Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

MOS:JR

One thing I would like to bring up, I have come to disagree with one part of MOS:JR. This is specifically in part to the article William McKinley where Jr. is not mentioned in the opening. I think we should discuss an update to this to allow Jr. in the opening of articles (E.G. William McKinley Jr. in the opening and then just McKinley in the rest of the article). This is clearly not a case of WP:DEADNAMING. Anyways, what I have to say is that it goes in line with other articles which show the full name, even if it is not a common name in the opening, and full names are almost never a common name, but even if they don't consistently use it. For example, Plenty of sources say will stuff like Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. but he is just called Joe Biden without Robinette. I feel like the text should be updated to allow it in the opening of articles like William McKinley. Anyways, I also feel the text Using Jr., Sr., or other such distinctions, including in the lead sentence of an article, is only for cases in which the name with the suffix is commonly used in reliable sources. sounds somewhat more like WP:COMMONAME. Anyways, I feel like the opening on articles should say William McKinley Jr. and not William McKinley and refer to him as "McKinley" when referring to him by his last name in the entire article. Basically the idea is that full names should be used in parts of the article where full names are usually used. E.G. I don't think readers will think he was referred to as McKinley Jr. just be seeing Jr. there. E.G. everyone calls him Joe Biden and not Joe Biden Jr. and Barack Obama II is not a common name either. Remember, just because a common name is not their full names doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned in the opening. I want to see what you think about a proposed change. If anyone wants to create a new text for a proposal, that would be great. Anyways, my proposal is:

  • Allow Jr. in the opening of an article and in the lead if it is the full name should be mentioned, like in the InfoBox for Full Name and Born which includes birth name.
  • Be specific that if it is not a common name, it should only be for that specific use, and for example with William McKinley, if consensus is reached for this change, change the opening to William McKinley Jr. but do not add Jr. to texts like McKinley was the last president to have served in the American Civil War in line with WP:COMMONAME.

Anyways, I want to see what you think about this idea, but I think full names like William McKinley Jr. should be treated as full names that should be used in line with other articles opening which use full names, even if they are not common names. Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that MOS:JR as it stands is intentionally excluding Jr. using exactly your reasoning; Jr. is in fact not part of his name, it's only added on for disambiguation when actually necessary. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TooManyFingers OK. I am kind of confused. It is actually part of his name? If it is, I think there should be an update for basic facts like full name. I am honestly confused by what you are saying. Especially considering this is the first comment since I started this a few weeks ago and I probably forgot about starting it. Oh well. Other parts of the article say it was his full name. Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that "Junior" (abbreviated Jr.) is not part of a person's full name, and that instructions telling you to omit the "Jr." are true and correct. That's all I was trying to say. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TooManyFingers Is it seriously not? I didn't know that. But it would be good to see what sources say. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I expect there are sources supporting each point of view. I don't mind which way people think of it. But on Wikipedia, stick to Wikipedia's way ... or at least stick to it until your proposal for a change of policy is successful. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about anywhere else, but here in NC the suffix (Junior, II, etc) is included on the birth certificate and is part of the legal name. -- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully support the change Servite et contribuere proposes in this thread. It is often misleading to exclude suffixes. For people who are known to share the full name of at least one previous relative, we should certainly be allowed to contain them. Biden and McKinley are examples of that. Not listing Jr. for them would give a false impression they respectively were the first people named "Joseph Robinette Biden" or "William McKinley". The portion of MOS:JR that got quoted here is unreasonably restrictive and appears to conflate WP:COMMONNAME with a person's full legal name. Whoever implemented that criteria was carelessly ignoring how those aren't always the same thing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of bios

Howdy. @Packerfansam: has for years created bios of Wisconsin politicians & military personnel. However, I find his formatting of these bios to be somewhat rather poorly done. An example - is Douglas Anderson (Wisconsin politician), where it opens with basically one sentence. Then begins a section, which 'only then mentions the birth date. Would somebody else look over the 'example' bios? Maybe he's right & I'm wrong. PS - Apparently he's having health problems, so getting a response from him is difficult. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting input from @Adavidb: (see Lewis L. Johnson) & @Alansohn: (see Chester I. Steele), who've fixed up some of his creations. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - Several of his creations have been nominated for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of bios created by Packerfansam

PS - I've contacted him about this, several months years ago. Since then, he's resumed his creating & apparently hasn't changed his formating. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His lack of communicating isn't helping, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't possibly disagree with GoodDay that I would have hoped for more substantial articles, but I've been glad to help expand these stubs where I can. It seems that every state has an editor who goes through a book online listing military personnel and politicians from that state and creates articles one after another. I've seen editors who love creating articles that are one sentence long for old-time, genuinely notable people. I guess the positive is that they've created a stub that can be expanded, but it tends to be dumped on other editors to do the much harder work of fleshing out an article. Where I completely agree with GoodDay is that some of these microstubs remain unexpanded for a very long time, and that's where this becomes more of a problem. Alansohn (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ... but it tends to be dumped on other editors to do the much harder work of fleshing out an article: WP is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so it's not being dumped on anyone, unless the subject itself is non-notable. —Bagumba (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does however appear as though Packerfansam is more interested in quantity, rather than quality. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL requires that editors be responsive to good-faith questions. You could alternatively suggest specific changes you would like them to make; perhaps they're not into discussion, but would follow direct suggestions. Otherwise, the non-communication may end up being a WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE that needs the attention of an admin or noticeboard. Good luck. —Bagumba (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the arrangement of the creations, that are a problem. The brief one sentence lead "...X was a member of the Wisconsin Assembly", followed by a 'Biography' section. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: Did you name the right editor? Packerfansam is not communicating because they haven't edited since October, and your only edit on their talk page was yesterday. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted the correct editor. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflicted when trying to update that. I expanded the history and see that you also left messages in 2018 and 2019. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it appears he's ignored my suggestions on the formatting. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Lewis L. Johnson, I came across the article as unassessed, rated it as Stub-class, saw its lead as woefully minimal, and added what I thought was a proper summary based on existing article content. Without such summary in the lead, it's easy for the subject to be dismissed and perhaps deletion sought when not warranted. I also made other minor updates that seemed best practice based on my editing experience. The five sample bios are in the same poor condition. While it would certainly help followup editors if such articles were created with better quality, it does not seem likely that the creating editor will change methodology. Emphasis of the possibility or likelihood of deletion, perhaps. —ADavidB 19:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would the community consider barring the editor from article creation? if they continue to ignore calls to change methodology? GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the page to seek such a remedy, and I am very skeptical that there would be consensus for that when they haven't edited in two months. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:JOBTITLE and exceptions

I agree with the part that says

Offices, titles, and positions .... are capitalized only in the following cases:
  • When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
  • ....

However, I propose that we remove one of the examples of when that rule does not apply:

Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972.

so that the rule does apply:

Mao met with US President Richard Nixon in 1972.

As I see it, the title is "US President" and gets an uppercase "P". If instead the sentence is that

Mao met with the US president in 1972.

which gets a lowercase "p", and we want to add in the president's name then we have a choice. We can convert to a title as further above in green; that's what I would do. But if we want to insist that it remains an office, we could do that by adding some commas.

Mao met with the US president, Richard Nixon, in 1972.

and I bet there are other ways too. Without the commas or some other fix, I propose that the project page indicate that this is correct:

Mao met with US President Richard Nixon in 1972.

—Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The title is “President”. Regardless of the examples, the text of this MOS guideline states that Wikipedia only capitalizes unmodified titles. Clearly “US” modifies “president” the same way that “French” would modify “president” in the construction “French president Macron”.
This is also consistent with Chicago’s 17th edition which gives the example German chancellor Angela Merkel (but Chancellor Merkel). (Yes, Chicago’s 18th edition has changed its guidance on this, but the current Wikipedia MOS was written before the 18th edition was released.)) —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information from Chicago's (which I assume is The Chicago Manual of Style). You've left me curious as to what the 18th edition says! —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes… Chicago Manual of Style, sorry…
Chicago’s 18th edition says to capitalize titles whenever they precede a personal name, regardless of whether the title is modified. Maybe Wikipedia will update its MOS guidelines to mirror this change in the future, but we’re not there yet. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just pulled up the text of Chicago 18. It says “Unless it is separated from the name by a comma, a formal title used in apposition to a name should be capitalized when it precedes the name. […] This departure from the advice in previous editions aligns with common usage (and with 8.20) and will aid clarity in most instances.” It also gives the example German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, which is contrary to the example from Chicago 17. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well, this could be turned into a proposal to update MOS to mirror those style guides... Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Eyer for all the research you are doing here. Why do you say "... but we're not there yet."? I'd venture that Wikipedia is all about bold, incremental improvements. As a general rule, I usually say that "now" is a good time to make an improvement, such as this one. Shall we make a bold leap? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s up to other people besides me. If someone wants to use Chicago 18 as a trigger to revisit MOS:JOBTITLES, but it’s important to know that that guideline wasn’t written based on Chicago’s guidelines alone. I’m told that there are other style guides out there that would still dictate lowercase modified job titles. (I’m not familiar with these, as my workplace uses Chicago as its fundamental style guide.) —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we do go with boldly making a change, the uppercasing should apply only descriptors that are reasonably part of the title. That is, we'd have
Mao met with likeable US President Richard Nixon in 1972
Mao met with the likeable US president, Richard Nixon, in 1972
where "likeable" starts with a lowercase letter regardless of title vs. office. Perhaps The Chicago Manual of Style 18th Edition (or similar) says something about this distinction, and we could mirror that. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago 18 would capitalize both of those. The distinction that you propose would be difficult to interpret, I think.
For example, would “French” reasonably be part of the title “French president Macron”? IIRC, the actual title is “President of France”. “French” is definitely an adjective that modifies “president”… and it’s not part of the official title at all. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd go with likeable President Macron and French President Macron and likeable French President Macron, where "President" is part of the title in all cases. (Because "French" is an adjective for a proper noun, we don't have to decide whether it is part of the title.) But I'm not Chicago, so I don't count as much. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you’re proposing, then, that all titles be capitalized when they precede a personal name regardless of whether they’re modified and regardless of whether the modifier might be reasonably construed to be part of the title. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 20:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if the wording came from Chicago 18 or similar, but if it comes down to me, I'd go for something like:
All words that could reasonably be considered to be part of a person's title, and that immediately precede the person's name without intervening punctuation, should start with a capital letter. For example, I visited the office of US Senate President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley.
—Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be simpler if you just proposed that titles be capitalized when they precede a personal name. Modifiers won’t be capitalized unless they’re proper nouns or adjectives… but that’s okay because in the example that you just gave, “US” and “Senate” would be capitalized anyway… and “President Pro Tempore” is the title that you want to be capitalized. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 21:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if there is an intervening comma then that could change things:
I visited the office of the US Senate president pro tempore, Charles Grassley.
If your proposed wording includes a nod to that, I'd probably jump on board with it. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The appositive must not be offset by commas. For what it’s worth, though, I’m not proposing this change. I actually prefer the guidelines the way they are. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 21:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Getting rid of "US Senate" which only serves to obscure things, the two suggested versions are:
  • I visited the office of President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley.
  • I visited the office of the president pro tempore, Charles Grassley.
—Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your two examples are compliant with Chicago 18. However, you wanted an example of a title that’s capitalized when it precedes a personal name even though the title is modified. Those two examples don’t include that scenario. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 21:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are saying that "President Pro Tempore" is a title, not a modified title. So if we change that to "Committee President" maybe that gets at what you are saying?
  • I visited the office of Committee President Mohamed Cohen.
  • I visited the office of the committee president, Mohamed Cohen.
—Quantling (talk | contribs) 03:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with these examples. Per MOS:INSTITUTIONS, “committee” should be lowercase because it’s a common noun.
Consider I visited the office of Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason T. Smith. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 03:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe this identifies the heart of the proposed change. I am proposing that because "committee president" is the position held, and it immediately precedes the name (without intervening punctuation), it gets title case as in I visited the office of Committee President Mohamed Cohen. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This is the issue. The title/position is "president". "Committee" isn't part of the title; it describes what type of president it is. I disagree that "committee" should be capitalized here. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 16:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:POSTNOM violations

This is a topic I brought up about two years ago, but it didn't really go anywhere.

Can anyone explain why, after the 2023 RfC that deprecated using postnom suffixes in the lead, cinematography Wikipedia articles still almost always begin to the effect of "Firstname Lastname ASC (January 1, 1900 – January 1, 2000)"? I have never seen any other organization mentioned like this, but this formatting is still extremely common across cinematographer biographies, even though it looks like an open-and-shut violation of WP:POSTNOM (not to mention, it's extremely unremarkable for a Wikipedia-worthy cinematographer to be in ASC or BSC or similar).

I assume the simplest answer is "nobody cares and no one will care if you remove them". But they're in so many articles it would feel inherently disruptive if I took a saw to them. Even though the few times they've been discussed, they seem quite negative - "those film industry postnominals, they should not be appended to a person's name" "they represent little more than that someone joined a club" --Quiz shows 03:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're certain the feedback you've received so far soundly agrees with you, why are you still hesitating? Eventually a point comes where you can accept that you've been basically told "You're right". You can reference the other discussions as your rationale. You might want to do one or a few at a time to start rather than mowing a bunch down, only to have one zealot revert you on dozens of articles at a time, just to square this away once and for all by citing previous discussions and opinions. Then, let 'er rip. Largoplazo (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't entirely sure given the lack of responses I usually get. But yeah, I think I've given enough time, nobody seems to object. I'll just point people here if they do. --Quiz shows 04:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simple membership of an organisation has never been sufficient reason to include a postnom. Only fellowships of learned societies count. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:JOBTITLE - capitalisation when referring to "office itself"

In which style guide is this advice on capitalisation (from MOS:JOBTITLE) given: "When referring to an office or title itself, (as King of France); is not plural (Kings of France); is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article) (the King of France, former King of France), and is not a reworded description (Head of Government of France)"? Couldn't find it in Chicago or MHRA. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a direct quote from Chicago 17, but it basically mirrors Chicago 17. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago gives the general rule: "Civil, military, religious, and professional titles are capitalized when they immediately precede a personal name and are thus used as part of the name (traditionally replacing the title holder’s first name). In formal prose and other generic text, titles are normally lowercased when following a name or used in place of a name."
There are a couple of exceptions to this e.g. in promotional or ceremonial contexts, and titles of nobility. Perhaps this last exception is where the rule is drawn from, but this is not a rule about capitalising the "office itself", but rather because, in the case of nobility, the title becomes a "permanent part of a person's name."
Importantly, this applies only to nobility and not any offices or other titles.
What am I missing? I've only looked at the Titles and Offices section, so maybe relevant advice is given elsewhere. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote is from Chicago 18, which came out after MOS:JOBTITLES was developed. I don’t know where the phrase “office or title itself” might have come from. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 02:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago 17 is not meaningfully different here. It certainly does not "basically mirror" the "office itself" advice. Maybe someone else knows where this comes from? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:JOBTITLES is not modelled after any out-of-Wikipedia practice. Outside Wikipedia, fancy job titles are either consistently capitalized (government websites and such) or consistently decapitalized (academia, journalism). Wikipedia's bizarre mish-mash is the product of trying to have one's cake and eat it. Surtsicna (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to remember that, while heavily influenced by outside style guides (Chicago, etc), our MOS is not beholden to them. Consensus of our editors governs our style, and (occasionally) this results in guidance that is unique to WP. Now, consensus can change… so, if you think our guidance on some particular point of style should be in line with outside guidance, feel free to propose a change. Make the best argument you can… Just be willing to accept the result if it turns out that consensus hasn’t’’ changed after all. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this being unique to Wikipedia is that JOBTITLES attaches meaning to capitalization. "The King reigns" vs "the king reigns" means different things on Wikipedia, but not outside of Wikipedia, which is not at all helpful to readers. It is not even helpful to editors. Surtsicna (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ROYAL

For visual clarity, articles on monarchs should generally begin with the form "{name} {ordinal if appropriate} (full name – but without surname; birth and death dates, if applicable)", and articles on other royals should generally begin with the form "{royal title} {name} {ordinal if appropriate} (full name – including surname if known; birth and death dates, if applicable)"

Some questions.

  1. How is it a full name if it is without surname?
  2. Why should middle names be included in the lead without surname if the surname is known?

Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an attempt to push 'last names' into the lead? I'll oppose. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those discussions were already had, at Elizabeth II & Charles III bios. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Remind us why you oppose. Surtsicna (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The monarchs "don't" use their last names. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They don't use their middle names either. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Remove them from the lead as well. Though you'd likely get more (concerning middle names) resistance from others. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hence question #2. Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Royals don't typically have a surname in the traditional sense. Occasionally a document requires one, and they'll put something like Windsor, Mountbatten-Windsor or Wales, but those names don't appear in common usage even where the middle names do. See [1] for example. Like GoodDay I would oppose any attempt to change this, and it is a can of worms that we've hopefully put to bed following years of debate.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather disingenuous to argue that Charles III's middle names appear in common usage. I saw no consensus in the recent discussion at Talk:Charles III to retain the middle names in the lead without surname. The proposal to exclude both middle names and last name from the lead seemed like a reasonable compromise. Surtsicna (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Singling out Charles in this instance would be ridiculous. You can extend this argument to every single British monarch and their respective spouses and children. Might as well start an RfC and get a consensus that can be applied to all those pages without starting an edit war. Keivan.fTalk 03:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This guideline is already not being applied to the Windsor princes and princesses. It says put "full name – including surname if known" in the lead for non-monarchs. Surtsicna (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this non-monarch bit of MOS:ROYAL should be changed to full name – including surname if known applicable (where "applicable" here would refer back to the "if known and in normal use" in the first sentence). Rosbif73 (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"if applicable" is too vague to be helpful. Surtsicna (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of MOS:ROYAL explains the situation perfectly: Only incorporate surnames in the opening line of royal biographies if they are known and if they are in normal use (my emphasis). Depending on the monarchy, the monarch and some other senior royals do not use a surname and in some cases don't even have one (the name of the royal house is NOT the same thing as a surname).
The guideline applies to all royals, not just monarchs, and hence the surname is rightly not included for those who don't have or normally use one. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer your second question, "middle" names can form part of the full name whether or not the person uses a surname. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then the guideline is self-contradicting. Part of the full name ≠ full name. I'll also note that the middle names are not "in normal use" either. Surtsicna (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For a person that doesn't have a surname, full name = first name + middle names. No contradiction there. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we are not talking about people who do not have surnames. Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we are. We're talking about cases like William Arthur Philip Louis, commonly known as William, whose middle names are rarely used but form part of his full name, who does not have a surname. There's an inherent difference between him and, say, Frederick Joseph Bloggs, commonly known as Fred Bloggs, whose middle name is also a rarely-used part of his full name, but whose surname indisputably forms part of his full name.
Yes, we know that William is of the House of Windsor, is entitled to use Mountbatten-Windsor for administrative purposes where a surname may be needed, and has formerly used "Wales" in other circumstances, but none of these form part of his full name, and should thus not be included in the opening sentence. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That William does not have a surname is a fiction espoused by some Wikipedia editors. The royal family's website says that they do have a surname. There are no reliable sources that say that William or his family do not have a surname. Surtsicna (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No fiction. The Privy Council declaration that established the "Mountbatten-Windsor" surname clearly excludes senior royals like William from its applicability: descendants of Elizabeth II other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess [...] shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor. The royal family website states that those in his situation do not normally need a surname but may use M-W if they do need one. That's not the same thing as saying that he actually bears that surname. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The clause excluding princes and princesses does not appear in George V's proclamation: all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor. Does this mean that Prince Michael of Kent has a surname, but Prince Harry does not? Surtsicna (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that this discussion is only about British royals so far, so let me answer this from another European perspective:
1. How is it a full name if it is without surname? - Although this guideline admittedly is a one-size-fits-all approach, some royal families, namely the Danish and Greek ones, have not used surnames. Thus, their full names do not have surnames, and when noted in WP:RSs, Wikipedia should reflect this.
2. Why should middle names be included in the lead without surname if the surname is known? - Again, this guideline speaks from a general perspective. However, Wikipedia should follow what WP:RSs say, and some royal family/house websites indeed use middle names without surnames. Again using the Danish royal family, we know there is no surname they have used. However, their website's biographies include middle names.
AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming this might have something to do with the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor article. On that particular BLP, I'm not certain how to handle his name in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

His case is that of a private untitled citizen like Zara Tindall, Kate Winslet, etc. And even with relatives who do have a title but are not "royal" we go with the full name and surname in the opening sentence; e.g. James, Earl of Wessex, etc. Keivan.fTalk 07:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tallinn, Soviet Union

Moved from Talk:Estonia § Tallinn, Soviet Union

The RFC about the Baltic States was focused on the infobox, but has now also been implemented on pages without an infobox, but with a birthplace indicated in the parentheses in the lead: diff. The formulation Tallinn, Soviet Union, seems like the worst possible format to choose: it is not geographically specific since Soviet Union was huge, and leaving Estonia out while mentioning Soviet Union can be offensive. According to the MOS, places of birth/death should not be included like this in parentheses, and ultimately, the information should be moved to body and Soviet part should be expressed with appropriate nuance. However, editing many bios requires some effort, and in the meantime I suggest that the edits by User:Glebushko0703 which changed e.g. from the format ([date of birth] [City]) to ([date of birth] [City], Soviet Union) be simply reverted. Courtesy ping to @Rsjaffe (due to above diff) and @ExRat and @GoodDay who already commented at the original location. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least "City, xSSR, Soviet Union" should be in the body of a bio. GoodDay (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox RFC does not constrain our hands to that specific format. Depending on the bio, it could also be "Tallinn, in Soviet-occupied Estonia", which conveys the same factual information. But do we really need to emphasize the occupation of the Baltic states in the bio of every Baltic person who lived during that period with either of these formats, or is the neutral "Tallinn, Estonia" still allowed as the birthplace in the prose? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These bios are of people who were born and/or died in the USSR. We shouldn't hide that fact, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, USSR is obvious from the rest of the article (diff) and then "Tallinn, Estonia" should be enough. After all, the editors have the freedom to decide how they distribute the information. The most unclear cases are those in which the political system has no immediate relevance for the biography. (perhaps e.g. this diff) For those subjects, it seems simpler to not discuss it at all since it distracts from more relevant aspects of the biography. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Best we use the birth and/or death country, accuracy is best. GoodDay (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then be accurate and mention occupation fact. City, Modern country then occupied by USSR. Yet somehow you don't want to be accurate in occupation fact. Nor this hides any information.
For those who are not well versed in post world war 2 history specific to Baltic, it can be confusing as ussr nor ssr exist anymore, and then they need to search what modern countries exist there. And there are even less people who will have idea where Estoni, Latvia, Lithuania SSR were located. BerzinsJanis (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BerzinsJanis, @Jähmefyysikko, @GoodDay: If the article is a biography, then adding a diverting discussion about the history of the country the subject was born or died in is out of place. That's what we have wikilinks for. We would not, for instance, add extra phrases about "Austrian-occupied Hungary" for biographies of people from Budapest born in the period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire; Barak Obama's article does not give details about him being born in what some consider as American-occupied Hawaii.
I am not averse to qualifying country names to better inform their geopolitical status at a given time; so Tallinn, Estonian SSR, rather than USSR-occupied Estonia. Gustav Klimt has two such qualifications for his borth and death. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean that reader is well versed in history of said regions. Its far more likely that reader will know modern place name not one is not used for more than 30 years.
If we dont want to include history of place, the using modern name is better option as then it is not confusing about location of place.
Tha is, if the core purpose of a biography is to situate the subject clearly for today’s reader, not to litigate historical argument in the opening facts. Modern place names does that best. Readers immediately understand where Estonia or Latvia is. This would go hand in hand with Barack Obama example of showing modern place name. BerzinsJanis (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean that reader is well versed in history of said regions. No, it doesn't mean that. It means we're saying where the person was born. If the reader doesn't know where that is or was, whether it's Nebuchadnezzar II born in 7th century BCE Uruk, Assyria (not Iraq) or Seretse Khama born in 1921 Bechuanaland (not Botswana) or Gable Garenamotse born in 1977 Botswana (which many readers won't have heard of), they were born in the context of the world at the time, but being able to get to the next piece of info you need is the great thing about wikilinks. Largoplazo (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of an article isn't a place to digress and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Or to cram in every historical fact that matters. Largoplazo (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Precision, especially about peripheral matters (the political status of Estonia during the Soviet era is peripheral to who an article's subject is), is left for, if anywhere, the rest of the article. The lead is to be concise, the lead sentence even more so, and focused on its subject.
WP:MODERNPLACENAME, which you cited, says Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods and gives a number of examples that contradict you.
It is neutrally true that in, say, 1950, Tallinn was in the Estonian SSR in the Soviet Union. That the occupation of Estonia by the USSR was controversial doesn't alter that it was, neutrally, reality at the time. Retrospectively interjecting your objection over that state of affairs in a place where it's not the topic (the topic being, who this person is/was) is what isn't neutral.
When modern names are anachronistic in a given context, they don't provide clarity, they're misleading, even counterfactual. Try changing the Nebuchadnezzar II article to state that he was born in Iraq. State in the edit summary that you're doing it to be neutral and out of concern for clarity and see how that goes. Largoplazo (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tallinn was de facto in the Estonian SSR in 1950, sure, but given the very limited international recognition of the Baltic SSRs one can hardly claim that the statement is neutrally true. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Estonian SSR" is not a historical name in above sense; the non-sovereign country was commonly known as "Estonia". For example, it is not historically inaccurate to say that "Kaja Kallas was born in Estonia". Making a wikilink to Estonia is more debatable, that depends on how one interprets the scope of that article, whether it is about the modern state only. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree with that. Just as the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic was "Kirghizia". Looking at the very beginning of this thread, I see I may have gotten lost in the woods a little, but my original comment was solely in response to this comment by BerzinsJanis focusing on the premise that we should generally use modern names for places rather than names that were in effect in the eras being covered, or, at least, the names conventionally used now to refer to those places in the context of those eras.
But, yeah, sure, even in the 1970s I knew about Soviet republics called "Estonia", "Latvia", "Lithuania", as well as "Moldavia", "Byelorussia", etc.; the "SSR" versions were only their formal names. It's fine to use because it was the common name of the place in English at the time, not because it's the modern name. Largoplazo (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that simply appending "Soviet Union" to the local placename is unhelpful at best, and hugely inappropriate at worst. Doing so without due attention to historical context can also easily lead to mistakes like [2] (birth date precedes Soviet occupation) or [3] (county didn't exist during Soviet occupation). At the very least, editors with the appropriate knowledge about Estonian history and geography should be involved in the implementation of any consensus or decision reached, instead of the rapid-fire method which seems to have been employed so far.
I would also like to point out that the discussion shouldn't be focused exclusively on the Soviet occupation (like the implementation of the infobox RFC appears to have been). If there is consensus for the use of historical names of occupying regimes, then the German ones need to be considered as well. And if accuracy is the goal, then this necessitates compiling a definitive list with the start and end dates of every regime or entity that has had de facto control over the territory of Estonia, to prevent editors from having to manually comb through different articles about Estonian history. Exact dates are important, because comparing just the year of birth (or death) can also result in mistakes: [4], [5]. Consensus would also need to be reached about transitional periods, for example 16 June - 6 August 1940, or 8 May 1990 - 20 August 1991.
Further, and again for the sake of accuracy, for dates during which Estonia was de facto independent, "Republic of Estonia" would need to be used. After all, if it is necessary to indicate if Estonia was occupied on the date of some person's birth or death, it is equally necessary to indicate if it was not. This magnifies the effort needed, as the article of virtually every person who was born or died in Estonia would need to be revised, and the changes reviewed for mistakes.
By contrast, simply using the politically neutral term "Estonia" avoids all of the above problems. Geographically, it is unambiguous and pretty much equivalent to "Estonian SSR" and "Generalbezirk Estland", so no accuracy is lost. No historical facts are hidden either, since the Estonia article sufficiently covers the relevant historical periods. If the fact of occupation is directly relevant to a person's birth or death, then the term "Soviet-occupied Estonia" or "Nazi-occupied Estonia" can be used, but this should probably be decided on a case-by-case basis, rather than burdening Wikipedia with yet another rule which, so far, has not been demonstrated to actually meaningfully improve anything.
For the time being, though, I agree that the edits that simply appended "Soviet Union" to the local placename should be reverted, being more of a hindrance than help to readers (because there are now two wikilinks to click, only one of which is actually useful for someone who doesn't know where e.g. Kapa-Kohila or Väike-Maarja is). Indrek (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree if historical facts are important, they can be mentioned in that persons main article. BerzinsJanis (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would we write that someone was born in Springfield, United States? Largoplazo (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My impression, based on browsing through some of the featured biographies, is that many simply state the city of birth (or comparable locality) in the prose, without specifying the sovereign state. Especially if the person was active in a single country and that country is already mentioned in the first sentence. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo and Indrek:, would using just the city, "Tallinn" be the best choice in the body, if there's no infobox? GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In that diff, there was another thing wrong - we had a birth place crammed into the lead section contrary to MOS:LEADBIO.
Now that that has been fixed, I think it's fine to add (at the time in the Estonian SSR) after the mention of the city. I'm less enthusiastic about also adding a link to the Soviet Union in this case because it just creates a sea of blue links and violates the spirit of MOS:GEOLINK. It's easy enough for readers who aren't familiar with what SSR refers to - to click on the one curious link and find out. --Joy (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the diff, yes, Tallinn, Soviet Union, was a mistake. Tallinn, or Tallinn, Estonian SSR would have been better. One thing I'd like to point out is that the original RfC closer also invited a follow-on RfC to have a common footnote addressing the legitimacy of the occupation. That is one way to address the issue. Claiming that the RfC only affected infoboxes would lead to an odd outcome: referring to a place with one name in the infobox and a different name in the body. The discussion in the RfC was about the application of MoS to the placename, and I think it is inappropriate to ignore the RfC's advice in the body of the article. Also note this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use English Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title, or a historical name when discussing a past period. Use of one name for a settlement in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same settlement in 1900 or in 1400... — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I did not intend any personal criticism of you by selecting that particular diff. I fully understand that the revert occurred during a larger disruption. Regarding the applicability of the infobox RFC to the body, I disagree. First, the RFC was explicitly formulated in terms of a specific field in the infobox. Also consider Kaja Kallas, who is described as having been born in Soviet-occupied Estonia in the body. This description is reasonable in view of her family background, which includes independence activists, deportations, and her family members being labelled as "enemies of the state". There is no disconnect with the infobox: Estonian SSR, Soviet Union and Soviet-occupied Estonia clearly refer to the same historical reality. This is not in violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use English and there is no systemic problem that requires a blanket rule to resolve. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Being born and/or died in (for example) Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR or Lithuanian SSR, are facts that should not be hidden. If there's no infobox in the bios? it should be in the article body. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think we're heading towards RFC territory. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t the George Washington infobox give us the precedent? Born in Popes Creek, Virginia, British America. Similarly here, born in [town], Estonia, USSR. MapReader (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion about the body of the article, not the infobox. Washington's article reads: "George Washington was born on February 22, 1732, at Popes Creek in Westmoreland County, Virginia." ExRat (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"[town], Estonian SSR, Soviet Union" would be best. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"[town], Estonian SSR, Soviet Union" would be too long and cluttered inside the body of the article. In my opinion "[town], Estonia" or even only "[town]" is good enough, since "Estonian SSR" is commonly also referred as "Estonia". We don't have to link the name "Estonia". Karljohan29 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Too crowded? Then we can use "[town], Estonian SSR". We shouldn't hide facts from bios. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic we would put, for example, "[town], Swiss Confederation" and "[town], Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". But no, we use the country's common name. "Estonia" was the common English name of the de facto Estonian SSR, just as it was the common name of the de jure Republic of Estonia during the Soviet occupation, and is still the common name of the current Republic of Estonia. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would "[town]", be optional? GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think an RFC is warranted, as there are nuances and context. Having some hard rule on how the biographies of individuals are written limits any sort of nuance or context. In some articles, it may be appropriate to define that an individual was born in the ESSR. In other cases, not. It's all dependent on the biography of the person. I fail to see how in a stub of some sports figure who competes for Estonia or an actor who rose to prominence post 1991 the importance to note in the body of the stub that they were born in the ESSR when simply the village/town/borough/county/city they were born in suffices and the lead already states their nationality. In some cases, due to the nature of the notability of the person, then it's maybe of consequence or interest to note that individual was born in the ESSR, Generalbezirk Estland, the Republic of Estonia, etc (a Soviet era politician, a Nazi collaborator, repressed individuals, forest brothers, authors who supported/opposed Soviet occupation, people who were somehow historically or personally impacted by, or shaped certain eras.) But that should be entirely determined by the biography of the person on whether that is of importance to note. After the infobox RFC was decided, I created the English language article for actor Arno Liiver. I abided by the outcome (which, I strongly opposed). However, apart from the infobox and lead stating nationality, of what importance is it in the body of the article to make mention that of the ESSR or the Soviet Union? That had little to no bearing on anything of any real importance to his notability and is just clunky writing, in my opinion. "Arno Liiver was born Mõisaküla, Viljandi County on 11 October 1954, to Hans and Natalia Liiver." Does anyone honestly think that "Arno Liiver was born Mõisaküla, Viljandi County, Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, Soviet Union on 11 October 1954, to Hans and Natalia Liiver" in the body of the article is imperative to mention when that has really no bearing on his notability? Their nationality is already established in the lead and specifically where they were born in the infobox. American actors generally aren't stated as 'John F. Jones was born Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, United States of America to James Jones and Mary Jones' in the body of the article, British writers aren't generally listed as 'Stephen Howard was born on 12 January 1895 in Bradford, County of York, West Riding, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' in the body of the article. It really is about context, and I am hesitant to abide by some strictly enforced rule when creating articles that states that I must place Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, Soviet Union into the body when it has no basis for being there other than to satisfy one or two editors whose main agenda, it seems to me, is to troll Estonian editors. If it is relevant to the biography of the individual, it should obviously be included within the biography and elaborated on, but it being there simply for an editor or two to make a point, I won't. ExRat (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We need input from across the Wiki-community. I'll be opening an RFC later & it'll be about Batlic bios, as that's what this discusison is mostly about. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can do that. I accepted the outcome of the infobox RFC. I already expressed that I will accept the outcome of the Estonian short description. But, I will unequivocally state now, that I will not accept a rule that states that it is mandated that every Estonian person born between 1945 and 1991 must explicitly state that they were born in the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, Soviet Union in the body of the biography, regardless of context. No other rule declares this for anyone of any other nationality. I have been an editor in good standing on English language Wikipedia for 20 years and 6 months. This is a step too far. I will retire, or be banned. Because I will not accept this. Do you plan on implementing this rule on every biography of every individual who has a Wikipedia article, or is it just the Estonians? Every individual with a Wiki entry must explicitly state in the body of the biography section the nation or occupying nation where they were born? There is an absolute agenda at play here, one that I initially tried to downplay. Two editors working in tandem. ExRat (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can expand it for all bios o people born and/or died in countries that no longer exist. For the moment I'm ironing out details at my sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that any RfC proposing a one-size-fits-all solution for all people born and/or died in countries that no longer exist is doomed to failure. There are just too many different scenarios, especially in cases where the status of the country is (or was at the time) disputed or contentious. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly would such potential proposal even look like? Would the first mention of a locality be expected to follow a particular format? Would it be limited to a birth/death place or applied to all localities mentioned in the article (in case they are located in the Baltics)? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It likely should be just for just Baltic bios. I'll wait to see if we can come to a consensus here, first. No big hurry. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why just for Baltics? Because its easyer to force your point of view? No solution that will include USSR and SSR without clarifying occupation or modern state name will reach any form of meaningfull solution. BerzinsJanis (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, why just for the Baltics? I'm curious to know this as well. ExRat (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I could open it up to all bios, fwiw. Doesn't need to be limited to Baltics. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this discussion another few weeks, to see if a consensus will be formed concerning nameplace in the body of an article. Then I'll mull over whether to go the RFC route, if no consensus has formed. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ExRat and BerzinsJanis: Perhaps you didn't read - "Then I'll mull over whether to go the RFC route..." I haven't decided that I will & there's no hurry to make that decision. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Place name

@Jähmefyysikko, Bazza 7, Largoplazo, Indrek, Rsjaffe, MapReader, ExRat, and Rosbif73: May we come to an agreement, that "[town]" would be enough in the bio article body? GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely, yes. That doesn't stretch any MOS rules. My only concern was that if a national identification is made, that it be appropriate for the relevant time period as referenced in the context of the identification of the location. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A clarification, in response to some subsequent comments. Town only is fine when it is reasonable to believe that that provides enough identification for the reader. This is, of course, dependent upon the context in the article as well as how well-known the town is. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in above in my long-winded (apologies) rant, it is entirely dependent on the individual and their circumstances or relation to the nation/state they were born. There should be no precise rule, as sometimes it makes sense in a biography to state which political or national era they were born in and other times it is completely inconsequential and simply a town will suffice. ExRat (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot support any such blanket statement. It might be reasonable for major cities like Tallinn, Riga or Vilnius, which are probably as well-known as their respective countries, but in most cases including "Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania" provides valuable geographical context (particularly, I would guess, when consuming Wikipedia articles through methods like screen readers, LLMs or print media). Finally, I am concerned that such an agreement could be used to justify indiscriminate removal of "Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania" from bio articles. Indrek (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with you on this one. There is already editors who have spend 21 hours of changing Estonia to USSR SSR after one buched RFC... BerzinsJanis (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: After the first occurrence of it in the article's main body (excluding the lead and any infobox), yes. Enough location information should be given in the first mention to provide the reader with an unambiguous statement of where and when (for town, country and anything between) is being referred to. Josse Boutmy, as an example, was born in Ghent, Austrian Netherlands; and Anna Tuschinski in Danzig in the Kingdom of Prussia. Bazza 7 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is wide variability on how the birth place or any other geographic location is presented in featured biographies. That is no problem for the reader. We don't need another rule. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthesis

Should any placenames be in parenthesis? GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosbif73, Bazza 7, Largoplazo, Indrek, Karljohan29, MapReader, and ExRat: for more input. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean in the opening sentence, together with the birth/death dates, then no. From WP:BIRTHPLACE:
Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates.
Indrek (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No. Even in a stub, that should be below. ExRat (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Below what? --Joy (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I misunderstood. I took it to mean in the parenthesis in the lead sentence: Name (dob, place – dod, place). By "below", I meant below the lead section, never in the parenthesis. ExRat (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh actually that should go without saying that we move all places out of the lead anyway, because of the style guidelines.
I thought the question was, in the later sections, when a place is mentioned, can the mention of the jurisdiction be in parens. To which my answer would be yes, because this is often peripheral information. --Joy (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I ask? because across Wikipedia, there's no consistency in the matter. Some bios show place names & some don't. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be that those are old articles translated from other wikis using that convention. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the parenthesis (except dates), is something I'm in angreement with. But, it's something that'll be near impossible to implement across all bios. I don't envy the task of anyone, who attempts it. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies