murray (tennis)|Andy Murray]] (see [[Talk:Andy Murray (tennis)]] for long threads) and note that neither page is currently consistent with [[Greg Rusedski]] who is currently just "a former British tennis player". Leaving it to individual article consensus isn't really working since a) a lot of the time consensus seems hard to reach; b) even when consensus can be reached the whole can of worms gets reopened when a biography of another person in the same field becomes an edit war; and, most importantly of all, c) the overall presentation of the information across the encyclopedia is diminished and the reader (who we're doing this for after all) is left confused as to how it all works (and keeping to the tennis examples, this is particularly messy for a sport where in the tournaments that get the most attention in the UK the players play individually but where there are also team tournaments, so it gets very silly when the teams players play for aren't clear). It's clear from a lot of editors that there is both confusion and frustration over the way this debate goes round and round in circles. The point of guidelines and style-guides is to aid people writing so that things are consistent and to avoid having the same fight time and time again. It's not about trying to impose rules of "nationality" onto people. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with Bluewave and Timrollpickering's recent comments. The reason why I raised this point for discussion in the first place was because I had been using the attribution "British" in some articles, and another editor reverted them on the basis that there was "consensus" the other way, which I couldn't find any evidence of. As regards the use of a veto in discussions, that is not my understanding of how Wikipedia works. I quote from "[[Wikipedia:Consensus]]": "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue ''in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical.'' ... [A] course of action should be chosen that is ''likely to satisfy the most persons'' (rather than merely the majority)." [Emphasis added.] Matt, you are probably right that there are other editors out there who agree it is preferable not to have guidelines on this matter. But none of them have chosen to participate in this discussion, even though notice was given on several WikiProject talk pages. Perhaps in future the issue might be reopened for further discussion (see "[[Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change]]"), but I think there is consensus at the moment that there do need to be guidelines. &mdash; Cheers, <span id="Jacklee" class="plainlinks">[[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span>]][[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 17:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

::Though I understand 'why' some editors prefer using ''English, Scottish, Welsh and Norther Irisih'', it would be soooo much easier to simply use ''British'' (particularly for related articles like [[2007]]), sooo much easier. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 18:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

:::GoodDay, I agree with you, but if there are a significant number of editors who prefer the alternative then I'm willing to accept that, until there's evidence of contrary consensus. &mdash; Cheers, <span id="Jacklee" class="plainlinks">[[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span>]][[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 18:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

::::I think we would be wise to take counsel from the flag debate as quoted above, and I think Timrollpickering and Jacklee make very valuable points too. And I would suggest that it is a bad sign that this discussion has reached the low of debating whether a guideline should be put in place at all. The very length of this page and the recurring nature of the debate itself clearly indicate that guidelines of some kind are called for. It is extremely unWiki-like to suggest that the answer is to have no guideline, and it seems disrespectful of those who are trying to solve this very real problem to push to have no guideline at all. I would encourage everyone who's been spending their valuable time trying to problem-solve here not to waste much time debating the unhelpful no guideline suggestion. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] 19:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::Ok, good points, and I'm being won over to the "guidelines" side (actually won back - way, way back in time I wanted a British-Irish MOS, and would still advise liasing with the [[WP:IMOS]] on this as that is an established MOS that guides language use in Northern Ireland and the 26 counties prior to 1922 and post independence). The problem, I see is what GoodDay comments on - "it would be soooo much easier to simply use ''British''" - yes, so much easier, but we are not in the business of air brushing reality just because it easier to forget the facts. There are, however, things that we can agree on. Timrollpickering points are very enlightening - if a person is known for something which is on a UK(or GB)-wide basis then "British" is better. So, Tim Henman is a British sportsman, but David Beckham is an English sportsman. Likewise, Gordon Brown is a British politician, but Jack McConnell is a Scottish politician. (I am a little touchy about this however, since in my experience Henman is much more a star of England's eye - not to mention the "English tennis player wins/British tennis player loses" fiascos!)
:::::I would also support the use of constructions like this in the info box:
::::::{{flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[United Kingdom|British Citizen]] ([[English people|English]])
:::::These type of construction almost won consensus before. I only just noticed that the wording in passports in "British Citizen", not simply "British". I don't think it co-incidental, we are not the only people to have argued over this. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason for the "British Citizen" constuction on passports (instead of blanket descriptions of all people as "British") was to overcome the very same difficulty that we are having here. Dealing with reality has it's advantages - other people have usually encountered the same problems before. --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 13:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I think {{flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[United Kingdom|UK Citizen]] ([[English people|English]]) is less loaded -- and shorter. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Can go with that too, or {{flag|United Kingdom}} ([[English people|English]]). I would not link to mix the two, like: {{flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[United Kingdom|British]] ([[English people|English]]). --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 16:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::"British Citizen" means something specific under [[British nationality law]]: "UK citizen" does not. I would caution against making up terminology, even if it is less loaded. [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::There aren't citizens of the UK? Well, in that case, {{flag|United Kingdom}} ([[English people|English]]) is good. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] 17:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm not suggesting that you can't describe someone as being a citizen of the UK...just that it's not a meaningful designation of nationality! "United Kingdom (English)" looks fine to me, but I suspect the really difficult thing to get consensus on is whether a particular person is "United Kingdom (English)" or "United Kingdom (British)" in cases where there is no citable reference (eg membership of a national sporting team) to suggest which is appropriate. I did a quick straw poll of some friends at the weekend and despite the fact that all of them have spent most of their lives in England (and Britain, of course) they were pretty evenly divided between those who think their nationality is "English" and those who say they are "British". I'm not suggesting my friends are representative of all the subjects of Wikipedia articles, but I think this is one of the central difficulties of resolving UK nationality. [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::We could of course just avoid nationality all together. So, outside of clearly agreed cases (such as British politician, English sportsman, like above - if that is agreed), we just avoid mentioning nationality on UK articles. This, I think it the advantage of "British Citizen" - that it is actually defined, but avoids latbelling nationality. We could add the constituent country greatest association. So, Billy Connolly is a commedian from Scotland, and his infobox says:
:::::::::::::{{flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[British Citizen]] ([[Scotland]]).
::::::::::::In the case of no clearly attributable constiuent country, use United Kingdom. --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Minor capitalization thing occurred to me -- shouldn't it be {{flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[British citizen]] ([[Scotland]])? Also, I think your point about calling people "[[British citizen]]s" as opposed to simply "British" is a sound idea. It emphasizes that legal citizenship/nationality is being discussed, not necessarily cultural identity/consituent country. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] 16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::I could give a more one sided landslide (although just as annecdotal and unscientific) - during the summer I worked for my college's clearing hotline (for admissions) and the proforma we used asked for enquirer's "nationality" without us giving any clarification about legal vs cultural vs loyalty vs what-someone-tells-you-you-are. Apart from international enquirers, ''every'' single response I took down was "British". [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If the hotline dealt with admissions to a college, then by implication any fool could tell that the real question was: "Are you a UK citizen? If not, then are you an EU citizen?" So the significant answer would be "British", as that is the person citizenship. --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Not necessarily. I've certainly heard Scots give their nationality as Scottish when it was obvious that the question being asked was "are you a British citizen?" In fact, I once heard one get very wound up because he couldn't understand "Scottish" wasn't a valid option on the nationality field of a customer service database - he simply couldn't accept that his nationality was British. So while it might be obvious to most of us, it's not a given that the response will be the one we expect. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] 09:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Indeed. Considering some of the other question produced ambiguous answers that took time to extract the correct information (and many callers were stressed) I doubt every answer was a logical thinking through as to what I was asking the information for. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 10:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

::::If the flag guideline is impressive then why not copy it's style? A few paragraphs explaining the nature of the UK, describing it’s nations, showing how people have gone about things, and ending up on a warning that with the UK ‘many editors do things differently’ and ‘disputes are likely to arise’! I’ll go for that!

::::PS. Aren’t flags a bit silly by the way? Wikipedia never used to have all this bumph! The union Jack is such a notorious (right wing) and technically ambiguous (no Wales) symbol too! Flag waving - never really liked it, and I’ve got a lovely big red dragon on mine too.

::::PPS. I thought we realised that ‘British’ is a clear nationality in itself to many (NI unionists esp). It deserves equal footing on the bias front! It’s probably the biggest single reason there are no guidelines! --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 18:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::(Dare I repeat it), Sooo much easier to simply use ''British''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::The Union Jack (Flag) is "notorious" and "right-wing"? What are you on about? Since when has our national flag been right-wing? Apart from in the opinions of the obsessively PC or obsessively nationalist brigade of course, and they're a tiny minority. Although I do agree with getting rid of flags from Wikipedia - I loathe these silly infoboxes that seem to be springing up everywhere, turning a serious encyclopaedia into what looks like a kids' project. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] 09:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::What am I talking about? Certain groups were always comfortable with the Union Jack - the armed forces and royalists in particular. But you can't hide that on the streets it was used as a 'nationalistic' symbol for years (in the pro-white, pro-right way). Embarrassingly, they were not always quite the tiny minority we’d like to believe (and plenty of racism is still around). That bad image was part of the reason why the St George flag has been reclaimed the way it has been recently - though, in my opinion, that was mostly down sporting pride and a growing need for more lucid English identity. The Union Jack didn’t fit – and always had that unfortunate ‘skinhead’ stigma to it. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 16:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::The Union Jack is a 'hate symbol'? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::Not a common 'hate symbol' - but it does have a stigma due to the way it has been used. Tourists see a lot of it - but we don't exactly fly it outside our houses. A lot of us did in the 1977 Silver Jubilee, but the last (gold?) Jubilee went largely unnoticed in all but the most royal-loving areas. Times change over the years. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::Glad you agree on the info boxes though - I far prefer prose-like text, myself - and they can look 'child-like' too - you're right. I think I like writing - if it's got to be done (and WP isn't going anywhere, unfortunately), I think using prose, rather than lists, is the way to do it. You can always add the other side when it comes to prose. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
<s>::::::Again, the Union Jack is a ''hate symbol''??. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 17:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)<s>

I don't think the Union Flag is any more a hate symbol than, say, the French Tricolor is a hate symbol because of its use by the far right, and that's still embraced by the French people. Far right groups will always use their national flag - that doesn't make it a hate symbol in the eyes of the majority. It's true that the Cross of St George is increasingly seen in England (although that too has been identified with far right groups, probably more so than the Union Flag), but that's more a response to the increasing use of the Scottish saltire and the Welsh dragon, Scottish and Welsh devolution, and the feeling of a growing number of English people that we are the only one of the three nations of Great Britain who are not "allowed" to express our loyalty to our country without being accused of racism and the other unpleasant aspects of nationalism (and the extremely annoying claims that there's no such thing as an English nation, as opposed to the increasing recognition of Scotland and Wales as nations). It's not a reaction against the Union Flag, but an expression of Englishness and a reaction against growing Scottish and Welsh nationalism and anti-English sentiment (e.g. the number of Scots saying they'd support any team that was playing football or rugby against England - no English person I know would reciprocate that unpleasantly unsporting sentiment).

I also, incidentally, don't think it's true that the Queen's Golden Jubilee went unnoticed - the coverage and the crowds were huge! Maybe we didn't have street parties and the like universally (although I believe there were plenty of them), but that's because the country is a very different place from what it was in 1977 - we just don't generally do that sort of community thing any more. And as my school insisted on doing maypole dances in 1977, thank God I say! -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] 17:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
:Is this part of the reason for the resistance to using ''British'' in these bio articles? Many editors see the 'Union Jack' as a symbol of hate? or domination?[[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:'Domination' is an interesting word - I'm writing a new section attemping to list just the 'against' points of view (which hasn't been properly done yet). I've got an interesting point on how the word 'Britain' (which the Jack, of course, represents) can be perceived... got to get it finished first (its got quite long!)! --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In Cardiff in 1977 bunting was up and down every other street. Honestly, with the Golden Jubilee, no one round here celebrated (visibly at least) at all. we haven't lost that much sociability! No-one wanted the bunting, and no-one wanted the fervour. I can see certain areas of England (some in the East End of London maybe?) still going for it though.

PS. I love the English, I just don't want to see them win anything. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
:But I'm talking about ''British'' not English. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 18:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:RE 'the English... winning' - the above was to Necrothesp (re his cheesed-off comment on the Scottish! The Welsh are a bit like that to!). --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
::This ''Arbitrary Break sub section'' is a pain. All this 'flag talk' belongs at [[Wikipedia: Manual of Style (flags)]], not here. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 18:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

===Wikipedia draft essay ready for discussion===
Hi, all. Now that the discussion on the matter on this page has concluded, I've prepared the draft of a Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Essays|essay]] on the matter entitled "[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (people from the United Kingdom)]]", incorporating some suggestions by [[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]]. Views on how the essay may be improved are welcome on its [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (people from the United Kingdom)#Wikipedia draft essay ready for discussion|talk page]]. I also suggest adding the underlined sentence indicated below to "[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)]]":

{{quotation|The opening paragraph should give: ...<p>
3. Nationality.
:3a. 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. <u>Note that there is presently no consensus as to how this guideline should apply to [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (people from the United Kingdom)|people from the United Kingdom]].</u>
:3b.''Ethnicity'' should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.}}

&mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 02:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Following a discussion on the essay's [[Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Title|talk page]] in which the view was expressed that calling the essay "Manual of Style" was misleading as it suggested the guidelines are official when they aren't, the essay has been renamed "[[Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom]]". Its shortcut is [[WP:UKNATIONALS]]. Comments are still welcome on the essay as well as on the update to "[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)]]" proposed in the box above. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 15:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:I'll give it a look soon - try and turn my mind back! I pretty much abandoned my essay too-long and unfinished - well done on getting yours done (not to say I'll necessarily approve course..!). I'll dig mine out and refresh some of my thoughts on it. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been almost two weeks since I posted the above notice about the essay, and there have been some useful comments on ways to improve it on its [[Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom|talk page]]. As there haven't been any objections to the proposed modification to "[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)]]" indicated in the box above, I'm going ahead to make it. Of course, discussion on improving the essay can continue on its talk page. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 14:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

===Discussion on draft essay "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom"===

The discussion had been briefly moved to the essay's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28people_from_the_United_Kingdom%29#Wikipedia_draft_essay_ready_for_discussionpage Talk page] - but is now continuing here. For reference, the original discussion of late 2007 is in the section above [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29#British.2C_or_English.2C_Scottish.2C_Welsh.2C_.28Northern.29_Irish.3F ^] (still on this page, but 'block archived'). --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 17:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

====The Guideline page line====

The sentence (or two) appended to the Guideline page has to be 100% right. Given the importance of the page it has to be 100% consensus too!

Having said that, it's up there as a 'work in progress' at the moment - so we need to get to work on it! I am not happy with saying there is '"presently" no consensus for the UK' as there has never been any, and IMO there is no evidence to suggest there ever will be. National identity has been an intrinsically (and expediently) flexible thing for us, as I have argued. I've chaged it to "there is no consenus for the UK". --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

:Moving the following 4 comments up to here (hope you don't mind, Jack)--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

:As the editor who prepared the draft essay (based partly on suggestions by [[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]]) and amended "[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)]]" to refer to it, the reason why I said "presently no consensus" was because I'm an optimist. Sure, there's no consensus on the issue now, but who's to say there won't be at some stage in the future? Why is it POV to suggest that consensus might be reached among Wikipedians on the matter in the future? But it's a small point; I've no objections to "presently" being dropped.
:The essay deals with the UK situation because it arose out of a discussion relating to an article on a UK national. I'm happy if other editors wish to provide examples that might expand the applicability of the article to other countries. But perhaps it would be better to try and agree on the article in its present form first, then start a separate discussion on whether and how it should be expanded. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

::I've just done that above, Jack - made seperate discussions! You've answered some of them together. I'm trying to get things going again, and to avoid confusion with your essay's Talk page (it's not a 100% fair consensus unless the discussion only goes on in here IMO. Too few editors seemed to notice the talk had been moved - though you did indicate where people could comment, I know.) It's about an official guidline page, remember.--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 18:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

:''"Why is it POV to suggest that consensus might be reached among Wikipedians on the matter in the future?"''
:- Jack that's self-evidently 100% POV (especially on Guideline page!) - you've got to let that go! You shouldn't just say '''why''?', when I've written so many thousdands of words now trying to explain it - I know I've been completely ignored on the matter, but you don't have to rub it in!!! There has never been consensus on this ''intrinsically'' flexible matter, and it is only your POV that there will be. Let's stick to simple hard statements, and logical lines.--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

::OK, I'm letting that point go! The inclusion or exclusion of the word "presently" is not a biggie to me. I thought transferring the discussion over to the essay's talk page seemed a good idea since there is no consensus on the issue so this Manual of Style won't (ever?) deal with the issue directly, but of course am fine with it continuing here if other editors think it appropriate. For discussion purposes, you might want to have two sections: one on whether the essay is all right as it stands, and another one on whether it should be extended to other countries. At the moment the subsection you've got on the second issue is buried in the midst of other subsections about the current essay. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

:::I think we can brainstorm these issues alongside each other, now you've got the basics down in your essay. I don't think changing it to be wider than the UK (if we do) will be that hard. It's could be mostly just wording, with the UK as a principle example(?) - lets discuss in the subsection!--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 19:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

====This is currently an essay. Can that change?====

I've added a line to say the link is currently an essay - if we ever get it right there maybe another place available for it. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

====Can it, or the guideline, mention other 'areas' (states, nationalities, countries etc)?====

I have changed the Guideline page line to: ''"No consensus exists in some areas of 'Nationality', such as with people from the United Kingdom. There is an essy on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Nationality_of_people_from_the_United_Kingdom people from the United Kingdom] that could be used as a guideline for similar collective states, or for areas with disputed rights."''

I think the essay might be best expanded(?) It may not be as hard as it seems - and others can add any worthwhile details of examples over time, perhaps. It is UK-centric at the moment simply because Wikipedia is US/UK-centric.--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

:I don't think this will be all that hard to convert. UK can be the principal (or first) example within it. It could develop over time, but it's creation could be just a wording issue. What do you think? I notice Melty Girl has changed my edit above to someting similar, where she has kept the mention of other 'areas' (only less explicitly) - perhaps they can be referred to in the essay? Just an idea. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 19:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think this is possible anymore ''within'' the essay - it has developed into too detailed a guide.

::However, I do think the main guideline "nationality" point should mention complexity and diversity in some way. (not just point to the UK - or the UK talk pages, as it's doing now). Some short 'be aware' line maybe, that suggests searching the column to the right? --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 16:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:::I know we should be trying to avoid an overly US/UK-centric approach on Wikipedia generally, however if there are specific problems relating to particular areas or places I don't see a problem in trying to address them as long as you are clear about the scope and limits of what you propose. There are definitely a host of recurring problems relating to description of nationality for people from (or linked with) the United Kingdom. If we can find a consensus for these specific problems then that is a positive practical achievement. If the solution can be used to inform other attempts to solve problems relating to different states or even to provide a basis for universal policy then that would be all well and good - but even if it cannot be used thus then nothing is lost and it is still worthwhile.
:::The particular difficulties I've encountered relate to living or relatively recently deceased people, so I'm not so concerened with the historical aspects of the discussions (although I recognise their importance). My position is support for the principle that for people whose passport would say "British Citizen" then "British" should be the default descriptor, while "Welsh" or "Scottish" or "English" can be used in cases where:
:::* It is uncontested that the subject considers themself Welsh or Scottish or English and is widely known as such (eg. the Sean Connery scenario). Or,
:::* There is substantial uncontested evidence that the subject's family were from one particular constituent country and the subject has been associated solely with that constituent country for most of his or her life.
:::I don't want to get into the debate about Ireland and Northern Ireland because I know of the complexities involved and do not feel I have a level of knowledge sufficient to add anything definitive.
:::I've only just become aware of this discussion so please try to forgive me if I touch on ground that has been covered previously by participants. Indeed I would add the small criticism that it has been quite hard work to find and follow the debate even though I was previously involved in similar discussions elsewhere on Wiki (eg. [[Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_11#Nationality]]). One clearly needs to be a keen and connected Wikipedian to be sure of being alerted to such events. And even when you come across a reference that leads you to part of the discussion, the trail of separate articles and talk pages is convoluted for a relative amateur like me.
:::I want to end on a positive note.I think this is a worthwhile effort and I hope a consensus does emerge.
:::[[User:Circusandmagicfan|Circusandmagicfan]] ([[User talk:Circusandmagicfan|talk]]) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

====Northern Ireland====

This bit has been recently edited - it's another part we have to get right before its shown to the world, really.--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

:The main sentence on NI currently reads;

::''The majority of people from Northern Ireland are also entitled to Irish citizenship, on the same basis as people born in the Republic of Ireland.''

:Perhaps a further line of detail could come after it? --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 08:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

:::''People of Northern Ireland are also entitled to Irish citizenship, on the same basis as people born in the Republic of Ireland.
''
:::''Every citizen of Northern Ireland born prior to 2005 can apply for Irish (Republic of Ireland) citizenship. They can have their existing British passport anulled, or hold a dual citizenship. Every baby born in Northen Ireland since 2005 must have at least one Irish or Northen Irish parent, before being accepted for Irish citizenship (regardless of whether they are registered as a British citizen first, and apply to become Irish - or a dual citizen - at a later date).''

::Current revision (or compression). It can't be that hard at all, but every time I look at this, I go away with a slight headache!--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

::Last line since corrected to "- or a dual citizen -".--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 13:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Leading on from the message Matt left on my talk. The real trouble of going into any depth of discussing joint citizenship in Northern Ireland is the difficulty in comparing UK and Irish nationality laws. While effectively they are identical, in approach they take very different forms. The Irish system is based on entitlements (e.g. an Irish citizen is a person who is entitled to ...) whereas the British system is more descriptive (e.g. a British citizen is ...). I am an Irish citizen because I am entitled to do things that only an Irish citizen can do. Matt (I presume), you are a British citizen because you are. The Irish system applies in Northern Ireland in exactly the same way as it does in the Republic. It doesn't matter if you were born north or south of the border.

It was not until 2001 that both jurisdictions were made completely equivalent, but this was retroactive. (In most circumstances it wouldn't have mattered anyway, as the changes applied to [[jus soli]] only - citizenship by descent, including "from birth", applied to nearly everyone in Northern Ireland anyway owing the the messy way that partition came about). The current situation, regardless of the legal differences between the two systems, is that a Northern Ireland person is both British and Irish citizen "by default" (in citizenship, not identity). If they want to give up one or the other you need to explicitly apply to do so in writing to the relevant British or Irish authorities. The British-Irish agreement explains the situation as it is without the legal fuss:

{{cquote|[The two Governments] recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.}}

Finally, there appears to be some confusion about the parental restrictions. A change was made in 2005 (requiring a constitutional amendment). Before then the Republic had an unlimited implementation of [[jus soli]]. Changing this only brought the Republic in line with the rest of Europe (the UK had made a similar change in 1982). In fact, it was the question of Northern Ireland that finally forced it. A Chinese citizen, temporarily resident in Wales, was advised to give birth in Belfast so that her child would be an Irish citizen, and so she (through her child) would be entitled to permanent residency in the UK. Describing the post-2005 parental restriction is meaningless, the previous absence of it being the more notable thing. --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 01:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

:OK I think I get it now, but we have to get it right in terms of help for the guideline - so people are aware of the different nationality labels exist in NI. How about this?

::<s>'''"Note on Northern Ireland nationality (British, Irish and dual citizenships)'''</s>

::'''Northern Ireland: British, Irish and dual citizenships'''

::People <s>of</s> born in [[Northern Ireland]] are entitled to Irish citizenship by default (Irish citizenship being a fundamental "entitlement", that extends to all of the island). This ''automatically'' allows for '[[Dual_nationality#Citizenship_of_multiple_countries|dual]]' British and Irish citizenship. Unequivocal 'single citizenship' can be applied for from the [[UK]] and the [[Republic of Ireland]]. Consequently, Northern Irish people can be British-only, Irish-only, British while flexible on becoming Irish, or explicitly both British and Irish".

:Please ammend if incorrect. I can see the ambiguity stems from the 'entitlement' nature to Irish citizenship law.--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 13:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
::"of" in "People of [[Northern Ireland]]" is really "born in" - hence the Chinese woman. Strictly it is "with a parent born anywhere in Ireland". But immigrants to Belfast etc would not qualify. I'll change to "born in" above anyway. Unless the 2005 change has affected that.[[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm still not 100% confident over this part to be honest - If you make the change in the essay, maybe it will stick. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 16:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
::::I know what you mean - I've removed "Grand" above. Here's the [http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=267 official site]. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

==== Bad faith? ====

I consider it to be borderline bad faith that the creation of this new 'essay' was not notified to the relevant WikiProjects. That failure casts into severe doubt the motives for this. --[[User:Mais oui!|Mais oui!]] ([[User talk:Mais oui!|talk]]) 07:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:The idea was borne more out of naivety (in my opinion), and couldn’t initially be stopped - so a reasonable 'consensus' for someone to try an essay eventually came about when discussion had petered out (no one complained) – though there was certainly no consensus for it to be prematurely displayed, as it has been. The motivation was essentially to make Wikipedia a ‘simpler’ place! I’ve always argued this motivation was unfairly anti-diversity, and intrinsically pro-British.

:The talk is (and has) been going on in the above Talk page (it was only briefly in here). Please contribute – there is much in the essay that needs to be looked at by members of the various home nation Wikiprojects (eg. the tone, the examples of use, even the validity of the whole exercise). A lot of my own revisions to it could be innappropriate - I still don't mind if the whole thing goes, though I can at least accept ''some kind'' of way through it now, which I didn't originally. Perhaps if it sticks, it should only ever remain as an essay - albeit a high-profile one - which might not be decided is right anyway. Everyone should know about it, for sure.--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 10:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::The essay grew out of an extended discussion on the issue on the talk page of "[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)]]". All the relevant WikiProjects were notified of this discussion, and I believe a number of members of these projects participated. Subsequently, after I had completed the first draft of the essay, I posted a further notice announcing it on that talk page. Perhaps I should have thought of also posting fresh notices on the talk pages of the WikiProjects, but it simply didn't occur to me to do so. I figured that anyone who had been interested in the matter would have been watching the "Manual of Style (biographies)" talk page. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
::OK, I've placed announcements on all the talk pages of the relevant WikiProjects. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 16:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:::This is categorically not bad faith - one should [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] per policy anyway!

:::Personally I like this essay. I think something about [[WP:MOSFLAG]] ought to be mentioned too however. Other than that it gets the thumbs up from me. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''[[User:Jza84|Jza84]] ·''' ([[User_talk:Jza84|talk]])</span> 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::: -- And something about people from the pre-[[Acts of Union]] times (i.e. Shakespeare is always English, not British!). <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''[[User:Jza84|Jza84]] ·''' ([[User_talk:Jza84|talk]])</span> 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::::Will amend the notices I posted in the WikiProject talk pages. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

==== This essay doesn't seem to address anything before 1800 ====

The UK was formed in 1801. We have quite a few biographies about people that lived in Great Britain before the formation of the UK, and many of those articles are subject to the same debates as mentioned in this essay. For example, many days were wasted debating whether [[Mary Wollstonecraft]] was "British" or "English" (or even "Anglo-Irish"). Perhaps something could be mentioned about how to handle people from Great Britain as well. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 19:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:I'm attempting a brief 'Timeline' here - with examples for each main 'era' (43AD onwards). I'll create a discussion for it on the main biog Talk, when I've done it. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::Regarding your latest updates to the essay:
::*I feel the relevance of the subsection "[[Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Celtic heritage within the British Isles|Celtic heritage within the British Isles]]" is doubtful. It's very interesting, but are we now suggesting that people ought also to consider using the appellations "Irish Gaelic", "Scottish Gaelic", "Welsh", "Manx" and "Cornish"? If so, this needs further discussion.
::*The idea of having a timeline is good, but I feel it may be a bit confusing for people trying to find an answer to, say, the question "How should I refer to [[Emery Molyneux]], who lived in England in the 16th century"? Perhaps it would be better to rearrange the table in the following form, so that editors can identify an appropriate appellation to use according to where in Britain a person is or was from and what era he or she lived in:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Part of British Isles
!Date<br>([[Common Era|CE]])
!Events
!Suggested appellations
!Example

|- valign="top"
|- valign="top"
| style="border:1px solid #c6c9ff; padding:1em; padding-top:.5em; color: #000; background-color:#f0f0ff"|
|align="center"|Whole
{{Did you know}}
|align="center"|[[43]]&ndash;[[500]]
|[[Roman conquest of Britain|Roman invasion]] of the [[Celtic]] tribes of [[Britannia]]. "[[Britain]]" is often used to refer to "[[Britannia]]".
|"[[Ancient Britons|Ancient Briton]]" or "[[Brythons|Brython]]" (not "[[British]]")
|[[Boudica]]

|- valign="top"
|rowspan="2" align="center"|[[Scotland]]
|align="center"|[[500]]&ndash;[[1707]]
|Consolidation of [[Scotland]]
|"[[Scottish]]" or "[[Scots]]" (the Scots are a composition of various ethnic groups, including the [[Picts]] and [[Gaels]])
|[[Robert the Bruce]]

|- valign="top"
|align="center"|[[1707]]&ndash;present
|Unification of [[Scotland]] with [[England and Wales]]
|See "[[#Modern-age naming methods in use|Modern-age naming methods in use]]"
|[[Angus Purden]]

|}
|}
This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section (reproduced on the right) on the [[Main Page]].


__TOC__
::&mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 18:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
{{DYKbox}}


==Instructions==
:::The way I look at it, it's more about showing what people ''do'' do, rather than advising them about any specific way to go. What is 'appropriate' is often a mix. The examples show that people already do use [[Cornish]] and [[Manx]] - I'm just documenting that, rather than suggesting it should be done. The article has loads of caveats. It was never going to be simple, or all that short. (Scottish and Irish gaelic, Welsh etc are only languages - not sure what point you made there).
:::I'm trying to infuse a little flavour, just to show people that the UK is ''involved'', and not simple - it shows them what they are up against better than only bullet points can, imo. If it was easy to find the appellation that they needed, they would hardly need to consult a guide, after all!
:::The actual 'Celtic' issue is crucial to the UK (it means nothing to some, but to others it means everything). Remember Scotland in 2010! The cliche, or joke, by the way, is that [[Anglo-Saxons]] are cooler, and the [[celts]] are warmer (so to speak). It's hard to explain something which can be so meaningless on one hand, yet in certain situations can mean so much on the other (not least politically).
:::I'll look at your suggestions for rearranging the timeline. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 19:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


List new suggestions here, under the '''date the article was created or the expansion began''' (<u>'''not'''</u> the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the top. If a suitable image is available, place it immediately before the suggestion. Any user may nominate a DYK suggestion; self-nominations are permitted and encouraged.
::I realize that "Scottish Gaelic", ''etc.'', are languages, judging from what you mentioned in the essay, but it is possible also to use at least some of them to refer to "nationality" in the broadest sense of the term (''e.g.'', "Cornish" and "Manx"), and I was using them as examples to seek clarification on why this matter was referred to in the essay at all. Flavour or not, I think something more needs to be explicitly said to tie the discussion about the Celtic heritage in the British Isles with the nationality issue, otherwise it is rather confusing to the reader. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 23:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


'''Remember:'''
==== On the essay itself ====
*Proposed articles should:
** not be marked as [[Wikipedia:Stubs|stubs]];
** contain more than '''1,500 characters''' (around 1.5 [[kilobyte]]s) in main body text (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables). '''This is a mandatory minimum'''; in practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting administrators.
** '''[[WP:CITE|cite their sources]]''' (these sources should be ''properly labelled''; that is, not under an "External links" header); and
** be no more than '''five days old''' (former redirects, stubs, or other short articles whose main body text has been '''expanded [[wikt:fivefold|fivefold]]''' or more within the last five days are acceptable).
*'''Articles on [[WP:BLP|living individuals]] must be carefully checked''' to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks which focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals '''should be avoided'''.
* Articles with good references and citations are preferred.
*To count the number of characters in a piece of text, you will need to use a JavaScript extension like [[User:Dr pda/prosesize.js]] (instructions on the talk page), a free website like [http://allworldphone.com/count-words-characters.htm this], or an external [[software]] [[Computer program|program]] that has a character-counting feature. For example, if you are using [[Microsoft Word]], select the text from the [[Wikipedia:articles|article]] page (or, in the case of "Did you know" nominations, this [[Wikipedia:Talk page|Talk page]]) – not the [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|edit]] page containing [[Wikitext]] – then [[Cut, copy and paste#Copy and paste|copy and paste]] it into a blank document. Click "Tools" ("Review" in Office 2007), then "Word Count", and note the "Characters (with spaces)" figure. Other [[word processing]] programs may have a similar feature. For Mac users, [[Apple]] has a [http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/calculate_convert/wordcounterwidget.html Word counter widget] available for Mac OS X 10.4 or later. '''Note:'''The character counts indicated on "Revision history" pages are not accurate for DYK purposes as they include categories, infoboxes and similar text in articles, and comments and signatures in hooks on this page.
*Suggested facts (the 'hook') should be:
**'''interesting''' to draw in a variety of readers,
**short and '''concise''' (fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces),
**'''[[WP:NPOV|neutral]]''',
**definite '''facts''' that are mentioned in the article, and
**'''always''' cited in the article with an [[Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citation_styles|inline citation]].
::'''''Please note''''' that hooks are subject without notice to copyediting as they move to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit. In particular, hooks will be shortened if they are deemed too long: the 200-character limit is an outside limit not a recommended length. Also, watch the suggestions page to ensure that no issues have been raised about your hook, because if you do not respond to issues raised your hook may not be featured at all.
*Suggested pictures should be:
**suitably and freely (PD, GFDL, CC etc) licensed (NOT fair use) because the main page can only have freely-licensed pictures;
**attractive and interesting, even at a very small (100px-wide) resolution;
**already in the article; and
**relevant to the article.
**formatted as <nowiki>[[Image:</nowiki>''image name'' |right|100x100px| ''Description''<nowiki>]]</nowiki> and placed directly above the suggested fact.
*Suggested sounds should have similar qualities to pictures, and should be formatted using the format {{tlx|DYK Listen|filename.ogg|Brief description}}


*Proposed lists should have two characteristics to be considered for DYK: (i) be a compilation of entries that are unlikely to have ever been compiled anywhere else (e.g. [[List of architectural vaults]]), and (ii) have 1,500+ character non-stub text that brings out interesting, relational, and referenced facts from the compiled list that may not otherwise be obvious but for the compilation.<!--needs work.-->
The stated intent is having a standard way of doing things, eventually arriving at proposed <s>rules</s> conventions. The use of such descriptives is implicitly ambiguous and varies by context and circumstance, IMHO. An acceptance of things like that, from Whitman's ''Leaves of Grass'':
*Please sign the nomination, giving due credit to other editors if relevant. For example:
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I do.
**<nowiki>*... that (text)? -- new article by [[User]]; Nom by ~~~~</nowiki>
I am immense. I can contain contradictions.
**<nowiki>*... that (text)? -- new article self-nom by ~~~~</nowiki>
So can the UK (I have no say here). And so can Wikipedia. Just my <s>2 cents</s> 0.010197 GBP worth. [[User:Notuncurious|Notuncurious]] ([[User talk:Notuncurious|talk]]) 02:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
**<nowiki>*... that (text)? -- new article by [[User]] and ~~~~</nowiki>
**<nowiki>*... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold by [[User]]; Nom by ~~~~</nowiki>
**<nowiki>*... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold and self-nom by ~~~~</nowiki>
**<nowiki>*... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold by [[User]] and ~~~~</nowiki>
* When saving your suggestion, please add the name of the suggested article to your edit summary.
*Please check back for comments on your nomination. Responding to reasonable objections will help ensure that your article is listed.
*If you nominate someone else's article, you can use {{tls|DYKNom}} to notify them. Usage: <nowiki>{{subst:DYKNom|</nowiki>''Article name''|{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}}} Thanks, <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
*For more details see the previously [[User:Art LaPella/Unwritten rules|Unwritten Rules]].


===Symbols===
==== Two minor objections ====
*If you want to confirm that an article is ready to be placed on a later update, or that there is an issue with the article or hook, you may use the following symbols (optional) to point the issues out:

{| class="wikitable" width=100%
* ''"Under British law, these four countries are an equal union"'' - that's entirely inaccurate. An 'equal union' implies equality of parts, but that has never been the intention - the intention was to form an entirely new country where the constituent parts were irrelevant - British law represents the equality of individuals and parliamentary constituencies, not the equality of four countries.
! width=10% | Symbol !! width=10% | Code !! width=10% | Ready for DYK? !! width=50% | Description

|- align="center"
:When did the intention for a new country occur? Scotland always had its own laws anyway. Certainly Scotland expected to keep being Scottish when the union was formed (ie no specific subservience to England - Catholic issues etc excepted). Regarding British law, is there nothing on equality ''over'' the countries? If it says equality for ''all'' individuals - you could say that amounts to the same thing. The word 'Union' is in the 'UK' - surely it must be mentioned in the law somewhere - even if it's very old law (as a lot of law is). --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 21:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
|- align="center"

| [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] || <nowiki>{{subst:DYKtick}}</nowiki> || Yes || align="left" | No problems, ready for DYK
* The number of minority language speakers are presented as a percentage in some constituent countries and not others. Seems to be no real justification for this omission. --[[User:Breadandcheese|Breadandcheese]] ([[User talk:Breadandcheese|talk]]) 12:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
|- align="center"

| [[Image:Pictogram voting keep.svg|18px]] || <nowiki>{{subst:DYKtickAGF}}</nowiki> || Yes || align="left" | Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted in good faith
:I've added the Scottish percentages, I'll look at Cornish and Manx. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 21:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
|- align="center"

| [[Image:Symbol question.svg|18px]] || <nowiki>{{subst:DYK?}}</nowiki> || Query || align="left" | An issue needs to be clarified before the article's eligibility can be determined
==== A title change? Bring in historical use? ====
|- align="center"

| [[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px]] || <nowiki>{{subst:DYK?no}}</nowiki> || Maybe || align="left" | Article is currently ineligible but may only need some minor work to fix
The current title is ''Nationality of people from the United Kingdom''. I'm not sure it fully covers it any more. A small change would be:
|- align="center"

| [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|18px]] || <nowiki>{{subst:DYKno}}</nowiki> || No || align="left" | Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible
:Example: "Nationality of citzens of the United Kingdom".

I think "of" is stronger than "from", and "citizens" is more defining still. Alternatives could be along the lines of:

:Example: "Nationality and the United Kingdom"
:Example: "Nationalities of the current United Kingdom"
:Example: "Nationality labels within the United Kingdom"

I think "label" is preferable to "identity" (which is broader than just nationality).

'''Historical use:'''

On the other hand, the article has become of more historical use (which I think is great, and gives it a lot more purpose) - is there an argument for changing the title to fully cover this? (as someone has suggested in an edit note). Keeping to "people" (or "peoples"?) rather than "citizen" might be better in this case. We don't really need to mention 'people' at all, of course.

:Example: "Nationality labels of the United Kingdom"
:Example: "Guide to nationality labelling and the United Kingdom"
:Example: "Guide to nationality labelling throughout UK history" (or some such title)

:'''British Isles?'''

If we use the useful "[[British Isles]]" it would have to include Ireland - which may not be such a bad idea, given the historical cultural cross-over.

:Example: "Nationality and the British Isles"
:Example: "Nationality and the British Isles (including the UK and Ireland)"
:Example: "Guide to nationality and the British Isles"
:Example: "Nationality within the British Isles"
:Example: "Nationality labelling within the British Isles"
:Example: "Guide to nationality labelling within the British Isles (including the United Kingdom and Ireland)"

An advantage of using the "[[British Isles]] is that it would cover any future changes to the UK - as the British Isles will always remain.

'''Stay concise'''

Ireland already features in the guide - would it become too complicated to fully include it? Bearing in mind, of course, that we must keep the guide as consise as possible - as it's meant to be an 'easy to use' guide to the currently-used (and most apposite choice of) label usage. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 15:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

::If anyone is interested, I have made this page in my user space - [[User:Matt_Lewis/Nationality_within_the_British_Isles_%28including_the_United_Kingdom_and_Ireland%29|Nationality within the British Isles (including the United Kingdom and Ireland)]]. It is essentially the same page, but covering the [[British Isles]]. Feel free to edit it and comment on it. It needs better maps, and some details on Ireland etc. (also the probs below still need addressing) --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 23:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:::A couple of resources:

:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/British_Isles&limit=500&from=0 Wikipedia articles that link to the Brtitish Isles page]
:::[[Talk:British Isles/name debate]]
:::[[British Isles naming dispute]]

:::If using the "British Isles" is going to cause too much offence (which I personally think is as silly as renaming the Irish Sea), but if it does, I would suggest "Nationality labelling within the United Kingdom and Ireland". Only the geographical term fully defines it, though.--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 15:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree with the necessity to include the Republic of Ireland - as well as Mann and the Channel Islands - in the page, as it is quite artificial to discuss Northern Ireland without reference to the Republic and artificial to refer to the United Kingdom without reference to Northern Ireland (and indeed Ireland as a whole). It's the wider area that's confusing for people and thus, while "United Kingdom' covers most, it doesn't cover everything.
However, I would avoid using the term British Isles (I largely agree with your comments on the BI page, BTW), at least in the title. I'd go for, "Nationality in Britain and Ireland" or similar - aside from any other reason it would not risk alienating many Irish editors. --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

:I see what you mean about the Irish editors! Problem is they way I react to bullying - I don't know if I can bite my lip. I'd rather use [[British Isles]], as it is simply the geographical term designed for this very use. What appeases the anti-BI Irish, is set to offend others (not that some of them seem to care about that!). From the beginning I have argued for no weight either way (especially towards 'British') - it's almost as impossible as I originally thought it would be (when I said a guideline is totally foolish). I just think it's so bloody immature to apply 'weight' to a geographical term like the British Isles! They call it their "future" - what morbid stupidity! I'm going to dream of every pub being an Irish pub tonight. Where does the madness of nationality end! How about "Nationality in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Ireland"? There is always "Nationality in the British Islands and Ireland" - which is in effect the same as your "Nationality in Britain and Ireland". --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It think it's time for an essay title change. I suggest either:

*Nationality labelling of Ireland and the United Kingdom

*Nationality labelling of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom

*Nationality labelling of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

It's alphabetical. Any comments? Which of these is best: 'of', 'in', 'within', 'and' etc...? I'm leaning towards 'of' - it seems to cover the chronological aspect the best.--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:Any thoughts here? Perhaps people could state their own preference? (even if it is not to change the exisiting title). If the essay is to include Ireland at all (and I can't see how it cannot now it's chronological) I feel this needs to happen soon.

:How about "''Nationality labelling in Ireland and the United Kingdom''"? Proving the curtailed names don't matter - it is short and sweet. I don't mind "''Nationality labelling in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''" either (including the word British word might be useful to some).-

:Can a title be long? -
:"''Nationality labelling guide for the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (including England, Scotland, Wales and the British Islands)''"

:Can anyone argue with the last one? Maybe this is one large subject that demands one large title! I favour adding "labelling" but it doesn't have to of course.-[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

====Timeline====

'''Ireland'''

OK, some Ireland detail has been brought in, so I'll address that as a possible start towards a new "British Isles"-related essay title. The Anglo-Irish section looks like it could be fine to me (though maybe a touch too wordy, as it stands?). The row below it I think needs work though:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Date (CE)
! Event
!
! Event-related nationality
! Example of use
|-
|-
| [[1607]] - mid-1600s
| [[Flight of the Earls]], [[Plantation of Ulster]]
| The Gaelic order in Ireland collapses following protracted war with England and central English authority is consolidated in Ireland. A hundred thousand English and Scottish settlers are "planted" in [[Ulster]] to ensure a quash resistance in the province, sowing communal differences that underly the modern conflict in Northern Ireland.
| [[English]], [[Welsh]]
| [[Scots Irish]]
|}
|}


===Next update===
Does it need both events? (the plantation event seems to deal more with nationality labels). It needs to be made clear under 'Event' that it's in Ireland. Is the 'Event-related nationality' Ulster-Scott? (Why then Scotts-Irish? - is that used instead?) It needs an 'example of use' added.
{{DYK-Refresh}}

'''Scotland'''

I find this row on Scotland confusing - it needs wiki-links to follow (I can't find "south of Forth") ''and'' needs to be fully self-explaining too. Does it need all those examples?:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Date (CE)
! Event
!
! Event-related nationality
! Example of use
|-
| [[300]]-[[1200]] (excluding Galloway c. 900-1230s )
| south of Forth before 1200s
| British or English/Anglo-Saxon/etc (depending on culture)
| British or English (depending on culture)
| [[Run of Alt Clut]], [[Owen the Bald]], or, [[Cuthbert of Lindisfarne]], [[Heathored]]
|}
Also, can someone fill out the bit on "Gaels and Picts" in the Scottish row above this - just a line or two of detail will do (nothing too much). Does that row need so many 'examples of use' too? - do any of them duplicate?

I'm sure we can make it work, providing we always remember it's ultimately a usage guide, and not specifically about the histories.--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 03:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

'''Historical accuracy?'''

The article currently talks about Wales becoming unified with England under the Tudors in the 16th century. A large part of South Wales was annexed during the Norman Conquest and its aftermath (eleventh century) however, and there was much fighting and conquest in the Northern area under the reign of Edward I (End of 13th/start of 14th century). Witness the many castles built along the North Welsh coast during this period by both sides! Historical documents relate to Llewelyn ap Gruffudd, known as the "Prince of Wales" - whose title was given to Edward I's son Edward II to indicate his new belief in his 'overlordship' of the Northern Welsh lands (Gwynedd in particular)...lets not ignore the mediaeval side of British history if we're going to discuss inter-nationality conflicts, surely? The reign of Edward I is particularly significant in terms of Anglo-Welsh and Anglo-Scottish conflict!!
--[[User:Etherella|Etherella]] ([[User talk:Etherella|talk]]) 21:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:Hi, Matt. Bearing in mind, as you said, that the essay is ultimately intended to be a guide to editors on how to refer to the nationality of people from Britain and Ireland and not an article about the history of the British Isles, have you (and other editors, of course) given thought to my suggestion [[#This essay doesn't seem to address anything before 1800|above]] to convert the timeline into a table according to location within the British Isles and date? &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

==== (Removing) Celtic heritage ====

Why was the Celtic heritage and usage table removed? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 22:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

:Not sure myself. I found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANationality_of_people_from_the_United_Kingdom&diff=200090776&oldid=199769221 this edit] to be unconstructive and significant to warrent discussion ''first''. I'm inclined to restore it. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">[[User:Jza84|<b>Jza84</b>]] | [[User_talk: Jza84|<font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 22:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
::Hi, I made the edit you're referring to. I pruned some parts of the article mainly because it was duplicating information in other pages, and that the information in the other pages was better and more up to date. I added references to the articles, so no information was lost. For example the celtic heritage table is replicated in the [[Celtic nations]] article, etc. [[User:Bardcom|Bardcom]] ([[User talk:Bardcom|talk]]) 01:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I believe you removed ''alot'' of context for readers though. There is no harm duplicating stuff here from mainspace articles. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">[[User:Jza84|<b>Jza84</b>]] | [[User_talk: Jza84|<font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 11:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Hi Jza84, thank you for your response. I don't understand your assertion that a lot of context is removed? Much of the information removed provides background info on the history of the UK, and it's culture, etc. This information is not necessary here - this essay is to help people decide how to assign UK nationality to people in articles. There was far too much non-essential information duplicated for such a simple topic. The big danger with duplication is that if information is updated (for example, census information on Gaelic speakers - as was the case here), only the main article will get updated, and the duplicated information will fall out of date, etc. [[User:Bardcom|Bardcom]] ([[User talk:Bardcom|talk]]) 12:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the essay back to where it was before this edit - initially because I thought too much was done all at once, and I also have issues with the reasons for it.

*I’m not sure the 'content fork' argument works here - it ''is'' more info to update - but as this essay is a ‘form’ of guideline page, it is surely perfectly fine in this case. The essay needs to cover the contexts for sure - we've found it's impossible without doing this. Certainly it is not in an ideal state yet (espectially the history parts) - I've put requests here for help, maybe we should look elsewhere for help too.

*The term "British Isles" needs to be properly included in the essay, though personally I'm happy now to remove it from the prospective new-title list (as some Wikipedians will always argue for its removal). But the edit in question made only one single “See also” reference to it – and to what is ultimately the name-dispute page - not to the main “British Isles” article. This essay is about covering the terms, not removing them - we can't remove it from the essay. Regarding the "losing context" argument Jza84 mentioned above - I would agree, and add that the new 'linked context' here is a biased one. I think we should work on the representation of the "British Isles" term, rather than choose which page/pages to link a footnote to.

The reason the essay got so involved was because avenues kept appearing that needed to be covered. Eventually we will cover it all properly - and if we ''can't do that'' - then it is simply a bad idea to have at all (which was always my tough line on it from the start). --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 15:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:Hi Matt, I've reverted your undo of my edit - no consensus was reached here first. My undo is based on a couple of points. Content fork is a perfectly good reason to remove the Celtic history section, and it is not relevant to the primary purpose of the essay. You can make reference to celtic heritage where required, if required, but I did not see any where in the essay that required this section. I was tempted to remove it altogether. You also say that the term "British Isles" needs to be properly included in the essay. This would be a mistake as you would be mixing a geographical term with a political discussion, and the term is contentious. Creating an essay that tries to include Ireland in a discussion on nationalities of the UK could be construed as reckless trolling. [[User:Bardcom|Bardcom]] ([[User talk:Bardcom|talk]]) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

::I've revert your change Bardcom per [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]]. You removed massive amounts of text without discussion or a good rationale. Please acheive a consensus to remove this. I'm not satisfied with the reasons you've given so far. The material restored is very helpful. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">[[User:Jza84|<b>Jza84</b>]] | [[User_talk: Jza84|<font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 16:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I've explained why it was removed, and I responded to other concerns. Your comments contain weasel words designed to exaggerate the issue. I did not remove ''massive amounts'' of text in the way you suggest. I merely removed duplicated text. Nothing is lost. And I linked to the appropriate articles. Also, you say that no good rationale was given. On the contrary, this appears to be your opinion, whereas the fact is that I did give a good rationale, and you have seen it and already commented on it. I replied to your concerns and received no response in turn - instead you chose to undo the edit. This isn't how wikipedia works, and it is rude behaviour. In the interests of having a discussion, can you help me understand why the contexts are required to be in the essay and why redirects aren't better? Can you also help me understand why it is even necessary to have a detailed Celtic history section at all. It is not even referred to in the article. Rather than knee jerk reactions, please try to remember that my edits were made in good faith, to improve the article, and do not deserve two reverts without arguing for their inclusion. [[User:Bardcom|Bardcom]] ([[User talk:Bardcom|talk]]) 16:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

::::What policy are you alluding to that states "duplicated text" should be removed? You seem to object to "British Isles" and "Celtic heritage" but you've removed far more, including historical examples of nationality. Where is that table found elsewhere on Wikipedia?

::::Your edits were made in good faith, but with a negative impact I believe. Please also remember to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Irish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=prev&oldid=200567989 assume good faith] yourself. I'm not satisfied with your reasoning still for such a massive edit. The text was very, very helpful, I believe. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">[[User:Jza84|<b>Jza84</b>]] | [[User_talk: Jza84|<font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yes, you keep saying very very helpful, but not once have you or Matt actually pointed out why it was required for this article. I directly asked you the question already, and you have yet to respond. You are correct that I object to the article being expanded to include the British Isles, reason given above in response to Matt as you should have seen already. It is a contentious term and is not required if you are only talking about the UK. My changes improve the quality of the article. It keeps the article short and to the point. You have yet to make your case as to why the information removed is required to be in the article beyond vague assertions of "very very helpful". You have yet to make your case as to what point is not being made by the article if the information is removed. I await your response. --[[User:Bardcom|Bardcom]] ([[User talk:Bardcom|talk]]) 17:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Bardcom, your large reductive edit is ''not'' an immediate consensus! I also am not happy at all with your rationale: I've fully explained above the questions you are re-asking here. What do you think of my reasoning? It is wrong to say no-one has addressed your concerns - I (and Jza84) have taken the time to do so.
::::I do not agree that you have ''fully'' explained the questions I asked. The essay is a manual of style on how to phrase the opening paragraph for people in the UK. Great! The version of the essay I changed had grown over time and needed trimming. Why does it not make sense to refer to other articles rather than duplicate them? The closest I've seen to a reason is ''helpful'', and I believe in the long term it will not be helpful. [[User:Bardcom|Bardcom]] ([[User talk:Bardcom|talk]]) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Only a handful of people in my experience would choose to see Ireland's inclusion in this essay as "reckless trolling"! Please don't bring the OTT language of the "British Isles debate" into here!! It became apparent that we needed to cover the UK choronologically - people simply kept requesting it! It them became a "primary importance" of the essay - it's now chronological. There was no other reason than demand - and the histories of "the UK" and Ireland have simply crossed paths. The is the place to show how it has been detailed - with even a space to say what happened. Perhaps you don't think that space is enough? (it's flexible).
::::In my view, trying to force fit Ireland into an essay on Nationality of people in the United Kingdom *is* trolling, and *is* reckless. If you are familiar with the ongoing debates, you would already know this. Since you obviously do, it begs the question on why you think it is necessary. You say that people simply kept requesting it. Can you point me to some of these requests please - I can't find any on either this talk page or essay talk page. [[User:Bardcom|Bardcom]] ([[User talk:Bardcom|talk]]) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::Nobody has 'forced' anything! Ireland simply ''was'' part of the UK - and ''historically speaking'' that's simply an empirical truth. It doesn't mean that 19/20 century people like [[Oscar Wilde]] have to be called "British"! This essay has simply become a chronological ''guide''! Why shouldn't it? You go on about "good faith" - why do you contest my statement that many requests have been made for a historical use? I will now spend some of my valuable time collecting them all together for you, so you don't have to bother looking - gee thanks. Why would they ''not'' be made!? In retrospect, it was guaranteed (though I myself didn't foresee it going that way at first). You need very good arguments to stop a clear natural process like this! You might not like the past, but you can't change it. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Perhaps you can also comment in the section on a title change that would cover Ireland.--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't believe that an essay covering more than the United Kingdom is appropriate. I believe the essay should focus on being a short sharp article on the United Kingdom. [[User:Bardcom|Bardcom]] ([[User talk:Bardcom|talk]]) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::But ignoring all historical biogs, obviously! --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Bardcom, a point of communication; UKNATIONALS is an essay, not an article. Please be mindful of that distinction. I also await your response to my queries on what policies you are alluding to. Certainly, [[WP:CENSOR|Wikipedia is not censored]], so your objections at certain terms as a justification to remove parts of an essay are nullfied per policy. Again, where is that table found elsewhere on Wikipedia? I'm with Matt Lewis on this all the way I'm afraid. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">[[User:Jza84|<b>Jza84</b>]] | [[User_talk: Jza84|<font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Jza84, stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never ''alluded'' to any policy, it's common sense and good practice to not duplicate information in several places. Also, please no personal attacks - you imply that I am trying to censor this article. I am not, and your attempts to make me look like the "bad guy" are in bad faith. Please behave. This essay, while not currently being promoted as an article, is also not being promoted as a short personal point of view essay. Several authors have worked on this
:::::In addition, the table you refer to more aptly belongs to the article [[Celtic nations]] and I propose to move it there. It is a useful table. This table was only added to the article by Matt in Feb, and is unnecessay - as is the entire history lesson.
:::::You have also ignored the questions I asked you above. I am still awaiting your response. Why is it necessary to duplicate information when a link and suitable small quotations can make the same point. Why is the celtic history section there at all? Who are the people that asked for the article to be expanded - where are the references? [[User:Bardcom|Bardcom]] ([[User talk:Bardcom|talk]]) 19:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::It's about context. Stop shouting that you are being "ignored", and just read a few things instead. This is a ''chronological guide'' and I'm now tediously compiling the "proof" you have lazily demanded that people have requested a historical use here! --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::'''Examples of consensus for historical use:'''

:::::::I can remember an earlier comment (from last year I think) that specifically stated the need for historical use – but it no-doubt didn’t use the keyword I’m searching for: I’m not going to trawl through for it. I have found these (using "historical" as a search, and spotting some others as I went):

:::::::*This essay doesn't seem to address anything before 1800. Perhaps something could be mentioned about how to handle people from Great Britain as well. Kaldari (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::*lets not ignore the mediaeval side of British history if we're going to discuss inter-nationality conflicts, surely? The reign of Edward I is particularly significant in terms of Anglo-Welsh and Anglo-Scottish conflict!! Etherella (talk)
:::::::*The particular difficulties I've encountered relate to living or relatively recently deceased people, so I'm not so concerned with the historical aspects of the discussions (although I recognise their importance). Circusandmagicfan (talk)
:::::::*This does not include the many times in debate it has become clear that we have found that the problem with the term “British” was that it needs its historical context explained!! To pick one of many: “Problem 4: Historically "English" and "British" were often used interchangeably” Timrollpickering
:::::::*The idea of having a timeline is good, JackLee
:::::::*And something about people from the pre-Acts of Union times (i.e. Shakespeare is always English, not British!). -- Jza84 • (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::*Why was the Celtic heritage and usage table removed? DuncanHill (talk)

:::::::Contributors to the history elements have been:

:::::::Matt Lewis, Sony-youth, MurphiaMan, Deacon of Pndapetzim, JackLee (in Talk) (and possibly others).

:::::::Maybe one or two of these did not originally want it (I don't know) - but they've all accepted it. Also, if someone says this: “I think this is a worthwhile effort and I hope a consensus does emerge.” I think it constitutes is a thumbs up. It’s a lot of people (12 unique editors), considering the total amount in the debate (which is fairly low). You are the ''first'' one to kick up such a fuss against it! (rather than want to edit it). I would presume there are many not mentioned who are perfectly fine with the chronological element - including those who have simply read the essay and not found reason to comment.--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

====Scotland (law making powers?)====

(moved from article's Talk)

"Scotland has always had its own law-making powers". This is not true; Scotland has always had its own separate legal system (see the entry on [[Scots law]]) but as that article makes clear, from 1707 to 1999 it shared a legislature with England, i.e. the Houses of Parliament in London passed laws for Scotland. Since the statement is irrelevant it might just be removed rather than corrected. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.41.11.134|82.41.11.134]] ([[User talk:82.41.11.134|talk]]) 17:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Changed line to "Scotland has always had its own legal system", rather than remove.

==== I know it's just an essay but... ====

*...the first two sections ("Constituent countries" of the UK" and "Timeline (with historical examples)") read like something from the main namespace rather than the Wikipedia: namespace, and make the sort of assumptions and omissions that prick the same sensitivities that presumably motivated its writing. What would the essay lose by simply deleting all those sections?
*...real examples are best. Irish Murdoch and George Best are much more illuminating than Muira McClair.
*...does the essay relate only to modern people? For example: is [[Clive of India]] English or British? His article is silent on this.
[[User:Jnestorius|jnestorius]]<sup>([[User talk:Jnestorius|talk]])</sup> 06:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for the comments.
:*You will need to explain what you feel the "assumptions and omissions that prick the same sensitivities that presumably motivated its writing" are! This is a kind-of 'cross-over' essay re namespace, as some essays are. It's a bit early for it, though, I would agree.
:*I agree real examples are the most illuminating, but there are times when it is best to make up a name! The essay is principally for people who have little or no knowledge of the UK (and consequently Ireland). Perhaps the greatest difficulty is making it right for people who ''have'' it though!
:*The essay has made inroads in the history of the UK (and consequently Ireland) - it certainly needs improvement. Perhaps the [[Clive of India]] editors felt he was better represented without a nationality title? Maybe this could be some kind of guide for them?--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

::Maybe a good test of the usefulness of the essay would be whether it helped to assign a nationality for Clive of India. [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] ([[User talk:Bluewave|talk]]) 18:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Helps you mean? As this is a page that exists (and not all do) - I'll give it a go. The essay says research - on the net and talk pages etc. He seems to be an Englishman who brought British rule to India (BBC - "Clive engineered British rule in India"). "British" might seem appropriate, but like the essay says - the Talk should be read.

:::Following the guidelines in the essay then, I added "a [[[British]] diplomat who" to the [[Clive of India]] introduction. Lets see if it sticks! --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 19:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Good plan! I'll watch Clive of India with interest! [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] ([[User talk:Bluewave|talk]]) 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

==== Republic of Ireland ====

Why is there an edit war developing over how to present '''Republic of Ireland'''? The dispute? [[Republic of Ireland]] -VS- [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]. -- [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

===="Subjects" of the crown as "nationality"?====

This unreferenced line has been re-inserted:

''British citizens are also subjects of the British Monarch and may be referred to as "subjects"; some do not prefer this faintly archaic usage — as above, it should be checked in each case.''

It needs a reference found for it at very least ("See also" is the place) - but does it really relate to the "opening paragraph nationality"?

I've removed it again - it needs discussion. In an edit note, someone has questioned "even post-1982?" and the "fainlty archaic" qualifier suggests "checking" it in each case - but that suggests "subject" it is a ''suitable word'' for the "opeining paragraph nationailty"!! Surely it is not. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 13:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

====Changing an existing UK nationality====
The subsection ''[[Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Do NOT enforce uniformity|Do NOT enforce uniformity]]'' is wise as a policy. But it relies on evaluating the editor's intent:
{{cquote|Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency – making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities – is strongly discouraged.}}
Perhaps a recent Edit Summary reason I saw should be added before the last dash: "because it is more specific". But generally the problem is this section does not offer much guidance on the basis on ''content'', and ''intent'' will often be obscure. In terms of content, it says to try to discern why, say, "British" was originally used when the biography was created. That is unrealistic.

Now an editor has tagged the word ''English'' in a lead with <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>. So we would need a '''policy on references for nationality.''' This simple case was a small bio of a living person, an actor born in England. No reference is likely to be found. Even the actor's own statements would be chimerical at best. Heavily used tertiary sources like [[IMDB]] have their own policies are so are of no use. The previous use of "British" was changed to "English" by an editor without a widespread campaign, in just a few articles.

I'm looking for stronger direction than the proposed MOS article provides. The issue is difficult. I think we need to cut the knot and go with, by default, ''something'', perhaps:
* "(x) is an English (or British) actor"
* "(y) is a Scottish actor"
* "(w) is a Welsh actor"
* "(z) is a Northern Irish British actor"

Without a default policy, to be used when no refs are available and a change is made, we will waste swales of time dealing with this on an ad-hoc basis with no actual guidance.

Also, the section ''[[Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Cannot decide?|Cannot decide?]]'' and its four points should be '''deleted'''. Fine in intent, it is unlikely to be of any use in an actual dispute. It should be replaced by a section simply advising Talk page discussion. Reading unrealistic advice just makes people irritable that they had to waste time reading it.

Thanks to all who are trying to solve this tough problem. -[[User:Colfer2|Colfer2]] ([[User talk:Colfer2|talk]]) 15:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

:I think it's a nice thought, but at present I think it will be difficult to achieve consensus on the issue. When this issue was last discussed, a few editors (myself included) felt that "British" should be used in default when there was no clear evidence whether a person was English, Northern Irish, Scottish or Welsh. However, no consensus could be reached on the point as other editors felt that the matter should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Also, why exactly do you think the advice in "[[Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Cannot decide?]]" is unlikely to be of any use or unrealistic? — Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 17:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks, I might have been a little annoyed myself at having no answer in the case I described, where I am an uninvolved 3rd party. "British" and "English" are both OK by me, but I see no end to the edit switches with the proposed policy. Here is the section I said was unrealistic:
::"1. Look at what others have done in comparable articles."
::"2. Post a message asking for advice or assistance on the talk page, and/or on relevant WikiProjects and notice boards."
::"3. Consider simply leaving the matter to someone who has a better feeling for it."
::"4. When an idea of nationality exists, consider deferring to that view."
::1. Punts to articles with the same problem. Any decision on them would be arbitrary under the current proposal, driven by the interests of the editors involved. In my opinion. I can't imagine simple case like the one I described having an instructive resolution to compare. Maybe I imagine too small. #1 would be good advice *if* there were a stronger advice on what the content should be.
::2. Good advice.
::3. No advice. This is the type of statement that will just annoy anyone interested in resolving a dispute. In my case two editors are having an edit war over adding <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> to "English", a kind of fall-back argument after the switch from "British". And "feeling" is a bit of a weasel word for "understanding of the relevant policy", if there were one.
::4. No advice. Also vague. If it refers to older states of the article, say so, but note that will not convince anyone who feels the article should be changed. And the proposed policy does not say to leave the article alone. If it refers to sources describing the subject, then it offers no advice on evaluating those sources. It is just too vague: "an idea of nationality" does not say whose idea.
::Maybe it is worth trying again for consensus. The proposal will just result in a lot of reading and little resolution. -[[User:Colfer2|Colfer2]] ([[User talk:Colfer2|talk]]) 17:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

:I see. I agree that what was stated in the "Cannot decide?" section will not always be very helpful, but I think it was an attempt to provide some guidance, however slight, to editors encountering the issue. The main thing was to impress on editors that they should not just change all occurrences of "British" they find in articles to "Scottish", "Welsh", ''etc.'', or ''vice versa'' just because they like one description over the other.

:Feel free to reinitiate the discussion if you want to, but I'd suggest you have a look at what was discussed above at "[[#British, or English, Scottish, Welsh, (Northern) Irish?|British, or English, Scottish, Welsh, (Northern) Irish?]]" first and try to summarize the main arguments made in previous debate when making suggestions on how we can move forward, otherwise people will just be rehashing what was said before. I don't think it will be easy to reach a resolution, as the upshot of the last debate was that consensus could not be reached on having a default nationality. The main purpose of the essay "[[Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom]]" was to record that lack of consensus. — Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

==Archiving the sections on names etc==

The current 1-23 (as of Oct 26th 2007) seem to be broadly on the same subject (names and pseudonyms etc)- and I'm sure are best kept together. I notice the last entry amongst them was September 27th - a month ago now. Is it time to Archive them as 'February 2007 to September 2007' - or are they still too alive? We have a quite a long page here now! --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 19:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone any feelings? - I don't want to just jump in and do it (I wasn't part of any of it), but my PC's a little slow! --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:This page is now over 330K and a pain to come back to. As it now has some new posts at the beginning, I'm going to select some earlier sections and just archive them (everything unchanged in over 6 months). I'll do it on Sunday night 3rd Feb (UK time). If I see any new dates, I'll keep the topic they relate to in. Any objections, or anything to keep? --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 16:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 16:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::Yes, this page definitely needs archiving. I wonder if some of the discussions should go into "Categorized contributions" rather than be archived by date? I'm thinking in particular of the extended discussion on nationality of people from the UK. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

:::I've archived 21 sections. I archived the old 'Honorific prefixes', even though it had a couple of comments a week ago (but nothing since). I only kept 'Lead names' of the old stuff. Cut and paste anything back if needed.

:::Sorry Jack - you got in too late! I don't mind if you want to create cats, it might make sense here.--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 23:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Looking at it, the page is still big (260K!) - so maybe you can archive all the UK stuff together, when its over perhaps (I've still got to comment, sorry).--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 23:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

::::Sure, no problem. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 18:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

==Amendment to "Subsequent uses of names" section==

How about:

"Please bear in mind that, in some cultures, people do not have surnames of any kind or are not addressed by their surnames (such as in [[Iceland]]ic and [[Vietnam]]ese cultures); in those cases refer to specific Wikipedia manuals of style and/or address the subject according to the naming conventions of his or her culture"

[[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 10:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

:I'm not yet convinced this is even needed, but it's certainly not acceptable as currently written. First, Icelandic people do have surnames. Second, I'm not sure about Vietamese people -- perhaps you (or someone else) could elaborate on what the naming practices are, because given your repeated misunderstandings about the meaning of the word "surname", I'm not sure whether to take your word for it or not that Vietnamese people do not have surnames. Last, the second phrase makes no sense whatsoever: you're amending an MOS guideline by telling people to consult an MOS guideline. Huh? You need to make specific style prescriptions for the specific exceptions you're talking about. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
:: " First, Icelandic people do have surnames." - ''And they are not called by their surnames.'' - I thought this was clear.
::: "Icelanders formally address others by their first name. For example, former prime minister Halldór Ásgrímsson would not be addressed as Ásgrímsson or Mr. Ásgrímsson by another Icelander; he would either be addressed only by his first name or his full name. The cultural meaning of an Icelander's last name is not that it is a part of one's name, but a short description of who one is. Halldór is Ásgrímsson — a son of Ásgrímur. Legally, it is a part of his name. Culturally, it is a definition of who begat whom, even if that definition is seemingly vague."
::: And to add Wikipedia articles about Icelandic people ([[Halldór Ásgrímsson]]) subsequently use given names - I.E. Halldór

Also, Vietnamese people have family names, but just like the Icelandics, they are usually referred to by given names. I.E. [[Ngo Dinh Diem]] is called Diem, and that is his given name

The examples of the Vietnamese and Icelandics are people who have surnames but are not referred by their surnames. The Javanese are an example of a people with only one name (most of the time).

[[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 04:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Since there have been no further comments, I assume that this has been given the green light :) [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

:Where did you get that idea? There is no consensus here. There's only two comments: one's a no, and I'm not sure what the other one is. And my no has specific comments you've failed to address. Wait for more comments. Even if you end up adding something to the policy, the wording needs improvement, as this prescription is very vague as currently written. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:: 1. There is no other comment.
:: 2. I concede that I didn't address the other part, so: "Last, the second phrase makes no sense whatsoever: you're amending an MOS guideline by telling people to consult an MOS guideline. Huh?" - This a general guideline, and the other guidelines are specific. We have more general MOS guidelines, and we have specific MOS guidelines for various subjects. We expect people to familiarize themselves with general and specific guidelines. At most this should be amended by providing a link to a list of manuals of style. That should be enough; the user ought to figure out which MOS applies to which subject. We should expect our fellow Wikipedians to figure out what the wording means. In case the MOSes do not exist, the "and/or" makes it clear that one can research conventions OR use the MOS, OR use both at the same time.
:: 3. By the way: "because given your repeated misunderstandings about the meaning of the word "surname", " - And they are no longer there. Those misunderstandings were understandable, but now they are not there, they are no longer relevant.

See, when I make a comment, if I get a response I figure that there is still a debate. I have addressed all of your reply, and so if you still oppose this I would like another comment with more rationale. Also, do not worry if other people do not come; they will come when they want to. If you want more people to come, use the Village Pump or use Request for comment.

Anyway
[[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

:::1. I thought there was another comment, but now I see it was just you. That means that there's only you and me so far and we don't agree. That's not consensus for your proposal. My objections stand if I don't retract them. Just because you make a subsequent comment and I haven't responded doesn't mean that you now have consensus. BTW, I put a note at [[WP:BIOGRAPHY]], because this affects thousands of articles, and for some reason, we haven't gotten much traffic yet. (If we don't get any though, you don't have consensus.)
:::2. I disagree strongly with your assessment of expecting editors to figure out what you mean. I think you should say what you mean. The other parts of this guideline give specific guidance. If you're not going to provide specific stylistic guidance, then maybe this amendment isn't needed in the first place.
:::3. I understand what you're saying. Your previous misunderstanding was cleared up, and that's true. But given that there were so many, more might logically be expected. And since you didn't provide sources, I let you know that I wasn't sure whether to take what you said at face value.
:::--[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 22:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Repeated/Followup/Additional comments still imply that a position hasn't changed. On AFDs, for instance, if an article changes during the course of an AFD, older comments are no longer relevant, and the people who made the comments will have to post again in order to affirm or reaffirm their positions. If a conversation gets to a point when both sides are informed, have already debated, and concluded that they agree to disagree, then one will assume that the position holds even with a lack of responses.

2. I'll tweak the sentence a bit so that people understand which statements refer to which groups..

"Please bear in mind that, in some cultures, people do not have surnames of any kind (such as in [[Javanese name|Javanese]] cultures) or are not addressed in formal writing by their surnames (such as in [[Icelandic name|Icelandic]] and [[Vietnamese name|Vietnamese cultures]]); in those cases refer to specific Wikipedia manuals of style (See to search for specific manuals of style) and/or address the subject according to the naming conventions of his or her culture"

The thing is, so far there aren't any actual manuals of style for any of the groups listed. But, my point is that one should check manuals of style for different cultural groups when they come or if they are there. Even if the manuals of style do not exist, one should still check for the cultural conventions of the specific cultural groups. Anyway, I will bring up the idea of the creation of a Vietnamese MOS.

3. The sentence is there to supplement the phrase "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." in the Style Guideline template. This proposed sentence is asking people to treat the "subsequent naming" part with common sense and with occasional exceptions.

Anyway, as an aside, since the Javanese name article doesn't have formal academic sources, I'll see if I can find any. This CNN article mentions "Bhabr, like many Indonesians, uses only one name," so I know this is true: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/01/01/indonesia.plane/index.html?iref=newssearch

[[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 23:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:The second sentence should simply state "in those cases address the subject according to the naming conventions of his or her culture" as that is what the (so far non-existant) specific style guides are going to say anyway. There's no need to reference non-existant style guides as that is only going to confuse people. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 23:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

::I think the specifics are important, and your suggestion takes the proposed amendment in an even vaguer direction than it already is. We need to know a strong reason to exempt certain cultures from being written about by surname. Your suggestion basically tells editors that if in their judgment, people aren't addressed by surname, then no need to do that. Well, no one calls me simply by my last name in America; maybe they'd put "Ms." in front of it, but they'd never call me, a woman, simply my surname. Yet, that's the formal writing style of this encyclopedia, even as it is not mirrored in spoken language. Therefore, by this weakened standard, many editors may become confused. Your suggestion as worded throws the entire guideline into question. We need to know which specific cultures would never even write formally about people and call them by surname; and then we need to make specific suggestions for how they should be written about. The rest of this guideline gets very specific about exceptions; so should this proposed amendment if it is to be added. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 23:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Perhaps this should be solved by using the words "formally addressed." A typical American is formally addressed by his or her family name, while Vietnamese, Icelanders, and many Indonesians are formally addressed by their given names. [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 04:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
::::But I would never be "formally ''addressed''" simply by my surname, as I wrote above. It has to be about formal ''writing'', as in encylopedias, journalism, history texts, etc. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 20:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Would "as addressed by formal writing" or something similar work, then? [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 00:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence now looks like this:
"Please bear in mind that, in some cultures, people do not have surnames of any kind (such as in [[Javanese name|Javanese]] cultures) or are not addressed in formal writing by their surnames (such as in [[Icelandic name|Icelandic]] and [[Vietnamese name|Vietnamese cultures]]); in those cases address the subject according to the naming conventions of his or her culture"

[[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 17:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As there are no responses and no ''relevant'' objections to this, this will be posted on Christmas day (25th) if I receive no further input. [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 16:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
: Now I am waiting until 5 January to compensate for any holiday breaks. [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 06:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

::The text above looks OK, but the issue is that we're not talking about how someone would be ''addressed'' (second person), rather how they would be ''referred to'' (third person). I suggest: "In some cultures, people do not have surnames (such as in [[Javanese name|Javanese]] cultures), or are not referred to by their surnames alone (such as in [[Icelandic name|Icelandic]] and [[Vietnamese name|Vietnamese]] cultures); in those cases refer to the subject according to the naming conventions of his or her culture (e.g. their given name)." - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 01:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I must repeat my objections to such open-ended guidelines. This guideline does not specify which cultures are covered, and makes no specific rule for what to do in these unspecified cases. The rest of this MoS page is completely specific and gives specific rules to apply. Please come back with specific rules for specific instances, i.e. "In the case of Javanese culture, people do not have surnames; therefore, refer to people by ''x''. In the case of Icelandic culture... do ''y''." And if you don't know what the specifics should be, then either find a WikiProject to help you, or don't try to write the rule at all. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

::::I will attempt to address your concerns with a suggestion in the discussion below (which I noticed after posting the above comments). - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 02:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

==Non-biographies==
In non-biographical articles, would it be proper to use academic titles, e.g "according to Dr. Smith, this movie misrepresents science" or "Stan Smith, Ph.D. says this movie is really bad". Or is it just "Stan Smith says..." Doesn't seem to be right. Thanks! [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">†</span>]]</small> 07:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

:A more apt example may be an article on a documentary film, how are the partipants academic titles that are relevant to the movie presented? The documentary says "featuring Dr. Smith, specialist in foot diseases at the Mayo Clinic"...would it just be "Smith, specialist in foot diseases...". [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">†</span>]]</small> 08:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::I don't think there's any problem with including academic titles within articles about other subjects as long as they're relevant. The rules about academic titles here only apply to the first line of a biographical article. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks, much, Necrothesp! We're having trouble with an editor who apparently is seeking to skew an article towards a certain POV and so wants to leave out their titles because he believes they are an "appeal to authority" in order to "lend false credibility" to the subject - but to me, to leave out their proper titles, which are relevant to the subject at hand (a documentary film with fictional aspects intertwined), seems to be really pushing a pov. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">†</span>]]</small> 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

==Subsequent reference pseudonym proposal==
Please see the [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29#Pseudonym_guideline_wording|Pseudonym_guideline_wording]] section above for a new proposal that no one has commented on. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 18:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

==Wikify footnotes?==
Is it appropriate to wikilink words in footnotes? Or would that be terribly messy? What conventions are being observed?

Certain things used to reference a fact (such as the [[WP:CITET]] templates) can be used to wikilink author name, and occasionally the book title or the publisher name. But in the case of providing ''footnotes'', is it apprpriate to wikilink words in such a text? Thanks, [[User:Ekantik|Ekantik]] <sup>[[User talk:Ekantik|talk]]</sup> 18:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

:This is not the forum to answer this question. I would go to a page about footnotes instead. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

==Subsequent reference cultural conventions proposals? Which one is better?==
Okay, I now found two versions of the same proposal:
* Version that was made by me from a previous discussion: "Please bear in mind that, in some cultures, people do not have surnames of any kind (such as in [[Javanese name|Javanese]] cultures) or are not addressed in formal writing by their surnames (such as in [[Icelandic name|Icelandic]] and [[Vietnamese name|Vietnamese cultures]]); in those cases address the subject according to the naming conventions of his or her culture."
* Robert KS's version: "When referring to people from cultures that do not use surnames or are not addressed in formal writing by surnames, subjects should be addressed according to the respective naming conventions of their cultures."

Which version ought to be used? Why is each version better?
[[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:Well, "Please bear in mind that" is irrelevent fluff--I took a razor to it out of editorial preference for conciseness. The rest was just rearrangement of the sentence after removing the examples which I feared might multiply unrestrainedly. If there is a fairly short but ''complete'' list of applicable culture scenarios, I would have no problem with including it. I'm just opposed to having a few examples presumed to be representative, but to which people keep adding, and adding, and adding... I don't know what [[User:Melty girl]]'s rationale was for removing the guideline entirely. The guideline seems reasonable to me. [[User:Robert K S|Robert K S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 23:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Her edit said "Subsequent uses of names - removed completely vague new clause, bc this is supposed to offer specifics -- please continue discussion on talk page) (undo)" [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Robert, you should read the above discussion about this proposal for the full background. This is my problem with both current proposals: they're not specific. The rest of the guideline gives specific rules with specific exceptions, with specific rules for dealing with those specific exceptions. Any proposal that says "some cultures" basically gives users a way to disregard the entire section that precedes it. Get specific. Say something like in the case of "X and Y cultures, surnames are not used. In the case of X, refer to the people by ''x'', and in the case of Y, refer to the people by ''y''." And so on. Don't leave a door open for unknown potentialities to come through. '''Propose rules for specific issues, and ''prescribe specific fixes'' for those issues'''. Neither of these proposals gives an actual rule for how to handle anything, and the second one doesn't even specify which cases are being governed. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 04:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::In that case, we should begin to assemble a table of cultures and their naming conventions. It might get a bit tricky because creating hard and fast rules might require an absurd amount of specification. News reports quoting opinions of Afghani individuals often remark that only one name is given for a person being quoted because "some Afghanis do not use surnames". But some do; and moreover, the rule wouldn't necessarily apply to ''Afghanis'' as a whole (no such single culture uniformly exists) but rather to certain specific tribes or clans or villages. [[User:Robert K S|Robert K S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 04:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Everyone on the planet isn't notable for a biography in Wikipedia. There is no need to get so broad. As specific issues arise, then we should write guidelines specifically for to address them. Don't add vague, wide-open guidelines -- they are not true style rules. Instead, identify a specific area of confusion, ambiguity or contention and write a rule for how to handle specifically that issue. Your proposal is too vague to warrant adding. Everything else in the guideline tells of a specific issue and then provides a specific rule for it. Vague escape clauses with no prescribed rules are not style guidelines. If one cannot prescribe specifically how to handle, for example, Icelandic subsequent referrals, then one is not equipped to write the rule for that issue. If you want to write that rule, then work with Wikipedians knowledgeable enough to work out an actual guideline beyond, "do what the culture does." Because if that was enough of a rule, then we wouldn't need any of the existing rules in this guideline -- we'd just do what the culture does. But of course, it's not that simple... --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 06:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::IMO, we should trust our users to make proper judgments. Many guidelines are meant to be open-ended and/or very general. IMO, the average person ought to understand that the statements refers to atypical, non-Western cultures and that he or she should research the culture before considering how to address the person. [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::If you're not going to provide any specific guidance, then no guideline is needed. Let users use their judgment then. The MOS is for style ''rules''; if you have no actual rule to prescribe, then nothing needs to be said. On the other hand, if you want to get more specific -- like the rest of this guideline is (though you won't acknowledge it) -- then I'd be supportive. But I'm not to join consensus for adding something vague that undermines all the specific rules that come before it. (P.S. In the future, you might want to reconsider saying "atypical, non-Western cultures".)--[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
: I find it 100% appropriate to refer to "non-Western cultures" as "atypical" in the context of EN, Melty Girl. The "typical" involve people from Western (United States, Western Europe, Latin America - and whatever definition for "West") cultures. I am not judging whether they are more or less "correct" - It is that the typical biographical article is about a person from a Western culture. [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::It doesn't matter whether it's "appropriate"; it's unnecessary. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I came to this page looking for confirmation that we were allowed to handle Icelandic names correctly according to their culture, and the rules as currently presented direct people ''not'' to (even if they know better). That's a problem. We need to acknowledge that exceptions to the surname-only rule exist and that WP respects them. I agree with the criticism that it's better to clearly identify what the proper handling should be in those cases. So I suggest:
:''"For a person who does not have a surname (such as in [[Javanese name|Javanese]] cultures), or whose culture formally refers to people by their given names rather than their surnames alone (such as [[Icelandic name|Icelandic]] and [[Vietnamese name|Vietnamese]] cultures), refer to the subject by his or her given name in subsequent references."''
This ''does'' specify when the exception applies (even if the list of examples is not exhaustive) and it ''does'' specify exactly what to do in that situation. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 01:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

::This is definitely better. A few questions: are you positive that publications in Iceland refer to people by given name? I'm not doubting you -- I'm just making sure, because I don't know much about it. If so, I am comfortable with the way you've written this for Icelandic bios. Are you familiar with Javanese and Vietnamese publications? If not, I would prefer that they not be included at all; when editors with expertise in specific cultures come by, they can add to the Icelandic clause. In this case, I would suggest something like the following that does not leave the door open for assumptions about unspecified instances:
:::''"For subsequent references to [[Icelandic name|Icelandic]] people, whose culture formally refers to people by their given names rather than by their surnames alone, refer to the subject by his or her given name."''
::BTW, I'm not sure we ever need to say to refer to someone without a surname by their given name -- because you can't refer to someone by their a name they do not possess. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 16:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I have no first-hand knowledge of Javanese or Vietnamese naming customs (only what's stated in those articles), but I'm certain about standard Icelandic usage, in which surnames are considered mere disambiguators. (Some Icelanders have adopted the use of family names, but they are in the minority.) My concern about specifying "For... Icelandic people..." is that there are at least two others already mentioned, and the list could grow. A single rule that describes the usage (with examples cited) is more comprehensive:
::::''"For a person whose culture refers to people formally by given names rather than surnames (such as [[Icelandic name|Icelandic]], [[Javanese name|Javanese]], and [[Vietnamese name|Vietnamese]] cultures), refer to the subject by his or her given name in subsequent references."'' - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 19:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Let me try to restate my concerns more clearly. I object to the proposal for two reasons:
:::::1) You yourself say that you don't know anything about Javanese and Vietnamese names. I don't know about them either. The only other person who weighed in on that was very unclear in getting his ideas across and therefore I don't feel completely certain that he knew what he was talking about. Therefore, until someone with knowledge can weigh in, let's leave it out. WP is a work in progress, and other cultures can be added later. Let's stick to what you are certain of. We can probably safely add [[Malaysian name#Malay names|Malay names]] and ''some'' [[Indian name]]s as per Jacklee (below).
:::::2) I will not join consensus for an open-door rule. When you say, "for a person whose culture refers to people formally by given names (such as...) ..." you are not making a specific rule for specific cultures; you are instead giving a rule about the entire planet's cultures that's too open for interpretation and guessing by editors and thus ripe for misunderstanding. This is not a good idea. Let's be specific as to who the rule applies to.
:::::These are the two differences between my wording and yours. For now, I suggest that we specify Icelandic, Malaysian and some Indian names, and allow other editors with specific knowledge add their cultures to the rule later. If you want to research Vietnamese and Javanese cultures, then we could add them too if they definitely should be added. Otherwise, let's leave them out (until such time as they can be confidently added) and shut the open door wording.--[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 21:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:::On [[Icelandic names]], see "[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Iceland-related articles)]]". Editors may wish to note that the same rule applies to [[Malaysian name#Malay names|Malay names]] and some (but not all) [[Indian name]]s. I think, though, it does make sense to refer to "[[given name]]s" (or "[[personal name]]s"), the idea being to advise editors not to refer to such people by other names such as [[patronymic]]s or [[matronymic]]s. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not ready to jump with both feet into the fawning absorption of a foreign culture into the English Wikipedia. What one Icelander calls another is immaterial to the style of the English Wikipedia. What an Icelander is called in mainstream English-language publications is what should determine the style. If that's the given name alone, the same as used within Iceland, fine. The Icelandic Wikipedia can set its own style. Similarly, people who live in Munich can spell it München in the German Wikipedia, but we don't have to in the English WP. [[User:Chris the speller|Chris the speller]] ([[User talk:Chris the speller|talk]]) 16:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:I suppose the question is whether it would it be wrong for editors to correct the names used in articles if mainstream English-language publications have got the names wrong. I think not. For instance, the first [[President of Singapore]] was a Malay gentleman, [[Yusof bin Ishak]]. Malay persons do not have surnames (his name means "Yusof, son of Ishak"), and are referred to by their given names (in this case, "Yusof"). It would be wrong for the Wikipedia article to refer to President Yusof as "Ishak" or "Bin Ishak", even if a number of English-language newspapers did so. I don't see why respecting how foreigners' names are correctly set out equates to "fawning absorption of... foreign culture[s] into the English Wikipedia". &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

::With regard to the statement about "absorption of a foreign culture into the English Wikipedia", I don't know what the word "foreign" is supposed to mean with regard to Wikipedia. Surely the English Wikipedia is an ''English language'' Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia for a particular country or culture. As such, it has to find a consensus between people who speak English from a range of countries (who all probably regard each other as "foreign". Perhaps we should therefore take more of a "world view" than would be the case in, say, a British publication writing for a British readership. [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] ([[User talk:Bluewave|talk]]) 14:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

:Hear, hear. When I referred to "foreigners", using Chris's terminology, what I had in mind were people whose names do not conform to common Western naming conventions. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 14:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

:::The culture of Iceland is not "foreign" to the English Wikipedia. Most Icelanders speak English in addition to Icelandic, and the English Wikipedia is as much "theirs" as it belongs to whatever culture Chris considers himself a part of. When they refer to each other in English, they use given names not surnames, and it is not "fawning" for Wikipedia to follow suit. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

== Other MOS concerns ==

Shouldn't these guidelines be expanded a bit, beyond mostly just covering Lead paragraphs and naming conventions? It seems to me that adding general guidelines on Section headings, use of footers, deprecated use of Infobox flags, etc., would also be useful and help promote greater bio standardization.

For example, I've come across many stub and start-class biographical articles having a section called "Biography", instead of "Early life" or "Personal information": certainly a redundancy to title a section "Biography" within a biographical article &mdash; this seems to be especially prevalent in articles about actors and musicians, apparently because of imdb's format. I propose MOSBIO should elaborate more on the article structure and section headings, such as stating that "Early life" or "Personal information" should be used, avoiding use of the section title "biography" within a biographical article. <i><b>[[User:JGHowes|<font color = "green">JGHowes</font>]]<font color = "darkblue"> <sup>[[User talk:JGHowes|''talk'']]</sup></font></b> - </i> 15:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. I've always thought it utterly pointless to include a section within a biographical article headed "Biography". I also dislike "Personal information" - what does that mean? Isn't all information about a person "personal"? -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::Also agreed. Want to start sketching out some proposals? --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 16:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::Several of such articles use the heading "Personal life" to describe a person's romantic affairs. I also agree that this convention is redundant, but what would be an alternative heading? "Love life"? [[User:Ekantik|Ekantik]] <sup>[[User talk:Ekantik|talk]]</sup> 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::JGHowes criticized "Personal information," not "Personal life". --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Yes, but on some articles, both terms are used to describe the love life of the article's subject. :) We definitely need a proposal that suggests appropriate headings for such sections, assuming that subjects' love lives have any notability anyway ([[Jennifer Lopez]], [[Tom Cruise]], etc). [[User:Ekantik|Ekantik]] <sup>[[User talk:Ekantik|talk]]</sup> 02:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::You're missing my point. "Personal life" is an appropriate title for such a section, because it means private life as opposed to public career. "Personal information" is a more vague term that doesn't mean the same thing. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::Please see the proposal recently added at the bottom of this talk page. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 05:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

==Commercial "endorsements"==
I'm having a discussion with an editor who seems to think that mention of a persons' commercial endorsements should not take place in a BLP article. Examples of this sort of thing would be at [[Britney_Spears#Products_and_endorsement|Britney Spears]], [[Britney_Spears_products|Britney Products]], [[Beyonce#Endorsements_and_products|Beyonce]] (products), and [[Jessica_Simpson#Other_projects|Jessica Simpson]] (products). Considering that commercial endorsements etc. are mentioned in the articles of certain persons (there may be more, I don't know), this editor objects to an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shilpa_Shetty&diff=182154857&oldid=182152116 edit] at [[Shilpa Shetty]] that similarly mentions Shetty's endorsement of a vodka brand. The editor thinks that - as per Wikipedia policy (????) - such endorsements cannot should not be mentioned in BLP articles unless there is something ''notable'' about the endorsement, such as a controversy that arose and so on. I could not find anything in WP policies or this MOS to support this idea. Comments please? [[User:Ekantik|Ekantik]] <sup>[[User talk:Ekantik|talk]]</sup> 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:That doesn't make any sense to me. Sure, not all such deals merit listing because they're too trivial, but that would have to do with the size and visibility of the campaign. If it's a blip in their career, then maybe it shouldn't be listed, but if it's a major, highly-visible campaign then it's simply a part of their career. Even though it might make me cringe each time I see some rich celebrity shilling for a product, that doesn't make it not a part of their career. Whether they're selling a piece of music, a movie or a clothing line, it's all part of the same game. Endorsements are probably not the main focus of most celebs careers though, and as such shouldn't take up a disproportionate amount of space in an article. (Then again, there are celebs like [[Victoria Beckham]].) --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks, I agree with your views. I would just like some further clarification. Obviously we do not need to list trivial details, but do have any thoughts about the ''notability'' of such campaigns? Many of the products listed at [[Britney Spears]], [[Beyonce]] etc do not have a source reference, does this have any regards to the ''notability'' of that campaign? If there are no source references, is it appropriate to remove those mentions from the article pages? In the case of Shilpa Shetty there are two source references, is this enough to prove the 'notability' of a campaign? ''Must'' there be a controversy in order for the campain to gain "notability" and a mention in Wikipedia? Thanks, [[User:Ekantik|Ekantik]] <sup>[[User talk:Ekantik|talk]]</sup> 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I think that a subject only need be ''notable'' for inclusion in WP. From there, you want to leave out trivial facts about the subject. Therefore, while a controversy might increase the significance of an endorsement in a celeb's career, it is not the only way for an endorsement deal to be significant. About sources: technically, according to policy, I think only those facts which are likely to be challenged need citations, though in practice, anything without a source could be removed by someone else. ''One'' citation is enough to substantiate something -- but substantiation doesn't make something non-trivial. So basically, if an endorsement gets a lot of attention, whether that's controversy or just positive notice, and it is significant to a celeb's career, a la Michael Jordan and Nike, then it can be included; in addition, like any other fact in an article, it should have a source. If a source in a reliable publication cannot be found, then it probably is trivial, since no one has apparently found it important enough to write about. Still, the fact of a source doesn't mean it might not be trivial. That's my take... I hope this helps. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

==(Armenian) ethnicity used in lead sections==
Discussion at [[Talk:Alan Hovhaness]] has indicated that the ethnicity of Armenian and Armenian-Americans is being added or deleted from the lead sections of the subjects articles against MOSBIO policy. Ethnicity has been added to lead sections without demonstration of relevance, indicating either a pro-Armenian agenda or an unfamiliarity with policy and pracice. Worse yet, ethnicity has been removed from articles entirely, not simply moved from the lead to the body of the article, indicating an anti-Armenian agenda. Either way the quality of articles covering topics related to Armenia need improvement. See also discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Armenia#Armenian ethnicity in lead sections]].

The question for this page is whether there is a general rule: Do you remove ethnicity from the lead and then start discussion or do you start discussion first? [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] ([[User talk:Hyacinth|talk]]) 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:You have probably been answered in some way already, but for the record there is 'general' rule in Wikipedia on this, which is broadly:

:If the revision you are making is likely to be problematic (even if it's a correct change) it is ''wise'' to explain your action first in Talk. In this case, state clearly that your revision is per [[WP:MOSBIO]] ('[[WP:NAMES]]' is an alternative choice, and might look better). Definitely make the change - the discussion can come after that. If an '[[edit war]]' occurs (or is underway) then you may have to allow for an incorrect page to stay up, while discussion goes on. Manual of Style (MOS) are just a collection of [[WP:guidelines]] and not hard rules (as is everything on Wikipedia but [[WP:policy]]), but you can get support if people are ignoring consensus.

:You can always explain, in this case, that ethnicity can easily be mentioned later on (even or in the opening paragraph, providing there is a sufficinetly [[WP:weight|weighted]] and [[WP:verify|properly sourced]] reason for [[WP:notability|notability]]) (refer to [[WP:weight]], [[WP:verify]], [[WP:notability]]). --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 17:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

== Guideline on awards, honorary doctorates, etc.? ==

I notice that some biographical articles have lists of awards, honorary doctorates, and the like which veer perilously close to being cruft. I'd like to see a definite policy/guideline on the propriety or otherwise of including such. Thanks. -- [[User:Writtenonsand|Writtenonsand]] ([[User talk:Writtenonsand|talk]]) 20:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:There is nothing even vaguely cruft-like in listing awards such as honorary doctorates as long as they are not listed after the subject's name in the first line (apart from postnoms for official honours, major fellowships etc). They are facts. However, I don't think they should be in an actual list, but part of the text. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

==Current status?==
Is it appropriate to mention a person's current status in the lead paragraph? I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shilpa_Shetty&diff=184672892&oldid=184672662 this] edit in mind. Obviously a BLP article by definition will change according to the fortunes of the article subject, but since Wikipedia is an ongoing project that reflects ''current'' information also, is it appropriate to mention a person's status in the Lead? [[User:Ekantik|Ekantik]] <sup>[[User talk:Ekantik|talk]]</sup> 22:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:By status you mean professional or occupational status--i.e., what the person has been publicized as doing at the moment, especially useful for performers and others in the entertainment industries whose projects change from year to year. I don't know if there is a guideline on this, but lacking one, I can see pros and cons. Pro: it informs the reader that the person in question is currently professionally active, and in what. Con: it can be ephemeral, subject to frequent revision, it is not particularly encyclopedic inasmuch as it may place undue weight on the most recent activity to the detriment of the broader overview, and may go unedited for a sufficiently long time so as to become outdated and give innacurate information. I don't see any pressing reason why such information needs be excluded from the lead provided it is worded so that it will never become inaccurate with the passage of time. I.e., rather than "She is currently...", use "In 2008, she..." [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::There ''is'' a guideline on this: "[[Wikipedia:Lead section]]". I quote:
:::The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.
::Therefore, the primary issue is not whether a person's "current status" should be in the lead or not, but whether the information has been included in the body of the article. If it has, and it is an important point, then it should be mentioned in the lead. Otherwise, it should be omitted. I would imagine that most changes in people's occupational status would be important enough to warrant mention in the article and thus in the lead, and agree with Robert that terms like "currently" and "recently" should be avoided in favour of more precise phrases such as "In 2008..." &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::It's where you come to "Otherwise, it should be omitted" that I no longer see correspondence between your interpretation of the guideline and what is actually written in the guideline. The guideline states that the lead should be able to serve as an encapsulation of the article as a whole. It does not state that the purpose of the lead is limited to such an encapsulation, or that information in the lead needs be limited to information also found elsewhere in the article. [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 23:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::Hmmm, interesting. That's not been my experience of how this guideline has been interpreted, though. In the past, when I nominated articles for promotion to Good Article status, I was advised by (presumably more experienced) reviewers that the lead should not contain any information that does not already appear in the article. This seems to be what the guideline is getting at, as these other passages suggest: "The lead section summarizes the article"; "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Perhaps this is an issue that needs to be raised on the guideline's [[Wikipedia talk:Lead section|talk page]]. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 00:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:::The guideline is fine. It ''should'' summarize the article. There's nothing prohibiting it from also adding one or two other bits of information found nowhere else in the article. Very many article leads, even of articles called good or featured, do this. [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

==Proposal: <s>No Exceptions to 'No Honorific Prefixes'</s> <s>Use [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28people%29|title name conventions]] as preferred first instance</s> No "Sir/Dame"==
I propose modifying the policy such that no honorific prefixes are permitted, with no exceptions. I acknowledge that the custom in Britain is to refer to some with 'Sir'/'Dame' and we would not be adhering to their customs, just as we are not adhering to "H.H." prefix customs on the Dalai Lama or slews of other established social norms that some people are hung up on. Right now the prenominal exceptions are not a culture-neutral policy and is therefore POV. I would also like to get rid of the postnominals, which have the same problem but unless there is broad support I'm only pitching prenominals here. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:What is the reason currently given for any exceptions? [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'm definitely not an expert but honorary [[Order_of_the_British_Empire|KBEs]](like [[Bill Gates]]) are authorized by British convention to only use postnominal "KBE", whereas full KBEs (like [[Tim Berners-Lee]]) are distinguished by prenominal "Sir" plus the postnominal letters. So to start listing just the postnominal letters without the prenominals might imply that TBL is a fake knight instead of a real knight... but IMO NPOV trumps accommodating British cultural norms since no other cultures' prenominals seem to be permitted. If it's inaccurate to use the postnominals without the prenominals then let's toss the postnominals also since the distinctions that are permitted as postnominal distinctions are arbitrary & culturally biased. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 02:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Absolutely, definitely not. This has been discussed before. "Sir" or "Dame" is part of the name of somebody who has been knighted or created a dame. It is not a "custom". It is not an honorific prefix. It is a title. There is a huge difference. Sir John Smith, having been knighted, will be for the rest of his life addressed as "Sir John", not "Mr Smith". Not including the title would make Wikipedia inaccurate for the sake of dogma (not NPOV at all - it's not POV to include something that is part of somebody's name). Postnominals are, in Britain and many other Commonwealth countries, also integral. It's also not culturally specific to Britain - have a look at articles on other European noblemen, who are equally titled and whose articles use those titles, as they should do. Let's please throw out this proposal before it even starts. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 08:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: What about Prof. Smith or Dr. Smith OD? I'm not proposing referring to your example as 'Mr. Smith' either, I'm proposing simply 'John Smith'. The U.S. doesn't recognize titles of nobility, so there is no such thing as a [[Charles_Galton_Darwin|Sir Charles Darwin]] here. What country's conventions do we use? The honorific prefixes section says that "Wikipedia currently distinguishes between three groups: nobles, government officials, and members of royal families and popes", then says in points 1-3 that styles and honorifics should not be used with any of them inline, then proceeds with #4 to make a British-specific exception to allow Sir/Dame. The [[English_honorifics]] article equates 'Sir' with the use of Mr./Mrs./Dr., which aren't used in Wikipedia either. The only NPOV policy is to not use titles. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Well I think the English honorifics article is grossly over simplifying the situation. When a person is knighted in the UK their name does change - "Sir" is a title not an honorific prefix. It is used ''instead'' of them in nearly all cases (I'm not sure of the conventions for knighted doctors and professors) which is where the confusion arises. But the knighthood or damehood is a part of the name. It would be POV to start stripping off parts of people's names in the name of so-called "cultural neutrality" which sounds rather like imposing the US anti-titles position onto names. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] ([[User talk:Timrollpickering|talk]]) 21:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Absolutely. Incidentally, "Sir" replaces Dr but it does not replace Professor - the correct style is "Professor Sir". "Dr Sir" is sometimes seen (Sir [[Rhodes Boyson]] always uses it, for example), but it is technically incorrect. My point is that Sir John Smith should never again be referred to as anything other than "Sir John" - the pretitle has become part of his name. He is no longer simple "John Smith". This is a completely different situation from honorifics. The [[English honorifics]] article is, I'm afraid, incorrect. Ripe is confusing honorifics with titles - titles are always used on Wikipedia, as you will see if you look at any article on nobility or royalty from ''any'' country - this is not an exception for British people. How is it POV to list somebody's correct name? As Timrollpickering says, this sounds suspiciously like an attempt to force American anti-title prejudices on the rest of us, and that is in itself POV. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::''The U.S. doesn't recognize titles of nobility, so there is no such thing as a Sir Charles Darwin here.'' This is nonsense. You're attempting to assign your own beliefs to the United States Government. The United States, of course, does not ''grant'' titles of nobility, but that is very different to not ''recognising'' them. It does, in fact, recognise titles: for instance, the current British Ambassador to the United States is listed in the Department of State's Diplomatic List as "His Excellency Sir Nigel Elton Sheinwald". [[User:Proteus|Proteus]] [[User_talk:Proteus|(Talk)]] 15:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:No, lousy idea, as explained by those above. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::Surely culturally neutral would be to follow the style adopted by the culture in which the person lives, rather than seek to impose a blanket style upon varied cultural norms according to some arbitrary external standard, which derives from - where and whom exactly? [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] ([[User talk:Tyrenius|talk]]) 01:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
:::So you're saying that [[Adolf Hitler]] should be referred to by his honorific title? I'm sure that would go over well. Moreover, honorifics usually are meant to imply something positive about the person with them. Using honorifics is just a bad idea. As for titles, though, that's a bit trickier, and it is even worse with Sir. King, at least, is both a profession and a title, but Sir is basically an honorific. I'd personally like to get rid of it for consistancy's sake, as it is difficult to recognize who exactly has proper authority to bestow such titles on people neutrally - if some crazy cult leader bestows titles on people, who are we to say his titles are any less meaningful than those by king whoever of wherever? We could qualify it lots of ways, but in the end, it isn't neutral to allow some people to bestow titles and deny others the priviledge, and I think ultimately we'd all be a lot happier without any of them rather than letting random kooks' decrees stick titles in front of people's names. [[User:Titanium Dragon|Titanium Dragon]] ([[User talk:Titanium Dragon|talk]]) 12:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::::So centuries of British tradition was formulated by "random kooks" was it? Or are you only saying that the policy as it stands would allow self-bestowed titles to stand? No it wouldn't. It hasn't done yet and it wouldn't do in the future. The only titles which can be added are those bestowed by recognised national governments and which are therefore completely valid. Even most Americans with any manners/awareness of other countries' cultural norms would address someone who had been knighted by the British Crown as "Sir" whatever. It is recognised worldwide as correct form. Omitting it from Wikipedia would make Wikipedia incorrect; are you prepared to do that because you personally don't like titles? POV anyone? [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We apparently don't have any problem [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29#Other_non-royal_names|omitting Sir/Dame from article titles]] - that policy page refers to the non-prefixed version as the "personal name". I have a hunch that article naming policy has been vetted more than the in-article one here, so I'd like to modify my proposal to: "let's import the article naming conventions policy as the preferred first full name in the article".
If I may also gripe about post-nominals, they're not part of the name and their presence biases the up-front representation of honors and memberships to those honors and memberships that have decided to refer to themselves with... postnominal letters. e.g. the recipients of the [[Victoria Cross]] are listed with postnominal letters VC, but [[Medal of Honor]] recipients are not honored with a "MoH" postnominal. The prenominal & postnominals under discussion are conventions of address that do not [[Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves|let the facts speak for themselves]]. The recipients of these honors are probably largely good people and I'm not trying to strip them of that, but so are a lot of other people that don't have the opportunity to be members of things that distinguish their members with postnominal letters that WP sees fit to acknowledge (too bad, John Smith, DDS), or to cultures that don't use the latin alphabet, or that have large numbers of English-speaking editors in WP defending their cultural conventions. Let's put all this stuff in the bio infobox awards line & appropriate sections of the article where it belongs. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 19:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
:It's a very daft argument to say that Victoria Cross winners have VC after their names, but Medal of Honor winners don't have MoH after their names, so we should omit the VC. It is the norm in Britain and Commonwealth countries to use these postnoms, and they will frequently be seen after people's names; it is not the norm in the United States. Once again you are attempting to impose American cultural norms on all articles. Why should the American norm become the Wikipedia norm? DDS isn't used because it's a qualification, not an honour. There is a big difference. Your proposal to use the article name as the first line name is also changing the whole Wikipedia policy - that means that full names will usually not be used in the first line (since most articles are titled with the person's common name, not their full name), going against all encyclopaedia conventions. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Please be civil, I think it's a perfectly valid argument. Wikipedia NPOV policy shouldn't defer to cultural norms. It's also the norm in some countries to refer to their favorite religious deities in certain terms (or perhaps not stating their name at all in non-religious texts to avoid invoking it) but Wikipedia is under no such obligation to accommodate these norms. I think you might have misunderstood TD's argument above - he's pointing out that the current policy contains a POV selection as to who are the kooks and who aren't. If you can propose an alternate culturally neutral policy, please do so but it's POV to have policies that are British pre & postnom specific. I really can't think of one, so that's why I'm proposing no adornments. There's already a standard, NPOV place for honors & awards - the infobox. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::No, it is most certainly ''not'' POV to use British titles and postnoms when they are used in Britain and are recognised worldwide, any more than it is POV to use the American custom of adding suffixes such as "Jr" or "III" to names, which sounds equally weird to us Brits. American names would be incorrect without these; British names would be incorrect without the titles. Simple. As I said, you really need to distinguish between honorifics and titles, which you don't appear to be doing (e.g. your deities argument - these are honorifics, not titles, and people who do not worship the deities do not use them; this is not the case with titles, which are a recognised part of somebody's name and are used by everyone). I have argued against honorifics myself a number of times, but omitting titles is simply incorrect. You also continue to bang on about ''British'' titles currently being an exception, when I have already said that this policy is valid for ''all'' legitimate countries that use titles. You wouldn't (or shouldn't) omit the "Ritter von" from the names of German knights or the "Chevalier de" from those of French knights either. This is correct usage. It is not POV in any way, and I fail to see why you think it is. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::[[Richard_III_of_England|Huh?]] Anyway do you have a source that Sir/Dame is part of one's name? [http://www.hartpub.co.uk/style.html This publishing style guide] calls it an "honorific title", doesn't require its use inline, and in fact requires that it be omitted from names in their footnotes, so the name is correct without it. These honorific titles are most certainly not recognized worldwide, such as by the U.S. Library of Congress. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 14:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Good grief, he was a king! Of course he had a regnal number! That's a bit different from the American usage - the number of reigning kings who've had that name, not the number of people in a family who've had it. We don't use them for anybody else (although Jr was occasionally used in the 19th century). I really don't think a publishing company's guide re footnotes should be taken as a definitive guide to correct usage in an encyclopaedia, do you? Take a look at publications like ''[[Who's Who]]'', the ''[[Encyclopaedia Britannica]]'' and the ''[[Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]]'' for a rather more encyclopaedic approach and read some of the debates higher up this page and in the archives - you're not the first to say this and you probably (unfortunately) won't be the last. I don't think you'll find a single encyclopaedia, British, American or anything else, that doesn't include people's titles with their names where they belong. As to the Library of Congress not recognising titles, really? [http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Author&SA=Churchill%2C%20Winston%20Leonard%20Spencer%2C%20Sir%201874%2D%20%5Bfrom%20old%20catalog%5D&PID=1837&BROWSE=7&HC=433&SID=2 Take a look here] [http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Redirect%7CN&SA=Doyle%2C%20Arthur%20Conan%2C%20Sir%2C%201859%2D1930&PID=1837&BROWSE=1&HC=568&SID=8 or here!]. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 15:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::[http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/amen2001.html yes really]. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 16:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::So a recent amendment of the LoC should apply to Wikipedia should it? Why exactly? Is Wikipedia obliged to change its policies because the Library of Congress does? In any case, since I have a copy of AACR2 in front of me, that amendment essentially fits in exactly with our current policy: titles are no longer used in "headings" (equivalent to WP article titles) but are still used in "statements of responsibility" (i.e. they are still used in-line to describe the author of a work - xx, by Sir xx xx). So in fact the LoC policy does not agree with your ideas, I'm afraid. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Well, you implied that I was wrong when I said that Sir was not used by LoC (in response to your assertion that Sir is used worldwide) by linking to presumably old search titles that predated the current LoC policies. I'm not stating that we defer to LoC or AACR2 policy, I'm just saying that you were wrong. As far as statements of responsibility, feel free to change your name to "Sir Necrothesp" or even "The Right Honourable Necrothesp, VC" and have those appear as such in the history changelogs. I won't oppose.
::::::::There's a lot of noise here. Do you have a source saying that Sir/Dame are not honorific titles and/or are part of the name? [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Debrett's ''Correct Form'', which sets out the legal names of the holders of various dignities (including "Sir" for knights). [[User:Proteus|Proteus]] [[User_talk:Proteus|(Talk)]] 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks Proteus - could you paste in what it says on the topic? [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 20:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::It gives "Sir John Brandon Knight Bachelor" as an example of a knight and "Dame Frances Elizabeth Smith"/"Frances Elizabeth, Lady Smith" as an example of a knight's wife. [[User:Proteus|Proteus]] [[User_talk:Proteus|(Talk)]] 20:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thanks but can you put in verbatim the part about it being part of the name, and that the name is incorrect in a fundamental sense as opposed to a politeness/convention sense without honorific titles? Also does it say what part of speech Sir/Dame are? Are they indeed "honorific titles"? If so do they have examples of other honorific titles - e.g. are Lord/Lady also honorific titles? [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 16:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::anyone? [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 13:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please can we get some clarification on this. The current example is self contradictary. "Note that honorary knights and dames are '''not''' entitled to "Sir" or "Dame", only the post-nominal letters.) Example: "'''Dame''' Ellen Patricia MacArthur, DBE" [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 13:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:It's my understanding that the example is an example of a regular (non-honorary) usage of "Dame". So I think it's poorly formatted/ambiguous but not actually contradictory. I think everyone can agree that this could be worded better. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 23:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
==="Sir" and "Dame" discussion===

:"#The honorifics [[Sir]] and [[Dame]] should be included in the text inline for baronets, knights bachelor, and members of knightly orders whose rank grants them that dignity, provided that they do not hold a higher dignity, such as a peerage, which trumps that usage. No baronet should be shown with the postfix but without the prefix, e.g. [[John Smith, 17th Baronet]] is wrong, the correct style being [[Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet]]. (Note that honorary knights and dames are not entitled to "Sir" or "Dame", only the post-nominal letters.) Example: "'''Dame Ellen Patricia MacArthur''', [[Order of the British Empire|DBE]] (born [[July 8]], [[1976]]) is an [[England|English]] [[sailor]]...""
Again, asking for clarification of how this execption is not violaiton of NPOV. The above discussion stalled when the exceptionists were asked to provide support for "dame/sir" actually being part of the name. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 14:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

::Understand I well that this is according to you a violation of Wikipedia Neutral point of view? If this is the case for you, can you explain to me why? [[User:Demophon|Demophon]] ([[User talk:Demophon|talk]]) 15:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Because it (the exception) only applies to honorifics bestowed by a specific group. Why should honorifics bestowed by a particular country be given an exception to a rule that is not granted to honorifics bestowed by any other country or group? Allowing this exception promotes a POV that this honor is somehow different or special. If we are not going to have honorifics, we need to apply that consistantly. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 17:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Regardless of what people claim, it is an honorific, and it is wrong to make an exception for the British. No one, not even [[George W Bush]] and [[Queen Elizabeth II]] have "Queen" or "President" before their name. Clearly, Sir is inappropriate as well, as we aren't even giving Bush or Elizabeth "President" or "Queen". There's really no room to argue, here; NPOV requires consistancy. [[User:Titanium Dragon|Titanium Dragon]] ([[User talk:Titanium Dragon|talk]]) 00:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:Basically, if I go out and start knighting people, why aren't they listed as Sir? Why am I any different from Queen Elizabeth in this regard? [[User:Titanium Dragon|Titanium Dragon]] ([[User talk:Titanium Dragon|talk]]) 00:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
::agree w/ TRPOD & TD. Sir/Dame honorifics need to go away like all the other honorifics. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 16:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I think you'll find it's because you're not the officially appointed Head of State of a country! These titles have legal status. As for Queen Elizabeth II and President Bush: "Queen" is not really a title - her formal style is Her Majesty Elizabeth II, of the United Kingdom etc etc Queen"; "Queen" Elizabeth II is informal usage, but not official. "President" is a job description, not a title, since the United States does not use titles. What you are basically proposing is that, because many countries do not use titles, titles should not be used on Wikipedia even for people who come from countries which ''do'' use them. That sounds to me like the POV here, not the use of titles. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 10:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This has already been discussed. Removing the "Sir" and "Dame" at the beginning of a person's name would be removing part of their name. This is not POV; this is a fact. You will find them listed in ''every'' encyclopaedia, ''Who's Who'' etc. Why should Wikipedia be an exception to the rule that these titles should be used? And once again we have the baseless claim that only honorifics "bestowed by a particular country" are included. This is simply not the case. Look at any article about titled people from Germany, France, Italy, Spain etc etc. They all have titles included. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 10:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
::::You make 3 claims 1) you claim that titles granted by other countries appear in articles - and so it is not a POV exception. If we are going to allow those titles, then the EXCEPTION in the MOS must not be limited to England, which it currently is. A POV violation.
::::2) that 'other guys are doing it' - so if 'other guys' are jumping off bridges... that is not a reason that we should be POV.
::::3)that 'Sir/Dame' is 'part of the name'- and yes, this has been 'discussed before'- when the same 'explanation' was stated above and Ripe asked for proof of that claim, none was provided. Can you provide some now to back your claim?[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::1) It is ''not'' an exception for Britain (not England, since the honours system is UK-wide and once extended to the whole Empire/Commonwealth). The section says that titles should be used for knights bachelor and baronets, which are indeed British, "and members of knightly orders whose rank grants them that dignity", which can apply to any country which has such orders. Just because the example is British does not mean that the section only refers to British titles, but it is certainly true that the vast majority of titled people with articles on Wikipedia are British and that is why the section is tailored towards British titles. This does not make it POV to include those titles. I have no problem with expanding the section to refer to other countries. I am certainly not arguing that Britain should in any way be an exception - all valid titles should be used (note the difference between a title and an honorific - I have opposed the the use of the latter many times myself).
:::::2) Not at all. If respected information works without exception use a style then we would be rather stupid not to do so also.
:::::3) Can you provide any proof that the use of titles is POV other than your own POV? You seem to take it as a given that the current system is POV because you say it is. Proof works both ways. But for proof, try [http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=30250&geotype=London&gpn=8792&type=ArchivedSupplementPage&exact=order%20of%20the%20british%20empire this], from the Statutes of the Order of the British Empire: "Dames Commanders of this Order...may ''on all occasions'' have, use and enjoy the ''appellation'' and style of Dame before their Christian or first names" (italics mine). -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 11:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Per the MOS "The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles has proved controversial on Wikipedia."'' yep thats why we are here'''" Wikipedia currently distinguishes between three groups: nobles, government officials, and members of royal families and clergy." The MOS then identifies guidelines for using honorifics for the three groups: Nobles - no. Government Officials - No. Members of royal families and clergy - No.
::::::THEN there is this bizare exception 4. for "baronets, knights bachelor, and members of knightly orders" looking up 'kinghtly orders' in WP we are redirected to [[military orders]], which is not what we are talking about here, but [[Order of Merit (disambiguation)]] does seem to apply. So what I understand your position to be, is that honorifics from these organizations would for some reason be an exception to the 'no honorifics' policy - because 'dame/sir' are (at least for some British orders) an "appellation and a style" (focusing on the 'appellation' and ignoring the 'style'). I do not see this as logical.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 18:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::You do not understand. It is not an exception. "Sir" and "Dame" are no more honorifics than "Earl of" is an honorific. They are ''titles''. Britain has three groups of titles: Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage. In point of fact, if peers were allowed their titles on Wikipedia and baronets and knights/dames were not it would be ''they'' who were the "bizarre exception". -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 19:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::according to my dictionary (admittedly not the O'''E'''D), there is little to no difference between 'honorific' 'title' and 'style' 1) mode of address or designation; title. 2) A token of esteem paid to worth; as A. a mark of respect, as a title. 3. Title applied to the holder of certain civil offices 4. A descriptive name, an appellation . Guess which definitions go with which words?
::::::::And again, your source also calls Dame/Sir a 'style' and the exception in the MOS that we are talking about calls dame/sir honorifics. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 23:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear TheRedPenOfDoom,<br>
Your way of thinking about what is POV or NPOV is wrong. The honorific "Sir" (or "Dame") is an additional part of a name (of course you can omit it from the whole name, the same as you can do this with the personal name and to show only the surname). "Sir" or "Dame" as part of a name is a cultural custom used and evolved for many, ''many'' centuries! It's totally not uncommon in many biographies about people to address them with this honorific. This is the same as with titles of nobility, not only the UK, but also in other countries in Europe. Is this a form of elitism? Yes of course! But that's something different than being POV. The Wikipedia NPOV concerns about how ''you'' approach information, not about the content of the information ''itself''. If you want to write a biography about someone, then you have to take at least two rules into mind: 1) Describe someone as complete as possible (also regarding their name), try not to leave out parts because you dislike it. 2) Be as neutral, objective, and open minded as possible in describing the person. The fact that someone's name contains titles of nobility and is this is therefore elitist, doesn't matter. That you want to leave out the honoric "Sir", because you regard it as a form of elitism and you therefore dislike it (your comment - POV exception redux: ''because we are speeeeeeecial''), is highly subjective and therefore POV.<br>
Greetings, [[User:Demophon|Demophon]] ([[User talk:Demophon|talk]]) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:Can we stop saying 'this has already been discussed' as if that means anything. WP policies are always open to reconsideration and discussion. To reiterate my request from above, do you or anyone else have a source to back up the assertion that Sir/Dame is the first word in the recipient's new name and its absence makes the name incorrect in a fundamental sense as opposed to a politeness/convention sense? I provided several examples where it is policy (e.g. the U.S. Library of Congress) to /not/ use them. Tim Berners-Lee's drivers license doesn't say 'Sir'. Not that this would be sufficient, but does anyone have a way to restate the current policy such that it could apply to other honorific titles granted by other cultures (e.g. without explicitly stating 'Sir'/'Dame')? If not it is POV. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 16:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:Demophon - why don't we use "Dr." to those who have received the honor? To use it is a cultural custom that has evolved over centuries. It's not uncommon in non-WP biographies to address them with it. Its use is spread across many countries. It informs the reader about the person. The answer IMHO is that we are supposed to describe the person by stating facts about them (e.g. "Tim Berners-Lee was granted membership in the KBE"/"C. Everett Koop received his M.D. degree from Cornell Medical College") rather than using the style conventions in our text ("Sir TBL did this & this & this"/"Dr. Koop did &c..."). There's a key difference there. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 16:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
::I note you have ignored both the quote I provided above from the Statutes of the Order of the British Empire and my refutation of your Library of Congress argument in our previous discussion (i.e. the LoC guidelines only apply to titles of records, and nobody is arguing that "Sir" or "Dame" should be used in our article titles, and in any case the policies of the national library of a country that does not have titles are not binding on an international encyclopaedia). Incidentally, how do you know what Tim Berners-Lee's driving licence says? Do you have a copy? And what on earth would "Tim Berners-Lee was granted membership in the KBE"/"C" mean? Tim Berners-Lee was knighted as a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire - he wasn't "granted membership" in anything (that would be an MBE). He should now be addressed as "Sir Tim". That is a fact, whatever your POV may wish to believe. He holds a title, not a qualification, not a job description, not an honorific, a title. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:::1. Your own source from 1917 recognizes the Sir/Dame prenominal as something prior to, not a part of, the person's name. Whether or not people may enjoy usage of name dongles /here/ is something for WP policy, not inherited from British ceremonial customs or elsewhere. I think we finally have an answer to my question - it's /not/ actually part of the person's name as some have claimed.
:::2. Go back and reread the part you're confused about. This time break on the quotes and slash not the period indicating an initial rather than a new sentence/clause. [[C. Everett Koop]] is former surgeon general of the U.S. and a medical doctor. If I didn't phrase the example correctly my apologies but try to focus on the point that I'm making. Fix the TBL phrase if you want or not, my point still stands. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 16:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
::::1) Not at all. It's saying it should be added to the person's name as it stood ''before'' the honour, it should be used at all times, and it is an appellation (i.e. part of the name).
::::2) My apologies. I misunderstood you. However my point still stands also. Berners-Lee did not become a member of the Order; he became "Sir Tim", according to the Statutes of the Order that I have quoted (which, incidentally, do not enumerate that knights should be called "Sir" because that was already long understood - "Dame" was a new title introduced by the Order of the British Empire, which is why the Statutes felt the need to explain it). -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 16:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::1. My copy of the concise OED defines appellation as "a name or title" - do you have any more recent sources on that aren't ambiguous in terminology and usage outside of formal situations? I can pull many sources saying that the proper method of introducing/referring to C. Everett Koop is "Dr. C. Everett Koop" but that doesn't mean it should be WP policy.
:::::2. I'm not asserting he's a member, I was giving an example of how facts about awards/titles/honors should/do appear in Wikipedia - through their statement via the pattern "person X is a Y" rather than their use by styles or honorifics inline. I'm not contesting that Sir/Dame are traditional modes of addressing those who have been given the honor; I'm contrasting the current policy with how WP treats other styles/honorifics inline (which is, they don't). If you're focusing on the fact that my example was factually incorrect, that's not the point I was trying to make. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 20:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::We are effectively having a rather pointless circular debate here. Your basic argument is that the use of titles is POV, mine is that it is not. This is getting us nowhere and without a huge effort on your part to find support and proof for your POV it is inevitable that current guidelines, which support my POV, will stand. Let's stop wasting energy. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 22:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I have not said 'my position is not pov and yours is' I have said this exception is an exception for an unusual group of people and has no logical basis for exemption (except for your one statement that the dame/sir is 'part of the name' - and yet even your source for that claim says that dame/sir is also a 'style'). Why should there be this one exception for honorifics granted by a limited and arbitrary set of entities when no other honorifics are thus exempted? Exceptions provided to arbitrary groups are POV/bias.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 22:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
To follow the logic through to its conclusion, is it being proposed that the article [[Pope Benedict XVI]] should be moved to [[Joseph Ratzinger]], and that [[Dalai Lama]] should be renamed [[Tenzin Gyatso]] ?? [[User:Bazj|Bazj]] ([[User talk:Bazj|talk]]) 16:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
::Actually, we are not talking about naming conventions for articles themselves, but about usage within the article. But anyway the second part of your question is obviously, no. Dalai Lama is a title/postition and [[Dalai Lama]] is about that title/position and [[Tenzin Gyatso]] is the article about the man who currently holds that position. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;font-weight:bold;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 17:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

==="Sir" and "Dame" discussion - arbitrary break===
So far as I understand, there's a rather solid consensus across the project to avoid titles and honorifics, regardless of whether they are political, religious, or cultural. Is there any such convincing consensus for this exception to widespread practice? &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#1E90FF">'''Luna Santin'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</span> 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
:Look, let me try to explain once again as simply as possible. Take five people: Mr John Smith, Dr John Smith, The Honourable John Smith, The Reverend John Smith, and Sir John Smith. They can all be referred to as "John Smith", right? Wrong. The first four can all legitimately be referred to as "John Smith" - they may prefer their honorifics, but except in very formal situations it is entirely correct to refer to them without their use in any country in the world (Britain included). If the fifth is referred to as "John Smith" he is being referred to incorrectly. He is not John Smith; he is ''Sir'' John Smith. The title has become effectively part of his name. It is no mere honorific that can be used or left off as the addresser/referrer sees fit. If he himself says "call me John" then fair enough (for instance, actors often leave off the pretitle professionally, but when referred to in the media it will usually be used), but otherwise it is insulting to leave off the title (as anyone who watches ''[[The Apprentice (UK)|The Apprentice]]'' in the UK will know!).


=== Backlogged? ===
This page often seems to be backlogged. If the DYK template has not been updated for substantially more than 6 hours, it may be useful to attract the attention of one of the administrators who regularly updates the template. See the page [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins]] for a list of administrators who have volunteered to help with this project.


== Candidate entries ==
:Some people here are banging on about "prove it, prove it", and I have tried to do so, but this is very difficult as the British use of titles was laid down many centuries ago and it is something that is entirely understood by the British establishment, which sees no need to lay it down again. This is the problem with demanding concrete proof of something that was established long before the digital age - lack of easily accessible proof does not make the fact a non-fact. It often makes it something that is so well-established and so well-known that it has not needed to be reiterated for centuries. If we did not use these titles on Wikipedia we would simply be giving incorrect information to our readers. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


=== Articles created/expanded on October 10 ===
:Here's another attempt at some proof, the [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/specials/style_guide/article986750.ece Times Style Guide] section on titles. While it can't be taken as concrete evidence (since it's a style guide), ''The Times'' is the UK's newspaper of record. It states that honorifics (Her Majesty, His Royal Highness, The Right Honourable etc) are not to be used when referring to peers and members of the Royal Family, that children of peers do not need to be referred to using "The Honourable" (to which they are entitled in formal situations), but that knights, baronets and dames ''are'' to be referred to as "Sir" and "Dame". I would also point out that such titles are used in the ''[[Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]]'', ''[[Who's Who]]'' and the ''[[Encyclopaedia Britannica]]'', among many others. They are used on the [[BBC]] and by most other media sources. They wouldn't, for instance, refer to "The Right Honourable Gordon Brown" or the "Most Reverend Rowan Williams", but they would refer to "Sir Alan Sugar". Why? Because it's correct, and unlike the previous two honorifics it cannot legitimately be left off! Yet here we have some people arguing that we shouldn't use them on WP because their use is "POV". Obviously most respected information sources do ''not'' regard them as POV, so I do feel this is a complete non-argument. Yes, apparently they also feel that we shouldn't do things just because other sources do, but I really don't see why we should not do something that is correct just for the sake of some sort of anti-title dogma that has not been properly thought out in this case. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 10:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:To add some examples, insisting on deleting these titles is as POV as insisting on referring to [[Elizabeth II]] as Elizabeth Windsor or [[Benedict XVI]] as Joseph Ratzinger. It would simply be regarded as incorrect to do so by the vast majority of people. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 11:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


<!-- PLEASE leave spaces between the nominations. It helps those reviewing ... and picking -->
:: Tim Berners-Lee's own professional biographies at W3C [http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/#Bio] and MIT [http://www.csail.mit.edu/biographies/PI/bioprint.php?PeopleID=188] refer to him without Sir prenominal inline, yet our [[Tim Berners-Lee]] article uses it inline. If verifiability is a criteria for articles it should be for this policy - maybe if nobody has written it down, you're mistaken. The citations you provided also include other examples that are explicitly not allowed by policy. Please don't be condescending with your "Look, let me try to explain once again as simply as possible" etc. We've heard your assertions before. You've provided nothing new. I provided a cite before showing that the 'Sir' prenominal is the prenominal for an [[honorific title]] of knighthood. [[Kentucky colonel]] is another example of an honorific title. Kentucky Colonels refer to themselves with the prenominal 'Colonel.' [[Muhammed Ali]] is listed as a Kentucky Colonel. Should we go edit the page to refer to "Colonel Ali"? Realize that you're asking us to both violate verifiability and accept a non-NPOV policy. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 15:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:Uss nevada.jpg|right|100x100px|USS Nevada (BB-36)]]
:::No, realise that ''you'' are asking ''us'' to change a guideline that has long been agreed and accepted. ''I'' am asking ''you'' to do nothing. I have already said that any further discussion between us is a waste of energy, since our POVs are fundamentally opposed. And absolutely no condescension was intended; I was merely trying to explain the facts to a new entrant to the debate. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 16:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
*... that the '''[[14"/45 caliber gun]]s''' from the battleship {{USS|Arizona|BB-39}} were installed aboard the battleship {{USS|Nevada|BB-36}} and fired against the Japanese in 1945? (new article, dual nom with [[User:the ed17]]) [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 05:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: I disagree that the debate is over. I reject your argument that because it's the status quo you can drop this and it remains here. This has long been contentious and I will follow this through to consensus. 1. Can you explain how two of TBL's professional bios omit something that you claim is fundamentally part of his name. 2. Do you support the use of all prenominal references inline to those with honorific titles (e.g. Kentucky Colonels) or do you want it to remain only for 'Sir'/'Dame' 3. Do you admit that you know of no source explicitly stating that 'Sir'/'Dame' are fundamentally part of people's names as opposed to a style/honorific/mode of address (please do not refer to your personal experience with convention as you have previously - we know conventions, and respecting them [e.g. "Dr."] in WP is at our discretion according to NPOV policy.)? 4. Do you feel comfortable emailing W3C or MIT notifying them that they have an error in TBL's bios by omitting 'Sir' as you would feel comfortable editing a WP article for a KBE that wasn't referred to as 'Sir'? [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 17:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Sir Tim Berners-Lee's biography at the W3C ''does'' include "Sir" [http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Longer.html]. In the abridged introduction it omits it. That reflects the common situation where more modest knights might omit their title in informal situations. But that doesn't mean they don't hold it. Equally, famous actors might not use their titles in film credits because they already have an established name before receiving the honour.
:::::Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so is for representing facts. Individuals are free to use their titles or not; Wikipedia has to let people know what the correct title is (if the individual concerned didn't want the title, they could have refused to accept the honour). The current situation is a good compromise. The title of the article doesn't include "Sir" or "Dame", and neither should it, just as it doesn't usually include middle names. The opening sentence of the article, however, should include "Sir" or "Dame". Note that knights bachelor aren't entitled to any postnominal letters, so if you don't use the title, there's nothing to indicate that they have a knighthood.
:::::Titles like "Sir" (and also titles of peerage) ''are'' quite different to Mr, Dr, etc. In British passports at least, titles are not normally used. However, if someone is a knight or dame, that can be added to their passport. (Lords also have passports under their titles, but that's not what we're discussing here). Knighthoods are particular to the UK and Commonwealth countries, so articles should surely follow the conventions used in that country. Lots of people will visit Wikipedia to see if someone is a "Sir". If you insist it can't be used, you are depriving them of that knowledge.
:::::I would like to add that I've joined this discussion independently after happening across it. I haven't been canvassed for my views at any stage. Regards, '''[[User:JRawle|<font color="blue">J</font><font color="navy">Rawle</font>]]''' ([[User talk:JRawle|Talk]]) 18:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::That page lists it in the header prior to the bio but omits it from the bio itself. I argue that cases showing omission are more informative than inclusion because it shows that it is legitimately optional and hence WP can opt not to use them in light of our NPOV policy and the person's name is valid. If you read the above discussion and are neutral, you will see that I was proposing informing the reader that the subject is a recipient of honors through the pattern "person X is a/has been awarded/is a member of/received degree Y". I'm depriving readers of no knowledge whatsoever. "Sir X" is ambiguous and must be disambiguated anyway because there are several honors that map to that prenominal. I do not object to the inclusion in Wikipedia of a statement that recipients of honor Y are frequently referred to with prenominal Z. I do not object to redirections of "Sir X" to the page for "X". There is no loss of information any more than there is by omitting "Dr." in front of Stephen Hawking's name inline and stating that he received a Ph.D.. The usage of 'Sir'/'Dame' or any other honorifics inline is what I object to because it is not consistent with NPOV. Feel free to answer the 4 questions I listed above. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 19:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::"However, if someone is a knight or dame, that '''can''' be added to their passport. " If it were "part of the name" as has been argued, then the name on the passport would '''need''' to reflect sir/dame. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;font-weight:bold;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::So it's NPOV to omit a title someone has been awarded, but not to include it? I don't think so. The most NPOV solution would be to include Sir ''in the page title'' if the subject uses the title, and to omit it if he didn't, just as we might include the middle name if the subject commonly uses it. The first line of the article, however, shold have the full name; therefore omitting the title is POV.
:::::We have to draw the line somewhere, just as we do for notability of subjects. That's why we don't include university degrees as postnominals, but includee honours awarded by a state. For the same reason, we include Sir, but not Dr or Prof. It's entirely consistent. Being a knight is still a rare honour. Being a PhD is surprisingly common. (Someone who is a Sir is probably notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Most PhDs are not.)
:::::I was very careful to say that people will look at Wikipedia to see if someone is a "Sir", not to see if they are a knight. Not everyone will understand that if you say "Smith was appointed a knight bachelor", that means he's a Sir. Also, if you include Sir, it ''is'' possible to see what honour someone received, as knighthoods other than knight bachelor come with postnominal letters.
:::::Finally, regarding passports, it may be a parculilarly British thing, but traditionally in English common law, one is entitled to use whatever name one likes. But unless you are going to ask celebrities for photocopies of their passports, I don't know how you would ever know whether it showed "Sir" or not. Therefore I consider it POV to omit it. '''[[User:JRawle|<font color="blue">J</font><font color="navy">Rawle</font>]]''' ([[User talk:JRawle|Talk]]) 19:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::"We have to draw the line somewhere" - and since the line we have drawn doesn't include Presidents, Queens or Popes, why in the world would it include sirs? -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;font-weight:bold;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 00:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[Orson Welles]] originally planned to end his film '''''[[Don Quixote (unfinished film)|Don Quixote]]''''' by having [[Don Quixote]] and [[Sancho Panza]] survive an atomic cataclysm? (new article, self-nom) [[User:Ecoleetage|Ecoleetage]] ([[User talk:Ecoleetage|talk]]) 03:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Newcomer to the debate here. I believe the truth is that usage is changing. While it may at one time have been incorrect to omit Sir/Dame from the name of a person entitled to that usage, it is becoming increasingly acceptable. Here are a few searches I tried on Google News to illustrate the point:
* [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=%22paul+mccartney%22&btnG=Search+News Paul McCartney] 2917 hits
* [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22sir+paul+mccartney%22&btnG=Search Sir Paul McCartney] 1098 hits
* [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22tim+berners-lee%22&btnG=Search Tim Berners-Lee] 131 hits
* [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22sir+tim+berners-lee%22&btnG=Search Sir Tim Berners-Lee] 44 hits
* [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22bob+geldof%22&btnG=Search Bob Geldof] 590 hits
* [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22sir+bob+geldof%22&btnG=Search Sir Bob Geldof] 83 hits
Scan results like this for a while and it becomes clear (to me at least) that there simply isn't a single accepted standard. Some quite reputable news organizations, including some in the UK, feel free to omit the "Sir" completely, at least for some people in some contexts. I susepct that a generation ago this would not have been the case, but for today, I believe [[User:Necrothesp]] is exaggerating in claiming that it is just patently wrong to omit Sir/Dame. Compare for example similar Google News searches on the pope - about 95% of news stories that mention "Benedict XVI" use the form "Pope Benedict XVI" vs much less than 50% use of "Sir" in the examples above.
In sum, it seems to me that the standards are in flux. High quality, formal, traditional sources do stick to Sir/Dame as if part of the name, but many perfectly respectable ones don't. This is one where Wikipedia could reasonably go either way. [[User:Mrhsj|Mrhsj]] ([[User talk:Mrhsj|talk]]) 01:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
: Here's another search showing that even the Times doesn't always follow its own style guide: [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22paul+mccartney%22+-%22sir+paul%22+site%3Atimesonline.co.uk&btnG=Search Search the Times for Paul McCartney without 'Sir'] [[User:Mrhsj|Mrhsj]] ([[User talk:Mrhsj|talk]]) 01:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


=== Articles created/expanded on October 9 ===
We seem to go round-and-round on this about once a year, but I've yet to have anyone explain convincingly how it's POV to include part of somebody's name in the opening part of the article. The evidence that news organizations get it wrong now and then doesn't change the that the ''correct usage'' is to render the full name. "Dr" or "President" is not part of somebody's name, but "Sir" or "Lord" (and variants thereof) is. This is accepted usage within media organizations, within other encyclopedias, and within Wikipedia itself for nigh on five years. Absent a fresh argument as to why this is wrong-headed I think it's sensible to let the matter be. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 01:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
: You are engaging in the [[fallacy of many questions]]. Do you have a source that 'Sir'/'Dame' is part of the name and its absence makes the name incorrect in a fundamental sense as opposed to a politeness/convention sense? It is critical to your position that you do so. Please refer to the 4 questions I posed above and provide answers to them and I will gladly explain what form your non-NPOV takes wrt this issue. Perhaps if defenders of the status quo stopped stonewalling the debate with unsourced assertions that it's part of the name and long restatements that it's an established British custom, then the discussion would not go round-and-round. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 03:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


<!-- PLEASE leave spaces between the nominations. It helps those reviewing ... and picking -->
: It is simply not demonstrated that inclusion of "Sir" is current standard usage within media organizations. We are not talking about them "getting it wrong now and then." I have done some actual work here, searching news organizations for recent reports on public figures. I find that most reputable news organizations (including nytimes.com, ap.org, reuters.co.uk among others) omit the "Sir" FAR more often than they include it. Here is just one:
: * [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22ian+mckellen%22+-%22sir+ian%22+site%3Anytimes.com&btnG=Search Ian McKellen without Sir on NY Times] 6,470 hits
: * [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22ian+mckellen%22+%2B%22sir+ian%22+site%3Anytimes.com&btnG=Search Ian McKellen with Sir on NY Times] 638 hits
: The New York Times omits Sir TEN TIMES as often as it uses it. Yet some claim that using Sir is standard accepted usage and that it's "wrong" to omit it. I don't buy it. (BTW I take no stand on the rest of the issue. I don't care one way or another about this policy, I just think some of the arguments being advanced in its defense are demonstrably false.) [[User:Mrhsj|Mrhsj]] ([[User talk:Mrhsj|talk]]) 03:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Frans Hals 031.jpg|100x100px|right|Portrait of Isaac Massa by [[Franz Hals]], 1626]]
::Well, sources have been quoted above to the effect that the ''correct'' usage is to include Sir/Dame. Media organizations are not infallible. It cannot possibly be correct to either include it or not include it; even if the media are not consistent we're obliged to be. You've yet to produce a source which suggests that our present usage (to render someone's legal name) is incorrect, but we've presented sources which confirm that usage. Sources were also brought forward to that effect last January, when this issue was last raised. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
* .. that the first European map of the [[Siberia]]n [[Arctic]] coast was obtained and published by Dutchman '''[[Isaac Massa]]''' ''(portrait pictured)''? new, self-nom [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 23:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[County Route 41 (Onondaga County, New York)|County Route 41]]''' in [[Onondaga County, New York]], was once part of two state highways and one turnpike?<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>([[User:Mitchazenia|UP]])</sup> 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's do a google search:


[[Image:Solna kyrka altar1.jpg|right|100x100px|Altar centre-piece, Solna Church]]
* [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Paul+McCartney%22&btnG=Google+Search His popular name "Paul McCartney"] 1830000 hits
*... that '''[[Solna Church]]''' ''(altar centre-piece pictured)'', a [[round church]] in Stockholm from the late 12th century, was originally built for defense purposes? --self-nom. [[User:Oceanh|Oceanh]] ([[User talk:Oceanh|talk]]) 22:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC).
* [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22James+Paul+McCartney%22 His name "James Paul McCartney" (also with Sir)] 4930 hits


*... that '''[[Bruce Voeller]]''' coined the term for the acronym [[AIDS]]? Self nom. -- [[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:gray;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]] 22:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, according to the logic of Mrhsj: we can leave out "James", one of his given names.
**[[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|18px]] No inline cites. ~<strong>'''<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkRed;background:blue">one of many</span> <span style="color:#FF7F00;font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Editorofthewiki|editorofthewiki]]s <sup>([[User talk:Editorofthewiki#top|<span style="color:Green;">talk</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|<span style="color:Green;">contribs</span>]]/[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki|<span style="color:Green;">editor review</span>]])</sup>'''</span></strong>~ 22:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
***Ed, it's fully referenced. Why do I need inline cites? -- [[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:gray;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]] 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
****The rule at [[Wikipedia:Did you know#Selection criteria]] number 3 requires inline cites and gives a brief explanation, and that rule represents a strong consensus. Also, I would substitute the redundant "the term for the acronym" with either "the term" or "the acronym". [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 03:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that the [[People's Republic of China]] has built '''[[Kazakhstan-People's Republic of China relations|strong ties]]''' with [[Kazakhstan]] in order to avert the establishment of [[U.S.]] [[military base]]s and harness major oil resources? '''<font face="Verdana">[[User:Vishnava|<font color="Red">Vishnava</font>]]<sub><small>[[User talk:Vishnava|<font color="Black"> talk </font>]]</small></sub></font>''' 19:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The fact that it is not always used, doesn't mean it is not part of the whole name! The way of thinking of a lot of guys here is incorrect.
[[Image:Symbol question.svg|18px]] Please '''embolden''' the new/expanded article. Thanks. -- [[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:gray;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]] 19:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:Done :) Thanks, '''<font face="Verdana">[[User:Vishnava|<font color="Red">Vishnava</font>]]<sub><small>[[User talk:Vishnava|<font color="Black"> talk </font>]]</small></sub></font>''' 19:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that as part of growing '''[[Kazakhstan-Turkey relations|bilateral ties]]''', [[Kazakhstan]] and [[Turkey]] have sought to promote closer relations between [[Turkic people|Turkic nations]] of [[Central Asia]]? '''<font face="Verdana">[[User:Vishnava|<font color="Red">Vishnava</font>]]<sub><small>[[User talk:Vishnava|<font color="Black"> talk </font>]]</small></sub></font>''' 18:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
And it makes me tired. In the past the same discussion was made extensively with proper debates and arguments. On basis of that and the reached consensus the Wikipedia community then agreed about a guideline. Once a while some 'wise guy' is starting the whole discussion all over again, thinking he knows it better! However the end result is the same. Sometimes I really have the feeling of "Groundhog Day" here. [[User:Demophon|Demophon]] ([[User talk:Demophon|talk]]) 06:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


*... that reflecting '''[[India-Kazakhstan relations|growing bilateral ties]]''', [[India]] has supported [[Kazakhstan]] in its bid for a [[Caspian Sea]] [[naval fleet]] despite [[Russia]]'s opposition? '''<font face="Verdana">[[User:Vishnava|<font color="Red">Vishnava</font>]]<sub><small>[[User talk:Vishnava|<font color="Black"> talk </font>]]</small></sub></font>''' 18:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
A few points here. First, I'm glad there are more hits for "Bob Geldof" than "Sir Bob Geldof" - as an honorary knight he is not entitled to the "Sir" in any case. Second, I'm rather puzzled as to why usage for three people (Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Ian McKellen), two of whom are in the entertainment business, in which it has always been common to leave off the pretitle, should predicate usage for every knight and dame in Britain (incidentally, since Berners-Lee was only knighted in 2004 there are obviously many articles written before that date that don't use his title). Third, even if usage is dropping off today (which is, incidentally, largely due to a media ignorant of correct usage in any case, which is why Google searches are pretty spurious in this regard - WP is an encyclopaedia, the aim of which is to educate, not perpetuate false information), why should that determine whether we do or do not use titles for the vast majority of knights and dames who received their titles when it would have been inconceivable not to use them and are therefore always referred to using them? Fourth, do a search on the [http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl BBC News website] for any of these people with and without their title - you'll be surprised if you think the use of titles is going out! -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
::A few points that you are not exactly accurate on: 1) last January when asked to provide evidence that sir/dame was 'part of the name' - ZERO evidence was provided. 2) The evidence provided this time says that it is an appellation AND a style - still no proof that this exception for this group of people has any basis when our standard procedure for EVERYONE else is not to use styles/titles/honorifics. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;font-weight:bold;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 10:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Our standand procedure is to use ''names''. Proof has been provided, both direct and indirect. Direct, in the form of ''Debrett's'', and indirect in the form of other standard reference works which follow our practice. We don't use inline styles like "The Right Honourable" and so forth but we do use people's names, which can in systems where nobility still exist include "titles." [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 10:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:::As Necrothesp has noted, much of the proof must be adduced from usage. I feel rather like I'm being asked to prove that in Western countries one's name is rendered "First name Last name." If you've ever watched Prime Minister's Questions, you'll note that the Speaker does not use styles such as "Right Honourable" when calling upon a member to speak, but ''does'' use the knighthood, if present. So, for example, "Sir Teddy Taylor" (as that's his name), but not "the Right Honourable Gordon Brown" (as that's not his name). [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 11:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:::: People keep referring to Debrett's, which many of us don't have access to. Please type in verbatim the part in Debrett's where it says 'Sir'/'Dame' styles are fundamentally part of the holder's name, that their use in all situations is mandatory not optional, and the name is strictly incorrect without their presence. This has been requested many times before (see above) but no response from any of you despite the fact that a lot of pro-status-quo people have posted, so I'm more willing to imply from that that it isn't in there. You claim you have direct evidence well please share with the rest of the class.
:::: Re. your claim of indirect evidence; 1. there are many situations where other prenominals are used/not used in various situations but that doesn't prove anything. In a university lecture introduction outside the British honors system 'Right Honourable' would not be used to introduce someone but 'Dr.' would be. Also 2. I note again that it's more informative to recognize situations when the title is legitimately omitted rather than when it is used and gives wikipedia policy license to omit. I find the fact that British Parliament uses some variant of the British honors system neither surprising nor informative on this subject. However we have found significant indirect evidence that omitting the title leaves the person's name still valid. So I think you can claim the support of neither direct nor indirect evidence. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 14:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
: As I wrote earlier you are making again a thinking error. Omitting "Sir" is like omitting one of someone's given name from his whole name in the first sentence of an article. For example: Sir James Paul McCartney. To leave out Sir and James, then you only get "Paul McCartney". Our omit all of his given names, leaving only his surname "McCartney". Technically it is legitimate to call someone only with his surname, but it is not his whole name! [[User:Demophon|Demophon]] ([[User talk:Demophon|talk]]) 14:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:: Once again, please provide a source for the assertion that it's fundamentally part of his name etc. per above. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 14:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
::: Well, that's very difficulty. Then we need an official document to prove it, like a passport or another government document with the name on it. [[User:Demophon|Demophon]] ([[User talk:Demophon|talk]]) 15:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:::: Do you admit that you have no source, given all that's written on the British honors system, to support the assertions here that Sir/Dame are fundamentally mandatory part of knights' names in all situations per above as opposed to an honorific/style/title/custom? If the answer is 'yes' please answer directly. If the answer is 'no' please provide said source's words verbatim on the topic. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
::::: Well again, if I could show you some government document (like a passport or other) in which the official name of a knight is shown, would this convince you? This is what The Red Pen of Doom asked. However this is highly difficulty! [[User:Demophon|Demophon]] ([[User talk:Demophon|talk]]) 15:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Please don't put words in my mouth. I never asked for passports. Someone claimed that 'sir/dame' was "part of the name" because it appears on ''some'' passports. I said that if 'sir/dame' were indeed "part of the name" it would appear on ''all'' passports. Ripe has been quite clear in his/her request for some sort of documentation that supports your position. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;font-weight:bold;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::For a while I was thinking to search for some passport or marriage certificate, with on it the official name of a British knight, to prove it. But when even this is not convincing for you, well then I'm not spencing all the of time to find that, it's not worthy. [[User:Demophon|Demophon]] ([[User talk:Demophon|talk]]) 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


*... that after being rejected from [[HaShomer]], a Jewish defense organization in Ottoman Palestine, '''[[Yosef Lishansky]]''' founded a rival group called HaMagen, operating in the south of the country? (self-nom) -- [[User:Ynhockey|Ynhockey]] <sup>([[User talk:Ynhockey|Talk]])</sup> 18:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's worth asking at this point what standard of proof would be accepted; demanding infallibility of a fallible system is a complete non-starter. It's been demonstrated that this is the correct way to refer to people, and that it is done in media, by the government, and ''by other reference works similar to this one''. Given the general hostility shown towards the British government and British honours system throughout I wonder whether even a letter from the [[Earl Marshal]] would convince parties here. For that matter, we could just as easily write Who's Who or the people behind the Dictionary of National Biography, but that these broadly-available general purpose works follow follow the same usage should be a telling point. ''[[Res ipsa loquitur]]''. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 16:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
: I would refer parties to, for example [http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=Webpages%2FPublic%2Flinks%2Fnca the National Council of Archives]. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 16:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[Alfred Philippe Roll]]''' was the [[Government of France|French government]]'s official painter? Self nom. -- [[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:gray;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]] 17:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I found a ''certificate of civil partnership of Sir Elton John with his partner'': [http://www.eltonfan.net/images/civil_partnership.jpg]. On this British government document the official name of Sir Elton printed when he was entering his civil partnership. But probably even this is not convincing enough to serve as prove. [[User:Demophon|Demophon]] ([[User talk:Demophon|talk]]) 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
::Once again, from previous my comments:
::"Per the MOS "The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles has proved controversial on Wikipedia." yep thats why we are here'" Wikipedia currently distinguishes between three groups: nobles, government officials, and members of royal families and clergy." The MOS then identifies guidelines for using honorifics for the three groups: Nobles - no. Government Officials - No. Members of royal families and clergy - No." ""We have to draw the line somewhere" - and since the line we have drawn doesn't include Presidents, Queens or Popes, why in the world would it include sirs? "
::From Ripe's previous comments:
::"People keep referring to Debrett's, which many of us don't have access to. Please type in verbatim the part in Debrett's where it says 'Sir'/'Dame' styles are fundamentally part of the holder's name, that their use in all situations is mandatory not optional, and the name is strictly incorrect without their presence. This has been requested many times before (see above) but no response from any of you despite the fact that a lot of pro-status-quo people have posted, so I'm more willing to imply from that that it isn't in there. You claim you have direct evidence well please share with the rest of the class.
::Re. your claim of indirect evidence; 1. there are many situations where other prenominals are used/not used in various situations but that doesn't prove anything. In a university lecture introduction outside the British honors system 'Right Honourable' would not be used to introduce someone but 'Dr.' would be. Also 2. I note again that it's more informative to recognize situations when the title is legitimately omitted rather than when it is used and gives wikipedia policy license to omit. I find the fact that British Parliament uses some variant of the British honors system neither surprising nor informative on this subject. However we have found significant indirect evidence that omitting the title leaves the person's name still valid. So I think you can claim the support of neither direct nor indirect evidence."
::Boiled down our position is very simple. The Wikipedia MOS in general does not use honorifics/styles/titles with this odd exectpion. Provide some convincing proof that this exception is necessary/improves Wikipedia. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;font-weight:bold;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 17:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:::First of all, speaking in my position as the author of the quoted part of the manual style, it arose out of a long discussion some two years over whether styles such as "the Most Honourable" or "His Holiness" should be used inline. The consensus was that they should not, and the primary reason was that other reference works, not to mention news agencies did not. Wikipedia uses styles/titles when they're actually part of somebody's name and not simply a form of address. Direct proof has been provided in the form of Elton John's civil parternship; indirect proof in that other works follow this usage. Wikipedia's usage is not exceptional, nor is there a special exception in the Manual of Style. I did not intend a special exception when I wrote that section; the people who supported it did not believe a special exception was being created. This "helps" Wikipedia by prescribing the correct usage and guaranteeing that we refer to people in the correct fashion. Please explain how Wikipedia would benefit from deviating from such. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 17:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
::::And again, if someone can provide an answer to this simple question "People keep referring to Debrett's, which many of us don't have access to. Please type in verbatim the part in Debrett's where it says 'Sir'/'Dame' styles are fundamentally part of the holder's name" we will not need to continue this discussion. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;font-weight:bold;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 17:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't have it in front of me, but it's been quoted above in any case. I'd appreciate it if you'd ruminate on all the various works which render it as part of the name, including Elton John's certificate. You don't have any evidence at all to the contrary (that it is not part of the name); you're making great hay out of a section of the MoS when I'm telling you, as the author, that it does not say what you think it says. I and others have show you numerous examples which suggest very strongly that you're in the wrong. You have presented no evidence which contradicts what I and others maintain the correct usage is; that newspapers do not always follow their own guidelines proves nothing. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 18:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Are readers going to understand why we include this title and prohibit all others? &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#1E90FF">'''Luna Santin'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</span> 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Given the absence of readers inquiring about the matter, I suspect the answer is yes, they understand. Certainly American readers are reasonably familiar with knighted British thespians. I'm sure they would be much more flummoxed by the fact that Wikipedia omits part of the name (Sir/Dame) when a news story they were reading included it. Inconsistency breeds chaos. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 23:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Readers tend not to inquire about a line of text reading TIMMY IS SO DUMB, either, but that doesn't mean they haven't noticed it. I admit you have a point, but among non-UK readers at least I really ''don't'' think they'll see it as anything but a title, which (to my mind) it rather appears to be, part of the name or not. This isn't the end of the day, for me, either way, but I really do see how this could be portrayed as a systemic bias, if UK honorifics "count" and others don't. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#1E90FF">'''Luna Santin'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</span> 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::They "count" because they're part of the name. We also include German titles (Graf, Ritter, Herzog etc) because they're part of the name, although inline rendering isn't as consistent as I would have liked (due, in large part, to the chaos of mediatization after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire and the abolition of the monarchy in Germany after World War I). If the UK looms large, I put it down to these factors: the continuation of a noble system after most countries have abandoned same, and the unusual level of codification found therein. I fail to see bias in properly rendering a name. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::The only statement from Debrett's in the above discussion is Proteus' summary:'' "Debrett's Correct Form, which sets out the legal names of the holders of various dignities (including "Sir" for knights)." Proteus (Talk) 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC) '' to which Ripe replied'' "Thanks Proteus - could you paste in what it says on the topic?" Ripe (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC) ''To which Proteus replied ... well nothing. You have been asked several time: What text in Debrett's are you basing your summary on? -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;font-weight:bold;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 00:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Previously I had asked if consensus supported this exemption ("interpretation" might be a safer word), and after some discussion I'm inclined to think it does, or at least is trending that way in this discussion. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#1E90FF">'''Luna Santin'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</span> 00:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I have, in fact, asked Proteus to weigh in. I note, however, that numerous other supporting evidence has been presented, and none of it has been refuted. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::I disagree with your statement that your evidence has not been refuted. I think I or others have addressed each of your points. But there's a lot here so please summarize your evidence that you think still stands in light of the counter evidence. Nobody has yet provided one citation saying that 'Sir'/'Dame' is part of the name - please do so if that is your evidence. If you make any assertions back them up with citations. Britain's own Identity and Passport service does not permit its inclusion in the name field. This is not a mistake. They are not incorrect. Therefore Wikipedia articles that would omit the prenominals would also not have mistakes or be incorrect. If people have titles they can read the text. Nobody is confused by the lack of Dr. in front of MDs or PhDs even if they saw the name in that manner in some other source. Under what situations can other cultures or institutions e.g. the Kentucky Colonels use their prenominals in Wikipedia? Can I bestow on someone a title and have it appear? Why are non-peerage prenominals (Dr., Prof.) not permitted? Please answer the '4 questions' I listed above. There is a lot that you & the other status-quo defenders have flat out dropped or refused to directly answer. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 04:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::First of all, I and others have pointed out numerous reference works which follow the same practice. The mere existence of other works doing so ought to tell you something, but apparently it doesn't. See in particular the archival style guide, whose link is posted below. Second, you've provided no evidence that Sir or Dame is ''not'' part of the name; all you've done is demonstrate that sometimes media publications leave it off (contrary to their own guidelines), and that the passport service does not include it. Why this is so we don't know, and their response to your query gives no indicator. Whether from space constraints or some international standard, it's clearly in conflict with standard reference works, media style guides, and, for that matter, academic usage. Wikipedia does not derive its manual of style from a passport office. Third, the question relating to academic titles is a different part of the style guide, but I note that reference works generally do not include them. One possible reason is that the earning of an academic degree does not alter a person's name. Fourth, the granting of titles in the British Honours System is established in law, which grants it standing. If you created a process by which the awarding of a title could alter someone's name, Wikipedia would be bound to recognize it. Fifth, a title such as "Kentucky Colonel" is purely honorary, and the manual of style distinguishes between an honorary title and a title of knighthood (recognized as something quite different). Sixth, a peerage and a knighthood and a baronetcy are not the same thing, and you're confusing the issue by referring to them interchangeably. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 10:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::Following up on the passport issue, the name on my driver's license does not match my legal name. Why not? Because the software used by my local government can't handle multiple middle names, so instead of two middle names I have one long hypenated middle name. Is this usage correct? I don't think so, but it works for the purposes of the government. If I ever rated an encyclopedia article, would my name be represented that way? I hope not. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 10:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::"Fourth, the granting of titles in the British Honours System is established in law," Find the statutes that identify the prenominal as the name and you have your case made. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;font-weight:bold;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 11:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::A) my response to your example instances has been 1. that omissions are more informative than commissions. I grant that people external to wikipedia can opt to use the styles. You need to accept that people also can opt not to use styles. 2. I can provide as many examples of using Dr. prenominals. Academic titles predate peerage, are more widely used globally, and I can match your style guides proscribing the use of 'Sir' with ones proscribing the use of 'Dr.'. Presence in style guides doesn't mean anything here. Consious absence however means something in that the non-prefixed name is still considered correct by the publisher. B) The burden of proof is on you since you're making the assertion that it's part of the name - you haven't answered my many many requests for a citation backing your claims. I don't need to disprove your unproven assertions. If all you have are things you want us to imply from documents from the early 20th century where the name field includes prenominals, I claim my response from the /Identity/ and Passport Service has more weight than stuff from 1917 & 1921. I agree WP doesn't derive MoS from passports (or marriage licenses or other reference works or parliaments) but it indicates that in direct refutation of your claims, in official usage names are entirely valid without the prenominal reference. C) You are once again claiming that 'Sir' alters their name. Please provide a source for this assertion. D) see C & RedPen's response E) Kentucky Colonels is bestowed by the Governor of Kentucky on thse that have enrich the lives of Kentuckians and they are expected to perform duties that continue to do so. This is similar to the criteria for Knighthood. According to our own article, Knights are another example of an [[Honorary_title_(award)]]. Do you claim that Knighthood is not an honorary title or do you claim that it is, but you assert that it's treated differently because it changes the name? F) I'm not an expert & acknowledge that I may be not discriminating between them in a manner sufficient to discuss them for purposes of an academic discussion in the British honours system but I think I am able to discuss them adequately for purposes of discussing this policy. If you think the substance of the debate changes, please correct me. G) Do you have evidence that British passports have some technical limitation preventing the Identity and Passport Service from including 'Sir'/'Dame' if they were so inclined? I've seen loooong Indian names & multiple names accomodated - there's plenty of room. H) these points are either responses mentioned previously or stuff in previous posts so please don't claim that I left stuff unresponded-to. However I have a much much stronger claim that you've left unresponded to the many requests to provide British law or Debrett's or whatever anything that shows that Sir&Dame are part of the name in a fundamental sense, which you essentially again asserted above. Do you admit that you have no source for this assertion? [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 14:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: Omissions are ''not'' more important; what matters is what an organization's style guide says. Again, Who's Who, the DNB, the ''Times'' and the Archives are prime examples here. My point is that standard reference works follow this usage, which we reflect, and that this isn't arbitrary, because reference works don't approach these questions in an arbitrary fashion. I'd be surprised if academic titles as presently used predate the peerage, given that the English system dates from the Conquest, and their are Continental titles older still. Presence in style guides is absolute when we're talking about the Manual of Style. The burden of proof is on ''you'' to demonstrate that Wikipedia's Manual of Style is at variance with common and accepted usage, which you've signally failed to do. Given that someone's name suddenly becomes Sir X Y instead of X Y, I'd say it's obvious on its face that their name (or, if you like, the representation of their name) changes. Knighthood is an honor, but it is not an honorary title. The corollary here is an "honorary knighthood" bestowed on an American citizen; while they're allowed post-nominal letters, they may not have the pre-nominal. That both a Kentucky colonelcy and a British knighthood are "honors" proves nothing because they function in a different fashion. I don't have any evidence at all that a technical limitation circumscribes how the British passport system functions, my point is that what goes for the passport system doesn't have much bearing here. Your demand for a written source is nettlesome when dealing with a system in which many things (including the constitution) are unwritten, and I'm not an expert on British law. However, I can point to a wealth of practice, custom and convention which suggests overwhelmingly what the correct usage is. I maintain that the burden is on you to demonstrate the Wikipedia's present usage is incorrect for a general-use encyclopedia. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 15:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::What you haven't pointed to is a logical basis for WP to maintain this arbitrary exception to our 'dont use honorifics' guidelines.-- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;font-weight:bold;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 02:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Yes, I have. You haven't managed to demonstrate that the practice is arbitrary. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 12:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::We say that we shouldnt use honorifics, then make this one exception - what could be more arbitrary than that? -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 15:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
:# ''Paul McCartney 2917 hits''
:# ''Sir Paul McCartney 1098 hits''
:That's actually quite a flawed survey, as the former search doesn't exclude any articles that include Sir. So there are actually 1819 without "Sir" and 1098 with. As noted already, he's an entertainment figure who was known as plain Paul McCartney for many years, and still is professionally. Many article will also be from parts of the world where people don't understand the British honours system.
:As already noted, [[Bob Geldof]] isn't enetitled to be called Sir. The fact that he is in some articles just goes to show how Googling can't be used to prove much. If you'd looked at his Wikipeia article, you'd have seen that he isn't "Sir"; of course, after the changes proposed by some people here, you'd be left none the wiser.
:I'd just thought of Sir Elton John's civil partnership certifcate as an example, but someone beat me to it! I also visited Sir Edward Elgar's birthplace recently, and they have a couple of his passports on display. They clearly read "Sir Edward Elgar" (and "Sir Edward Elgar, Bart" for the last one). '''[[User:JRawle|<font color="blue">J</font><font color="navy">Rawle</font>]]''' ([[User talk:JRawle|Talk]]) 21:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:: I contacted the [https://www.ips.gov.uk/passport/index.asp Identity and Passport Service] and they confirmed that 'Sir'/'Dame' prenominals are not used. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 22:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Please post your original e-mail and the reply here so that we can all see what they have to say. I'm very surprised if they reply so quickly to a casual enquiry, seeing that it can take people weeks to get their passport. '''[[User:JRawle|<font color="blue">J</font><font color="navy">Rawle</font>]]''' ([[User talk:JRawle|Talk]]) 23:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:::: I submitted "Hi - I'm doing research on the British honours system. It's my understanding that Knights & Barons have a special status in that they can typically include the prenominal 'Sir' on official documents such as passports while other styles/titles/honorifics are typically not included. Can you confirm that this is the case and what the requirements are & what the prenominal is called. I have some sources indicating that it is called an "honorific title". Is it considered part of the "name"? If you have a list of such honorific titles that would also be permitted (e.g. Lord/Lady), I'd be grateful. thanks, [name deleted]" to the web form at on https://www.ips.gov.uk/passport/contact-general.asp. They (From: IPS <ukpa@reply.co.uk>) responded "Dear [name deleted], Thank you for your enquiry. Although your title is not shown on the details page, in certain circumstances an observation can be noted within the passport if you wish. For further advice please call the Adviceline on 0870 521 0410. Thank you. Customer service e-mail team" [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 00:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
::::: The strong implication there (especially since you asked about a baron and not a baronet) is that peerages aren't on passports either, but no one could seriously dispute that a peerage is part of someone's name. This, then, doesn't really settle the matter: Sir/Dame isn't included because no part of the titular name is included, but that in no way changes the fact that they are part of a person's name. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Do you acknowledge that according to the British Identity and Passport Service that people's names are legally correct without the prenominal? [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 04:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for posting the reply. It's hardly surprising that there's no room for a title in passports as all countries are now bound to use a common, machine-readable format by international treaty (or, at least, forced to use that format if we ever want to visit the US). The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is a free-format wiki, making it extremely flexible. That means articles can be tailored to follow the conventions of the nation or culture that the are connected to. It isn't necessary for articles on British citizens to follow naming conventions used in the US or other countries. No-one questions that the name without "Sir" is ''one'' correct form of the name. The current situation is a good compromise. The article title doesn't include "Sir" or "Dame". If those of us who wish to retain the titles were really bloody-minded about it, we could push for them to be included in the article title as well. But as I said, the status quo is a good compromise, meaning the page title has one form of the name with no title, and the first line includes a bit more detail about the name, including any honours, whether they are postnominal letters or a title. This current situation gives something to everyone, rather than being an "all or nothing" approach with no room for compromise. '''[[User:JRawle|<font color="blue">J</font><font color="navy">Rawle</font>]]''' ([[User talk:JRawle|Talk]]) 09:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: Thanks but my point is that 'Sir'/'Dame' are not IN the name field, not that titles weren't on the ID page. There's plenty of room for 4 or 5 more characters ('Sir '/'Dame ') in the name field if it were actually part of the name. There's no technical reason why they couldn't be included. Thank you for granting that omitting 'Sir' is one correct form of the name. Does anyone disagree? [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 14:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[Zola Maseko]]''' was the first [[South Africa]]n filmmaker to receive the top prize at [[FESPACO]], the Golden Stallion of Yennenga, in 2005? New article by '''the <span style="color:#FF7F00">[[User:Editorofthewiki|editorofthewiki]] ([[User talk:Editorofthewiki#top|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|contribs]]/[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki|editor review]])'''</span> 16:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC), expanded by [[User:Blofeld of SPECTRE]] and '''the <span style="color:#FF7F00">[[User:Editorofthewiki|editorofthewiki]] ([[User talk:Editorofthewiki#top|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|contribs]]/[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki|editor review]])'''</span> 16:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
==="Sir" and "Dame" discussion - arbitrary break 2===
Here's a list of transfers ({{LondonGazette |issue=32280 |date= |startpage=2719}}) under the Land Transfer Acts listed by HM Office of Land Registry. Note the second entry: name = ''Sir'' John Stavridi, description = Knight. Nobody else on the list is given any honorific prefixes (Mr, Mrs etc). An official document. There are many other similar examples in the ''London Gazette''. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 13:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
: Not that it suffices but do you have anything a bit more recent? [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 15:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
::Why does it not suffice? And why does the date make any difference to the fact? -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 15:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Another example is in the House of Lords minutes when new peers are introduced. [[Jack Cunningham]], who ''always'' styled himself "Dr Jack Cuningham" prior to receiving a peerage, appears without his "Dr" [http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200506/ldhansrd/vo051011/text/51011-01.htm], whereas knights keep their "Sir" [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/minutes/040907/ldminute.htm]. '''[[User:JRawle|<font color="blue">J</font><font color="navy">Rawle</font>]]''' ([[User talk:JRawle|Talk]]) 13:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
: Yeah like I said before it's not surprising nor informative for Parliament to do this. Listing examples where titles are used but ignoring examples where they are not is missing the point I'm trying to make. If we were debating removing 'Dr.'s from inline usage (which I would be a proponent of if they were there), then this might be a relevant example of a formal situation where someone is introduced and recognized without the Dr. prenominal. If I were making that argument in that hypothetical situation, a bunch of responses from others showing evidence that Dr. Jack Cunningham is introduced in university lectures & listed in print using the Dr. prenominal and implying that therefore it should be used inline here are not helpful and missing the point. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 15:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well , let I again refer to this British government document with the official name in which Sir Elton was allowed to enter his civil partnership: [http://www.eltonfan.net/images/civil_partnership.jpg]. Demophon (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:But you dont have the text from any statutes or any text from Drabbert's (or whatever that codification of style)? I am still hoping that some type of more explicit confirmation of the claim that Sir/Dame is inherrently part of the name and not an honorific/title/style.
:Our guidelines say don't use honorifics - not for popes not for queens, not for presidents. And yet we have this arbitrary exception for this certain group of people. Why? -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;font-weight:bold;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 02:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
::The honorifics you refer to ''are not'' titles. "Sir" and "Dame" ''are'' titles. The difference is a clear one and your inability to distinguish the two is, I'm afraid, the fundamental problem here. A queen's title is simply "of Foo", which we allow, not "Her Majesty", which we do not. A Pope's title is "Pope", which we allow, not "His Holiness", which we do not. A president doesn't have a title, since "president" is just a job as "prime minister" is a job. You are not comparing like with like. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 11:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
:::All this about proving they are part of a name is barking up the wrong tree anyway. Wikipedia should reflect common, everyday usage in the country or culture the article pertains to. In the UK, we use Sir and Dame. This morning I was reading the magazine for my professional body, ''Physics World''. It is full of articles about people who are Dr, Prof, Eur Ing, etc. However, there is no mention of those titles. But if someone is a Sir or a Dame, those titles are certainly used. That's just the way we do things in the UK! There is also the point that we ''do'' include honours such as [[Order of the British Empire|MBE]], [[Order of Canada|OC]], etc. Sir and Dame fall into that category. Likewise, we don't include PhD, so we don't put Dr. If there are other parts of the policy that are inconsistent, they should be looked at. There could certainly a case for including some titles that are currently omitted. A policy of no titles at all isn't right. '''[[User:JRawle|<font color="blue">J</font><font color="navy">Rawle</font>]]''' ([[User talk:JRawle|Talk]]) 12:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
::::"Wikipedia should reflect common, everyday usage in the country or culture the article pertains to" in that case our whole manual of style is wrong. That is why we are having this long long argument. There is this arbitrary exception to our guideline on not using honorifics. Why? The 'no exceptions' side was not the group that brought up the 'part of the name' argument. That was given as the reason by the 'keep this exception group' why we would have this exception. We have then been asking for verification that this 'reason' for the exception is actually true.
::::If 'sir/dame' are NOT honorifics and are instead 'titles' in a somehow fundamentally different category (although the 'keep this exception' group provided evidence that 'sir/dame' are 'styles') then the use of 'sir/dame' is ''not'' an exception to the 'do not use honorifics' and it should be removed from that part of the MOS and placed in its own section explaining how to use 'titles' and how exactly 'titles' are different than 'honorifics'. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 15:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't really care whether they are exceptions to some rule, or a different class of title that are used under a different/new rule. I just think having "Sir" or "Dame" at the start of appropriate articles enhances them and leads to a more useful Wikipedia article. I would be happy to help with drafting such a section for the MoS, which could also be general enough to allow titles used in other cultures to be added too if there is a good enough case in the future.
:::::Otherwise, this discussion is a waste of time as no consensus will be reached, and it's far too long for anyone to read through to join in. '''[[User:JRawle|<font color="blue">J</font><font color="navy">Rawle</font>]]''' ([[User talk:JRawle|Talk]]) 15:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::I for one would definitely appreciate a re-write that is clear for those of us who do grow up under a system where these distinctions are culturally ingrained and 'obvious'. Please also know that any such 'clarifications' that apply only to titles granted by singular/arbitrary groups will also be ripe for contention as POV/arbitrary designations. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 16:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::On that note I think this discussion is more or less concluded. To sustain a charge of arbitrariness you'll have to explain how a comparable class of titles is being treated differently, and show Wikipedia's approach is different from that of other English-language reference works. I can alter the language if it'll suit people present, but it will in no way alter the reality of usage. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Once a consensus version of this forthcoming clarification is in place, then yes, this discussion will be over, at least on my part. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:medium;;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 17:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, then I leave it to you to make a suggestion, if the changes to the section headings that I've just made isn't sufficent. The existing usage is correct, as demonstrated by the numerous style guides, academic works and encyclopedias which follow it. It's also sensible, given the difference between a style and title. Whatever wording eliminates the perception of "arbitrariness" is fine by me, so long as does not materially alter our practices here. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 18:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, they pretty clearly are a title and not a style, and I'll cop to muddling the issue somewhat two years ago. Sir and Dame are in an entirely different category from "The Most Honourable" or "His Holiness," and you'll note that [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names]] is perhaps clearer on the matter. There's nothing arbitrary about the distinguishing between them, not when Wikipedia does it and not when other encyclopedias do it. If someone wants to conjure up better wording I'm all for it, but the fact of the matter is that in effect and implementation there's nothing arbitrary about our usage, whatever the language might imply to some. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 15:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[offset agreement]]s''' are one of the methods used to ensure a country's [[balance of trade]]? -- new article, self-nom [[User:Malick78|Malick78]] ([[User talk:Malick78|talk]]) 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:St Demetrius Tarnovo Klearchos 2.jpg|right|100x100px|Church of St Demetrius of Thessaloniki, Veliko Tarnovo]]
===Sir/Dame proposed resolution===
*... that when the '''[[Church of St Demetrius of Thessaloniki, Veliko Tarnovo|Church of St Demetrius]]''' was built in [[Veliko Tarnovo]], [[Bulgaria]], a rumour was spread that the saint would come to the city? (self-nom) ''[[User:TodorBozhinov|Todor]][[User_talk:TodorBozhinov|→]][[User:TodorBozhinov|Bozhinov]]''
I propose deleting the current honorific title blurb & replacing it with a section called "Honorific Titles" containing the following italicized text:


*... that '''[[Jason Dozzell]]''' is the youngest player to have scored in the [[Football League First Division]] when he scored for [[Ipswich Town F.C.|Ipswich Town]] aged 16 years and 57 days? self nom, article expanded from 1008 to 5156 chars, [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 13:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
''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 honor'''ary''' 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 subject. 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.''
*... that '''[[Rettamalai Srinivasan]]''', [[Dalit]] leader from the [[Madras Presidency]], was a brother-in-law of famous Dalit activist [[Iyothee Thass]]?-self-nom by-<font color="maroon" size="4" face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Ravichandar84|Ravichandar]]</font><sub><font color="aqua" face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User talk:Ravichandar84|My coffee shop]]</font></sub> 12:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[New Zealand Police]] Commissioner '''[[Howard Broad]]''' joined front-line officers on the beat for 2008 [[New Year's Eve]]? -- new article self-nom by [[User:XLerate|XLerate]] ([[User talk:XLerate|talk]]) 09:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
''Regarding the use of a permitted honorific title for a particular subject, it should be recognized by Wikipedia editors that the use of honorific titles inline is intended only to '''describe''' the subject as holding a particular title, and not '''prescribe''' a style or method of addressing or referring to the subject 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 to the subject, but is strictly optional upon subsequent references since mandatory usage inline implies its application as an honorific rather than a title. Editors should neither add nor remove existing honorific titles from inline reference since doing so implies that the unedited version is incorrect (similar in spirit to the guideline on British vs. U.S. English spelling). Editors should also take care not to impose an honorific title prefix inline on subjects who have received a title but which is not significantly referred to in general media when discussing that particular subject. Absence of an honorific title from inline usage does not and should not imply that the subject 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.''


*... that reflecting strong '''[[India-Germany relations|bilateral relations]]''', [[Germany]] helped [[India]] establish the [[Indian Institute of Technology Madras]] and bilateral trade is expected to reach €30&nbsp;billion by 2010? '''<font face="Verdana">[[User:Vishnava|<font color="Red">Vishnava</font>]]<sub><small>[[User talk:Vishnava|<font color="Black"> talk </font>]]</small></sub></font>''' 00:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Though I reserve the right to bitch about honorific titles in the future if I so choose. And they're still not "part of the name". [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:*[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] Relations between whom? Suggest rewording: "[[Germany]] helped <u>India</u> establish [[Indian Institute of Technology Madras|IIT Madras]] ..." – Otherwise, date, length and references OK. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 10:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:"Editors should neither add nor remove existing honorific titles from inline reference"? It sounds to me like you're suggesting that if they haven't been added by the creator of the article then "Sir" and "Dame" shouldn't be added by subsequent editors, even if they are correctly held. If you ''are'' suggesting that then I completely reject it. They should definitely be added if they have been incorrectly omitted. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 01:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
::You interpreted my suggestion correctly. After the first instance we don't require the inline reference of normal non-honorific titles along with each invocation of the subject's name. Requiring the inline use of honorific titles along with the name implies that the honorific title is being used as an honorific, not as a title. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 02:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
::Just to be clear, I'm saying it should always be present on the initial invocation of the name in the article (like regular titles). subsequent invocations of the name would be up to the editor (like regular titles). [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 02:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:::Okay then. Fair enough. I misinterpreted it. After the first reference people should generally be referred to using surname only in any case - I have always opposed any use of given name except for clarification, since to do so implies an unencyclopaedic level of familiarity. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 08:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
::::Cool. Yeah I hate to keep hounding the guy, but the "Sir Tim"s inline in [[Tim Berners-Lee]] are strange - agree w/ you re. level of familiarity - we don't use just the given name alone for [[Timothy_Leary | non-knight Tims]]. Would definitely prefer surname only in the article body. Though (after the initial reference) if someone were to type in "Tim Berners-Lee" without the prenominal, it would be one correct way to refer to the man per above discussion & according to the above proposed guideline one should not go in & add the "Sir" since that would be violating the guideline by prescribing it as an honorific. Deleting the "Tim" in that case I guess is permitted provided it's done in the spirit of 'use encyclopedic surname-only when unambiguous' as opposed to 'it's incorrect to utter the given name without the prenominal.' Of course if it's absent from the first reference or infobox photo heading it can be added like normal titles. Propose adding ''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.'' to the second paragraph in the proposed guideline above - not sure if that last clause is necessary but there you go. So e.g. under this proposal, those lone "Sir Tim"s [[Tim Berners-Lee|here]] would go away in preference to surname-only but the rest would stay as-is & editors would be free to use or not use the prenom when using his full name in the body. Holy crap do we have agreement? Any other clarifications? [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
::::I submitted the above edits. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 19:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::The addition in my 18:41 comment conflicts with the existing subsequent use of names guideline stating ''Similarly, if someone has been knighted s/he may be referred to as, eg. "Sir Stephen" (for Sir Stephen Redgrave) or "Dame Judi" (for Dame Judi Dench)...'' Consensus to change this? [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 19:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::I have no problem with this proposal. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[John Okello]] claimed that he heard a voice which told him to lead the '''[[Zanzibar Revolution]]'''?
Late to the game (been elsewhere), but I endorse this as well. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 02:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
**or ... that the '''[[Zanzibar Revolution]]''' sparked army [[Mutiny|mutinies]] in [[Kenya]], [[Uganda]] and [[Tanganyika]]? - expansion, self nom - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 18:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''''[[Our Man Higgins]]''''', a 1962&ndash;1963 [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] [[sitcom]], featured [[Stanley Holloway]] of ''[[My Fair Lady]]'' as an emphatic English [[butler]] to a [[suburban]] American family?--self-nom [[User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] ([[User talk:Billy Hathorn|talk]]) 20:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Also late, but I '''oppose''' this, at least until we have an article on [[Honorific titles]] that explains how they differ from Mister, Doctor, and General. It would be nice to be able to reference the body of the article when interpreting this title, rather than leaving "Honorific title" undefined. I'm also not sure there is an actual consensus to treat Sir, Dame, Lord, and Lady as special cases. — [[User:Pytom|PyTom]] ([[User_talk:Pytom|talk]]) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
** I have taken the liberty to remove some links; I think there were too many of them. The year ones, especially, were useless, and I'd say the same for the ''English'' and ''American'' ones. [[User:The Duke of Waltham|Waltham]], <small>[[User talk:The Duke of Waltham|''The Duke of'']]</small> 05:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that "[[Jealous Minds Think Alike]]" was the first single by [[British]] [[Pop Punk]] band, '''[[You Me At Six]]''' to chart in the [[UK singles chart]]? - creation, self nom --<font color="Blue">[[User:Cabe6403|Cabe]]</font><font color="Green">[[User:Cabe6403|6403]]</font> ([[user_talk:Cabe6403|Talk]]•[[User:Cabe6403/Guest book|Please Sign my guest book!]]) 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
== Proposed expansion of nationality-in-lead guideline ==
** The ''British'' link isn't really needed, is it? Also, I'm not sure ''Pop Punk'' should be capitalised. [[User:The Duke of Waltham|Waltham]], <small>[[User talk:The Duke of Waltham|''The Duke of'']]</small> 05:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


=== Articles created/expanded on October 8 ===
The guidline governing nationality in the lead currently reads as follows: "Nationality (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. ''Ethnicity'' should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)" This indeed covers "the normal case", but I think with just a few extra lines for this item we can clarify the issue for a great number of articles over which disputes have sprung up or are bound to do so. My proposed revision to the guideline is as follows:


<!-- PLEASE leave spaces between the nominations. It helps those reviewing ... and picking -->
<blockquote>
Nationality
* For persons who were citizens or nationals of only one country in their lifetimes, that country should be named in it common adjectival form.
**"Louis Pasteur was a '''French''' chemist and microbiologist..."
* For persons who were born in one country but became notable after immigrating to another country wherein they were eventually naturalized, both countries should be mentioned. The two countries should not be hyphenated together, as this usage may imply ethnicity but not necessarily nationality. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.
**"Joseph Conrad was a '''Polish-born English''' novelist."
**"Marie Curie was a physicist and chemist of '''Polish upbringing and, subsequently, French citizenship'''."
**''Not'': "Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger is an '''Austrian-American''' bodybuilder, actor, businessman, and politician..." While not incorrect, the subject's birth nationality can be specified at the cost of one extra word: "'''Austrian-born American'''".
*For persons who held citizenships in more than two countries in their lifetimes, or whose nationality is vague or excessively complicated by shifting political boundaries or changing leadership that resulted in changes of country names, or other circumstances, nationality should be omitted from the first sentence of the lead, and the details of the subject's nationality should be elaborated later in the article.
*For leads that do not explicitly state the person's nationality, but correctly imply a single nationality through some other fact, the details of the person's birth and citizenship may be saved for later in the article.
**"George Walker Bush is the forty-third and current President of the United States of America." (American presidency implies American nationality.)
</blockquote>


[[Image:Delphinus delphis with calf.jpg|100x100px|right]]
Motivation for the upgraded guideline: At present a number of articles use hyphenations for nationalities. This can introduce confusion that can be easily cleared up. "[[Peter Jennings]] was a Canadian-American journalist and news anchor." Does that mean he was born in Canada, or he was born in the U.S. but one or both of his parents was from Canada, or did he just have a Canadian somewhere in his distant ancestry? Adding "-born" is a small price to pay which turns a phrase potentially misconstrued as an inappropriate ''ethnicity'' name-check into a ''nationality''. There is also the problem of editors motivated by ethnic [[boosterism]] who insist on "claiming" biographical article subjects by including otherwise irrelevant ethnicity information in the first sentence. While this problem is limited in scope, it results in violent edit-warring. This problem would also be alleviated by clarification of when it is appropriate to use hyphenation of nationalities and when such hyphenation can be misconstrued as ethnic claiming. Finally, the issue of complicated nationality is another source of editor conflict that I think could be easily alleviated by a clear guideline. I'm looking forward to discussion on this issue and reworking of the above proposal to everyone's satisfaction. Having some consensus on these issues would be very helpful. [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 19:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
*... that until the 1990s, the '''[[Short-beaked Common Dolphin]]''' ''(pictured)'' and the '''[[Long-beaked Common Dolphin]]''' were considered the same [[common dolphin|species]]? -- Article expanded fivefold and self-nom by [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 03:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:I agree. I always use "x-born" when someone has emigrated to another country. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 10:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::So how would the [[Gerry Adams]] article read? Or [[Ruth Kelly]]? [[User:MurphiaMan|MurphiaMan]] ([[User talk:MurphiaMan|talk]]) 15:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Is there controversy with either of those figures? I guess the implication is that Adams might be called British (because he is a British subject) and Kelly might be called Irish (having been born in Northern Ireland). The guideline doesn't speak to those controversies, but I'm up for suggestions as to how it might do so elegantly without opening other "anything goes" cans of worms. I can think of an additional guideline that would clear up a few other cases, and I'm adding it above. [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 23:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually Adams (only) has an (Republic of Ireland) Irish passport, and certainly does not regard himself as a British subject. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 21:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:You raise some good points, but I don't think your proposal sufficiently addresses the difference between nationality and country of residence, and how we should treat both. For example, Jennings's whole journalistic career was in the US, but he only became a citizen two years before his death.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] ([[User talk:Pharos|talk]]) 07:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[Ontario]] has more '''[[List of universities in Canada|universities]]''', with 22, than any other [[Canadian]] [[province]]? <font face="Verdana">[[User:Gary King|<font color="#02e">Gary</font>&nbsp;<font color="#02b"><b>King</b></font>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Gary King|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 18:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::I have no problem with the "x-born" formula, but agree with Pharos that the part of the proposed guideline that reads "For persons who were born in one country but became notable after immigrating to another country wherein they were eventually naturalized, both countries should be mentioned" needs to be rejigged slightly. When we say that someone is German, say, I think what is usually meant is that the person has German nationality and not that he has merely lived in the country for a long time. If the latter situation pertains, in my view it is better not to call the person "German". Instead, the article should mention that the person is a "long-time resident of Germany".
: Ontario also has more residents than most provinces. --[[Special:Contributions/74.13.125.9|74.13.125.9]] ([[User talk:74.13.125.9|talk]]) 04:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:::The two above messages are correct that this guideline doesn't speak at all to residence. Current guidelines have never required this of the lead. If you think the guideline should make some recommendation to this effect, please feel free to amend the above proposal directly. [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 19:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Yep, however that's not mentioned in the article. The article is about Canadian universities. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Gary King|<font color="#02e">Gary</font>&nbsp;<font color="#02b"><b>King</b></font>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Gary King|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 04:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
::On a related point, some editors will recall that there was an extensive discussion on whether people from the United Kingdom should be described as "British", or "English", "Scottish", "[Northern] Irish" or "Welsh". No consensus on the matter was reached. I've now drafted an [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (people from the United Kingdom)|essay]] with the aim of providing some guidance to editors on the matter: see [[#Wikipedia draft essay ready for discussion|Wikipedia draft essay ready for discussion]] above. Comments are welcome at the essay's [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (people from the United Kingdom)#Wikipedia draft essay ready for discussion|talk page]]. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 13:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::: [[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px|This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues]] It's a nicely done article, and its certainly something that is unlikely to be found elsewhere, but it doesn't have enough prose to qualify as per the [[#Instructions]]. Perhaps you could add an overview of Canadian universities as an intro? <font color="#3300ff">[[User:Thingg|Thingg]]</font><sup><font color="#33ff00">[[User talk:Thingg|&#8853;]]</font></sup><sup><font color="#ff0033">[[Special:Contributions/Thingg|&#8855;]]</font></sup> 05:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:All of this is entirely predicated on the modern situation where (nearly) everybody has a clear nationality backed up by documents. It will be no help at all for older historical figures, who in my experience are the ones who cause the greatest disputes. How does this relate to [[Jan van Eyck]], [[Pieter Bruegel the Elder]], [[Giulio Clovio]] (look at his talk archives, if you've a day or two to spare), [[Andrea Meldolla]], or [[Giorgio da Sebenico]]? In fact such a guideline would give new angles for the partisans to argue about. Even some of your examples are not too clear - Conrad never had any Polish documents, or lived in a Polish state (and, like most immigrants, he may have thought of himself as British rather than English) [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::I don't think it is "entirely predicated on the modern situation"--the guideline as written speaks to all the examples you mention with its third bullet, "For persons... whose nationality is vague... [it] should be omitted from the first sentence of the lead, and the details of the subject's nationality should be elaborated later in the article". (I didn't know that about Conrad, and if his nationality really is controversial in the ways that you mention, you should bring it up at his talk page; having this guideline in place could only ''help'' the case for reform of the lead in conformance with a broader standard that would bring more accuracy to all articles.) [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Help how? Why? I just don't see it. The draft doesn't begin to cope with the complexities of national and ethnic status that marked most of the Old World except for England and Scotland until a couple of centuries ago. It still fundamentally assumes everyone has a nationality. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::::It doesn't assume everyone has a nationality. (If you think the current wording gives that impresion, then please help to revise it.) It's simply a guideline about what should go in the lead, if the nationality of the person is straightforward and uncontroversial. For those figures with unclear or disputed nationalities, it states that ''nothing'' with regards to nationality should appear in the lead, and that a fuller explanation should appear later in the article. The whole point is to combat ethnic "claiming". [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 23:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::It doesn't exactly say that, nor do I think removing all mention from the lead is any sort of help in most cases. Passers by will always be wanting to add something to make it look like the other articles. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Passers-by do all sorts of crazy things. It's having clear guidelines that helps the regular editors to have something to point to when they want to maintain an article in a NPOV state. If you don't think the guideline says what it needs to say, please help fix it. Most of the comments so far seem like stymying objections that have no constructive criticism. [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 00:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm really not sure about all these contingencies. Sometimes birth place is totally incidental and has nothing to do with nationality, and I don't think this guideline, as currently written, weeds out those incidents. Sometimes a mother is traveling, and gives birth in a particular country, but the person in question didn't live there very long, and thus the birth country is rather incidental, and therefore doesn't belong in the lead sentence. There is no guidance on this point -- it seems like you're always supposed to mention it no matter what. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks, Melty girl. That is a good point and perhaps you can edit directly the proposal to try to address your concern. I don't see your concern or any of the others as a rejection of the premise of the proposed guideline, which is that we should move away from potentially confusing hyphenated forms that imply ethnicity and can be used by ethnic boosters to "claim" article subjects. [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with the Schwarzenegger point, but not most of the rest. I'm strongly opposed to just brushing the matter under the carpet (to a later para) where there is the possibility of debate or confusion - as in my examples above or your example of Conrad. I'm also strongly opposed to "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability" - Conrad was '''only''' ethnically Polish, just as Michelangelo was only ethnically Italian and Durer only ethnically German - the national states did not exist in their day. I get the impression you're not too used to these issues in a historical context. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 12:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Re: being "opposed to just brushing the matter under the carpet (to a later para) where there is the possibility of debate or confusion". The alternative is to either (a) let an article stay in permanent flux between two or more versions of the lead adhered to by opposing sides of a controversy, or (b) make the full explanation of nationality right there in the first sentence of the lead, placing undue weight on the controversy and giving the impression that the principal reason for the person's notability was a vague or contentious nationality, and not whatever it is that he or she is actually notable for. This is the very problem that I'm seeking solutions to with an upgrade of the guideline. The "don't emphasize ethnicity in the lead unless relevant to notability" bit isn't new. It's part of the current guideline and has been in place for a long time. And, IMO, with good reason: to combat undue weight placed on something irrelevant that's only there because an editor with [[boosterism|boosterish]] motivations wanted to "claim" an article subject. (I believe there's a discussion about just such an episode in one of the talk sections above.) In the case of Conrad, the guideline wouldn't necessarily prohibit mention of his ethnicity in the lead—most biographical sources on Conrad will agree that part of his notability was that he was ''a Polish author who wrote in English''. Again, I think the proposed guideline adequately covers historical cases, but if you disagree, I'm asking you to please help amend the proposal to your satisfaction. [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 20:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::::My amendment would be to remove everything except a caution against hyphenated "Irish-American" combinations. If "don't emphasize ethnicity in the lead unless relevant to notability" is in the current text, then very few take any notice of it at all (rightly) in the sort of cases I mention, and it should be removed. Some people try to edit to things like "Titian .... was a Venetian painter" but there is a concensus for Italian and so on in such cases. The vast majority of such articles are perfectly stable - there a just a few cases, especially immigrants to Italy from the future Yugoslavia etc that cause trouble, also some people from the [[Low Countries]], and [[Central Europe]]. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Your point just above about Conrad is mere causistry. Being Polish is defining for him (in WP:OCAT) terms, but not at all part of his notability. You could read his entire published fiction (I have in fact read most) without being aware of his origin, as it never features in his work. He never wrote for publication in Polish. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the comments, John. I don't think it's "mere causistry", nor is it casuistry. Can you point a biographical source for Conrad that does not mention his being Polish right up front? It's part of his notability. As for deleting all of the proposal, and even parts of the present guideline, I do think that would be taking things in the wrong direction. We rely on guidelines for conformity of presentation throughout the encyclopedia and as an arbiter of content disputes. I want to increase conformity and reduce the number of disputes; weakening the guidelines will do the opposite. It might be more helpful to the discussion if you could word your concerns into the guideline. [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 20:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::That is exactly the difference between defining and notable - Conrad is defined by, but '''not''' notable for, being born in Poland. I'm afraid you'll just have to accept that my view is that what would be "helpful" is for this proposal to be dropped, or radically trimmed as above. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::If someone comes from a certain region that's a nation today, that's one thing. But ethnicity ''as such'' does not belong in the lead. For example, if Conrad had been a Pole of Jewish ethnicity.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] ([[User talk:Pharos|talk]]) 19:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Poland was a nation long before Conrad, and had been a state, but was not one when he was born, nor did it become one again until long after he emigrated. Your point is far too generalized - look at [[Süßkind von Trimberg]] he really is notable largely because of his ethnicity, which it would be completely absurd to omit from the lead paragraph or sentence. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 21:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Obviously some people, like [[Süßkind von Trimberg]], are notable for Jewish ethnicity. My point is that Conrad is not similarly notable for his Polish ethnicity, but that there is nothing wrong with naming the country he was born in (even though it was not an independent state at the time). If Conrad was Jewish and had the same corpus of writing, I think he should still have the same nationality-description in the lead as he does now.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] ([[User talk:Pharos|talk]]) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I'm not so sure: [[Isaac Bashevis Singer]] gets the point across in the lead without actually stating it, [[Marc Chagall]] is "Russian-Jewish", which is what his Russian identity cards would have said, and is fine by me. [[Kafka]] gets "Jewish" into the second sentence, also fine by me. If you want to ban "Jewish" from the lead, I think Project:Judaism should be told! [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 21:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::This is not specifically about Jewishness. If Conrad had been a Pole of Belarusian ethnicity, we would have the same situation. The question is, whether someone's ethnicity is relevant to their notability or not. Because otherwise, it's all about boosterism or (in the case of infamous figures) even about racism and xenophobia.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] ([[User talk:Pharos|talk]]) 22:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


*... that in 2000, an [[ammonia]] discharge into a [[tributary]] of the '''[[River Clun, South Wales|River Clun]]''' in south [[Wales]] killed its entire resident population of [[European bullhead]]s? ~ New article by [[User:Daicaregos|Daicaregos]]; nominated by <font face="Helvetica">[[User:Hassocks5489|<font color="#00BFFF"><b>Hassocks</b></font>]][[User talk:Hassocks5489|<font color="#228B22">5489<small> (tickets please!)</small></font>]]</font> 11:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC).
It seems like the biggest problem may be just with hyphenation. I know this is a radically simple idea, but what if we just got used to writing with a slash, as "Austrian/American", instead of "[[Austrian-American]]".--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] ([[User talk:Pharos|talk]]) 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I can't see any point to that at all! [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 21:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Your problem with "[[Austrian-American]]" was that it is (or can be) an ethnic designator. "Austrian/American" denotes someone who is of both Austrian and American nationality, and is non-ethnic. It is also convenient because you can do it with more than two nationalities; e.g. "[[Liviu Librescu]] was a Romanian/Israeli/American scientist".--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] ([[User talk:Pharos|talk]]) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Who says that's what it denotes? What is Polish/American? It could mean anything, is ungrammatical, and should be spelled out clearly. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Excuse me, as I've confused you for a moment with Robert K S, when referring to "''Your problem with [[Austrian-American]]''". His problem with a hyphenated usage (which has multiple, ambiguous meanings in normal writing) was that on Wikipedia it links to an article like [[Austrian-American]] that is generally about an group living in the US with a distinct ethnic ancestry, ''not'' an article about individuals with multiple nationalities/citizenships. "Polish/American" means someone who is both Polish and American by nationality; for example a Polish immigrant to the US.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] ([[User talk:Pharos|talk]]) 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I'm Singaporean, and I'm afraid I've never seen the usage "Polish/American" before. It would not be clear to me that there was a difference between that and "Polish-American". &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 22:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Pharos, I appreciate your suggestion and can see where you're coming from. The slashed usage could at least be wikilinked differently and would therefore have a slightly different implication by virtue of markup. That said, "-born" still gives a lot of extra information at a small cost of an extra word, whereas something like "Romanian/Israeli/American" could still imply that someone was, for example, an American who had a Romanian father and an Israeli mother. The motivation behind the proposal is the reduction of obfuscation and therefore the limiting of the ability of boosters etc. to implant ethnicity into articles inappropriately, and I don't think the slashed form of multiple nationality accomplishes as much in that direction as the guidelines as I've written them do. (Listing three nationalities for a person in the lead is excessive, anyway--it doesn't provide real information about the person, it only obnubilates matters.) [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
::::It's pity the proposed points aren't numbered for ease of reference. Of the 4 points I see, I strongly disagree with 3) for the reasons given above, and essentially agree with 1, 2 & 4, but think the wording is badly compromised for the reasons I've given above. But then, I also think the current wording (re point 3) in the guideline ("Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability" is pretty hopeless); it is necessary to use ethnicity to define some people, like medieval Germans, without it being relevant to their notability. I could redraft the proposal, but to be honest, with a long debate but very little support (no unqualified support I think) in over a week, I think it would be better to start again in the future. But I would support a version I was happy with of course. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[Olivia Colman]] bonded the cast of '''''[[Beautiful People (UK TV series)|Beautiful People]]''''' by arranging a visit from a mobile blood donor unit? -- article created by [[User:Whg106|Whg106]], expanded by [[User:Bradley0110|Bradley0110]] ([[User talk:Bradley0110|talk]]) 08:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
==Long lists of non-notable accomplishments==
I continually come across articles about living artists that have the same types of problems, for example [[Elizabeth McGrath]], and [[Terry Ananny]]. These are articles with borderline notability that seem to be edited by the artists them selves or someone related to the artist. They are usually advertising style resumes (such as you would find in a commercial art gallery or exhibit catalog) with very long laundry lists of "accomplishments" that don't meet wikipedia's guidelines as to what’s denotes notability. This seems to be heavy "padding" added to make the artist seem more notable than they are. How should this be dealt with? Should the articles be cut back to just what is considered notable in '''[[Wikipedia:Notability (people)]] - Additional criteria - Creative professionals''' i.e. just list what falls under "significant exhibition", "permanent collections…of ''notable'' galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries", etc? Maybe this guideline should cover that. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:Not sure this is the right place for this discussion but if the artist's participation in the event hasn't been noted by a 3rd party source (so: not promotional materials or announcements by the artist or the gallery itself, and not including indiscriminate lists of events such as in local media where the gallery has submitted the notice), then it's probably not notable content. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::It is the subject of the article that has to demonstrate notability, not each item of information in the article. But I agree these lists, normally cut'n'paste from the artist's website, are a particular problem with artists. At the same time, as can be seen from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts]], exhibitions are typically key in establishing notability for living artists. Some specialized knowledge is also needed to know which ones are significant and which are not. One list, split off into its own article got deleted just recently. The place to address this might be [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style]] - still draft, but coming along. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 19:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


*... that after his son was murdered during an university [[study abroad]] program in 2004, American [[entrepreneur]] '''[[Thomas Petters|Tom Petters]]''', himself a college dropout, formed the John T. Petters Foundation to provide endowments that would benefit future students at several universities? -- new article by [[User:TedSaidMed]] and [[User:Bobak|Bobak]] ([[User talk:Bobak|talk]]) 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::: I noticed this would span several guidelines such as [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)]], [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)]], and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style]]. That last one by title and content seems to cover "art", not "artists" for the most part, maybe a change can be made there. It looks to me like there should be a [[Wikipedia:Notability (artists)]]. I have noted some attempts to create such a guideline but they seem to have been shot down for reason "hey, if you read ''all'' the relevant guidelines, this is already covered". The problem is, if you try to rationalize several different guidelines you come up with conflicting answers as to how to handle this. If I, for example, go by [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)]], then I come up with a totaly different answer than what [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] came up with, a laundry list of commercial gallery exhibitions should be deleted since they are a) not "permanent collections" by definition and b)not "significant exhibitions". I think this should be addressed somewhere (maybe here) because (as seen in the discussions noted at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts]]) there is a great deal of confusion as to what denotes notability, and more specifically, what an encyclopedic biography actually consists of. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 15:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:*[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px|This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues]] [[User:Art LaPella/Long hook|264 character hook.]] [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 23:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't agree at all there is a "totally different answer" - my comment also refers to "significant" exhibitions, and these are what should be kept, though of course the term is undefined. I am saying the same thing, pretty clearly I would have thought. Having participated in the earlier discussions you mention, I came to feel (like many others) that the existing policies (which I think may have been tweaked a bit as a result of the process) did cover the ground well enough. Artists most emphatically fall under the Visual arts project and their articles are covered by [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style]] - I would have thought that was clear enough too. I think the regulars at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts]] actually have a pretty clear consensus as to what denotes notability, though many passing general AfD editors are less clear. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 21:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
::*TWEAK (now 199): that after his son was murdered during a [[study abroad]] program, American [[entrepreneur]] '''[[Thomas Petters|Tom Petters]]''' formed a foundation to provide endowments that would benefit future students at several universities? -- [[User:Bobak|Bobak]] ([[User talk:Bobak|talk]]) 15:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
A related issue that I can't seem to find any better place to put (if anyone can suggest one please let me know)is that IMHO a biography should include a list of the languages that the subject knew/knows and what level of competency he/she had/has in them (e.g. native command, non-native but good fluency, reading/writing ability, etc. This often helps to understand what cultures he/she considered himself part of or related to on whatever level. I have almost never seen anything like this in a biography and yet it seems very important in understanding the person. [[User:POR613|POR613]] ([[User talk:POR613|talk]]) 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
:::*[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] verified. <font color="#3300ff">[[User:Thingg|Thingg]]</font><sup><font color="#33ff00">[[User talk:Thingg|&#8853;]]</font></sup><sup><font color="#ff0033">[[Special:Contributions/Thingg|&#8855;]]</font></sup> 04:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:That may be relevant, but only if the person spoke a lot of languages or they were particularly relevant to their career (for instance, it is relevant if a diplomat is particularly fluent in the language of the country to which he's posted). But it's not something that should be formalised or added as a matter of course. We don't want articles turning into CVs. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


*... that for 25 years the '''[[Schomberg and Aurora Railway]]''' connected the small town of [[Schomberg, Ontario]] to the [[Toronto and York Radial Railway]] running along [[Yonge Street]]? [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 21:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
== Request for further input: Country of birth for people born in states that no longer exist ==
{{discussion top}}
Examples would be Soviet Union instead of Russia, Yugoslavia instead of Croatia, and the like. Would I be able to request additional input on this issue on the [[WP:FOOTBALL]] talk page, [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#User:Maracana|here]], please? [[User:Dreaded Walrus|Dreaded Walrus]] <sup> [[User talk:Dreaded Walrus|t]] [[Special:Contributions/Dreaded Walrus|c]]</sup> 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Portrait of Percy Bysshe Shelley by Curran, 1819.jpg|right|100x100px]]
:Editors active on this talk page may wish to take note of the interesting discussion that is unfolding at "[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Defining country of birth]]". My view is that the ''general rule'' across Wikipedia as a whole should be that a person's country of birth should be reflected as it was at the time of birth. Thus:
*... that unique versions of [[Percy Bysshe Shelley]]'s ''(pictured)'' "'''[[Mont Blanc (poem)|Mont Blanc]]'''" and "'''[[Hymn to Intellectual Beauty]]'''" were rediscovered in a notebook 160 years after they were originally composed? double nom, co-nom with [[User:Awadewit]] on both, Mont Blanc is 5x expansion, Hymn to Intellectual Beauty is new. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 21:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:*Generally, the place of birth should be referred to in the main text of the article in a form similar to this: "[[Riga]], [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvia]], [[Soviet Union]] (now the [[Latvia|Republic of Latvia]])". Note that if there is an article on the specific political entity that was in existence at the time of the person's birth, it should be linked to: ''ie'', "<nowiki>[[Riga]], [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvia]], [[Soviet Union]] (now the [[Latvia|Republic of Latvia]])</nowiki>".
:*If a shortened phraseology is required for infoboxes, it should be the original country rather than the new one, otherwise there is simply a factual inaccuracy. Thus I would suggest either "[[Riga]], [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvia]]" (note the piped link to "[[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic]]"), or "[[Riga]], [[Soviet Union]]".
:However, [[User:Oth|Oth]] pointed out an additional complication: there may be dispute as to whether the occupation of certain countries was legal or not. For instance, Oth says that the temporary [[Occupation of Baltic States|occupation of the Baltic States]] (1940&ndash;1991) by the Soviet Union was illegal and not generally recognized, and I'm aware that [[Taiwan]] is recognized as an independent nation by some countries, but others regard it as part of the [[People's Republic of China]]. I'm not sure what should happen in such situations. Is there any Manual of Style guideline on the issue? If not, should there be? Or is this one of those insoluble issues? &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 23:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}


*... that [[Association football|footballer]] '''[[Peter Stringfellow (footballer)|Peter Stringfellow]]''' suffered a dramatic decline in form, which ultimately ended his professional career, after being involved in a car crash in which a team-mate died? -- new article self-nom by [[User:ChrisTheDude|ChrisTheDude]] ([[User talk:ChrisTheDude|talk]]) 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:A [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion|centralized discussion]] on the matter has now been started at "[[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth]]. All input on the matter is welcome. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 14:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[mountaineering|mountaineer]] '''[[William Woodman Graham]]''' had to abandon an expedition to [[Kanchenjunga]] when a [[Porter (carrier)|porter]] accidentally burned his [[boot]]s? -- Self nom '''[[User:Iain99|Iain99]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Iain99|Balderdash]] and [[Special:Contributions/Iain99|piffle]]</sup> 21:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
== Proposal to formalise the relationship between MOS and its sub-pages ==


*... that the first person to learn what is in the [[United Kingdom]] Budget, presented by the [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]] on '''[[Budget Day]]''' is the Queen? &mdash; I wrote it. [[User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard|Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]] ([[User talk:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard|talk]]) 21:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors—The idea is to centralise debate and consensus-gathering when there are inconsistencies between the pages.


[[Image:The First of May.jpg|right|100x100px]]
The most straightforward way is to have MOS-central prevail, and to involve expertise from sub-pages on the talk page there, rather than the fragmentary discourse—more usually the absence of discourse and the continuing inconsistency—that characterises WP's style guideline resources now. If consensus has it that MOS-central should bend to the wording of a sub-page, so be it. But until that occurs in each case that might occasionally arise, there needs to be certainty for WPians, especially in the Featured Article process, where nominators and reviewers are sometimes confused by a left- and right-hand that say different things.
*... that [[Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom|Queen Victoria]] wore the [[The Queen's Jewels#The George III Tiara|George III Tiara]], part of '''[[the Queen's Jewels|Elizabeth II's jewel collection]]''' while being painted in [[Franz Xaver Winterhalter]]'s ''The First of May'' ''(pictured)''? - self nom --'''[[User:Cameron|Cameron]][[User Talk:Cameron|*]]''' 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[Zac Brown Band]]'s single '''"[[Chicken Fried]]"''' was previously recorded by [[The Lost Trailers]], whose version was withdrawn after Brown changed his mind about licensing the song to that record label? – Self nom by [[User:TenPoundHammer|<span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>]] and his otters • <sup>([[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|Broken clamshells]] • [[:User talk:TenPoundHammer|Otter chirps]] • [[:User:TenPoundHammer/Country|HELP]])</sup> 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course, no one owns MOS-central, and we're all just as important to its running as other editors. I ask for your support and feedback [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Proposal|'''HERE''']]. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User_talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 12:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:*[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px|This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues]] 216 character hook. ''... that Zac Brown Band's single "Chicken Fried" was previously released by The Lost Trailers, whose version was withdrawn after Zac Brown changed his mind about licensing the song to that record label?'' is 198 characters. <font color="#3300ff">[[User:Thingg|Thingg]]</font><sup><font color="#33ff00">[[User talk:Thingg|&#8853;]]</font></sup><sup><font color="#ff0033">[[Special:Contributions/Thingg|&#8855;]]</font></sup> 04:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::*Fixed. [[User:TenPoundHammer|<span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>]] and his otters • <sup>([[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|Broken clamshells]] • [[:User talk:TenPoundHammer|Otter chirps]] • [[:User:TenPoundHammer/Country|HELP]])</sup> 15:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::*[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] <font color="#3300ff">[[User:Thingg|Thingg]]</font><sup><font color="#33ff00">[[User talk:Thingg|&#8853;]]</font></sup><sup><font color="#ff0033">[[Special:Contributions/Thingg|&#8855;]]</font></sup> 04:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that in 1870 the [[Bishop of Chester]] considered that the proposed altarpiece for the '''[[Church of Saint John the Baptist, Liverpool]]''' was too [[Papist|"Popish"]] and refused to consecrate the church until it was removed? Self-nom by [[User:Peter I. Vardy|Peter I. Vardy]] ([[User talk:Peter I. Vardy|talk]]) 16:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC); big expansion. (202 characters, including spaces - if it's too long, delete "in 1870"; or change "considered" to "opined" (horrible word)).
==Proposed structure guideline==


*... that during the '''[[Nebraska in the American Civil War|American Civil War, Nebraska]]''' lost 239 men? (created by {{User|Bedford}}, expanded by {{user|8th Ohio Volunteers}})--[[User:Bedford|<font color="black">'''Gen. Bedford'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Bedford|<font color="green">his Forest</font>]]</sup> 16:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:''I think it would be very helpful for the writers of new articles and for Wikipedia's general consistency to have some guidelines for the structure of biographical articles. This guideline page as it reads now ''starts'' that but doesn't follow through with suggested headers and so on. So here's a draft based on existing guidelines and a survey of what existing bio articles tend to look like (and therefore arguably an approximation of existing consensus). - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 02:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[Friston Windmill]]''' is the tallest surviving [[post mill]] in the United Kingdom? New article created on 8 Oct and self nom by [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]])
The structure of biographical articles will vary considerably depending on the subject, the nature of their notability, and the amount of information available. None of the following sections are specifically required, but they reflect the kind of information Wikipedia aims to present, and use of them helps maintain consistency among articles. If a section grows very large, it may be desirable to separate the information into a separate article, linked from that section of the main article.
:'''Note''' This will be the 50<sup>th</sup> DYK for an article I've created/expanded. Current total is 48 created/expanded + 2 nominated. [[image:smiley.svg|15px]] [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 10:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that the American singer [[Becca (singer)|Becca]] provided the closing theme, "I'm Alive!", for the '''[[List of Kuroshitsuji episodes|episodes]]''' of the 2008 Japanese [[anime]] ''[[Kuroshitsuji#Anime|Kuroshitsuji]]''? (self-nomination) — <font face="Segoe Script">[[User:Sephiroth BCR|<font color="navy">'''sephiroth bcr'''</font>]]</font> <font face="Verdana"><sup>'''([[User talk:Sephiroth BCR|<font color="blue">converse</font>]])'''</sup></font> 05:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
===Infobox===


*... that [[France]] has strengthened '''[[India-France relations|bilateral ties]]''' with [[India]] by signing agreements allowing it to purchase French-made [[nuclear reactor]]s, the [[Mirage 2000]] [[fighter aircraft|fighters]] and the [[Scorpène class submarine|Scorpène]] [[submarine]]s? '''<font face="Verdana">[[User:Vishnava|<font color="Red">Vishnava</font>]]<sub><small>[[User talk:Vishnava|<font color="Black"> talk </font>]]</small></sub></font>''' 04:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
An appropriate biographical infobox template is recommended. If there isn't a specialized infobox for the subject's profession (e.g. [[:Template:Infobox Musical artist]], [[:Template:Infobox ReligiousBio]], [[:Template:Infobox journalist]]), use [[:Template:Infobox person]]. See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Infoboxes]] for a list of avaiable infobox templates.


[[Image:Malakas and Maganda Emerging from Bamboo BambooMan.jpg|right|100x100px|Image for Filipino proverbs, Damiana Eugenio, Philippine Folklore hook]]
===Lead===
*... that '''[[Filipino proverbs]]''' were grouped into six categories by '''[[Damiana Eugenio]]''', a professor and author known as the Mother of [[Philippine Folklore]] ''(sample myth pictured)''? – self-nom/article created from a simple list, hook count at 127 characters (no spaces) / 150 (with spaces), article’s character count at 2,084 (no spaces) / 2,472 (with spaces) - [[User:AnakngAraw|AnakngAraw]] ([[User talk:AnakngAraw|talk]]) 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:*'''''Note''''': Above suggested hook is now a double selfnom because I also created an article about [[Damiana Eugenio]] in addition to the [[Filipino proverbs]] article; current hook above now linked to this newly created article (and now bolded too) which has 1,886 characters (no spaces) / 2,331 (with spaces). Thanks. - [[User:AnakngAraw|AnakngAraw]] ([[User talk:AnakngAraw|talk]]) 16:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[Fostoria Glass Company]]''' production peaked in 1950 when it manufactured over 8 million pieces of [[glass]]? (new; self nom) --[[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|talk]]) 02:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
As with any article, the lead section (no header) should summarize the most important information about the subject. It does not need to summarize every aspect of their life, but should include:
:*(alt1) ... that all [[List of Presidents of the United States|U.S. Presidents]] from [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] through [[Ronald Reagan]] ordered [[glassware]] from '''[[Fostoria Glass Company]]''' of [[Moundsville, West Virginia]]? (''It might be a good one around election day.'') --[[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|talk]]) 15:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
#Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)]]);
:: When is election day? November? --[[Special:Contributions/74.13.125.9|74.13.125.9]] ([[User talk:74.13.125.9|talk]]) 21:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
#Dates of birth and death, if known (see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death]]);
::: November 4. At least this isn't the Main Page. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 21:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
#Nationality &ndash; 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 that there is <s>presently</s> no consensus as to how this guideline should apply to [[Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom|people from the United Kingdom]]. ''[[Ethnic group|Ethnicity]]'' should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.
:::: Not sure if we should wait till November 4. Too long a wait, IMO. --[[Special:Contributions/74.13.125.9|74.13.125.9]] ([[User talk:74.13.125.9|talk]]) 04:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
#The most notable things the person has done. If the subject is notable for many things, this can expand to several paragraphs, but leave details for the body of the article itself.


*... that the [[Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood|Pre-Raphaelite]] English artist '''[[John Wharlton Bunney]]''' painted a picture including the entire western facade of [[St. Mark's Basilica]] over six hundred early morning sessions?...by {{user|Ugajin}} - nom {{user|Casliber}}
For example:
*'''Cleopatra VII Philopator''' (December 70 BC/January 69 BC &ndash; c. [[August 12]], 30 BC) was a [[Monarch|queen]] of [[ancient Egypt]]. She was the last member of the [[Macedon|Macedonia]]n [[Ptolemaic dynasty]] to rule [[Egypt]]&hellip;
*'''Francesco Petrarca''' or '''Petrarch''' (1304 &ndash; 1374) was an [[Italy|Italian]] scholar, [[poet]], and [[Humanism|humanist]], who is credited with having given the [[Renaissance]] its name and inventing the concept of the [[Dark Ages]]&hellip;


*... the only print of [[Orson Welles]]' 1938 film '''''[[Too Much Johnson]]''''' was destroyed in a 1971 fire at Welles' home outside of [[Madrid, Spain]]? (5x expansion, from 635 to 3563 characters, self-nom) [[User:Ecoleetage|Ecoleetage]] ([[User talk:Ecoleetage|talk]]) 16:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
RE 'Nationality' - There is no consensus for using "presently" (it's since been removed) and "[[Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom|people from the United Kingdom]]" is currently just an essay! (and at this point not even introduced as such!). This whole bit is currently being discussed in a section above [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29#Wikipedia_draft_essay_ready_for_discussion here]. --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 17:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[Polish Jewish]] cancer specialist '''[[Julian Aleksandrowicz]]''', during [[WWII]] was aided in the [[Kraków ghetto]] by one of the [[Polish Righteous]], and later escaped and joined [[Polish resistance in WWII|Polish resistance]] [[Armia Krajowa]]? self-nom by --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 17:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
===Personal life===


*... that '''[[Ensign O'Toole]]''', a [[1962]]&ndash;[[1963]] [[National Broadcasting Company|NBC]] [[military]] [[comedy]] [[television series|series]] starring [[Dean Jones (actor)|Dean Jones]], also featured [[Jack Albertson]], [[Beau Bridges]], [[Jay C. Flippen]], [[Harvey Lembeck]], and [[Jack Mullaney]]?--self-nom [[User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] ([[User talk:Billy Hathorn|talk]]) 22:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Most people's lives begin inauspiciously, but this information can be relevant to understanding them. Information which may not be directly applicable to their notability, such as their '''family''', '''early life''', '''education''', and '''relationships''', can be included under "Personal life". Any of these subjects can be expanded to its own section if there is sufficient information about them. It is not necessary to maintain "Personal life" as an enclosing section if these sections are sufficiently developed to stand on their own.
:OR
:*... that '''[[Ensign O'Toole]]''', a [[1962]]&ndash;[[1963]] [[National Broadcasting Company|NBC]] [[military]] [[comedy]] [[television series|series]] starring [[Dean Jones (actor)|Dean Jones]], was set aboard the [[USS Frank E. Evans (DD-754)|USS ''Frank E. Evans'']], which was thereafter destroyed in an [[accident]]?--self-nom [[User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] ([[User talk:Billy Hathorn|talk]]) 22:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Houses on Garfield Place, Poughkeepsie, NY.jpg|100x100px|right|Houses on Garfield Place]]
===Career===
*... that South Liberty Street in [[Poughkeepsie (city), New York|Poughkeepsie, New York]], was renamed '''[[Garfield Place Historic District|Garfield Place]]''' ''(houses pictured)'' after the [[James A. Garfield assassination|assassination]] of President [[James A. Garfield]]? Self-nom [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 03:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


===Articles created/expanded on October 7===
In most cases, the person's professional life is the focus of their notability, and this section will include the bulk of the information about them. If their career includes several distinct periods (e.g. a politician holding several successive offices, an artist creating in different styles, a writer working in different media, a businessperson employed at different companies, an athlete playing for different teams) these can be presented as separate sections. It is not necessary to maintain "Career" as an enclosing section if these sections are sufficiently developed to stand on their own.


<!-- PLEASE leave spaces between the nominations. It helps those reviewing ... and picking -->
As much as is practical, this section should be arranged chronologically. Whenever possible, notable "controversies" involving the subject should be included in their chronological context rather than a separate section.
*... that the power of the '''[[Indiana Klan|Ku Klux Klan in Indiana]]''' was once so great its leader claimed "I am the law in [[Indiana]]"? (created by {{user|Charles Edward}}, nom by --[[User:Bedford|<font color="black">'''Gen. Bedford'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Bedford|<font color="green">his Forest</font>]]</sup> 16:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that the [[Germany|German]] '''[[Third Battle of Kharkov|Donbas Operations]]''' (19 February – 6 March 1943) led to the destruction of 52 [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] divisions, and the recapture of the cities of [[Kharkiv|Kharkov]] and [[Belgorod]] from the [[Red Army]]? '''[[User:Catalan|JonCatalán]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Catalan|(Talk)]]</sup> 15:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
===Later life===
:: Expansion started on 7 October, from around 7kB to almost 40kB. '''[[User:Catalan|JonCatalán]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Catalan|(Talk)]]</sup> 15:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


* ... that the [[Tang Dynasty]] general '''[[Li Huaiguang]]''' saved Fengtian, where [[Emperor Dezong of Tang]] was at the time, from falling to the rebel [[Zhu Ci]]? (self-nomination) --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 13:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Similar to information about a person's early life, their activities following their professional lives provide additional context about them. Obviously this section can be omitted for someone who is still young and/or active. If the circumstances of the subject's death are known but unremarkable, the place and date can instead be included under "Personal life", above.


*... that [[British Army|army officer]] and [[Member of Parliament|M.P.]] '''[[William Hacket Pain]]''' was involved in planning and organising the [[Larne Gun Running]] operation, which helped to arm the [[Ulster Volunteers]] during the [[Irish nationalism#The Home Rule crisis 1912-14|Home Rule crisis of 1912]]? ~ New article by [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]]; nominated by <font face="Helvetica">[[User:Hassocks5489|<font color="#00BFFF"><b>Hassocks</b></font>]][[User talk:Hassocks5489|<font color="#228B22">5489<small> (tickets please!)</small></font>]]</font> 11:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC).
===Influence and legacy===


[[Image:Gersdorff - Schädelwunde.jpg|right|100x100px]]
Many notable subjects leave a lasting impact on their field or society in general, even after their death. Describe movements they started or led which continued after their death, or influences from their works which can still be seen in the works of others. Notable buildings or other things named after the subject should be identified here.
*... that Renaissance [[woodcut]]s by '''[[Hans Wechtlin]]''' ''(example pictured)'' cover both the chivalric ideal of war and graphic details of war wounds? self-nom by [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 01:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image: C&B.jpg|right|100x100px]]
===List of works/___ography===
*... that '''[[Arthur Cecil]]''' debuted on the professional stage in ''[[No Cards]]'' by [[W. S. Gilbert]] and ''[[Cox and Box]]'' ''(pictured)'' by [[Arthur Sullivan]] but was never hired by [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]? -- self-nom by [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 22:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Le Stade Olympique1.jpg||right|500px|100x100px]]
For an artist, musician, writer, or other creator, a list of their works can be informative. This section can be titled '''Filmography''', '''Discography''', '''Bibliography''' or some other appropriate term.
*... that cold weather kept the [[Montreal Expos]] on the road for their first 19 [[Opening Day]] games, until 1988 when [[Dennis Martínez]] became the '''[[List of Washington Nationals Opening Day starting pitchers|starting pitcher of the team's first opening day home game]]'''? -- new article, self-nom by [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 18:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Framsden Windmill.jpg|right|100x100px]]
===Career results===
*... that '''[[Framsden Windmill]]''' ''(pictured)'' was raised by {{convert|18|ft|m|2|lk=on}} in 1836, and worked for another [[century|100 years]]? Article created on Oct 7 and self-nom by [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]])


*... that '''[[Carson Parks]]''', who wrote the hit song "[[Somethin' Stupid]]", was the brother of [[Beach Boys]]' collaborator [[Van Dyke Parks]]? (self nom - [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 09:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC) - may be obvious to some, but I didn't know)
For an athlete or other competitor, a chart of their career record can be included.


*... that '''[[M-67 (Michigan highway)|M-67]]''', a state highway in the [[Upper Peninsula of Michigan]], has remained essentially unchanged but the highways connecting to it have changed three times since 1919? — self-nomination after 5.89x expansion. History section cited by maps showing the changes in connecting highways. Highway marker shield available if desired [[User:Imzadi1979|Imzadi1979]] ([[User talk:Imzadi1979|talk]]) 04:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
===Honors/Awards and nominations===
:<s>Say where it is!</s> OK [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 01:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::[[Image:Pictogram voting keep.svg|18px]] Date, time, off-line sources accepted, 2786/474 = 5.88x expansion


*... that '''[[Georg J. Lober]]'''′s 1956 sculpture of [[Hans Christian Andersen]] in [[New York City]]'s [[Central Park]] was funded in part by contributions from Danish and American schoolchildren? -- new article, self-nom by [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 02:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
List notable honors and awards (and nominations), along with brief information about what the award was given for.


{{DYK Listen|Massenet - Le Cid - Pleurez, pleurez, mes yeux.ogg|Marguerite Sylva in 1910}}
===See also===
*... that '''[[Marguerite Sylva]]''' ''(recording: ''[[Le Cid (opera)|Le Cid]]'')'', modestly told [[W. S. Gilbert]] she "sang a little" when he asked after her sister's audition, and, after demonstrating, was offered a part? -- Nomination by [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday]], article by [[User:Voceditenore]]. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 01:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
**A simpler hook might be "... that opera singer and recording pioneer '''[[Marguerite Sylva]]''' was really named Marguerite Alice Hélène Smith?" You could also use [[:Image:Marguerita Sylva As Carmen Opera Comique.jpg|this rather nice photograph of her]], if you like, but Voceditenore did a fantastic job on this article, and I couldn't help but nominate it here =) [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 02:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I like the first hook, but would shorten it to: "*... that '''[[Marguerite Sylva]]''' modestly told [[W. S. Gilbert]], at her sister's audition, that she "sang a little" and, after demonstrating, was offered a part? -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 23:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::::That works quite well. Of course, we'd need to mention the recording or picture in some form, if they're used. Of course, this is only part of a rather fascinating anecdote, but, hey, that's why we're linking to the article. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 00:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[Ronn Reynolds]]''' spent parts of six seasons as a [[Major League Baseball]] [[catcher]], despite a career [[batting average]] of just .188? -- new article self-nom by [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 00:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
List related articles that are not already linked elsewhere in the article.


* ... that [[Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson|Horatio Nelson]] called the [[Captain (Royal Navy)|captains]] who fought with him at the [[Battle of the Nile]] his '''"[[Nelson's Band of Brothers|Band of Brothers]]"'''? - new article, self nom, [[User:Benea|Benea]] ([[User talk:Benea|talk]]) 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
===Further reading===


*... that, although having a tradition of over 600 years and being the backyard of the [[Zagreb cathedral]], the '''[[Ribnjak, Zagreb|Ribnjak]]''' [[neighborhood]] in [[Zagreb]], [[Croatia]] is a focal point of [[gang violence]] in the city?
For a subject about which there is a great deal more comprehensive material available, list a very selective bibliography of authoritative works.
**(The "benevolent" hook) ... that the '''[[Ribnjak, Zagreb|Ribnjak]]''' [[neighborhood]] in [[Zagreb]], [[Croatia]] was named after ponds that used to cover its western half? --self nom, written and moved to mainspace in a single day. [[User:Admiral Norton|Admiral Norton]] <sup>([[User talk:Admiral Norton|talk]])</sup> 22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that only a few English [[church]]es celebrate the ancient custom of "'''[[clipping the church]]'''"? Self nomination. It's quite short though, but I think it has over 1500 characters. -- [[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:gray;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]] 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
===References===
**[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] Just barely at 1622, with spaces. '''the [[User:Editorofthewiki|editorofthewiki]] ([[User talk:Editorofthewiki#top|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|contribs]]/[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki|editor review]])''' 22:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
** this one's really good DYK! I thought of a darker hook, something like "it's the congregation, not a low-flying plane". [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 19:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[William Trueheart]]''' was the acting [[United States Ambassador to South Vietnam|U.S. ambassador to Saigon]] during the Vietnam Conflict, because his superior, [[Frederick Nolting]], wanted a break from duties? Expanded by [[User talk:Caulde|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Caulde</span>]] 20:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Include a complete list of footnotes and other citations documenting the contents of the article.


[[Image:ACDC-Hughes-long ago.jpg|right|100x100px]]
===External links===
*... that the [[hard rock]] band [[AC/DC]] has never won a [[Grammy Award]] despite receiving four '''[[List of awards and nominations received by AC/DC|nominations]]''' during their career? <font face="Verdana">[[User:Gary King|<font color="#02e">Gary</font>&nbsp;<font color="#02b"><b>King</b></font>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Gary King|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:All Saints Church, Childwall.jpg|right|100x100px]]
Articles can include a small number of links to reputable external sources about the subject. If the subject has a personal web site, or there is a web site authorized by the subject's heirs or estate, include it as the first link. An official or authorized fan site may be linked.
*... that '''[[All Saints' Church, Childwall]]''' ''(pictured)'' is the only medieval church in the [[metropolitan borough]] of [[Liverpool]], [[Merseyside]], England? Big expansion; self-nom by [[User:Peter I. Vardy|Peter I. Vardy]] ([[User talk:Peter I. Vardy|talk]]) 16:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[Davidge Gould|Sir Davidge Gould]]''', who served during the [[American Revolutionary War|American Revolutionary]], [[French Revolutionary Wars|French Revolutionary]] and the [[Napoleonic Wars]], was promoted to the rank of [[Admiral (United Kingdom)|Admiral]] in May 1825? new article by [[User:Benea]], nominated by [[User:AdjustShift|AdjustShift]] ([[User talk:AdjustShift|talk]]) 16:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
===Categories===
This is a virtual "section" without a header. The addition of categories helps to classify groups of people. For example: <nowiki>[[Category:Scottish authors]], [[Category:German Formula One drivers]], [[Category:Indian religious leaders]].</nowiki> Include as many as apply, but be sure that they are veriably accurate. Avoid creating new categories.


*... that '''[[Jens Landmark]]''', [[Norway|Norwegian]] [[Lieutenant Colonel]] and director of [[Kongsberg Gruppen|Kongsberg Weapons Factory]], also served three terms in the [[Storting|Norwegian Parliament]]? [[User:Punkmorten|Punkmorten]] ([[User talk:Punkmorten|talk]]) 21:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The addition of a DEFAULTSORT template controls how articles are sorted in category lists. For people this should usually be their last name (surname) followed by their first name (given name):
::[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] Date, hook and size verified. [[User:Manxruler|Manxruler]] ([[User talk:Manxruler|talk]]) 14:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
<nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Lastname, Firstname}}</nowiki>.


*... that '''[[Emily McPherson College of Domestic Economy]]''', an [[Australia|Australian]] [[family and consumer science|domestic science]] college for women, was officially opened on April 27, 1927 by Her Royal Highness [[Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon]]? new article by [[User:AshGreen]], nominated by [[User:AdjustShift|AdjustShift]] ([[User talk:AdjustShift|talk]]) 16:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:''Comments? Sugggestions? Objections? If this outline is ''generally'' acceptable, I'd like to integrate it into the guide for further refinement.'' - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 02:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


* ... that '''[[Empress Wang (Dezong)|Empress Wang]]''', the wife of [[Emperor Dezong of Tang]], was only empress for three days prior to her death in [[786]]? (self-nomination) --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 15:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
===Comments===
::I think this is a good idea. Here are some comments I have:
::*Instead of having "Personal life" at the beginning, I think this section should be called "Family, early life and education" or something of that nature, to show that the section may talk about a person's parentage, childhood and schooling. What tends to get put into "Personal life" sections is information about a person's relationships (spouses, partners, children, past and current girlfriends/boyfriends), sexuality, relatives, religious beliefs and hobbies. I think this should really go to the bottom, just before "See also", as such information is usually not of great importance. If it is significant to a person, it should be mentioned in other parts of the article and not under "Personal life".
::*Following "[[Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions]]", the order of the standard appendices should be "See also", "Notes" (containing the <nowiki>{{reflist|2}}</nowiki> template), "References", "Further reading", "External links".
::*"[[Wikipedia:Persondata]]" should be added before the <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT}}</nowiki> tag. Also, I notice that some people prefer to use {{tl|Lifetime}} instead of <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT}}</nowiki>. Perhaps some mention should be made of this?
::*For articles about people in the entertainment industry, it is common for external links to unofficial fansites to be added. I believe this is generally frowned upon because of the unauthorized use of copyrighted images and material in such websites. Perhaps some mention should be made of this.
::*Something should be said about the appropriate use of images of living people, which is a perennial problem for biographical articles.
::*I've always wondered about this but haven't found an answer &ndash; should categories be arranged in numerical and alphabetical order (''i.e.'', 0&ndash;9, A&ndash;Z), or in some other order such as decreasing importance? I've tended to favour the latter, but realize that one editor's idea of whether one category is more important than another tends to vary so perhaps the first rule would be easier to follow. Also, I don't think we should advise editors simply to "[a]void creating new categories"; that statement needs some qualification. New categories which are appropriate should be created.
::*Something should be said about the fact that "Trivia" and "Quotations" sections are deprecated.
::&mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[Dick Trickle]], billed as the winningest short track driver in history, won his first race outside of his home region at the 1966 National Short Track Championships at '''[[Rockford Speedway]]'''? - self nom by '''<font color="#000000">[[User:Royalbroil|Royal]]</font><font color="#FFCC00">[[User talk:Royalbroil|broil]]</font>''' 14:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC) There are free use pictures available if helpful.
I'd like to offer a variant of the above structure, which we've found useful all over WikiProject Comics. Rather than use a monolithic format, we break up comics creators' articles in a way that keeps the biographical section self-contained, rather than mashing it up confoundingly into sections that are clearer as standalones.
:*... (ALT) that '''[[Rockford Speedway]]''' is the only [[NASCAR]]-sanctioned [[Whelen All-American Series|weekly]] racetrack in [[Illinois]]? - self nom by '''<font color="#000000">[[User:Royalbroil|Royal]]</font><font color="#FFCC00">[[User talk:Royalbroil|broil]]</font>''' 14:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Not nearly as interesting, as most states have few NASCAR-sanctioned weekly tracks.
:**(ALT2) How about this: ... that '''[[Rockford Speedway]]''', a 1/4 mile [[short track racing|short track]] oval in the [[Rockford, Illinois]], is the only racetrack running under [[NASCAR]] sanction in [[Illinois]]? [[User:AdjustShift|AdjustShift]] ([[User talk:AdjustShift|talk]]) 17:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::In my opinion, ALT2 adds words with giving little additional "hooky"-ness. Technically the track is not in Rockford, but in the suburb Loves Park. I strongly prefer the Dick Trickle version because he is a short track legend with probably the greatest number of race feature wins of anyone in the world. Hosting the first win outside of the home region for a legendary figure is an impressive first. It shows how important the track was at that time with someone of that stature driving a relatively long distance to compete there. It's been elusive to cite Trickle's number of wins since there are no concrete records from the time, so it is disputed. People are working on figuring out an exact total. '''<font color="#000000">[[User:Royalbroil|Royal]]</font><font color="#FFCC00">[[User talk:Royalbroil|broil]]</font>''' 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Also, "the Rockford, Illinois" should either be "Rockford, Illinois" or "the Rockford, Illinois area". [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 23:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[South Africa]]n '''[[Jean-Michel d'Avray|Mich d'Avray]]''' played football in [[England]] and [[Holland]] before becoming the last ever [[National Soccer League]] Coach of the Year in [[Australia]]? self-nom article expansion, 409 chars to 2085. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 13:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*'''Lead''' and '''Infobox'''
::[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] Length, date, hook's ref verified. [[User:AdjustShift|AdjustShift]] ([[User talk:AdjustShift|talk]]) 17:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*'''Biography'''
**'''Early life and career''' [a subhead phrasing that connects the two concepts and has tended to dissuade tangential personal trivia]
**[Various career-related subheads, particularly if the person is known for a specific character or company or time-period subheads]
**'''Later life and career''' [or] '''Later life''' (if they essentially retired)


*... that [[Spain in the Eurovision Song Contest|Spain]], which placed second at [[Eurovision Song Contest|Eurovision]] in [[Eurovision Song Contest 1979|1979]] with "'''[[Su Canción]]'''", was rumored to have given high marks to a competitor so they did not have to host the international production the next year? (self-nom) [[User:Mike Halterman|Mike H.]] [[User talk:Mike Halterman|Fierce!]] 13:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*'''Impact''' (applicable if person has had a notable impact either within or outside of the field)
**(alternate) ... that the song "'''[[Su Canción]]'''" in [[Eurovision Song Contest 1979|1979]] earned [[Spain in the Eurovision Song Contest|Spain]] a second-place ranking at the [[Eurovision Song Contest]], which would not be achieved again until [[Eurovision Song Contest 1995|1995]]? [[User:Mike Halterman|Mike H.]] [[User talk:Mike Halterman|Fierce!]] 13:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[Bob McLean (footballer)|Bob McLean]]''', who is a member of the [[Australian Football Hall of Fame]], also played [[first-class cricket]] and scored a double century in the [[Sheffield Shield]]? [[User:Crickettragic|Crickettragic]] ([[User talk:Crickettragic|talk]]) 12:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*''' Inspirations''' (generally applicable for arts and science, but certainly also to the likes business)


[[Image:David Lloyd George 1911.jpg|100x100px|right]]
*[Other specific subheads according to subject: Notable public views, etc., that are illustrate opinions and beliefs, but are not in and other themselves biographical]
*... that the [[Wales|Welsh]] politician [[David Lloyd George]] ''(pictured)'' said that he would prize no honour more highly than his '''[[List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford|Honorary Fellowship]]''' of [[Jesus College, Oxford]]? (self-nom, moved to mainspace today) [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 11:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:UniversalEditButton.png|68px|right]]
*'''Awards'''
*... the '''[[Universal edit button]]''' ''(logo pictured)'' is a [[Firefox]] [[Add-on (Mozilla)|add on]] supported by many websites that informs users when the web page they are viewing contains editable content? (self-nom) - [[User:Fish and karate|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#28c"><b>fish</b></u>]]&amp;[[User_talk:Fish and karate|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#D33"><b>karate</b></u>]] 11:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
: ''The Main Page is protected!''
: Is there a svg version of the suggested pic that is not so grainy at 100x100px? --[[Special:Contributions/74.14.18.96|74.14.18.96]] ([[User talk:74.14.18.96|talk]]) 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::It looked fine at 68px (see now) - I'll try and ask on Commons, and see if someone can convert it to SVG. I can't find a version at present. [[User:Fish and karate|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#28c"><b>fish</b></u>]]&amp;[[User_talk:Fish and karate|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#D33"><b>karate</b></u>]] 07:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[William Tresham]]''' was elected as a [[Knight of the Shire]] for 12 successive parliaments? self-nom article expansion, 347 chars to 2640.
*'''Bibliography''' (works by the article subject)
: Whose self-nom is this? --[[Special:Contributions/74.13.125.9|74.13.125.9]] ([[User talk:74.13.125.9|talk]]) 21:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[Haruka Tomatsu]], who provides two pieces of [[theme music]] for the '''[[List of Kannagi episodes|episodes]]''' of the ''[[Kannagi (manga)#Anime|Kannagi]]'' [[anime]], is also the ''[[seiyū]]'' of one of the series' titular characters, [[Kannagi (manga)#Characters|Nagi]]? (self-nomination) — <font face="Segoe Script">[[User:Sephiroth BCR|<font color="navy">'''sephiroth bcr'''</font>]]</font> <font face="Verdana"><sup>'''([[User talk:Sephiroth BCR|<font color="blue">converse</font>]])'''</sup></font> 06:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*'''See also''' (as per current policy, additional topics of interest not already linked in article)


[[Image:ObanInterlockingTowerSRM.jpg|100x100px|right]]
*'''Footnotes''' [and-or] '''References''' (Separate sections when there are general references, such as databases, for which dozens of individual look-ups don't need to be separately footnoted, and one link to the searchable database is sufficient)
*... that '''[[Oban, Saskatchewan|Oban]]''' is reknowned for having the last [[Saskatchewan]] [[Interlocking]] tower ''(pictured)'' at the [[Canadian National Railway|CNR]] and [[Canadian Pacific Railway|CPR]] [[level crossing]] which was constructed in 1910 and closed in 1990.(self-nom) [[User:SriMesh|SriMesh]] | [[User talk:SriMesh|<small>talk</small>]] 05:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Is "''renowned''" really the operative word? How about "... that in [[Saskatchewan]], '''[[Oban, Saskatchewan|Oban]]''' was known for having the last [[Interlocking]] tower at the [[Canadian National Railway|CNR]] and [[Canadian Pacific Railway|CPR]] [[level crossing]], until it was closed in 1990?" [[User:Wetman|Wetman]] ([[User talk:Wetman|talk]]) 16:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Thank you...that works![[User:SriMesh|SriMesh]] | [[User talk:SriMesh|<small>talk</small>]] 00:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


* ... that [[Bolivia|Bolivian]] '''[[Mollo culture]]''' drinking cups included a built-in straw? (new; self nom) --[[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|talk]]) 01:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*''' External links''' (as per current policy, "for further reading" sites of interest, and also per current policy limited to five or six maximum)
:[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] Length, reference and history verified. Can we find a picture of one of these cups? This sounds interesting. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 06:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


* ... that '''[[Jock Wilson]]''', who died on September 29, 2008, at the age of 105, was [[Great Britain]]'s oldest [[Invasion of Normandy|D-Day]] veteran? (self-nom) [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 04:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course, each different project will have specifics unique to it; an ancient king and a modern-day avant-garde artist, to give two plucked-from-the-air examples, may need adapted versions of the standard structure. Flexibility is more workable to different projects' needs than rigidity.
&mdash;[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 04:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


*... that on '''[[Jackie Robinson Day]]''' of 2007, more than 200 baseball players wore number 42 in honor of the 60th anniversary of [[Jackie Robinson]]'s [[Major League Baseball|major league]] debut? '''Self-nom'''. Very special day for Major League Baseball, and would probably get a lot of views if it was on the [[Main Page]] along with the image. &ndash; <font color="navy" face="cursive">[[User:RyanCross|'''Ryan'''Cross]]</font> (<font color="navy" face="cursive">[[User talk:RyanCross|''talk'']]</font>) 08:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:It is a very bad idea in biographical articles to have a section entitled "Biography". The whole article is by definition a biography. There's no need that I can see to have an umbrella heading for the individual sections on the person's life - they're better standing on their own, since they are likely to take up the bulk of the article in any case. In addition, I dislike a separate section for "Honours and awards" or suchlike. This just encourages bullet points; it is better to integrate these into the body of the article. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 08:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
**Are you aware that the image is non-free? --[[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] ([[User talk:BorgQueen|talk]]) 12:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*I think this draft is misleadingly specific, and should not be included in guidelines; as an essay fine. At a number of points related to my own main area of intereest - artists - it contradicts both visual arts editors' concensus and the draft [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style]]. Lists of works are discouraged for nearly all visual artists, and a painting infobox will often be preferable to an artist one. These are just examples - I think the whole thing is far too specific. Better to advise people to check out several bios of people in the same field. The comics version above is better, as less specific, & more typical in layout (further reading not so high etc). [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 13:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
::*Ah, nope, I just noticed that. Thanks, BorgQueen. &ndash; <font color="navy" face="cursive">[[User:RyanCross|'''Ryan'''Cross]]</font> (<font color="navy" face="cursive">[[User talk:RyanCross|''talk'']]</font>) 13:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: So removed. --[[Special:Contributions/74.14.18.96|74.14.18.96]] ([[User talk:74.14.18.96|talk]]) 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that a number of babies were rescued alive and safe from the collapsed Juárez Hospital during the '''[[1985 Mexico City earthquake]]'''? ---I think it should the criteria for expansion... I did a really SERIOUS rewrite [[User:Thelmadatter|Thelmadatter]] ([[User talk:Thelmadatter|talk]]) 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::As previously said in "Other MOS concerns" ([[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Other MOS concerns|above]]), having a section titled "Biography" within a biographical article should be strongly deprecated. Call it "Early life" or "Personal life" or whatever, but it's clearly redundant to title a section "Biography" within a biographical article. <i><b>[[User:JGHowes|<font color = "green">JGHowes</font>]]<font color = "darkblue"> <sup>[[User talk:JGHowes|''talk'']]</sup></font></b> - </i> 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
:*6912 to 26K is a very serious rewrite, although our criterion is fivefold expansion. That's why most Did You Know articles are new, or expansions of stubs. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 23:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::So, discographies and the like are "discouraged"? Meanwhile they're almost everywhere, which suggests a rather weak consensus against them. Whatever; I have no dog in that fight... just making an observation. Obviously some bios will contain features that others don't, but their core contents are (or at least ought to be) pretty standard. The fact that there are conflicting rules being applied in various fields is all the more reason why an effort to establish a general standard would be helpful. I would have expected that to be the first item on WikiProject Biography's agenda, but the sooner that effort is undertaken - meaning that new articles and new editors can get started in a consistent direction - the better. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I perhaps wasn't clear above; I meant (and have amended to) specifically "visual artists", many of whom have produced over 1,000 works. I have no problem with discographies or most other lists of works, though if they get too long, splitting them off is a good idea. Several visual arts biographies' random lists of paintings have been removed or trimmed to those with articles. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 02:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
:This is a great start, but each section needs some work, and I wouldn't want to see it incorporated before it's right. I'm psyched that you're initiating this, but it feels a bit unwieldy to discuss. Maybe you could archive this first part of the discussion, then propose it again below, with some of the comments about order, etc. incorporated? I have two other suggestions for your second draft: 1.) Explain where the current guideline would be incorporated (no need to reprint the current sections, just point out where they would go). 2.) Steal language and get inspiration from other guidelines to flesh things out better, i.e. take the References language from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines]]. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 21:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Brachylophus fasciatus (Fijian Iguana).jpg|right|100x100px]]
::As someone who reads and uses Wikipedia more than writes for it, but who has almost exclusively worked on biographical articles, I'm a little concerned about the first person's proposed outline above, because an article about a person isn't ''all'' biography.
*... that the '''[[Fiji Banded Iguana]]''' ''(pictured)'' is believed to have evolved from [[Green Iguana]]s that rafted on debris across 7,000 miles of [[Pacific Ocean]] from [[South America]] 13 million years ago? --Self nom after Five-fold expansion.--[[User:Mike Searson|'''Mike''']] - [[User_talk:Mike_Searson|'''Μολὼν λαβέ''']] 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:or
:*... that the [[Fiji]] government claims the entire US [[zoo]] population of '''[[Fiji Banded Iguana]]s''' ''(pictured)'' are descended from illegally smuggled animals? --Self nom after Five-fold expansion.--[[User:Mike Searson|'''Mike''']] - [[User_talk:Mike_Searson|'''Μολὼν λαβέ''']] 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that having lost his father early, jurist, farmer and [[Storting|Norwegian Parliament]] member '''[[Nils Landmark]]''' was raised by [[Jens Stub]], a [[List of members of the Norwegian Constitutional Assembly|founding father of the Norwegian Constitution]]? [[User:Punkmorten|Punkmorten]] ([[User talk:Punkmorten|talk]]) 21:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Take a Wikipedia entry's section about a person's views, for example. As an analogy, let's say a book about physics has a chapter about one scientist's groundbreaking views. That chapter is about a person, yes - but it's not biographical. It doesn't tell you anything about where that person grew up, or their career path, or who they married, etc.


*... that the [[Victorian era|Victorian]] painter '''[[William Shakespeare Burton]]''' was said to have dug a hole in the ground to stand in, so that he could paint the grass and ferns at eye level?
::No one would ever call that chapter biographical - and yet that's what we would be doing here.
...by {{user|Ugajin}} - nom {{user|Casliber}}


[[Image:Bain Commercial Building, Wappingers Falls, NY.jpg|100x100px|right]]
::The same is true with a list of a person's award. Talking about those awards in the story of his/her life, putting them in historical perspective, saying what the presenters' said of the person receiving the award - that's biographical. Whereas an award list is not - that's an appendix to a biography.
*... that the '''[[Bain Commercial Building]]''' ''(pictured)'' is the only intact [[Second Empire]]-[[architectural style|style]] building in [[Wappingers Falls, New York]]? Self-nom [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 15:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


===Articles created/expanded on October 6===
::Same with a bibliography or filmography of a person's work. Same with "See also" and "References" and "External links" - these are ''appendices'' to a biography. A biography is only one part of a person's entry. --[[User:Farpointer|Farpointer]] ([[User talk:Farpointer|talk]]) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


<!-- PLEASE leave spaces between the nominations. It helps those reviewing ... and picking -->
:::It isn't all biography, but it is mostly biography, and the article is a biographical one. It seems very silly to take the great bulk (in most cases pretty much all) the article and put it into a single section - "Biography" - and then add sections of comparative weight for lesser items (often just "References" and suchlike). Take a look at some biographical articles - most of them are largely if not exclusively about the subject's life. That may not be the case with some, but it is certainly the case with the majority. No, of course an award list should be added into the article as a list, but to be honest I don't think it needs to be there at all. If the award isn't important enough to be mentioned in its historical context within the body of the article then it probably isn't important enough to be mentioned at all. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[Nicholas G. Carr|Nicholas Carr]] wrote a controversial article titled "'''[[Is Google Making Us Stupid?]]'''" in the July/August 2008 edition of ''[[The Atlantic Monthly]]''? --new article, self-nom. I am working on a draft that I can use to expand the article, so length is easy to rectify if it falls short.-[[User:Manhattan Samurai|Manhattan Samurai]] ([[User talk:Manhattan Samurai|talk]]) 19:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm not happy with this either. Painter's articles often have a biography section, before another describing aspects of their work, specific works and so on. Sometimes it's best to mix the two, sometimes not. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 02:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
:*[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px|This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues]] This article currently isn't quite long enough for Did You Know (references don't count). See [[#Instructions]] for details. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::*I'm clear for length now. Is there any other problems for my DYK?[[User:Manhattan Samurai|Manhattan Samurai]] ([[User talk:Manhattan Samurai|talk]]) 03:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that the British late night comedy satire TV show '''''[[Up Sunday]]''''' was described by one of the cast members as "aimed at dirty minded insomniacs"? -- new article by [[User:Bingo99]]; nom by [[User:Bruce1ee|Bruce1ee]]<sup>[[User talk:Bruce1ee|talk]]</sup> 14:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I think lists can be very useful for readers - I oftentimes want to see a list of prominent works/honors - I don't want to read the entire article to find this info buried in prose. -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2008-08-15[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]20:16z


*... that pollution has risen in the '''[[Sundarijal]]''' reservoir in Nepal due to large amounts of tourists who crowd the area every weekend? Expanded by '''the <span style="color:#FF7F00">[[User:Editorofthewiki|editorofthewiki]] ([[User talk:Editorofthewiki#top|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|contribs]]/[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki|editor review]])'''</span> 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC) from an article creaqted on August 28 by '''the <span style="color:#FF7F00">[[User:Editorofthewiki|editorofthewiki]] ([[User talk:Editorofthewiki#top|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|contribs]]/[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki|editor review]])'''</span> 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
== Weird phrasing ==


[[Image:TankerSchenectady.jpg|100x100px|right]]
"For objects which are "possessed" by someone, where "possession" expires with them, such as opinions or children, use the present tense for living persons and the past tense for deceased persons. Timeless facts may be expressed in the present tense even if they are in a dead person's article. Or in other words, use common sense."
*... that the '''[[SS Schenectady|SS ''Schenectady'']]''' , an [[oil tanker]], broke almost in two whilst sitting at the dock in calm weather, before even having entered service? (selfnom, pictured) [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 19:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[Neel Kashkari]]''', six years after completing his [[MBA]], was put in charge of the $700 billion [[Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008|U.S. Government bailout of financial institutions]]. -- Quite an important article, nominated (but not written by) [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]] ([[User talk:Smallbones|talk]]) 18:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Just about all of this is extremely weird phrasing. Could someone explain the intent and then we reword? [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] ([[User talk:Marskell|talk]]) 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


:That is weird!! I'd never dream of actually using the Manual of Style myself, so I can't comment! It's like the Ministry of Funny Walks.--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 21:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
*... that in [[Shinto]], a '''''[[gongen]]''''' represents a manifestation of a [[Buddhahood|buddha]] from [[India]] to guide the [[Japanese people]] to salvation? -- new article by {{user|Urashimataro}}, nom. by [[User:PFHLai|PFHLai]] ([[User talk:PFHLai|talk]]) 17:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::Well, I use the MoS, and it's generally well-worded. But I can't make heads or tails of this. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] ([[User talk:Marskell|talk]]) 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''''[[Future Primitive and Other Essays]]''''' by [[anarcho-primitivism|anarcho-primitivist]] philosopher [[John Zerzan]] is regarded as an [[underground culture|underground]] classic by [[anarchists]] and [[technophobes]] alike? Self-nom by <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">the skomorokh</font>]]</font> 20:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I better say I only meant MOS (biogs)! I just find it awkward to read. Seeing middle names annoys a bit too! --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Kings_Mills.jpg|100x100px||King's Mill|right]]
: It ''is'' an awkward passage. My guess is that it is supposed to refer to the tense used associating a subject with people or their beliefs. If it is not written to address that need, then it ought to be -- or removed. To furnish some hypothetical examples of the usage I think it recommends:
*... that '''[[King's Mill, Leicestershire|King's Mill]]''' ''(pictured)'' on the [[River Trent]] was used to grind [[wikt:flint|flints]] for the [[pottery]] industry? self nom [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] ([[User talk:Victuallers|talk]]) 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:* "Smith has three children."
:* "The late Smith had three children."
:* "Jones believes that eating canned peaches led to Communism."
:* "The late Jones believed that eating canned peaches avoided the triumph of Communism."
: Do these examples help? -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 00:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Altdeutscher Schaeferhund.jpg|right|100x100px]]
::Yes, I think you're right. Perhaps the examples should be included in the section for clarity. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 01:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
*... that after the standardisation of the [[German Shepherd Dog]], other herding dogs in Germany became known as '''[[Old German Shepherd Dog]]s''' and is now the name given to a rare modern breed ''(pictured)''? -- (is that hook okay, or is there a better way to word it?) created by [[User:Tilkin]] expansion and nom by <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~ [[User:Ameliorate!|<span style="color:black;">User:Ameliorate!</span>]]</span> <sup>(with the !) ([[User talk:Ameliorate!|talk]])</sup> 12:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I can't see anything wrong with the passage myself. Makes perfect sense. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


*... that the day that [[British East India Company]] acquired a sliver of land to build [[Fort St George]] is celebrated as '''[[Madras Day]]''' in [[Madras]] (Chennai), [[India]]? -- Article expanded fivefold and self-nom <font color="Orange"><b>[[User:Wikiality123|Wiki San Roze]]</b></font><sup><i> <font color="green">[[User talk:Wikiality123|†αLҝ]]</font></i></sup> 07:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I have cut it, while noting a change from present to past should be done consistently across an article. I presume it was intended as llywrch writes, but it's so obvious that I can't imagine there's confusion on the point. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] ([[User talk:Marskell|talk]]) 13:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


*... that the [[Penance|penitential]] tone of '''[[John Audelay|John Audelay's]]''' poetry may have been influenced by his sense of responsibility for his [[lord|lord's]] involvement in a fatal brawl? --Article by [[User:Svejk74]], nom by '''[[User:Iain99|Iain99]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Iain99|Balderdash]] and [[Special:Contributions/Iain99|piffle]]</sup> 22:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
== Sinte Gleska or [[Spotted Tail]] ? ==


[[Image:MIM-46 Mauler.jpg|100x100px|right]]
"Sinte Gleska or Sinte Gleśka (pronounced gleh-shka, Spotted Tail)" is how the article on a prominent American Indian starts off, but the article is titled "Spotted Tail."
*... that the '''[[MIM-46 Mauler]]''' ''(pictured)'' was the first in a long string of failed attempts to add armored [[anti-aircraft missile]] systems into the [[US Army]]? [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 22:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Ida thunk there would have been a [[Muhammad Ali]] vs Cassius Clay rule, stating that
the name the person used is to be preferred - but no such luck. It looks like "the name by which the person is best known" is the trump card. Any comments? It looks as if I'd have to change every American Indian name if I wanted to do it "my way." redirects, of course, eliminate much of the problem.


[[Image:St George's Church, Everton.jpg|right|100x100px]]
Thanks for any input.
*... that '''[[St George's Church, Everton]]''' ''(pictured)'' and '''[[St Michael's Church, Aigburth]]''' were two of the three churches in [[Liverpool]] built by John Cragg which contained many [[cast iron]] components? Both articles greatly expanded: double self-nom by [[User:Peter I. Vardy|Peter I. Vardy]] ([[User talk:Peter I. Vardy|talk]]) 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[MTA Regional Bus Operations]]''' was created in 2008 to consolidate all bus operations formerly maintained by separate management structures at [[New York City Transit buses|MTA New York City Bus]], [[Long Island Bus|MTA Long Island Bus]], and [[MTA Bus Company|MTA Bus]]? new article by [[User:AEMoreira042281]], nominated by [[User:AdjustShift|AdjustShift]] ([[User talk:AdjustShift|talk]]) 20:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
[[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]] ([[User talk:Smallbones|talk]]) 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[Swaminarayan]]'s biography, '''[[Satsangi Jeevan]]''' comprises of 19,387 [[Shloka]]s among 360 Chapters, in 5 Volumes? nomination by [[User:Juthani1|<span style="color:#ffffff;background:#ccf">&nbsp;<span style="background:#99f">&nbsp;<span style="background:#66f">&nbsp;<span style="background:#11f"><b>Juthani1</b></span>&nbsp;</span>&nbsp;</span>&nbsp;</span>]]<sup>[[User talk: Juthani1|t]][[Special:Contributions/Juthani1|c]][[User:Juthani1/Guest Book|s]] </sup> 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:see [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)]] for full discussion, but yes, based on [[WP:VERIFY]], we would usually defer to the name used to commonly refer to someone in [[WP:reliable sources]]. Especially when it comes to "non-English names, this is not meant as an affront, but rather reflects the fact that English WIkipedia is a reference work written in the English language. Both the article itself and redirects should address any other names commonly used.--[[User:Marcinjeske|Marcinjeske]] ([[User talk:Marcinjeske|talk]]) 11:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px|This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues]] Date and reference confirmed, but article too short at slightly under 1000 characters. Please identify the author of an article when nominating another's work. [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 20:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that during the [[Second World War]] English [[Association football|footballer]] '''[[Jimmy Boswell]]''' served in the same army unit as four other future [[Gillingham F.C.]] players? -- Article expanded fivefold and self-nom by [[User:ChrisTheDude|ChrisTheDude]] ([[User talk:ChrisTheDude|talk]]) 17:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
== Lead names ==


*... that among '''[[Connecticut in the American Civil War|Connecticut's contributions to the American Civil War]]''' are the [[Henry rifle]] and the song ''[[Marching Through Georgia]]''? (created by {{user|8th Ohio Volunteers}}, nom by --[[User:Bedford|<font color="black">'''Gen. Bedford'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Bedford|<font color="green">his Forest</font>]]</sup> 16:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
My apologies if there has been a prior discussion on lead names that I missed out on.
Has it become standard to put the subject's common name in quotations, i.e. '''Joseph "Joe" Smith''', even if that common name is simply a general, English short form of the subject's first name? Because to be honest, '''Joseph "Joe"''' is unnecessary - ostensibly Joe is short for Joseph. It is also a universal understanding that Bob is Robert and Bill is William, and so forth - "Bill" is not unique to William Jefferson Clinton, neither is "Al" to Albert Gore, nor "Dick" to Richard Cheney. Only if the subject has an obscure nickname, like '''Craig "Speedy" Claxton''' does it make sense to put the nickname in quotations. At nearly 2 million articles, thousands of which are biographies, Christopher "Chris" and Edward "Ted" starts to look untidy - throw on middle names and you start to see my point. Why can't they all just be like [[Tony Blair]]. [[User:Master Jay|<font style="background:black">'''<font color="white">Jay</font>'''</font>]]'''<font style="background:red">([[User talk:Master Jay|<font color="white"><small>Talk</small></font>]])'''</font> 00:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''', should we do a clarification about this issue, telling to avoid '''Craig "Speedy" Claxton'''? [[User:Carlosguitar|Carlosguitar]] 13:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


*<s>... that '''[[John J. Leonard]]''', a professor at [[MIT]] [[CSAIL]], aims to develop [[Autonomous robot|persistent autonomy]] techniques which allows [[robot]]s to complete long duration tasks with minimal human supervision? --self-nom, --[[User:Jiuguang Wang|Jiuguang]] ([[User talk:Jiuguang Wang|talk]]) 15:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)</s>
Is there still support for this? See e.g. [[Donald Rumsfeld]] and talk about "Rummy" -- a frequent nickname. [[User:MilesAgain|MilesAgain]] ([[User talk:MilesAgain|talk]]) 19:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px|This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues]] the expansion is sufficient, but the refs are to the subject's own work & web page, rather than to third-party sources as required. [[User:QaBobAllah|Bob]] ([[User talk:QaBobAllah|QaBob]]) 22:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::How about this new hook:
::*... that '''[[John J. Leonard]]''', a professor at [[MIT]] [[CSAIL]], developed a [[Computer vision|vision]]-based [[simultaneous localization and mapping]] (SLAM) algorithm for mapping the [[RMS Titanic]]?
::The hook is verified by a journal publication. --[[User:Jiuguang Wang|Jiuguang]] ([[User talk:Jiuguang Wang|talk]]) 16:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Statue of Zeus.jpg|right|100x100px|Attached to "Palace of Lausus" hook]]
:Can someone propose some specific language? The proposal isn't clear. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 20:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
*... that the '''[[Palace of Lausus]]''', built in early 5th-century [[Constantinople]], housed a vast collection of mythological statues, including the [[Statue of Zeus at Olympia]] ''(pictured)'', one of the [[Seven Wonders of the Ancient World]]? (self) &mdash;<strong>[[User:Anonymous Dissident|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:DarkRed">Anonymous Dissident</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:Anonymous Dissident|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup>]] 11:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px|This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues]] 218 character hook. --[[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|talk]]) 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that in 2001, ''PR Newswire'' listed '''[[sextoy.com]]''', founded by '''[[Dave Levine]]''' as the largest company on the internet with no employees? [[User:Zithan|Zithan]] ([[User talk:Zithan|talk]]) 10:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::My opinion is that nicknames have no place in the first line of our [[WP:BLP|biographies]], and I would even prefer common names to be left in the infobox. To use [[Dick Cheney]] as an example, I would prefer the first line of the article to simply read "Richard Bruce Cheney (born January 30, 1941), is the forty-sixth and current..." as opposed to the current version which includes "Dick" after Bruce. In this instance, the infobox would then simply read "Dick Cheney" as opposed to "Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney" as it does now. Keep in mind Dick is Cheney's common name, and I still believe simple nicknames should remain outside of the intro sentence and infobox. Nicknames, in my opinion, should be explained later. - [[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="#0000cd">auburn</font><font color="#EF6521">pilot</font>]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 00:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px|This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues]] Ref #3 confirms the hook, created October 6 and 5234 characters. However, I'm not entirely comfortable with a .com reference on the main page and I can't think of a way to word the hook to avoid it, anyone else have an opinion on this? <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~ [[User:Ameliorate!|<span style="color:black;">User:Ameliorate!</span>]]</span> <sup>(with the !) ([[User talk:Ameliorate!|talk]])</sup> 12:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::It's an interesting hook IMHO. I don't think rewording is possible for a subject such as this. Would there be a reason not to feature a .com reference on the main page? [[User:Zithan|Zithan]] ([[User talk:Zithan|talk]]) 05:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that the '''[[Tugboat Spence|Tugboat ''Spence'']]''' and its barge ''Guantanamo Bay Express'' deliver cargo twice-monthly from [[Naval Station Mayport]] near [[Jacksonville]], [[Florida]] to [[Naval Station Guantanamo Bay]] in [[Cuba]]? -- new article self-nom by <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;"><span style="color:Blue;" >[[User:Haus|<big>H</big>aus]]</span><sup><small>[[User_talk:Haus|<span style="color:Green;">Talk</span>]]</small></sup></span> 07:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Makes sense. But could you propose specific language for amending the guideline? --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 07:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Whereas I would favour "'''Richard Bruce Cheney''' (born January 30, 1941), known as '''Dick Cheney''', is the forty-sixth and current..." I disagree with restricting information to infoboxes, which are, in my opinion, an optional (and fairly unnecessary) addition to an article in any case. There should be no info in infoboxes that is not in the article. I do agree that nicknames should not feature in the full name at the beginning of the article. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::That would work fine too, and I agree with your comments regarding infoboxes. - [[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="#0000cd">auburn</font><font color="#EF6521">pilot</font>]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I oppose this change. Placing nicknames within the full name--properly denoted with quotation marks--is a common practice and a sensible one. It is sensible even for "obvious" nicknames because not all Roberts go by "Bob". Can some pressing and defensible reason be elaborated for this change? [[User:Robert K S|Robert K S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 09:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Such a change/clarification is needed because the current wording regarding nicknames/common names is not clear and is barely covered at all. How do we decide which names are appropriate and which are not? I believe standard practice right now is that only common names (Dick for Cheney, Al for Gore, Bill for Clinton) are included, and nicknames such as "Rummy" Rumsfeld are not. Cheney, Gore, and Clinton all refer to themselves by those names, use those names in daily life, and are referred to by those names in the media (common), whereas Rummy is a mere nickname. The current guideline does not give any indication of what should be done in such a situation. My preference is for nicknames and common names to stay out of the initial sentence, but Necrothesp's suggestion above works well too. As you say, "''It is sensible even for "obvious" nicknames''", but what about the less obvious? - [[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="#0000cd">auburn</font><font color="#EF6521">pilot</font>]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
All this is well and good, but no one has made a proposal for specific wording to amend the guideline. If a concerned party would make one, then this debate would be more useful. --[[User:Melty girl|Melty girl]] ([[User talk:Melty girl|talk]]) 18:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[2008 in film|2008 film]] ''[[Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist]]'' was '''[[Lorene Scafaria]]'''′s ninth screenplay but first novel adaptation? (self-nom) —<font face="georgia">[[User:97198|<b>97198</b>]] <small>([[User talk:97198|talk]])</small></font> 07:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Something along the lines of "Nicknames should only be included within the introductory sentence of an article if the subject uses that name in place of their given name" is what I was thinking. This covers the common name (daily use) situations such as Bill Clinton, but avoids giving less known nicknames unneeded prominence. Additionally, this would compliment the naming guidelines, in that Jimmy would be included for our article [[Jimmy Carter]], and Al for [[Al Gore]]. Of course, I'm not a policy writer by any stretch of the imagination, so the wording will need adjusting (or a total rewrite). - [[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="#0000cd">auburn</font><font color="#EF6521">pilot</font>]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 19:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


*... that despite being of common birth, the marriage of '''[[Falkes de Breauté]]''' made him ‘the equal of an earl’? Expanded article from 1508 chars to 9231 chars; that's what I call progress. [[User:Ironholds|<b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b>]][[User talk:Ironholds|<b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b>]] 04:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, here's my proposal on nicknames:
::[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px|This article is not well-referenced enough]] - I commend you for your expansion efforts, but this article is not sourced to enough inline citations; one primary reference is not adequate for an article of this length. &mdash;<strong>[[User:Anonymous Dissident|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:DarkRed">Anonymous Dissident</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:Anonymous Dissident|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup>]] 05:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::This article has moere than one source, and it passes the criteria. '''the [[User:Editorofthewiki|editorofthewiki]] ([[User talk:Editorofthewiki#top|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|contribs]]/[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki|editor review]])''' 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[William Long (politician)|William Long]]''', [[Minister of Home Affairs (Northern Ireland)|Minister of Home Affairs]] in [[Northern Ireland]] at the start of [[The Troubles]], later became the skipper of a fishing boat? (self-nom) [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] ''[[User talk:Warofdreams|talk]]'' 01:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
*Nicknames that are shorthand forms of given names (given in intro): '''[[John Edwards|Johnny Reid Edwards]]''', commonly known as '''John Edwards'''
:[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] Length, date, hook's ref verified. --[[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|talk]]) 22:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
*Nicknames that are peculiar to the person, and regularly used in formal writing in place of the legal name (given in intro): '''[[Red Skelton|Richard Bernard “Red” Skelton]]'''
*Nicknames that are peculiar to the person, but are only used in informal contexts (not given in intro): '''[[Donald Rumsfeld|Donald Henry Rumsfeld]]''' (''no mention of "Rummy"'')--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] ([[User talk:Pharos|talk]]) 06:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


*... that the [[plesiosaur]] '''[[Bathyspondylus]]''' was first described in 1982 from a [[specimen]] collected in 1774? selfnom [[User:Ryan shell|Ryan shell]] ([[User talk:Ryan shell|talk]]) 01:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear-cut to me. The article name should be the name by which a person is known. The opening line should contain the person's full name – not some bizarre amalgam of the two. It is totally unnecessary to repeat parts of the short form within the full form, as in '''Johnny Reid "John" Edwards''' – which is given as an example in [[WP:NAMES#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names]]. We can all see that he's called John Edwards – that's why the article is titled [[John Edwards]]. I propose removing this example. That convention is more likely to cause confusion than to lessen it. The uninitiated may think the short form is part of the full name. They may wonder why "John" follows 'Reid' rather than 'Johnny'. I've even seen quoted short forms after 'born' – which is just nonsensical. Let's cut the clutter. If anyone really feels the need to explain that (in this [admittedly unusual] case) John is short for Johnny, let them do so in a separate sentence. [[User:The Font|Grant]] ([[User talk:The Font|talk]]) 12:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px|This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues]] Slightly short (1449 characters). Reference and date OK. [[User:Chamal_N|<span style="color:#000080">'''C'''</span><span style="color:#0000CD">'''h'''</span><span style="color:#0000FF">'''a'''</span><span style="color:#4169E1">'''m'''</span><span style="color:#1E90FF">'''a'''</span><span style="color:#87CEEB">'''l'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Chamal_N|<span style="color:#693"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]]</small> [[Special:Contributions/Chamal_N|<span style="color:#C6C">±</span>]] 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::OK, i added a little bit to the intro and etymology which i think should put it past 1500. thanks for the heads up. [[User:Ryan shell|Ryan shell]] ([[User talk:Ryan shell|talk]]) 21:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] Length, date and ref are fine. [[User:Chamal_N|<span style="color:#000080">'''C'''</span><span style="color:#0000CD">'''h'''</span><span style="color:#0000FF">'''a'''</span><span style="color:#4169E1">'''m'''</span><span style="color:#1E90FF">'''a'''</span><span style="color:#87CEEB">'''l'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Chamal_N|<span style="color:#693"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]]</small> [[Special:Contributions/Chamal_N|<span style="color:#C6C">±</span>]] 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Fijian Crested Iguana Perth Zoo SMC Sept 2005.jpg|right|100x100px]]
I would apply the same logic to Red Skelton, too. We ''know'' he's called Red Skelton – it's not worth cluttering up his full legal name just to ram that information home. [[User:The Font|Grant]] ([[User talk:The Font|talk]]) 12:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
*... that the '''[[Fiji Crested Iguana]]''' ''(pictured)'' was discovered when a scientist saw the lizard on film at an advance screening of the 1980 film ''[[The Blue Lagoon (1980 film)|Blue Lagoon]]''? --Self nom after Five-fold expansion.--[[User:Mike Searson|'''Mike''']] - [[User_talk:Mike_Searson|'''Μολὼν λαβέ''']] 18:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:[[Image:Pictogram voting keep.svg|18px]] Fascinating hook - first discovered because of a movie! Expanded length over 5x, date, off-line reference accepted. '''<font color="#000000">[[User:Royalbroil|Royal]]</font><font color="#FFCC00">[[User talk:Royalbroil|broil]]</font>''' 14:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[Arya Samaj]] spearheaded the late 19th century '''[[cow protection movement]]''', Hindu opposition to cow sacrifice, leading to riots spreading across India and the deaths of 107 people? self nom.<b><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" Color="#C11B17">[[User:Docku|Docku:]]</FONT><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" Color=" #254117">[[User talk:Docku|“what up?”]]</FONT></b> 17:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, shoehorning a nickname into a person's actual name might give the impression that this form is the one generally used – as in [[Kray twins#Jack "the Hat" McVitie|Jack "the Hat" McVitie]] or [[Sugar Ray Leonard|"Sugar" Ray Leonard]]. Or would that have to be rendered as Ray "Sugar" Leonard? Or Ray "Sugar Ray Leonard" Leonard? [[User:The Font|Grant]] ([[User talk:The Font|talk]]) 00:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:*[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px|This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues]] [[User:Art LaPella/Long hook|255 character hook]], or longer after correcting "Cow protection movement ... happened ... " to "... the cow protection movement ... that happened ... ". [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 23:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
: Hooks should be a question. --[[Special:Contributions/74.14.18.96|74.14.18.96]] ([[User talk:74.14.18.96|talk]]) 00:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::*I didn't mean to insert an ellipsis into the sentence. ALT: ... that [[Arya Samaj]] spearheaded the late 19th century '''[[cow protection movement]]''', Hindu opposition to cow sacrifice, leading to violent riots spreading all across India and the the deaths of 107 people? [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 00:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Great. 197 characters now. Thanks. <b><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" Color="#C11B17">[[User:Docku|Docku:]]</FONT><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" Color=" #254117">[[User talk:Docku|“what up?”]]</FONT></b> 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[Jasper Goodwill]]''', later a [[mayor]] in [[Louisiana]], was given the middle initial "K" by the [[United States Army|Army]] during [[World War I]] as a way to enhance identification of the [[soldier]]s?--self-nom[[User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] ([[User talk:Billy Hathorn|talk]]) 21:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I would caution against consideration of any proposal the basis for which is reasoning that includes the words "it is obvious" or "we can all see". A major function of the lead is clarification/disobfuscation of nomenclature. To me, it is not "obvious" that Bob is the nickname by which a Robert primarily goes (he may also go by Robb, Rob, Robby, or Robbie; a Charles may go by Chuck or Chas; a John may go by Jack or, to complicate things, may itself be a shortening of Johnathan. That a nickname is used and preferred by the subject himself/herself is immaterial; [[Teddy Roosevelt]] hated "Teddy" but it was and is such a common nickname for the person that the lead must mention it. Finally, an English-language reader unfamiliar with common Western nicknaming conventions should not be expected to refer to a lookup table to realize that certain nicknames are proper to certain fuller names. There are many that are less obvious than others. [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
: Why would the U.S. Army care about identifying small-town mayors in Louisiana during World War I? Was Louisiana one of the Central Powers? Of course not. But this hook is rather misleading. --[[Special:Contributions/74.13.125.9|74.13.125.9]] ([[User talk:74.13.125.9|talk]]) 15:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


This one was hard to find a hook. The Army required doughboys to have a middle initial as a minimum for identification. I tried to rewrite it.[[User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] ([[User talk:Billy Hathorn|talk]]) 20:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
== Name spellings in different languages ==


*... that '''[[John Harber Phillips]]''', who [[Defense (legal)|defended]] [[Lindy Chamberlain]] on a charge of [[Azaria Chamberlain disappearance|murdering her baby Azaria]], later became [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]]'s first [[Director of Public Prosecutions]] and subsequently the [[List of Judges of the Supreme Court of Victoria|Chief Justice]] of the [[Supreme Court of Victoria|Supreme Court]]? -- new article by {{user|Assize}}, nom. by [[User:PFHLai|PFHLai]] ([[User talk:PFHLai|talk]]) 02:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if this is in the archives somewhere and I missed it. There's a dispute on [[talk:Hashim Thaçi]] over the subject's name. For those who are not familiar with Balkan politics, Thaci is the prime minister of Kosovo. His name is Albanian, and English-language sources generally transliterate to '''Hashim Thaci'''. The dispute is whether to include the Serbo-Croatian transliteration ('''Хашим Тачи''') as well. The reasoning behind this (and my personal belief as well) is that he was born in Kosovo at a time when it was a part of the Serbia republic in Yugoslavia. However, as Serbia denies Kosovo's right to secede, there are nationalist implications in including the transliteration. There are Serbian-language sources which use this version of his name, but I don't see any clear guidance in the MOS on how to handle this. Opinions are appreciated. // [[User:dchall1|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#006400">'''Chris'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:dchall1|<span style="color:#006400">(complaints)</span>]]•[[:Special:Contributions/dchall1|<span style="color:#006400">(contribs)</span>]]</sup> 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
:*ALT:... that '''[[John Harber Phillips]]''', the [[Attorney at law|legal counsel]] who [[Defense (legal)|defended]] [[Lindy Chamberlain]] on a charge of [[Azaria Chamberlain disappearance|murdering her baby Azaria]], later became the first [[Director of Public Prosecutions]] in [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]], [[Australia]]? --[[User:PFHLai|PFHLai]] ([[User talk:PFHLai|talk]]) 02:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:*ALT:... that '''[[John Harber Phillips]]''', the [[Attorney at law|legal counsel]] who [[Defense (legal)|defended]] [[Lindy Chamberlain]] on a charge of [[Azaria Chamberlain disappearance|murdering her baby Azaria]], later became the [[List of Judges of the Supreme Court of Victoria|Chief Justice]] of the [[Supreme Court of Victoria|Supreme Court]] of [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]], [[Australia]]? --[[User:PFHLai|PFHLai]] ([[User talk:PFHLai|talk]]) 02:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


===Articles created/expanded on October 5===
== Religious Honorific prefixes - Rabbi ==


<!-- PLEASE leave spaces between the nominations. It helps those reviewing ... and picking -->
Hello.


[[Image:Tate Britain front.jpg|right|100x100px]]
I believe there is a bit of an ambiguity regarding religious-based honorific prefixes in an article's lede, in particular, the term "Rabbi." Granted, the term itself is inherently ambiguous, as it can be bestowed to someone for passing certain religious exams, it can be bestowed on someone by their functioning as a congregation leader (pulpit Rabbi) even without formal ordination, sometimes it refers to teachers in religious schools, and sometimes it is used to refer to Jewish people, even if there is no indication of their ordination or occupation as such.
*... that before '''[[Charles Aitken]]''' (1869–1936) installed electric lighting, the [[Tate]] gallery ''(pictured)'' was cleared of visitors on dark and foggy days? -- new article by [[User:Jack1956]]; Nom by '''''[[User:Tyrenius|<font color="#880088">Ty</font>]]''''' 07:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[Chicago Bulls]] and [[Chicago White Sox]] owner '''[[Jerry Reinsdorf]]''' is a [[Certified Public Accountant|C.P.A.]] and lawyer whose first job assignment was the [[delinquency]] of then-White Sox owner [[Bill Veeck]]?--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTM]]) </small> 20:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The article in direct question here is [[Yisroel Dovid Weiss]]. We have no reliable sources that this person received [[semicha]]. Nor is there any indication that he serves as a leader of a congregation or a teacher in a [[yeshiva]]. However, he as been referred to as "Rabbi Weiss" in print. Therefore, I believe the term Rabbi is inappropriate in the lede, as opposed to someone like [[Moshe Feinstein]], who was universally known as "Reb Moshe", the honorific being the primary name used, similar to [[Mother Theresa]]
** Currently, only 3.8x. Hope to get to 5x by the end of the week.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTM]]) </small> 20:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
***Now at 4.7x.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTM]]) </small> 03:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
****Now over 5x.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTM]]) </small> 13:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Pine Creek from Otter Vista, horizontal.JPG|right|100x100px]]
I would appreciate your respective comments on the matter. Thank you. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
*... that '''[[Leonard Harrison]]''' helped cut [[lumber]] in the [[Pine Creek Gorge]] in the late 1800s, then donated [[Leonard Harrison State Park]] ''(pictured)'' in the gorge to [[Pennsylvania]] in 1922? New article by [[User:Dincher|Dincher]] and [[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]], self-nom by [[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] '''[[User talk:Ruhrfisch|<sub><font color="green">&gt;&lt;&gt;</font></sub><small>&deg;</small><sup><small>&deg;</small></sup>]]''' 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC) (About 1/3 of the article is originally from the [[Leonard Harrison State Park]] article, which Dincher is the main contributor to).
: A rabbi is a title that almost all spiritual Jewish leaders of some standing have. true reb moshe was a bigger rabbi than rabbi [[Avi Shafran]], but if "all" the outlets of media and information of the world bestow on them the title rabbi we are not in the position to change the world. and if they call all nuns mother as the honorific we would also do it. i agree that if some sources do not call the subject a rabbi we in wikipedia should not take sides on this question and we can leave out the word rabbi, but the case at hand is different all the sources do indeed call it with the word rabbi, not one of them calls him plain mr. or without the word rabbi attached. thanks--[[User:Yidisheryid|YY]] ([[User talk:Yidisheryid|talk]]) 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
::Shafran '''is''' referred to as a Rabbi in the article, but not given the honorific prefix in the first sentence per the current MoS. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
::: Haha that was done by u Avi after consensus was against u in this regard and now u even want to adopt it here as policy because other users play by the rules and do not revert excessively. time will tell if the community will suffer such conduct--[[User:Yidisheryid|YY]] ([[User talk:Yidisheryid|talk]]) 22:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
::::The phrase "…Shafran is a Haredi rabbi…" was in the article long before I edited the page. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 01:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::For what it's worth, I think that the examples of [[Athanasius of Alexandria]] and similar major religious figures might be the ones to follow here. In that instance, the subject was the Patriarch or Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church, arguably that body's single most important position, and the person in that post is generally referred to as "Pope" by the members of the church. However, that is a comparatively small body today, and he is most widely known by the world today as simply [[Athanasius of Alexandria]], which is how the article is titled. That does not rule out using the honorific in the bolded name beginning the article, though. Even other religious figures who are generally best known by their honorific and family name, including [[Father Coughlin]], the host of a very popular nationally distributed US radio show, do not use that as the title of the article, so I think there is clear precedent that we should not use the honorifics in the title of the article. However, if appropriate, it is certainly possible to create redirects which lead to the main article if they would be of help, and there are no particular reservations about doing so if there is just cause. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


*... that the '''[[Oregon State Bar]]''' was the first [[bar association]] in the U.S. to provide complete access to all attorney records it keeps, but only after a lawsuit? (self) [[User:Aboutmovies|Aboutmovies]] ([[User talk:Aboutmovies|talk]]) 07:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi: There has never been a hard-and-fast-rule on Wikipedia about how to ''exactly'' ascertain, prove or validate if ''anyone'' is truly a 100% "rabbi" in the classical Halachic sense of the word. For example, not every [[rosh yeshiva]] has formal [[semicha]] ("[rabbinic] ordination"), see [[Semicha#Not all present-day rabbis have semicha|Not all present-day rabbis have semicha]], and not every Jew who has received a semicha ever serves as a rabbi, so that if an individual is commonly referred to, reported by the media as one, and even has a following who considers him as such, then there is no "law" in Judaism or in the world that can remove or repress that individual's claim to be '''''called''''' a "Rabbi" (regardless if he is one with semicha or not, and there are so many grades of semicha that not everyone accepts everyone else's in any case) -- indeed, it is common practice that out of common courtesy, many Haredi and Hasidic men are called or addressed as "rabbi" (even if they turn around and say, "oh, I am not a [real] rabbi") and they hold no rabbinic position and have never served as rabbis. As for the question if the title "Rabbi" should be included as the first word in the biography of a subject, there has never been one consistent policy on this and it's doubtful if there ever will be because there are just too many individuals and variables at work. For example, some of the greatest sages of the Talmud did not have the title "rabbi" and many great sages over the millenia were never formal "rabbis" but were philosophers or merchants and traders and never called themselves "rabbi" anything. The situation in modern times is even more confusing and it is safe to say that the title "rabbi" has become essentially meaningless unless one knows the exact people involved. Thus, this entire discussion is moot and almost pointless. Thanks, [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] ([[User talk:IZAK|talk]]) 05:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


*... that architect '''[[Sidney Eisenshtat]]''' designed a futuristic [[synagogue]] called The House of the Book that was later a filming location for ''[[Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country]]''?-- new article self-nom by [[User:Arxiloxos|Arxiloxos]] ([[User talk:Arxiloxos|talk]]) 05:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
== Religious honorifics - Christian Bishops and Hierarchs ==


*... that the '''[[Adriatic LNG terminal]]''' is the world's first offshore [[liquid natural gas]] [[List of LNG terminals|terminal]]? -- new article self-nom by --[[User:PatrickFlaherty|Patrick]] ([[User talk:PatrickFlaherty|talk]]) 01:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the current rules for Popes be extended to all Christian bishops. There is inconsistency now, for example:
::[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] Date, size and reference are fine. [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 11:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Apirak campaign poster, Bangkok 2008.jpg|right|100x100px|Campaign poster for Apirak Kosayothin in the 2008 Bangkok gubernatorial election]]
[[Herman (Swaiko)]] begins, "His Beatitude, Metropolitan Herman (Swaiko)".
*... that pedestrians have been injured by falling campaign posters ''(example pictured)'' in the '''[[Bangkok gubernatorial election, 2008|2008 Bangkok gubernatorial election]]'''? -- new article self-nom by [[User:Paul_012|Paul_012]] <sup>([[User talk:Paul_012|talk]])</sup> 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:*... that the '''[[Bangkok gubernatorial election, 2008|2008 Bangkok gubernatorial election]]''' campaign ''(poster pictured)'' saw candidates bathing in a canal and punching a journalist? -- new article self-nom by [[User:Paul_012|Paul_012]] <sup>([[User talk:Paul_012|talk]])</sup> 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:*... that [[Apirak Kosayothin]] won the '''[[Bangkok gubernatorial election, 2008|2008 Bangkok gubernatorial election]]''', becoming the second governor to be re-elected after [[Chamlong Srimuang]], who was arrested at a polling station on the election day? -- new article self-nom by [[User:Paul_012|Paul_012]] <sup>([[User talk:Paul_012|talk]])</sup> 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC), reworded 17:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::The second one is the best I think. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]''' (''[[User talk:YellowMonkey#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_Australia_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics|<font color="#FA8605">click here to choose Australia's next top model</font>]]'') 07:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree. The second hook is truly hilarious. --[[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] ([[User talk:BorgQueen|talk]]) 06:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that, as a teenager, [[American Civil War]] [[Confederate States Army|Confederate]] [[Brigadier general (United States)|brigadier general]] '''[[Richard Waterhouse (general)|Richard Waterhouse]]''' ran away from home to fight in the [[Mexican–American War]]? new article by [[User:AdjustShift|AdjustShift]] ([[User talk:AdjustShift|talk]]) 13:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Katharine Jefferts Schori]] begins, "The Most Reverend Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori".


*... that [[Eduardo Galeano]]'s 1978 revolutionary chronicle '''''[[Days and Nights of Love and War]]''''' inspired [[anarchist]] collective [[CrimethInc.]] to write their manifesto ''[[Days of War, Nights of Love]]'' 22 years later? Self-nom by <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">the skomorokh</font>]]</font> 00:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Philip Saliba]] begins, "His Eminence the Most Reverend Philip (Saliba)".


[[Image:The Wrestler (Olmec) by DeLange.jpg|right|100x100px]]
[[Cardinal Law]] begins, "Bernard Francis Cardinal Law".
*... that art historian [[George Kubler]] declared '''[[The Wrestler (sculpture)|the "Wrestler"]]''', an ancient [[Olmec]] statuette, "among the great works of sculpture of all ages"? Self-nom, [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 02:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:*ALT:... that based on comparison with historical [[Native American]] rituals, the ancient [[Olmec]] statuette "'''[[The Wrestler (sculpture)|the Wrestler]]'''", despite its current name, may actually depict a [[shaman]] instead of a [[wrestler]]? --[[Special:Contributions/74.13.125.9|74.13.125.9]] ([[User talk:74.13.125.9|talk]]) 15:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::I feel that the "among the great works of sculpture of all ages" is more striking and meaningful to more people. Moreover, Kubler is more notable than the fellow who argued it was a shaman. [[User:Madman2001|Madman]] ([[User talk:Madman2001|talk]]) 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that the '''[[Zionist Socialist Workers Party]]''' broke with the [[World Zionist Organization]], after the 1905 WZO congress had rejected the [[British Uganda Programme|proposal to resettle Jews in East Africa]]? (self-nom) --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 22:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Rowan Williams]] begins, "Rowan Douglas Williams".
:[[Image:Pictogram voting keep.svg|18px]] Length, date verified; offline hook reference accepted in good faith. --[[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|talk]]) 22:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::all books available on google books. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 09:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that two companies with the name '''[[Oregon Central Railroad]]''' both claimed the same federal [[land grants]]? self-nom --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 20:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest they should read:


*<s>... that '''[[Enrique Nieto]]''', not to be confused with Mexican politician Enrique Peña Nieto, was a noted [[Modernisme]] architect and later [[Melilla]] city architect who contributed to the making Melilla the second largest concentration of that style after Barcelona as well as the designer of the Holy Light Synagogue and Central Mosque? - self nom [[User:Chergles|Chergles]] 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Metropolitan Herman (Swaiko)
:or just ... that '''[[Enrique Nieto]]''', not to be confused with Mexican politician Enrique Peña Nieto, was a noted [[Modernisme]] architect and later [[Melilla]] city architect who contributed to the making Melilla the second largest concentration of that style after Barcelona? </s> ::[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Enrique_Nieto#DYK_criteria [[User:Chergles|Chergles]] ([[User talk:Chergles|talk]]) 22:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px|This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues]] The first hook is 325 characters and the second is 253. <font color="#3300ff">[[User:Thingg|Thingg]]</font><sup><font color="#33ff00">[[User talk:Thingg|&#8853;]]</font></sup><sup><font color="#ff0033">[[Special:Contributions/Thingg|&#8855;]]</font></sup> 23:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Note that the author checked his own submission. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 23:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::or just ... that '''[[Enrique Nieto]]''', not to be confused with Mexican politician of the same name, was a noted [[Modernisme]] architect and contributed to the making Melilla the second largest concentration of that style?
::::::<s>[[:Image:Symbol confirmed.svg]]</s> shortened to fit criteria! [[User:Chergles|Chergles]] ([[User talk:Chergles|talk]]) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Please don't tick your own submissions, let others review them. I don't see a need to say in the hook that Nieto is not the Mexican politician. "Contributed to the making Melilla" is ungrammatical. More seriously, what makes [http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/ this website] a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]? The [http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/melilla/architecture.html page you reference] says "Some of the information on this page come from a Wikipedia article", which means for Wikipedia purposes it probably isn't a reliable source. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry for the ticking, just wanted to help. You can do the ticking. I did do a good faith review of the DYK criteria which is on the article's talk page. I have also fixed the references and reworded the hook per some suggestions. Thank you. [[User:Chergles|Chergles]] ([[User talk:Chergles|talk]]) 17:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::New hook:<br />
:::*... that '''[[Enrique Nieto]]''' was an early Modernisme architect in Melilla who designed the main synagogue, the Central Mosque, and several buildings for the Catholic Church the Spanish enclave in Africa.
:::::(omitted from the hook but very interesting is that Melilla has the largest concentration of Modernisme architecture in the world after Barcelona...saw it but lost the reference, hence it is not included in the hook). [[User:Chergles|Chergles]] ([[User talk:Chergles|talk]]) 17:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::OK, I think we're nearly there - the references are better for this hook. Mind if I reword it slightly? How about this &ndash; ?
::::::*... that the [[Modernisme]] architect '''[[Enrique Nieto]]''' not only designed the main [[synagogue]] in [[Melilla]], but also the Central [[Mosque]] and several [[Catholic church]] buildings?
::::::[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] for my reworded hook, but feel free to reword - I was struck by the fact that he'd designed buildings for three faiths and tried to emphasize that more in the hook. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 05:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Bonne Citoyenne and Furieuse.jpg|right|100x100px]]
Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori
* ... that [[Captain (Royal Navy)|Captain]] '''[[William Mounsey]]''', in command of the much smaller '''[[HMS Bonne Citoyenne (1796)|HMS ''Bonne Citoyenne'']]''', captured a [[frigate]] ''(pictured)'' and later commanded her as '''[[HMS Furieuse (1809)|HMS ''Furieuse'']]'''? - new articles, self noms, [[User:Benea|Benea]] ([[User talk:Benea|talk]]) 19:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[Tropical Storm Karina (2008)|Tropical Storm Karina]]''' was the shortest-lived storm in the [[2008 Pacific hurricane season]]? Self-nomination [[User:Cyclonebiskit|Cyclonebiskit]] ([[User talk:Cyclonebiskit|talk]]) 19:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Metropolitan Philip (Saliba)
**The season is ongoing; it's still possible for another storm to achieve greater brevity. Could you change the wording of the hook the reflect that? &ndash;[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 18:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


* ... that '''[[Nathan Hale (character)|Nathan Hale]]''' is the main protagonist as well as the player character of [[Resistance: Fall of Man]] and [[Resistance 2]]? -- (self nom) [[User:Poxnar|Poxnar]] ([[User talk:Poxnar|talk]]) 16:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Bernard Francis Cardinal Law


[[Image:US National Debt crop.jpg|right|100x100px|National Debt Clock]]
Archbishop Rowan Williams
* ... that the '''[[National Debt Clock]]''' ''(pictured)'' in [[Manhattan]] ran out of digits on 30 September 2008, when the [[United States public debt]] passed the $10&nbsp;trillion mark? --(self nom)<span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[User talk:Everyme|Everyme]]'''''</span> 15:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:*[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] Length, date and fact referencing verified. Nice hook fact, it caught my attention. [[User:JamieS93|'''<font face="Bradley Hand ITC" size="2px" color="green">Jamie</font>''']]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/JamieS93|☆]]</sup>[[User talk:JamieS93|'''<font face="Bradley Hand ITC" size="2px" color="blue">S93</font>''']] 21:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


* ... that the [[Tang Dynasty]] [[chancellor of Tang Dynasty|chancellor]] '''[[Chang Gun]]''' was demoted over [[Emperor Dezong of Tang|Emperor Dezong]]'s erroneous belief that he had falsified signatures from his colleagues [[Guo Ziyi]] and [[Zhu Ci]]? (self-nomination) --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 15:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments?
[[User:Mrhsj|Mrhsj]] ([[User talk:Mrhsj|talk]]) 05:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:I agree that we don't need the honorifics, but neither do I think it's necessary to add "Bishop" or "Archbishop" etc in front of the name (most articles do not do so at present) unless it effectively becomes part of the name, as it does with cardinals and Eastern Orthodox bishops. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 10:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:: Okay, how about this: 'Christian prelates should ordinarily be identified simply by their names. Titles should be included only when they are in such common use as to be practically part of the person's name, as is the case with Popes, Cardinals, and Eastern Orthodox Bishops who are known primarily by their first name. Thus "Pope Benedict XVI...", "Bernard Francis Cardinal Law...", and "Patriarch Alexius II" are correct, as is "Rowan Douglas Williams... is Archbishop of Canterbury."' Honorifics such as "His Holiness" or "The Right Reverend" should not be used except when specifically discussing formal modes of address.'
:::That seems like a good idea. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I believe that the mos is Title Name See like [[Archbishop Demetrios of America]], [[Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople]], etc. If the person has served more that one post, the highest or most recent goes as the title. I dont like the last name thing at all, that was just taken from Orthodoxwiki and assumed policy, but if we do decide to keep it, there are some examples of it such as [[Metropolitan Methodios (Tournas) of Boston]]. Also, keep in mind that common names override the policy such as in the case of [[Cardinal Law]], where that is what he is most known by. [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 19:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i found the naming convention. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28Western_clergy%29#Patriarchs click this] There is no new mos to make since one already exists. [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 19:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
: Thank you! That's a big help. I have modified this article to just make clear that the policy on honorifics applies to all clergy, not just popes, and added a link to the article you cited. [[User:Mrhsj|Mrhsj]] ([[User talk:Mrhsj|talk]]) 19:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
: That appears to be the article naming policy not their use inline. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 20:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[Kang Hye-jeong]] made her feature film debut in '''''[[Nabi (film)|Nabi]]''''', and won Best Actress at the [[Puchon International Fantastic Film Festival]]? -- self nom, [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 13:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
===extended debate: Buddhist clergy===


*... that the '''[[MSSR rifle]]''' was created by the [[Philippine Marine Corps#Marine Scout Snipers|Philippine Marine Corps Scout Snipers]] from the [[M16 rifle]] due to budget problems and the lack of a dedicated [[sniper rifle]]? - Self-nominated [[User:Ominae|Ominae]] ([[User talk:Ominae|talk]]) 08:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the discussion above: what is the police according to titles, honorifics and styles regarding Buddhist clergy? It seems that a lot of pages about Buddhist monks, especially about [[Theravada Buddhism|Theravada Buddhist monks]] (see Category:Theravada Buddhist monks), begin with the horific style "[[Venerable (Buddhism)|Venerable]]". For example: [[Ajahn Khemadhammo]], [[Balangoda Ananda Maitreya]], [[Chah Subhatto]], [[Chanmyay Sayadaw]], [[Gangodawila Soma Thero]]. I tried to remove the style at some of the pages, since I think it is against Wikipedia guidelines, however some people (very aggressively) reverted my removal of this style. Can we have a more clear guideline about this too? [[User:Demophon|Demophon]] ([[User talk:Demophon|talk]]) 13:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:I have removed the honorific prefixes "venerable", according to WP:MOSBIO. [[User:Demophon|Demophon]] ([[User talk:Demophon|talk]]) 09:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::And that is entirely correct according to WP guidelines. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Agreed. [[User:Ripe|Ripe]] ([[User talk:Ripe|talk]]) 20:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Well actually, a proper guidline is missing in the [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy)]] how Buddhist monks or Hindu priests should be named correctly in Wikipedia. Okay, not to use the honorific style "Venerable" (in English) is very obvious, however it seems that there are many Buddhistic or Hinduistic honorific styles that are comparable with for example "Venerable", like "[[Sayadaw]]", which means 'venerable teacher'. Allowed to use or not? Or the Hindu honorific "[[Sri]]", which also means 'venerable' (Besides for people, it is also used in the name of the country [[Sri Lanka]], which means ''venerable'' island). What to do with that? [[User:Demophon|Demophon]] ([[User talk:Demophon|talk]]) 21:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[Arthur Wimperis]]''', after a long career as a songwriter and librettist for British [[musical theatre|musical comedies]], became an [[Academy Award]]-winning screenwriter in [[Hollywood]]? (self nom) -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 06:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
== MOS, marginal celebrity, fear of stalkers ==
:*His ''Times'' obit notes that his ship was torpedoed on the way to the US, perhaps add "surviving a torpedo attack on the way" to the end of the hook? (Should still be inside the character limit). [[User:David Underdown|David Underdown]] ([[User talk:David Underdown|talk]]) 12:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::It's OK with me, although it might be too complex for a hook. I'll leave it to the DYK hook experts. Feel free to add or not! -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that the [[Wales|Welsh]] inventor '''[[Edwin Stevens]]''' devised the world's first wearable electronic [[hearing aid]]? new/self-nom by [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 06:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been watching the article [[:DJ Sassy]] since coming upon it at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Sassy|AfD and essentially helping to save it from deletion for promotional and notability concerns]]. There have been some subsequent COI issues with the subject's webmaster, but he understands our processes now and has been properly requesting changes. He requests that we remove the subject's birthname from the article and utilize only her professional pseudonym. Evidently, she has been troubled by stalkers. As a celebrity, she is not governed by BLP's policy on respecting the privacy of names. Her name appears in many of the sources used in the article and is in fact the title of the IMDb profile which is linked on the page. MOS calls for the full name. On the other hand, I'm not interested in contributing to a woman's feeling unsafe, and as she is only marginally notable by WP standards her name doesn't seem essential, MOS notwithstanding. I'm not sure how much protection removing her name from the article's body can offer, since it's still visible on the page in the sources. But...


I've gone on and ahead and converted to her pseudonym by their request because it doesn't seem like that big a deal. But I thought to bring it up here for possible review in case others disagree. :) Feedback welcome. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 13:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
*... that an [[oil painting]] by '''[[Ryūsei Kishida]]''' was auctioned for 7.731 billion [[yen]], the highest price ever achieved for a [[Japanese painting]] in December 2000? (self-nom) --[[User:MChew|MChew]] ([[User talk:MChew|talk]]) 06:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:From my point of view, if she is already being stalked, removal of the information from the artictle will not prevent that stalker. If she is worried that future/potential stalkers may glean information from Wikipedia, I don't think that we can [[WP:CENSOR|censor]] verified information that is in other publicly available forums (including links from the WP article) based on fear of potential weirdos finding it on WP first. However, [[WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information]] may apply. This topic is probably more properly addressed in the [[WP:BLP]] forum. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheRedPenOfDoom|contribs]]) 26 May 2008</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


[[Image:Archangel ivory.jpg|right|60px|]]
::Thanks for the feedback. :) I did consider placing it over there, but decided this would probably be a better forum in this case as I've done a lot of volunteering on that noticeboard and feel pretty confident that there's no governance of BLP's privacy of personal information here. She is a celebrity whose legal name has been frequently identified in the press and not a private individual. Generally articles I've seen where celebrities have successfully appealed there for removal of birth names have been cases where clear efforts have been made to keep birth names out of press and sources for the birthname have been unreliable. (The example that comes to mind is an outspoken anti-religious commentator who appears in clownface.) I definitely agree with you that removal of the information will not prevent stalkers (I believe she is more concerned about future repetition, not an existing stalker), particularly as the linked sources still contain the name and are visibly displayed. I pointed this out to the website manager, but he and the subject evidently are still hoping for an exception here. I brought it up here as a question of how strictly other Wikipedians felt we should adhere to this styleguide under the circumstances. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 16:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
* ... that the 6th-century '''[[Archangel ivory]]''' ''(pictured)'', depicting the [[archangel]] [[Michael (angel)|Michael]] holding a [[sceptre]] and [[Globus cruciger|imperial orb]], is the largest surviving [[Byzantine art|Byzantine]] [[ivory carving]]? (self-nom) --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] ([[User talk:Delirium|talk]]) 04:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
**[[Image:Pictogram voting keep.svg|18px]] Length and date verified; offline reference accepted on good faith. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 22:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


* ... that the [[Tang Dynasty]] official '''[[Yang Wan]]''' declined a customary stipend as a senior official of his rank and distributed the stipend to his colleagues? (self-nomination) --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 02:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
==Ireland/Northern Ireland==
A problem I came across recently: how do we describe/categorise people from the north of Ireland who may have died in the late 1920s or 1930s in Northern Ireland, but who lived most of their lives in an undivided Ireland? I don't want to open the whole ethnicity debate again - this is about anachronistic terminology. Should someone be described as ''Northern'' Irish if for most of their lives Northern Ireland didn't exist? Should, for instance, a barrister who practised in Belfast (when it was in an undivided Ireland) for fifty years, but died in 1930 eight years after the creation of Northern Ireland, be categorised in [[:Category:Irish barristers]] or [[:Category:Northern Irish barristers]] or possibly both? -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


* ... that the [[manga]] '''''[[Black God (manga)|Black God]]''''' was created by a Korean [[manhwa]] team, all of them not knowing the [[Japanese language]]? - Self-nom [[User:Ominae|Ominae]] ([[User talk:Ominae|talk]]) 01:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:I think it would be safer to put the person into both categories. I suppose one can rationalize that he was a barrister in both the undivided Ireland and in Northern Ireland after it was created. But your question highlights the confusion created by the fact that the scope of "[[:Category:Irish barristers]]" is unclear – barristers who claim Irish ancestry? who lived in the historical undivided Ireland? who came from the Republic of Ireland? all of them? This is a matter that may be worth clarifying on the category's talk page. — Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 18:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
**<s>The manga title needs to be italicized, per [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(titles)#Italics]]. --[[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] ([[User talk:BorgQueen|talk]]) 04:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)</s>
***<s>Whoops! My bad! [[User:Ominae|Ominae]] ([[User talk:Ominae|talk]]) 04:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)</s>


*... that [[Norway|Norwegian]] [[piano]] manufacturer '''[[Karl Hals]]''' was also active in politics for the [[Conservative Party of Norway|Conservative Party]]? -- self-nom by [[User:Punkmorten|Punkmorten]] ([[User talk:Punkmorten|talk]]) 19:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
== Historical usage for place of birth ==
:[[Image:Pictogram voting keep.svg|18px]] Length, date verified; foreign-language hook reference accepted in good faith. --[[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|talk]]) 22:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrei_Arlovski&diff=prev&oldid=227033529 this edit] I changed the person's place of birth from Belarus to Byelorussian SSR, considering that until 1991 Belarus did not exists as a country, and figuring that historical accuracy should take precedence. I've done this many times with other biographies but until now I didn't actually go and look to see if our Manual of Style had any advice on this issue. I've looked and I can't find anything on the matter, so I came here. My question: should place of birth reflect historical accuracy or comtemporary country and city names? If this hasn't been addressed in MOS:BIO yet someone should add it in. Thanks. --[[Special:Contributions/71.112.145.203|71.112.145.203]] ([[User talk:71.112.145.203|talk]]) 18:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, you are quite correct; it should be listed by its name when the person was born there, possibly with a note as to its current name. But the contemporary name should take precedence. Revisionism is never a good thing. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 18:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[Orson Welles]] took the role of Hastler in his 1962 film '''''[[The Trial (1962 film)|The Trial]]''''' after comic actor [[Jackie Gleason]] turned down the part? (5x expansion, from the original 1,082-character article to the new 6,654-character rewrite, self-nom). [[User:Ecoleetage|Ecoleetage]] ([[User talk:Ecoleetage|talk]]) 20:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
== Pseudonym used in biography before pseudonym even used by subject ==
:*[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] Length, date and fact referencing verified. [[User:JamieS93|'''<font face="Bradley Hand ITC" size="2px" color="green">Jamie</font>''']]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/JamieS93|☆]]</sup>[[User talk:JamieS93|'''<font face="Bradley Hand ITC" size="2px" color="blue">S93</font>''']] 21:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[Jack Montgomery (Louisiana politician)|Jack Montgomery]]''', a [[Louisiana State Legislature|Louisiana state senator]] from [[1968]] to [[1972]], was preceded and succeeded in the post by [[Harold Montgomery]], and they were unrelated?--self-nom [[User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] ([[User talk:Billy Hathorn|talk]]) 21:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
If a person changes their name at some point, should the text of the biography use their given name to refer to the subject until the name change occurs?


*... that the [[Columbia Broadcasting System|CBS]] [[sitcom]] '''[[The New Loretta Young Show]]''' ([[1962]]&ndash;[[1963]]) featured [[Loretta Young]] as a free-lance writer in [[Connecticut]] and the [[widowed]] mother of seven children?--self-nom [[User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] ([[User talk:Billy Hathorn|talk]]) 02:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Example: Look at [[Hulk Hogan]]. He was born Terry Gene Bollea and didn't take his more commonly-used name until partway through his wrestling career. Yet there are sentences like, "Hogan was born in [[Augusta, Georgia]], the son of Ruth, a homemaker and dance teacher, and Peter Bollea, a construction foreman.", and "Hogan was also a skilled musician, spending ten years playing [[bass guitar]] in several [[Florida]]-based [[rock and roll|rock]] bands." Wouldn't it make sense to use his given surname until he adopts the nickname later on? I don't see any guidelines for this situation. [[User:Rawr|Rawr]] ([[User talk:Rawr|talk]]) 19:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:OR
:*... that the [[1962]]&mdash;[[1963]] [[Columbia Broadcasting System|CBS]] [[sitcom]] '''[[The New Loretta Young Show]]''' introduced audiences to later stars [[Dack Rambo]] and [[Ted Knight]]?--self-nom [[User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] ([[User talk:Billy Hathorn|talk]]) 02:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::I prefer this one. The first one is akin to "Late Night with David Letterman featured David Letterman, a married man. The second one is good. [[User:Chergles|Chergles]] ([[User talk:Chergles|talk]]) 18:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Wynkoop House, Saugerties, NY.jpg|100x100px|right]]
:I think it's fine and less confusing to use a person's pseudonym throughout, though the first sentence of your example might be rephrased, "Hogan was born Terry Gene Bollea in Augusta, Georgia, ..." — Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 05:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*... that unlike other [[Dutch colonization of the Americas|Dutch Colonial]] stone houses in the [[Hudson Valley]], the '''[[Wynkoop House]]''' ''(pictured)'' has no stone with the builder's initials? Self-nom [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 06:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*... that [[Australia]]n politican '''[[Charlie Lynn]]''' held the New South Wales 24-hour Ultra Marathon record in 1985 and 1986? [[User:Assize|Assize]] ([[User talk:Assize|talk]]) 11:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


==Expiring noms==
==Small postnominals==
===Articles created/expanded on October 4===
This is a discussion I've had with other editors in the past, but I notice that an editor has started to change some inline postnominal letters in biographies of British statesmen to small font (e.g. [[Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis]]). When challenged, he said it looked better and it should be changed in all biographies. I disagree. I believe the normal sized postnominals look better and, moreover, it is normal usage outside Wikipedia to put postnoms in exactly the same sized font as the name. This is something that should not unilaterally be introduced without discussion because one editor thinks it looks better. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 19:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
<!-- PLEASE leave spaces between the nominations. It helps those reviewing ... and picking -->
:Let's just be clear that I didn't instigate this on my own; I've followed on other bio articles that have the post-nominal letters in a small format. It was some time ago I first saw the style, and I have altered a number of articles to follow suit since then; nobody has made an issue of it until now. Obviously, I prefer the smaller format; I find "[[Field Marshal]] '''Harold Rupert Leofric George Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis''' <small>[[Order of the Garter|KG]] [[Order of Merit|OM]] [[Order of the Bath|GCB]] [[Order of St Michael and St George|GCMG]] [[Order of the Star of India|CSI]] [[Distinguished Service Order|DSO]] [[Military Cross|MC]] [[Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council|PC]] [[Queen's Privy Council for Canada|PC]]</small>" to be far less obtrusive than "[[Field Marshal]] '''Harold Rupert Leofric George Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis''' [[Order of the Garter|KG]] [[Order of Merit|OM]] [[Order of the Bath|GCB]] [[Order of St Michael and St George|GCMG]] [[Order of the Star of India|CSI]] [[Distinguished Service Order|DSO]] [[Military Cross|MC]] [[Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council|PC]] [[Queen's Privy Council for Canada|PC]]," or, worse, "[[Field Marshal]] '''Harold Rupert Leofric George Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis''', [[Order of the Garter|K.G.]], [[Order of Merit|O.M.]], [[Order of the Bath|G.C.B.]], [[Order of St Michael and St George|G.C.M.G.]], [[Order of the Star of India|C.S.I.]], [[Distinguished Service Order|D.S.O.]], [[Military Cross|M.C.]], [[Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council|P.C.]], [[Queen's Privy Council for Canada|P.C.]]."</small>
::However, the ''vast'' majority of WP biographical articles (about 99%, I would say) use the normal-sized font for postnoms. And the use of full stops between the letters of an abbreviation is these days usually considered incorrect in Britain in any case (and should therefore certainly be changed if seen). But esentially, this is not an issue of one editor's preference over another's, but of normal usage, which is to use the same size font as the name (as any study of British official publications will establish). -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 19:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Perhaps those who normally publish the full names of individuals with all their post-nominal letters don't have the luxury of being able to make the font small. If there is some overriding style guide that stipulates all post-nominal letters must be full size capital letters, then let's see it. If such a thing does exist, then we could ask: why include the post-nominals in the body of the article at all, if they make such a mess? They're already included in the articles' infoboxes anyway, along with the honourific styles the subject was granted. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 19:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::First, they don't make a mess - that's only your opinion. They are correct form. Second, infoboxes are an optional extra and are not intended to replace anything within the article. In my personal opinion, it is they that make a mess of articles. Third, you ask for a style guide that says postnominals should be in full-size font - this is an odd statement, since I doubt if there's a style guide that says ''any'' of the article should be in full-size font, but it's sort of assumed! Why should this single part of the article be any different other than the fact that you don't happen to like it? -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::That they don't make a mess is only ''your'' opinion, which, so far anyway, seems to be a minority one. To make your opinion into a fact you would, as I said, have to provide some evidence that post-nominal letters ''must'' be put in full size font; not necessarily a Wikipedia style guide, but one from any official source. Until then, this is indeed a matter of personal takes, and rather a molehill struggling to be a mountain, I think. It would be nice if others weigned in on this; but, it seems that nobody particularly cares. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 01:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Excuse me? How can one against one make my opinion the minority one? There seems to be a little flaw in your logic. I suggest you look at the occupants of, for example, [[:Category:British Army generals]], to check the majority opinion. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I said it ''seems'' like a minority one, the evidence of which is the lack of support you have. I haven't seen anyone else dispute the use of small-font post nominals; they still remain in a number of articles, some for a year or more. If there's to be a guideline that stipulates what font size post nominal letters are to be, let's see one made. But, until then, there's nothing to say which way is right and which way is wrong. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 03:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with Necrothesp. I think small caps look silly in the article text, and they're certainly not written like that anywhere outside Wikipedia. (I also dislike the absence of commas - without them a long string of letters looks dreadful.) [[User:Proteus|Proteus]] [[User_talk:Proteus|(Talk)]] 11:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
:Well, to my humble opinion, a long line of small postnominals is more compact and doesn't use that many lines. And small postnominals don't look silly at all. [[User:Demophon|Demophon]] ([[User talk:Demophon|talk]]) 02:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
::I prefer normal-sized letters with commas for postnominals in the article text, but small caps for long lists of people with postnominals.--[[user:Ibagli|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Ibagli rnbs</span>]] ([[user talk:Ibagli|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Talk</span>]]) 23:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


<!--[[Image:Juvenile rockmover in Kona.jpgright|100x100px]]-->
== Sonja Elen Kisa ==
[[Image:Cleaning station konan.jpg|right|100x100px]]
*... that the marked difference in [[Visual appearance|appearance]] between [[Juvenile (organism)|juveniles]] and adults of '''''[[Novaculichthys taeniourus]]''''' ''(pictured)'' is so significant that they are referred to by different names? new article by [[user:mbz1]] and [[user:Wsiegmund]] self-nom by [[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 16:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:*ALT:... that [[Juvenile (organism)|juvenile]] and adult '''''[[Novaculichthys taeniourus]]''''' ''(pictured)'' are so different in [[Visual appearance|appearance]] they have different [[common name]]s? [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 22:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


*... <s>that more than a third of the foreign population of the [[Switzerland|Swiss]] city of [[Berne]] reside in the '''[[Bümpliz-Oberbottigen]]''' district?</s> -- new article by {{user|Sandstein}}, nom. by [[User:PFHLai|PFHLai]] ([[User talk:PFHLai|talk]]) 02:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Sonja Elen Kisa is a linguist who is male-to-female transsexual and who also has a Wikipedia account. Recently, she/he (depending on reader's [[transphobia|views on transsexuality]]), removed her birth namee (''Christian Richard'') from [[Sonja Elen Kisa]] article, violating [[WP:AB]] and [[WP:NAMES]] and using nonsense reference to [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Basic_human_dignity|Basic human dignity]] section of BLP.
:DYK? - took my a while to work out what the hook meant but surely if the district is large (or if there are only 3 foreigners) then this is not remarkable? [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] ([[User talk:Victuallers|talk]]) 09:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:*ALT:... that the lowest apartment rents in the [[Switzerland|Swiss]] city of [[Berne]] can be found in the western district of '''[[Bümpliz-Oberbottigen]]'''? -- new article by {{user|Sandstein}}, nom. by [[User:PFHLai|PFHLai]] ([[User talk:PFHLai|talk]]) 16:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:Niederbottigen.jpg|right|100x100px|Niederbottigen]]
::* or alternate: ... that '''[[Bümpliz-Oberbottigen]],''' a district of [[Berne]], Switzerland, contains rural hamlets ''(pictured)'', [[Baroque]] estates and [[Modern architecture|modernist]] highrise [[satellite town]]s? — Thanks, PFHLai! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that Julie Couillard's tell-all memoir '''''[[My Story (Julie Couillard)|My Story]]''''', which reveals confidential opinions that [[Maxime Bernier]] shared with Couillard, was released eight days before the [[Canadian federal election, 2008|Canadian federal election]] in which Bernier is seeking re-election? -- new article by [[User:Maclean25|maclean]] 20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, "Privacy of names" section of BLP does say that names can be ommited for persons of marginal notability.
:: Poll stations for Bernier's re-election open next Tuesday. Eight days before that was just two days ago. This book is already notable enough to get an article? --[[Special:Contributions/74.13.125.9|74.13.125.9]] ([[User talk:74.13.125.9|talk]]) 21:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Notable? Yes, it has been getting lots of press coverage and book reviews in all the national (and many local) newspapers and even an excerpt in the National Post. [http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&nolr=1&q=%22My+Story%22+Couillard&btnG=Search+News Google News] --[[User:Maclean25|maclean]] 06:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[Presenter#Television presenters|presenters]] '''[[Jay Burridge]]''' and [[Mark Speight]] created all of the art projects for the children's television show ''[[SMart]]''? Created as tiny stub by [[User:How do you turn this on|How do you turn this on]], expanded hours later by me. [[User:Gran2|Gran]]<sup>[[User talk:Gran2|2]]</sup> 15:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The question is what rule should apply in this case: [[WP:NAMES]] (one of its basic cornerstones, btw) or [[WP:BLP]] (one of its section)?


[[Image:Admiral John Gell.jpg|right|100x100px|Admiral John Gell]]
Generally, the situation with mentioned article is questionalbe. The photo of the subject was removed from the article because "''she does not want the photo to be here''". Would we have free-license photo, should we use it in the article? I don't think [[WP:BLP]] suggests that an article about a living person should only include things that the living person likes or wants. [[User:Netrat|Netrat]] ([[User talk:Netrat|talk]]) 10:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
*... that in 1793, '''[[John Gell (admiral)|Admiral John Gell]]''' ''(pictured)'' captured a [[Spain|Spanish]] ship that contained two million dollars and goods worth over 200,000 pounds? self nom [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] ([[User talk:Victuallers|talk]]) 15:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:The big question is: why was the birth name removed, is there a legitimate reason?
::"packages" sounds odd - "goods" or "cargo"? [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 01:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC) ok changed [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] ([[User talk:Victuallers|talk]]) 21:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:I have by-the-way more problems with the fact that there is a Wikipedia page about her at all. To me she is not important enough and I think we should put the notability-taq on top of that site. [[User:Demophon|Demophon]] ([[User talk:Demophon|talk]]) 18:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
::"''why was the birth name removed, is there a legitimate reason''" - it was removed by the subject just because the subject does not want this info to be public. When I srtressed out that Wikipedia is not governed by anybody's wishes, another user referred to "Privacy of names" section of BLP - for marginally notable people. Seems that there actually are rule for this case. However, there are also other rules such as WP:NAMES [[User:Netrat|Netrat]] ([[User talk:Netrat|talk]]) 10:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::''I have by-the-way more problems with the fact that there is a Wikipedia page about her at all'' - already merged to Toki Pona. [[User:Netrat|Netrat]] ([[User talk:Netrat|talk]]) 10:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Art Building Willamette front 2008.JPG|right|100x100px]]
== Alphabetization of names with a single letter following a given name ==
*... that the '''[[Art Building (Willamette University)|Art Building]]''' ''(pictured)'' is the third oldest building at [[Willamette University]] in [[Salem, Oregon]], but has been on campus longer than all but one other building? (self) [[User:Aboutmovies|Aboutmovies]] ([[User talk:Aboutmovies|talk]]) 06:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''''[[One Night the Moon]]''''', a 2001 Australian film depicting the search for a missing child, starring singer-songwriter [[Paul Kelly (musician)|Paul Kelly]], his then wife [[Kaarin Fairfax]] and their daughter Memphis Kelly, was inspired by [[Indigenous Australians|indigenous]] police tracker Alex Riley's work in the 1930s?--self-nom, --[[User:Shaidar cuebiyar|Shaidar cuebiyar]] ([[User talk:Shaidar cuebiyar|talk]]) 21:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
<small>I'm not sure where to discuss this so please move this discussion if you know of a better location and link to it from here. — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">[[User talk:AjaxSmack|<font style="color:#fef;background:navy;">''' AjaxSmack '''</font>]]</span> 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)</small>
:*[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px|This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues]] [[User:Art LaPella/Long hook|265 character hook.]] [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 04:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::*... that '''''[[One Night the Moon]]''''', a 2001 Australian film on a missing child, starring singer [[Paul Kelly (musician)|Paul Kelly]], his wife [[Kaarin Fairfax]] and daughter Memphis, was inspired by a 1930s [[Indigenous Australians|indigenous]] tracker Alex Riley?--trimmed back, --[[User:Shaidar cuebiyar|Shaidar cuebiyar]] ([[User talk:Shaidar cuebiyar|talk]]) 08:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:George Westcott.gif|right|100x100px]]
This question arises because of the use of [[:Template:DEFAULTSORT]] which sorts (alphabetizes) names for use in Wikipedia in categories. What is the English convention for alphabetization of names with a single letter following a given name? Some examples are [[Stevie B]], [[Marga T]], [[Eric B.]], and [[Schooly D]]. My contention is that, since these single letters are not legal surnames and, in some cases are not even derived from the surname initial (Stevie B and Schooly D), they should not be used for alphabetization. So, Stevie B would be sorted under Stevie, not B, Marga T under Marga, not T. (In the case of the music performers, this is also how they are usually alphabetized in US and UK music shops.) Any opinions? — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">[[User talk:AjaxSmack|<font style="color:#fef;background:navy;">''' AjaxSmack '''</font>]]</span> 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
*... that after [[Captain (Royal Navy)|Captain]] '''[[George Blagdon Westcott]]''' ''(pictured)'' was killed at the [[Battle of the Nile]], [[Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson|Horatio Nelson]] gave his own [[Campaign medal|medal]] from the battle to Westcott's family? - new article, self nom, [[User:Benea|Benea]] ([[User talk:Benea|talk]]) 21:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] Date and size are good; offline reference accepted on good faith and fact independently confirmed in Knight, ''The Pursuit of Victory'', p. 676. [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[British National (Overseas)]]''' was a [[British nationality]] specially created for [[British Dependent Territories citizen]]s of [[Hong Kong]] in [[1985]]? -- Self-nom, --[[User:Clithering|Clithering]] ([[User talk:Clithering|talk]]) 21:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:That seems to make sense to me. I recall that the ''[[AACR2|Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules]]'' have a similar guideline regarding the use of authors' names for indexing purposes. Perhaps referring to that might be helpful. — Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 10:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
::[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] All checks out; in-depth article converted from a redirect. The inline external links to the 1985 act and the 1986 order should be converted to footnotes. [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that British [[Prisoner of war|PoW]] '''[[John Fancy]]''' dug eight escape tunnels with a German-issue [[table knife]] and escaped a total of sixteeen times, inspiring the book ''[[The Great Escape]]'', but was recaptured every time? -- Self-nom, <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
== FYI: Major guideline change dispute about bio article disambiguation ==
::[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] All checks out, and a story well-worth putting on the main page. Suggest rewording hook thus:
:::*... that British [[Prisoner of war|PoW]] '''[[John Fancy]]''', who inspired the book ''[[The Great Escape]]'', dug eight <s>escape</s> tunnels with a German-issue [[table knife]] and escaped a total of sixteeen times, but was always recaptured?
::[[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Happy with revised hook. I'm amazed that we hadn't already got an article on this colourful gent. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Thanks for creating it. It would be nice to mention the film, but how to cram two discrete links into one title eludes me. [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 21:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think the first "escape" is redundant so I struck it. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]''' (''[[User talk:YellowMonkey#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_Australia_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics|<font color="#FA8605">click here to choose Australia's next top model</font>]]'') 07:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[Cubbon Park]]''', also called Sri. Chamarajendra Park, in Bangalore has indigenous and exotic botanical species of 68 genera and 96 species with about 6000 plants/trees?--[[User:Nvvchar|Nvvchar]] ([[User talk:Nvvchar|talk]]) 17:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Resolved|1=Just an F.Y.I.}}
:*[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px|This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues]] A couple of problems, I get a 4X expansion (using [[User:Dr pda/prosesize.js]]), 1645 to 6609 = 4X. And the hook is not specifically cited within the article, the closest citation (#3) takes you [http://www.horticulture.kar.nic.in/ here] which has no specifics about the hook. --[[User:Captain-tucker|Captain-tucker]] ([[User talk:Captain-tucker|talk]]) 20:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#GENERAL preference for person-descriptive not field-descriptive disambiguators]] is an ongoing dispute/discussion that is of relevance to regular editors here (it starts out a little noisy but has a subsection for hopefully more substantive discussion).
::I have added some photos. I counted on the basis of all the text and photos which comes to 10517 bites (more than five times the original text). I was not aware of the formula that you have referred. As regards the Park, it has to be viewed as a complex(may be a change in the heading of the article into 'Cubbon Park complex' instead of Cubbon Park}as it is very well known for its Park as also for the monuments and bulidings located within it.If the criteria of length permits, kindly suggest a suitable revised hook which I can post. I will be thankful.--[[User:Nvvchar|Nvvchar]] ([[User talk:Nvvchar|talk]]) 04:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::[[#Instructions]] specifies that the main body text portion of the article (prose), not all of the text and photos, should expand 5 times. Thus adding photos doesn't change the prose portion length of 6609, and it's still 4X. Prosesize.js is a tool for automating all the things we exclude from the article to get the prose portion (see [[#Instructions]] and [[User:Art LaPella/Unwritten rules|"Unwritten" Rule]] A2). If you could add 1616 characters of prose (not photos), that objection would be satisfied.
:::Captain-tucker also noted "the hook is not specifically cited ... ". [[Wikipedia:Did you know#Selection criteria]] says: "The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it since the fact is an extraordinary claim; citing the hook fact at the end of the paragraph is not acceptable." Thus the fact that the park is a complex doesn't address this objection, and revising the hook wouldn't address that objection either. What would address that objection is to find a source that verifies there are 68 genera, 96 species and about 6000 plants/trees, and to add a citation for that source to the article, right after the first sentence of [[Cubbon Park#Botanical assets]]. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 06:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::The authoriy quoted for the botancial statistics at number 3 of references is the Government of Karnataka organization called the "Horticulture Department" which is the authority in Karnataka on all Horticulture and is in charge of the Gardens in the state and the Cubbon Park is one of them. The web site under the heading Gardens provides the details of the Cubbon Park. I can't cite a better authentic source than this. But the main problem is of length. I don't have any text at present (unless I add superfluous stuff to the text of paras already added) to expand it by another 1616 bites. I will have to wait. Thanks for all the clarifications on the rules of DYK.--[[User:Nvvchar|Nvvchar]] ([[User talk:Nvvchar|talk]]) 10:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I believe the citation objection would be overcome by adding instructions in the reference to click "Gardens" and then "Cubbon Park" (I couldn't make a direct link work), rather than making people look for it. Also, it should be linked from the article's supporting sentence, not from the next sentence. As for waiting, you probably know that the article will no longer qualify as new in five days or so. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 17:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Thank you very much for the suggestions. I have added more text and I hope it satisfies the length criteria. I have also made changes in the reference at 3 related to the Horticulture Departmentas as "Garden Cubbon Park". A modified hook with an image is now introduced below.
[[Image:Cubbon Partk.JPG|thumb|right|100x100px]]
:*... that '''[[Cubbon Park]]''' has indigenous and exotic botanical species of 68 genera and 96 species with about 6000 plants/trees and is also called Sri.Chamarajendra Park? --[[User:Nvvchar|Nvvchar]] ([[User talk:Nvvchar|talk]]) 07:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


* ... that anyone who has [[loan]]ed or [[borrow]]ed money has participated in the '''[[loanable funds]]''' market, a hypothetical [[market]] that brings savers and borrowers together? <font face="Verdana">[[User:Gary King|<font color="#02e">Gary</font>&nbsp;<font color="#02b"><b>King</b></font>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Gary King|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 17:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The issue: Under discussion is whether to retain at least general, default guidance that bio articles be disambiguated by a human-descriptor rather than a field/topic-descriptor - "Jane Doe (chemist)" as opposed to "Jane Doe (chemistry)" - while allowing for exceptions (perhaps especially in sports), where this may not be practical under [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation]]'s guidance to use short disambiguators - "John Doe (baseball)" vs. "John Doe (baseball player and coach)". Detractors suggest that there was never any consensus for such advice to begin with, while the counterargument is that the advice codifies actual general WP practice, and that that is the proper role of guidelines to begin with.
:: I'm a bit concerned that the article appears to draw only on one source, and with under 5,000 Google hits most of the links out there also seem to point to the same source. I've heard the term loanable funds used, but never loanable funds market, probably because as you say it is a "theoretical market" and not a real one, whereas my firm deals with systems for making and assessing trades in the real markets. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::: What do you think of moving it to [[Loanable funds]]? <font face="Verdana">[[User:Gary King|<font color="#02e">Gary</font>&nbsp;<font color="#02b"><b>King</b></font>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Gary King|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 03:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: I have moved the article. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Gary King|<font color="#02e">Gary</font>&nbsp;<font color="#02b"><b>King</b></font>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Gary King|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 17:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


* ... that the [[Tang Dynasty]] [[chancellor of Tang Dynasty|chancellor]] '''[[Du Hongjian]]''', immediately prior to his death, undertook [[tonsure]] and formally became a [[Buddhist monk]]? (self-nomination) --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 16:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Current status: The advice has been removed from [[WP:DAB]], as a quick way to settle an earlier dispute about whether to move articles like "John Doe (baseball)" to "John Doe (baseball player)", and the addition of a better-worded version of the advice (that accounts for such exceptions) to [[WP:NCP]] where it arguably belongs has been the subject of revert-warring. This necessites a solid and broad discussion to gain consensus on whether to have such a passage at all, and if so where, and what it should say. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> &#91;[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 20:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


*... that according to a survey by the [[Reader's Digest]] the '''[[Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals]]''' is [[New Zealand]]'s second most trusted charity? &mdash; expansion and self-nom by <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~ [[User:Ameliorate!|<span style="color:black;">User:Ameliorate!</span>]]</span> <sup>(with the !) ([[User talk:Ameliorate!|talk]])</sup> 15:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
==Referring to people==
A debate has started on [[Autumn Phillips]] about how to refer to her throughout the article. I believe that she should be referred to by her maiden name (''Kelly'') until her marriage, thereafter by her married name. Others think we should use the same surname throughout, but I say this could be confusing as you might end up saying "Autumn Phillips was born in...", suggesting she was born Phillips. The MoS doesn't seem to clear on this, can anyone help?--[[User:UpDown|UpDown]] ([[User talk:UpDown|talk]]) 07:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


[[Image: Manasbal.jpg|right|100x100px]]
== Honorifics ==
*... that '''[[Manasbal Lake]]''', with the sobriquet 'the supreme gem of all Kashmir Lakes', is the deepest lake in the [[Kashmir]] valley?--[[User:Nvvchar|Nvvchar]] ([[User talk:Nvvchar|talk]]) 15:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::[[Image:Symbol question.svg|18px]] I get broken links for both cited footnotes, 2 and 3. Please check urls. [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Yes, You are right. One of the cited foot note has been moved and I am not able to locate it. Two addtional hooks have been added. The earlier reference 2, now referenced at 3 has been corrected as there was a spelling error. This reference is of the International Lake Environment Committee (ILEC) of Japan, one of the best known institutions in the world on issues concerning lakes. I hope the correccted version is in order.--[[User:Nvvchar|Nvvchar]] ([[User talk:Nvvchar|talk]]) 03:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] Date, size, hook and source confirmed. (Footnotes should go after punctuation.) [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 12:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thanks. I have noted the observaton. I have made changes.--[[User:Nvvchar|Nvvchar]] ([[User talk:Nvvchar|talk]]) 01:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Monitor in gutter.jpg|right|100x100px]]
We are having a minor dispute about the use of honorifics. Basically, the question is which of these versions is correct[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethiopian_Orthodox_Coptic_Church_of_North_and_South_America&diff=239248785&oldid=239228406]. Currently, the "honorific titles" section starts with "Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics." On the other hand, while for e.g. nobility the honorifics "should not be included in the text inline", for royalty and clergy they "should not be used to open articles", although "Such styles should, however, be discussed in the article proper". It doesn't clearly say if they can simply be used in the text inline, despite the general ban of such usage. I am not arguing for the removal of all mentions of style: an article that says that Patriarch X is styled "His Beatitude" is quite allright. An article that continues with "His Beatitude has visited Y and Z" is, inmy opinion, not.
*... that in 2007, the [[New Zealand]] initiative '''[[eDay]]''' saw {{convert|415|t|lb}} of [[electronic waste]] collected? &mdash; new article and self-nom by <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~ [[User:Ameliorate!|<span style="color:black;">User:Ameliorate!</span>]]</span> <sup>(with the !) ([[User talk:Ameliorate!|talk]])</sup> 14:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Since the MoS can be interpreted in both ways (honorifics for clergy and royalty are not allowed, or they are allowed except in the introduction), I would like some clarification and more opinions on this issue. Whatever the result of this discussion, I would prefer that the MoS is made clearer on this point. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 11:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
::[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]] Length, date, hook's ref verified. --[[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|talk]]) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:OwenThomas.jpg|right|100x100px]]
:Don't you think it's even more of a stretch to apply your interpretation to other types of articles, that are clearly not biographies? [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 12:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
* ... that '''[[Owen Thomas (writer)|Owen Thomas]]''' ''(pictured)'', managing editor of [[New York City]]-based gossip and news [[blog]] [[Valleywag]], writes most of the website's articles? <font face="Verdana">[[User:Gary King|<font color="#02e">Gary</font>&nbsp;<font color="#02b"><b>King</b></font>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Gary King|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 06:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::Not more of a stretch than to suppose that you may not write "His Holiness" in a biography, but it is perfectly allright to use it to refer to the same person in another article. I interpret "biographies" in this instance as "how to write about people", even if it is in an article about e.g. a religion. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 13:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


* ... that there are '''[[List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations|33 stations on the SkyTrain]]''', and 24 of them are located in [[Burnaby]] and [[Vancouver]]? self-nom. -- <font face="Comic Sans MS"> '''[[User:K. Annoyomous24|<span style="color:#FCB926">K. Annoyomous</span>]][[User talk:K. Annoyomous24|<span style="color:#5C2F83">24</span>]]</font>'''<sub>[[Special:Contributions/K._Annoyomous24|[c]]]</sub> 05:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:I think this issue is covered by "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"." Effectively religious titles are professional titles (i.e. they are titles the individual only holds because of their job as a member of the clergy), so we should not use them. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 12:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
::[[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|18px]] The article's prose is significantly less in size than before, and much of the article now consists of a list. While cleaned up and improved, the list does not meet DYK requirements. [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 13:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::May you just tell me why the article is completely ineligible? I think this DYK nom shouldn't get a delete vote automatically. I could still fix the article and try to make this DYK nom successful. -- <font face="Comic Sans MS"> '''[[User:K. Annoyomous24|<span style="color:#FCB926">K. Annoyomous</span>]][[User talk:K. Annoyomous24|<span style="color:#5C2F83">24</span>]]</font>'''<sub>[[Special:Contributions/K._Annoyomous24|[c]]]</sub> 19:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::You would have to have a five-fold expansion of the prose section of the article, and the character count in the list section would be excluded. Your revisions have actually reduced the prose section in size, from over 15,500 characters to less than 900 characters in the non-list part of the article. Formerly the article was a list "trying to do more"; you have recast it as a well-formatted list with a brief introduction. While that may be a useful improvement, the DYK rules are based on a five-fold expansion of prose, as shown in the rules further up this page.
::::It is unlikely you could expand the prose section of this list to over 79,000 characters, which would be required for a five-fold expansion from the former text.
::::Other eyes are welcome on this one. [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Just to let you know, all of the sections about the stations were direct copies from the articles itself. I will try to make the prose more than 1500 characters if possible. -- <font face="Comic Sans MS"> '''[[User:K. Annoyomous24|<span style="color:#FCB926">K. Annoyomous</span>]][[User talk:K. Annoyomous24|<span style="color:#5C2F83">24</span>]]</font>'''<sub>[[Special:Contributions/K._Annoyomous24|[c]]]</sub> 20:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::The main page says "Did you know... From Wikipedia's newest articles:". The [[#Instructions]] elaborate on this: the article must be either completely new, or expanded fivefold. The prose portion of the rewritten article is shorter than before, not 5 times larger, and rewritten isn't what we mean by new. 1500 characters would be nowhere near 5 times. If "direct copies" means the previous text doesn't count due to copyright problems, please see [[User:Art LaPella/Unwritten rules|"Unwritten" Rule]] A3. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 20:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::So I guess there is no way that this nomination would be accepted. O wells, thanks for both of your times. -- <font face="Comic Sans MS"> '''[[User:K. Annoyomous24|<span style="color:#FCB926">K. Annoyomous</span>]][[User talk:K. Annoyomous24|<span style="color:#5C2F83">24</span>]]</font>'''<sub>[[Special:Contributions/K._Annoyomous24|[c]]]</sub> 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


== Proposal regarding honorifics for clergy and royalty ==


[[Image:Dustin Moskovitz.jpg|right|100x100px]]
Our current guidelines regarding honorifics for clergy and royalty do not match actual practice on Wikipedia. Right now, we state only that honorifics should not be used to ''open'' articles. This is in distinct contrast with our guidelines concerning honorifics for noble title or politics which are completely prohibited in inline text (except in discussion of the titles themselves):
* ... that [[Facebook]] co-founder '''[[Dustin Moskovitz]]''' ''(pictured)'' studied [[economics]] at [[Harvard University]] for two years before moving to [[Palo Alto, California|Palo Alto]], [[California]] to work on Facebook full-time? <font face="Verdana">[[User:Gary King|<font color="#02e">Gary</font>&nbsp;<font color="#02b"><b>King</b></font>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Gary King|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 05:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


* ... that as governor of the [[Gaza Strip]], '''[[Yitzhak Pundak]]''' planned to relocate the Palestinian refugees there to a new city in the [[Sinai Peninsula]], but met with opposition from [[Ariel Sharon]]? (self-nom) -- [[User:Ynhockey|Ynhockey]] <sup>([[User talk:Ynhockey|Talk]])</sup> 05:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
<blockquote>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)]].</blockquote>
**Governor is generally understood as a civil political position. Pundak was the commander in a military occupation. That is a distinction that needs to be clarified in the hook. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 19:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*** ... that as military governor of the [[Gaza Strip]], '''[[Yitzhak Pundak]]''' planned to relocate the Palestinian refugees there to a new city in the [[Sinai Peninsula]], but met with opposition from [[Ariel Sharon]]? -- [[User:Ynhockey|Ynhockey]] <sup>([[User talk:Ynhockey|Talk]])</sup> 13:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that '''[[Tam Spiva]]''', though from a family of small-town [[newspaper]] [[publisher]]s, wrote [[television]] scripts, for such [[television series|series]] as ''[[The Brady Bunch]]'' and ''[[Gentle Ben]]''?--self-nom [[User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] ([[User talk:Billy Hathorn|talk]]) 00:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
In practice, editors never permit honorifics like "His Holiness" or "Her Majesty" ''anywhere'' in article text other discussion of titles. Take a look at the cited examples of [[Pope Benedict XVI]] or [[Queen Victoria]] for example. In the case of clergy, using "His Holiness" in article text could also be construed as a violation of NPOV policy, as it appears that Wikipedia is endorsing the holiness or religious status of the person, which can be contentious in some cases ([[antipope]]). I would like to propose that we bring our guidelines concerning clergy and royalty in line with our other guidelines on honorific prefixes by changing it to the following:


*... that '''[[Clarence D. Wiley]]''''s 40-year career in [[Louisiana]] politics, ended only by his sudden death in 1976, typifies persistence and [[longevity]] in public life?--self-nom [[User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] ([[User talk:Billy Hathorn|talk]]) 03:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
<blockquote>Styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty, including but not limited to [[His Holiness]] and [[Her Majesty]], should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper. Clergy should be named as described in [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy)]].</blockquote>
:OR
:*... that '''[[Clarence D. Wiley]]''', already a 40-year public official in [[Louisiana]], was to have joined his [[parish]] governing council when he died in 1976 of a sudden [[stroke]]?--self-nom [[User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] ([[User talk:Billy Hathorn|talk]]) 02:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


===Articles created/expanded on October 3===
What are other people's opinions on making this change? [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 22:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:I think by ''Such styles should, however, be discussed in the article proper'' means that somewhere it should be noted what the honorific is, not necessarily using it. [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011/Stephen]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 03:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


<!-- PLEASE leave spaces between the nominations. It helps those reviewing ... and picking -->
== RfC now open on linking dates of birth and death ==


*... that '''[[Baltic Finns]]''' are considered to be among the early [[Indigenous peoples|indigenous inhabitants]] of [[Europe]] according to the Settlement Continuity Theory? --[[User:Termer|Termer]] ([[User talk:Termer|talk]]) 06:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)--self nom
Is it desirable or is it undesirable for dates of birth and death at the top of a bio to be linked?


*... that [[Jack Womack]]'s 2000 [[alternate history]] novel '''''[[Going, Going, Gone]]''''' is set in two converging [[Parallel universe (fiction)|parallel versions]] of [[New York]]? Self nom by <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">the skomorokh</font>]]</font> 12:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
An RfC is now open at [[WT:MOSNUM#RfC: Linking of dates of birth and death]] -- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


*... that the '''[[Old McKenzie Fish Hatchery]]''' raised [[trout]] and [[salmon]] for release into the [[McKenzie River]] in westen [[Oregon]] from 1907 until 1953? --[[User:Orygun|Orygun]] ([[User talk:Orygun|talk]]) 01:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
== Place of birth after date of birth ==
::[[Image:Symbol question.svg|18px]] The sign linked in footnote 1 does not mention salmon; is it mentioned in another source? [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 22:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that [[Hulk Hogan]] lost the [[WWE Championship|WWF Championship]] at '''[[King of the Ring (1993)|King of the Ring 1993]]''' after a ringside photographer's camera exploded in Hogan's face? -- new article self-nom by [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] ([[User talk:GaryColemanFan|talk]]) 23:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a rule that says the place of birth should not be used in parenthesis after the person's name and birthdate (Ex: '''Jesús Paulino Sánchez''' (born [[October 11]], [[1974]] in [[Nizao, Dominican Republic]]). For larger articles that have an early life section or something similar, i can understand, but in stub articles that consist of only one section with a couple sentences, I like this better. For example, in [[Jesús Sánchez]], it looks bad if it says


*... that [[Neil Marshall]] was set to direct the upcoming '''''[[Sherlock Holmes (2009 film)|Sherlock Holmes]]''''' thirteen months before [[Guy Ritchie]] signed on? [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] ([[User talk:Alientraveller|talk]]) 22:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
"Jesús Paulino Sánchez (born October 11, 1974)) is a former professional baseball player who pitched in Major League Baseball from 1998-2004. He was born in Nizao, Dominican Republic."


[[Image:Adobe HQ.jpg|right|100x100px]]
as compared to what it is now. Thoughts? [[User:Jackal4|Jackal4]] ([[User talk:Jackal4|talk]]) 01:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
*... that [[Adobe Systems]] ''(headquarters pictured)'' made its '''[[List of Adobe Systems mergers and acquisitions|largest acquisition ever]]''' by purchasing rival company [[Macromedia]] for over [[US$]]3.5&nbsp;billion? <font face="Verdana">[[User:Gary King|<font color="#02e">Gary</font>&nbsp;<font color="#02b"><b>King</b></font>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Gary King|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 20:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that the emigrated [[Germans|German]] [[Jew]]ish lawyer and politician '''[[Herbert Weichmann]]''' returned to [[Germany]] in 1948, to become [[List of mayors of Hamburg|mayor of Hamburg]] in 1965? -- Article expanded fivefold and self-nom by [[User:Sebastian scha.|Sebastian scha.]] ([[User talk:Sebastian scha.|talk]]) 18:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:There definitely was something to give the guidance that birth place should not be in parenthesis. However, I tried to find it the other day, and couldn't. Stubs are not meant to be permanent in that form, so it would be a good idea to start it in the right way for later expansion. '''''[[User:Tyrenius|<font color="#880088">Ty</font>]]''''' 01:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:Note: most offline German sources. I'm sorry, but it's hard to find something before www. Oh, and please correct my grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes ,-) Thank you. Greetings [[User:Sebastian scha.|Sebastian scha.]] ([[User talk:Sebastian scha.|talk]]) 18:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


*... that the '''[[constitution of Cyprus]]''' broke down in 1963 when [[Turkish Cypriots]] withdrew from the government? --self-nom [[User:Anonymous101|Anonymous101]] ([[User talk:Anonymous101|talk]]) 15:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::I recall such a rule too, although I do not know whether it was actually stated in this guideline or whether it was something a Good Article or Featured Article reviewer mentioned. However, I note that:
::*none of the examples in the guideline show the place of birth within the parenthesis; and
::*since the lead section is meant to be a brief summary of the article, there is no real need to mention the subject's place of birth in it unless it is significant to his or her life or career in some way. I prefer to go with "Jesús Paulino Sánchez (born October 11, 1974) is a former professional baseball player who pitched in Major League Baseball from 1998 to 2004" in the lead, and "Jesús Paulino Sánchez was born on October 11, 1974 in Nizao, Dominican Republic" in the main body of the article.
::By the way, note that "who pitched ... from 1998–2004" is wrong. Either write "who pitched ... 1998–2004" or "who pitched ... from 1998 to 2004". — Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 04:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


==See also==
:::I would only add that if we give the date of birth in the lead, we needn't repeat it a few sentences below in the main body, but can just say "Jesús Paulino Sánchez was born in Nizao, Dominican Republic, the son of a rancher father" or whatever. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 05:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
*[[User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult]] – This is an automated list of promising new articles generated by {{User3|AlexNewArtBot}}.


[[Category:Wikipedia Did you know]]
::I like to think of the lead as a free-standing summary, in which case the main body of the article should contain all the information that is in the lead, including the date of birth. This may be a matter of preference, though. — Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#ce2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>&ndash;[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]&ndash;</span></sup> 05:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:40, 10 October 2008

For discussion of the "Did you know" section, see Wikipedia talk:Did you know.
Forever Young
Forever Young

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section (reproduced on the right) on the Main Page.

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}

Instructions

List new suggestions here, under the date the article was created or the expansion began (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the top. If a suitable image is available, place it immediately before the suggestion. Any user may nominate a DYK suggestion; self-nominations are permitted and encouraged.

Remember:

  • Proposed articles should:
    • not be marked as stubs;
    • contain more than 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body text (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables). This is a mandatory minimum; in practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting administrators.
    • cite their sources (these sources should be properly labelled; that is, not under an "External links" header); and
    • be no more than five days old (former redirects, stubs, or other short articles whose main body text has been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are acceptable).
  • Articles on living individuals must be carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks which focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided.
  • Articles with good references and citations are preferred.
  • To count the number of characters in a piece of text, you will need to use a JavaScript extension like User:Dr pda/prosesize.js (instructions on the talk page), a free website like this, or an external software program that has a character-counting feature. For example, if you are using Microsoft Word, select the text from the article page (or, in the case of "Did you know" nominations, this Talk page) – not the edit page containing Wikitext – then copy and paste it into a blank document. Click "Tools" ("Review" in Office 2007), then "Word Count", and note the "Characters (with spaces)" figure. Other word processing programs may have a similar feature. For Mac users, Apple has a Word counter widget available for Mac OS X 10.4 or later. Note:The character counts indicated on "Revision history" pages are not accurate for DYK purposes as they include categories, infoboxes and similar text in articles, and comments and signatures in hooks on this page.
  • Suggested facts (the 'hook') should be:
    • interesting to draw in a variety of readers,
    • short and concise (fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces),
    • neutral,
    • definite facts that are mentioned in the article, and
    • always cited in the article with an inline citation.
Please note that hooks are subject without notice to copyediting as they move to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit. In particular, hooks will be shortened if they are deemed too long: the 200-character limit is an outside limit not a recommended length. Also, watch the suggestions page to ensure that no issues have been raised about your hook, because if you do not respond to issues raised your hook may not be featured at all.
  • Suggested pictures should be:
    • suitably and freely (PD, GFDL, CC etc) licensed (NOT fair use) because the main page can only have freely-licensed pictures;
    • attractive and interesting, even at a very small (100px-wide) resolution;
    • already in the article; and
    • relevant to the article.
    • formatted as [[Image:image name |right|100x100px| Description]] and placed directly above the suggested fact.
  • Suggested sounds should have similar qualities to pictures, and should be formatted using the format {{DYK Listen|filename.ogg|Brief description}}
  • Proposed lists should have two characteristics to be considered for DYK: (i) be a compilation of entries that are unlikely to have ever been compiled anywhere else (e.g. List of architectural vaults), and (ii) have 1,500+ character non-stub text that brings out interesting, relational, and referenced facts from the compiled list that may not otherwise be obvious but for the compilation.
  • Please sign the nomination, giving due credit to other editors if relevant. For example:
    • *... that (text)? -- new article by [[User]]; Nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- new article self-nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- new article by [[User]] and ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold by [[User]]; Nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold and self-nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold by [[User]] and ~~~~
  • When saving your suggestion, please add the name of the suggested article to your edit summary.
  • Please check back for comments on your nomination. Responding to reasonable objections will help ensure that your article is listed.
  • If you nominate someone else's article, you can use {{subst:DYKNom}} to notify them. Usage: {{subst:DYKNom|Article name|May 11}} Thanks, ~~~~
  • For more details see the previously Unwritten Rules.

Symbols

  • If you want to confirm that an article is ready to be placed on a later update, or that there is an issue with the article or hook, you may use the following symbols (optional) to point the issues out:
Symbol Code Ready for DYK? Description
{{subst:DYKtick}} Yes No problems, ready for DYK
{{subst:DYKtickAGF}} Yes Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted in good faith
{{subst:DYK?}} Query An issue needs to be clarified before the article's eligibility can be determined
{{subst:DYK?no}} Maybe Article is currently ineligible but may only need some minor work to fix
{{subst:DYKno}} No Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible

Next update

Backlogged?

This page often seems to be backlogged. If the DYK template has not been updated for substantially more than 6 hours, it may be useful to attract the attention of one of the administrators who regularly updates the template. See the page Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins for a list of administrators who have volunteered to help with this project.

Candidate entries

Articles created/expanded on October 10

USS Nevada (BB-36)
USS Nevada (BB-36)

Articles created/expanded on October 9

Portrait of Isaac Massa by Franz Hals, 1626
Portrait of Isaac Massa by Franz Hals, 1626
  • .. that the first European map of the Siberian Arctic coast was obtained and published by Dutchman Isaac Massa (portrait pictured)? new, self-nom NVO (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Altar centre-piece, Solna Church
Altar centre-piece, Solna Church
  • ... that Solna Church (altar centre-piece pictured), a round church in Stockholm from the late 12th century, was originally built for defense purposes? --self-nom. Oceanh (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Please embolden the new/expanded article. Thanks. -- how do you turn this on 19:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) Thanks, Vishnava talk 19:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that after being rejected from HaShomer, a Jewish defense organization in Ottoman Palestine, Yosef Lishansky founded a rival group called HaMagen, operating in the south of the country? (self-nom) -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Church of St Demetrius of Thessaloniki, Veliko Tarnovo
Church of St Demetrius of Thessaloniki, Veliko Tarnovo
  • Relations between whom? Suggest rewording: "Germany helped India establish IIT Madras ..." – Otherwise, date, length and references OK.  Sandstein  10:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 8

Ontario also has more residents than most provinces. --74.13.125.9 (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, however that's not mentioned in the article. The article is about Canadian universities. Gary King (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues It's a nicely done article, and its certainly something that is unlikely to be found elsewhere, but it doesn't have enough prose to qualify as per the #Instructions. Perhaps you could add an overview of Canadian universities as an intro? Thingg⊕⊗ 05:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that after his son was murdered during an university study abroad program in 2004, American entrepreneur Tom Petters, himself a college dropout, formed the John T. Petters Foundation to provide endowments that would benefit future students at several universities? -- new article by User:TedSaidMed and Bobak (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • TWEAK (now 199): that after his son was murdered during a study abroad program, American entrepreneur Tom Petters formed a foundation to provide endowments that would benefit future students at several universities? -- Bobak (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that footballer Peter Stringfellow suffered a dramatic decline in form, which ultimately ended his professional career, after being involved in a car crash in which a team-mate died? -- new article self-nom by ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:The First of May.jpg
  • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues 216 character hook. ... that Zac Brown Band's single "Chicken Fried" was previously released by The Lost Trailers, whose version was withdrawn after Zac Brown changed his mind about licensing the song to that record label? is 198 characters. Thingg⊕⊗ 04:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note This will be the 50th DYK for an article I've created/expanded. Current total is 48 created/expanded + 2 nominated. Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image for Filipino proverbs, Damiana Eugenio, Philippine Folklore hook
Image for Filipino proverbs, Damiana Eugenio, Philippine Folklore hook
  • ... that Filipino proverbs were grouped into six categories by Damiana Eugenio, a professor and author known as the Mother of Philippine Folklore (sample myth pictured)? – self-nom/article created from a simple list, hook count at 127 characters (no spaces) / 150 (with spaces), article’s character count at 2,084 (no spaces) / 2,472 (with spaces) - AnakngAraw (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Above suggested hook is now a double selfnom because I also created an article about Damiana Eugenio in addition to the Filipino proverbs article; current hook above now linked to this newly created article (and now bolded too) which has 1,886 characters (no spaces) / 2,331 (with spaces). Thanks. - AnakngAraw (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When is election day? November? --74.13.125.9 (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
November 4. At least this isn't the Main Page. Art LaPella (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if we should wait till November 4. Too long a wait, IMO. --74.13.125.9 (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OR
Houses on Garfield Place
Houses on Garfield Place

Articles created/expanded on October 7

Expansion started on 7 October, from around 7kB to almost 40kB. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that Renaissance woodcuts by Hans Wechtlin (example pictured) cover both the chivalric ideal of war and graphic details of war wounds? self-nom by Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that M-67, a state highway in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, has remained essentially unchanged but the highways connecting to it have changed three times since 1919? — self-nomination after 5.89x expansion. History section cited by maps showing the changes in connecting highways. Highway marker shield available if desired Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say where it is! OK Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Date, time, off-line sources accepted, 2786/474 = 5.88x expansion
Speaker iconMarguerite Sylva in 1910

I like the first hook, but would shorten it to: "*... that Marguerite Sylva modestly told W. S. Gilbert, at her sister's audition, that she "sang a little" and, after demonstrating, was offered a part? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That works quite well. Of course, we'd need to mention the recording or picture in some form, if they're used. Of course, this is only part of a rather fascinating anecdote, but, hey, that's why we're linking to the article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Date, hook and size verified. Manxruler (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that Dick Trickle, billed as the winningest short track driver in history, won his first race outside of his home region at the 1966 National Short Track Championships at Rockford Speedway? - self nom by Royalbroil 14:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC) There are free use pictures available if helpful.[reply]
In my opinion, ALT2 adds words with giving little additional "hooky"-ness. Technically the track is not in Rockford, but in the suburb Loves Park. I strongly prefer the Dick Trickle version because he is a short track legend with probably the greatest number of race feature wins of anyone in the world. Hosting the first win outside of the home region for a legendary figure is an impressive first. It shows how important the track was at that time with someone of that stature driving a relatively long distance to compete there. It's been elusive to cite Trickle's number of wins since there are no concrete records from the time, so it is disputed. People are working on figuring out an exact total. Royalbroil 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "the Rockford, Illinois" should either be "Rockford, Illinois" or "the Rockford, Illinois area". Art LaPella (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length, date, hook's ref verified. AdjustShift (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Main Page is protected!
Is there a svg version of the suggested pic that is not so grainy at 100x100px? --74.14.18.96 (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looked fine at 68px (see now) - I'll try and ask on Commons, and see if someone can convert it to SVG. I can't find a version at present. fish&karate 07:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whose self-nom is this? --74.13.125.9 (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is "renowned" really the operative word? How about "... that in Saskatchewan, Oban was known for having the last Interlocking tower at the CNR and CPR level crossing, until it was closed in 1990?" Wetman (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you...that works!SriMesh | talk 00:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length, reference and history verified. Can we find a picture of one of these cups? This sounds interesting. Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, nope, I just noticed that. Thanks, BorgQueen. – RyanCross (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So removed. --74.14.18.96 (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that a number of babies were rescued alive and safe from the collapsed Juárez Hospital during the 1985 Mexico City earthquake? ---I think it should the criteria for expansion... I did a really SERIOUS rewrite Thelmadatter (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6912 to 26K is a very serious rewrite, although our criterion is fivefold expansion. That's why most Did You Know articles are new, or expansions of stubs. Art LaPella (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
or

...by Ugajin (talk · contribs) - nom Casliber (talk · contribs)

Articles created/expanded on October 6

  • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues This article currently isn't quite long enough for Did You Know (references don't count). See #Instructions for details. Art LaPella (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that the British late night comedy satire TV show Up Sunday was described by one of the cast members as "aimed at dirty minded insomniacs"? -- new article by User:Bingo99; nom by Bruce1eetalk 14:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that the SS Schenectady , an oil tanker, broke almost in two whilst sitting at the dock in calm weather, before even having entered service? (selfnom, pictured) Shimgray | talk | 19:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
King's Mill
King's Mill
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Date and reference confirmed, but article too short at slightly under 1000 characters. Please identify the author of an article when nominating another's work. Kablammo (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues the expansion is sufficient, but the refs are to the subject's own work & web page, rather than to third-party sources as required. Bob (QaBob) 22:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about this new hook:
The hook is verified by a journal publication. --Jiuguang (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attached to "Palace of Lausus" hook
Attached to "Palace of Lausus" hook
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues 218 character hook. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Ref #3 confirms the hook, created October 6 and 5234 characters. However, I'm not entirely comfortable with a .com reference on the main page and I can't think of a way to word the hook to avoid it, anyone else have an opinion on this? ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting hook IMHO. I don't think rewording is possible for a subject such as this. Would there be a reason not to feature a .com reference on the main page? Zithan (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that despite being of common birth, the marriage of Falkes de Breauté made him ‘the equal of an earl’? Expanded article from 1508 chars to 9231 chars; that's what I call progress. Ironholds 04:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not well-referenced enough - I commend you for your expansion efforts, but this article is not sourced to enough inline citations; one primary reference is not adequate for an article of this length. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has moere than one source, and it passes the criteria. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length, date, hook's ref verified. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Slightly short (1449 characters). Reference and date OK. Chamal Talk ± 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, i added a little bit to the intro and etymology which i think should put it past 1500. thanks for the heads up. Ryan shell (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length, date and ref are fine. Chamal Talk ± 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating hook - first discovered because of a movie! Expanded length over 5x, date, off-line reference accepted. Royalbroil 14:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues 255 character hook, or longer after correcting "Cow protection movement ... happened ... " to "... the cow protection movement ... that happened ... ". Art LaPella (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hooks should be a question. --74.14.18.96 (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean to insert an ellipsis into the sentence. ALT: ... that Arya Samaj spearheaded the late 19th century cow protection movement, Hindu opposition to cow sacrifice, leading to violent riots spreading all across India and the the deaths of 107 people? Art LaPella (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. 197 characters now. Thanks. Docku:“what up?” 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the U.S. Army care about identifying small-town mayors in Louisiana during World War I? Was Louisiana one of the Central Powers? Of course not. But this hook is rather misleading. --74.13.125.9 (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one was hard to find a hook. The Army required doughboys to have a middle initial as a minimum for identification. I tried to rewrite it.Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on October 5

  • ... that before Charles Aitken (1869–1936) installed electric lighting, the Tate gallery (pictured) was cleared of visitors on dark and foggy days? -- new article by User:Jack1956; Nom by Ty 07:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Date, size and reference are fine. Kablammo (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Campaign poster for Apirak Kosayothin in the 2008 Bangkok gubernatorial election
Campaign poster for Apirak Kosayothin in the 2008 Bangkok gubernatorial election
The second one is the best I think. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The second hook is truly hilarious. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the "among the great works of sculpture of all ages" is more striking and meaningful to more people. Moreover, Kubler is more notable than the fellow who argued it was a shaman. Madman (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length, date verified; offline hook reference accepted in good faith. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
all books available on google books. --Soman (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that Enrique Nieto, not to be confused with Mexican politician Enrique Peña Nieto, was a noted Modernisme architect and later Melilla city architect who contributed to the making Melilla the second largest concentration of that style after Barcelona as well as the designer of the Holy Light Synagogue and Central Mosque? - self nom Chergles 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
or just ... that Enrique Nieto, not to be confused with Mexican politician Enrique Peña Nieto, was a noted Modernisme architect and later Melilla city architect who contributed to the making Melilla the second largest concentration of that style after Barcelona?  :: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Enrique_Nieto#DYK_criteria Chergles (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues The first hook is 325 characters and the second is 253. Thingg⊕⊗ 23:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the author checked his own submission. Art LaPella (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
or just ... that Enrique Nieto, not to be confused with Mexican politician of the same name, was a noted Modernisme architect and contributed to the making Melilla the second largest concentration of that style?
Image:Symbol confirmed.svg shortened to fit criteria! Chergles (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't tick your own submissions, let others review them. I don't see a need to say in the hook that Nieto is not the Mexican politician. "Contributed to the making Melilla" is ungrammatical. More seriously, what makes this website a reliable source? The page you reference says "Some of the information on this page come from a Wikipedia article", which means for Wikipedia purposes it probably isn't a reliable source. BencherliteTalk 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the ticking, just wanted to help. You can do the ticking. I did do a good faith review of the DYK criteria which is on the article's talk page. I have also fixed the references and reworded the hook per some suggestions. Thank you. Chergles (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New hook:
  • ... that Enrique Nieto was an early Modernisme architect in Melilla who designed the main synagogue, the Central Mosque, and several buildings for the Catholic Church the Spanish enclave in Africa.
(omitted from the hook but very interesting is that Melilla has the largest concentration of Modernisme architecture in the world after Barcelona...saw it but lost the reference, hence it is not included in the hook). Chergles (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think we're nearly there - the references are better for this hook. Mind if I reword it slightly? How about this – ?
for my reworded hook, but feel free to reword - I was struck by the fact that he'd designed buildings for three faiths and tried to emphasize that more in the hook. BencherliteTalk 05:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
National Debt Clock
National Debt Clock
  • Length, date and fact referencing verified. Nice hook fact, it caught my attention. Jamie☆S93 21:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • His Times obit notes that his ship was torpedoed on the way to the US, perhaps add "surviving a torpedo attack on the way" to the end of the hook? (Should still be inside the character limit). David Underdown (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK with me, although it might be too complex for a hook. I'll leave it to the DYK hook experts. Feel free to add or not! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that the Tang Dynasty official Yang Wan declined a customary stipend as a senior official of his rank and distributed the stipend to his colleagues? (self-nomination) --Nlu (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length, date verified; foreign-language hook reference accepted in good faith. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that Orson Welles took the role of Hastler in his 1962 film The Trial after comic actor Jackie Gleason turned down the part? (5x expansion, from the original 1,082-character article to the new 6,654-character rewrite, self-nom). Ecoleetage (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Length, date and fact referencing verified. Jamie☆S93 21:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OR
I prefer this one. The first one is akin to "Late Night with David Letterman featured David Letterman, a married man. The second one is good. Chergles (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expiring noms

Articles created/expanded on October 4

DYK? - took my a while to work out what the hook meant but surely if the district is large (or if there are only 3 foreigners) then this is not remarkable? Victuallers (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Niederbottigen
Niederbottigen
Poll stations for Bernier's re-election open next Tuesday. Eight days before that was just two days ago. This book is already notable enough to get an article? --74.13.125.9 (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notable? Yes, it has been getting lots of press coverage and book reviews in all the national (and many local) newspapers and even an excerpt in the National Post. Google News --maclean 06:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admiral John Gell
Admiral John Gell
"packages" sounds odd - "goods" or "cargo"? Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC) ok changed Victuallers (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Date and size are good; offline reference accepted on good faith and fact independently confirmed in Knight, The Pursuit of Victory, p. 676. Kablammo (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All checks out; in-depth article converted from a redirect. The inline external links to the 1985 act and the 1986 order should be converted to footnotes. Kablammo (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All checks out, and a story well-worth putting on the main page. Suggest rewording hook thus:
Kablammo (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with revised hook. I'm amazed that we hadn't already got an article on this colourful gent. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating it. It would be nice to mention the film, but how to cram two discrete links into one title eludes me. Kablammo (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first "escape" is redundant so I struck it. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that Cubbon Park, also called Sri. Chamarajendra Park, in Bangalore has indigenous and exotic botanical species of 68 genera and 96 species with about 6000 plants/trees?--Nvvchar (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues A couple of problems, I get a 4X expansion (using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js), 1645 to 6609 = 4X. And the hook is not specifically cited within the article, the closest citation (#3) takes you here which has no specifics about the hook. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some photos. I counted on the basis of all the text and photos which comes to 10517 bites (more than five times the original text). I was not aware of the formula that you have referred. As regards the Park, it has to be viewed as a complex(may be a change in the heading of the article into 'Cubbon Park complex' instead of Cubbon Park}as it is very well known for its Park as also for the monuments and bulidings located within it.If the criteria of length permits, kindly suggest a suitable revised hook which I can post. I will be thankful.--Nvvchar (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#Instructions specifies that the main body text portion of the article (prose), not all of the text and photos, should expand 5 times. Thus adding photos doesn't change the prose portion length of 6609, and it's still 4X. Prosesize.js is a tool for automating all the things we exclude from the article to get the prose portion (see #Instructions and "Unwritten" Rule A2). If you could add 1616 characters of prose (not photos), that objection would be satisfied.
Captain-tucker also noted "the hook is not specifically cited ... ". Wikipedia:Did you know#Selection criteria says: "The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it since the fact is an extraordinary claim; citing the hook fact at the end of the paragraph is not acceptable." Thus the fact that the park is a complex doesn't address this objection, and revising the hook wouldn't address that objection either. What would address that objection is to find a source that verifies there are 68 genera, 96 species and about 6000 plants/trees, and to add a citation for that source to the article, right after the first sentence of Cubbon Park#Botanical assets. Art LaPella (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The authoriy quoted for the botancial statistics at number 3 of references is the Government of Karnataka organization called the "Horticulture Department" which is the authority in Karnataka on all Horticulture and is in charge of the Gardens in the state and the Cubbon Park is one of them. The web site under the heading Gardens provides the details of the Cubbon Park. I can't cite a better authentic source than this. But the main problem is of length. I don't have any text at present (unless I add superfluous stuff to the text of paras already added) to expand it by another 1616 bites. I will have to wait. Thanks for all the clarifications on the rules of DYK.--Nvvchar (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the citation objection would be overcome by adding instructions in the reference to click "Gardens" and then "Cubbon Park" (I couldn't make a direct link work), rather than making people look for it. Also, it should be linked from the article's supporting sentence, not from the next sentence. As for waiting, you probably know that the article will no longer qualify as new in five days or so. Art LaPella (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the suggestions. I have added more text and I hope it satisfies the length criteria. I have also made changes in the reference at 3 related to the Horticulture Departmentas as "Garden Cubbon Park". A modified hook with an image is now introduced below.
  • ... that Cubbon Park has indigenous and exotic botanical species of 68 genera and 96 species with about 6000 plants/trees and is also called Sri.Chamarajendra Park? --Nvvchar (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned that the article appears to draw only on one source, and with under 5,000 Google hits most of the links out there also seem to point to the same source. I've heard the term loanable funds used, but never loanable funds market, probably because as you say it is a "theoretical market" and not a real one, whereas my firm deals with systems for making and assessing trades in the real markets. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of moving it to Loanable funds? Gary King (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the article. Gary King (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get broken links for both cited footnotes, 2 and 3. Please check urls. Kablammo (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, You are right. One of the cited foot note has been moved and I am not able to locate it. Two addtional hooks have been added. The earlier reference 2, now referenced at 3 has been corrected as there was a spelling error. This reference is of the International Lake Environment Committee (ILEC) of Japan, one of the best known institutions in the world on issues concerning lakes. I hope the correccted version is in order.--Nvvchar (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Date, size, hook and source confirmed. (Footnotes should go after punctuation.) Kablammo (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have noted the observaton. I have made changes.--Nvvchar (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length, date, hook's ref verified. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article's prose is significantly less in size than before, and much of the article now consists of a list. While cleaned up and improved, the list does not meet DYK requirements. Kablammo (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May you just tell me why the article is completely ineligible? I think this DYK nom shouldn't get a delete vote automatically. I could still fix the article and try to make this DYK nom successful. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 19:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to have a five-fold expansion of the prose section of the article, and the character count in the list section would be excluded. Your revisions have actually reduced the prose section in size, from over 15,500 characters to less than 900 characters in the non-list part of the article. Formerly the article was a list "trying to do more"; you have recast it as a well-formatted list with a brief introduction. While that may be a useful improvement, the DYK rules are based on a five-fold expansion of prose, as shown in the rules further up this page.
It is unlikely you could expand the prose section of this list to over 79,000 characters, which would be required for a five-fold expansion from the former text.
Other eyes are welcome on this one. Kablammo (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, all of the sections about the stations were direct copies from the articles itself. I will try to make the prose more than 1500 characters if possible. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 20:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main page says "Did you know... From Wikipedia's newest articles:". The #Instructions elaborate on this: the article must be either completely new, or expanded fivefold. The prose portion of the rewritten article is shorter than before, not 5 times larger, and rewritten isn't what we mean by new. 1500 characters would be nowhere near 5 times. If "direct copies" means the previous text doesn't count due to copyright problems, please see "Unwritten" Rule A3. Art LaPella (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess there is no way that this nomination would be accepted. O wells, thanks for both of your times. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


OR

Articles created/expanded on October 3

The sign linked in footnote 1 does not mention salmon; is it mentioned in another source? Kablammo (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: most offline German sources. I'm sorry, but it's hard to find something before www. Oh, and please correct my grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes ,-) Thank you. Greetings Sebastian scha. (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography&oldid=244311230"