This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
An editor is removing mention of the subject's professional name, the name he was billed under, being "G. W. Pabst", under grounds which have no policy-support that I am aware of. I ask the editor to provide the policy basis for removing the subject's professional name, and also inquire as to what other editors think. BMK (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a no-brainer. As per WP:LEAD: "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles ..." (emphasis is mine); the person's professional name is a pretty significant alternative title. And as per WP:COMMONNAME, the name by which this individual is more commonly known is the title of the article, and then harking back to WP:LEAD, "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." Clearly the initials name belongs in the lead. I actually am going to edit the lead to more accurately reflect these two guidelines, since the article title can be the subject of the first sentence, with his birth name being a significant alternative. Onel5969TT me01:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am clearly not going to win this. But if we must treat editors like idiots and explain to them what initials are, can we please put the actual birth name first? Zacwill (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME covers article titles, while WP:FULLNAME covers the name used to describe the individual in the first mention in the lead sentence. FULLNAME is the proper guideline here; COMMONNAME has no relevance in this situation, as we're not questioning the article title.Examples cited at FULLNAME include the article titled Bill Clinton which refers to him as William Jefferson Clinton for its first mention and the article with the title Fidel Castro refers to him as Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz in its first mention. See such examples at D. W. Griffith, W. E. B. Du Bois, W. C. Fields, A. J. Foyt, B.B. King, C. S. Lewis, E. E. Cummings, F. Scott Fitzgerald, J. R. R. Tolkien, J. K. Rowling, among the many individuals known by their initials. In compliance with WP:FULLNAME, the individual is never referred to in their first mention by their initials, no matter how widely known they are by their common name initials; The initials are either included within the name in quotes or they're not included at all.As such, the first mention has been changed to Georg Wilhelm "G. W." Pabst to include the initials for anyone who may not make the connection between his given name and the title of the article. Alansohn (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
