Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Guideline addition proposal regarding subject preference limitations

Prior discussion:

genesis of the proposal, examples, case study, FAQ
I'd start thinking about how to put this into words. I suggest something along these lines, to be inserted after the section about disambiguation:
==Factoring in subject preference==
When the subject of a Wikipedia article changes his of her own name, this choice isn't always reflected in the Wikipedia page name:
However, Wikipedia: Biographies of living people is paramount. At least in cases of uncertainty the subjects preference should be factored in, so:

I like the "working by examples" approach that has always been the way this guideline was conceived. Francis Schonken (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable using the Hillary Clinton example. I think it smacks of Jimbo fiat, and I think we want stronger evidence. At this point, with a bot having removed the RfC tag, I think we can say that there's consensus for considering a subject's preference, but no real consensus on how much consideration to give. So my preferred wording would be something like: Especially for living people, a subject's preferred form of name should be taken into account. Other naming conventions still apply, however. For example, usage in reliable sources must be considered. Whether language that narrow would actually solve anything, I don't know. But I think it's important to recognize this principle, and Jimbo clearly does too. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually I would turn the sentence around - so that "usage in reliable sources" is the primary consideration, and "a subject's preferred form of name" is taken into account only to choose among several possible names, all of which are well supported by reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with MelanieN: RSs first, and then preference.
If we want to use examples, I would suggest Chelsea Manning or Chaz Bono (really, any trans person who transitioned publicly after already having an article) instead of HRC. -- Irn (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to the gender-change examples. However, such change can be applied to a Wikipedia page name long before the majority of reliable sources have followed: to me that seems a sort of inevitable corrolary of WP:IDENTITY, second bullet - where gender self-identification is treated as an "exception" to the RS-requirement. I don't think there is a discussion that a same gender-change exception is in place in NCP.

From that follows that such gender self-identification examples are not good examples of alternate names with comparable support in RSes where the balance is tipped by the self-identifictation.

Despite being still the subject of a Wikipedia-variety of never-ending discussion I know no other example where the tipping of the balance can be shown thus distinctly as in the H(R)C example. Can anybody help out for another example? Much appreciated! In the mean while, here's my ammended proposition of a wording for the NCP guideline page:

==Factoring in subject preference==
When the subject of a Wikipedia article changes his of her own name, this choice isn't always reflected in the Wikipedia page name:
Following a gender-change the preference of a subject is always almost immediately implemented for the Wikipedia page name, supported by WP:IDENTITY:
Unless there is a compelling WP:BLP reason (currently no known examples), other cases are only (co-)decided by the subjects preference if such preference has a comparable support in reliable sources:

So please think of some more examples that might help us to write good guidance here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Francis, thanks for trying so hard to come up with actual wording; that's what we should be doing here. These are good but I would suggest a more simply worded version of your final rule:
If several names are supported by reliable sources, the subject's preference may be used as a "tie-breaker" to choose between then (unless there is a compelling BLP reason to chose one over the other, of which there are currently no known examples except for gender-identity cases):
The parenthetical part may not even be needed since the only known example, gender change, is already covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 14:59, 28 April 2014
I really wish we had a better example than an argumentum ab jimbo. Is there another one we can use? If that's the only example we can come up with, it's probably a good indicator that it makes for bad precedent (cf.). --BDD (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Melanie (& others stating that comparable strength RS support is needed) this July 2004 page move had, at the time, at best a very limited RS support, and was almost exclusively leaning on self-published sources.

This page move was apparently never contested (note that every letter and comma of the content of that page has been contested multiple times), so there's precedent even outside a "confirmed by RSs" / "tie breaker" approach. Most evidently in the case of this example there was an underlying disambiguation issue that was solved elegantly in this way.

So instead of refering to RSs I'd refer to the "general rules regarding page naming, including disambiguation". In sum:

==Factoring in subject preference==
When the subject of a Wikipedia article changes his or her own name, this choice isn't always reflected in the Wikipedia page name:
Following a gender-change the preference of a subject is always almost immediately implemented for the Wikipedia page name, supported by WP:IDENTITY:
Unless there is a compelling WP:BLP reason (currently no known examples), other cases are only (co-)decided by the subjects preference if such preference is in line with the principles governing page naming:

I still prefer the H(R)C example, I don't want to steer fellow wikipedians to a page where you can get banned just for participating in the talk page discussions!

Sorry for not being able to think of a more suitable example - however I don't agree with the approach of those who are not inclined to look for better examples out of fear they might demonstrate precedent. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Chelsea Manning example is an especially bad one. Consensus was NOT to move based on subject preference. Consensus only changed once it was clearly demonstrated that RS usage had changed. Manning was moved based on COMMONNAME, nothing else.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Removed the Chelsea Manning example in my 3rd proposal, per Obiwankenobi. The discussion alluded to shows this actually might be useful on the guideline page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If the second bullet of the second paragraph of the middle names / abbreviations section is changed to

I'd write the new section thus:

==Factoring in subject preference==
When the subject of a Wikipedia article changes his or her own name, this choice isn't always reflected in the Wikipedia page name:
Following a gender-change the preference of a subject is always almost immediately implemented for the Wikipedia page name, supported by WP:IDENTITY:
Unless there is a compelling WP:BLP reason (currently no known examples), other cases are only (co-)decided by the subjects preference if such preference is in line with the principles governing page naming:
  • Hillary Rodham Clinton, not Hillary Clinton [5]
  • k.d. lang — difficult to determine which capitalisation, interpunction, spacing is used most often in reliable sources as search engines are quite insensitive to such differences. The subjects preference (at least not contradicted by reliable sources) comes natural then.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I'm a professional editor/ghostwriter, and I can't help but want to alter that last sentence - so that it says the same thing but in a simpler and more straightforward way. It's generally better to make a positive statement, instead of "unless this..." and "only that" and neologisms like "(co)-decided". Also, since we don't know of any examples of compelling BLP issues - except for gender change which has already been dealt with - could we leave that out? Or else put it in parenthesis at the end? Applying those style principles, how about something like this? --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

In cases where several possible names are each in line with the principles governing page naming, the subject's preference can be taken into account:
  • Hillary Rodham Clinton, not Hillary Clinton [6]
  • k.d. lang — difficult to determine which capitalisation, interpunction, spacing is used most often in reliable sources as search engines are quite insensitive to such differences. The subjects preference (at least not contradicted by reliable sources) comes natural then.
Yeah, like it. Less contorted. Better to tacle a conflicting BLP issue if and when it would come to the surface, and not before. My phrasing was in fact working against the "working by examples" approach I prefer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You can't use a few cherry-picked WP:OTHERSTUFF WP:OSE examples and extrapolate some kind of principle from it. --B2C 22:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC) struck out OTHERSTUFF; replaced with OSE. --B2C 17:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Instead of citing individual gender-change examples we could refer to Category:Transgender and transsexual men and Category:Transgender and transsexual women. Browsing those categories Gregory Hemingway appears to be a counter-example of what is proposed now for the NCP guideline, but that's the only one I see thus far (note it isn't a clear-cut example of gender change as explained at Gregory Hemingway#Gender).
As for other examples of subjects who may have had or didn't have an influence on the way their Wikipedia article is titled I suppose we used about every example cited in the discussions on this page. I'm all for finding more examples, without prejudice about what they might demonstrate. Thus far there are some clear examples of those who didn't influence (Cat Stevens, Prince) and those who did (H(R)C, kdl). In that last category we didn't find any example (yet!) of overruling NC for BLP reasons. The examples clarify that, without cherry-picking. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply, this isn't an inclusion/deletion issue (see intro of that essay) — for the record: this is an article naming issue: for such issues the rules are generally derived from precedent, at least the successful rules are derived from precedent. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
My mistake. I should have referenced WP:OSE, rather than WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sorry about that.

I agree that successful rules are derived from precedent. But a few oddball examples don't establish precedent. --B2C 17:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:OSE appears as useless in this context. It's nutshell says precedent is useful in some cases, useless in others. then those differences are only clarified by examples (sic) none of which apply to the current discussion (the explanations of concepts are vaguish and weak in that essay, that evidently doesn't have the broad acceptance of a guideline).
Surprisingly your main argument appears to be a WP:OSE argument. Yes WP:OSE (and WP:OTHERSTUFF) exist. They appear not to have any bearing here. Feel free to clarify how our discussion here would be linked to those essays.
The examples are not cherry-picked (nor oddball), see above.
Maybe something in general: the NCP guideline is not about the tenthousands and tenthousands of biographical articles that never had an issue with how the page was titled, not about the William Shakespeares, not about the Herman Van Rompuys and whatnot that never had a problem, but about those pages that are more difficult to find the best name for, that are somehow exceptional, or from a page naming perspective odd. Yes, so the best examples for this guideline page are odd, what is not the same as oddball. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that within a category of articles (say BLPs with controversial possible titles in which the subject has a preference), what's relevant to determining whether a given principle is supported by precedent is how many of the titles in that category align with that principle. Just because you can find a few examples consistent with that principle within that category does not establish a precedent, especially if there are many more counter-examples. Thus my initial statement. You can't use a few cherry-picked examples and extrapolate some kind of principle from it. Certainly not from that alone. You have to establish it is a principle that applies to most cases in the relevant category, not just some of them. --B2C 21:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Please direct us to examples we may have left out.
As for the production process of these guidelines: thus far we will continue to do the same I suppose: find as many examples as possible, analyse them, and condense that into useful guidance.
If you don't like that process, maybe you could try to find consensus for improvements to Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance and the like. If succesful we might revisit the process of how to compose guidance.
If you don't like the outcome of what is on the table now, please find examples that might help to improve. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

5th proposal

Combining recent suggestions for improvement:

(second bullet of the second paragraph of the middle names / abbreviations section:)

(new section to be inserted after the section on disambiguation:)

==Factoring in subject preference==
When the subject of a Wikipedia article changes his or her own name, this choice isn't always reflected in the Wikipedia page name:
Following a gender-change the preference of a subject is almost always immediately implemented for the Wikipedia page name, supported by WP:IDENTITY:
In cases where several possible names are each in line with the principles governing page naming, the subject's preference can be taken into account:
  • Hillary Rodham Clinton, not Hillary Clinton [7]
  • k.d. lang — difficult to determine which capitalisation, interpunction, spacing is used most often in reliable sources as search engines are quite insensitive to such differences. The subjects preference (at least not contradicted by reliable sources) comes natural then.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I support these suggestions. Thanks for them - and for staying focused on coming up with the appropriate wording. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I'm being too nit-picky here, but the phrase "can be taken into account" strikes me as too weak because something that can be taken into account can also be ignored, no? I would lean towards replacing the word "can" with "should". -- Irn (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand it to be deliberately vague - as a permission, not a mandate. I don't think we are trying to say that in cases of doubt, we HAVE to follow the subject's preference - only that we MAY. There could be other tie-breakers in cases of multiple names. As I understand it, this is an allowance for editorial discretion, not an ironclad rule. --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
"When application of naming conventions leads to several viable solutions, the one preferred by the subject usually gets precedence:"
...would work for me too. maybe a bit more steering, but through the "usually" keeps it an editorial discretion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The Prince example should be dropped as the article is currently at the subject's preference and always has been (Prince prefers Prince and has for the entire time he could have had an article, having switched preference from other names before Wikipedia existed.) The example is confusingly asserting what we might have theoretically done in the nineties, before there were even Wikipedia articles. It's not an example of anything we have chosen to do.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
A better example might be: Stokely Carmichael, not Kwame Ture. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I know that's offered in good faith, but it makes me have to ask: Why do so many examples of "Name changes we wouldn't respect on Wikipedia" involve a very small group of famous African-American people? If not respecting a person's preference for their name is widespread, we should have more (and more obviously neutral) examples to choose from then the same five or six African-American public figures (and Cat Stevens). Is there another kind of article where we're not giving weight to the person's preference?__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure your premise is correct. We currently have offered only three examples: two African Americans (Stokely Carmichael and Prince) and one Greek-Englishman (Steven Demetre Georgiou, best known and titled under his stage name Cat Stevens). I have tried to look for other examples but so far I have come up short; it's actually pretty uncommon for a person to change their name AFTER becoming well known under their original name (or their stage name, in which case we use it rather than their birth name). The situation you reference may come about because some people change their names upon converting to Islam. If they do it early in their career, so that they become most notable under the changed name, the changed name becomes the article title (for example, Kareem Abdul-Jabar, not Lew Alcindor; Muhammad Ali, not Cassius Clay). If they change names late in their career, after becoming well known under their original name, the original name usually predominates (hence Cat Stevens, Stokely Carmichael). --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
We shouldn't have two examples in a row based on an Islamic conversion name change unless we really want that to be noticeable. We shouldn't have examples based on pre-Wikipedia stage name changes (multiple historical stage names are already covered by WP:NICKNAME). __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you that Prince should not be included, for the reasons you have explained very well. That leaves us with Cat Stevens and Stokely Carmichael, both of whom as you point out are examples in which the name change was inspired by conversion to Islam (although only one is African American). I would love to find other examples, and have looked - but a religious conversion really may be the only motivation for someone to change their name, after they have established notability under a particular name and carried out most of their notable career under that name. I think in these two cases we are justified in using the name under which they established their reputation, and under which they still get honored (i.e., the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame admitting Cat Stevens under the name Cat Stevens, 35 years after he changed his name). This is a case of following the sources rather than any kind of discrimination; other Muslim converts like Abdul-Jabar and Ali are titled under their converted names, because they established most of their career and notability under those names. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's another suggestion:
I'd combine that with Cat Stevens for the "no influence" examples
Combining 1st & 3rd paragraph (as explained below) would work for me too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not making any suggestions about where any of the example article titles should be. This is about what examples best illustrate what is being asserted in the first sentence. I think as it is worded now, most people are going to read that first section as being about people who change their name after there is already an existing Wikipedia article, not for name changes that took place many decades before. I would suggest that it might work better with the last section moved to the top, and the first section omitted. (3, 2) instead of (1, 2, 3). To reinforce that there are exceptions, the current first sentence could read something like: Article titles are not always where the subject prefers, but where several possible names are each in line with the principles governing page naming, the subject's preference can be taken into account: or, if adding it to the sentence makes it too unwieldy, a sentence similar to Francis Schonken's suggestion in this thread would work too. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I would actually be OK with something like that replacing both sentence #1 and #3. Your proposed sentence sums up the main points here admirably. I do think we should retain sentence #2 as a special case involving gender identity. (I was about to add something to sentence #1, explaining when we don't use the subject's preferred name, but that is probably getting too prescriptive; it may be best to keep this guideline general and allow for judgment on individual cases.) Oh, and I would retain the footnote to Jimbo's comments; I think he made the case for subject preference very well. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I was just thinking about another serial case where a change is almost immediately followed by Wikipedia irrespective of how quick majority of sources follows (same inevitability as most gender-change cases): after divorce the former spouse's name is removed from the Wikipedia article title, example:
BTW, that's clear BLP overruling NC, so moving on to 6th proposal (see below) --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, though a very minor adjustment I'd make would be to replace several with multiple: "In cases where each of multiple possible names..." On the point of can versus should, I favor can per MelanieN's rationale. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, only because of the Hillary Clinton example. Way too controversial to be used as a precedent setting example. --B2C 21:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, and agree with the comments made by Melanie and Huw. Omnedon (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


--6th proposal--

(new content for second bullet of the second paragraph of the middle names / abbreviations section:)

(new section to be inserted after the section on disambiguation:)

==Factoring in subject preference==
When the subject of a Wikipedia article changes his or her own name, this choice isn't always reflected in the Wikipedia page name. However, when application of naming conventions leads to several viable solutions, the one preferred by the subject usually gets precedence:
Following a gender-change the preference of a subject is almost always immediately implemented for the Wikipedia page name, supported by WP:IDENTITY:
As a WP:BLP courtesy a former spouse's name is usually removed from the article title upon divorce, per subject preference:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Or this variant (for the last guideline recommendation):

Around the time of a divorce, a Wikipedia article title may lose the name of the (former) spouse per subject preference. WP:BLP is the guiding principle here:

followed by the same examples.

Variant for the "However,..." sentence of the first paragraph:

... When several options are offered in application of page naming guidelines, the one preferred by the subject usually gets precedence:

The several / multiple distinction suggested above eludes me. Maybe more experienced copywriters can jump in?

If H(R)C is an impediment to go live with this I'd lose the example. Otherwise A. Mahler >< H R C make a nice pair showing the difference between living and dead people. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "several / multiple": Several is usually seen as more than two. (See how this sentence doesn't work: I'm going to give you several options: Stay or leave.) Multiple sometimes means two. Most precise would be switch to "leads to more than one viable solution"__ E L A Q U E A T E 10:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest using your sentence "When several options are offered in application of page naming guidelines, the one preferred by the subject usually gets precedence.<Jimbo footnote>" as a kind of topic sentence for this section, followed by three examples: #1: "When the subject of a Wikipedia article changes his or her own name..." is excellent. I would drop Hillary; she is not an example of a name change. #2: "Following a gender-change..." is fine. #3: I prefer the variant last sentence, since we don't "usually" drop the spouse's name; rather, we drop it if the subject herself does. And I would expand the #3 sentence to say "marriage or divorce"; we would usually change to a person's married name almost immediately if the person herself does. Something like this: "If a subject changes her name at the time of a marriage or divorce, a Wikipedia article title will generally reflect the name change almost immediately. WP:BLP is the guiding principle here."--MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo footnote? Is there some sort of template for that or one of the usual boilerplate templates? Feel free to insert in the new coordinated proposal below. Don't know whether this wouldn't make the new section a bit heavy-handed, but I can live with it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I had thought we could do the Jimbo footnote as an external link as we have been doing here, but I don't see other examples of that in the article so let's skip it. We can always cite him in discussion if it become necessary. With your permission I am going to add the "general" sentence as an introduction to the three examples and slightly reword your similar sentence in Example 1; feel free to revert if this does not meet what you were trying to say. If you are OK with these changes I think we should be good to go. Thanks for all your hard work on this! --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we go live with this?

(new content for second bullet of the second paragraph of the middle names / abbreviations section:)

(new section to be inserted after the section on disambiguation:)

==Factoring in subject preference==
When several options are offered in application of page naming guidelines, the one preferred by the subject usually gets precedence.
When the subject of a Wikipedia article changes his or her own name, this choice isn't always reflected in the Wikipedia page name. However, when both names meet applicable page naming guidelines, the one preferred by the subject usually gets precedence:
  • Cat Stevens, not Yusuf Islam
  • Alma Mahler, not Alma Mahler-Werfel
  • k.d. lang — difficult to determine which capitalisation, interpunction, spacing is used most often in reliable sources as search engines are quite insensitive to such differences. The subject's preference (at least not contradicted by reliable sources) comes natural then.
Following a gender-change the preference of a subject is almost always immediately implemented for the Wikipedia page name, supported by WP:IDENTITY:
When a subject changes her or his public name at the time of marriage or divorce, a Wikipedia article title will generally reflect the name change almost immediately. WP:BLP is the guiding principle here:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"public name" (#3) - officially after marriage in Belgium Henin's name became Justine Hardenne-Henin, the public name she chose was Justine Henin-Hardenne. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • not good examples, not ready for primetime id especially remove the section on gender change. While there seemed to be rough consensus that the pronouns should change upon announcement of a gender change there was huge dispute and no agreement whatsoever that article title should change, indeed on the most engaged the community had been on this they didn't come to a consensus to follow subjects preference, so we should not try to do an end run around that but choosing other examples that had less participation. Re: name change after marriage, there are several counter examples I'm on mobile so can't pull them up, but again when these things are put to the test WP:AT will dominate.what is suggest is that we say something more like 'when there isn't an obvious name that is clearly more common, subject preference can be used as a tie breaker if there aren't other significant differences in adherence to WP:criteria of the two choices. Plus before we get into such language at all we need to verify how will we capture subject preference?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, wish you had brought up your objections to the gender section earlier; we've been discussing this wording for several weeks and we thought we were nearing consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Leaning toward support, but it still has a problematic case, and some wording issues: I like most of the reasoning and examples, but some of the wording ("comes natural then", "offered in application of page naming guidelines") awkward, verging on questionably grammatical. I actually strongly question the "k.d. lang" bit, because it directly violates WP:TRADEMARK and is an WP:OFFICIALNAME issue; if we permit this exception, then everyone – individual, corporation – you name it, with a tedious style quirk in their officially-projected public name is going to demand that it be accepted in article text and titles here (or aficionados of the subject will, rather).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Re k.d. lang: if this, apart from being a stage name, can also be considered a trademark (in the MOS sense), people at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter should have picked this up a long time ago. The article is stable at k.d. lang for a long time now, I think from the moment it was technically possible to start an article title with a lower case letter some years ago.
  • I prefer the wording at #Approach now. "...comes natural" is still included there, but the example is better embedded in the context where such exception is possible. The known examples of this exception amount to three (thus far), so we're far from "everyone ... is going to demand". WP:OFFICIALNAME is a long shot, precisely because WP:COMMONNAME is difficult to establish in this particular case, as explained in more detail below. We got rid of the "offered in application..." there too. That being said, I'm still no native English speaker, so improvements suggested by more experienced copywriters are always welcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Comes naturally" is less of an informalism. As for k.d. lang, WP:CCC and WP:FAITACCOMPLI are both relevant. Cf. the recent move to (finally) de-capitalize common names of bird species after 9 years of argument over the matter. "The article is stable ... for a long time now" is not a good argument in cases like this, really; otherwise WP:RM would have a time limit. MOS and AT and the various NC pages change frequently enough that even the longest-standing article titles can be up for change at some point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Side comment about initials: What about Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan practice? I've been informed (how reliably I'm not sure) that names like "GK Sethi" are not initials in the English-language sense, but something else (I forget what, I think it might have been something familial or even geographical), and that they are conventionally run together and done without periods/stops/dots.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd treat that in the same way as other culture-specific types of naming, i.e. refer to the appropriate NC guideline, in this case I suppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic), much in the same way as "last name first" isn't specifically treated in the NCP guideline: it is referred to the appropriate Chinese (and other) culture specific NC guidelines. As for the content of your question: I have no clue. Maybe bring it up at WT:Naming conventions (Indic), the people there might be better suited to help you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Approach

I still see room for improvement. My last proposal was still much of a patchwork, not pointing towards where the guidance might be helpful.

I'd start from a clear example where the subject's preference didn't matter, something along these lines:

In the overwhelming majority of cases we need not be aware of a subject's preference to give a workable article title:
  • Alma Mahler - makes no difference whether or not she herself preferred to add the name of her third husband by the time she finished her autobiography, the world remembers her by the last name of her first husband. All in line with naming conventions the article title follows that usage.
The remainder of this section concerns those exceptional cases when in excess of that body of rules and guidelines the subject's preference can play a role.
The first of these exceptions regards those cases where application of naming conventions does not lead to a unique result, for example two name variants are used nearly as often in reliable sources, technical limitations of search engines to determine "most common", standard disambiguation leads to quirky results...
In these cases the subject's preference can play as a tie-breaker:
  • k.d. lang — difficult to determine which capitalisation, interpunction, spacing is used most often in reliable sources as search engines are quite insensitive to such differences. The subject's preference (at least not contradicted by reliable sources) comes natural then.
Sometimes subjects want to be known by a different name as the one by which the public at large knows them. Standard application of naming conventions demands to wait until the new name catches on in reliable sources and only move the article to the new name if and when the name preferred by the subject has a higher occurence than any former name, or to keep to whatever other standard naming convention (e.g. royals) and/or disambiguation technique:
The second exception regards cases where it may be possible to run ahead of naming conventions and change to the name preferred by the subject. Such name change overriding traditional naming conventions guidelines appears only to be possible if all of the following conditions are met:
  1. The subject falls under WP:BLP, or at least under WP:IDENTITY (e.g. Emperor Shōwa falls short of this condition)
  2. The subject's preference is known without ambiguity (e.g. Gregory Hemingway and Ke$ha fall short of this condition). This has to be seen as a WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and WP:V policy requirement.
  3. No significant loss in recognisability, as a WP:AT requirement. So adding a spouse's name after marriage could do, where replacement of the maiden name by the spouse's last name usually wouldn't unless after an ample amount of press coverage.
  4. The change of condition that inspired the preference for the alternate name is usually thought of as irreversible. Some clarification regarding reversible / irreversible (the definition is conventional for use in this guideline):
    • Gender change: usually thought of as irreversible, thus Wendy Carlos
    • Marriage and divorce: usually thought of as irreversible, thus Justine Henin → later Justine Henin-Hardenne → later again Justine Henin. In this case it is especially important to be certain of the subject's preference with regard to his or her public persona, otherwise it is not advised to run ahead of naming convention standards (e.g. Tina Turner).
    • Attaining a very high profile office that comes with a life-long name change, irreversible. For example, a newly elected Roman Catholic pope can be moved to the page reflecting his preference within minutes after first announcement. In this particular case, press coverage outdoes all printed reliable sources up till that moment.
    • New stage name, change in religious confession: usually thought of as reversible, so at least a change in the majority of reliable sources (or whatever other applicable naming convention) has to be proven first, thus Cat Stevens and not Yusuf Islam
    • Name given at birth... irreversible. It shouldn't be too difficult for a subject to see all later nicknames (e.g. Jimmy Wales, not Jimbo Wales) or stagenames (e.g. [9]) removed from the article title when thus preferred.
    • Changes for reasons of political profiling, publicity stunts,... reversible, no preliminary impact on the page name.
    • Having the bulk of one's career in an environment that favours a particular version of the subject's name → irreversible; Moving to another region and/or changing nationality is, at least for living people, reversible, even in the case of involuntary exile.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

  • need a broad RFC while I recognize there is a small group here working to develop a consensus the consensus to reject subject preference is a much stronger consensus replicated through many high participation move request over long periods of time. Thus while I think the current efforts here may bear fruit we should see them as leading towards a local consensus around wording that should be brought to wider community through a neutrally worded RFC that will run for 30 days and be closed by a neutral admin. We should not attempt such a dramatic policy change just based on local consensus of a few editors here, and it's possible WP:AT will have to be changed as well if 'preference' becomes part of titling policy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Tx for the procedural remarks, I see no problem to oblige.
@Francis Schonken:, sorry I wasn't more clear, I believe this should be put to an RFC, but we aren't ready for an RFC just yet. An RFC needs to be a simply worded, clear, neutral plan, and ideally it should have rough consensus of those who participated in drafting it - I don't see that yet - this is still the "storming" phase of collaboration. Thus, while we should publicize this discussion widely at some point in the future and ask for a specific straw poll and !vote, I don't think we're ready yet, too much is still up in the air.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@Obiwankenobi: Ah, I see. I wasn't trying to jump the gun by popping up an RfC tag; it just seemed to be missing. Let's do, yes, put up a proper RfC, and soon. Much attention has been directed here, and we clearly do need to have something in the guidelines if not AT itself about this. Normally, I would suggest again that WT:MOS is the proper venue for the discussion, since it will affected article text foremost and art titles only secondarily. But the focus is already here, so let's act quickly while we still have it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the rush is. I think we should come to consensus, at least rough local consensus, on the proposed wording here first. That may take a few days or weeks more - then once we have an agreement of those who are active and interested here, then we re-invite the broader community to opine on the addition to policy. My overall point is that a local consensus of 6 editors here should not and cannot override community discussions which have numbered in the hundreds and which have explicitly rejected the "preference" argument, but it's possible if worded fairly it could pass - we just need more work on it first.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Care for your personal opinion on the proposed text?
  • Re "dramatic policy change": strictly speaking there's no policy change, subsidiary guidelines are brought in line with actual policy. At most it is a proposal for a way out when two policies (WP:BLP and WP:AT) wouldn't lead to the same result. No need for dramatics.
  • I'm wholly opposed to both subject preference arguments and the proposed exceptions. The policies, guidelines, and essays we currently have seem sufficient. Perhaps I've not done enough reading, but I don't see a problem that the proposed change actually solves. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
There IS a problem that the proposed change solves. It came up most recently in the extended debate over whether to move "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton." There were many who argued that her preference ought to be considered, while others said we couldn't consider her preference because there was no guideline saying that we could. The discussion spilled over to Jimbo's talk page, where Jimbo weighed in strongly in favor of considering subject preference, and went so far as to contact Clinton's people to ask what her preference would be. Jimbo further commented, "I do not agree that policy doesn't expressly permit us to weigh subjects' preference. This is a myth. It has very long been practice to weigh the wishes of article subjects as one factor. This is not just community policy, it is Foundation policy. The BLP resolution, point 4, is explictly about this. Let me put this all another way: there is nothing in policy which hints at or even suggests that we are disallowed from making Wikipedia better by listening to article subjects. The people pushing the alternative point of view have absolutely nothing in policy to stand on." The three-admin panel which closed that discussion noted that there is no policy saying we should consider a subject's preference in naming, and also no policy saying that we shouldn't. This proposal is an attempt to deal with that lack of guidelines on the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I think HC is a really bad example to use here - as BD2412, the extent of Clinton's "preference" is debatable, considering her own use of HC on her website, twitter, and when she ran for President. I agree with Jimbo, there is nothing stating that we can't listen to subject's preference if we think it will make the encyclopedia better - indeed, this is the very essence of IAR - which in the case of a "naming" preference would be to say "Well, X is commonly called Z, but prefers to be called X, so let's ignore WP:AT and follow subject's preference instead." I'm not sure we need to enshrine this in policy however, since IAR is always there. The other problem with Hillary Clinton is that HC arguably is MORE policy-compliant than HRC, and at least by a vast majority of editors who participated last time, HC is much MORE common. Therefore, I'm not sure if this preference-as-tiebreaker would work there in any case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that HRC/HC should not be used as an example in anything we put in the article. I brought that case up here to show Chris Troutman what the problem is that we are trying to solve, namely, the confusion and disagreement caused by the lack of any guideline on this topic, and the opinion by some that we can't consider subject preference at all since it isn't mentioned in any guideline. This is not an attempt to influence the HRC debate one way or the other, since we are not saying that subject preference overrides other considerations - merely that it can be taken into account. (Note that we have abandoned the preference-as-tiebreaker language.) And in response to your argument and BD2412's: doubts about the subject's actual preference would still be perfectly appropriate in any discussion, and might well prevail. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Tx for pointing out that lack of guidance was at least perceived as a problem in the H(R)C RM discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
My reading of the HRC/HC debate is that people said "Title policy and guidance points us to this title", while the other side said "Subject preference points us to this title" - the counter was that "subject preference" has no place in article titling policy, which is correct. You CAN take subject preference into account, by simply invoking IAR, which I think is a better solution than trying to enshrine subject preference somehow into this RFC (and it begs a larger question - do we use subject preference to determine the contents of the biography? The order of the biography? What is the full list of things for which subject preference should be considered, and how does it weigh against reliable sources? The Clinton example is especially problematic, since, as noted above, she ran for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES under the name Hillary Clinton, so determining subject preference there is extremely problematic. with Bradley Manning we had a very clear and probably indisputable account of subject preference, but the community broadly REJECTED even changing the title based only on that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
...that "subject preference" has no place in article titling policy, which is correct. That is your opinion, and it is exactly what we are discussing here: the proposal is that subject preference can have a place in article titling policy, provided their preference is supported by existing titling guidelines, and that titling policy should say so. Francis Schonken has provided numerous examples where subject preference in titling was taken into account by consensus, so this is not some strange new idea; it's already being applied at move discussions. A case like this would not call for IAR, since there is no "rule" against using subject preference. The effort here is to clarify what the rules are - since the lack of a guideline was interpreted by some as a "rule". The lack of a guideline has been specifically invoked as a reason why we could NOT consider subject preference. Those discussants were invoking a reason that does not exist - there is no rule saying we can't consider subject preference - but they interpreted the lack of a guideline to be a rule against it. Also please note, no one here is suggesting that we "use subject preference to determine the contents of the biography", that's a straw man; the proposal is that subject preference may be considered if and only if it is consistent with other guidelines. And please quit re-arguing the HRC issue; we've already agreed that HC/HRC will not be mentioned as part of this guideline, so it's irrelevant here. And as I pointed out already (in my note just above, in case you missed it), "the subject's preference is in doubt" would be a perfectly valid point of debate whenever subject preference is invoked. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
P.S. One of the necessary conditions listed above for invoking subject preference is "2. The subject's preference is known without ambiguity." So can we please drop that argument? It's already been dealt with. --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Browsing ongoing WP:RMs I see at least one that might be impacted by the proposed guidance:
Note that the initiator has provided only one argument for the move (subject preference expressed 3 months ago), that the vote is currently at 100% pro-move, and that the guidance proposed above would actually stop this move proposal driven exclusively by subject preference (2 out of 4 specified conditions not met).
I rest my case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Here, against prediction, the page move was granted, so updating the guideline addition proposal to bring it again in line with all known cases. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's another recent one that uses subject preference as part of the reasoning for a WP:RM:
This one is interesting too regarding one of the remarks made in the original BDD RfC survey: would this affect any diacritics related article titles? I didn't know whether there would have been examples available. I'd be interested to see which way this one goes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
There would probably not be much use in considering this example without adding a prediction in the sense I mentioned above:
I suppose this could be framed as a tie resulting from the current language of the WP:DIACRITICS guideline: "use of modified letters (...) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged...". In that case subject preference may decide on the tie.
When considering current practice (which favours diacritics), there is no tie. Note that in this case subject preference doesn't compete with WP:Search engines but with WP:DIACRITICS: the last one assumes precedence (4th paragraph of the guideline section: "Search engines are problematic... (etc)"):
  1. Subject falls under WP:BLP
  2. Subject preference is known [10]
  3. No recognisability deficit (general stance on diacritics)
  4. Having the bulk of one's career in a country that doesn't use diacritics in the stage name can be perceived as pretty irreversible
Either way, the prediction leans towards application of the proposed page move. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Lech Wałęsa might be another example to consider on diacritics-related subject preference. The most recent talk page discussion (2012) using a subject preference argument (referring to his autobiography) can be found here Talk:Lech Wałęsa/Archives/2012/December#Widely-used and widely-recognized plain English spelling in reliable sources --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Francis Schonken............there is some need for caution here. Although Wikipedia uses full diacritics for all later-than-Renaissance-era figures, and discussion about Poles-in-Poland such as Lech Wałęsa ended with the last few anti-diacritics editors being banned and or blocked, and consequently such issues relate now only emigrants to English speaking lands, not all emigrants become as thoroughly Anglo as George Handel: for example there is the phenomena of those - known in France as "Les Frenchies" - who try and be more American than Americans while simply on a Green Card, anglicising names, removing accents; sometimes legitimate, but perhaps sometimes there merest whiff of a suspicion of hiding their Frenchness for commercial reasons. I'm not clear how far we should play along with this. Do we Britishize an Ibiza DJ because he's coy on his web page about being Croatian? I don't know. But I don't think we automatically treat Twitter names and ASCII websites with the same certainty as G Book sources or a bona fide Martina Navratilova permanent change of nationality. We would also see someone who was forced into exile in America as not being in the same category of willing accent-droppers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your insights. Above I described having the bulk of one's career in a country as irreversible in the context of the 4th criterion. Assumed nationality doesn't enter the equasion. On the contrary, I'd expressly list change of nationality as a reversible quality (even for exile), so that subject preference can't be invoked (apart from some rare tie breaker cases). In other words WP:DIACRITICS and its current implementation practice would apply.
Does that answer your question? Otherwise more examples might shed more light on the issue at hand. I got intrigued by the Ibiza DJ. Have any concrete examples in that vein (or other examples that might shed more light on this)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
That mainly answers my question, thanks. In those terms I don't have any objection. Editors in practice do appear to observe a a difference between e.g. Green Card Category:Major League Baseball players from the Dominican Republic and naturalized Category:Dominican Republic emigrants to the United States. Too long ago to locate the "Croatian DJ", which is a loose description: could have been a Bosnian rapper. Category:Club DJs has a couple of accent-stripped London-based or US-based Euro DJs - there is a complicating element of WP:STAGENAME for such performers. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happy to relay all baseball players to the more specific Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players). Only if they can't get it worked out there could they return to the more general WP:NCP (tie breaker, outspoken subject preference different from what baseball rules would lead to...)
As for stage names, my experience is that in the majority of cases this quite simplifies things, e.g. Conchita Wurst - wouldn't know what way to tackle that one if stage names weren't established practice. Of course sometimes it does complicate, if several stagenames are available, or if it can't be established that the person is best known by his/her stage name. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Added the career/nationality distinction to the proposal above;
Up till now I see no friction between the current proposal and the diacritics guideline, nor any friction between the current proposal and the diacritics practice. As said, the current proposal neither requires nor assumes any change to other guidelines nor to practice. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I would reiterate my concern that any policy on this point should take into consideration the strength of the preference. This has come up in MOS:TM, where I have pointed out that, for example, P!nk is consistent in using a non-standard character as part of her stage name, while Ke$ha has not. A stated "preference" can safely be ignored where the subjects make inconsistent use of their own names, sometimes using the "preferred" form and other times using a "common" form to refer to themselves. bd2412 T 15:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
As you can see your concern has been handled, see above, second exception, condition#2: "The subject's preference is known without ambiguity" - italics added.
Regarding your assumption this is about policy, I start a FAQ section below (I had already answered that question above but I see it comes up again) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Ambiguity doesn't enter into my concern. A person can make a clear and unambiguous statement of a weak preference. A person named William who says, "I prefer Bill" has made an unambiguous statement, but one person may unambiguously prefer "Bill" and become outraged if "William" is used anyway, while another may unambiguously prefer "Bill" and still not be ruffled in the least if "William" is used anyway. If sources prefer "William" then the latter declarant's unambiguous statement of preference can be ignored. bd2412 T 12:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Nonetheless the proposed wording is coherent: it doesn't depend on an unambiguous statement by the subject, it demands that the subject's preference can be verified as being unambiguous. Verification involves consideration of all relevant sources. The ambiguity aimed at here is a result from contradiction or unclarity in the sources, which I suppose was what happend in the Ke$ha case.
For greater clarity I added the Ke$ha example above. Let that not refrain you from proposing a less ambiguous phrasing for the exception 2, 2° condition. Looking forward to such improvement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This isn't a valid principle, but is just pure WP:RECENTISM and an elevation of non-investigative journalistic sources to a level of "super-reliability" they do not possess: "Press coverage outdoes all printed reliable sources up till that moment." Press coverage is often wrong, incomplete or strongly biased. The reason(s) why someone is notable can change, and such changes may sometimes include a name change or an additional name. We deduce notability and the reliability of claims from published sources, but "press coverage" is not among the more reliable types, just a common and convenient and timely one, especially when it comes to reportage on celebrities. Much of it uncritically rushes to report whatever its writers hear before someone else does, without much fact-checking. Obviously not much of a problem when it comes to what name a pope is using, but that's not the point.
    Point taken, changed the sentence to "In this particular case, press coverage outdoes all printed reliable sources up till that moment". Which is correct for the given example, Jorge Bergoglio was moved to Pope Francis before any printed source confirmed the fact. Yes, we should make the guidance fool-proof for quoting out of context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Case study: what effect would the proposed guideline addition have regarding Hillary (Rodham) Clinton?

My general idea is that the ultimate outcome of the debate regarding Hillary Clinton / Hillary Rodham Clinton wouldn't be influenced by the proposed guideline addition as it is based on current practice, but that there are a lot of procedural advantages:

  • Removing red tape
  • Keep discussions focussed, and thus shorter
  • Avoid suspension of decision for lack of guidance
  • Shorter path to broad acceptance of an eventual choice

Currently a lot of energy is diverted to an emergency break solution (moratorium). Moratoria are usually not considered as the best solution (least bad solution at best). As such they aren't even a solution, they just put a temporary lid on reasonable and unreasonable discussion. A lot of energy to get it installed, and even if installed successfully: no result. The guideline addition proposes reasonable operation tools, so no need for an emergency break, thus removing red tape.

According to the proposed guideline addition subject preference could only be invoked if there is a tie regarding the alternative names (second exception couldn't be applied while not passing 4th criterion). This means that reopening discussions would only be sensible if one of the following applies:

  • subject changes preference.
  • it can be demonstrated that there is no longer a tie, for example subsequent campaigning as Hillary Rodham Clinton could lead to more prominence of that version of the name in all sources.
  • it can be demonstrated there never was a tie, for example accepting that due to the broad international aspects of her career more weight could be given to sources outside the US, possibly less partial to the maiden name.

All other discussion would be moot, thus keeping discussions focussed and shorter.

Lack of guidance was one of the arguments the closing admins proposed in the elaborate 7th RM (archived at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 19). I can only hope that argument will never have to be used again, thus facilitating clear discussion (and more avoiding of red tape, see energy diverted to recently proposed move review).

The current decision is met with a lot of tension. Maybe not everyone is as susceptible to reason as I am (no offence intended), but I gather that if a reasonable argument can be made that there is not much to discuss outside the options mentioned above, many more editors would readily accept whatever choice is eventually made. Without addition to current guidance Hillary (Rodham) Clinton would be considered as a contentious example for many more months (if not years). Otherwise it might become an example of how Wikipedia handled issues succinctly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to use an unconventional case as a case study. The subject in this case is very different from most subjects for whom this sort of issue will arise. bd2412 T 16:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm satisfied the proposed guideline addition wouldn't have an averse effect on the high strung H(R)C case.
I don't regret checking that before going forth with the proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

FAQ

  1. Is this about policy?
    In the strict sense (when distinction is made between policies, guidelines and essays): no, Wikipedia's policies remain untouched by this. The proposal is at guideline level, and needs nor assumes any change of policy. See argumentation above.
    In a broader sense: yes, this is part of policies and guidelines. This doesn't contradict any other policies or guidelines (nor common practice for that matter), so this can work without any rewrite of any other guideline or policy page. Argumentation: see above.
  2. Is this useful?
    It is thought of as useful at least for the following:
    • High-profile RM's: lack of guidance on "subject preference" has come up, this proposal tries to fill the gap. See example above.
    • Under the radar RM's use a subject preference argumentation as if that suffises for a page move: also there guidance would be useful. (see example above)
  3. Would any contenious examples be used on the guideline page?
    No, but giving clear and stable examples might help those who try to figure out ongoing discussions.
    1. Would Hillary (Rodham) Clinton be used as an example on the guideline page?
      No, see above.
    2. Would k.d. lang be removed from the guideline page as an example connected to subject preference?
      No, there is no (new) consensus to remove that stable example from the guideline, nor it's subject preference implication.
  4. Would this permit a new wave of subject preference based page moves?
    In itself, no. It limits the use of the "subject preference" argument when choosing an article title.
  5. Would this have any effect outside the naming of biographical articles?
    In itself, no. Long term effects (if this turns out to be effective) can't be excluded, so MOS or other NC guidelines might adopt something in the same vein, but not as a consequence of any decision here: any other changes have to be discussed on other pages first.
  6. Can we go easy on this?
    Of course, ample time to discuss the proposal should be given. No stalling though: a few days ago this RfC was added to WP:AN/RFC. Note that a request to postpone any closure has been posted there too.
  7. Is any Argumentum ad Jimbonem involved?
    The current proposal doesn't need any of that. On the contrary, this proposal draws some limits regarding use of WP:BLP arguments, often favoured by Wikipedia's MTP
  8. Does this proposal mean that subject preference would override titling guidelines?
    No, subject preference could only be invoked for a title that conforms to titling guidelines.
  9. Should the proposed NCP guideline addition (attempt to) intervene in currently unresolved issues regarding WP:DIACRITICS and WP:UE?
    No, the resolution of such issues is best left to those trying to improve these policies/guidelines, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Non-English titles and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Icelandic (proper) names. The current NCP proposal aims at robustness, meaning that it remains valid, whether or not other policies or guidelines are rewritten.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  1. This is not correct: "Is this about policy? "No, ..." Why? Because WP:POLICY covers policies, guidelines and other forms of consensus procedure at WP. "WP policy" means the entire body of these consensuses and their interoperation. "WP policies" (plural form) means "pages (or, rarely, sections of pages) with {{Policy}} banners". This discussion would very strongly affects WP policy. Proposals of this sort are frequently listed at WP:Village pump/Policy and covered by {{RfC|policy}} discussions. The changes contemplated here would necessarily be worked into WP:MOS (and an argument can be made that the discussion should really be happening at WT:MOS for that reason, though I'm less of a venue stickler than some). MOS and its subpages are our style manual; WP:AT in turn derives its style advice from MOS, so any such change would actually affect policies, at least WP:AT, not just policy in the vague sense.
  2. Of course the proponent thinks it's useful. That's not a very good question. "What are the main rationales for and against this change?" would be better.
  3. I'd consider by Hilary [Rodham] Clinton and k.d. lang both contentious, since people on this page are already raising contentions about them, and citing policy bases for doing so.
  4. This seems debatable; I think some are making the argument here that there is no basis to do this at all right now, and that this change would create one, with boundaries.
  5. This one is not plausible; the case will be immediately, naturally made that all of this reasoning applies to all "legal persons", not just born humans, so it will apply to every corporate entity; this would undo the WP:OFFICIALNAMES reasoning we've relied upon for years. It would then naturally be extended to anything similar, such as rock bands or whatever that are "just like" corporations but not incorporated. And it would then be extended to brands and products and other officially-named things produced by corporate entities, and so on. We know this would happen, because the exact opposite happened, in a step-wise, predictable fashion – MOS and AT consensus to not "obey" stylistic whims of corporations led inexorably to refusal to do this for products and brand names, for bands, and (with rare, highly questionable exceptions like "k.d lang", people). [Diacritics are a different issue, and the shift away from suppressing them is a good thing for WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BIAS and other reasons; it's a completely different discussion.]
  6. That's self-contradictory. The discussion is still quite active, with the proposal mutating quite a lot over time to address the concerns that have been raised so far. It's obviously not ripe for administrative closure yet, which would truncate such consensus development.
  7. No comment.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Re. 6: I'm not sure what is the procedure for de-listing from WP:AN/RFC. Maybe suggest to the user who listed it there to retract? I'd have no problem with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Re. 1: updated the answer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Re. 2: there are no wrong questions, and this was about the way the question was presented by Chris T above ("...I don't see a problem that the proposed change actually solves"). The other question, presented by SMcC ("What are the main rationales for and against this change?") is a very wise question too. Anyone care to formulate an answer to it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Re. 3: added two sub-questions for minute specification. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment You might want to add something like this, since we are seeing a lot of slippery-slope arguments that this would let the subject dictate their own coverage: "Does this proposal mean that subject preference would override titling guidelines? No, subject preference could only be invoked for a title that meets all titling guidelines."
About the "Jimbo" question, does that mean we can't even cite what he said? It's true he's not a dictator, but he is a Wikipedian, and he should have as much right as any other Wikipedian to make his opinion known. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Added the question you proposed, with a slight modification to the answer. "meets all titling guidelines" is illusive, either "conforms to titling guidelines" (which I chose) or "meets all relevant titling guidelines". To give an example: the swift move of a newly elected pope to his chosen name conforms to the recognisability required by the AT policy, it doesn't conform to the guideline that explains how to measure recognisability by probing google books, while not relevant to that case.
  • Re. citing Jimbo: of course we can. Some of the Jimbo quotes on this talk page are highly relevant to the ongoing discussions. Q7 is about not needing any direct Jimbo quotes on the actual guideline page, which I think is the more elegant solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Added #9, which directly addresses the diacritics-related objection made in the survey of the original RfC initiated by BDD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Current proposal (9th proposal):

(new content for second bullet of the second paragraph of the middle names / abbreviations section:)

(new section to be inserted after the section on disambiguation:)

==Subject preference limitations==
Shortcut
In the overwhelming majority of cases we need not be aware of a subject's preference to give a workable article title:
  • Alma Mahler - makes no difference whether or not she herself preferred to add the name of her third husband by the time she finished her autobiography, the world remembers her by the last name of her first husband. All in line with naming conventions the article title follows that usage.
The remainder of this section concerns those exceptional cases when in excess of that body of rules and guidelines the subject's preference can play a role.
The first of these exceptions regards those cases where application of naming conventions does not lead to a unique result, for example two name variants are used nearly as often in reliable sources, technical limitations of search engines to determine "most common", standard disambiguation leads to quirky results...
In these cases the subject's preference can play as a tie-breaker:
  • k.d. lang — difficult to determine which capitalisation, interpunction, spacing is used most often in reliable sources as search engines are quite insensitive to such differences. The subject's preference (at least not contradicted by reliable sources) comes natural then.
Sometimes subjects want to be known by a different name as the one by which the public at large knows them. Standard application of naming conventions demands to wait until the new name catches on in reliable sources and only move the article to the new name if and when the name preferred by the subject has a higher occurence than any former name, or to keep to whatever other standard naming convention (e.g. royals) and/or disambiguation technique:
The second exception regards cases where it may be possible to run ahead of other naming conventions and change to the name preferred by the subject. Such name change overriding traditional naming conventions guidelines appears only to be possible if all of the following conditions are met:
  1. The subject falls under WP:BLP (e.g. Emperor Shōwa falls short of this condition)
  2. The subject's preference is known without ambiguity (e.g. Gregory Hemingway and Ke$ha fall short of this condition). This has to be seen as a WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and WP:V policy requirement.
  3. No significant loss in recognisability, as a WP:AT requirement. So adding a spouse's name after marriage could do, where replacement of the maiden name by the spouse's last name usually wouldn't unless after an ample amount of press coverage.
  4. The change of condition that inspired the preference for the alternate name is usually thought of as irreversible. Some clarification regarding reversible / irreversible (the definition is conventional for use in this guideline):
    • Gender change: usually thought of as irreversible, thus Wendy Carlos
    • Marriage and divorce: usually thought of as irreversible, thus Justine Henin → later Justine Henin-Hardenne → later again Justine Henin. In this case it is especially important to be certain of the subject's preference with regard to his or her public persona, otherwise it is not advised to run ahead of naming convention standards (e.g. Tina Turner).
    • Attaining a very high profile office that comes with a life-long name change, irreversible. For example, a newly elected Roman Catholic pope can be moved to the page reflecting his preference within minutes after first announcement. In this particular case, press coverage outdoes all printed reliable sources up till that moment.
    • New stage name, change in religious confession: usually thought of as reversible, so at least a change in the majority of reliable sources (or whatever other applicable naming convention) has to be proven first, thus Cat Stevens and not Yusuf Islam
    • Name given at birth... irreversible. It shouldn't be too difficult for a subject to see all later nicknames (e.g. Jimmy Wales, not Jimbo Wales) or stagenames (e.g. [11]) removed from the article title when thus preferred.
    • Changes for reasons of political profiling, publicity stunts,... reversible, no preliminary impact on the page name.
    • Having the bulk of one's career in an environment that favours a particular version of the subject's name → irreversible; Moving to another region and/or changing nationality is, at least for living people, reversible, even in the case of involuntary exile.
  5. The name preferred by the subject should not be unduly self-serving.
The above should be seen as a translation of the WP:ABOUTSELF policy on article content into a workable set of rules applicable to article titles.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Francis, everything you write here reads as very sensible. What is it that you propose to do? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I propose to introduce it in the guideline, unless further improvement is needed first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Added ABOUTSELF analogy as a conclusion of the section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (9th proposal)

The proposal is that the section above be added directly into policy? Don't want to sound mean here, but improvement definitely is needed. As it is the section above strikes me as basically unreadable. Could we work on something that would be a little more clear and concise? NickCT (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Re. The proposal is that the section above be added directly into policy? - yes, see above (for clarity: added in the NCP guideline, not on any policy page in the strict sense). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Rereading, I think you could probably just boil all of this down to the following -
"Generally a subject's personal naming preference should not be considered in determining article titles. In instances where following other naming conventions and policies leads to two or more possible titles, which all seem to capture a near identical level of consensus, a subject's preference can play as a tie breaker."
I see two problems with your "second exception" bit. 1) At the moment its unreadable, and 2) even if it was readable, it seems to be redundant to things that WP:COMMONNAME says about name changes. NickCT (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Re. 1, help is appreciated
Re. 2, no all the examples would be at other names if only WP:COMMONNAME applied (except of course the examples indicated as "subject preference does not apply"). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I find #3 unclear. Under this language, it sounds like, upon the marriage and change of name of a subject, we would append the spouse's married name to the subject's maiden name, no matter how the subject has identified. Do we use such a criteria only to evaluate situations where a person changes their name after having become sufficiently notable to have an article written about them? Furthermore, does this apply retroactively, or only prospectively? Are we going to go back and rename Rose Selfridge, for example, or rename "Sarah Jane Brown" to "Sarah Macaulay Brown"? It seems to me that this would be a case of WP:SYNTH. bd2412 T 16:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

What is unclear about "In this case it is especially important to be certain of the subject's preference with regard to his or her public persona, otherwise it is not advised to run ahead of naming convention standards."?
Or about "Such name change overriding traditional naming conventions guidelines appears only to be possible if all of the following conditions are met"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Re. Rose Selfridge: first exception doesn't apply; second exception doesn't apply per the first criterion.
Re. Sarah Macaulay Brown: first exception doesn't apply; second exception doesn't apply per the second criterion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to use this opportunity to point out a problem with using a person's FULL NAME for disambiguation, as one may run into the problem of choosing which parts of the FULL NAME, which may consist of more names that the rigid US standard of "FirstName MiddleName LastName". Taking myself as an example, my full name is "GivenName1 GivenName2* GivenName3 MotherMaidenName/MiddleName FamilyName". GivenName2*, or "Victor", is both what people call me and what is marked as my official ForeName in documents by an asterisk or underlining. MiddleName is functionally a GivenName4, but people not familiar with Western names might mistake it for a regular given name. Which would you use for disambiguation, GivenName1, GivenName3, or Matronym? On what grounds? The custom of having both maternal and paternal family names with one as a middle name is becoming more and more widespread, and is well on its way to becoming the norm in the country I'm currently living in. The only unusual thing about me is that GivenName2 and not GivenName1 is my ForeName. Many aristocrats have more than half a dozen given names, and sometimes over two dozens(!). On the other hand, many people in European countries have just one forename, so one shouldn't expect a "middle name" to always be available for disambiguation. walk victor falk talk 17:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The language I am referring to states "adding a spouse's name after marriage could do, where replacement of the maiden name by the spouse's last name usually wouldn't unless after an ample amount of press coverage". This seems to suggest that if notable "Jane Neukronk" marries "Bob Jonkerson" and takes his last name, then the existing article would be retitled to a synthesized "Jane Neukronk Jonkerson" no matter whether this combination actually existed either legally or in actual use. Am I misreading the attempted distinction between adding and replacing? Would we just keep "Jane Neukronk" until there was enough press coverage to justify "Jane Jonkerson"? I think it has been pointed out before that by far the most common practice (in the U.S. at least) is for people to be known only by a first and last name, and for married women to be known by their first name and the last name of their husband (rather than the last name of their father or other male ancestors). Of course, cultures exist where female children carry the last name of the mother instead of the father, but that is not a practice that has caught on in the U.S. bd2412 T 16:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Still don't understand what is unclear about the sentence "Such name change overriding traditional naming conventions guidelines appears only to be possible if all of the following conditions are met". There are 4 conditions. Actual examples for which clearly those 4 conditions are met might clarify what you're trying to say. Note: Justine Henin was moved to Justine Henin-Hardenne after marriage reflecting her choice (per the name with which she entered the next tournament and which she used in press releases etc). In her native country she would have been Justine Hardenne - Henin at the time for all legal and common private use. Subject preference was the only reason for the inversion of surnames. (note: compare Dominique Monami - same country, same sport - who followed a different trajectory for name choices)
Yes we could make the guideline proposal more foolproof for quoting out of context (as I suggested before), but to replace "if all of the following conditions are met" by "if all of the following 4 conditions are met simultanuously" sounds like overcooking to me, on the verge of doubting the readers ability to grasp a concept. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • axe the gender change section Again, I point you to the Bradley Manning case, where we had the clearest statement of community involvement on this issue. The page was moved because sources had started calling Manning by a different name. I'm quite confident, if the majority of sources hadn't moved, then the page wouldn't be moved either. BLP considerations and subject preference received no consensus. Thus, when the community !voted en-masse, they !voted to follow commonname, not subject preference.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
After reading into the Ch/Br Manning case I can't agree with your analysis. The pivotal point appears the move request closed on 8 october 2013:
  • Unexplained by the closers of the RM why greater weight can be given to recent sources in this case, and not, say, in Yusuf Islam RMs? They clearly have to appeal to the spirit of the commonname principle. Why would that spirit be different? The current guideline addition proposal has a logical approach to that.
  • Re. BLP something quite curious happened in the RM closure report. On the one hand the closers couldn't found their decision on WP:BLP directly, but in the facts they did so indirectly by accepting evidence construed from two BLP-related essays (WP:DIGNITY and WP:HARM). This could be seen thus: closers struggeling with the fact that the BLP policy is too broad (too general) for founding article naming conclusions on it: failing guideline recomendations they shifted to essays as the hook for their BLP-related conclusion. The closers of the last major H(R)C RM at least had the courage to say there was a missing link - the current guideline proposal fills the gap.
Don't know whether I made this clear yet: how conclusions are reached after a very turbulent procedure (I think there even was a post factum ArbCom case witch I didn't read in to yet) is not my primary concern. What I care about is to propose guidance that is as fiable as possible: capable op producing the exact same results as any high or low profile procedure, without superfluous hassle, and no more dumbed down than the exactness of the predicted result requires. Sorry for those who like to indulge in flamboyant dramatics, as well as for those who think coherent recommendations are bad... --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
You need to read what they wrote very carefully, which is this: "on the basis of COMMONNAME, there is consensus to move the article from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning.". In this case, commonname happened to align with subject preference, but in the move request that preceded it, subject preference was the same, but commonname was not, and no consensus was reached for a move. As to Unexplained by the closers of the RM why greater weight can be given to recent sources in this case, and not, say, in Yusuf Islam RMs?, in the case of Manning it's obvious why recent sources are the only ones relevant, since Manning only revealed his new name in August of 2013 I think, previous to that it was unknown, so obviously any source pre-announcement would have the old name of Bradley - thus it's irrelevant to look at them. As for Yusuf Islam, I agree we should only look at sources POST his announcement of his new name, but that was a while ago. I'm still not sure why that article hasn't moved, I'm not sure if people are really looking at sourcing carefully enough on that one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Looking into it. Indeed it would at most make a difference for transgenders who are no longer BLP (if axing of the WP:IDENTITY exception is meant):
That's about half of the Transgender men category checked.
When my comment indicates usefulness, stability against future page move attempts is meant. Not that any of these article names appear to have been challengend (per RM or the like) - I mean that if someone would challenge in the future little argument could be found in current guidance. I mean the current pagenames are no stagenames or other forms of artist names, acceptable outside a gender change framework (e.g. for George Sand there would be no usefulness in this sense, that's a clear author pseudonym), and I'm not sure whether they would all be clear common name examples.
All in all the advantages might be quite limited, so I'm a bit in dubio whether or not to include the WP:IDENTITY exception in excess of BLP cases --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I think BLP is overblown here as well, it would be ridiculous to have one article title while the subject is alive, then change to a different name once they were dead. BLP is simply an added layer of caution that exhorts us to be especially careful with BLPs, it is not license to do whatever we wish with BDPs. In any case, I think the majority of trans* people are at their new, preferred name, but when we had a very high profile case of a very high profile person in the media who switched, wikipedia did not have consensus to switch to the preferred name right away, rather the bulk of editors preferred to wait for sourcing to catch up. Another counter example is Wolfgang Schmidt, who is a serial murderer and thus unlikely to garner support from the BLP crowd. Thus, while one might say that for low-profile BLPs, such moves have happened without fanfare in the past, for a high-profile BLP (say, if some famous male movie star announced that he'd like to be called Julie), a move would NOT be pre-ordained and subject preference would weigh very little against how the sources treated the issue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:BDP (policy, subsection of WP:BLP) describes the transition after someone's death: for a few months till a few years after death the subject still falls under WP:BLP (the wording used in the guideline addition proposal). After that, either the name preferred by the subject caught on, or it didn't, in which case the COMMONNAME (or whatever other applicable NC) takes precedence again.
That, generally, a revision of a biographical article is needed upon death follows, for instance, from WP:MOSBIO#Tense. I don't object to scrutinizing the article title around the same time, and updating it if necessary.
  • Re. Wolfgang Schmidt (serial killer). True, could be moved to Beate Schmidt according to the second exception. Notwithstanding, I'd like to draw attention to the exact wording of proposal "Such name change...appears only to be possible if..." (emphasis added), nowhere obligtory - there is no pre-ordained as you call it in the current wording of the guideline proposal. In other words, moving to a name preferred by the subject is, besides the limitations already built into the wording of the proposal, further limited by editorial discretion and WP:CONSENSUS. I'd be fine with any move or keep consensus in the Schmidt case.
The big advantage of introducing the SPL proposal in the guideline remains that it offers a frame of thought that always applies to the simpler cases, and that helps in a focussed discussion for the difficult ones. I'd definitely prefer the SPL proposal being an accepted guideline before a discussion on the W/B Schmidt article title would be opened. Sorry for those who prefer the field day approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Rethinking Obiwankenobi's suggestions, and my initial responses to them, I opted for a further modification of the proposal:

  • WP:IDENTITY exception removed from first criterion: no real advantage for keeping it in;
  • added 5th criterion (not unduly self-serving) which would cover, I suppose, the W/B Schmidt example in it's current state. Yes, I still prefer the guideline would cover all known examples.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Francis, I believe that the number of exceptions and tweaks and so on suggests that enshrining this in policy a guideline just isn't going to work. Instead, I suggest some very simple wording, along the lines of "While subject preference is not a formal part of titling policy, if you can make a strong argument that following subject preference in contravention to titles suggested through other means will measurably improve the encyclopedia, then this argument can be forwarded per IAR." I suppose it's strange to create a rule to IAR, but the point is, ultimately it comes down to a case by case basis, and there may be argument for respecting subject preferences but if we attempt to delineate cases where this is or isn't allowed we get into a nightmare of bureaucracy and examples and counter-examples. I'd much rather rely on IAR, which can be a very good argument if cogently forumulated - e.g. "I know that name X is in 60% of sources and name Y is in 40% of sources, but the subject in question has asked that name X never be used, and large groups of people find it offensive to use name X, therefore we should use name Y as wikipedia will be better." - we don't need to legislate to allow situations like this, at least not the complex legislation i see above. I appreciate the effort you've put in but this is becoming too unwieldly to service well as a policy guideline.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
PS, I don't mind the tinkering - neither do I think there is any omen of stability or instability enclosed in it. Could give you examples and counterexamples, just ask. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Policy? This is not about policy (see #FAQ N° 1) - wrong discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

In my mind it's the same thing, it's a guideline but will carry weight. I think IAR is ultimately a much better solution here, since every example you provide has a counter example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
If a policy could be somewhat of a shrine, then I think of guidelines more as a kitchen counter where one keeps the useful tools at hand. Enshrining something in a kitchen counter still looks like somewhat of an oxymoron to me.
Might I direct you to Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance#Role of examples? It gives some insight in the policy vs guideline distinction.
I don't think about WP:NCP as a high level guideline (WP:MOS on the other hand is rather top level).
There have been attempts to derive guidance from WP:IAR. The idea is far from original. I can't remember a single successful attempt: deriving guidance from the IAR policy appears to rather weaken its formidable strength. Whether that is the reason or not, the most tenacious of those who tried to emulate IAR in subsidiary guidelines ended up enshrining their ideas in essays (most of these IAR-based essays are forgotten by now I suppose). Indeed, essays can in some ways be shrines too, personal shrines that is, for ideas that might have use in the long run but didn't fly as a community consensus.
Anyway, I don't intend to enshrine anything that might be a practical tool for the topic at hand. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Francis, while I appreciate the effort you've put in, as currently written it is 765 words and way too long, and full of exceptions, etc. It is a classic example of overthinking a guideline, and many of the examples as I noted have counter examples. There simply isn't consensus at wikipedia as of now as to how, and when, subject preference should be taken into account, so I think relying on IAR to bring in such preference is much more flexible and ultimately useful.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Re. 765 words: I suppose that's about the same length as the current section on disambiguation. I fail to see a problem there.
About half of the proposed new section is introduction. I think that is justified by the delicate nature of the topic. Maybe the Alma Mahler example is a bit too elaborate and could be substituded by something more succinct. But on the whole a good contextualisation before putting the first step in the minefield seems like a good idea to me. Feel free to convince me otherwise.
All suggestions to improve the language would be much appreciated too.
I don't see any remaining counterexamples, could you specify? tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not a guideline as currently written, it's much more of an essay, so that's perhaps the best destination for it, as it captures some of the past complexity and the way consensus has seemed to lean, without attempting to hold the weight of a guideline behind it. I've already given example of the Bradley Manning case as a great example where subject preference was rejected en-masse by the wikipedia community.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Finally started reading into the Manning ArbCom case. I found this (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#The BLP policy and individuals' names):
12.1) The biographies of living persons policy does not expressly address whether, when an individual has changed his or her name (for reasons of gender identity or any other reason), the article should be titled under the name by which the subject currently self-identifies or under the former or repudiated version of the individual's name. It may be desirable for the community to clarify the BLP policy or the article title policy to expressly address this issue, such as by identifying factors relevant to making this decision. In the interim, such issues are subject to resolution through ordinary Wikipedia processes, taking into account all relevant considerations. (Passed 8 to 0, 00:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC))
Like the program proposed there.
and (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#The BLP policy and article titles):
11) The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page. (Passed 10 to 0, 00:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC))
...which speaks for itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think there is no debate that BLP applies to titles (which is why we don't have titles like John Smith (horrible person)). But what never gained consensus was whether BLP applied to this particular issue, e.g. whether the article title should follow commonname or subject preference. The problem with the guideline proposed above it is too full of exceptions and generalizations to be of much use, and would be used/abused on either side of titling disputes, whereas IAR forces people to make cogent arguments of how the wikipedia is improved rather than saying "Well, according to guideline X we can take subject preference into account according to subsection 3.a. It's clear there isn't consensus that subject preference should trump other considerations, at least no such consensus here for now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Subject preference proposal: the slim (policy level) version

Taking the challenge of combining WP:BLP and WP:AT at policy level as suggested in principle 12.1 of the Manning case (quoted above).

The approach is much indebted to WP:ABOUTSELF (WP:V), which shouldn't surprise: basically it's the same thing, but applied to article titles.

When the subject of a biography on living people prefers to be named differently from what would usually follow from Wikipedia's article titling policy, his or her biographic article can be renamed accordingly, so long as:

  1. There is no ambiguity with regard to the name the subject prefers for his or her public persona
  2. The name preferred by the subject is not unduly self-serving
  3. The name preferred by the subject is generally recognisable, which usually entails sufficient media coverage
  4. The name preferred by the subject results from an event that is deemed irreversible (at least, can't be reverted by the subject without the active participation of others) or, alternatively, is the name the subject received at birth.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There are entities other than living persons who can sue for libel and be sued, so this does not just cover living people from a strictly legal POV which is the primary reason for the BLP policy. So if this is not a legal issue why are you proposing it? -- PBS (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose for the reasons I have given before. WP:COMMONNAME covers it better.
    • If there is no ambiguity then reliable sources will agree on the name.
    • If editors are to judge what is unduly self-serving, they will presumably do this through a survey of what is used in reliable sources, so why not just use common name? (NB WP:COMMONNAME) contains a sentence which covers cases where a person or an entity change their name: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change."
    • If it comes down to "sufficient media coverage" then what is the point?
    • I have no idea what the last point means. In many common law jurisdictions one can change one's legal name easily and frequently, and they may be commonly known by the name they are currently using (eg a woman who marries four times and then reverts to he maiden name after divorcing her fourth husband). -- PBS (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - while WP:AT does need to address the issue of name changes... it should do so neutrally and within the context of source usage - not subject preference. I would suggest something like:
Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a name change. When this occurs, Wikipedia usually changes the title of its article to match. Exceptions occur when it is clear that a significant majority of reliable sources (written after the name change took place) have rejected the new name and continue to refer to the subject under the old name.
The caveat about examining sources written after the name change takes place is important... this is what lets us know whether sources have accepted or rejected the new name, and whether the new name is recognizable or not. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since the proposal takes no account of strength of preference, nor of inconsistent use by the subject. If "John Bob Smith" says, "well, you can call me John Robert, or you can call me John Bob, but I guess I prefer John Robert", then we should not cater to this shrugging whim; nor should we consider his preference at all if he says he prefers "John Robert Smith", but on occasion introduces himself (or allows himself to be introduced where he could prevent it) as "John Bob Smith". I would agree to the provisions above if there were an additional provision stating that
    1. The subject has specifically requested that they not be referred to be names other than the preferred name (or at least has specifically made statements asking not to be called by the name in the current article title), and
    2. The subject has been consistent in actually using the preferred name while never using the other form.
Anything short of this makes Wikipedia look like we are more concerned with the whimsy (and possibly manipulation) of the article subjects, rather than the well-ordered considerations of our own titling policy. bd2412 T 21:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Another lean approach

==Article titling and biographies of living persons==
When the subject of a biographical article self-publishes a new name, both the article titling and biographies of living persons policies apply. Particularily relevant:
The appreciation of how much extra weight should be given to more recent sources is guided by the likelyhood the new name is going to stick: while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball it needs to be unavoidable that the new name will soon be the most common name. Examples:
  • Several years after publication of the new name, Cat Stevens is not moved to Yusuf Islam: impossible to say whether the new name will become as popular as the former stage name.
  • Minutes after announcement of the new name the biography of Jorge Bergoglio is renamed to Pope Francis: unavoidable that on the short term the former cardinal will be known by his papal name.
When the subject of a biographical article wants to return to an earlier name (e.g. purging the article title from honorifcs no longer identified with, abandoning a pen name,...), also older sources may carry additional weight when the proposal is to go back to the name given at birth.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

How about calling the section title ==Self-published name changes==, adding WP:SPNC as a shortcut? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The basis for the guideline is common name. I see no reason to depart from that or unnecessarily bloat the guideline with examples of the same. DrKiernan (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The basis for the proposed update is to interpret WP:BLPSELFPUB (part of the BLP policy) as expanding to article titles (subject to WP:AT policy) following a simple logic. In some very contentious page moves, with a lot of eyes on them, nor disputants, nor arbitrators, nor closing admin panels appeared to be able to come up with that simple link:

  • arbitrators:

The biographies of living persons policy does not expressly address whether, when an individual has changed his or her name (...), the article should be titled under the name by which the subject currently self-identifies or under the former or repudiated version of the individual's name. It may be desirable for the community to clarify the BLP policy or the article title policy to expressly address this issue, such as by identifying factors relevant to making this decision

  • panel of closing admins:

the argument that (person X) prefers (version XYZ of the page name) was not entirely accepted due to the fact that there is not a Wikipedia policy saying that naming conventions should bow to the subject’s preference.

This piece of guidance was at least requested... but that's not a real argument: it can help in containing discussions of this sort, possibly even prevent the need to escalate to higher levels of dispute resolution in the future. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose this is already covered by Common Name. Just because Idi Amin claimed he was King of Scotland if he was still alive that does not mean that his title should be incorporated into an article title of biography on the man. While one can quibble about whether a title is part of a name, I think it makes the point that articles naming policy should follow usage in modern reliable sources, and try to determine what a "subject currently self-identifies", editors can leave that to current usage in reliable sources. This is a naming convention and it should explain its parent policy (which is AT) and not be worded in such a way as to introduce inconsistency with the policy. -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Another current RM relating to this:

FYI --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • COMMENT - re: Laksmi Rai -> Raai Laxmi... the issue of self-identification/self-publication is moot ... multiple reliable sources written after the name change was announced have started referring to the subject by the new name, and there is no indication that reliable sources are rejecting it (ie I can not find any sources that are continuing to refer to her by the old name). COMMONNAME (applied to sources written after the change) would indicate that the article title should change (with the old name turned into a redirect). As far as I can tell, the example is an indication that the current guideline and policy works well... and thus there is no need to change it. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
*Add* the following section after the section on disambiguation

Self-published name changes

Shortcut

When the subject of a biographical article self-publishes a new name, both the article titling and biographies of living persons policies apply. Particularily relevant:

The appreciation of how much extra weight should be given to more recent sources is guided by the likelyhood the new name is going to stick: while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball it needs to be unavoidable that the new name will soon be the most common name. Examples:

  • Several years after publication of the new name, Cat Stevens is not moved to Yusuf Islam: impossible to say whether the new name will become as popular as the former stage name.
  • Minutes after announcement of the new name the biography of Jorge Bergoglio is renamed to Pope Francis: unavoidable that on the short term the former cardinal will be known by his papal name.

When the subject of a biographical article wants to return to an earlier name (e.g. purging the article title from honorifcs no longer identified with, abandoning a pen name,...), also older sources may carry additional weight when the proposal is to go back to the name given at birth.

For minor spelling variations (capitalisation, diacritics, punctuation and spacing after initials,...): when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists it is usually followed:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a slight problem with your proposed language... COMMONNAME is supposed to be based on what sources actually use, not speculation on what they might use, or even what they are likely to use. The determination should not focus on the speculative likelihood that the new name will stick... it should focus on the indication that the new name actually has stuck. Blueboar (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
No idea what is unclear about "The appreciation of how much extra weight should be given to more recent sources ..." (bolding added), which covers the misunderstanding this wouldn't be based on AT ("extra weight..." is the exact formulation of that part of the COMMONNAME policy) or wouldn't be based on what sources actually use.
"... while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ..." is clear to avoid speculation.
Please read the thing as a whole. Of course it is possible to quote out of context. The best I could do was to put the core of it in a single sentence:

... The appreciation of how much extra weight should be given to more recent sources is guided by the likelyhood the new name is going to stick: while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball it needs to be unavoidable that the new name will soon be the most common name. ...

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Francis, please assume good faith... I did read the whole thing... and what I came away with after reading it was that you were proposing to tell editors to: "speculate as to whether the name change is likely to stick or not". That may not have been your intent... but it is what I came away with. Perhaps it is the word "likely" that has me concerned. I don't think we should base titles on what is "likely".
Let me spell out how I think name changes should be handled, it may help to clarify why I dislike your proposal.
  1. Subject announces name change
  2. Wikipedia creates a redirect page for the new name (so those who might be searching under the new name can find the article).
  3. Wikipedia also notes the name change prominently in the article text (ideally in the opening sentence)
  4. WAIT.... and observe what sources do.
  5. Determine whether sources (written after change was announced) have a) accepted new name or b) rejected new name.
  6. Adjust title (if necessary).
To my mind the key step is the fourth step: WAIT and observe. We don't change the title until we have observed that a significant number of sources are actually using the new name. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, nor that 4th step, nor the second, nor the fifth happen as standard *unproblematic* practice for the second example. So, no, this unnecessarily elaborate six-step alternative still doesn't explain why sometimes all the weight is given to a single self-published source, and in other cases, after years of "more recent" sources indicating the new name the article is still at the old name.
I also think the wording is clear enough ...how much speculation? answer per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL: none... There's no way to read this otherwise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's another example: Talk:Watkin Tudor Jones/Archive 1#ARCHIVED: Requested move (2012), yet a new RM: Talk:Watkin Tudor Jones/Archive 1#Requested Move 2014 (argues "artist's preference" in part) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Seeing the convoluted ramifications of that RM discussion, twice relisted and still not concluded, I think additional guidance that might help keeping such discussions focussed would be most welcome.
Again, as noted above several times, the main purpose of this additional guidance is not to give an outcome of RM's that would be *different* from the outcome based on the current guidance: the main objective is to contain discussions so that the outcome, that would be the same outcome as without additional guidance, can be reached *swifter*. I.e. less time-consuming for editors, admin panels to close RMs, arbitrators, Wikipedia founders, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
So I'm going to proceed and add the section to the guideline, and remove a series of "underdiscussion" templates all about this same guideline improvement (don't think this discussion about the guidance improvement is very active any more). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)/Archive_12&oldid=1256888663"