This page falls within the scope of theWikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across theManual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
This page may fall under thecontentious topics procedure and be given additional attention, as it may be closely associated to thearticle titles policy andcapitalisation. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review theawareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Ashley Rindsberg (28 August 2025)."Wikipedia Editors Can't Decide If the Minneapolis Shooter Was a Man or a Woman". Pirate Wires. Retrieved29 August 2025.By the standard of Wikipedia policy, which is pro-trans, this position is correct. Wikipedia's Manual of Style states:Unless a living transgender or non-binary person was notable (by Wikipedia's standards) under a former name (a deadname), the former name should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. However, as another editor noted, this case precipitated a clash with a different Wikipedia policy: relying on reliable sources to support claims.
There is a discussion at thetalk page for Zohran Mamdani as to whether it is appropriate to refer to him as "left-wing." The discussion centers on whether he is reliably called that in RS, as well as what we use forother politicians. But my feeling is that left- and right-wing are non-neutral characterizations, and we should rather describe politicians by their party and their positions. Should left-wing and right-wing be generally avoided in BLPs?GreatCaesarsGhost12:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a relative term. To be on the left-wing of a left-wing political party is different from being on the left-wing of a right-wing party. It also varies over time, for example you’d probably find reliable sources saying the (left-wing) UK Labour Party has moved to the right at various points in its history, though that would mean moving to the right of its traditional position, not necessarily to the right of a right-wing party. Is it also different between different political systems? I imagine left-wing in US is positioned differently from left-wing in UK, and if so, reliable US and UK sources could say different things about the same politician’s left/right position on the same issue. --Northernhenge (talk)18:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A mild insult. At least in the US, every politician likes to portray themself as supporting the pure and logical ethos of all mankind, and everyone else falls to the left or right of them. So in practice is is almost always used relative to the speaker; a right-leaning person will call their opponents "left-wing" and their peers "conservative."GreatCaesarsGhost20:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, just wanted to throw my two cents in. We call certain politicians "conspiracy theorists" (outright, not simply "they are often referred to as 'conspiracy theorists'") in their lead; I find it hard to imagine that calling someone left-wing will be found to be a NPOV issue. Just throwing that out there. One is significantly more charged language than the other, as well (in case I'm not clear, "conspiracy theorist" is more charged).
While I acknowledge "other things exist" is not an argument, we must also apply Wikipedia's rules and standards fairly, evenly, and objectively; Using the same logic and application of rules, "left-wing" is fine if the sources support it. Which, I don't know if they do in the mayor-elect's case. However, opining that "left-wing" or "right-wing" is an insult is precisely that, an opinion. We should refer to them as the sources do. If consensus holds that the sources refer to them as-such, go for it. If consensus holds that they do not generally refer to them as such, then don't go for it.
I just don't think things should be over-complicated.Orherwise, just bite the bullet and hold an RfC regarding the use of "(far) left-wing" and "(far) right-wing." With all due respect, lacking an official RfC (and if you mean for this to be, I apologize), it seems like you're just duplicating a conversation already taking-place, as you yourself pointed-out.
P.S.Personally I would support restricting the use of these labels to paraphrasing, indirect attributions, and quotes, as long as the citations immediately follow it. E.g. "They are often described as '[(far) XYZ]-wing.'"MWFwiki (talk)20:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Left" and "right" mean so many different things, depending on the speaker, that I'm not convinced they're incredibly useful in this context. It would be better to describe, if not specific policy positions, then at least broad strokes of policy on, say, culture, trade, immigration, domestic economics. In any case I agree with MWFwiki that we should be chary of using Wikivoice to describe persons as "left" or "right". --Trovatore (talk)21:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline as written probably doesn't cover this quite clearly enough. I think the third bullet point, with "is not preceded by a modifier", is meant to apply, rather than the first one. To me, the phrase is best understood as "the French king, Louis XVI", not as "the French ruler known as King Louis XVI, in contrast to the Italian ruler known as King Louis XVI".Largoplazo (talk)22:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RegardingMOS:BIOALTNAME, I think it is unnecessary to repeat the mononym if it is part of the full name. For example, writingAdele Laurie Blue Adkins, known mononymously as Adele does not provide additional knowledge to the reader, because readers can already tell the common name from the article title. In cases of article likeAdele orBeyoncé, the lead works fine without repeating the mononym.
That said, I may be overlooking something. Am raising this here to seek consensus on whether repetition should be avoided and I would appreciate further explanation103.186.160.89 (talk)14:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, it makes sense to me to keep a mononym even if it is derived from the person's formal name. That the article title is the mononym doesn't change that (and someone may have reached the mononym titled page from a redirect that didn't use the mononym so they may not notice the formal page title.—Carter (Tcr25) (talk)15:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording of MOS:DEADNAME has prompted edits that lead to absurd results. For example, inBrett Kavanaugh assassination plot, there has been some back and forth regarding the introductory sentence. The perpetrator was known as Nicholas John Roske until recently. That is the perpetrator’s legal name, the name on court documents, and the name cited in contemporary reliable sources. However, Roske has since asked to go by Sophie Roske. Given the nature of the situation, the complete omission of the former name would substantially impede clarity.
I believe that even under the current version of MOS:DEADNAME, the former name may be included to the extent the notability requirements apply to someone’s involvement in the subject of the article, but clarification seems in order.
I propose adding the following language to clarify when limited use of a former name is appropriate:
In limited cases where a living transgender or non-binary person was publicly involved in a notable event, publication, or work under a former name, and omission of that name would cause significant confusion or make it difficult for readers to verify reliable sources, the former name may be included in parentheses following the first mention of the person’s current name. For example:
Alex Smith (then known as John Smith)
This limited use is appropriate when (a) the former name appears in reliable sources directly relevant to the subject’s involvement in the notable event, publication, or work, and (b) inclusion is necessary to prevent misidentification or misunderstanding of the historical record. Editors should otherwise use the person’s current name consistently and avoid unnecessary repetition or emphasis of the former name.Dustinscottc (talk)21:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This likely can be included a bit cleaner on the phraseIn the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable (by Wikipedia's standards) under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly", instead of just saying "notable" it may be "notable under that name, or was known by their previous named in an event where they were considered aWP:PUBLICFIGURE by WP's standards". Maybe adding the clarification about omisison of this name being confusing to readers.Masem (t)22:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lengthy proposed addition isWP:CREEP, and does not need to be framed as an exception to the rule. Someone who waspublicly involved in a notable event ... pre-transition clearly meets some standard of lowercase-n notability. The exact definition should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
I'd beg to differ, at least knowing the problems that the word "notability" and the actual WP:N guideline can cause. If we're saying "if they were notable (by Wikipedia's standards)..." I would take that to mean that a standalone article could be written about them per WP:N.Masem (t)02:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I commendwasianpower's principled defense of DEADNAME. I think the misstep she made was interpretingWP:BLP1E as anotability criterion. When we get to BLP1E territory, we're already discussing a living person who is definitely notable. The title of the section is "Subjects notable only for one event", and it's purpose is to lay out reasons why the notable subject should not have a standalone article. Roske was definitely notable, by Wikipedia standards, before transitioning. It's appropriate to mention her pre-transition name, without over-emphasis. I don't think the MOS needs adjusting at this time.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)00:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that a lot of confusion could be avoided by making it perfectly clear that any person who became notable under a deadnamemust permanently be findable on Wikipedia by someone who knows only the deadname. A person is free to rewrite their present and future name, but not free to rewrite history that was already public.TooManyFingers (talk)05:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear how this differs from the existing guideline, except the more offensive phrasing. The question remainsWas this transgender personnotable before they changed their name in X year?. FFF is correct that people meet the notability criteria are stillWP:Notable even if they would not have a standalone biography article written about them for some other reasonWP:1E orWP:NOT. There are only a small number of articles where this is applicable (mostly articles about crimes involving trans people) and all them already handle this correctly. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk)13:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for inclusion is:
They metWP:NBASIC or another notability criteria prior to changing their name
notThey were involved in a significant event and coverage uses their deadname in passing (WP:NOTNEWS)
norThey already have a Wikipedia article about them which mentions their deadname (WP:NOTSOURCE).
norI can find a reliable source which uses their deadname (WP:BLPPRIVACY)
I think phrasing it as a standard for inclusion might be part of the problem. Editors are in fact looking for a standard for EXclusion. My proposal's wording may certainly be harsh, but I think its main advantage is that it isn't phrased backwards. Structuring it as "Deadname must be included unless [list of exceptions]" would IMO significantly reduce number and difficulty of disputes.TooManyFingers (talk)16:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aconversation about whether and how to applyMOS:ETHNICITY to the first sentence of the lede of theAnn-Margret article has run aground, so I thought I'd ask here how to interpret it in her specific case. She is born in Sweden, naturalized as a citizen in the US (where she worked for most of her career), does not hold Swedish citizenship, and is of Swedish ethnicity.Chubbles (talk)00:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It will create arguments regardless of which thing is done.
My opinion for her case is to follow MOS:ETHNICITY strictly by calling her American. (And mentioning Sweden later, because the point is not to eliminate Sweden. The point is to eliminate ethnic descriptions.)
I'd also like to try to refute one potential argument, which goes "But in Ann-Margret's case, her ethnicity is a significant part of her identity". That argument doesn't stand up, because it's true about every person ever. People who live in places where everyone else looks and talks like they do are absolutely just as "ethnic" as each person in the world.TooManyFingers (talk)00:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear thatMOS:ETHNICITY calls for her to be identified in the lead sentence as "an American actrice". She may once have been a Swedish citizen, but the first sentence isn't the place to stuff details about a subject's affiliation with sovereign entities over the course of their lives. We're saying what they are now.Largoplazo (talk)02:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you're saying is that, even though it's 76 years after the last time she was Swedish, it's nonsense not to say that she is (present tense) Swedish in 2025. In fact, it's nonsense to say that she is.
We also don't start by identifyingPrague as "the capital of the Czech Republic and Czechoslovakia" orAden as "the capital of Southern Yemen" in the lead paragraphs of those respective articles.Largoplazo (talk)21:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman's comment is similar to those made on the talk page at Ann-Margret, and I saw the chief issue as being that "Swedish" is ambiguous - it may refer to nationality or ethnicity, which are quite different concepts, and MOS:ETHNICITY is basically set up explicitly to deprioritize ethnicity as the primary identifier in a lede.Swedish-American is an ethnicity, and to follow MOS, it seems to me this would need to be replaced with either Swedish and American or just American, and since she no longer holds Swedish citizenship (at least as far as I understand), I don't know that keeping the Swedish half would meet the guideline.Chubbles (talk)06:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This person seems to have naturalized as a child and continued to identify with this identity.MOS:NATIONALITY mentions a case like this explicitly wherein the person is to be stated as the latter, but I have received comments wherein general consensus should be followed. I think in this case, I believe it only right for them to be called just American, especially as she does not hold Swedish citizenship (the law changed during / after 2001 to allow dual citizenship).Jfklesdjfipuj (talk)01:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore I believe she should just be called American because her notability comes from being an actress in America (not in Sweden or etc). Also if Swedish were to be included I believe it should be as "Swedish Born American" as Swedish-American is an ethnicity.Jfklesdjfipuj (talk)01:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified the other participants about this discussion; I think it likely that they will summarily revert me if I make the changes recommended by this discussion, so I'd like it clear that this conversation is establishing a consensus if possible.Chubbles (talk)07:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's reasonably sourced, that she's Swedish-American? Yes, that's her ethnicity, but we don't do ethnicities in the lead. Reliably sourced and verifiable as it is, so are her filmography and her marriage to Roger Smith, but that doesn't mean we jam them into the lead sentence. We have a whole article in which to cover all things that are reliably sourced, verifiable, and significant.
That she's both Swedish and American by current nationality? No, she isn't and the sources aren't claiming that she is; it's apparently well documented that she isn't.
You linked toWP:STATUSQUO but seem to think it's about something other than what it's about. That it's been there for 16 years doesn't mean hundreds of people have seen it and thought to themselves "I'm happy with this". It just means that no one with an eye to the Manual of Style has noticed it and brought it up. There's no reason not to comply; there's nothing about Ann-Margret that causes her to stand out in terms of needing to have her ethnicity mentioned up front. Articles are brought into compliance with the MOS all the time.Largoplazo (talk)13:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other than to say she was born in Sweden, it doesn't appear that any editor has found anything that has to do with her being Swedish meriting inclusion in the body of the article. It isn't as though she's been known as an outspoken supporter of Swedish rights or a grandmaster at Swedish-American parades. That in itself strongly suggests that we shouldn't treat it as an important part of her identity.
In addition to that, several categories should be removed from the article:
I think I found some news references about Ann-Margaret, although I'm not sure if any of you are certain about what the media outlets wrote when they referred to her as a "Swedish" national, in case it might be of interest to you. See:
The third one, each time it mentions Sweden, explicitly states that herbirth was in Sweden.
The other two don't indicate what they mean when they describe her as "Swedish". But we know whatwe mean by the designation we give in the lead. We always mean citizenship, not whatever sources might use the same term to mean something other than citizenship. Therefore, when something other than her current citizenship is what a source is conveying when describing her as "Swedish", they aren't serving as a source for her being Swedish in the only way we mean when we use that adjective in the lead. Likewise, when sources describe the fictional characterGavroche fromLes Misérables as an urchin, we don't use that as a justification for describing Gavroche in the lead as a spiny marine invertebrate or place the article inCategory:Echinoderms.Largoplazo (talk)00:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous leaver of the note with the three linkshas reverted my changing of theshort description to match thelede as we discussed here. Do I need to seek further consensus here and/or elsewhere to apply MOS:ETHNICITY to the shortdesc as well as the lede?Chubbles (talk)05:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the short description should ever present information that isn't in the lead. It's supposed to be a primary characterization of the topic.Largoplazo (talk)11:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, I've had to deal with a few articles that had a "birth name" that was simply sourced to an earlier name without anything establishing it was their name at birth. There are certainly people who change their names more than once in their lifetimes, and there are people whose names are changed in their youth for various reasons. Might we add to the birthname section something along the lines of:If a person has changed their name but it is not known whether the known prior name was their name assigned at birth, present it in the opening sentence in this format:
Bob Jones (previouslyBobo Janus; born April 1, 1998)
Other formulations than "previously" that may be helpful when the chronology is even less clear are "also known as" or (for authors under multiple names) "also published as". —David Eppstein (talk)23:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I would like to bring up, I have come to disagree with one part ofMOS:JR. This is specifically in part to the articleWilliam 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 ofWP: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 likeWilliam McKinley. Anyways, I also feel the textUsingJr.,Sr., or other such distinctions, including in the lead sentence of an article, isonly for cases in which the name with thesuffix is commonly used in reliable sources. sounds somewhat more likeWP: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 withWilliam McKinley, if consensus is reached for this change, change the opening to William McKinley Jr. but do not add Jr. to texts likeMcKinley was the last president to have served in theAmerican Civil War in line withWP: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]
It would be very odd if we were if the deadname was included in the article. Though of course I'd say context matters; is the deadname being discussed or is the user deliberately trying to be provactive? —Czello(music)15:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think our current guidelines on surname lead to too many cases where women are casually referred to by their first name alone. I think this is a poor style decision. I think we should say that in a biography we will refer to the subject of the biography by last name alone or by full name. I think we should avoid ever referring to the subject by their first name alone. We should also avoid referring to anyone but the subject of the biography by that last name alone. At the same time we should be historically accurate. All clearly time tied references should refer to the person by their last name alone. This would lead to a structure like if we were covering someone born Elizabeth Marsh who married a John Smith, we would say "Marsh met John Smith after he moved to Providence to open a bookstore. Marsh married John Smith the following year. The next year the Smiths moved to Richmond, Virginia". Two years later John Smith died and after this Elizabeth Smith took over the bookstore". I think this would be better than shortening any reference to first name alone, and makes it easier to make sure that all references to Smith alone in the article are clearly pointing back to the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk)13:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When do we put de, van and von as part of a surname
My understanding is in France de is general not considered part of the surname. Also my understanding is that in Germany von is a title that is not technically part of the surname. I am less clear on van in the Netherlands. Do we have good guidelines on determining when we refer to someone as "de Lille" and when we refer to the person as just "Lille"?John Pack Lambert (talk)13:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we have an article that say "Elizabeth Smith married John Marsh. The Marshes then moved to Boston the following year" is that an acceptable way to pluralize a reference to a couple, or a family, or is there a better way to refer to them in the plural? Would it be better to say "The Marsh family"?John Pack Lambert (talk)13:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Marshes" is fine for a couple (assuming Elizabeth took John's surname) or a whole family. "Marsh family" is understood to mean more than just a married couple.Largoplazo (talk)14:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't acceptable (unless as a quotation or explicitly referenced as a preferred term). Why isn't it the "Smith" family? "The family" or "they" would be closer to the aims ofMOS:GNL.Bazza 7 (talk)14:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to understand in what part of the English speaking world a couple named John and Elizabeth Marsh isn't correctly referred to as "The Marshes", even to the extent of having a mat in front of the door that reads "The Marshes" and sending out end-of-year cards reading "Happy Holidays from The Marshes".Largoplazo (talk)14:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo. The one where I live, for example. You've assumed that the wife in a married couple automatically assumes the family name of her husband. That sort of patriarchal view doesn't exist everywhere.Bazza 7 (talk)14:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo: You need to be more explicit then. I know legally-married families whose husband and wife have retained their respective surnames, both legally and socially, and would not think kindly of being referred to as "the <husband's surname>". Your original comment suggests you think it's acceptable; your second that nobody (at least in my country) would disagree with you. If I've misunderstood, I'm happy to receive correction.Bazza 7 (talk)15:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo: Another read: are you referring to your parenthesised "assuming"? In which case, that's one answer to the original question. But hopefully our discussion has indicated to the original poster that a wider view is needed for a more complete answer.Bazza 7 (talk)15:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if MOS:GNL is necessarily relevant here. The question would be did Elizabeth Smith change her surname at marriage? If the sources indicate that is the case, then "the Marshes" would be fine. ("They" or "the couple" or some other formulation would also be fine, depending upon which reads best.) If the change of surname is not supported, then it becomes a bit of WP:OR and is problematic.—Carter (Tcr25) (talk)15:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMOThe Marshes reads as a slightly-too-informal shorthand forthe Marsh family and implies more than two Marshes. In this particular example I would useJohn and Elizabeth on subsequent usage (WP:SAMESURNAME) or simplythe two,the couple, etc. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk)22:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JPL's example presumes that the subjects are named Elizabeth Marsh and John Marsh. I would mentally substitute the real example used in the MOS,Hillary Clinton andBill Clinton, who are frequently referred to asthe Clintons on Wikipedia and in media, indicating an accepted practice. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk)08:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are writing about a couple, I would assume that you would know whether they had the same last name. If they did, then the formulation "the [lastname]s" is perfectly fine. No one is suggesting that you assume that a couple has the same last name without proof. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)13:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
