Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.

• If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals).
• If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
• If you want to ask what the policy is on something, try the Help desk or the Teahouse.
• This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.
• If you want to propose a new or amended speedy deletion criterion, use Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.

« Archives, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

RFC: MOS:GENDERID and the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Although I have closed all of the individual sections below, I feel that a broader summary of the discussion below is in order. Throughout the individual RFCs there has been a solid community consensus that runs somewhere between the never and the sometimes of Topic 2, and the once and to avoid confusion of Topic 3. Generally, those supporting the stricter wording acknowledge that there will be occasions where additional uses of the former name will be necessary and aren't actually absolutist about enforcement of the MOS. On the other hand, many of the supporters of using the former name more often still qualify that it should be used as few times as is feasible to avoid confusion, or in the case of Topic 2, only when there is a significant enyclopedic interest. The two positions on both of those topics are fairly close, and a Venn diagram of what was said in the responses, versus the specific option chosen, clearly has enough overlap to demonstrate a consensus in the discussion.

Numerically, supporters the stricter interpretations held the plurality, but with insufficient support to overcome the concerns and objections of the other respondents. Across all of the topics there was very little support for including the former name more than necessary. For example, in Topic 2 there was less than 5% support for providing the deadname whenever the subject's full name was used. For Topic 1, support for always including the prior name of the article subject when they were not notable before transitioning was about 6%. With around a hundred editors responding across these RFCs taking place at VPP, it is obvious that there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest.

Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion on individual articles, although there is definitely space for more guidance in the MOS. One of the concerns in some of the supports for the stricter wordings was that leaving it open would lead to long, sometimes unproductive discussions, and this is likely to happen. However, that is a normal situation when dealing with contentious topics on Wikipedia, and it's nothing we all haven't seen before. Hopefully, this broader statement summarizing the entire discussion is helpful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

---

This RFC covers 3 questions pertaining to the treatment of deceased trans or nonbinary persons' deadnames.

1. What name should articles principally use to refer to a deceased trans or nonbinary person?
2. When should Wikipedia articles include the former name of a deceased trans or nonbinary person who was not notable prior to transitioning?
3. How often should Wikipedia articles mention a deceased trans persons former name?

--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Background

In the recent past, there have been several discussions and RFCs concerning the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons. Though other policies and guidelines have been invoked, these debates have generally revolved around MOS:GENDERID. But, currently, GENDERID only expressly considers the "deadname[s]" of living trans persons:

If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.

Many have argued that other paragraphs within GENDERID have relevance for the aforementioned questions, and other Wikipedia guidelines/policies that have been thought relevant include MOS:CHANGEDNAME ("A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article."), WP:BDP, and, particularly when a majority of reliable sources refer to person by their former name, WP:DUE/WP:NPOV.

This RFC is not intended to determine the present meaning of those policies—though editors have, often fiercely, disagreed as to their interpretation and effect. In order to properly structure future discussions, these proposals are meant to provide increased clarification through new guidance.

Topic 1: What principal reference? (MOS:GENDERID 1st paragraph)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Wikipedia articles always principally refer to deceased trans and nonbinary persons by their most recently preferred name of choice, as reported in reliable sources?

Proposed alteration (changes bolded)

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.

Support (MOS:GENDERID topic 1)

• Support as proposer. In my view, GENDERID's failure to explicitly address the treatment of a deceased person's deadname has led to unnecessary confusion and unnecessarily repetitive discussions. Whether or not enshrined in policy (and I think it should be), this particular proposal is, to my knowledge, already standard practice.
  I'd also emphasize that this proposal only applies if reliable sources do indicate a most recently used gender identity. As such, "but what if reliable sources disagree as to the most recent self identification?" isn't, as I see it, a valid reason to object to this policy. In cases where reliable sources disagree, a case-by-case examination will, of course, be required. But the proposed guidance is explicitly not meant to cover those cases—it's meant to standardize practice when there is agreement as to the most recently used self identification.
  Finally, in terms of the argument that we must follow the majority of reliable sources, I'd point out that MOS:GENDERID already rejects that argument as to pronouns (and the deadnames of living transgender and nonbinary persons). Ultimately, this proposal—unlike the other proposals—is a style issue, not a content inclusion issue.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Full disclosure, I assisted Jerome Frank Disciple with drafting these questions. I agree with Jerome Frank Disciple. In the discussions at WT:MOSBIO that preceded this, some editors expressed confusion over when to use a trans or non-binary person's deadname, especially when that person is deceased. The standard practice in my experience across many biographies is that we use the name that reflects that person's most recently expressed gender identity, and this small change to the first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID codifies and clarifies this. It should be an uncontroversial measure of respect that regardless of what phase of life a person is in, including death, we use both the name and gendered words that reflect who they perceived themselves to be. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support: this is a natural extension of existing guidelines and good style guide practice. It is often irrelevant after the first mention of an individual as we refer to people by their surnames, which often won't change in this case. — Bilorv (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support I think this is a no-brainer. I like the "any phase of the person's life" bit. That pre-empts and precludes the sort of trolls who might think that it was funny to try to insert wording like "when he was a girl". The only thing I think it would be good to add is an explicit explanation of how to handle situations where WP:COMMONNAME might conflict. DanielRigal (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per everyone above. This is how I've always interpreted the intent of GENDERID, and how most (but not all) people have interpreted it in at least most (possibly all) discussions about it I have been involved with. Making this explicit has no downsides that I can think of, particularly given the "unless they have expressed a preference otherwise" language. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Like everyone else is saying, this one is really a no-brainer. It just clarifies what was always the obvious intent of this paragraph anyway. Loki (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. A change to the fourth paragraph "In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or last, if deceased) name as the primary name..." should also be made.--Trystan (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've expanded on this point under Topic 3 (Option 3a), below.--Trystan (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support, but... After death, the most recent expressed gender self-identification becomes locked-in forever. In the hypothetical scenario where reliable sources overwhelmingly conclude that a transgender identity was actually disingenuous, we would be prevented from writing an accurate article. I would hope that in such exceptional cases WP:IAR would suffice to do the right thing. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed; the phrasing of this shouldn't be read to imply as "we need to take trolls seriously" and if it becomes a problem I'd support adding "sincere". But I think this is uncommon enough that we can go on WP:IAR for now. Loki (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  After death, the most recent expressed gender self-identification becomes locked-in forever. Though rare, this isn't always the case, at least for the purposes of writing content on Wikipedia. Quentin Crisp is a pertinent example here. Crisp died in November 1999, however at around that same time Crisp was working on an autobiography that ultimately wasn't published until 2017. In that book, among other untold stories, Crisp described the realisation that occurred some time in 1998/99 that they were a trans woman and not a gay man. The book itself is a very personal insight into Crisp's early life, and how because of the time in which they were born (1908) they didn't have the vocabulary to express their gender identity. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  If I remember correctly in the underlying dispute you're linking to about the Colorado Springs nightclub shooting, the detente was not to use pronouns at all which respects the suspect's right to gender self-identification while not endorsing it. Most reliable sources use and continue to use they/them pronouns and I don't believe WP:IAR gives Wikipedia editors the right to second-guess reliable sources in cases like the one you're referencing. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  regardless of whether or not they legitimately identify that way, I don't think it's anyone's place (especially wikipedia editors) to make decisions about who is or is not truly trans or nonbinary. that could have the effect you're worried about, that we use they/them pronouns for someone who is only claiming to be nonbinary, but I honestly don't see how that's a problem. if someone says they go by they/them pronousn then we use they/them pronouns. if it is relevant and cite-able that people don't think an individual truly identifies as trans or nonbinary, then we can include that in the article, but speculation on the validity of someone's gender identity is a slippery slope, and allowing speculation to determine the way we refer to them is definitely not the move. Tekrmn (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Principally refer to them as their most recent used name and expressed gender identity. I agree that it really should just be policy at this point. I feel there is such a strong sentiment towards this. (I've never seen or heard of an instance where the current name and gender identity wasn't the primary referrer here.) SWinxy (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Names are gendered so this is a natural extension and is already practice. Galobtter (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support as long as the individual’s expressed identity is sourced reliably. Primary sources, as per WP policy, should be avoided, as it may constitute original research, which isn’t allowed on WP. Yasslaywikia (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  It actually seems that primary sources can be used for name changes. Tekrmn (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support going with what RS say is their self identification seems very reasonable and like general best practice, exactly the type of guidance that should be in a MOS.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Seems reasonable, with standard WP:IAR exceptions. --Jayron32 14:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This amendment is both reasonable on its own merits and a useful clarification of the already-existing spirit of the guideline. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support: The proposed rule is reasonable, concise and clear, and comports with the spirit of MOS:GENDERID. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support That has always been the common and proper way of doing things, deferring to the most recent known usage by the individual. Silverseren^C 22:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support as a general rule, seems quite sensible, as long as it admits the possibility of a case-by-case exception such as that mentioned by Barnards.tar.gz. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is the sensible, most prudent, and reasonable measure to take. Of course, there will be exceptions to this general rule. No one is suggesting that we have to exclusively refer to someone as GodEmperor just because they said that's their name before they died. However, 99% of cases are going to be incredibly straight forward ("I go by Gary even though I wasn't born with that name.") If the guy who said that is dead or alive shouldn't make a difference, we should just call him Gary because that's what everyone else uses to refer to him. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support This is the common usage anyway, so no issue with codifying it a little more clearly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support This is both reasonable, respects the wishes and identity of the deceased, and a natural continuation of the current policies in MOS:GENDERID. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Seems reasonable to close this loophole. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support In those rare cases where RS indicate that a declaration of self-identification was disingenuous, well, we'd follow RS in saying that it was disingenuous. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support sensible for the context. Aza24 (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, especially given that all rules, policies, guidelines etc allow for the application of common sense where blindly following the rule would clearly be the wrong decision. I can believe that there are certain edge cases and exceptions, but we're used to handling those in other contexts (via WP:IAR, in the last resort). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support as a natural extension of the existing guideline.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutebega (talk • contribs) 16:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support This is a logical extension of the current guideline, and I assumed it was already standard practice. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support It does not make sense for the guideline to only apply to living people. Tekrmn (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. We need a rule for this, to avoid sterile arguments, and the proposed change is fine. Herostratus (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support – absolute no-brainer. Sceptre (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - no-brainer. Reflects current practice. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support; this is standard practice and best practice; to the extent people sometimes argue the guideline doesn't cover names, it's good to implement clear language. In pre-RFC discussion, it was noted MOS:SURNAME obviates most problems, but it doesn't cover first use, and some trans people change surnames as part of transition, not just in cultures with gendered surnames but also e.g. Fallon Fox, so it's good to close this loophole since we see that this is a topic area where loopholes are gamed. (Re the point above about trolls: that's independent of this change, as it would also effect pronouns and any of the other things we treat self-assessment as best for, e.g. religion or a person's pronunciation of their name; if it ever becomes a problem, we can IAR or rediscuss.) -sche (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. For me, the deciding factor is that the language specifies that this is the self-expressed preference indicated by reliable sources – not something that present-day editors would determine via original research. If the deceased person indicated that preference while alive, then that's that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Absolutely reasonable proposal. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, with a significant caveat that it apply only to WP:BLP subjects. This could necessitate some housecleaning and pedantic disputes now and again, but it seems consistent with the rational underpinning our general GENDERID framework: i.e., putting a premium on respect for self-identification. However, it could be be deeply problematic for historical trans figures, or those historical figures regarded as trans or possible trans by legitimate historical research, where "the most recent" source purporting to indicate the individual's preference could be leveraged to force the use of pronouns not consistent with contemporary research. I don't even contribute heavily in this area (outside of occasional RfCs) and yet even I am aware of at least a handful of articles about historical figures who assumed a gender role separate from their sex, only to be pressured in the frailty of old age back into their birth gender. For this and other compelling editorial reasons, I think it would be an issue if policy didn't retain a distinction between living, contemporary figures living in the social and linguistic context we do, and long-dead figures whose cases require a lot more nuance to parse, including in situations where we have concerns for faithfully reflecting their genders. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I would, personally, treat this more as an oppose than a support—the proposed text certainly doesn't have any blp restriction, and, given that this RFC specifically concerns all "deceased persons" (and is meant to address that the current guideline only covers living persons), I don't think I or any of the other editors voting support would say the policy should be restricted to WP:BLP/WP:BDP.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support – this is pretty much how we treat deadnames out in the world; it seems both respectful and also accurate. Here is a record of the person, viewed backwards from the point they died; here is where they ended up, and if we look back, we can reference where they started.
  We don't pretend people stay the way they started forever for other things, and we don't pretend someone was straight for most of their life and then "became" gay later on, we talk about them as having lived a straight person who later came out as gay, reflecting their greater self-knowledge and self-perception as time passed and they aged.
  In the same way, I don't think it would be right to pretend someone was cisgender and then "became" transgender later on in their life; they merely lived a cisgender person before coming out as trans. Even if, like the name of that very well-known gay socialite in New York (I think) that I can't remember now, they came out as transgender but kept the same name and pronouns for the rest of their life before they died, we still classify them as trans. We should take an approach looking back from where they ended up, in the same way we would for someone who came out as gay later in life. I see no reason to deviate from this approach.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 19:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  (As I've seen further up in this thread – Quentin Crisp is who I was thinking of.)—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 19:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support as relatively clear in the intent of the policy but not explicitly laid out. I think the project gains significant benefit from this addition. And it's clearly in line with other PAGs including WP:MOSBIO. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support, with special thanks to Jerome Frank and Sideswipe9th for putting this together. Obviously, Wikipedia policy could never feasibly account for every contingency wherein we make exception to general rules of thumb; I'm sure that many people, particularly those who have in their possession a preponderance of time and imagination, can conjure hypotheticals in which using a late transgender person's deadname would be the more appropriate option. But those scenarios—however many can be conceptualized—are few and far between beyond the confines of one's mind. This is already an unspoken norm, so let's make it official policy. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support as a matter of respect for the chosen names of all trans people. Funcrunch (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• oppose we should not give in to the woke mob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crustgush (talk • contribs) 17:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is Crustgush's 10th ever edit. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    • And they've now been blocked as a sockpuppet. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support as a more professional way of writing. There's an obvious caveat that for people who have been deceased for a long while, finding sources that cover their preference may sometimes be difficult, but that can be dealt with on an article-by-article basis. --Aquillion (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support As an obvious consequence of the policy as it is worded now. A name, in at least most western cultures, is a gendered word. In most cases, names are already treated this way, especially when it comes to page names. take for example Eliot Page (Pun not entirely intended). Other than that it's a simple matter of respecting people's choices. I don't believe names are an immutable fact of nature. If they change, it makes sense for accuracy's sake that we follow suit. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
• Most names already are gendered words, and therefore covered by this. It doesn't make sense, then, to have a loop-hole when someone's deadname is gender-neutral. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 04:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's also worth nothing that whether a name is gender-neutral can also be subjective. As an anecdote, I know a person whose deadname is "Lee" (which to me is completely gender neutral) who despite being moderately open about being transgender is possibly the most vigorously against anyone using their deadname, because they see it as misgendering them. They are not (presently) notable, but were that to change they would be extremely against their deadname being included in their article for any reason, regardless of whether their notability came before or after their death. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  You should ask them, but I wonder if the reason has nothing to do with the gender of the name but the gender of the person that the name denotes. Eg supposing a person was assigned female at birth and named "Kim". That person is a transgender man, who now calls himself "Lou". Both names are unisex. He objects to the dead name not because it is female name, but because he is a different person - Kim was the "dead" person, but Lou is who he is now. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support using chosen name consistently: deadname should stay dead, whether or not person is alive. – .Raven  ^.talk 09:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Sideswipe9th. This is already current practice, and codifying it in policy should help forestall having the same policy arguments discussed on an endless number of talk pages. GreenComputer (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support Seems a common sense proposal. There's going to be a few edge cases I think having read through a bit of this, but those should be relatively obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Fine as a general rule. Edge cases brought up in the opposes can be dealt with on a case by case basis where the consensus of recent reliable sources is unclear. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (MOS:GENDERID topic 1)

• Weak Oppose - I agree that MOST of the time we would and should use the name that the subject prefers… but, if an overwhelming majority of sources use some other name, then so should we. It will be extremely rare for this to happen, but we should not box ourselves into corners. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  That is an argument for inclusion of the deadname in the article, not for principally referring to them by that name (which is what this proposal is about). Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t see the word “principally” in the proposal. In any case, my weak opposition stands. I prefer to give editors flexibility when it comes to what names to use in an article, and this proposal is too rigid. Blueboar (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Unless the person has indicated a preference otherwise, why would we refer to the person using multiple names outside of, where encyclopaedically justified, required to note the existence of an context for other names? We do not normally do this for maiden names, stage names, or where a person has changed their name for other reasons (see this version of the Roy Chubby Brown article for an example of what a mess chopping and changing causes). Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Are you sure about that? Hillary Clinton refers to her as "Rodham" in sections about her life before her marriage, and Cat Stevens uses "Georgiou" for times before he took the stage name and "Islam" after his religious conversion and adoption of a new name. Both strike me as clear and well written. Even the article you link seems to suffer more from poor writing than from the use of given versus stage names. But when it comes to MOS:GENDERID, one of the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS factions seems to have won the day. Anomie⚔ 11:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, articles like Maya Angelou—a featured article, Courtney Love, and Bill de Blasio don't switch surnames throughout the person's life. I'm also deeply skeptical of the RGW invocation as to this proposal, in particular, since this proposal explicitly relies on reliable sources. I think in this context, that invocation is rhetorically equivalent to "The WOKE generation is ruining everything!"--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And in cases where there's minimal content using a name, particularly when it's only in a short "early life" section, it may make even make sense. On the other hand, were Hillary Clinton to be rewritten as you and Thryduulf suggest is standard, it would come across as pretty strange. As for your aspersion, all I'll say is that I expected as much from the side that won the day. Anomie⚔ 16:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  We do not normally do this for maiden names, stage names, or where a person has changed their name for other reasons — Yes we do. MOS:CHANGEDNAME specifically says "The names should be distributed throughout the lead to mark major transitions in the subject's life" and "A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article" Mitch Ames (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  are you saying that we should mention the previous name or that we should use that name in the article in early life sections and such? the first proposal doesn't say we can't mention the previous name, only that we should be using the most recent name when actually referring to the individual. Tekrmn (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds that it is inconsistent. "Gendered words ... expressed gender self-identification" is consistent (in the use of "gender"). "Name ... person's most recently chosen name" would be consistent (in the use of "name"), but "name ... gender self-identification" is not. Names are not always gender-specific, and we should not be making assumptions that they are.
  Also note that this change would affect articles about living people, not just dead ones, contrary to the purported scope of the RFC. The first words of the sentence are "any person", not "any living person", and it is part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, not Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
  In any case, mandating a particular name would prohibit sensible use of MOS:CHANGEDNAME and unnecessarily complicates MOS:SAMESURNAME. Several supporters have pointed out that the proposed change is common practice anyway, so what problem are we trying to fix, that common sense would solve? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  (1) Would it be easier to just take out "gender" from before "self identification"? The guideline already opens, "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned" ... I'm not really sure what "gender self-identification" as opposed to just "self-identification" adds. (I'm also really skeptical that this would cause any actual confusion.) (2) I believe living transgender persons are already referred to by the name of their choosing per existing passages in MOS:GENDERID—certainly the biographical article is explicitly covered, but I believe non-biographical articles are covered, too, by the subsequent paragraph (which advises, for example, to say "Jane Doe became a parent" rather than "Jane Doe fathered a child").--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I believe living transgender persons are already referred to by the name of their choosing — So what problem are we trying to fix by introducing restrictions and inconsistencies into the policy? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  You left off "per existing passages in MOS:GENDERID"? The inconsistency and the resulting redundant discussions that have stemmed from it are addressed above, but if you don't think there's a need, I totally understand! Thanks for participating.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Would it be easier to just take out "gender" from before "self identification"? Personally, I've always found that bit of the guideline rather clunky. It's a very verbose way of saying ...that reflect the person's most recently expressed gender identity.... While I think there are bigger issues with the guideline, hence why I originally started the discussions that lead to this set of RfCs, one thing I'd be tempted to discuss at some point after this is over is changing that to be a little more in line with how gender and gender identities are typically described in scholarly sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I suspect in most cases the proposed option here is how we will do it. However, this shouldn't be prescriptive, instead it should follow sourcing. For example, if sources are mixed in their use after the subject's death then we should be more careful. Additionally, if there is any reason to think the proposed names/gender etc are disputed we shouldn't then assume one vs the other. Basically this should be handled on a case by case basis. Most of the time it will probably result in an outcome that is compatible with the support option but we shouldn't dictate it. Springee (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose We should use the name most commonly used in reliable sources, like we do for everything else. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  We should use the name most commonly used only in reliable (inc. ABOUTSELF) sources published after the name change, as those from before do not indicate the standard going forward and will inevitably lead to use of the dead name in the article if the change of name was recent and they are still in the majority, even if the dead name is no longer the most generally used. This is especially true with deceased persons, since it can be almost guaranteed that the name will not change any further. In the current political climate, sources that choose to continue using the dead name after a change are often doing so to inflame or make a point, so we should consider whether they can be considered neutral sources for names at all. small jars tc 12:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ficaia, Springee and Mitch Ames. starship.paint (exalt) 09:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, better to take this on a case by case basis than to try and pigeon hole an all-inclusive "rule" that may fail WP:NPOV. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. If used mechanically it can confuse the reader. No arguments have been presented that the current default policy causes any issues. Alaexis_¿question? 11:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose This looks like a solution in search of a problem. For the most part this is already standard practice. However the ultimatenauthority is relaible sources. We follow their lead. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ficaia. Some1 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not a minor clarification but a major policy change masquerading as one, because of the combination "the name and ... This holds for any phase of the person's life". In doing so it prohibits use of deadnames anywhere in the article. Of course we should prefer use of the most recent name and gender identifier in post-change contexts but we also have obligations to historical accuracy and not whitewashing discrimination that an individual would have faced had they transitioned earlier. The policy as it stands covers these nuances, trying to reflect personal and often legal preference or requirement without compromising accuracy unduly. A non-gender example might be referring to Cassius Clay as winning certain boxing championships and Muhammad Ali as winner of many boxing world championships. In this case religious discrimination may have disfavoured his getting fights of comparable value had his religious conversion occurred earlier. Yet Ali is clearly best for most uses in the article, helped by his enduring achievements and fame after the change. Jamesday (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Respectfully, that seems to be more of a problem with Ali's biography, than this guideline. While there may be a consensus reason for why Muhammad Ali interchangeably uses both names when referring to Ali (I've not checked the talk page archives to be sure), to me it seems to be bad practice that has resulted in very confusing paragraphs like Clay's father's paternal grandparents were John Clay and Sallie Anne Clay; Clay's sister Eva claimed that Sallie was a native of Madagascar. He was a descendant of slaves of the antebellum South, and was predominantly of African descent, with Irish and English family heritage. Ali's maternal great-grandfather, Abe Grady, emigrated from Ennis, County Clare, Ireland. (emphasis to distinguish where the article swaps names added by me).

  Ideally, in line with the use-mention distinction, that article should use a single name when discussing Ali throughout, but should mention both names as it is contextually relevant. However I do also recognise that MOS:CHANGEDNAME does recommend avoiding anachronistic use of a former name, and an application of that would have Ali's article not using his changed surname for content prior to his conversion to Islam in the 1960s, using only his former surname of Clay for those sections. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Weak/moderate Oppose Most of the time we would and should use the name that the subject prefers, however for the deceased, particularly those long deceased, where the overwhelming majority of sources may use some other name, then so should we. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 19:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are thousands of years of history involving possibly transgender individuals. Elagabalus comes to mind as someone whose common name does not fit into this policy. The gender of said emperor has been questioned many times, and the name that we use is totally made up. As others have said, there are many exceptions to this rule with dead individuals with unclear identities, individuals that were forced to recant their transgender identity on their deathbed, or just a general lack of knowledge on our part (see Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity). If we're effectively judging all historical articles (most of humanity is long dead) on a case-by-case basis anyways, I don't see why this guideline shouldn't be targeted towards living or recently deceased persons or at least have an exception for historical figures. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: As most have said, we should use whatever is most often referenced. In cases where it is equal or ambiguous, we should use the name and gender that the person was notable for, with a mention in the lead. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Eh? Seems like a bad rule if "Jane Jones" (notable person under this name) has an interview shortly before she dies and says she prefers to be called "Pink Lemonaid" now - but not otherwise doing anything notable with that new name, re-writing the article isn't going to be helpful to our readers looking for information about the known "Jane Jones". Sure, mention it. And why would we treat this any different just because a subject is in the class "trans and nonbinary persons"? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm really dubious of examples like this. I mean, sure, it's easy to imagine a hypothetical ridiculous scenario ... but (1) if you have to imagine it, that's some evidence of its rarity; (2) should a situation like that ever develop, then a WP:IAR exception could always be considered; (3) even if IAR were found inapt to this ... "Pink Lemonade" scenario ... it's not as though a name the person was notable under would be excluded from the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: COMMONNAME has not yet been repealed, and it remains common practice to refer to someone by the name most familiar to English-language sources: whether or not the subject would appreciate it (George Kelly reportedly loathed the nickname with which the press saddled him, for instance, yet that's the WP article name all the same), whether it is or was the subject's legal name, and however much a vocal pressure group wants it otherwise. The Stokely Carmichael article is not named "Kwame Ture," the H. Rap Brown article is not named "Jamil Abdullah al-Amin", the Cat Stevens article is not named "Yusuf Islam" ... if there were as few as ten thousand articles reflecting stage names or pseudonyms rather than legal or preferred names, I'd be astonished. Ravenswing 01:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles and so irrelevant to this question, and on skim reading your examples are also irrelevant for the same reason. It is (pretty much?) always going to be appropriate to mention all the names someone is commonly known by in an article about them, but that is very different to what name we use to refer to them in running prose (see use–mention distinction). Finally you are completely ignoring that trans people's deadnames are a qualitatively very different to press nicknames and stage names. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I would just point to the discussion below (in the discussion section for topic 1) on COMMONNAME, which has, historically, been thought to be consistent with MOS:GENDERID as applied to living people.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Specifically, this is badly worded. What if the person changes name more than once? What if the person's new name doesn't unambiguously indicate "the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification"? More generally, this looks like an attempt (unintentional or not) at a priming question: using an initial question that looks unlikely to be disagreed with as a way of making respondents more likely to be sympathetic to certain responses to subsequent questions and to answer in a way that is consistent with their answer to the first question. This procedural problem could have been avoided if the lengthy discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Remove the "living" qualifier in MOS:DEADNAME had not been ignored by the person who posted the questions here. EddieHugh (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (MOS:GENDERID topic 1)

Nobody has been opposing this. There is no reason to include this in the RFC. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I assume you mean "there was no reason", so allow me to explain my logic. Even though this does, as I said, capture what the current practice is, I see no harm and in fact think there's benefit to enshrining that practice in a guideline. Perhaps I could have just edited that guidance myself and seen if anyone would revert, but, even though it has yet to receive an oppose vote here, I have in fact seen editors deny that such a practice is endorsed by the guidelines and dispute whether it should be done. Frankly, in terms of whether it's required by the existing guideline, I see why that guideline can seem ambiguous: "gendered words" is explained with an e.g. parenthetical that does not include proper names, and deadnames are only explicitly addressed as to living trans and nonbinary persons. Of course, if you're opposing it on WP:CREEP grounds, I understand, but I think the support so far indicates others agree this should be here.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"Nobody has been opposing this." There was in fact opposition raised when this change was proposed at WT:MOSBIO. Given how contentious changes to this guideline inevitably are, an RFC confirming the change before implementation is the prudent course of action.--Trystan (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The beauty of this format of being three separate but related RfCs, is that if/when we get to WP:SNOWPRO territory, it can be closed independently of the other two sections. Ideally it should run for another few days first, as Trystan is correct in that some editors did object when it was first proposed at WT:MOSBIO and those editors may wish to opine on it here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Ideally it should run for another few days first, ... editors may wish to opine on it here. — I'm waiting for options on all the topics to stabilise before I !vote. Given that all three are related, I suggest not closing Topic 1 early, SNOW or not. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Apparently this RFC is only for editors who agree with Sideswipe9th and Jerome Frank Disciple, so I wouldn't hold out much hope of getting more options. There's already been an edit war over the inappropriate removal of an option, and then a subsequent hatting of the discussion around it. At the end of the day, WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, and WP:NOR is policy, so these style guide changes will always fail ("consensus" or not) when our sources skew the "wrong" way. I see from other replies below we're still engaging in personal attacks against anyone with the wherewithal to even think of opposing the righteousness of the crusade some editors are on. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The removal of the additional option was done not for ideological reasons but because there was clear consensus in this discussion, and in the pre-discussion, that it was off-topic. All views are welcome in the RfC, but it is natural that when people have strong feelings about an issue that they will robustly argue those views - especially when some opposing views are seen as offensive to them personally. Obviously all sides should do that without resorting to personal attacks (and I can't immediately see any in this RfC). Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

There was no such consensus. Some editors didn't like the option, and strongly opposed it, but it had significant support and there was no consensus to exclude it. The fact that a small group of editors chose to do so, and then edit warred to keep it out, raises WP:RFCNEUTRAL issues. BilledMammal (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The only editors who came close to supporting your proposed option 2a all agreed that because the scope of it would have an effect on the guidance with relation to living trans and non-binary individuals, it was out of scope for this set of RfCs which are focused on the scope of guidance for deceased trans and non-binary individuals. The advice given by those editors, and advice that I would echo is that if you wish to see that change made, make your own RfC about it.

Having re-read RFCNEUTRAL multiple times, I fail to see how the exclusion of an option that was outside of the scope of the question would inherently make the question itself non-neutrally worded. RFCNEUTRAL pretty clearly applies to the RfC statement and heading, as that is what gets transcribed by Logobot, and not the content after. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

When I refer to support, I refer to the RFCBEFORE discussion where there was significant support for a position like this. Neutrality in RFC's are also related to the scope of the question; it isn't neutral for editors to exclude an option they dislike, as it restricts the ability of the community to consider that option.

The advice given by those editors, and advice that I would echo is that if you wish to see that change made, make your own RfC about it. To make sure that I have understood you, neither you nor Jerome Frank Disciple would object to a second RfC being opened on this topic, despite the fact that it would overlap with this one? BilledMammal (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

would object to a second RfC being opened on this topic, despite the fact that it would overlap with this one? That is what I said yes. While I have an opinion on the proposal that I shall reserve for such an RfC, I have no objection to such an RfC occurring. Whether you wish to hold it concurrently with the three that are already open, or at some point after they are closed, is up to you to decide. Regardless I would support you holding such an RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely wouldn’t object to a separate rfc covering living trans persons. (To be clear: I don’t take you to be asking whether or not I would be in favor of your proposal—I’d have to read it and your background section & probably see some of the opinions of others first—frankly, very few of the articles I’ve worked on involve living trans and non-binary persons, so I’m not that familiar with the discussions. (To be even more clear: most of the articles I work on don’t involve trans persons at all, but I came across a few that did, and reading the debates as to naming, thought these RFCs might help)—Jerome Frank Disciple 20:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Context/Responses to the above characterization of what happened ... in the below discussion section

Hi! So, I do find it a bit ... fascinating ... that this discussion is happening under topic 1 even though it doesn't at all relate to that topic, particularly given that the discussion below is being mischaracterized. I'll be relatively brief: First, @Locke Cole is wrong, there was not an edit war over the removal of @BilledMammal's proposal, which expanded the scope of this RFC to cover living trans persons. BilledMammal and I, regrettably, did edit war over its placement before reaching a tentative compromise—if you look at Topic 3 now, you'll see, roughly, how this compromise looked. Or, see it for yourself. Second, several editors subsequently expressed agreement that BilledMammal's proposal belonged in a separate RFC. Here's the discussion below for anyone who wants to see for themselves. BilledMammal says his proposal was receiving "significant support". That's also not true. Not including myself, six editors expressed an opinion. One declined to change their vote because, they said, living and deceased trans persons should be treated distinctly. Five others said the option should be removed. Another editor (not myself) removed the option, and it was then placed in the discussion section, as you can see. I'm honestly baffled as to why BilledMammal hasn't started a separate RFC. I don't think it's worth discussing anything further here, particularly given one of these editors is disclaiming wanting to participate while also ... participating through discussion. Locke Cole, I understand your position is that, regardless of the guidelines or the consensus on an article, you'll appeal these issues to as high a court as you can, on NPOV/NOR grounds. Many have explained to you why they disagree with your analysis of NPOV. I guess you think if you go up high enough, you'll find support. Good luck.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth discussing anything further here, particularly given one of these editors is disclaiming wanting to participate while also ... participating through discussion. Who and what are you talking about here? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: there is probably a little bit of overlap between the discussion here, and around article titles. We are specifically talking about how to refer to people, which can obviously mean the article title as well. I do fear a fight between COMMONNAME and this proposal. For instance, we don't change people's article title based solely on what they want to be called (a person going by a stage name e.g. Vic Reeves who no longer wants to go by that name doesn't get to just chose to have their article at their own names). I'm sure there are articles out there that have a performer (or otherwise) only known a name that is a type of deadname (whether that be a stage name or otherwise). In those cases, do we stick with COMMONNAME, or change the name to the gendered full name (that might not be well known)? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi! It's a great point, and I think it was best touched on by a recent closing editor's closing summary: So, first, WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, which means it's almost invariably restricted to biographic articles. And, critically, COMMONNAME includes a proviso that "[a]mbiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". As that closing editor said, that proviso has, historically, been read to allow for GENDERID's instructions (e.g., Elliot Page or, indeed, the page on which the discussion occurred, Gloria Hemingway).--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

In those cases, do we stick with COMMONNAME, or change the name to the gendered full name (that might not be well known)? The only example of a living trans or non-binary person that I'm aware of where we've stuck with the deadname/stage name over the subject's current name is Suzy Eddie Izzard. The close of the recent move request for that article touches on the interplay between GENDERID, MOS:STAGENAME, and though unsaid COMMONNAME. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I never thought about Izzard, but it makes a lot of sense it would have been discussed there. I doubt it comes up much, but I don't think GENID should trump an obvious COMMONNAME, unless that COMMONNAME is specially a deadname. I'm sure it's a case-by-case thing, but I'm not sure this particular policy should be used to have people known by a new gendered name if they have had a stage name that has been commonly associated with the act (in that, we shouldn't use a person's name as their article title if they aren't known by that name). It does look like that has been addressed, so it's all good Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

As I see it, Izzard's article would comply with the above proposals, as the above proposals don't really touch on article titles. In Izzard's article, she is principally referred to as "Suzy Eddie Izzard".--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it comes up much Yeah, as I said the only living example I'm aware of where it's ever came up is Izzard's article. There are some less obvious counter examples where GENDERID has been an obvious trump to COMMONNAME; Elliot Page's former name is somewhere adjacent to a stage name as the name by which he was credited and known was not his birth name (it was close to it though), Abigail Thorn's former name was also (as far as we're aware) a stage name. In both of those cases the articles were moved shortly after the subjects came out as trans and their new names became known.

It's a tough one to balance, but it's such a rare occurrence that it's (in my opinion) best handled by WP:IAR, with the primary guideline covering the more common transition of John Doe -> Jane Doe or vice versa. . Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic 2: When to mention deadnames? (MOS:GENDERID 2nd/3rd paragraphs)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This was significantly more tricksy than Topic 1, and the discussion far more nuanced. For the specific proposals of the RFC, there is no consensus to change the current wording of MOS:GENDERID. That, however, isn't a complete reading of the discussion.

Reading the full discussion, the rationales provided, and looking at the breakdown of some of the mixed !votes, it is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3. It was plain after reading the discussion that the community believes that, for the most part, the prior name should not be used. Where the lack of consensus emerges is when dealing with where exactly the line for inclusion should be drawn. Many responses supporting different options specifically called out the difficulty of dealing with a "majority" of sources, e.g. is 50%+1 sufficient? How does a majority take into account emphasis and source quality? Some of those supporting option 2 suggested a higher bar than majority as well. Other concerns were about options 1 and 3 being too set in stone, with always and never too strong for a guideline. Some of those supporting option 3 acknowledged that there would be edge cases and occasional exceptions. Another indicator that the consensus is between these two options is the large number of crossover and mixed responses that allow for option 2 or 3, 3 or 2, and 4 or 2. The ability to, in some circumstances, include the prior name also addresses some of the concerns of those responding who cite WP:NPOV/WP:DUE. It is also clear from the responses that always including the prior name, or assuming the prior name is of encyclopedic importance is soundly rejected by the community.

I suggest that some language taking into account the responses and concerns be workshopped, and possibly another RFC be held if the language doesn't get consensus through discussion. From what I've read here, tightening up the baseline for including the prior name and/or outlining some of the occasions it may be included is likely to result in consensus language. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

---

If a deceased trans or nonbinary person was not notable prior to transitioning, when should an article mentioning that person include their deadname?

Option 1: Always (3rd paragraph—changes bolded)

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. The birth name or former name of a deceased trans or nonbinary person should always be included in the article. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

Option 2: Sometimes—WP:PLA / majority of sources (New paragraph after 3rd paragraph)

Note: All text is new (bold omitted). For a deceased trans or nonbinary person, their birth name or former name should be included in an article if they were notable under that name or if such inclusion would satisfy the principle of least astonishment, particularly considering the majority of reliable sources discussing said person. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example: From Leelah Alcorn: Leelah Alcorn (November 15, 1997 – December 28, 2014) ... Note: Alcorn was not notable prior to transitioning, and the majority of reliable sources used her chosen name. From Danielle Bunten Berry: Danielle Bunten Berry (February 19, 1949 – July 3, 1998), formerly known as Dan Bunten, ... Note: Berry was notable prior to transitioning.

Option 3: Never—Remove "living" from the current policy (2nd paragraph—changes bolded)

If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a prior to transitioning, their former name (deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. For example:

Option 4: No change

!votes (MOS:GENDERID topic 2)

• Option 3. Skyerise (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 (proposer): I do think it's fair to say that a reader who's seen a name widely reported in the media will be thrown by its absence in an article—that could be true especially if there's initial media confusion about how a person identified. That said, particularly when it comes to individuals whose deadnames are never widely reported, there's no reason to include the deadname. A name isn't in and of itself telling. In these cases, it's, effectively, a piece of trivia. I would secondarily support Option 3. --Jerome Frank Disciple 19:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 Full disclosure, I assisted Jerome Frank Disciple with drafting these questions. Option 3 for me is the neatest, simplest, and best way to handle this. As Jayron32 eloquently put on 6 April, treating people with respect and decency doesn't stop at the moment they die. At present, because the second and third paragraphs of MOS:GENDERID restrict the guideline to apply only to living trans and non-binary people, our basic respect and decency actually stops at roughly the moment they die (WP:BDP not withstanding), as at that time the second paragraph of GENDERID ceases to apply and editors can seek consensus to include that person's deadname. In practice, what the changes in option 3 will mean is that when a notable trans or non-binary person who was not notable prior to their transition, like the named examples in the existing guideline of Laverne Cox and Rachel Levine, dies, editors will not be able to insert their deadname simply because that person is now dead. If the article said Jane Doe (born 1 January 1990) today, and Jane died tomorrow, then the lead would read Jane Doe (1 January 1990 - 7 May 2023).
  Some may ask, why is this necessary? If reliable sources call Jane Doe Jane today, won't they continue to call her Jane when she dies? Unfortunately this is not always the case. It is a sad fact that right now, I can go on Google, type in the name of a famous living trans or non-binary person, and usually find at least one reliable media source that has published their name. Typically the only sources to do this are those with a strong socially conservative bias in their reporting, though there are some exceptions. Because of this and the current phrasing of our guideline, when a notable trans or non-binary person dies, it's not inconceivable that WP:V could be met for including that person's deadname. There are also cases where a trans or non-binary person's deadname was never published by a reliable source while that person was alive, but their deadname is published in an obituary. This is most typically done when that trans or non-binary person's family members were not supportive of their transition and denied them agency over their gender identity.
  On the other options, I would strongly oppose option 1, for much of the reasons why I support option 3. For the purposes of aiding in consensus determination, I would also weakly support option 2 but only if option 3 fails. I do have a concern about option 2, that because satisfying the principle of least astonishment is, in many borderline cases, a matter of editorial consensus, it will in practice result in lengthy and occasionally contentious discussions on inclusion versus exclusion of the name after death. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3: though the guidance has so far been for BLPs, where the situation is particularly sensitive, arguments translate across well enough to apply to dead individuals. It is poor reporting practice to include deadnames, can offend those who knew the subject and is not necessary if the individual was not notable. — Bilorv (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  If deadnames can offend some of those who knew the dead individual, then the new name can also offend some of those who knew the dead individual. The offense can be considered to be either balanced out or impossible to quantify. Thus offense should not be considered as a factor. starship.paint (exalt) 14:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: I'm not sure we should be pandering to those who'd find a transgender identity "offensive" by considering that offense as valid. It's not exactly a neutral issue to sit on the fence about; imagine if we applied the same logic to a BLP of someone who's gay, for instance. There's plenty in the Church of England who'd find Rev. Richard Coles' identity as an openly gay priest offensive, but we don't pretend that's an equally-sided issue and give way to them.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 11:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Ineffablebookkeeper: - it doesn't have to be standard bigotry that you're thinking of. It could be the parents of John Doe, who gained prominence as Jane Doe, although in the parents' eyes, the child they raised will forever be John. Shall we invalidate their offense? starship.paint (exalt) 10:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: that may not be what we immediately think of when we think of bigotry, but it is bigotry nonetheless – a quiet, painful form of bigotry, but not everything has to be the world's loudest hate crime to count. I don't think our relatives, parents or loved ones have the right to define our identity because of their own feelings. They may have given birth to Jane Doe, but she is her own person; again, if we apply this whataboutism to a gay person, for instance, it appears as nonsense, we all know this. This isn't how we define policy at all. We can cover how Jane Doe's parents have or have not supported her transition, but I otherwise don't think this line of argument is supportable, valid, or the right move for policy – just because a family member or members don't support someone's transition, it doesn't give us leave to deadname someone.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 13:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Ineffablebookkeeper and Starship.paint: when it comes to parental acceptance, there is sadly a lot of overlap between parents who refuse to accept their child's sexuality and their child's gender identity. It often manifests in the same way, with statements like "no child of mine is going to be gay/lesbian/bisexual/trans/non-binary, and that's the end of it", or some of other identity denialism like "it's just a phase". I think Ineffablebookkeeper's point that we shouldn't pander to this form of bigotry in any form is the correct one.

  Ultimately it's the parent's choice to be unsupportive of their child for something that it is not a choice the child made, but we shouldn't enable that in any form. Being trans or non-binary is no more a choice than being non-heterosexual. In our articles, we can describe that the person's family was unsupportive if it meets other inclusion criteria, but we should not enable it. In almost all cases, if a person says they are one or more of the identities under the LGBT+ umbrella, then they are who they say they are. Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm getting strawman vibes here, @Ineffablebookkeeper and Sideswipe9th:. We are simply using a former name of a dead person. We have plenty of dead people with former names we can mention, but trans people are apparently special, we can't mention those.Trying to tie this into bigotry and supposed pandering and enabling and then into Wikipedia policy is simply WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, against the provision of knowledge. When using the new name, it's okay to offend supposed bigots, but when using the dead name, it's not acceptable to offend people! Also, I kind of agree with the sentiment that I don't think our relatives, parents or loved ones have the right to define our identity because of their own feelings as pertaining to Wikipedia, because, in my opinion, it should be the reliable sources, at least on Wikipedia. starship.paint (exalt) 15:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: take it how you want; I've said my piece.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 16:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: Trying to tie this into bigotry Intentional deadnaming is a recognised form of bigotry, that has real world consequences for trans and non-binary people. Those of us who are advocating for option 3 (and possibly option 2) are not trying to tie this into bigotry, that link has already been made by reliable sources (see the deadnaming article for some).

  As the editors of the peer-reviewed journal Biological Invasions put it when announcing how they were updating their policies in relation to accessibility and inclusion: [Deadnaming] can be accidental or intentional, and it invalidates a person’s identity and dehumanizes a trans person’s experience. Further, maintaining a deadname in the public record draws unwanted attention to a trans author’s name and can lead to discrimination, misgendering, and harassment.

  We are simply using a former name of a dead person. Not quite. To use your language we would be using the deadname of a dead person. A name that most trans and non-binary people, alive or dead, is one that they no longer wish to be associated with.

  To ask this another way, if the Springer Nature group of journals, SAGE group of journals, and individual journals like Biological Invasions, and PLOS.one are changing their policies to enable retroactive name changes for trans and non-binary scientists, in a manner that removes their deadnames entirely from the record regardless of how famous or influential they are in a given field, why are we so hesitant to stop publishing the deadnames of trans and non-binary people who were not notable prior to transitioning shortly after they die? We are already not including that deadname in life, so why are we so hesitant to continue not publishing it in death? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  We are already not including that deadname in life, so why are we so hesitant to continue not publishing it in death? - it's pretty simple, the dead can't be harmed. Also, Wikipedia already does intentionally deadname trans people, so I'm afraid intentional bigotry is not a good enough reason to block this. starship.paint (exalt) 16:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also, Wikipedia already does intentionally deadname trans people Those who were notable prior to transitioning yes. However this is something that I suspect in another ten or so years, as media style guides are updated just as scholarly journal style guides have been, we will be revisiting. The AP Stylebook has recently made steps along the same lines to avoid deadnaming, except where it's by the request of the person or is absolutely necessary to understand the news story. But that is not who we are discussing here. Here we are discussing trans and non-binary people who were not notable prior to their transition, a different set of people entirely. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Added AP Stylebook note Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  if someone finds us using the new name offensive, then that's not a problem with the article, it's a problem that person has with the name the trans person in question chose and used, which is not something we have control over. we don't get to go against that person's wishes on how to be referred to, and offend a marginalized group of people due to the implications that trans identities aren't valid, just because some people might wish the subject hadn't been trans or that trans people as a whole didn't exist.

  I also find it really interesting that WP:RGW is often cited in these conversations, when what it says is that we can't "right great wrongs" unless they're verifiable. it's basically just the WP:NOR repackaged, but it seems like people are somehow reading it to say that we aren't allowed to care about respecting trans identities.

  I think it is best practice not to mention non-notable former names for anyone, but yeah it is different with trans people. it's a really big concern for the trans community and there's no legitimate reason for us not to respect that. Tekrmn (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for acknowledging that it is different with trans people. it's a really big concern for the trans community. I simply believe that this concern cannot override the majority of reliable source coverage. I do not agree with the preferential treatment. starship.paint (exalt) 16:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  can you explain how you feel that referring to someone by their preferred name is preferential treatment? we refer to everyone else by their preferred name as far as I'm aware. Elliot Page's original stage name was the only name in his article prior to his transition despite it not being his legal name. It also seems disingenuous to say that we need to use the name that the greatest number of sources use, when that is not how we decide what is included in articles and especially not what name we use to refer to people. nobody is arguing that we use someone's preferred name if there's no reliable source for it, but to say that a certain number of sources need to use their new name over their old name doesn't make sense. Tekrmn (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  The issue isn't exactly referring to someone by their preferred name. The issue is 100% referring to someone by their preferred name. The issue is about excluding all mention of former names, that's the difference. We could be 95% referring to someone by their preferred name, and 5% using the former name, but this is apparently unacceptable for trans people, and acceptable for non-trans people. starship.paint (exalt) 16:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  The word “use” here is key. I feel that use-mention distinction is important in this discussion. Using a deadname seems to me to have high potential for causing offence. Mentioning one, far less so. I don’t think it’s invalidating to mention that somebody used to have a different name. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  we don't have a formalized policy about this for cisgender subjects because nobody is arguing that we need to include old names for them at every opportunity, but in practice (with a few exceptions in older and poorly-written articles) it seems that a cis person who changes their name is referred to by their new name, and their old name is mentioned in the lead if they were notable under it and is otherwise omitted. if you want to open a discussion about the naming policy as it applies to everyone I would participate in that discussion and advocate for the same naming policies to apply to everyone, but regardless, we have acknowledged that there are additional reasons (though we certainly haven't gone into detail about what they are) that correctly naming trans people (and only mentioning their deadname where necessary) is a higher level concern than it is for cis people. why is it so unacceptable to you that we create additional protection for them in our guidelines (at least for now) given that they are both specifically being targeted as a result of our loose naming guidelines and that their names are of much greater importance to them personally and as a community? what is the problem with that? Tekrmn (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3. I see the appeal of option 2 but I don't want us to get bogged down in arguments over what is "least astonishing" when some of the people arguing are likely to trolls who will pretend to be astonished just to be disruptive. Option 3 doesn't stop us mentioning previous names so long as they were genuinely notable under those names, so there is no risk of anybody looking for an article under one name, finding the article under a different name and and not being sure whether this refers to the same person. That is the only legitimate purpose for including a deadname. If a subject was not notable under their deadname then adding it helps nobody to find or understand the article. In addition, I strongly agree with Bilorv's comments about the risk of offending friends and relatives of deceased subjects. DanielRigal (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  There is equally a "risk of offending friends and relatives of deceased subjects" even when using the last preferred name. starship.paint (exalt) 14:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's true! I agree in principle here—the "friends and family" argument doesn't have much purchase with me, because, hey, even friends and family can be bigots! I think Folly Mox is correct that, in terms of respect, the issue is respect for the transgender community.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  My respect for the transgender community does not exceed adherence to widespread reliable sourcing. Seems clear that plenty of editors disagree, but it's looks like WP:RGW to me. starship.paint (exalt) 14:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I'd agree that every fact that gets repeatedly mentioned in reliable sources is inherently worthy of inclusion, but it sounds like you're for option 2?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've voted down below. I never argued "every fact", the thing is, names are obviously a form of identification, and the lack of identification can be a source of confusion. Omitting hypothetical other facts may not cause such issues. starship.paint (exalt) 14:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm glad your found an option that resonated with you!--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3: I'm mostly even between these two options because I think they both exclude everything I'd really want to exclude. Option 2 allows for cases where a dead person's deadname became well-known after their death, while Option 3 doesn't. I think there's a reasonable case for either version. I oppose Option 1 since I think there are obvious cases (Leelah Alcorn for instance) where including a dead trans person's deadname would be grossly a case of real-world harm. I oppose Option 4 because its ambiguity as to the case of dead people is what got us into this mess in the first place. Loki (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW if it comes down to it I think I'd weakly support 3 over 2. But they're both very close for me. Loki (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2. I don't think PAL or use in a majority of sources is the right test, but it should be included if it is specifically relevant. For example, Brandon Teena mentions several facts about the deadname (its appearance in the paper, its use on the tombstone, its use among a list of other aliases) without stating what it is. At that point, we are clearly writing around a piece of information that would normally be mentioned, in order to avoid offence, which is contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED.--Trystan (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC) edit: Second choice would be Option 4 - no change at this time.--Trystan (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 2) Option 3 per DanielRigal, Bilorv and Sideswipe9th. This (like just about every policy on Wikipedia) does not preclude occasional exceptions existing; the only ones that comes to mind are (1) where a person's notability prior to transition is borderline or disputed, and (2) where the person expressed a clear preference for something different. In the case of 2 we should obviously respect that preference, in the case of 1 then I don't see any alternative to an editorial discussion, but that discussion should be framed in terms of their notability under that name and should minimise the use of the name in the discussion. I oppose option 1 as it is very likely to cause real-world harm without any encyclopaedic justification. I oppose option 4 as it will not resolve the issues. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. Always and Never are too prescriptive. There isn't always encyclopedic value in including former names. Conversely, there can be encyclopedic value in including former names. The privacy interest doesn't disappear immediately upon death, but it does fade over time, and eventually the encyclopedic value of including a former name may come to outweigh the residual privacy interest. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 After reading some of the comments below, I don't believe a change is needed. For living and deceased people, notable deadnames should be included per WP:DUE and WP:NOTCENSORED. For deceased subjects, the inclusion of non-notable deadnames should be decided based on editorial judgment, with no bias towards exclusion. Amending my vote from this. Some1 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Small clarification (this was maybe a poor design choice on my part), option 2 would leave the “living” paragraph untouched. It would be inserted below that paragraph. Sorry for the confusion.—Jerome Frank Disciple 21:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3, weakly 2. Regardless of whether a subject is alive, non-notable deadnames are, by definition, miscellaneous WP:TRIVIA (regardless of how biographically/historically "important" trolls always insist they are), and publishing them (moreover, aggregating and verifying them) imparts little meaningful value to readers except those retrieving them for the sole purpose of causing harm. As Bilorv noted, the potential harm (e.g. to those that love and remember them) of making a trans person's deadname such a readily accessible piece of information (e.g. in the Google Knowledge Graph) does not immediately stop with death. I don't see an especially compelling reason why our criteria for inclusion should expire on a subject's death (certainly, if I were a BLP subject, I would not want that particular sword hanging over my head). –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 22:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 I'm not sure why we need to complicate things and create a new standard. Jayron32 puts it well: Treating people with respect and decency doesn't stop at the moment they die. If there's an actual case where someone's deadname only becomes important after their death, we can make an exception in that case/craft a policy exception for those particular cases. Strongly oppose option 1. Galobtter (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 as long as it’s relevant to the subject. As per MOS:SURNAME, we should refer to individuals principally by their surname after their full name (and deadname) is mentioned. Yasslaywikia (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 Option 4. The only argument for concealing former names that are reliably sourced would be privacy, and WP:BLP already handles the various concerns around former names and when privacy no longer becomes an issue after death. Former names clearly have encyclopedic value and should only be censored for privacy concerns under BLP. The MOS should not try to decide this issue. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Privacy concerns (nor any of the other reasons we don't deadname living people, including basic respect) do not somehow magically disappear after death, they can (and frequently do) impact on family members and friends of the deceased. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Which is why our current BLP policy extends privacy considerations to the recently deceased. However, there does come a time when that consideration ends. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  In the case of deadnames and similar, the need for consideration extends for (at least) as long as close friends and family are still living. I also explicitly noted that the reason we do not deadname living people is not solely a privacy matter - basic respect for human beings does not end when someone ceases to be recently deceased. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, I'm sure you've seen them, but read WP:GRATUITOUS and WP:NOTCENSORED and tell me how you could justify excluding the former name of a 2-year dead transgender individual because it might offend their living relative? Would you also exclude the images of Muhammad from his bio because it offends some people? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Images of Muhammaed have clear encyclopaedic justification, the same cannot be said of deadnames transgender individuals were never notable under. Per Gratuitous and other policies we should never go out of our way to offend people, regardless of why, and that includes never including deadnames without clear encyclopaedic justification. Wikipedia:Offensive material states: Offensive words [...] should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.. This does not make any reference to the time since death - if it is encyclopaedically unjustifiable to include a subject's deadname when they are living or recently deceased, then it is encyclopaedically unjustifiable to do so two years after their death.

  See also Folly Mox's comments in the topic 2 discussion section. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's cherry picking from the policy/guide. WP:GRATUITOUS also says, Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers Former names are not "vulgar or obscene" and they are included in almost every instance whether the former name was notable or not. Former names are "informative", "relevant", and "accurate", and "no suitable alternative is available". WP:NOTCENSORED, Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. In this case, arguing to make a special case to exclude former transgender names is trying to make the encyclopedia conform to a social norm from gender theory that suggests it is exceedingly offensive to even mention, informatively, someone's prior name. Wikipedia should not conform. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 or option 4 (in no order). While PLA isn’t the standard I would apply, it is good enough for now. My own perfect version would establish something like: “Mere verifiability is not enough to justify inclusion, but a preponderance of high-quality reliable sources is”. I am also very amenable to letting wiki-biographers of deceased persons decide on a page by page basis. I don’t particularly love the idea that the MOS should rule over any of this (the current deadname guideline is centred on BLP policy, as Cuñado points out), but I do have to remind myself how many pages of discussion we are generating day after day on this stuff. — HTGS (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 - no change. Our current policy is good. It respects the subject, while at the same time allowing flexibility in complex situations. “Always” and “Never” are overly restrictive. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 2. I prefer option 3 as a default, but I think the "always" / "never" words are too strong. We should prefer option 3 in the vast majority of cases, while still allowing exceptions to be made if appropriate for the article in question. stwalkerster (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2a. I don't understand why this option was omitted from the RfC, but there are circumstances where a living trans or non-binary person was not notable under their deadname, but their deadname should be mentioned in the article due to the level of coverage it has received, such as in the Isla Bryson case. This allowance is also necessary to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:BALASP. I would note that this is already how things should function in practice; as the MOS cannot overrule a core policy, this guideline cannot prevent the inclusion of names which are necessary to comply with NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Happy to explain. This RFC, as the title, questions, and proposals indicate, concerns the deadnames of deceased trans persons.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  This appears to a duplication of our discussion below. BilledMammal (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Option 4. Thinking further, option 2 or any variant of it is not viable as it can result in WP:BALANCE violations; a name doesn't need to be mentioned in a majority of sources to be due for inclusion under NPOV. It is also impractical, as it is difficult to determine when a name is mentioned in the majority of sources, both due to the difficulty of such a broad evaluation and in terms of determining when a mention should be counted - for example, do passing mentions count? There is also the issue of when a name is mentioned in roughly half of sources; it could result in us switching whether we include the name every time the person is mentioned.

  Option 3 is not an option for the same reason, as well as being a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. I'll note that for these reasons if there is a consensus for option 2 or 3 it will not resolve anything; as a guideline, MOS:GENDERID cannot overrule a policy (WP:NOT), and there can never be a consensus to overrule a core policy (WP:NPOV). BilledMammal (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 - I think it would be good to have this formalized. If that lacks consensus, my second choice would be Option 2, even though I find it tough to imagine a case where the inclusion of a name a trans person was not notable under in an article would assist a reader's understanding of its subject. Hatman31 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3. If it's not notable enough to include when they were alive, it doesn't become notable when they die. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 05:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4. I do not think it should be forbidden to include this information for deceased persons. I have not seen any good arguments as to why it should be forbidden; many of the arguments seem to boil down to a plea to impose ideological uniformity. As to whether it's important enough to include, that's an editorial decision at the article level. --Trovatore (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 seems the best option. I see nothing magical that happens when a transgender person dies that means we should somehow change the policy at that point. Restricting it to "living" just means that the trolls have a loophole when they can wait until a transgender person dies, and then pounce on the article. We want to discourage that behavior; basically if Wikipedia has determined the information is not encyclopedic for living persons, there's no rationale that suddenly makes it encyclopedic the second they die. Like all policy, I would allow for WP:IAR exceptions where edge cases exist. But for the standard operating procedure, we shouldn't change the way we handle transgender individuals the moment they die. --Jayron32 14:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"the moment they die"... WP:BDP exists for that. EddieHugh (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2a / Option 2 / Option 4 per Trystan, HTGS, Barnards.tar.gz, BilledMammal and Trovatore. Adding on to their rationale, my thinking is simple - follow the majority of reliable sources. Strong oppose Option 3 as verging on WP:RGW by going against the majority of reliable sources (WP:DUEWEIGHT), and for all those claiming that reasonable exceptions may be carved out - I do not believe it. Far more likely that your proposed MOS:GENDERID will be used as a blunt instrument to prevent any exceptions. starship.paint (exalt) 14:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, no change - I do not think there is merit in changing the current policy, which gives the editors flexibility to choose on a case-by-case basis. In particular:
  "Always" and "never" are overly restrictive. (WP:IAR exists, but we should only rarely require it.
  The "majority of reliable sources" is all very well if the majority and minority explicitly disagreed (eg about what the former name was, not whether it existed), but what if 5 sources do not mention the former name but 2 reliable sources do? In that case I think it fair to include the (undisputed) former name. Not everyone who wants to include reliably sourced factual biographical information is a "troll". Our policies, and our discussions, should be assuming good faith.
  WP:PLA is a good policy, but this is not its purpose. It is not intended as a limitation of what we include in an article, which is what option 2 is trying to do. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3. Multiple participants above have lucidly summarized my thoughts on the matter, especially HTGS (on the strengths of Option 2) and Thryduulf and RoxySaunders (on the strengths of Option 3). ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 Is this really solving a problem? In the case of living people the BLP protection concerns can be real. However, when dealing with non-BLP cases why not handle it on a case by case basis? As was said above, always and never are overly restrictive and IAR is a rarely used pillar. It would seem that in most cases we are likely to get a result similar to what we get with a BLP case. In the few cases where we don't I would presume there is a good reason why thus we shouldn't prescribe a solution. Springee (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3: I supported the proposal in topic 1 and I think option 3 best comports with that proposal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 If they weren't notable under the prior name, then there's no reason to include it. And this should never have had "living" in it in the first place, because that results in dumb scenarios where the moment one such person dies, then people are free to claim the name should be turned back to their deadname because this policy no longer applied. Which is idiotic. Hence, it should apply to all trans individuals, living or dead. Silverseren^C 22:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 I'm not seeing any major reasoning as why we need to be overly instructive when can judge it on a case-by-case basis.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's fair! I think my concern is that the case-by-case discussions end up looking like policy/guideline discussions. To be sure, there's a tailored option here (option 2), but from looking at a few of these debates, what I've noticed is many people saying "a birth name is inherently relevant" and many people responding by saying "no it's not". Now, we might be having that discussion on a lot of pages, but that doesn't mean we're having a case-by-case discussion. In my best case scenario—the guidance here makes is so that we don't need to repeat policy/guideline debates on article talk pages each time this comes up.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  The "always" option is a red herring. It should have been clarified as something like "never forbidden". It's up to the editors of a particular article to figure out what is and is not relevant in that article. --Trovatore (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  Believe it or not, the argument that a birth name is inherently relevant and encyclopedic isn't all that rare! Though, admittedly, in this discussion, we've only had a couple option 1 supporters—one of whom changed their vote. If you're looking for "unrestricted", the best option is probably option 4.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm on record that birth names are "presumptively" of encyclopedic interest. I see them as on the same level of interest as names of parents, which we routinely report in the "early life" section, and I think the "early life" section is the right place to put birth names as well. But Option 1 is not an option for me — of course it's not the role of the MOS to say birth names should "always" be included. That's an editorial call, not a style issue. --Trovatore (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1, followed by 4, followed by 2. I don't see why we should have to prove 'a majority of sources' use the person's birth name before we can include it in their Wikipedia article. If a good source reports the birth name, so should we. Most Wikipedia biographies have an 'Early life' section (even though most people weren't notable as children) and information on birth name/s should be included there if there is reliable sourcing. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, with option 2 as a best practice. Social mores change, and not everyone who we now call transgender would have thought of their birth name as a strictly private matter, as is common now. (As mentioned below, try writing about the Public Universal Friend without mentioning their former name and see how far you get.) I don’t think wiki policy/style should be strictly dogmatic either way. MarijnFlorence (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  As the person who originally brought up that example I do want to at least mention that there have been versions of the page that did not mention the PUF's former name. I don't think that they were an improvement, but it's definitely possible! Loki (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2, where the person was notable under a former name it is appropriate that it be mentioned. 4 is a second choice. Definitely not 3. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  Clarification: under all the options, where the person was notable under a former name it is appropriate that it be mentioned. The proposals only address what to do as to persons who were not notable under a former name.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 If a trans person is not notable under a given birth name, then we don't have any obligation to include it. It's always felt ghoulish to me that we can only consistently apply this principle (under current policy) to living transgender individuals.
  The reason I am against Option 2 is pretty straight forward: All it takes is for one reliable source to exist which says a deadname for someone to try and justify giving it WP:UNDUE weight. A more extreme rule (and yes, I recognize Option 3 might be considered by many to be extreme) is a much easier rule to follow. Here's an example:
  You have a transgender man named Gary Dark, and he dies (rest in peace). Mr. Dark was super popular and lived in a lot of places, so he has 10 different obituaries appearing in regional outlets across his country. 9 of them choose to omit Gary's deadname in his obituary, but the one in his hometown has more relaxed (ie. worse) editorial standards and lets it slip Gary Dark was born Alexa Dark. That one source can then be used to justify including something in our article even if 9 reliable sources made the active decision to omit Dark's deadname.
  Of course, exceptions will exist to this rule, but those can be handled in an actual case-by-case basis. The edge cases shouldn't form the basis for most of our policy ("hard cases make bad law" as the saying goes). In most cases, it's practically never relevant to mention someone's deadname if they weren't notable under that name. If they were notable under their deadname, then Option 3 wouldn't effect them.
  That's my logic, at least. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds like you are mischaracterising Option 2, MJL, which says particularly considering the majority of reliable sources discussing said person ... but here you are saying ... All it takes is for one reliable source to exist ... That one source can then be used to justify including something in our article even if 9 reliable sources made the active decision to omit Dark's deadname. starship.paint (exalt) 13:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: Option 2 has a large carve out: if such inclusion would satisfy the principle of least astonishment. What that means is going to be subject to endless debate. If, using my example, Gary went to an all-girls high school, would that satisfy the guideline? You could easily make the arguement that a reader might be astonished that Gary Dark went to an all-girls high school.

  I don't think the policy in Option 2 is as clear as it is in Option 3. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  @MJL: - in this case, with a small minority of sources using Alexa Dark, we could simply write in article text that While still presenting as female, Gary Dark attended an all-girls high school, Stonebridge High School. Wouldn't this be able to solve the problem? Now, definitely, Option 3 is clearer, but clarity is not the only metric that we should be using. I afford weight to.... WP:DUEWEIGHT. starship.paint (exalt) 01:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  IMO that would be ok, but MOS:GENDERID seems to specifically discourage acknowledging that the person ever presented as a gender other than their current identification, recommending ambiguous constructions instead to obscure the issue. Anomie⚔ 12:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:GENDERID seems to specifically discourage acknowledging that the person ever presented as a gender other than their current identification — I disagree. GENDERID includes (with my emphasis added)

  "Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis."

  I.e., it is OK to mention it in the main biographical article, and/or if it would other be a surprise. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  The very next sentence after what you quote specifically and directly prescribes the use of ambiguous constructions to avoid "confusion". The example used there seems unlikely to be present outside of the main biographical article (unless maybe it's in an article about a spouse, which raises even more concerns). Anomie⚔ 00:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  [tangent] I have wondered occasionally whether this bit in GENDERID effectively takes a philosophical stand against gender fluidity. We wrote it from the POV that a trans woman was a girl/woman from birth, and so should not be described as a boy who grew up to be a woman. Gender-fluid people do not share that belief (as applied to themselves) and might not appreciate our insistence on the most recent gender as the only "real" one. (I don't know how to fix it without making things worse overall.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: I've had that concern as well. Fortunately the guideline as written does allow subjects to "opt out" of the past-pronoun provision, and, while it doesn't have the same clause about deadnames, I honestly think that's more because no one's ever thought to put it in than because there's a strong consensus that trans people can't consent to having pre-notability deadnames used. (I've wavered regarding Sarah Ashton-Cirillo, who fairly frequently mentions her pre-notability deadname, posts pre-transition pictures, etc., and have only held off on ignoring MOS:DEADNAME there for reasons of WP:DUE.) Personally, as an agender person who does not see xemself as having "always been a woman" or anything close to that and whose post-transition name is just a feminized form of xyr pre-transition name, I've jotted down somewhere that if my pre-transition self is ever referred to in mainspace, I don't care what name or pronouns are used. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: You are not wrong. I think the major failing of MOS:GENDERID is that it's a victim of WP:POLE and poorly-executed compromises. I'm going to resist the urge to go into detail since it's not what this conversation is about, but I would like to make it clear that I agree with you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, that wouldn’t be good wording. It should be, “before transitioning from female to male”. A Tree In A Box (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  All it takes is for one reliable source to exist... Sadly this is something that already happens with the current version of the guideline, much less option 2. Earlier this year I created an article about a recently killed transgender teen in the UK. About two days after the teen's death, both the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph amended their early reporting to include the teen's deadname. While both papers later removed the deadname after backlash, in the days that followed, a few editors tried to add the teen's deadname citing archived copies of the article from The Times.

  At present, that name can be excluded per WP:BDP, as the teen was not notable prior to transitioning and only achieved notability because of her death. But at some point between now and February 2025, BDP ceases to apply. So what happens then? Under option 2, an editor could make a PLA based argument for inclusion either in good faith or bad to include that teen's deadname, as that teen's killing is being investigated as a possible hate crime due to her gender identity. Even if that discussion is settled by an RfC, because consensus can change, there is always the future potential for another editor to resume or restart the past discussions on inclusion or exclusion of that deadname.

  I'm personally of the opinion that we don't need to ever include that teen's deadname. It's not necessary to understand that she was killed, nor depending on the outcome of the investigation and trial why she was killed. It doesn't add any information that is of encyclopaedic value to the article, and would only serve to intrude upon the privacy of grieving family and friends. But there are editors, both in good faith and in bad, who believe the opposite to myself.

  The problem is that both PLA and WEIGHT is that they are subjective measures, not objective measures. If you ask a hundred editors what constitutes either, you will likely get 100 different answers, because they are both largely defined on individual editorial opinion and discretion. What option 3 provides over option 2 is that option 3 provides both clarity and continuity of the guideline. It closes a loophole in the guidance that currently exists, where upon the death of a trans or non-binary subject who was not notable prior to transition, that name cannot be included solely because of the fact that they are now dead. If the same person was notable prior to transitioning, option 3 would result in no change to the existing guidance, because their deadname would already be included in their respective article.

  Of course, even if option 3 is the version that finds consensus, WP:IAR still exists to handle the small minority of cases where there is a compelling reason to include a deadname after the subject's death that we otherwise could not include during the subject's life. But the American legal maxim of hard cases make bad law is precisely why the guideline should cover the vast majority of articles where (in my opinion) a deadname for a trans or non-binary person who was not notable prior to transitioning should not be considered for inclusion solely because the article subject is now dead. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  So, I'm ... really hesitant to discuss this here, and I've only recently realized it, but it's occurred to me that "notability" might not be the correct test. WP:NOTABLE concerns the threshold for determining who gets their own article. I'm not sure it makes sense to have notability govern deadnames outside of biography subjects.

  Obviously, these cases are rare, but consider a person who commits a high-profile crime, transitions post-sentencing, and then dies. (This is not based on the current high-profile RFC involving a person who transitioned before committing a crime; rather, it relates to another article on WP.) Such a person probably wouldn't be notable, before or after transitioning. Chances are, the crime would warrant an article, but not the person who committed it, per WP:PERPETRATOR (part of the notability policy). But, in all likelihood, the vast majority of articles about such a person would use the person's name at the time of the event, not the post-transition name. That's the type of situation where I think Option 2 has some utility.

  I'm not sure there'd be a serious argument for inclusion of the deadname in the article/situation you mentioned under option 2—by my read, PLA independently wouldn't warrant inclusion, and certainly the "majority of reliable sources" wouldn't, either. Sure, it's a standard rather than a rule, so I guess there's always a chance, but, given WP:IAR, aren't all guidelines and policies standards? Yes, consensus can change and arguments can repeat, but that's just as true regarding a PLA argument as a IAR argument, no? --Jerome Frank Disciple 19:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  To me, the reason for the link between deadname and notability is pretty obvious. Consider that the name of a notable person is very likely going to appear in multiple articles beyond just that person's biography. For example, if the person is a prolific actor, author, musician, or other creative type, their name is going to appear in articles about works to which they contributed. However it's not uncommon for the initial works of a person to be notable long before the person themselves achieves notability. If the guideline didn't link the use of the name with notability, then the primary article about the person might say "Jane Doe (born 1 January 1990), is a [insert nationality here] actress...", while works that involve Jane might credit her as "John Doe".

  by my read, PLA independently wouldn't warrant inclusion Sure, but PLA is pretty subjective, and your or my reading of it is not the only reading. Even majority of RS is somewhat subjective, as some editors will consider that to be 50%+1, while others would require a supermajority of 55% or more.

  but that's just as true regarding a PLA argument as a IAR argument, no? Invoking IAR, whether successfully or not, is a much higher threshold than invoking PLA. In my experience editors would be far more likely to invoke a PLA based exception to an IAR one. With PLA you just need to demonstrate that inclusion of a fact satisfies the base principle, but with an IAR based exception you need to demonstrate how inclusion improves the article in a manner that's currently being prevented by application of a policy or guideline that otherwise prevents it. Those two are not always the same thing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 This approach most harmonizes with our BLP policies. Whether something should be included in a bio should be a basis for a discussion and Option 2 does not *force* this to be included, merely allow a discussion of it. Option 3 basically forces us to censor information even when it's pertinent. Option 1 would be unacceptable for the same reason in the opposite direction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 - The basis of the current status quo is that there is a major privacy value ascribed that overrides aggregating available knowledge. A change to option 3 would ascribe a higher protection than BLP/CRIME. I don't think that comparison holds up, and as such option 2 is best. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 but... The problem with not mentioning the dead name on grounds of no pre-change notability is that it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy by barring editors unaware of the dead name of the subject from discovering any potential notability established in sources published prior to the name change. We should respect a subject's preferences even after death when it comes to their name, but we should not allow ourselves to sever their identity from their past, which could include possibly notable and contextualising events. The solution IMO is to leave a sourced note of the subject's deadname at the top of the talk page so that anyone looking to improve the article will have access to this information when searching for sources. Redirects from the dead name must also be kept as these allow people with notable information to find the article on which this information belongs. small jars tc 13:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 Same as for living people: if the person isn't notable under their deadname, there is no reason to add it. Again, no need to make a special policy against dead people. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: I find it hard to say that a person's original name is trivia. That said, we should treat such things with sensitivity and respect which is why I oppose putting any sort of deadnames in the lede or bolding them save for cases where the person was explicitly famous before transitioning. However, with Sophie for example, there are several national-level publications that use her original name, not just a few. For that, I feel that putting her name in the early life section is not any more undue than her exact birthday which has less relevance, less coverage, and is equally as likely to hurt their privacy. And because there is no pushback against exact birthdays for several of the same reasons argued above, it seems that many are here to right a great wrong. (Obviously, the two situations are not the same, but it does help highlight some of why I feel the arguments above are flimsy.) While intentional deadnaming should not be done at all on Wikipedia, and trolls should be banned at the first infraction, Wikipedia is also not censored. Including things that are true, used by reliable sources, and where the person is deceased so as not to get personally denigrated or have their privacy revealed (speaking from a purely pragmatic point) is not offensive in the slightest, especially if it is de-emphasized. (Also, for someone like Sophie that had a small discography under her birth name, I see value in providing the original name. You should not hide a past identity in pursuit of niceness. Note that this proposal is not specific to Sophie, but she provides a nice example of when to oppose.) Why? I Ask (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Just to clarify: The Sophie example was used in light of the RFC on that page (although I have to admit I missed that there was a no consensus finding there). Obviously the examples should be paradigmatic cases, so if there's a less controversial example, I'd personally be okay replacing Sophie (and given that the examples are meant to illustrate the proposals ... and it's not the case that the proposals are meant to adjudicate the examples ... I don't think such replacement would count as a change to the RFC). That said, I don't really see any evidence of a real controversy concerning the exclusion of Sophie's deadname.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's all good, but I think it really shows that there are not a lot of paradigmatic cases. While there are good intentions behind wishing to respect the wishes of the subject to the highest extent, it is often hard to find a case where one transitions later in life and does not already have some coverage of their deadname in their professional career (which, in that case, I would support its inclusion given a verifiable source). I think there are plenty of cases where I would absolutely oppose using the birth name (e.g., Leelah Alcorn or Blake Brockington), but for many (especially in the arts where they may have published under an earlier name), it provides some helpful encyclopedic context. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  The examples are, at least for the purposes of this RfC, largely illustrative for how the proposed change would apply. There may well be better examples to use, and those could be substituted in, either now or after the RfC closes if that option finds consensus, without altering the intent of that proposal. Leelah or Blake would probably be a better example than Sophie, and I don't think you'd find any objections to adjusting the example against inclusion of a deadname to use one or both. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 per per DanielRigal, Bilorv and Sideswipe9th. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 per a mix of the arguments made above. I think the wording about a majority of reliable sources in option 2 is setting out the wrong criterion; deciding how much weight to give any information isn't just about counting how many sources mention it, but also about how much emphasis they each give it and other considerations. XOR'easter (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3. If someone's deadname wasn't well-known, there's no reason to bring it up in their article, living or dead shouldn't matter. Whether there will be an abundance of clear-cut cases to apply this guideline to is entirely a different matter. TheSavageNorwegian 21:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4: Options 1, 2 and 3 contradict NPOV, specifically WP:BALANCE, which requires us to treat details proportional to their treatment in reliable sources. None of the proposed texts follow policy. RAN1 (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Thryduulf, Jayron, and MJL. I'm not entirely against option 2 in principle, but it seems unlikely for reliable sources refer to the subject only by their deadname (thus generating astonishment) unless they were in fact notable under that name. I realize that some editors think this is overly prescriptive, but I agree with those who have argued that additional breathing room is unnecessary and will inevitably lead to disruptive editing. I can't say I support a race to start inserting deadnames to articles six months after trans person dies, followed by incessant wikilawyering over PLA, which was never intended to be a policy or guideline in itself. Folly Mox also makes a salient point: these decisions have broader ramifications than the subject and their family alone, which should not be overlooked. Barring exceptional circumstances, the use of non-notable deadnames is not encyclopedic and would only discredit the project. —Rutebega (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, second choice Option 2. We are an encyclopedia; we're here to summarize the world's knowledge. We are not here to make people sad, so we do make compromises to that end, but the dead can not be made sad. Their friends, relatives, and completely unrelated activists can be sad on their behalf, but if we allow everyone and their brother to veto our content, then eventually we will have no content. (Trust me, there are numerous people out there that are eager to say: the very existence of Wikipedia hurts me personally, deeply, and fatally - delete it all!) We need to find a place to draw the line, and "living" seems a good place to draw it. --GRuban (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 out of these but in my view the better solution would be to remove "living transgender or non-binary" and other gender/sexuality references to end up with If a person was not notable under a former name, it should not be included in any page... and A person's birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Furthermore, since it makes no sense to have the resulting stuff in a section entitled "Gender identity", it would probably be appropriate to merge it with WP:CHANGEDNAME. casualdejekyll 21:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 I've seen several trans people, some of whom were at least plausibly notable enough for an article, explicitly say on social media that they don't want a Wikipedia article because they're afraid people will use it to broadcast their deadname to the world. MOS:GENDERID has helped with that, but if you can add non-notable deadnames to an article after the subject dies, that sentiment isn't going to go away. And it's a lot harder to ethically write about trans people on Wikipedia if they actively don't want an article because of our policies around deadnames. (Not to mention that there are plenty of people who will want to add a deadname to a trans person's article as soon as they've been dead long enough for purely bigoted reasons, not for any reason related to building an encyclopedia, and that's something we should strongly discourage.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3. Option 2 could lead to arguments around the inclusion of birth names for almost any trans or nonbinary person. there should be no ambiguity that the name itself needs to be notable for it to be included. Tekrmn (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3. We shouldn't much care about the subject's feelings -- they don't have any, cos they're dead. So the default is to perform our remit of informing as much as we can. (However, it would be nice to consider the feelings of the recently bereaved, so like "only if they've been dead five years" (say) would be good. Herostratus (talk)
• Option 4. If I had my druthers, I'd strike the entirety of MOS:GENDERID per WP:RGW. WP:NPOV can perfectly handle this entire scenario from start to finish: this is just unnecessary instruction creep. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, that the guideline does not and should not apply outside BLP. Decisions about inclusion or removal of content within an article should follow generally applicable principles and policies in the same way they apply to any other content. In particular, those policies are not to be conflated with notability. The guideline should remain rooted in BLP (including the recently deceased, as defined under WP:BDP) and not in freestanding recourse to respect and disrespect that would run afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED. I also agree with Mitch Ames on why Option 2 is a poor rule. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 preferably or Option 2 per WP:DUE. If they were not notable under their old names there is no encyclopedic value in including it. Yet since the policy right now is needlessly vague about deceased trans people, editors have this same endless fight over several trans articles, including people trying to change a trans biography right after the subject dies. Rab V (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 preferably or option 2 I think WP:DUE and WP:NOTCENSORED provide enough guidance here. Option 3 attempts to carve an exemption to NOTCENSORED by saying that actually mentioning deadnames is SO offensive‍ NOTCENSORED should not apply. We really should not be treating different types of potentially objectionable content to different standards. CandyScythe (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3; I see no reason why we should necessarily split the difference here. Privacy concerns are a sufficient, but not necessary, reason why we shouldn't include non-notable deadnames. Sceptre (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 as removing the old name entirely creates a barrier that could completely prevent readers from finding information prior to name change. (Note, I didn't say prior to transition, as name change and transition can happen at different times.) Remember that Wikipedia is not a reliable source itself, it is a compilation of reliable sources, and one of the benefits of Wikipedia is as a gateway to reliable sources elsewhere, which would be impeded by an iron-clad policy of "remove deadnames" of those who were not notable before name change. Even if a person is not notable yet, there could potentially be many sources about them. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 22:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. Option 1 is flat-out unenforceable -- if someone's deadname has not been reported, then this wording all but requires editors to either do WP:OR to dig it up and/or to rely on questionable sources (people databases, etc.) Option 2 gets into all kinds of problems about recentism and availability -- there is no guarantee that "the majority of sources" will be evenly distributed pre- and post-transition, or equally accessible -- and seems likely to lead to cherry-picking or mischaracterizing sources. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Just a side comment on your objection to option 2… if the majority of sources are from pre-transition, then it is highly likely that the subject is notable pre-transition (and thus the deadname should at least be mentioned somewhere in the article, per our current guidance). Blueboar (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 per NOTCENSORED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3, per DanielRigal, Sideswipe9th, and the reasons I gave in pre-RFC discussion, summarized as: the reasons for not including non-notable deadnames don't change if the person dies. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and regularly excludes not only gratuitously offensive things people want to include for bad reasons, but even perfectly inoffensive but non-notable things; in pre-RFC discussion, people argued a deadname would help genealogical researchers: so would knowing the person's genealogy (indeed, that would be far more helpful!), yet in a recent RfC about COPHERITAGE, everyone seemed to agree that despite being NOTCENSORED, Wikipedia is not the place for non-notable genealogies. Likewise, I've yet to find an article where a celebrity's non-notable street address is included: despite the help it'd be to the mythical innocent genealogists some people say deadnames would help, it's not notable information. If a person was not notable under their deadname, then even under the aforelinked existing policies and guidelines, it should not be included, and clear language to this effect would be helpful in resolving the many redundant discussions which otherwise come up. -sche (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3. I honestly don't have much to say besides what has already been said: respect for one's gender doesn't end once a person dies. I wanna point out that the living qualifier was added without consensus by Sdkb in 2020. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I wanna point out that the living qualifier was added without consensus by Sdkb in 2020. This was discussed here and refined here, where @Sdkb: participated with other editors at the time. The initial RFC closure was only cautiously in agreement for aligning it with BLP, not expanding it to all living or dead individuals. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended disagreement on whether current version (“living”) has consensus

No prior discussion can bind us against holding another discussion. Everything is open for change, including policies and guidelines that may have been agreed to by a prior consensus-based discussion.--Jayron32 16:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Who are you talking to? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC) You had mentioned that there had been a prior discussion on this matter, which had at the time determined to limit the matter to living individuals only. I was letting you know that even if true, it's not terribly important, and consensus can always be changed with a new discussion. --Jayron32 17:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC) You must have missed the quoted part, I was only addressing the claim that there was no consensus for the addition and clarifying the discussion around that. Please do be more careful in the future when reading discussions. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC) I will be sure to give your advice its due consideration. --Jayron32 17:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) At the time of the addition, there was no consensus for it. Neither of the proposals in the preceding RfC contained language that restricted the applicability of the deadname provisions as a whole solely to living people. Loki's proposed version did add the clarifier that for living people, a non-notable deadname should be treated as a BLPPRIVACY issue, but did not restrict the first part of the rewording to only living people. In the subsequent section, there were three comments made prior to Sdkb changing the guideline to restrict it as a whole to living people only. One from Sdkb rationalising why the deadname provision should be restricted only to the living, and one from Armadillopteryx stating clearly that Some explicitly referenced WP:BLPPRIVACY, but others presented a rationale that could be reasonably interpreted to cover dead subjects as well. The discussions that followed from 17 October onwards focused on the point as to how the then newly updated deadname guideline was to be interpreted with respect to mention of the deadname in infoboxes and throughout the article's text. The living restrictor wasn't discussed in detail until almost a year later, in a subsequent RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC) @Sdkb and Armadillopteryx: (since apparently this abusing {{noping}} behavior is catching). As Sdkb noted elsewhere, WP:SILENTCONSENSUS is a thing, and that the language used stood unchallenged for a year after the discussed change tells me there was no significant dispute over it. This fully refutes LilianaUwU's claim that the edit was made without consensus; there was discussion, no objection, and the edit was made and has withstood the test of time. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC) I think everyone has made decent points here! But, as everyone has also acknowledged, the origin of the modifier is, for the most part, not super relevant, because, as Jayron pointed out, even if it was adopted via consensus, that prior discussion isn't binding on this one, but, as Locke Cole has pointed out, even if it wasn't the consensus of the discussion, it is the current status quo (affirmed sub silentio). :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 19:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC) there was discussion, no objection Hard disagree. There was an objection, due to the ambiguity over whether or not the intention of contributors to the preceding RfC was to restrict the guideline as a whole to living people only. The subsequent discussion was then focused on a different objection about another part of the proposed change. Also I disagree on my use of {{np}} being abusive. WP:NOTIFY states that notifications should be given for discussions about another user, however my comment is not a discussion about another user. I mentioned and quoted from Armadillopteryx's 2020 reply to Sdkb when summarising the context surrounding the addition made by Sdkb, but made no other comment about it or them as an editor or their conduct. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Cool story, bro. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Since apparently we're edit warring to keep this open even though it has no relevance whatsoever to what I said, I guess I need to add that I never implied or stated the prior consensus was immutable and unchangeable. This whole subthread strikes me as an exercise in "templating the regulars". I also don't hold out much hope that Jayron32 was sincere when stating they would give my advice its due consideration when they used the edit summary "Cool story, bro." —Locke Cole • t • c 18:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) No, I sincerely gave all of the consideration your advice was actually due. --Jayron32 11:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1. One of the difference between articles about living people and deceased people is that official records such as birth certificates may be used for deceased people but not for living people. Names before a gender transition are useful in facilitating research among offical records. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3. If a person was not notable under their deadname during their lifetime, that name is trivial and its inclusion is undue (2nd pillar). MOS:GENDERID is a guideline and many of the arguments in favor of Option 2 point to outlier cases which would be allowed as occasional exceptions. Option 3 is a simpler solution, far easier to implement and understand. gobonobo ^{+ c} 16:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 options 2 and 3 are very simmilar and 3 is just simpler. Further it avoids the weird situation of arguing about whether or not to include a deadname after someone dies—blindlynx 19:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2, though option 4 is also acceptable. I have concerns about the application of MOS:GENDERID and the "do not include deadnames for living people who were not notable under that name" (for example, when and how is notability established?), but I feel that the rule itself is acceptable, given its inherent ties to WP:BLP and how Keffals was targeted and harassed merely for being transgender. The concerns over harm to people necessarily cannot apply to dead people, and thus I oppose extending the rule to cover dead people as well. However, any such name is going to need really good sourcing to be acceptable. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. I think it's reasonable to take a case-by-case approach, and I think it's frequently encyclopedic to include the birth name. Including it in this way is not disrespectful, just informative. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 strongly preferred, but weak support for Option 2 if, for whatever reason, option 3 wasn't a runner. We do not need to know the deadname of someone who was never notable under that name. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Thryduulf, Jayron32, MJL, Sideswipe9th, et al, with a weak support for 2 should 3 fail. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. We should include deadnames if and only if an overwhelming majority of reliable sources include the dead name as a notable second name. And per BRAINULATOR9 and Tryptofish above. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, no change because the current policy allows us the flexibility required to be both considerate and accurate. Consider the case of Chelsea Manning who has said that she wanted female identity from childhood. Had she disclosed that it would have been impossible for her to be hired and obtain the security clearances she obtained. To be accurate and reflect the discrimination she faced we need to mention both. She also illustrates a time issue: the events which made her famous were carried out when openly male in Jan and Feb 2010 but her disclosure of gender issues happened after this. In this case subsequent events make Chelsea and her preferable for most of the article but had everything happened when ostensibly male and particularly if she had died with only an after death biography disclosing the gender aspects, everything notable would have been done as a male yet the most recent identity might be an entirely unknown female one. Privacy issues applying to non-notable living deadnames might then apply to the non-notable deceased most recent name and gender identity and favour not mentioning that much or maybe at all. The current policy provides the flexibility needed to sensibly and respectfully handle nuances of these sorts, while still using what a current still notable individual prefers most of the time. Jamesday (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. No compelling reason to include a deadname for anyone who was not notable by that name before transition, unless absolutely necessary for clarification. Honoring chosen names is a matter of respect for all trans people. Funcrunch (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, there is no such thing as a dead person's privacy concerns unless we make some really out there statements about reincarnation. Such a precedent could have impacts orders of magnitude larger than those who came up with this wording (as good intentioned as it is) forsee (for example the extension of WP:BLPCRIME to the dead). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Why would extending BLPCRIME to the dead be a bad thing? We should not be stating in wikivoice that anybody, living or dead, committed a crime without their having been convicted of it in a court of law. Also, see the very many explanations above about how deadnaming non-living people can have privacy implications for the living and the very many explanations of how privacy is not the only reason not to deadname people. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  That is certainly an extreme position, the community has repeatedly rejected it and restricted the scope to the living and recently deceased. I look forward to your major rewrites of the bios of such unconvicted dead criminals as Adolf Hitler and Stephen Paddock. I'm sure that won't be perceived by the community as disruptive (sarcasm in case you hadn't caught it). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  As much as I don't want to indulge Goodwin, the only conviction we definitively mention in Hitler's article is his 1923 conviction for high treason. We do also mention that one British academic has said he was on the UN's list of war criminals along with a string of indictments, but that is attributed to that academic and stops short of actually describing him as a convicted war criminal. So ironically it seems that yes, Hitler's article seems to largely follow BLPCRIME.

  The Paddock example seems to fit your general point however. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  The lead says "He was closely involved in military operations throughout the war and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust: the genocide of about six million Jews and millions of other victims." which appears to be asserting in wikivoice that he was central to the perpetration of a crime (genocide) for which he was never convicted, not just alleged to be central to the perpetration of a crime for which he was never convicted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Interestingly that's actually covered under the war crime indictments. Though you do have to dig into the sources to find that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  It seems I should have done more than skimmed the intro of Adolf Hitler before making my sacrifice to Goodwin and his Law (although on a technicality while Hitler was invoked nothing was explicitly compared to him so as far as Goodwin is concerned we have something of a meeting the devil at a crossroads situation here). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  While I don't think the addition rests on the extension of privacy claims to the dead, and would in fact oppose such an extension, neither of your examples are good. Sideswipe9th has already covered why Hitler isn't a good example, but Stephen Paddock is covered by the fact that he was caught in the act. WP:BLPCRIME does not strictly require a conviction for this exact reason.

  It's actually hard to come up with a case of an article where we talk about a dead person who wasn't a public figure committing a crime where the evidence they did so was not overwhelming. In most cases, when we talk about a historical figure who wasn't a public figure committing a crime, it's because they're primarily notable for the crime. So even if that is the precedent we're setting (and, I repeat, I don't think it is), I don't really think it's a problem. Loki (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf, consider Category:Murder-suicides. Consider Category:Suicide bombing. IMO we should be stating, in wikivoice, that some people have committed crimes despite the absence of a legal process during their lives that declared them to be murderers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  There would though, presumably, be some legal process after their death (e.g. a coroner's inquest) that determined they were responsible for the killing(s). If there wasn't then we should be phrasing it in terms of reporting what the reliable sources say. I accept that "convicted in a court of law" is probably too extreme, but the principal of not asserting something in Wikivoice about the dead that we would not assert about the living stands. However this is all tangential to the topic at hand. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  There would though, presumably, be some legal process after their death ...in modern times, in developed countries... WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  AFAICT everyone in those two categories is primarily notable for the crime. If they're primarily notable for the crime, and we have strong enough sourcing connecting them to the crime in question, we don't actually need a conviction, even if they were alive. Loki (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 with Option 2 as a second, inferior option. MOS:GENDERID is a form of censorship of the encyclopaedia. While as a general rule Wikipedia is not censored, the community has determined, for appropriate reasons of the personal privacy of living people, that this censorship is acceptable. Those reasons do not apply to dead people. No possible harm, mental or physical, can come to the dead article subject as a result of the content of their biography. No compelling reason has been suggested to censor the encyclopaedia in this manner, so we ought not to do so. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 or Option 2, if we have to make this explicit. Wikipedia is not censored, and information being offensive to some or even many is not a reason for omission. BLP makes a specific and targeted exception of this for the protection of living people's privacy. Thus, we should include information on birth names when it would benefit the encyclopedia. At the same time, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and there may be an article-level consensus to omit an article subject's birth name if it does not improve the article. Overall, there should not be a carve-out for these specific cases — they can be handled on a case-by-case basis. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 is far and away the most respectful. As someone who is trans, I desperately hope my deadname is not used after I die. Most trans folk I know feel the same. Respect does not end at death. --Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  The only time respect is relevant for writing an encyclopedia is when it comes to respecting the weight our sources give aspects of a subject. Otherwise, "respect" is not relevant here. That way lies WP:OR and content that runs afoul of WP:NPOV. This is not, and cannot be about "respect". Our sources dictate what and how we cover topics. Even BLP is really redundant to this notion. We don't write articles because they make us feel good or bad about a topic, we write them to provide knowledge to our readers. Diverting from what reliable sources cover (especially if they cover it in-depth and it is WP:DUE) is a position incompatible with writing a neutral encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  we aren't talking about the content of the article, we're talking about the words we use to refer to to subjects. we are also discussing using those words only when there is reliable sourcing. WP:OR certainly doesn't apply here. WP:NPOV is also not applicable, as there is no POV on how someone identifies or what name or pronouns they go by. there are people who don't believe in the validity of trans identities, sure, but it cannot be argued that, for example, Elliot Page goes by the name Elliot Page and he/him pronouns and identifies as a man. additionally, this is a discussion about the removal of the word living in the existing MOS (and two grammatical changes) so even if OP and NPOV were relevant, at best they are in conflict with the existing MOS and this proposed change would not effect that relationship. Tekrmn (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Didn't the person go by "Aiden Hale?" In one of the texts in the opening for the 2023 Nashville school shooting says, Aiden Hale (born Audrey Elizabeth Hale). Cwater1 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  forgot to mention that it can be confusing. We don't want to be in violation of the Wikipedia policy. You can get a warning or get a ban for a mistake. Cwater1 (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you think I'm talking about the Nashville shooter, but the person I was referring to is Elliot Page. Tekrmn (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  How we refer to subjects of articles or individuals named in subjects is indeed content of the article. WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are very much applicable, especially if we're deviating from what is available in reliable sources. Elliot Page would not be a concern as current reliable sources refer to him as that (he's also still alive and famous, so the sourcing isn't really an issue with him). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  as I said, nobody is proposing that we start using certain names or pronouns for people without reliable sourcing. with that in mind, can you explain why you feel that NOR and NPOV apply here, and why that should be a concern in this discussion about simply removing the word "living" from an existing section of the MOS? Tekrmn (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  can you explain why ... No. We're talking about the !vote above which uses, as its sole basis, this arbitrary (and therefore WP:OR) notion of "respect" for subjects rather than any WP:PAG-based reason. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, to be quite frank, I think it comes down to this: this is an encyclopedia, whose goal is to provide accurate, well-sourced knowledge. I wholeheartedly agree. But I see avoiding someone's deadname as much as possible as such a fundamental decency that it goes beyond this. You say my vote is invalid because it does not cite WP:PAG; what is the point of this discussion except to write the policy? But very well; I cite the fifth pillar, that Wikipedia has no firm rules, and to some extent the fourth pillar. I know the fourth pillar is discussing how we should interact with each other as editors; I assume you will dismiss this. But I am citing the fourth pillar because of the spirit, not the letter: we treat one another with decency; we assume good faith; we are kind (or at least, we try to be these things). As we document the world we live in, we value neutrality and good sourcing as an extension of this respect, in a sense! We do not want to be unfair to either side of the story, which is why we take WP:NPOV. To provide the deadname when it is unnecessary is taking a firm stance against the subject of the article; it is not neutral nor is it respectful. (Also, I do find it slightly disappointing that your immediate response was to call respect in the form of not using a deadname original research. I can provide many citations if you would like about the harmful effects using someone's deadname has, and how it is broadly found to be disrespectful.) Apologies for the monologue. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  But I see avoiding someone's deadname as much as possible as such a fundamental decency that it goes beyond this. But it cannot, in fact, be why we do anything here. Logic like this is precisely why WP:NOTCENSORED exists (we don't sugar coat, hide, or otherwise limit what our articles cover out of a fear of offending someone, or a sense of "decency"). You say my vote is invalid I never said your !vote was invalid... there's a difference between questioning the wisdom of a !vote and saying it doesn't count whatsoever. The fifth pillar is IMO the weakest one to base any decision on. Refer back to WP:NOTCENSORED. We cannot pick and choose to "respect" certain subjects, topics or individuals over others, that is a de facto violation of WP:NPOV. Names, including deadnames, are "necessary" precisely because our sources also document them. Should we include them if it's just unreliable sources? Likely not. But if significant reliable sources include these identifiers, then so should we. And the reasons to include are far more relevant for something with historical weight like Wikipedia than the reasons to exclude (ancestry research, genealogy, etc). Also, I do find it slightly disappointing that your immediate response was to call respect in the form of not using a deadname original research. I cited WP:NOR because then we're doing our own "research" in so far as how to identify a subject, perhaps contradicting the very sources we rely on. I'm aware of the potential harmful effects. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NOTCENSORED states that "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons[...]"

  this is one of the ways in which using the word respect doesn't do justice to the intention of this guideline. GENDERID is about respect, but using someone's dead name is inherently disrespectful in a way that using a cisgender person's former name isn't. it's also about protection. trans and nonbinary people are a marginalized community and their deadnames are frequently used to harm them. I do think that the guideline should apply to anyone who has changed their name, but I think it makes perfect sense that the guideline was created to apply to trans and nonbinary people.

  I also want to point out, once again, that nobody is proposing we do anything without reliable sourcing or that we omit someone's deadname when they were notable under it. Tekrmn (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  You might want to look over WP:BLUDGEON. You keep inserting yourself into threads between myself and another editor (and then ascribing their words to me). I trust them to be able to respond on their own without your assistance. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's possible I addressed the same point too many times and should have stepped away from this discussion sooner. that being said, I do only see two places below the original comment where I responded to a comment that wasn't directed at me, and this is a public forum, not a private conversation. I do apologize @Nerd1a4i if you felt talked over. Tekrmn (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have found your comments quite helpful Tekrmn, and I'd thank Locke Cole, in the spirit of allowing me to speak for myself, to allow me to let someone else know if I do feel talked over. (To be clear: I think Tekrmn is contributing important points to this discussion, and I think Locke Cole is dancing around wikilawyering.) Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  it seems that your issue is with the existing guideline. this discussion isn't about whether or not trans people deserve respect it's about whether the respect we have already decided they deserve should be allowed to be revoked when they die. from my perspective, the policies you've mentioned do not apply to the existing guideline and are certainly not relevant to the discussion of removing the word living from that guideline. if you can't explain how the policies you've cited are applicable here, despite the fact that both are explicitly about the content of articles, I don't see how we can apply them. especially given WP:NOTPART and, once again, the fact that we are discussing a one word change to an existing guideline, not the guideline as a whole.

  I am not familiar with any existing policy or guideline that states we need policy or guideline reasons to create, or in this case slightly modify, existing guidelines, and I think it's interesting that your issue with WP:GENDERID and with this proposed change is that they set out to be respectful to our subjects. there also are policies to support this existing guideline, WP:BLPRIVACY for one, and I could definitely make a case for WP:AVOIDVICTIM for some cases (especially given WP:SP5). I'm sure there are other policies and guidelines that support the guideline as it stands and the proposed change, but I don't have a ton of time right now. Tekrmn (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  this discussion isn't about whether or not trans people deserve respect it's about whether the respect we have already decided they deserve should be allowed to be revoked when they die You'll notice MOS:GENDERID doesn't contain the word "respect" anywhere (in fact the word doesn't appear anywhere on MOS:BIO). So that's a fabrication, and IMO, a veiled personal attack masquerading as a point. Maybe don't engage in personal attacks again (that's a policy, by the way)? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  respect was your word choice, and I did use it to allude to the point of the existing guideline, though I certainly did not say that the policy used that word. If you could explain to me how my comment felt like a personal attack so I can avoid that in the future I would appreciate it. I'm not interested in continuing a conversation about my word choices beyond that, I'm here to discuss this guideline. Tekrmn (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  respect was your word choice Try again. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  To be quite frank, it is you who is bordering on personal attacks here - you are being abrasive and rude. This is not an insult but a statement of fact. I suggest we have said all that is useful to say here. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  You're saying editors who want to follow our sources are being disrespectful (both to the subjects of our articles, and to trans editors personally). That is a personal attack. I also very much dislike having words put in my mouth, as is being done by Tekrmn (this whole !vote started with "respect", respect was [my] word choice is utterly false. If you want to lie about me, go do it somewhere else. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  All of this is confusing. Wikipedia maintains a high policy on certain things. Cwater1 (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Disagree that's a personal attack. Moreover, this conversation isn't going anywhere.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 4 because we are writing a biography; we can include while not offending. Someone's given name is inexorably tied to them, just like their date of birth, and I reason it should be included. How and where? Probably in the infobox, definitely in the 'early life' section, and just once. But that'd be the extent of it. We ought not include non-notable deadnames in BLPs because we treat it as a matter of BLPPRIVACY. Same with the names of pseudonymous people. We are writing a deceased person's encyclopedia entry which covers a substantial amount of information. I oppose option 3 for this reason. Our role differns from news articles, journals, and non-biographies, but align in the primary use of their most recent name and pronouns. We aren't here to upset people, but we mustn't WP:RGW. SWinxy (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1:I would say that the fact that someone transitioned is an integral part of their life history, and so former names have encyclopedic value. The only counter that I've seen for this so far is privacy, however once someone becomes notable enough to have a wikipedia article written about them, their name is among the least private items that could be included in an article (I would say including a birthplace or current residence is more invasive than a name that they used to go by). Additionally, it would aid in researching among government records and older sources. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I see this argument pretty often, and I think the fact that someone is trans or nonbinary may be of encyclopedic value, (though I personally think there are many cases where it is not) but that doesn't mean their deadname is. given that WP:BLPNAME exists to protect subjects from having their name included, the fact that a deadname for a trans person carries far more weight than anyone's current name (as is alluded to in the existing guideline). regarding searching older sources and records, if they were notable under their deadname it would be included in the article under any of these options, and therefor easily searchable. Tekrmn (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3. My immediate thought on reading option 2 is "when would this come up?" How could someone be non-notable under their deadname when the majority of source use it? High-quality modern sources wouldn't reference a non-notable deadname at all, and generally we'd rely on the sources to determine if the old name was notable. So the most likely situation where there's a split between 2 and 3 is that someone is trying to use a glut of older sources (from eras when some sources always used or included a deadname) to argue that we need to use their deadname in the article, which seems inappropriate. This could possibly be addressed by tweaking 2 to only allow examination of the most recent sources, but it seems simpler to just go with option 3. Also, I don't think option 1 is even viable under policy - we can choose to include or exclude things that sourcing exists for based on context, but we obviously can't require the inclusion of stuff that may not have legitimate sourcing at all, which "always" would do. Oppose option 4 because there's obviously continued disagreement over this, so the guidelines should mention it in some way, and because today the way this is handled is an important part of professional-quality writing, which therefore needs treatment in the MOS. --Aquillion (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 For one simple reason: Why would we be treating dead people differently than living ones? ----Licks-rocks (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Read WP:BLP. Why we currently censor former names is purely based on privacy concerns, and the dead don't have privacy concerns. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with your analysis that that is the only reason, and I also think it's an oversimplification. WP:BLP is not the only policy at issue here. MOS:DEADNAME itself is also a policy. Besides, the dead had privacy concerns. The only thing that changes when someone dies in my view is our reasons for honouring them. In my case, the reason for honouring someone's request to use their chosen name is always a matter of respect. If they don't want their dead-name used in life, they probably don't want their dead-name used in death either. Respect was already mentioned as an issue in many discussions during the first discussions surrounding MOS:GENDERID all the way back to 2004.[1] and has been consistently mentioned since.[2] This is by no means new ground I'm covering. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Licks-rocks: - you are mistaken, MOS:DEADNAME is not policy, it is a guideline. WP:BLP is a policy. Read the difference here. starship.paint (exalt) 14:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I used the common English word "policy" to describe both policies and guidelines there. Functionally, there isn't enough of a difference for me to care about the distinction in this case. My apologies if this improper use of a wikijargon homonym caused undue confusion. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Weak option-2; should be dealt with case by case - a person's former names are factual information, provided they are properly supported by reliable sources. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4. I'd like to support something like option 2 here, but I strongly object to using Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment as the criterion. It's a section of an essay that is only tangentially related to the decision to include or exclude information, and should not be promoted to guideline or policy. It's also not objective in the slightest; anyone can claim to be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read to disrupt editing, and that's just not a suitable criterion for deadname issues. As such, for lack of a usable alternative, I'll have to default to no change. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Question: is there a reason why not option 3? Loki (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  The reason is that I missed the part where it only concerned nonnotable persons. Option 3. If someone can be said to "have transitioned" (any older edge cases which are unclear due to the period would not be considered to "have transitioned", others who did clearly transition would rightfully be covered) before becoming notable, their former name is inconsequential trivia. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  How is a birth name inconsequential trivia. Outside of the powerful movement to expunge birth names of transgender individuals, birth names are ALL OVER the encyclopedia. A Tree In A Box (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Find me one notable dead person’s biography who a. changed their name before they became notable b. which the birth/former name is known c. where the person is not transgendered and d. where that name is not mentioned at least in the ‘early life section’ and I will change my !vote to agree with you. A Tree In A Box (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Admittedly, it took a while to find this, but I was definitely able to. Oda Nobukatsu was the second son of Oda Nobunaga. All Japanese nobles at the time had a childhood name and his was no exception, yet we don't mention it anywhere. And it is known: he was known at birth as Chasenmaru. Loki (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  If that actually leads to a vote change I'll be a little shocked, but well done to Loki! That said, I also do think that birth names are generally inconsequential. What insight does a birth name provide? If a person changed their name from John to Jason at age 18 and became notable at age 30 ... what would a reader learn about the person by knowing that they were originally named John, other than ... that they were originally named John. Of course, I'm obviously not saying that inclusion of a birth name is unencyclopedic, and in most cases we should include it! But it is often a relatively unimportant piece of information—its relevance to the subject extends no further than itself. So the whole "BUT WHAT ABOUT INCLUDING THE BIRTH NAME??" argument seems a little hyperbolic to me.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  ...in your culture (and mine).

  In some cultures, having multiple names per person is normal/expected. In some of them, former names are okay and in others, they're not. We shouldn't impose our idea of whether a birth name is important on others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3: again, recognize name changes consistently. If and only if the previous name was famous or infamous, there MIGHT be reason to mention it... but even then, the current (chosen) name could suffice to discuss past actions good or bad, e.g. Caitlyn Jenner's past Olympic history, or Chelsea Manning's conviction/imprisonment. – .Raven  ^.talk 10:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4. MOS:GENDERID exists primarily because of privacy-related concerns. There is obviously no such concern for the dead; the existing WP:BDP even allows for extensions of BLP for "six months, one year, two years at the outside" for "contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends". We routinely include full birth names in biographies, and there is no proposal not to do this, so the remaining question is: should dead trans people be treated in a different way from dead non-trans people? Going through the arguments above: 1. 'It is trivia'. The full birth name of a trans person is not more trivial than the full birth name of a non-trans person (who changed their name or not); a full birth name is also not more trivial than an exact date and place of birth or death, parents' names, or other routinely included biographical information, so this argument fails. 2. 'Respect for the individual'. Let's consider the WP:UNCENSORED policy: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." This is a policy: censoring is "incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia", and we are here to build an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia exists to help inform its readers, not to make people feel respected or have their views reinforced. If we do not present information that reliable sources provide and that encyclopedias routinely include, we are not being an encyclopedia. If avoiding this means that some people feel disrespected, then so be it – that is our long-standing policy. Here, we are discussing only a guideline, not a (stronger) policy. So, this argument is contrary to Wikipedia's primary purpose. 3. 'Respect for all trans people'. In addition to points against 3, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is relevant: "we only report what is verifiable using secondary reliable sources". Coupled with WP:DUE ("Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject"), this means that we should present information that is readily available in repliable sources, even when there are people who want us to help change the world as it is. 4. 'Not included for the living, so don't include for the dead'. Not including names for the living is related to personal privacy, not to whether those names are of encyclopedic value. They are normal in biographies, including in an encyclopedia, so when the personal privacy justification ends, 'it's standard in an encyclopedia' takes over. As there's therefore no good reason to change the current guideline, I support keeping it as it is. I see other arguments as being variations on these, but am happy to respond if I've missed something. EddieHugh (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Link to the last RfC on this, less than two years ago: here, where the conclusion was "We find there is no consensus for a change". EddieHugh (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1, but there should be a short grace period before deadnames are added to the article to respect the dead.A Tree In A Box (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 per DanielRigal. If it was not encylopedic to include someone's deadname when they were alive, it doesn't suddenly become encyclopedic just because they've died. Having the same standard for living and dead trans people will also allow avoiding having big discussions after someone has died (and/or WP:BDP expires) over whether their deadname is now able to be includede in their article. We should not try and squeeze every possible bit of information in existence into an article. GreenComputer (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 as the rule if they weren't notable until after they transitioned - it's just respectful. Again there may be specific instances where the rule doesn't apply, but those should be fairly obvious and can be considered on a case by case basis. SportingFlyer T·C 20:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3. If they weren't notable under a deadname, then as a general rule it should not be mentioned. Very occasional exceptions will exist and IAR can apply, but the WP:PLA threshold of Option 2 is lower that what would be desirable on this issue. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (MOS:GENDERID topic 2)

I'd like some clarification on option 1. Would the mentioning be in the lead section? Or would it be farther down into the body in, say, the 'Early life' section? I'm reading the poll so far and it makes me think that one or two editors are taking the wording to mean that it would be in the in the lead section or even in the first sentence. SWinxy (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Under option 1's framework, the deadname would not necessarily be confined the lead, but I think in your average case it would be there. Rather, an article would use a deadname any time the person's full name was referenced. Now, per MOS:SURNAME, that's usually just in the lead if we're talking about the body of the article, but if there's a template with the person's full name, it would also be there, or if there's a mini-bio section (which does happen), it might be there, too.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

In my view, the natural place to mention the name would be in the "early life" section rather than the lead, same as we often report parents' names and other birth details. --Trovatore (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the topic should be "When to mention deadnames?", rather than "...reference...", as the former is more specific and consistent with the proposed changes. "Reference" has specific (different to "mention") meaning in Wikipedia. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Fixed! Sorry about that—I thought I had caught it before I opened. I originally used "first reference" quite a bit because that term is in MOS:GENDERID (although MOS:SURNAME says "initial mention", which is maybe less ambiguous).--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking to include their original name in the lead. Most of time, saying "their name" (formally "their former name") should be avoided though. See MOS:GENDERID for more details. Cwater1 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Skyerise, Jerome Frank Disciple, Sideswipe9th, Bilorv, DanielRigal, LokiTheLiar, Trystan, Thryduulf, Barnards.tar.gz, Some1, RoxySaunders, Galobtter, Yasslaywikia, Cuñado, HTGS, Blueboar, and Stwalkerster: Ping editors who have participated to notify them of the addition of an option 2a. BilledMammal (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

With respect, I'm placing option 2a below your vote. This RFC concerns only the deadnames of deceased trans persons—that's in the questions asked, and it's in the lead section description. From my perspective, if you want to discuss other topics, I think that should be in a separate RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I've moved it back. It's a significant option, and very relevant to a discussion about when we should mention these names. Further, the BEFORERFC included discussion of this option. Excluding that option, or otherwise lowering the prominence of it, raises WP:RFCNEUTRAL issues. BilledMammal (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Dispute over whether an RFC concerning the "deadnames of deceased ... persons" also covers the deadnames of living persons

I disagree, thanks. You are welcome to start your own RFC. As I said, this RFC concerns the deadnames of deceased persons.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC) You don't own an RfC after you start it. If an editor wishes to include a new option they are free to do so. I also don't understand your objections; what is the issue with including it with the others, and what is the benefit of putting it at the bottom instead? BilledMammal (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Please find me where on WP:RFC it says that the scope of the RFC can be unilaterally changed by a user responding to the rfc. Also, your neutrality charge is nonsensical. All your proposal does is take the existing proposal and also apply it to living persons. That doesn't mean the existing proposal is non neutral.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Adding an option isn't changing an RfC. It is commonly done, and to edit war to try to hide that option is disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC) You are changing the scope of the RFC. Again, feel free to point to anything on WP:RFC supporting you. But because you apparently need your option to be in the top, I'll introduce it. --Jerome Frank Disciple 13:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC) It's within the scope of when to mention deadnames. Further, it's unclear why you attempted to limit the scope from the scope discussed at the RFCBEFORE. Finally, the comment you make in the opening statement regarding option 2a does not comply with WP:RFCNEUTRAL. BilledMammal (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC) That's not the scope—and that's not what "within" means The questions asked, the section title, and the proposals make clear that the scope is the deadnames of deceased trans person. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that "NCAA basketball games" are within the scope of "NBA basketball games" because of the word "basketball". For the record, I'm also still quite dubious that you can (1) include your proposal alongside the proposals, particularly when it does expand the scope of the RFC to a different question, and (2) try to insist on the order it's placed in (could a user place a proposal above the proposer's proposal? ... notwithstanding that you did partially do that).--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Although I think the example is a valid one to discuss, the distinction between living and deceased people is significant enough that the two cases are worth treating separately. So I am not changing my response. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Barnards.tar.gz and Jerome Frank Disciple - whether to change the existing consensus regarding living people should not be part of an RfC about people who are not living and attempting to force it in is disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Jerome Frank Disciple that this should be discussed in a separate RfC. What to do in the cases of living people has been discussed extensively already. You are not going to get a consensus to change that in an RfC explicitly about deceased people. Please don't shoehorn such a change in, and force the RfC to include it - doing that is disruptive. Galobtter (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it; this was also proposed by the user prior to the opening of the RFC and these issues were noted by most users who opined on it even at that time. -sche (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, and the comments that the proposal was entirely out of scope for an RfC on how to handle the deadnames of deceased trans and non-binary people. If BilledMammal wishes to seek this change to GENDERID for how we handle the deadnames of the living, then it should be discussed in a separate RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Just for context, BilledMammal's 2a would have been:

Option 2a: Sometimes—WP:PLA / majority of sources (New paragraph after 3rd paragraph) (all trans and nonbinary persons, both living and deceased)

Note: All text is new (bold omitted). For a trans or nonbinary person, their birth name or former name should be included in an article if they were notable under that name or if such inclusion would satisfy the principle of least astonishment, particularly considering the majority of reliable sources discussing said person. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example: From Sophie (musician): Sophie Xeon (17 September 1986 – 30 January 2021) ... Note: Sophie was not notable prior to transitioning, and the majority of reliable sources used Sophie's chosen name. From Danielle Bunten Berry: Danielle Bunten Berry (February 19, 1949 – July 3, 1998), formerly known as Dan Bunten, ... Note: Berry was notable prior to transitioning.

I also agree with the removal, and in fact actively oppose 2a just like I did in the discussion above. A living trans person's deadname should not be included under only PLA. Under time pressure right now, but I can find the real-world harm policy that overrides the policies BilledMammal cited above in WP:BLP later. Loki (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I won't be not-voting on this RFC, because I noticed myself becoming emotionally reactive in the thread where it was first being discussed, plus now the words are so many that my poor brain keeps dropping two thirds on the floor when I'm tryna read the other bits, but I did want to mention one thing here, I guess as a matter of consideration / clarification.

I see (and have seen elsewhere) people bringing up the idea of respect for the dead, respect for the relatives of the dead, respect for the victims of the dead, etc, and I'm under the impression that people are missing out on considering a key demographic: every living trans person with no relation to the subject who ever reads the article. To my mind, sloppy and limited as it may be, something I feel like we should care about is the project's general reputation regarding respect for trans people. Whatever anyone's feelings are about a perfidious dead trans criminal or their surviving family members, mentioning deadnames in prose any more frequently than the minimum required of a thorough encyclopaedia article may well give the impression to uninvolved readers that wikipedia doesn't care about respecting trans people. (For the record, in our editor-facing spaces, my opinion is that our sensitivity is more than adequate.) Folly Mox (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

the words are so many—First, I'm so sorry about the verbosity! I take full responsibility for that—Sideswipe9th did her absolute best to help me cut it down. I did think splitting the issue into 3 questions was the best approach, and—despite my naturally verbose nature—I swear I tried as best I could to make the proposals as straight forward as possible. Second, I absolutely agree with 100% of your comment and genuinely appreciate the input.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

You are coming from a good base of concern. I do have a bit of worry about making our goals focused on the reputation of Wikipedia rather than the quality of Wikipedia. Us having concern about Wikipedia being respectful of trans people (within a larger context of being respectful of people in general, but with specific issues in mind) is good. Us being concerned about whether people will see us a respectful, at least in any way that interferes with making this a quality encyclopedia, is less good. (To draw a parallel with other guidelines, us not allowing bigoted aspersions on Islam is good, but it would be wrong for us to start putting (PBUH) after each invocation of the Islamic prophet's name, which would be showing respect, would be wrong.) Having said that, I suspect that in most cases being respectful will look much the same as conveying our respect for trans people. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've sat out most if not all the GENDERID discussions up until now. I expect my following question is going to garner some heat: Why are we treating trans people like a special protected class with regards to the naming issue, and how do our methods not obviously violate WP:RGW and WP:NOTCENSORED? To my knowledge, the basic standard for including former names of a person is that we have basic RS confirmation for those former names. I understand that the "encyclopedic" value of someone's former name under which they were not notable is arguably minimal depending on the circumstances, but then shouldn't our guidelines universally recommend an "old name" purge for nearly everyone? Jessie Rae Scott, like many women of her time, was not notable under her maiden name, so should we ban mention of it? US President Gerald Ford Jr. was renamed by his family at a young age after his stepfather, so that he wouldn't carry the name of his violently abusive biological father, Leslie Lynch King. Why don't we offer extra sensitivity to him and his family? Why don't we update all mentions of any Muslim person who has ever completed a pilgrimage to Mecca to always reflect the "Al-Hajji" prefix they adopt to show we respect their faith regardless of chronology? As it stands, GENDERID guidance is stricter than WP:BLPCRIME in terms of "past potential unpleasantness for the subject" being allowed mention.

Yes, I know there are violent and malicious actors out there who enjoy deadnaming trans people to be bullies, and in some places in the world its basically a "pass as cis or be grossly denied basic human rights" situation. But why are bending over backwards to try to "protect" these subjects and not others? I can't think of many other issues where we so cautiously avoid mentioning things that are socially or politically inconvenient for the subject (whether that be people, corporate entities, or communities). Either everyone should have an about-equal standard, whatever that standard may be, or we should just admit we have no interest in being neutral on this issue. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If you can point to another class of people where there old names are routinely weaponized like that, I imagine the community would give that consideration. Most name changes don't have that consequence; Holly Robinson Peete is probably not bothered much if everyone knows she used to be Holly Robinson. We have many ways in which we treat people in different categories differently, such as separating how we treat public figures from non-public figures, or minors from adults. WP:BLPPRIVACY discusses types of information that we may have that we should not include, as what little they add to the understanding of the topic is outweighed by their potential for damage. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Why don't we offer extra sensitivity to him and his family? That's a fair question. There's a lot I think we handle incorrectly with regards to name changes in general, particularly so for individuals who have had to change their names for serious issues like being victims of abuse (historical or current) or crime. While ultimately I would love to see us address that deficiency in MOS:CHANGEDNAME, in a manner that would let us seamlessly integrate the deadname provisions of GENDERID without the current state of making trans and non-binary name changes separate, I think changes along those lines are (sadly) less likely to find consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Because trans "rights" in general are a current political football, so we get people here on both sides trying to have Wikipedia conform to extremist views. Neutrality has not so far won out. Anomie⚔ 21:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The wildly different definitions of what neutrality is mean I don't think any one person is capable of knowing which position even is neutral. casualdejekyll 21:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you here. And by that I mean we should hold the same standard to all people by removing UNDUE coverage of previous names. I know I've said this before in one of these wall of text discussions. (Incidentally, none of the three sources cited for Scott's maiden name appear to actually mention her maiden name - The News And Observer says nothing, a Google Books search of the book doesn't have the claimed maiden name in it except as a first name, and the ABC link appears to be dead. As such, I've taken it out of the article in question.) casualdejekyll 21:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this RFC has a biased setup and doesn't include the option that makes the most sense. Options 2 and 3 are largely the same thing and 2 can be misunderstood as the status quo, when it's not in the details. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contingent question: If option 3, how should redirects be handled?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At ongoing RfD, we have an emerging consensus that a redirect from a deadname that is not mentioned in the target article is acceptable because the article discusses the deadnaming of the subject, includes a quote that originally contained the deadname but has been (correctly) modified to exclude it, cites sources that use the deadname, and is about someone buried under her deadname. If option 2 or 3 passes, it is unclear how such redirects would be affected.

In the event of option 3 passing, what should apply to redirects? I'll give these ones letters to disambiguate.

Option A: Always permissible if verifiable (2nd paragraph—changes relative to Option 3 bolded)

If a transgender or non-binary person was not notable prior to transitioning, their former name (deadname) should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists, with the exception of redirects from deceased persons' verifiable deadnames. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. For example:

Option A2: Always permissible if verifiable in secondary sources (2nd paragraph—changes relative to Option 3 bolded)

If a transgender or non-binary person was not notable prior to transitioning, their former name (deadname) should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists, with the exception of redirects from deceased persons' deadnames when the name has been included in secondary sources. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. For example:

Option B: Limited exception when relevant (2nd paragraph—addition of footnote to Option 3 text)

If a transgender or non-binary person was not notable prior to transitioning, their former name (deadname) should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. For example: Notes

Option C: No explicit carve-out but affirming that occasional common-sense exceptions to guidelines exist.
No change to text.

Option D: The prohibition on such redirects should be taken as absolute or near-absolute.
No change to text.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

!votes (GENDERID topic 2 redirects question)

• Option B or C. Hard oppose both A and D. Our avoidance of deadnaming the living is informed by both dignity and privacy. With the dead, the motivation of dignity remains, but there is no longer a privacy interest, which means that there is more of a need to balance with legitimate navigational needs. Someone seeing the deadname of a deceased trans person in a newspaper clipping or on a gravestone should be able to find the correct Wikipedia article for that person; this furthers our encyclopedic mission without publicizing anything that wasn't already public. The article's discussion of deadnaming should adequately resolve any confusion the reader may have as to why they wound up at that title. And by keeping any exception limited, we avoid opening the door to outing-by-redirection of the dead. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option C to avoid instruction creep. casualdejekyll 21:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• C or D to avoid instruction creep. I'm honestly not terribly convinced by the argument that someone might come to our website by a deadname. Loki (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• D, second choice C. If we make a choice that a name doesn't merit inclusion in an article, it makes no sense to redirect readers looking for more information on that name to that article and expect them to just guess why. It would be an WP:EASTEREGG redirect.--Trystan (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• B; I don't think instruction creep is too great of an issue here, given it's in a footnote, but I'm not necessarily opposed to option C. Options A & D are too strict; IAR exists for a reason. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option D as "near-absolute" (which is basically option C). In addition to what everyone else has said, unfortunately people can be pretty terrible regarding trans people and it is easy to imagine a scenario where such a redirect is vandalized. That vandalism is likely to go undetected because redirects are less patrolled in general, and (a bit ironically) because if someone's deadname isn't in an article, people are are less likely to know about and monitor it. The best deterrent is not having the redirect page in the first place. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• A, this is really an advocacy/NPOV issue. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 22:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• B - Tamzin's reasoning is generally good here, but I think that C would end up acting as a de facto narrowing. I don't believe it would be a particular aspect of instruction creep compared to the overall deadnaming rules. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• A - we have failed in our mission as an encyclopedia, to inform people, to distribute knowledge, if we cannot even bring people to the correct page when using the name of an individual. Even if this name is a previous name, this should not affect the matter at all. Oppose B, C, D under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, Lights and freedom is correct, this is just advocacy. If editors like Gnomingstuff are worried about vandalism, implement semi-protection. starship.paint (exalt) 01:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Semi-protection would help, if it's implemented indefinitely and proactively. This is beyond what's recommended in WP:SEMI and, more importantly, relies on people actually doing it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• A We should follow the sources, not the presumed wishes of the subject/s. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• B or C ... narrowly oppose A, D. I think redirects should be judged by their usefulness. In the event of some persons, assuming their birth name wasn't widely reported, it'll make little sense to have a redirect, because no one is going to, for example, head to some fairly weak secondary/tertiary source, see the subject discussed, see the name used, find the birth name mentioned, and then, in good faith, search wikipedia for that birth name, thinking that's the best way to find the person. At the same time, if the birth name is widely reported or even often used by other sources as the principal name, then the calculus changes.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• C If the deadname is non-notable, then a redirect should not exist; IAR will apply even under option D. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• A, this is an encyclopedia, not a battleground to try and WP:RGW. We don't suppress knowledge or self-censor what reliable sources verify. Pretty much every single proposal here has the wheels falling off when you start considering WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Even MOS:GENDERID as written runs afoul of policy. Trying to disallow redirects from well source/verifiable names to their subjects is lunacy. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) C, very strongly oppose A. Like other redirects without mentions these are normally not helpful (and are sometimes actively harmful) so the presumption should be against inclusion but exceptions exist. There are many possible reasons for an exception, and I don't think listing only one is particularly helpful because some people will read it as suggesting that every time X applies a redirect should exist, but every case needs examining on its individual merits. Factors to consider include the frequency of the name's inclusion in sources, the nature of those sources (including but not limited to reliability, age, topicality and partisanship), other people with the name (especially any who are borderline notable, e.g. we shouldn't normally redirect the verifiable but very obscure deadname of a trans individual to their biography when there is a very prominent individual with the same name who people are more likely to be looking for, even we don't have an article about them (yet)), how open the subject was about both being trans and their former name, etc. Note this does not exclude redirects needed for navigation, it just requires that the need be demonstrated as both real and as, on balance, more beneficial than harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• C, Oppose A I think common sense applies here. If there is actually a reasonable belief that people will search for the name, such as it being a name that is being used at least somewhat prominently in coverage, then common sense would be to make a redirect. However, if the name is not and their chosen name is the one receiving the coverage (or in cases where news is using their chosen name and just mentioning the dead name merely as an aside of "born ***" or "previously known as ***") then I don't see the need for a redirect because people will know and be using the correct chosen name to search for. So a redirect serves no purpose and is only punitive. Silverseren^C 19:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• C, Oppose A, Neutral on B. If reliable sources don't make the deadname notable enough for it to be mentioned in the article, it isn't notable enough for a redirect. D doesn't make too much sense either because of WP:IAR. Arguments coming from the point of "this is an encyclopedia" or WP:NOTCENSORED forget tht we don't include literally every WP:GRATUITOUS piece of information on Earth, and that (even outside of deadnames) redirects from topics that aren't mentioned in the article itself is basically WP:EASTEREGG and not recommended. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• C or weak B. As several people have mentioned, a redirect from a name that doesn't appear in the article is rarely if ever going to be useful. Even if something is verifiable, it doesn't necessarily belong on Wikipedia. —Rutebega (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Judge it on a case by case basis - I suppose this is somewhere between B and C… but my opinion does not fully fit in either. Essentially, I am opposed to trying to make any firm and fast “rule” on anything relating to deadnames. What is appropriate for one subject won’t be appropriate for others, so exceptions are always going to be necessary. Having No “rule” would be better than an inappropriate rule. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• C: if it's not public enough to go in the article, nobody's ever going to search for that as a page title either. In the presence of WP:IAR, D reads functionally equivalent to C to me. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 20:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• B as most aligned to normal practice outside of this topic area, where a former name would be an obvious use case for a redirect. Harm-based arguments against this seem tenuous if the person is deceased, and a redirect is not highly visible. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strong A (edit: or B; I really can’t tell the difference without my lawyer present): At the point of redirects, the interest is strictly one of privacy, and privacy is an interest which expires with the subject. I would like to express a need for verifiability sans doubt though. (And big congratulations on making this an absolute stinking mess of an RFC.) — HTGS (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• A2. Redirects are to help the reader find the article they are looking for. If a name is used in secondary sources, then it is possible that readers will look for that name and we should help them find the relevant article. I prefer A2 over A as when the name is not reported in secondary sources it seems unnecessary to include it; readers are very unlikely to be looking for it in such circumstances, but would support A over the other options. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• A / A2 If the deadname is mentioned in reliable secondary sources, readers who search for that deadname here on Wikipedia should be redirected to the relevant article, not to an empty page. Some1 (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• C or (2nd choice) B; A would be bad: redirects can be helpful if someone might encounter the deadname in reliable sources in which the person's current name is not also mentioned, but (balancing this), as is already the case in general, redirects must not be used to violate policies or guidelines. You can't create a page titled "that [n-word] who became president" and argue it's fine because it's a redirect rather than a content page, you can't put someone's verifiable home address as a redirect and argue it's fine because it's a redirect and not a content page, and there's no reason to take away that general level of (for lack of a better word) protection, and give trans people less protection, like the first option seems to. It is also, as a practical matter, nonhelpful (indeed unhelpful) to redirect someone who searches for "John Doe" to an article on "Jane Roe", if that article has no mention of John Doe. AFAICT the main use of such a redirect seems to be ... providing a backdoor to take deadnames that are so non-notable and undue they aren't even mentioned in the person's article, and nonetheless wedge them into the encyclopedia. -sche (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  providing a backdoor to take deadnames that are so non-notable and undue they aren't even mentioned in the person's article; per WP:RNEUTRAL, redirects don't need to be neutral, and in addition some of the options above, including the one you supported, would exclude mentions of names even when they are WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. If a deadname exists in the article, then a redirect may be created for it. If it doesn't exist for the article, then an {{R without mention}} isn't going to be helpful since readers won't know if they went to the right page or not. I don't know what option I should be casting a !vote for (maybe Option C or A2; oppose B?).
  Whatever the consensus is for the rest of the discussion, redirects should just follow the same standard for everything else. Deadname in article? Deadname for redirect is fine. No deadname in article? No deadname for redirect. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• First choice C, second choice B. --Jayron32 11:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• B - I would prefer to avoid the usage of deadnames where possible, but for instances where a person's deadname becomes a notable part of the coverage about them in sources, that name becomes a plausible search term. In such scenarios, I think the readership at large would be best served by being redirected to an article under the subject's chosen name. Weak support for C and A2, which come close to striking this balance but (in my opinion) don't quite pull it off. Oppose A and D. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option C, with option B as second choice. Per Silver seren's argument, I find the supposed value of deadname redirects as search aids to be rather overblown. XOR'easter (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option C As I said in the previous section, my main concern is that trans people are afraid to have Wikipedia articles about themselves because they think bigots will use them as a WP:COATRACK to publicize their deadname, and our policies should limit that behavior as much as possible. Since redirects are less visible, I'm not as worried about having them in cases where someone's deadname is widely publicized anyway, but the default should be "don't create them without a pretty good reason". TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option C per Tamzin and others. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option C: I find myself falling somewhere between B and C. I think this is a case where for the vast majority of articles that involve a deceased trans or non-binary person who transitioned prior to notability, a deadname redirect would be inappropriate. Leelah Alcorn and Brandon Teena would maybe be exceptions to that, though I do worry that option B's explicit "limited exception when relevant" carveout could be misused by bad faith editors to backdoor add non-notable deadnames. I'm also not entirely sold on the premise that reporting of the deadname by RS, and the target article discussing the deadname is strong enough justification on its own for including a deadname redirect. Killing of Brianna Ghey is an example of an article where her deadname was (briefly) reported by an RS, and the article discusses the deadname, but on balance I think that allowing a redirect would be incredibly disrespectful and distasteful far beyond the point of WP:GRATUITOUS. In the case of Ghey, you don't need to know the deadname to understand the large backlash against publishing it.
  While there may be other phrasing, similar to B but that's narrower on when to include the redirect, that I could support, I find that for now I prefer no explicit carve-out except as subject to IAR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Thanks for the ping. This is a tough and nitpicking call, and I probably couldn't decide it on my own, but will support Tamzin's position; they have clearly thought about this extensively. --GRuban (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option C per Tamzin and others. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option C per Thryduulf. Weak support for B should C fail, though I would prefer that the "may" was emphasised thus; a redirect may be appropriate to aid navigation.... XAM2175 ^(T) 12:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option B seems the most respectful approach that still aids navigation when necessary. --Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• A To avoid confusion with readers. A redirect-hatnote may be appropriate here to avoid confusion among readers who did arrive using the deadname. I would support B and C on the grounds that those would cover the same scenario, just with slightly higher precision. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option C. Redirects can't cite sources, so if it isn't obvious or explained at the target, it generally shouldn't exist. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option C with few exceptions (i.e. approaching D); IF the subject is celebrity-level public about acknowledging the name change, so there's implicit consent to make the connection, as well as ample press coverage, then sure, create a redirect to connect them. – .Raven  ^.talk 10:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option C or D per LokiTheLiar. WP:IAR will always exist, but I don't see the need for an explicit carve-out here any more than anywhere else IAR could be invoked. Given this whole sub-discussion was triggered by a single RfD, hard cases make bad policy seems relevant (as well as avoiding instruction creep). GreenComputer (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option B I also like C, but I do think we need a specific guideline for this. I do share a concern this may lead to a creep of bad faith redirects as per earlier, but if that happens we can take action as a community. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option B or C. I do think that B is what the outcome of any exception discussion under C or perhaps even D would result in anyway. Oppose both As, since they both overly use deadnames while also creating redirects where the term is not discussed in or readily discernible from the article, which goes against our guidance on redirects per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (GENDERID topic 2 redirects question)

Are we still talking about deceased people only? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on the proposals, I believe yes.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin / Jerome Frank Disciple : Since this was added after the other questions, perhaps the people who voted on the other questions should be pinged to it? It seems like it's got much less participation even after several days, and I assume some of that is people assuming they've already !voted in this series of RFCs. Loki (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a terrible idea. I can say for myself though that I've been aware of this, I'm just carefully weighing up the options. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You're right! My fault for not having done that. I'm going to ping the users who commented on or cast !votes as to topic 2, since this proposal only pertains to a consequence of that topic, unless they've already commented here. I ... hope I got everyone. (And if I got you even though you already participated, I'm sorry!)

@Skyerise, Bilorv, DanielRigal, Thryduulf, Some1, RoxySaunders, Galobtter, Yasslaywikia, Cuñado, Blueboar, HTGS, Stwalkerster, BilledMammal, Hatman31, 3mi1y, Trovatore, Jayron32, Mitch Ames, ModernDayTrilobite, Springee, Voorts, Silver seren, Spy-cicle, MarijnFlorence, Stifle, MJL, Anomie, CoffeeCrumbs, SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, Chaotic Enby, Why? I Ask, Ser!, XOR'easter, Thesavagenorwegian, RAN1, Rutebega, GRuban, TheCatalyst31, Herostratus, Tekrmn, Locke Cole, Adumbrativus, Rab V, CandyScythe, and Sceptre:

Hello! There has been a new contingent proposal related to topic 2.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic 3: How often to mention deadnames? (MOS:GENDERID 3rd paragraph*)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After the first reference, how often should a Wikipedia article mention the former name (deadname) of a deceased trans or nonbinary person?

Note: If there is a consensus for option 2, above, these options would be placed below the option 2 text.

Option 1: Whenever the person's full name is mentioned (changes bolded in black)

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example: From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ... From Elliot Page, notable under former professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ... When the former name (deadname) of a deceased trans or nonbinary person should be included, include the prior name with either "born" or "formerly", as above, any time the person's full (chosen) name is mentioned.

Option 2: To avoid confusion (changes bolded in black)

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example: From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ... From Elliot Page, notable under former professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ... When the former name (deadname) of a deceased trans or nonbinary person should be included in an article, it should be included with either "born" or "formerly", as above, after the first reference to the person. Subsequently include the prior name only if doing so is necessary to avoid confusion.

Option 3: Once (changes bolded in black)

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example: From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ... From Elliot Page, notable under former professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ... When the former name (deadname) of a deceased trans or nonbinary person should be included in an article, only include the prior name once—after the first reference to the person with either "born" or "formerly", as above.

Option 4: No change

User:Trystan has suggested that Option 3 might implicitly affect how editors interpret the guidelines as to living transgender and nonbinary persons, and desires that this proposal including living transgender persons also be considered:--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Trystan's Option 3a: Once (changes bolded in black)

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example: From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ... From Elliot Page, notable under former professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ... When the former name (deadname) of a trans or nonbinary person should be included in their main biographical article, only include the prior name once, after the first reference to the person. Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name (or, if deceased, last-used name) as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.), unless they prefer their former name be used for past events. If they were notable under the name by which they were credited for the work or other activity, provide it in a parenthetical or footnote on first reference; add more parentheticals or footnotes only if needed to avoid confusion.

!votes (MOS:GENDERID topic 3)

• Option 3 (or Option 3a) (proposer). I could be persuaded by option 2, but, for now, I cannot think of a circumstance in which multiple references to a deadname would actually be necessary to avoid confusion. The best argument I've heard for needing to use a deadname multiple times has been in the abstract—references to a situation like Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon (which was won by Caitlyn Jenner prior to her transition). But, looking at that article, which does use Jenner's birth name twice, I have to wonder ... is the second reference really necessary to avoid confusion? Perhaps there's something to be said for having a clarification in both template and the article body, but I'm truly not sure.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 (or perhaps 2): once is sufficient to avoid confusion, but I'd like that to allow for one footnote that is cited multiple times. For instance, imagine a list of sports records presented through tables where three records were set by the same individual before transition—the reader is unlikely to be reading from top to bottom and it makes sense to reference the name they won the record under each time. — Bilorv (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 Full disclosure, I assisted Jerome Frank Disciple with drafting these questions. Option 3 is the version that best fits with the other guidelines on how many times to mention a person's name in an article (MOS:SURNAME, MOS:GIVENNAME, MOS:SAMESURNAME). Outside of the exceptions to MOS:SURNAME, I've not seen in practice any good examples for why we need to mention a person's full name, regardless of whether they were cisgender, transgender, or non-binary, more than once in an article in a manner that's not already covered by other broader name use guidance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  As it was added after my !vote, for the purposes of assisting with consensus determination I also support Option 3a with the same rationale as for option 3. I'm not sure though if I prefer one over the other as they both seem fine to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 is going to be the correct approach the vast majority of the time. There might be some rare exceptions but I am very hesitant to support Option 2 as "necessary" is not defined and trolls would doubtless try to use that ambiguity to argue disruptively. I'm not sure how it could be worded to allow for genuine exceptions but preclude long arguments in other cases. If anybody can find a way then I'd support that but, of the two genuine options we have now, Option 3 seems best. DanielRigal (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: My one reason for liking Option 2 is that there are cases of historical trans people (such as the Public Universal Friend) where it's reasonably clear that they did not identify under their eventual name for the entire life. So in the PUF's case there is a real distinction between "the PUF" and "Jemima Wilkinson" that probably should be made. But this case is uncommon and I see the concern that "when necessary" may be too vague. Loki (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 We should mention former names as few times as possible to avoid confusion, but that might theoretically be more than once. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Mostly Option3 per DanielRigal and Bilorv, but I do agree with the latter's suggestion of allowing (but never requiring) a single footnote than can be referenced multiple times if strictly necessary - my first thought was where an article contains multiple tables of results, each of which might be referenced independently, but where only a single link to the person's article would normally be used. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3a. It should generally be mentioned only once, but I think the specific wording proposed in Option 3 creates confusion in the guideline. There is no need to distinguish between living and dead subjects on this point. The guideline doesn't currently say that it should only be used once for living subjects in their main biogrpahical article, and it should. There is detailed guidance on how to refer to living trans/nb subjects in other articles, and that should simply be extended to also cover dead subjects. Hence 3a, above.--Trystan (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC) edit: Second choice would be Option 4 - no change at this time.--Trystan (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of option 3a

I see your logic, but, to be honest, I really hope people don't add too many more options to the RFC, particularly if it expands the scope of the RFC. (Imagine if we end up with an option 3c, or maybe also a 2b or 2c in the above two topics.) That's a quick way to kill any shot at a consensus.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC) The guideline does say it only be used once for living people, specifically that it should only be used in the lead. So I agree with JFD that 3a is unnecessary. Loki (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC) It says to include it in the lead "only if they were notable under that name," which doesn't actually prohibit mentioning it multiple times elsewhere. (There is a more strained interpretation that it be included in the "lead only" if they were notable under that name, but that would create the larger problem of not prohibiting including non-notable BLP deadnames.) More to the point, the question is whether we want a different standard on this point for living and dead subjects, which Option 3 would create. In the case of the non-main-biographical article, Option 3 would result in markedly different wording applying to living and dead subjects, for no apparent reason.--Trystan (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC) I genuinely think if you want to change the policy for living trans and nonbinary persons, it shouldn't be in an RFC that's specifically devoted the policies for deceased trans and nonbinary persons. I'm moving 3a down here below your vote, as it's already causing confusion and wasn't in the original RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 10:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC) For articles other than the main biographical article, 3a simply extends the existing detailed guidance for living subjects to apply to deceased subjects. Why would we create a totally seperate standard for deceased subjects, rather than just doing that? For the main biographical article, Option 3 will have the unfortunate and unintended consequence of changing the guideline for living indivudals, which is what 3a is designed to avoid. Currenty, deadnames under which a BLP subject was notable are typically only included once, in the lead. The guideline doesn't actually say that, though this hasn't been problematic so far. However, if you add an explicit rule to only mention them once, and explicitly limit that rule to deceased individuals, it becomes reasonable to interpret the exclusiom of living individuals as intentional.--Trystan (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Given the discussion above, I'm re-adding your option to the top but with a note that it would expand the scope of the RFC to living persons.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC) "Option 3 will have the unfortunate and unintended consequence of changing the guideline for living individuals"—I see your point about how there might be an implicit effect, but I still think the implicit argument is an expansion of scope. (I'm also a little dubious that, even if option 3 goes through, the actual effect will be that editors will treat deceased subjects more restrictively?--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3a (or perhaps 3). I'm confused by the distinction between 3 and 3a, because, as far as I can tell, Option 3 seems to arbitrarily limit the guideline to only apply to deceased persons; any guideline here should either apply to all persons equally or be more strict for living persons. Regardless, I'm pretty convinced by User:Sideswipe9th's argument above. For an example, let's take the current revision of Rishi Sunak's article. Conducting a Ctrl+F find on the page, we discover that in the article prose (not including hatnotes, infoboxes, reference names, etc.) the name 'Rishi' appears only thrice: once as the very first word of the article, and twice in quotations (which are already addressed by MOS:GENDERID). In this case, it seems as if we are simply extending what is already a common naming practice to explicitly include deadnames. Shells-shells (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Option 3a was added by a !voter after the launch of the RFC to cover both living and deceased persons. The only reason it wasn't included Because this RFC was specifically devoted to the deadnames of deceased trans persons.--Jerome Frank Disciple 10:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 4 (in that order). I fail to see how restriction to a single mention is necessary or helpful. Try to apply the more restrictive standards to someone like Gloria Hemingway or the Public Universal Friend and see how far you get. This is the very sort of question that is difficult—but very tempting—to answer from our present ideological ivory tower, but is better answered by those casuists who actually write the biographies. — HTGS (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Gloria Hemingway was an interesting read, thanks. I think that's a good example of an article that really suffers from being forced into one gender, since the person involved seems to have struggled with gender identity their entire life and seems to have used both male and female presentations both before and after surgery. The article seems to do its best to minimize that, leading to reader confusion. Anomie⚔ 12:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• None of the above - when, where and how often to mention a deadname (in those situations where it should be mentioned at all) depends on the specific subject, and can only be determined on an article by article basis. Each individual is unique and has unique factors to consider. Blueboar (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• None of the above (basically Option 4) Agreed with Blueboar. This should be determined on an article-by-article basis. The MOS shouldn't dictate show often a name should or should not be mentioned because not all articles are the same. Some1 (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• None of the above, per Blueboar. BilledMammal (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect that the "None of the above" !votes should be "4. No change". Because if they don't want Option 4 (or 1,2,3), what do they want? (Feel free to delete this comment if all of the above change their stated preference.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Concur. Perhaps there's a small distinction—i.e. "No change" implies an endorsement of the status quo, while perhaps these editors want to reserve the right to pick entirely different guidelines, but at least some of them are explicitly saying "this shouldn't be addressed by the MOS" ... and, currently, it isn't!--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  To explain my “none of the above”vote… my preference would be to use the deadname only in historical context (for example in an “early life” section), but otherwise use the current name. That said, there will be exceptions in both directions. The flaw with all the questions and options is that they attempt to impose a “one-size-fits-all” rule on a VERY complex and sensitive thing that simply does not lend itself to sweeping rules. It HAS to be determined on a case by case basis. Respect for the wishes of the subject needs to be balanced with encyclopedic value. Where and how to find that ballance is going to be article specific. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 if, and only if, it is to be included, it should only be in their main article and only the once, for completeness. --Jayron32 14:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Option 2 or Option 4, Oppose Option 3 - I would think that at least two mentions are needed, once in the lead and at least once in the body, perhaps one more in an infobox. Avoid confusion. My views also overlap with HGTS and Blueboar. starship.paint (exalt) 14:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, no change - All of the proposed changes add unnecessary limitations, complexity and scope creep. Existing policies, and editorial discretion on a case-by-base basis, are sufficient. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Prefer Option 2; Options 3 and 4 also acceptable. I believe we should strive to mention deadnames as little as is feasible; however, "as little as is feasible" may occasionally be more than once (see, for instance, the example raised above of the Public Universal Friend). In practice, I expect that Option 2 and Option 3 will lead to the same results in a large majority of situations; in the remaining situations, I believe that Option 2 is the language that will result in the least confusion for readers and editors alike. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 with Option 2 as a best practice As with my other replies, my concern is being overly prescriptive in handling this. Option 2 is likely the best solution in most cases as it puts both names up front and allows for both uses to avoid confusion. Is this any different than what is already allowed? What does Option 4 allow that Option 2 (and typical editorial oversight) wouldn't allow? Springee (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3a There should be no distinction between living and dead persons, and mentioning a notable deadname only once best comports with the spirit of MOS:GENDERID. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3a I never understood the need to use the name more than once in the cases where the name does need to be mentioned. Mention it once and don't use it again, similar to birth or maiden names. Why would you even need to use it more frequently than the one time? And, as I said in move vote above, living should have never been included in this policy in the first place. Dying doesn't change the purpose of this MOS usage. Silverseren^C 22:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 Since option 3, goes against the principle of MOS:LEAD.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4. No need to be overly prescriptive here. Sometimes one option will make more sense than others. In most cases it will be irrelevant as the dead name will be a first name, and people are by MOS generally named only as surname within article text. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 is the one that I feel strikes the best balance between compassion for the subject and our basic, primary role as an encyclopedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3a Follows MOS:GENDERID the best, doesn't make unnecessary distinctions, and no point in repeating the deadname in the whole article. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, to avoid being overly prescriptive. This will vary on a case-by-case basis, but if a general guideline must exist, then only mention the deadname if both of the following conditions are true:
  • Including the deadname would help the reader, such as to alleviate confusion over discrepancies between an article and its sources, particularly when such sources pre-date the transition.
  • The particular instance is either:
    • the sort of thing you would add a link to if on another article (note that repeated links to the same article are generally discouraged), or
    • a listing of a given person's full name, in which former names are expected to appear for non-transgender name changes.

I also oppose revdel'ing violations of this guideline/policy. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• None of the above (basically Option 4) per Blueboar. Not all articles are the same. --GRuban (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3a Tekrmn (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• None of the above per Blueboar, et al. m:instruction creep is over there. WP:RGW. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4. Other options prescribe a rule too categorically, as editors have argued above. "Necessary to avoid confusion" is one possible reason, but I would not easily declare any one reason or set of reasons to be the only possible one. Ordinary editorial discretion can include any number of considerations – helpfulness to readers, contextual relevance, types of content (lists, tables, quotes, citations, infoboxes, image captions, etc.), degree of coverage in sources, and so on – case-by-case. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 makes the most sense to me as the most neutral approach to this. Considering that MOS:SURNAME dictates that we principally refer to the subject by their surname, this shouldn't be problematic for most articles as I don't see how further mention of either the subject's former or current name would be beneficial. Yasslaywikia (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 Generally, my position on this has already been covered by many of the option 4 votes; Blueboar and Springee's are of particular note. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3/3a – We should be using deadnames only when editorially justified, and I don't think we need to do so more than once in nearly any circumstances. Sceptre (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 It just doesn't make sense to have a rule on the number of times it can be stated, per WP:DUE. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 22:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 or 2 - ultimately our articles need to be clear. Option 1 would be oddly gratutiously awkward even if there were zero alternate interests in play. Option 3 (or 3a) are unwise and will reduce clarity in articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• 3a or 3 (or failing that, 4), per Sideswipe9th.
  Option 2 is not a workable/functional guideline, since in previous discussions, some people have argued a person's deadname and/or birth sex has to be spelled out when discussing any and every thing the person did pre-transition to (ostensibly) prevent "confusion"; off the top of my head, I've been involved in a discussion on WT:V where someone argued it was not merely confusing but violated WP:V to use a source saying "John Smith studied XYZ" (or did anything else!) and a source clarifying than John Smith transitioned and is now Jane Smith to say Jane Smith studied XYZ; elsewhere people have argued it's confusing to mention a prior relationships; etc, etc; so option 2 is just a recipe for more repetitive discussions (based on general stances rather than article-specific factors) on more articles. -sche (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 as I can't conceive of a natural example where we would need to use the deadname more than once. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3a followed by 3 per Sideswipe9th. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3a. I don't see any arguments that describe situations where 2 would actually be applicable, and cannot think of any myself. And WP:IAR would likely apply in any scenario where it were truly truly necessary. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3. No compelling reason to mention a trans person's formerly notable deadname more than once unless absolutely necessary for clarification. Funcrunch (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3a. For situations where a person has switched gender identity throughout their life, I do think the article should respect that, but that should be a editor's discretion thing (or potentially a minor phrase addition to 3a). In general, we should default to not deadnaming as much as possible. --Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3a Once should be enough to take care of most situations. I don't want to give individual editors too much leeway in this when it comes to "common sense" because it's a heavily contentious topic, and I'm afraid it will give people an excuse to battleground over what qualifies as a common sense addition, which will rarely result in an improved article and damn near always result in wasted editor time. The rare legitimate case can be handled by local consensus and IAR----Licks-rocks (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
• None of the above; case by case. A former name may be useful in the introduction, it may also be useful in section of an article that are specific about information related to the former name in the context of a section. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3a seems to include some useful clarifications over option 3. There's no need to use someone's deadname more than once. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3a, i.e. for both living and dead subjects, one mention (if any at all!) should suffice. – .Raven  ^.talk 10:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3a, which is well-worded in a way that allows us to include a single mention when necessary in order to avoid confusion, while making it clear that the default ought to be minimal usage (which will, the vast majority of the time, be once.) I think people's concerns about possible exceptions are overblown - the MOS as a whole is advisory, not absolute; the option to ignore it always exists in any article. But it should make it clear what the preferred wording is, and the wording here reflects comparable language in similar parts of the MOS like eg. WP:WTW. --Aquillion (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• None/option 4. The others are much too prescriptive. They could over-rule local consensus such as at Billy Tipton, where the (generally well-respected) consensus is to include the birth name, but not in the lead or infobox, thereby reducing its prominence. The proposed reducing of flexibility looks like a worsening of the current situation. EddieHugh (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm familiar with Tipton's article, and I've reviewed the discussions that lead to the current state of inclusion of his deadname. The most recent discussions on this from July 2021 and January 2021 are both closer to a no-consensus outcome than a clear consensus for or against inclusion.

  Also consensus can change, both at a local or project wide level, and if a project-wide consensus changes in a manner that rules a local consensus invalid, then policy states that we should follow the project wide consensus. A new project-wide consensus change impacting on an older local consensus can never be a valid reason for opposing the new project-wide consensus in and of itself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Tipton was an example, not a claim that local consensus could/should override project-wide consensus. My point is that the proposals would force a former name to be more prominent (ie, in the lead) in some instances, whereas I believe its intent was to make such names less prominent. Hence my statement about flexibility. EddieHugh (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• RFC's and local consensus can and do occasionally override the MOS, as pointed out by several !votes above yours. That being said, unless I'm confused, I think the article already follows option 3/3a? it only seems to be mentioned once in the article, after all? --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

3 states "as above", which specifies "included in the lead sentence". 3a has "after the first reference to the person", which also implies the opening sentence. The current version of the article doesn't mention the birth name in the lead. EddieHugh (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3a, with option 3 as a close second, per -sche. When a deadname is included, there is no need to include it more than the minimum number of times (aka. once), as to do otherwise would be gratuitous. GreenComputer (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think that be a good solution. Cwater1 (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• None of the above I like 2 and 3 as a general rule, probably with a preference for 3, but I don't think the rules provide enough overall flexibility, for instance where the person has specifically given us guidance on how to handle things. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3A. Strikes a good balance between minimizing deadnaming to usually one but recognizing that more than one instance may be required in some contexts. Option 3 as a second choice. 2/4 are acceptable and will probably be generally similar, but 1 is definitely overuse of the deadname. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (MOS:GENDERID topic 3)

• Thank you for re-adding 3a. I don't agree with the characterization of it expanding the scope of the RFC to living persons. Outside the main biographical article, it takes the existing guidance and makes it also apply to deceased subjects. Clearly no change for living individuals there. For the main biographical article, it would make explicit the existing practice for living persons, and make that apply to all articles. Option 3 is, in my opinion, the one with policy implications for living persons, by creating an explicit rule that specifically excludes them, when that exclusion would be contrary to current practice.--Trystan (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  I apologize I'm late on getting my coffee today, so I'm scattered. I almost thought I was picking up what you were putting down ... but then I lost it. When the former name (deadname) of a trans or nonbinary person should be included in their main biographical article, only include the prior name once, after the first reference to the person. ... You're saying that wouldn't be new guidance that would apply to living persons?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  It does apply to living persons, in order to preserve the current practice and interpretation of the guideline. By flagging my option as outside the scope of the RFC, it implies that the originally proposed options don't have unintended consequences for how the guideline as a whole will be interpreted with respect to living persons, which is very much a matter for debate. I would prefer it if my option were simply introduced without commentary, for editors to neutrally evaluate alongside the others.--Trystan (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  I reworded the intro to reflect what you just said, but I do think it should be noted that the proposal would, by its explicit terms, dictate the treatment of living persons, even though this RFC (by its questions, section title, and every other indicator) only claimed to be addressing how to cover deceased persons. "But the current proposal might have implicit affects" may or may not be true (I'm personally quite skeptical, because I can't really imagine a world in which the deadnames of living transgender persons are treated with less care than those of deceased transgender persons). But, regardless of its truth, it's still an admission that the proposal only explicitly concerns itself with deceased transgender persons, as the RFC title and questions indicate. (But hopefully the revised intro is an acceptable compromise?)--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Looks good, thanks.--Trystan (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Spy-cicle:—Could you elaborate on the MOS:LEAD point? I'm not sure I understand. Per MOS:SURNAME, we usually only give a biography subject's full name once—in the lead. ... How would this be different?--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• As Trystan correctly points out, option 3 is problematic because it seems to set a higher standard for deceased subjects than living people. But option 3a contradicts paragraph 5: Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc. The existing guideline seems to be more in line with option 2, allowing the deadname to be used only where unavoidable, but applying that restriction only to living subjects. I hate to introduce even more complexity into the debate, especially at this stage, but I'd argue either form of option 3 logically requires a more comprehensive rewrite of the entire section. I also think there should be an option, analogous to option 3 from topic 2, where the "living" stipulation in ¶3 is simply removed. The added paragraph in option 2 is fine but it's largely redundant if the rest of the section is understood to apply to both living and deceased subjects. —Rutebega (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Approaching the close

We are about a week from the above RFC being eligible for closure. NOT saying we must or even should close… merely noting that standard RFC procedure is that after a month we can close. And having noted that, I am thinking that this RFC was complex enough that we should go with the formal “request three uninvolved admins” form of closing. Any objections to doing this? Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need admins here; I think we could optionally suggest that the topics be closed one at a time (and optionally by separate editors), as to make sure that no one editor is too swamped. I think the close on topic 1 is pretty standard and frankly, doesn't require hyper-experienced closers, but I'm fine requesting experienced closers for all of them.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think an experienced closer would be wise, given how contentious the topic area can be, but as long as they are clearly uninvolved and provide a good summary that accurately reflects the consensus (or lack thereof) of the discussion it should stand up to any review regardless of whether they are a single non-admin or a panel of three admins. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the first topic probably does not need an admin closer (it's a pretty strong consensus for yes). The second and third topics do, however. While I know how I'd close both were I to close them, it's at least a close enough thing requiring enough judgement calls (e.g. are 3 and 3a two phrasings of the same option or separate options) that I'd want someone who knows what they're doing. Loki (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

With how contentious this has been, I agree we need three uninvolved admins for this closing on all three topics. It's not a vote, so simply counting the !votes as seems to be the suggestion on the first topic is unacceptable. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Who suggested that?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

While consensus is not a vote, closing a discussion needs to be done by someone who will represent the consensus of the community, not a WP:SUPERVOTE. Loki (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yup, the consensus of the community balanced against current policy and guidelines (which already have strong consensus behind them and cannot be ignored because a select group of editors here choose otherwise), not just what the most people want. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

A discussion that explicitly seeks to change policy or guidelines cannot be bound by the policy or guideline they seek to change. This is a well-attended, well-advertised discussion in the appropriate place to discuss proposed changes to policy - consensus here (assuming there is one) regarding the proposals is the community consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Locke is just making the same point he's made here or elsewhere, which is that he considers the MOS:GENDERID guideline, both in its current and proposed forms, to violate Wikipedia policies, and he's hoping that by reiterating that fact, a closer will find his arguments persuasive. Other editors have explained why they don't consider GENDERID to violate those policies; he's responded; they've responded, etc., ... so I don't think anything is gained by continuing this discussion.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• User:Jerome Frank Disciple/draftingpage I've drafted a close request per the above suggestions.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia guidelines and In the news

There is currently no policy or guideline that oversees WP:In the news or its selection process in what is posted to the main page. As a result, ITN has diverged from sitewide consensus, and its processes are determined by a small group of regular editors enforcing a standard of "significance" or "ITN-worthiness" that has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Discussions at ITN make virtually no reference to policy or any sort of sitewide standard, amounting to little more than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, and discussion closures are little more than a headcount. If anything, these discussions actively circumvent policies and guidelines relating to WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:OR. There's a good write up at WP:HOWITNWORKS that goes into this in more detail.

Sitewide consensus has already indicated opposition to the current process of ITN for these reasons, most recently in February at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 47#In the news criteria. Some editors, including myself, have attempted to explain this at ITN and pushed for an approach more aligned with policy. Despite this, a local consensus continues to be enforced at the expense of sitewide consensus.

A great example of the issue here is at the recent discussion on whether to post the coronation of Charles III and Camilla. Despite clear consensus that it was a notable event with extensive news coverage and a quality article, ITN regulars broadly voted against posting it to the main page because it didn't meet some arbitrary standard or because they had their own personal gripes about the event itself, rather than any challenge to the subject's notability or the article's quality. It was only posted at all because several editors who don't normally participate in the ITN process came to see why it hadn't yet been posted and !voted to support posting.

WP:ITNSIGNIF gives a vague description of how submissions should be evaluated, but to my understanding it is essentially a WP:PROJPAGE. It has never undergone the sitewide scrutiny that's expected of pages like this, and it likely wouldn't pass such scrutiny given how unhelpful it is and how much it encourages original research. WP:CONLEVEL is clear on this point: sitewide consensus—especially in the form of policies and guidelines—outweighs any decisions made in a specific area by a small group of regulars. There is no exemption for ITN or any of the other main page focus areas. If anything, these areas should be receiving the highest level of sitewide scrutiny. I believe that there either needs to be a modification of current guidelines to take this situation into account, or a new guideline is needed specifically for ITN or for the main page in general. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Update: ITN is currently in a heated argument about a duck. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly ITN is useless and should be replaced with something else. As it currently exists, it just serves as a great way to start arguments and get people blocked. Also... are you saying that ITN was brigaded...? The coronation should not have been posted. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: This is a very confusing statement to read - it raises valid concerns about the overall lack of broadly-backed guidance for ITN, but also accuses of issues by participants. Those issues (if true) are a mix of things that are valid unless and until there is a broad-based set of rules rather than a locally written set - and others that might not be. Additionally, this is sitting at VPP, but it's not actually proposing specific changes but raising a general issue. VPI would probably be a more logical forum. tl;dr - break up what are the issues and what we should consider as solutions. If solutions need to be workshopped first, perhaps try VPI. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Nosebagbear: It was already raised at VPI with Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 47#In the news criteria, as I linked above. It hit a wall in part because there was no policy or guideline to fall back on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

My apologies @Thebiguglyalien for missing the previous VPI thread - clearly I shouldn't edit at 2 in the morning, local. Having read it, however, it's slightly odd - in some ways it actually had clearer proposals. I do feel that I should highlight that Notability, OR, and such (but not wp:consensus) apply only to articles - ITN wanting to make their decisions on another basis is not, inherently, policy-violating. ITN currently have an extremely lightweight framework that does mean that there is little difference between votes and !votes.

I would suggest that the following questions need to be answered:

1. Is the current status quo sufficiently broken that a more formalised set-up is needed?
2. What will the "in the news" aspect require as a minimum - prevalence of on-going coverage
3. Of those literally in the news, what level of quality needs to be reached to not be excluded on an article quality basis?
4. Of articles that meet these two minimums, how are they then picked: the most covered by news? The best articles? Some balance?

Nosebagbear (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The guidelines as written already address these matters. In operation, what happens is that discussions are hijacked by a small group of vocal people who believe they know best on what is significant solely on their assertions that something is or is not significant. There's not much to be done about this that policy can fix; writing more policy does not correct the problem of people ignoring written policy. --Jayron32 13:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The point of my post here is that there aren't policies or guidelines for ITN as they're defined on Wikipedia. If we did have such a guideline, then it could be improved and enforced by the community. Right now, ITN operates as its own bubble with minimal community oversight. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:ITN contains extensive written guidance on both quality and significance. I suggest you read it before claiming it doesn't exist. It's been there for at least a decade before you insisted that it wasn't. --Jayron32 11:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that non-guideline. A good portion of the above post is about why it's insufficient. To summarize: how it's applied was determined by a walled garden without sitewide scrutiny, it's not enforceable by the broader community, it's vague and arbitrary, and it pushes against the letter and spirit of policies such as WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OR. Time and time again, the community has shot down the idea that individual corners of Wikipedia can create their own governing structure independent of sitewide procedures. I don't see why this is any different. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no experience in editing ITN, nor do I, as a reader, make great use of it, because I rarely if ever hit the main page. Therefore please treat this observation as potentially naive: it seems to me like the main page is only barely a real article, which makes the usual content policies not terribly helpful. But the conduct policies are still relevant, and this sounds like there might be a little too much WP:OWNERSHIP going on. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

A "here's news stories that a small group of editors decided to emphasize" section should probably not be at the top of the most prominent Wikipedia and Wikimedia page. Nowadays a likely stronger standard of just follow what the media head count does would also be bad. A standard of "how impactful is it?" would make it an excellent section for Wikipedia but that probably isn't going to happen. Best to eliminate it. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That's now what ITN is. Your characterization isn't helpful. What ITN is supposed to be is "Here's a link to quality Wikipedia articles about current events". That sometimes votes don't go the way you want them to is not a reason to take the entire thing down. That's a bit of a petulant attitude. Could Wikipedia do a better job of actually meeting the purpose as laid out at WP:ITN? Absolutely it could. Wikipedia could be better at doing everything, everywhere, all the time. That's not a reason to shut down the whole encyclopedia, though. It's a reason to be better. --Jayron32 14:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien, I think you need to keep in mind just how much the English Wikipedia has changed. The main ITN page was created in 2004. We have editors who weren't even born back then. We have admins who hadn't even been born back then. I wrote WP:PROPOSAL in 2008. Consequently, it's basically impossible for the page to have followed directions that didn't exist. That doesn't mean that ITN's page hasn't been checked out by others, or that it's inherently flawed or otherwise urgently needs some bureaucratic processes thrown at it. Back when ITN was created, pages were still getting designated as guidelines (or whatever) through the expedient of someone slapping a tag on the page and waiting to see whether it would be reverted. Having a label, or not having a label, isn't the most important thing. There's no tag on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Featured article criteria or Wikipedia:Peer review, either, and that's okay. Wikipedia:Not every page needs a tag. As a general rule of thumb, if some process has been in operation every day for longer than you've been an editor, it's safe for you to assume that the community knows about it and doesn't strongly object to it. We use the principle of WP:SILENCE in our processes, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that the present day ITN functions as it did in the 2000s, nor do I believe that it complies with the community's general expectations (hence this discussion). As Jayron32 said above, the discussions are controlled by a small group of vocal people, and ITN has moved away from any 2000s-era consensus that may have once existed. I also included a link of a recent VPI discussion in my post above as one instance where the community expressed dissatisfaction with the current processes at ITN. The WP:SILENCE has been broken many times by many editors, both at WT:ITN and here at WP:VP. All I'm really asking for is some oversight from the community. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm responding to the last paragraph of your opening post, especially It has never undergone the sitewide scrutiny that's expected of pages like this. My message to you is: Sitewide scrutiny wasn't actually expected of that page back then.

As for the rest, I see that you complain that some editors, whom you call the "ITN regulars", voted differently from you in Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2023#(Posted) Coronation of Charles III and Camilla. What you seem to leave out is: your side won anyway, the entries you supported were on the Main Page, and none of those "ITN regulars" even complained very much about the result. Showing up to vote in discussions such as that one is what "some oversight from the community" looks like.

I'm not sure that there is any significant problem here (some editors not respecting others' rationales doesn't count), but if there is a problem, then holding a vote over how to label the page, so that it can either be definitively declared a guideline or a not-guideline, isn't the solution. A WP:PROPOSAL to tag a page is basically never the solution to any problem involving what editors want to see on the Main Page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news is a Salvador Dali painting. It's highly irregular. It's often controversial. The content included is frequently absurd, while also occasionally taking on recognizable items. Everybody tries to interpret it the best they can, but everyone's interpretations are different. Each generation has their own interpretation of it. The original author intent, if there is any, is rarely understood except by devout enthusiasts. But above all, more than anything else, nearly everyone is more confused and sometimes irritated by the persons who would work on the painting, and their accompanying behavior, rather than the actual painting itself. So as we ITN editors try to understand this abstract painting, we frequently find ourselves clashing due to the highly subjective nature, as Thebiguglyalien has pointed out. I suggest, however, that people do participate on the straw poll currently being conducted by Masem at WT:ITN. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Move down ITN started with the important breaking news of the 9/11 attack but it has since lost its way and now reports routine news like sport and the weather. The more important breaking news tends to struggle in its current bureaucratic process because, by its nature, it is raw and unpolished. And the process is quite inefficient so that ITN is the most unproductive section on the main page. For example, the current blurbs are all from last month and blurbs are often there for weeks, gathering dust. Other mainpage sections change their content on a daily basis and it seems ridiculous that the news section can't be so on-the-ball.

To give ITN a wake-up call, I suggest that its position on the main page be switched with the featured picture section. In the desktop view, the featured picture would make a natural pairing with the featured article at the top left/right. And having a prominent quality picture at top right is the normal way we like to present our pages. ITN would then be relegated lower down to the position currently occupied by the featured picture. This might seem to be a demotion but there would be advantages too. The FP section currently gets the full width of the main page but it doesn't need this as it doesn't usually have enough text to fill it. ITN could use that wasted space more effectively by expanding the list of recent deaths so that each death gets a short description. These recent deaths are the most successful part of ITN but their display is currently too abbreviated and so they deserve more space.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move down per Andrew, at the very least. As they have quite eloquently stated, WP:FP doesn't need that space nor utilise it effectively, and WP:ITN can fill up the space with recent deaths and longer headlines. It will also indicate to them that they need to clean their act up. I think there also needs to be structural changes to ITN, as unfortunately it has devolved since its creation, and there is a large number of editors that concern themselves with ITN and nothing else, which has caused them to drift away from the rest of the community. It's unfortunate to see editors get away with posting their personal gripes. The obvious option would be to enforce a series of guidelines, similar to WP:DYKCRIT. Someone who is familiar with ITN and their problems probably needs to do that. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Should editing on Wikipedia be limited to accounts only?

Should editing on Wikipedia be limited to accounts only? - jc37 15:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Introductory information

Times have changed.

Technology has changed.

Online privacy laws have been created in some locales.

IP addresses have new/additional types.

And we also know more about IP addresses' usage than we did when Wikipedia was founded.

So there are some questions:

a.) With all the ways that it is just simply difficult to track by an IP address

b.) With VPN, proxies, and other such ways to mask

c.) With how there are now privacy concerns related to IP addresses

Is it time for us to just say "If you want to edit Wikipedia, please create an account".

We would still be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

And as far as I know, accounts are free, and do not require any personal information.

2 other things to note:

a.) editing from an account, rather than an IP (which could be a dynamic IP) makes discussion amongst editors easier.

b.) While patrollers may spend a lot of time is spent addressing IP edits, I would imagine that that would only somewhat change, as a vandal could just create a new account instead. However, I think we'd see a small decrease in vandalism, because I think we might see fewer "impulsive" acts.

So with all that (and I'm sure, far more that others may think of) in mind, Do you think we should deprecate IP editing on Wikipedia?

I am not adding "support/oppose" sections, because this is not a vote. I think it's fair to say that this topic deserves a thoughtful discussion.

A few pages possibly worth reading in relation to this:

• Wikipedia:IP users
• Wikipedia:Personal security practices
• Wikipedia:Open proxies
• m:No open proxies
• m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation
• m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation/IP Editing Restriction Study

- jc37 15:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (requiring an account to edit)

• Editing? No. Giving article feedback, asking for technical help, etc - I'm not really seeing any reason this is a problem. I might consider "editing articles" IF enough problems could be identified. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, namespaces are numbered. the talk pages of each are odd-numbered. What would you think of limiting IP editing to the odd-numbered namespaces? - jc37 15:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• If the answer is "IPs should not be able to edit" it's not clear what changes and so I don't think this ready to actually be an RfC. This feels like a precursor discussion to that RfC. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not concerned If this ends up being a brainstorming RfC which leads to a "next step" RfC. - jc37 15:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Then I would suggest we remove the RfC tag and just let this be a policy pump discussion. We definitely should remove it from CENT (and not watchlist notice it which I'd want to do for any serious proposal). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  An RfC is an RfC. I think we can let the discussion go where ever it goes. - jc37 15:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Someone proposing to ban IPs from editing? Is it Thursday already? Seriously, can we not do this yet again. --Jayron32 15:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think we (and the world) are in a different place on this. I think it's fair to say that wikipedia editors are not merely desktop users anymore, for one thing. Also. see some things that meta is working on concerning IP masking. I think that this topic is timely and is something we should probably discuss. - jc37 15:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not aware of any serious discussion of this since ptwiki did it and there's been real research from their results. I'm also not aware of any real discussion since IP masking became something that could happen at any moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I guess you're right, the last serious discussion I found on the matter was two years ago here. Still, I think it's not a good idea. We still have lots of good editing happening from IP editors, and I haven't seen a good argument that anything has changed. I see assertions that it's different now. But an assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Are IP editors really no longer making any good contributions to Wikipedia? --Jayron32 16:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have links on hand, but there have been more recent discussions about IP editing within conversations about the proposed IP masking initiative, which appears to be moving forward at a slow but steady pace. (I suspect we will see more discussion when a substantial update to that comes forward, but with that in mind it's a bit difficult to have the full IP editing discussion until we have more details on how IP masking will work.) CMD (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Do we have evidence that those good edits from IP editors would not have happened if the editors had been forced to create an account? Account creation is pretty low friction. Seems like it would be a minor speed bump that might cause a portion of prospective editors to walk away, but surely not all of them. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Evidence is needed to enact a change to things, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. No one has shown that it's broke. Demanding that we change a major policy merely because evidence doesn't exist not to change it is nonsensical. --Jayron32 16:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, the ptwiki experiment certainly seems to be evidence that requiring account creation reduced vandalism while not materially reducing edits. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  An experiment is not evidence by itself. Is there actual data about the result? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree There's a report by the WMF anti-harassment team here: Meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation/IP Editing Restriction Study/Portuguese Wikipedia. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ah perfect, I had looked for a page like this. Perhaps I had even seen that one in the past but forgotten about it. That, and the below-linked meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation/IP Editing Restriction Study/Farsi Wikipedia are two pages we should definitely closely look at before making a decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• This RFC should be deferred until the imminent deployment of IP masking. MER-C 16:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Normally I would write off a proposal to block IP editing as another perennial proposal with little chance of succeeding, but the imminent deployment of IP masking is probably the most compelling reason to talk about this now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Would IP masking mean that IP editors would change the nature of IP contributions? Which is to say, once IP masking goes live, what about the contributions of those editors who contribute without an account would change? If John Doe, who edits without an account, was providing high-quality work to Wikipedia, why would he suddenly not be doing that once IP masking goes live? --Jayron32 16:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Some IP editors – in particular the ones that edit from a single static IP address as a long-term joke/to make a point – do prefer to have a user page and/or talk page that is identifiable, like 199.208.172.35 (AKA Tarlonniel) and 76.117.247.55. It's unknown whether these sorts of IPs would leave the project or make an account (or if they give up on being identifiable and keep editing, we probably would never know!). Of course, IPs like 64.229.90.172 (whom I call "Movie Soundtrack IP"), who edit simply because they don't want another password to remember, would probably stick around. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  (This is the Tarlonniel mentioned above) For what it's worth, IP masking is not going to make me leave the project (or create an account) - it might actually be helpful to combat the problem of telling me apart from others using this IP (there's at least one other person who semi-actively edits Wikipedia from "here"). Of course, banning IP editing would be a big "Exit!" sign for me. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you don't mind me asking, why is that? - jc37 17:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Because I greatly prefer editing as an IP, @Jc37 (see the FAQ on "my" talk page for links to further opinionated blathering), as do other long-term IP editors I've encountered. I can't say what they'd do if IP editing was restricted - you'd have to ask them yourself - but for me it would be a signal that, in spite of all I've tried to do in the realm of positive contributions, Wikipedia has decided to move in a direction I can't agree with, and that I should concentrate on one of my other hobbies. Or, y'know, my actual job. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I did look at that before asking and saw it seemed to essentially be a matter of preference. Thank you for clarifying. - jc37 17:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. IP editing is still a net positive, and we should encourage it, especially if it inspires many IP editors to register later (as I did). We should revisit the question if and when we see the effects of IP masking. Certes (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at what IP masking would be doing, I think it will greatly affect how my contributions are recorded, as it is kept in a cookie. As I use multiple browsers and multiple OSes, that would each have a separate identity under this scheme. I also tend to delete all my cookies every so often, which would reset the identity much more often than how long my dynamic IP address now seems to last on average (though Wikipedia crashing Chrome/Chromium-based browsers by using up all the available memory on the system (sometimes crashing the entire system instead of just the browser) and sometimes taking out all the cookies doesn't help matters). -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  or hide IP addresses. Cwater1 (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Jc37, you mention Tor above. When you wrote this, were you aware that editing using Tor is prevented by mw:Extension:TorBlock? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware of that extension. And to be honest, I was relying my my memory of the past. But, while creating this RfC, I discovered that m:Editing with Tor was marked historical, and points to m:No open proxies, which I linked to at the top. Interestingly, that page says "may block". Not "will block". And also states that some are temporarily blocked (dynamic IPs being a thing). And of course there's WP:IP block exempt and m:IP block exempt, as well. - jc37 17:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Okay; seeing it there made me worried about a potential lack of research done before starting a huge RfC. Regarding exemptions, sure, these exist for specific trusted users yet shouldn't have an effect on the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I changed the word to "proxies". Hopefully that will help prevent further confusion. My apologies. - jc37 17:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Can we get some data/discussion on how this change has gone for Portuguese Wikipedia? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation/IP Editing Restriction Study Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I just read that page, and it's interesting. One thing that jumps out at me is that they said vandalism was reduced. And that there was also a slight reduction of total new edits. But it doesn't seem to say if the reduction of vandalism edits was taken into account when talking about the reductoin of total edits. If the loss of total edits was (mostly) vandalism edits, I think that's worth knowing. - jc37 17:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Jc37 Did you read the more detailed reports on the individual projects? They go into this somewhat:

  • Meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation/IP Editing Restriction Study/Portuguese Wikipedia
  • Meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation/IP Editing Restriction Study/Farsi Wikipedia

  192.76.8.85 (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. #Net_non-reverted_edits would seem to suggest an overall increase in non-reverted contributions. - jc37 17:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've notified 2 active IP editors of this discussion. I'm aware this violates the letter of the votestacking policy, but I think it's fine because IP editors tend to not be as interested in our "meta"-discussions, and their input is obviously important. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  My very unhelpful input is that y'all should do what you gotta do to protect the project. I don't have any illusions that Wikipedia won't survive without me (and any idealistic fellow IP editors who might join me in leaving). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the heads up - 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Everyday, along with normal browsing, I use private browsing and/or tor/VPN. I switched to a new ISP all almost an year ago (dynamic IP addresses). In that year, I never saw "edit" option. All the IP addresses/ranges were blocked. I'm not sure how many IP addresses/ranges can actually edit. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Most can. The IP addresses assigned to a single ISP are likely an inconsequential fraction of the entire IP space. --Jayron32 18:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  We have constant ip edits. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  yes. But I was wondering about how many were blocked for various reasons. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I believe most of it is done by Special:Log/block/ST47ProxyBot. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  It greatly depends on country. In some, particularly in the developing world, a majority of IP ranges are blocked. In others, you're only likely to run into a rangeblock if your carrier happens to allocate IPs in a particularly confusing way. (For instance, my IP range on T-Mobile has more people on it than the population of most countries, and is blocked as a result.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• I would tentatively support proposals to restrict IP editing in certain ways—throttling to an edit or two a minute, much more aggressive filtering of potential vandalism, more liberal use of semi-protection—but I don't see any basis to leap to the nuclear option of disabling IP editing entirely. IP editing is how I learned to edit, and how many constructive contributors did as well. ;) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Throttling is an interesting option. Edit filters also allow automatic blocking which we have disabled, but we could enable it for IPs and autoblock IPs who run afoul of our low-false-positive, antivandalism edit filters. — Wug·a·po·des 21:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I already run afoul of those and need to file false positive reports (such as for a buggy filter, which I've done before), or edit requests for some editor with higher status who can avoid the edit filter. If I get autoblocked on top of that I think I'll just stop contributing to Wikipedia, instead of needing to file a request for unblocking every time a disallow filter is activated, and my editing privileges are withdrawn because a filter was tripped. Would you be suggesting 24-hour blocks or elevating automatic blocks, successively lengthy blocks on the same IP over the course of a year?

  As for the suggestion of only 1 edit per minute, that would mean no person could go back and correct typos they didn't notice before, and would result in a higher rate of reversions, since some patrollers revert any edit that isn't completely correct, likely sometimes with a user-warning attached, as the editor wouldn't be able to correct anything waiting for the timer to expire. It would also mean one couldn't separate edits by content, so one would need to do a massive edit to a full page, instead of individual edits to each section needing a change and what reason that was changed. Then everything would be gone with a revert as someone objected to a single sentence change and not the rest of the edit. (though that already happens with full rollbacks over the objection to a single sentence change but not other edits; as rollback seems to be default over revert for some patrollers) -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  The community has consistently rejected automatic blocking, and with good reason. Users who repeatedly trip filters are already automatically reported to AIV. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• I concur with those above that this should absolutely have been workshopped better prior to running. It would be one of the most drastic RfCs we've ever run and being a reasonable question to raise needs the best pre-consideration possible. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Personally, I don't care whether this discussion crosses all the Ts and dots all the Is for a "proper" RfC. I'm happy just to discuss this issue in a workshop-y sort of way. Long ago, I used the userbox that says that account registration should be required for editing. But over time, I've come to appreciate that IP edits can be a good thing. I agree with the comments above, that it would be useful to examine data from the Portuguese WP. My recollection is that it worked out surprisingly well, but my recollection could be faulty. And I also think that we should be significantly guided by whether IP masking is a decision that is going to be made for us. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  See the October 2020 announcement at m:IP masking#Statements from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department. That decision was made a couple of years ago.

  Realistically, IP masking will start at this wiki some time next calendar year. I'm talking to the AHT team about how to make it as smooth as possible, but I'm sure there will be some bumps on this road. However, we have no real choice here. This has to happen whethe we like it or not. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't have to happen, WMF just wants it to happen. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  The new facility offered to vandals (deleting their cookies and continuing as a new user) will probably force Wikipedia to abandon its core feature of being the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I'm not sure whether the WMF is gambling on that not happening, or sees it as less bad than storing IP addresses. Certes (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  I really think the WMF is just trying to justify their budgets by making unnecessary changes, but that's the cynic in me. I just haven't seen (and WMF has not provided) any explanation for why this unwelcome change is needed. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  IP addresses can be regarded as personally identifiable information, though knowing that someone edits from 123.45.67.89 doesn't immediately reveal that it's John Smith of Kalamazoo. The WMF has decided that Wikipedia will prioritise privacy and suffer the collateral damage to vandal fighting and accessibility of editing. Certes (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Rockstone35, have you read the October 2020 statement from Legal yet? Look for the words "Please understand that sometimes, as lawyers, we can’t publicly share all of the details of our thinking" – you'll have to un-collapse the section to see them. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Whatamidoing (WMF) - I have, but I'm still skeptical that there's a valid reason for this since WMF won't explain their thinking... maybe I'm just cynical. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• I think that IP editing should be allowed because there are many great IP contributors on Wikipedia. The person who loves reading (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• The point that would really interest me is whether there's a case to be made that "anon" editing is actually likely to be harmful to users who (despite the current warning notice) may not realize the kind of trail they're leaving. (The long-overdue IP masking initiative would change the landscape here somewhat, but only to an extent -- as I understand it, IP masking will involve pseudonymization of data but not true anonymization.) If allowing IP editing is causing editors to unwittingly compromise their privacy (in ways that we now recognize as problematic), I would find that to be a stronger argument than whatever the incremental effects on vandalism or admin workload might be. -- Visviva (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• can't wait for the community to waste a month on this, and then waste another on the close review. lettherebedarklight晚安 01:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not to mention the disaster that closing this discussion would be as-is anyway, given that there's no votes and just a bunch of hap-hazard thoughts spread around (apparently by design). ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• I oppose banning IPs from editing entirely as we would lose a lot of productive contributors, but I would support an immediate ban in the event of the WMF deploying IP masking on the English Wikipedia. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• I would say no, because I have felt edit-stalked since I created an account. Although I was reverted more often as a floating IPv6 editor, I didn't have to deal with others stalking my unrelated contributions. I don't mind scrutiny, but when it comes from disapproval of edits on unrelated topics, it's wrong, period. Sandizer (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC).
• I would oppose as a long-time anonymous editor, and I can say that, if registering were required, I probably would not be here, either because I wouldn't have noticed it, or, if I did, not do it simply because I did not want to. And there are a lot of valid reasons for IP addresses to not create accounts. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hi User:47.227.95.73, I'm curious as to what the valid reasons are for not creating an account, and why you think you'd not be here if you had to create an account. SilkTork (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  See my comment on my talk page. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• No signs that the current system is WP:BROKE, so don't fix it. Yes, there was ptwiki's implementation of this, but that's a different wiki with a likely different culture surrounding IP editors. IP masking should fix some of the problems initially brought up, and I'm not convinced barring IP editing as a whole is going to make Wikipedia better; in fact, I think it would make it worse. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• It's not worthwhile having this discussion now, when temporary accounts / IP masking is due soon. Once that change has happened and any issue have been ironed out maybe it will be necessary to have a discussion, but we can't know for the moment. The only concern I can see is that vandals can just reset their temporary account by clearing cookies, but that's only slightly easier than getting a new dynamic IP, and even then will only be an issue for non-admin vandal patrollers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Too late to fix the stable door after the horse has bolted, the WMF has already wasted massive amounts of developer time on not doing this. Or too early, we don't yet know how the "IP masking" will turn out in practice. —Kusma (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Editing should not require an account. One of the original principles, still valid today, is (with my emphasis here) "You can edit this page right now ... We must respect this principle as sacred." It is not "you can edit this page after registering and logging in". This principle is common to all Wikimedia projects (with my emphasis here) "The ability of almost anyone to edit (most) articles without registration."
  In a world where everything wants me to register, have an identifier (even if it's not required to be my real name), have a separate password to keep track of, it's a refreshing change to have something that just lets people do something (edit) without having to jump through hoops first, no matter simple those hoops may be.
  Recording and displaying IP addresses is a privacy issue, but the solution is to limit the recording/display of IP addresses (which presumably IP masking will do), which can be done independently of registration. In any case, if we choose to record/display IP addresses, but tell the editor first, then it is the editor's choice - they always have the choice to create an account, but we do not require it.
  There will be vandals and other bad actors, and making people register might deter some of them, but one of Wikipedia's guidelines is to assume good faith, so we should do that for an anonymous editor - to ask people to register so as to make it easier to reduce bad actors is effectively to assume bad faith. The price of "anyone can edit immediately, without registering" might be an small increase in vandalism, but I think that is a price worth paying for our principles. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about the RfC

• I would recommend Idea Labing the proposal first before this turns into a trainwreck. Curbon7 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Jc37, How dare you call my comment essentially useless bureaucracy when I'm giving you advice on how to make your RfC stand on two feet rather than flop like a fish out of water. Sectioning off comments like this might be one of the most inappropriate things I've seen in an RfC, especially considering this is formatted as an open-ended discission. Curbon7 (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Resolved. Curbon7 (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I appreciate that your suggestion may have been well-meant.

  Discussion of the question proposed? above. Discussing the RfC itself? right here. Your statement was one of "venue", and has nothing to do with the question of "whether Wikipedia limits editing to accounts". Whether intended to be or not, these arguments are essentially just WP:NOTBURO arguments. Do it this way, not that way, have the discussion there not here. There are also some who are attempting to predict the future, but that's still not addressing the question of the RfC, and still just about the RFC itself. - jc37 00:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Upon further reflection, and re-reading your comments, I decided to remove BURO from the heading. I didn't ever say or imply that your seemingly well-meant suggestion was "useless", and I am sorry that you interpreted it in that way. - jc37 02:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Jc37: I just removed the RfC tag, and this from CENT, but you have reversed me. This is not formatted like an RfC, especially given that this appears to be a de facto referendum on IP editing. Where is the brief and neutral statement? You have provided a rationale, not a neutral RfC question. The proper way to do this would be to set forth a short, neutral question or prompt, and then put your rationale as say the first comment. Instead, this looks like a pre-RfC, designed to workshop an eventual RfC. You can't just slap an RfC tag on anything you want more people to look at, and you especially can't just put it at CENT. Please self-revert. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  a.) This is an RfC, per WP:RFC. "A request for comment (RfC) is a request to the Wikipedia community for comment on an issue." In this case: "Should editing on Wikipedia be limited to accounts only? " b.) it follows the way we have created RfCs for decades. c.) Actually an RfC question does not need to be neutral. It just needs to be a question. Perhaps you are thinking of a neutral notice about an RfC. - jc37 19:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  ​ Um... from WP:RFCOPEN, #4: Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section (emphasis in original). So yes, an RFC question does need to be neutral. Primefac (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  First, this isn't on a talk page of an article or policy page, because it's an overall policy. I put it at the VP - which is what we do - look up for examples.

  Second, "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue - I did. look at the top. I not only provided the question (which the bot copied). but I also explained. it.

  So I followed that. - jc37 20:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:RFCNEUTRAL → Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded, short and simple. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  As I noted above, I agree that this is not really fit as an RFC and so I have re-removed the tag. Obviously discussion can (and should) continue to see if there's something that should be proposed as an RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  In what way do you think this does this "not really fit as an RFC"? All an RfC is, is a request to the community for comment. That is exactly what this is. And the question is very straight-forward - "Should editing on Wikipedia be limited to accounts only? ". - jc37 20:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  If the RfC question was the header, that is a bad practice. Further, it makes your !vote look way more important because you have made it appear as if your comment is in fact the RfC prompt. Look, a discussion about IP editing was inevitable. But such a conversation will be extremely contentious. It will take a well crafted RfC to ensure consensus can be found. But what you've created here is not designed to create consensus. It will be a nightmare to close. You assume there won't be voting, but I'm almost certain that before the halfway point it will devolve into supports and opposes. Further, you have not followed WP:RFCBEFORE to workshop this RfC, which is evident in the fact that we're having this discussion. Overall, this is an important conversation that will have to be had at some point. But doing it prematurely or poorly will only serve to delay the issue. This is just not the way to do it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't a "vote". And second, you can tell the RfC prompt by the first signature - that's why it's there. And it's all above the "discussion" heading, so it's clear that it's the introduction. Just... like... any... other... RfC...

  And yes, this is important. And I did a fair amount of reading before hand, or I would not have started it. I'm not stupid or naive.

  As for closing, we've had discussions on Wikipedia before now, including fundamental ones like this, and they managed to close them. - jc37 20:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  While we're all aware that consensus is not a vote, this discussion simply is not set up to arrive at a meaningful consensus. You wrote a handful of brief, vague sentences, gave us half-a-dozen links of optional reading, and asked us to discuss amongst ourselves. I really don't foresee how this RfC will lead to a substantive result. I see that you commented above that you wouldn't mind if this became a brainstorming RfC; well, I think that's all it can be. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, I wrote 1 straight-forward question: "Should editing on Wikipedia be limited to accounts only?". Then I wrote some explanatory text after it, including (some of) why I am asking the question. What I said above was that I am not placing a preconception on what the result of this RfC will be, and am content that the discussion (and thereby, the community consensus) goes where ever the community takes it. We've had RfCs designed to "force" commenters to respond in one way or other. (and in reading some responses here, it's apparently a shock to some that I'm not trying to do the same in order to force a certain outcome.) But this isn't that. I think this is too important, too fundamental a question to do that. Everyone should be able to have their say on this question and not be railroaded by anyone trying to "herd cats" in a certain direction. Let the community have its say. And once it has, it can be determined if the community has come to a consensus. I find anyone trying to upend that, honestly, is merely being disruptive, whether intentionally or not. - jc37 00:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• In re-reading the above, and thinking about the fact that we're talking about a template that merely summons a bot to add a notification, I'm thinking that everyone involved could use a WP:TROUT, and some time re-reading WP:NOTBURO. The idea that you all seem to be suggesting that there are RfC discussions and then there are "special" RfC discussions, is rather an eye-opener, to be sure. - jc37 20:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  The most blatant problem with this RFC could easily be fixed by jc37 moving everything past the first line into the discussion section. Could you just do that and see if anyone objects to anything else? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: MOS:GENDERID and the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons, as examples, I can add an additional header, if that helps resolve concerns. - jc37 21:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  The issue is important but this proposal is deeply counter productive. The main problem is that this is guaranteed to fail—it is too soon after the last couple of failed attempts, and it is too early before we see the consequences of IP masking. We could have a stirring argument but a proposal to limit editing to accounts will fail at the moment. The secondary problem is that having yet another failed argument will poison the well for the future. My prediction is that IP masking will be problematic, but I'll keep an open mind and see what happens. A pointless argument now will only make it more difficult to raise the issue again if IP masking is a problem. Please just drop it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Funny how this started about should IP users be banned from editing the wiki to Admins and above have different views on different policies. I (and some who have no choice like Russia, North Korea, etc.) either prefer to edit as an IP or do not want to create an account that can be traced back to them. If a user creates an account they are prompted for their email so now their privacy to those countries is blown away. Not a good idea. It’s great those smaller wikis had done test runs but come-on English is the largest wiki and the most targeted. The more restrictions put on WP the harder it is for anyone to edit. I’m on AT&T first response network and I’m blocked in a range block if I’m not on a wifi somewhere. Some networks you have already blocked have numerous blocks against them and the blocks won’t expire for a couple of years (which I believe is not the policy). So if you want to turn off IP editors I personally feel you will lose a lot of editors. Admins and up are in place for a reason and I feel this is an attempt to stifle IP editors and to lower the work load for admins. Hey if you admins don’t want the work, turn over your mop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:4405:B060:E0C7:DB35 (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Giving an email address is optional. And if you do provide one it is not available to the public. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 02:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  It may be optional but if they forget their password, they would need to create yet another account and there is no policy on deleting old user named accounts that haven’t edited in years. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:4405:B060:E0C7:DB35 (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your edits are not "deleted", whether done as an account or an IP. As for the account name, there's always WP:RTV. - jc37 08:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Jc37 you completely missed that point. Why would someone want to use vanishing because they forgot their password? Maybe they want it to be credited to them but they make complicated passwords or mistype it? You are looking at this as you are the iron fist (from what I’m reading throughout this conversation, and so addressed by other editors) that you won’t take any other answer other than block all IPs. This will drive away new editors who are dipping their toes in the water before wanting to even commit to creating an account. Also you used, once again, a guideline and not any policy. Granted you are pretty passionate it seems about banning IP addresses and uprooting the Encyclopedia that anyone can edit to Encyclopedia that anyone who gives us their information can edit. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:4405:B060:E0C7:DB35 (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I was merely responding to "...and there is no policy on deleting old user named accounts that haven’t edited in years". As for the rest you are welcome to your opinion, but I believe you completely mischaraterize me and what I've said. - jc37 17:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm struggling to understand what it is you want. When you edit logged out you give the world access to your IP address which can be used to determine your rough location. You seem to at least be aware of the fact you're editing from an IP, so I'll assume you're ok with that. So why exactly is it better that the whole world knows where you live, than giving the Wikimedia Foundation (and no one else) your email address, which I remind you, is not something you even have to do? And why do you need the old account to be deleted if you lose access to it? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is deeply misguided. Anyone concerned with privacy should immediately stop editing as an IP, and create an account. CMD (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  ...isn't it more dangerous to have your exact IP visible in Russia/North Korea than an account without an email? A prompt for an email in these countries, under your explanation, would be ignored by anyone that cares about their safety, and if they don't care about their safety this comment is no longer applicable by my understanding. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Jc37@Skarmory@Snowmanonahoe@CMD - Most people in those countries and a few others like the great firewall of China use VPNs so that covers their tracks to get to Wikipedia and possibly edit it unless someone blocked the entire range (as I mentioned early that AT&T and T-Mobile cellular networks are completely range blocked) and to get around that as a non-admin requires extra work and if I remember correctly when requesting that flag you have to submit a utrs that includes your personal information to those who have access to that queue. That is where the privacy issue then comes into play. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:95AD:57F8:C033:7A83 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  The only personal information that gets submitted in an IP-block exemption request is your IP address, and only to administrators. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 13:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we wait for a while after IP masking is implemented before making this decision? Sandizer (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Waiting to see how IP masking works out in practice seems like a reasonable and prudent choice. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think we know some bits, enough to resolve a few of the questions that @Jc37 opened above, and maybe to add some more. Among them (numbered for convenience):

  1. The new "temporary accounts" (see mw:Help:Temporary accounts and mw:User account types) will have some predictable username pattern. This is being discussed on Meta-Wiki (join!). I think the current idea is that the username format will be User:~2023-123456, but it's not final. The number in the username is just a steadily incrementing number. The first account will be "1", the second will be "2", and by the end of the first year, we'll probably be up above ten million.
  2. The temporary account will be per-browser (cookie based), not per-IP. If you use the same device/browser, it'll be the same username no matter where you are editing from (at home, at school, at work, via VPN, etc.). This will make it easier to track some editors, but not necessarily everyone.
  3. Pretty much everyone who is active in this discussion will be able to "reveal" the full IP address. See foundation:Policy:Access to temporary account IP addresses and m:Access to temporary account IP addresses FAQ.
  4. This should improve privacy for these editors overall, but it's not a pure, unmixed improvement. In particular, if a temporary editor uses multiple IP addresses, you'll be able to see all of them (for the 90 days that we keep them).
  5. If you think this is going to make tracking people harder, then please read up on the changes to Chrome, which are going to hide editors' (actual) IP addresses. Chrome might end up being a bit more like T-Mobile or the iCloud Private Relay system than it is now, and that's the most common web browser among editors.
  6. We'll be able to ping editors using temporary accounts and otherwise have a much easier time communicating with temporary accounts than with IP editors (especially dynamic IPs).
  7. It might be possible to stop some of the m:Talk:No open proxies/Unfair blocking problems since we won't be relying solely on IP addresses.
  8. Some tools will need to be updated. We have months to get this done in, but it will be work. Realistically, some tools will break, and some will be unfixable. It might also open other opportunities for new and better tools.
  9. Help pages and other documentation will need to be updated. It's probably too early to do that work, but it's not too early to make a list of key pages.

  I'm sure there are other relevant points, but perhaps this is enough for a Friday evening. Feel free to ask questions. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Whatamidoing (WMF), I'm curious:

  1. Will the cookies be persistent or per session?

  2. What happens if someone has cookie blockers set up?

  3. I'm not entirely sure how the mobile apps work - will each launch of the app be treated as a new browser session, with a new ID assigned? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  1. Persistent, up to some reasonable length of time. This is currently set to one year, but could be shorter. I've seen a proposal that's as short as 90 days. (I personally prefer a full year.)
  2. They'll get a new temporary account each time. If they don't like that, they'll need to accept cookies from Wikimedia websites.
  3. The apps should look basically the same as the website (from the POV of the user) in this respect, so you'll get a temporary account on your first edit and re-use it until it expires. (However, since it's impossible to log in to a temporary account, if you edit from the app + the website, those will be two separate temporary accounts.)

  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Very interesting, thanks! Perhaps the most interesting point is #6. Guess it's going to be much harder for me to pretend I didn't see something. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Whatamidoing (WMF): Will we be able to see all the temporary accounts coming from an IP address, or ideally a range of them? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 22:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is an open question, and I believe that Legal will have to answer their part of it before Product will figure out whether it's technically feasible (i.e., without making major changes to MediaWiki). The legal answer might sound like "only for Stewards, CUs and others who have signed up to the m:Access to nonpublic personal data policy" (or it might not; that's the thing about waiting for legal advice).

  On the community side, I believe there are concerns that this could be too similar to a Global CheckUser, which has not been an especially popular idea in the past. A vandal could use multiple IPs in a range, but so can innocent, unrelated editors. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Snowmanonahoe, the AHT team is looking into this. We have no promise that it will happen, but I consider this a step in the right direction. My best guess is that we probably won't have any more/clearer information until at least September. Keep an eye on m:IP masking; that's where they're making official announcements. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Things are changing? Cwater1 (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Delete all webcitation.org links

This is a continuation of the previous RfC three years ago that passed to deprecate WebCite. The proposal today is to delete all remaining WebCite links. -- GreenC 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

As background, WebCite archives became unavailable over a year ago. Attempts were made by The Internet Archive to work with the owner of WebCite to transfer the content to Internet Archive, but no agreement was reached due to the owner's insistence on being paid a significant amount of money. Other entities also tried to work with the owner to no avail, his evident position was/is either pay up, or let it burn. The WebCite software is outdated and convoluted and the technician who was able to keep it going left the company. It's unclear even we had the data it might be non-trivial to move to another provider due to how it was built with frames to prevent transferring of the archive pages. The owner ran WebCite as a side project, there are no indications it is coming back online.

• Bots have already moved to other providers. The remaining WebCite links have no known archives elsewhere.

The proposal would allow for bots to automate deletion of links with the end goal of having none left. The exact procedure for deletion is still be worked out since the links exist in different formats and in various ways (CS1|2 templates, {{webarchive}}, square and bare links, {{official}}, etc...). The underlying source URL would be preserved where possible. -- GreenC 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Survey (delete webcitation.org links)

• Delete per/as nom. -- GreenC 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep -- I have severe concerns when a disclosed paid agent of the Internet Archive is telling us that because the IA itself was unwilling to pay the price for the resource, all links to it should be removed. Having been told that the resource has been made available for purchase, we should be open to the thought that some other player may choose to purchase it, at which point the absence of those links becomes a matter of devaluing both the resource and Wikipedia. At the very least, we should not be deleting the record of a webcite where we do not have the original underlying URL, as the webcite is our record that there was something, somewhere being cited. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per NatGertler, who said everything I would have but more concisely. This proposal is too soon, and too mired in IA's own organizational politics. Agree with AquilaFasciata under "Discussions" below that when possible a WebCite link should be replaced with a working IA (or other) one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Remove eventually per nom, but it seems like the devil is in the details as to what an automated removal/replacement process could look like. -- Visviva (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep until the details of how the removal will be effected and what they will be replaced by are agreed. There should be some way for humans to identify that there used to be a webcition.org in an article and what it was, and some way to easily find these articles. Deletion without replacement or replacement with a {{citation needed}} or similar template will lead to the loss of probably-verifiable information because it is uncited. Thryduulf (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• Close as premature, because of the discussion immediately below this one.—S Marshall T/C 08:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• RfC unnecessary as if a link becomes dead we immediately work to find the archived link. If there is a need for an RfC, then I concur with replacing the broken archive links with archive links that actually work, and if that means using Internet Archive, that's that. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: Links to WebCite have been dead since October 2021. Any WebCite URLs that are used in citations in our articles, and whose original source is unavailable or deviated, are not serving any purpose towards WP:V. Removing any remaining links to WebCite that were missed in earlier runs of GreenC's bot, along with tagging with {{dead link}} will allow IABot to attempt a fix. Yes it is possible that no archival copy of those citations exist on other archive platforms, but this will at least fully reveal the scale of that problem which already exists (because WebCite links are already broken anyway).
  Is it possible that WebCite could still be bought and somehow restored at the same URL? Or restored at a different URL? Sure, maybe. And if that happens, and the citations aren't covered by another archival service, that's something that can be solved either by restoring the URL from the article history, or a bot who can re-add the URL in whatever format the revived service uses. Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. Keeping these broken links doesn't fix anything and just stands in the way of actually seeing the full scope of the issue. A dead archive is a dead link, and it should be tagged as such. If we need to know when a website was accessed, then that's exactly what the |access-date= parameter would be for. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as per SMcCandlish. Instead of deletion, could we tag these references so that people who do want to replace these links or find other archives can do so? - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per NatGertler, SMcCandlish, et. al. --Jayron32 16:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep, but tagging en masse may be appropriate. As I understand it, all of these links are dead and the only archive was held by WebCite. I don't see how one dead link is better than two. These are difficult cases of link rot that may require finding new references or removing information—this suggestion doesn't aid this manual task. — Bilorv (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep on the understanding these links are only still included in Wikipedia articles where the original link is dead and no other archive service has the content. I don't think removing the link is an improvement in that narrow circumstance. (at least not yet) Walt Yoder (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
• Delete My understanding, unlike my understanding of some of what the keep !votes are arguing, is we're just deleting completely dead links, not anything more. If I'm not mistaken, this should be done post-haste. SportingFlyer T·C 18:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Delete I wonder if anyone has entertained the possibility of the domain being taken over by a rogue operator and redirecting traffic to shady sites or other not related sites. It is a lucrative domain for any black-hat SEO people to take over. The current module do not seem to have protection from archive urls getting usurped. – robertsky (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. GreenC, as a longtime volunteer in this area (that's how he got hired by IA), is the right person to make the suggestion he has. But besides that, we are not served whatsoever by dead archive links. They are literally the most useless links we could have.

  Simply deleting the link and setting |url-status=dead is sufficient to identify in a citation that the citation is malformed and needs repair by emitting a maintenance message (see also Category:CS1 maintenance): "Google".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link). I think that would be a blunter instrument than preferred for this case, and would probably prefer to see the archive URL removed and |url-status= set to some other keyword (we already have bot: unknown, bot: webcitation may be appropriate). Of course, in some cases the URLs are in a separate template entirely due to use with a "manual" citation, which probably merit removal entirely with the addition of {{dead link}}. Izno (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussions (delete webcitation.org links)

• Is there any idea how many citations are only available on WebCite vs. how many are available through alternative archives? Would it be possible to move those to alternative platforms? - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• I was just going to ask the same question that AquilaFasciata asked. Also, what is more "preserving" of the current link than the status quo? Or, to combine the questions, can a bot try to link somewhere newer, and, when not possible, leave it in place as with any other completely dead link? Actually not surely permanently dead per NatGertler|'s post. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's in the 10s of thousands I don't have an exact count. Bots have already moved everything that can be moved. Whatever is left doesn't exist elsewhere. -- GreenC 22:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Using this naive search I get a little over 20k occurrences of "webcitation.org" in article space. But the couple that I've looked at (e.g. this one on Clint Eastwood) seem to be replaceable with IA archives. But it seems like they might require a human in the loop to verify that the new archive, which will generally be from a different day, actually still supports the cited assertion. -- Visviva (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  That should have been converted by my bot on June 14, 2022 but the {{cite web}} template contains {{'-}} which is either an old bug fixed or an unidentified bug that threw off the parser. When the WebCite link is removed, it will add a {{dead link}}, then IABot will add any available archive URL. It shows how these WebCite links are gumming things up. -- GreenC 01:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  National Front (UK) election results has links with titles that imply they are from webcitation.org but actually link to pages on the Internet Archive. This appears to be because GreenC bot changed the archives but left the titles alone, I haven't investigated how common this is, nor whether it is something that a bot could reliably fix, but if it is common it will distort the scale of the problem (because while the titles are a problem, it is a different, lesser one). Thryduulf (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  @GreenC: looking through the raw list I found Kit Hinrichs, where almost all of the external links used just www not http://www which seems to have mean it wasn't spotted by whatever process you used to find webcitation.org links. I fixed this issue and ran the normal fix dead links tool on the article, but all it did was mark the webcitation.org links as dead (even though the main URLs are also no longer working in at least some cases). Please could you recheck that article for working archives on other services and any others that might have the same issue. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Responding to Nat Gertler's concerns, I was not asked by IA to do this work, it's my own initiative as a Wikipedia editor for the past 20 years, this has nothing to do with IA. IA has no interest if these links are kept or deleted. The idea that WebCite will sell the content to be made live again is laughable for a couple reasons some of which I touched on in the nom. IA offered to pay for reasonable expenses, such as for the hardware and shipping and time to prepare it all, but WebCite wants to make a lot of money from it. Since no one bit, and a few entities tried, the owner of WebCite walked away from it burning the open source community and community of archive providers who usually work together (this all happened over a year ago). I am paid by IA but also work with other archive providers towards the common goal of saving dead links (Special:Diff/1155651594/1156379648). The idea that someone else might pay for it in the future is extremely unlikely. I suppose Wikipedia can hold out hope, but the cost is 10s of thousands of inoperable archive links that are non-verifiable cluttering the system wasting people's time. -- GreenC 22:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment If the citations still exist, albeit just inaccessible barring a commercial arrangement, wouldn't deleting them all leaving content unsourced be inconsistent with WP:SOURCEACCESS? Betty Logan (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  The proposal is to delete dead WebCite links, not citations. -- GreenC 03:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but if Webcite is the only resource where they exist then deleting them will render them irretrievable. While there is a clear advantage to replacing this links if possible, I don't see what the upside is to deleting them. There is a clear downside if the licensing issue is resolved and Wikipedia has deleted the links. Betty Logan (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  The WebCite URLs are already dead. They functionally serve no purpose towards WP:V, because clicking on them doesn't actually bring you to an archived copy of whatever the citation is supposed to be. The SOURCEACCESS problem already exists.

  There is a clear downside if the licensing issue is resolved and Wikipedia has deleted the links. There's two solutions to this. Deleting the WebCite links doesn't actually remove the link itself from the article history. If the service does somehow become live again at the same URL and with the same URL pattern as previously, those links can be easily retrieved from the article history. However, if the service does become live again, either at the same URL or a different one, it is I think reasonable to assume so will its APIs. If that is the case, then bots like IABot can use those APIs to query for archived copies of a given URL in the same manner as they did previously to the site going offline in October 2021, and automatically restore/re-add the archived URLs. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Examples Some examples of what would happen:

Type 1: CS1|2:

Source: {{cite web |url=http://example.com |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/5eWaHRbn4?url=http://www.example.com/ |archive-date=2000-01-01 |title=Example}}

Result: {{cite web |url=http://example.com |title=Example}}{{dead link}}

Type 2: Square-url:

Source: [https://www.webcitation.org/5eWaHRbn4?url=http://www.example.com/ Example]

Result: [http://www.example.com/ Example] {{dead link}}

Type 3: Square-URL with {{webarchive}}:

Source: [http://www.example.com/ Example] {{webarchive |url=https://www.webcitation.org/5eWaHRbn4?url=http://www.example.com/}}

Result: [http://www.example.com/ Example] {{dead link}}

Type 4: Bare-url:

Source: * https://www.webcitation.org/5eWaHRbn4?url=http://www.example.com/

Result: * http://www.example.com/ {{dead link}}

• Note 1: The above should be at least 80% of them. The remaining may not have a ?url= (such as "https://www.webcitation.org/5eWaHRbn4" only) in which case they will be removed when Type 1 or 3, and kept elsewhere for manual review.
• Note 2: In terms of logging that is easily done with a CSV on wiki, containing 1 line per citation, with the first column page title, second column the unmodified citation (newline converted to "__newline__"), third column the replacement citation, and fourth column the WebCite URL. In this way the entire thing is easily reversible on a per page or entire site basis.

-- GreenC 05:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is there an assumption that the original source url is a deadlink? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Well this is the case in all of the above "Source" examples (except for Type 3). They were originally treated as dead so nothing changes. For Type 3 it can do a status check and not mark as dead if it's 200; this is a problem for soft-404s in which case running IABot on the pages post-processing will weed some of those out. -- GreenC 15:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@GreenC sorry I'm missing something, say we have this source: https://www.webcitation.org/6YloKPaFj?url=https://www.princeton.edu/mudd/news/faq/topics/Non-Cooperative_Games_Nash.pdf Example; and we convert it to https://www.princeton.edu/mudd/news/faq/topics/Non-Cooperative_Games_Nash.pdf Example -- why would {{dead link}} be appended if the link isn't actually dead (in this example the link is not actually dead)? While the webcitation link is dead, this would actually revive the link and make it no longer dead. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a bot re-test whether the original link is dead, since some of them may have been incorrectly marked as dead when they weren't? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

He's suggesting a very edge case scenario. And if it happened, while a problem remains, it's a less severe problem then before. At least now we have a working live link, whereas before it was a dead archive link. It's a step in the right direction. -- GreenC 20:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm asking what the tolerance is for making a bad edit unnecessarily. If someone is going to go out of their way to insert a warning notice, we would normally expect this to be accurate. If this is all going to be handled by a bot, the bot could do live checking no? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If the site is completely gone, then it's easy to check, but if it's still there and has been re-organized, or taken over by a squatter, then it's an AI problem for a bot to figure out if the current link target matches the intended target. Many common cases could probably be dealt with by heuristics, but I suspect there would still be a lot of pages that wouldn't be handled by simple rules. isaacl (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf and Visviva: pinging re: implementation details posted above. -- GreenC 05:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't have time right now for more than a quick response, but while that's better than nothing it doesn't do anything to indicate that it was formerly a webcitation.org url so editors could waste time searching in other archive sites even though we know that the URIs aren't there. I don't understand your CSV comment. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, the CSV comment suggests essentially that we should keep a record of the changes made. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how keeping the webcitation link solves your problem. Users will still be wasting time trying to find a replacement for the webcitation link. But this problem is universal to any link marked {{dead link}}, users will waste time trying to find replacements. This is why we have archive bots that do this automatically. There are over 20 archive providers. -- GreenC 14:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Unless there could be something useful in the archive's URL itself (last date it was active?), maybe the archive's URL should be removed and replaced with a note that a bot has attempted and failed to find an archive of the webpage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, this sounds OK to me, and I definitely support keeping an on-wiki CSV (or similar) log of the changes. -- Visviva (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

History Merge Message

I have a complaint about the message that appears on an article for which a history merge has been requested. The template that is displayed on the article says that a history merge has been requested. It also says that a particular string can be placed on the user talk page of the editor who did the copy-paste. My complaint is that that message is too nice or too wishy-washy. It tells the person who did the copy-paste that in the future they can move rather than copy-paste. It doesn't exactly say that copy-paste is strongly discouraged, because it interferes with attribution. I would prefer to see something like a Level 2 warning, rather than this not-quite-Level 1 notice. Where can I discuss this? I have been complaining off and on about this message for years. It isn't strongly worded enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Are you complaining about the wording in {{History_merge}} itself or the wording in the warning it suggests: {{Uw-c%26pmove}}?

@Robert McClenon:, I'm not sure it needs to be worded much stronger than it is, but you could edit {{Uw-c&pmove}} yourself. – bradv 04:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The warning that it suggests. I will take a detailed look when I am not paying real life bills and will propose a stronger wording. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The only thing that needs strengthening is the word "undesirable" at {{Uw-c&pmove}} - any suggestions of what it should be? Remember that nearly everyone who does this is ignorant of our copyright requirements, so it is usually done in good faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Do we have a lot of people performing copy & paste moves even after being warned? If not then the warning is probably working just fine. – bradv 19:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The real problem is that even editors experienced enough to know better use cut-and-paste rather than page move, possibly because our upside-down permission system allows even an IP editor to cut and paste but often prevents anyone without page mover or higher from doing the job properly. Certes (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is upside-down to allow an IP editor to do a cut-and-paste, but my experience has been that it is registered editors to whom I have to give the weak warning. I personally think, but am not sure, that the copy-paste move is done by editors who have just enough understanding of the ways of Wikipedia that they want credit for creating a new article. That is, I think that they are working the system on purpose. I will review the wording in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

After looking over the message, I think that what is needed is at least two levels of warnings about copy-paste move. The current wording is all right for users who have done it once. However, what I may not have been clear about is that sometimes I see that the same editor has already been notified about copy-paste, and has continued doing it. Maybe there should be two versions of the message, one for repeat infractions that warns of sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The previous research into user warning templates showed that it was best to begin with short, simple, polite messages. Being polite doesn't do anything for the patroller's emotional state (and I expect that any adult who's watched RecentChanges will agree with me that some of these jump-straight-to-Level-4-warnings are because the patroller's gotten hot under the collar, rather than because this bit of editing was dramatically worse than all the other bits of unwanted editing), but it's the best approach overall.

I don't see evidence that this is a significant problem. This year, this template seems to get posted about on the order of once a day, which isn't much. I went through about 60 users who have been warned during the last few years, and I found that the repeat-warning rate was around 10% (sometimes separated by more than a year), which doesn't seem bad. In one case, an editor posted this template three times in three minutes on the same user's talk page. If you're only seeing duplicates "sometimes", and if there are actual attribution problems involved (e.g., not the editor copy-pasting their own work from the draft space to the mainspace, which is legal) then copy-paste of other people's work can be a copyvio, and copyvios are blockable offenses. It's not usually difficult to find an admin if an individual needs a personalized "stop it or I'll block you" chat – no template required.

Other people who might be interested in this include @Liz, who posts more of these warnings than anyone else, and @X750, who seems to have been falsely accused once upon a time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello... I hope you two are both well... WhatamIdoing is correct, in October 2022 Liz posted a C&P notice on my user talk page. It was not true, because I later on when I finished my writing of the page, I looked back at the original draft and I did not think it was anywhere near as good as what I wrote, so I would not have cut and pasted it anyway because the article looked like it was written by a 13-year old. It did cause me a little discomfort though, because I did not wish to be blocked for an offense I did not commit... I take pride in the articles I write and quite frankly almost none of the articles in my little area (race cars) I would ever copy and paste, because they are terribly written and I would not like that to be associated with me... you can view the thread on my talk page under User talk:X750#October 2022 if anyone is interested... thanks for your time... X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 04:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: of course I am just an Anecdotal Andy stopping by... by no means do my experiences reflect in the entirety of what generally happens when this sort of editing pattern is detected... and I certainly do not think most cases proceed like mine... above me are five much more tenured editors than myself, of whom I am sure are far more knowledgeable... X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 08:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Consensus Process for Splitting a Section

This is a question about what consensus process to request as an AFC reviewer. The situation is that there is a long article on a football club, and a draft on the history of the club has been submitted as a draft for review. The page history shows that there has previously been a child article on the history of the club, and that the child article has been previously merged back into the parent article on the club. (Please note that I am using the word 'history' in two ways, both the Wikipedia page history, and the history of the team.) There doesn't seem to have been a consensus process used to determine whether the encyclopedia should have the history in the main article, or a separate child article about the history of the team. As a reviewer, I don't want to use just my judgment as to whether to accept or decline when I know that someone will disagree. Since I know that there is and has been disagreement, I want to use a process to obtain rough consensus. If I accept the draft, someone who thinks that it should stay merged may either start an Articles for Deletion discussion, which is fine, because that is a consensus process, or they may just redirect the history article to the main article, which is not fine, because it is more edit-warring. So: Is RFC the consensus process that I should be using, as a reviewer? Is there a different consensus process concerning splits? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I personally think WP:BOLD is the process you should be using, but WP:SPLIT is what your looking for really. Start the "split" discussion for the history section, as described there, use a pointer to the DRAFT article showing what you want the resulting split-off article to look like and see where it goes. --Jayron32 17:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear as to why I don't think that WP:BOLD is the process that either I or the authors should use. There has been a history of bold changes, in which the history section was split out once, and then merged back in, because there wasn't consensus, but there were conflicting bold actions. As a reviewer, I don't want to take unpopular actions when they aren't necessary, because I don't want editors to try to game the review process by using the review process as a way of getting fait accompli. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Having read splitting one more time, I see that one of its problems is that it tells how to start a split discussion, but there is no specific timeframe, and no specific procedure for closing the split discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

After thinking about it, and seeing that there isn't being any discussion on the parent article talk page, I think that I will take the bold action of accepting the history draft, and recommending that anyone who disagrees should nominate the history child article for deletion via AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

There are no specific timelines for any of this; but 1 month is always a good rule of thumb, per WP:RFCEND. --Jayron32 11:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:MERGE suggests a week, and as it is the opposite of a SPLIT, that seems appropriate to me. However, the real rule in all of these cases is: when people are finished discussing it.

We don't need specific procedures. Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I?, in which the point is to follow all the bureaucratic steps. We have always cared about the end result more than the process (Wikipedia:Product, process, policy). I'd suggest that, unless you can name at least one specific editor who will be upset about the existence of the "child" article, you just accept or reject it on its own merits and not worry about what happens to it afterwards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Why are past XfD discussion pages not granted a full page protection?

Curious, what's the reason behind this? They are not meant to be modified in any way, right? The question also applies to other pages/discussions that are not meant to be modified. Thanks, Merko (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:PREEMPTIVE -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Merko (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, it's inconvenient (not all xfds are closed by administrators), and there's sometimes legitimate reason to modify the page as opposed to the discussion itself (for example, to add a {{delrevxfd}} tag, or to fix markup that used to work but now breaks or soon will). —Cryptic 04:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

it's also a decent honey pot for spotting editing behaviours that shouldn't be, with rather minimal harm (simply revert the vandalism). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia copyright policy regarding episode synopses for documentaries

As a relatively ok but not technically advanced user can I ask that there be some sort of clarification or discussion on wikipedia's policy on the use of episode synopses for multi-episode programmes that are factual, in particular documentaries, and whether that's considered a breach of copyright or acceptable use. A few days ago I created the article Once Upon a Time in Northern Ireland, and as part of that I used the episode synopses/descriptions used on the BBC website. I was unsure of the policy on this but checked against other documentaries including Once Upon a Time in Iraq, Russia 1985–1999: TraumaZone, and The Vietnam War (TV series) which all do the same (or in the last case use the PBS ones).

Cut to today and one user removed and marked them for copyright violations, giving no justification when asked as to why it's been fine on other equivalent subjects but here it's been immediately flagged and removed. They have also not removed the same offending content on these other pages despite being brought to their attention when asking for their justification.

I'm not seeking to claim this person acted unfairly or against policy (because there doesn't seem to be a clear cut one) and I don't want to get engaged in an edit war that could see my account sanctioned, but I hope my frustration after putting the effort in to keep it in line with other similar content is understandable and hope something productive comes out of this. Apache287 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Across the board, using either short or long synopsis from other websites is a copyvio. We expect editors to create their own short summary for episode pages. Masem (t) 19:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Well if that's the case can it be made explicitly clear in the copyright policy and better enforced, because in the case of The Vietnam War (TV series) copywrite violation summaries have been used for in excess of five years now and no one's enforced it which, along with how quickly I was able to find other documentaries that did the same, suggests there's a knowledge gap there. Apache287 (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's in this paragraph of Wikipedia:Copyrights, and I don't know how much clearer we could be. We have a volunteer project for finding and dealing with copyvios of this kind, at WP:CP, but it's horribly backlogged and badly in need of more volunteers. I wish we had more automated tools for detecting copyvios (is there a way to make a bot for it?)—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Except as a layman I don't find it clear, at all. That one paragraph both declares "never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble" but also links to the non-free content policy that says actually you can use infringing-works in certain circumstances as long as it's limited, and then there's simply the principle of Fair Use (that Wikipedia also subscribes to).

How exactly are you even meant to define a documentary episode summary under that? Yes someone wrote it but it pertains to a description of a much larger body of work so is it the whole body that's being assessed or just the summary? Why can I use the image of a documentary's poster in a article despite being non-free because it accurately represents the documentary but not the description likely created by the same organisation?

Even the incident that spurred this section was a wikipedia tool that caught out the summaries on a third party website (one of those TV listings type websites) that didn't create the summary of the work in question, so if it's under copyright then it's been claimed to be violating the copyright of a website violating another website's copyright.

And again I come back to the fact we have examples of these summaries being used for more than half a decade and it's been fine. So it comes across as a nebulous policy because it's not uniformly enforced and isn't being picked up on during just scanning over articles by people reading them. Apache287 (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

If you write a documentary, and I write a summary of that documentary in my own words, then the copyright in the summary belongs to me. Another person could write their own summary and copyright in that summary would belong to them, as long as they didn't just copy my summary.

I don't like the non-free content policy either, and in my view Wikipedia's NFCC aren't fit for purpose. I've sometimes come across media that we could fairly and legally re-use, and would be genuinely helpful to our readers if we did re-use, but still get removed/deleted because some editors are here as free content ideologists (which means they're not here to write an encyclopaedia, but we're nevertheless expected to put up with these people).

It's true that other websites do routinely rip off other people's copyright. Some of them rip off Wikipedia. But we try not to. Wikipedia has its own copyright rules that go beyond the bare legal minimum.

If we've had these summaries for more than half a decade, then it hasn't been fine. It's been wrong and problematic but hasn't been noticed. Could you be more specific about which summaries we're talking about, please?—S Marshall T/C 08:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

For me the issue is that given it's a factual documentary and the summaries are more than likely written by the documentary team themselves, would that tie in to the copyright of that work? If so then you can argue that Fair Use comes into play here given it's a small use of copyrighted material relating to the documentary, doesn't impact the commercial viability of the work (we aren't uploading hundreds of minutes of footage), and is of educational use.

For the current situation of them being used in an instance for more than five years, it's The Vietnam War (TV series) as a quick google of any of the summaries will show it's straight from the PBS website. I personally wouldn't call it wrong and problematic given the context of use, so much as an example of what seems to be a legal grey area everyone's been happy to let exist because it's not detrimental to anyone. Apache287 (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

So, I think you are a little confused. All text should be deemed as being copyright protected unless specifically stated otherwise. Even if it was written by the team making the documentary, that's a copyright infringement. If it was written by someone who had released the text, that would be something different (but, arguably, we should just have our own anyway).You point to other articles that have similar issues, but they should also not copy from elsewhere. These can be safely removed if they are unambiguously copyright violations. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyright of text is not part of NFC's policy, that's strictly under WP:COPYVIO. We only mention text under NFC as the question comes up enough there, but we don't require the same rigor for non-free files and their justification ,compared to text segments. Masem (t) 12:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

For example, you can't just copy television episode summaries from a TV Guide magazine or an official website for the show, even if you see them used on other websites.

When someone says that they find something unclear in the policies and guidelines, it's safe to assume that they actually do find it unclear. If one editor finds this unclear enough to ask for help, then others are probably also finding it unclear and making mistakes, rather than asking for help.

This is easy enough to solve by spamming an example into that section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with this. There is so much confusion surrounding copyright. I also think there is some confusion on Wikipedia on the difference between what might be copyright infringement and what might be plagiarism. If recipes are not copyright protected, then I doubt things like episode summaries would be either since they contain no substantial literary expression. Even individual items in a cookbook are not protected when the whole cookbook is. Huggums537 (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Copyvios on Once Upon a Time in Iraq and Russia 1985–1999: TraumaZone removed. Will do Vietnam War after lunch - X201 (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#"Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page – proposal to move MoS section to a naming-convention guideline (either its own or as a section merge into WP:NCCAPS).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability of Tables

I am mediating a content dispute at DRN which is really a policy question about the verifiability of a table. I am not stating my opinion because, as a mediator, I am trying to maintain neutrality. There was a table in an article, and the table had links to other Wikipedia articles, and no citations of its own. By the way, the article is The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert .

An editor removed the table because it had no citations. The other editor says that the table passes verifiability because the linked articles all have references. So the question is whether a table in an article is required to have its own citations, or whether it can rely on the verifiability of the articles that it links to. Also, if a table has no citations, what should be done, tagging the table, or removing the table pending addition of citations? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing special about a table from a WP:V point of view. It's just a different way of formatting information, as opposed to text (or for that matter, a graph, image, or anything else). We don't cite other wikipedia articles because wikipedia is WP:UGC and thus not a WP:RS. Not to mention, if you're relying on another other to transitively provide a citation, what happens if the citation in that other article is removed. Are you expecting that somebody with do a global search for other articles which depend on that citation? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

If an editor is making a serious challenge to the verifiability of the content, then sources must be added by the editor who wishes to preserve the content, per WP:BURDEN. The existence of sources in linked articles is not sufficient, per WP:CIRCULAR: "Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly."

In this case, however, it seems the editor in question (User:Koavf) is not claiming that the information is unverifiable, and is instead insisting that everything on Wikipedia must be sourced as a matter of principle. The question of whether otherwise unproblematic information can be removed purely on the basis of being unsourced was recently the subject of a long VPP discussion which did not arrive at any clear conclusion. I personally find this behaviour unconstructive and believe it goes against the spirit of WP:V, but the letter of the policy doesn't disallow it. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. "All unsourced information needs a source" is factually wrong. The policies do not require "all" information to be sourced. They require four specific categories of information to be sourced (see WP:MINREF for a handy summary).

Were an editor to show up and say something like "I could be wrong, but I genuinely doubt any editor could find a reliable source that WP:Directly supports this particular content" or "I believe that this is the kind of statement that editors might fight over, so it's 'contentious matter about a living person' and needs at least one good source", then the material would be fall into one (or two) of the required categories. But insisting that information which you believe to be correct be removed from articles until someone else does some extra work is more WP:POINTY than helpful. Providing sources shouldn't be exclusively Somebody Else's Problem. If you think the material needs a source, it should be yours, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

All information (apart from truly WP:BLUE statements) must have a source. WP:MINREF is only what requires an inline citation, but that doesn't mean of content can be unsourced. Tagging the information if you believe it's true is the correct course (I couldn't tell of that table is true or not), but it's upto the editor wanting to keep the content to source it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested, it must be possible for someone to find a reliable source that Wikipedia:Directly supports all material, including truly BLUE material.

I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing between "must have a source" and "requiring an inline citation". Are you saying that (some) uncited material "has" a source even though it is "unsourced"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems were equaly at odds with understanding each other, as I'm at a lose to what your second point means. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

In the discussion on the article talk page, I understood ActivelyDisinterested to mean that all material must be supported at least by general references, while MINREF material requires specifically an inline citation. MINREF explicitly rejects this idea, and says that non-MINREF material does not require named sources to be present in the article.

Tagging the information if you believe it's true is the correct course I can't understand this mindset at all. The purpose of a tag is to identify a problem with the article. If you believe that the information is true and verifiable (and has no other issues like NPOV etc.), then surely there isn't any problem with that content? Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if that is the case, in this instance it doesn't apply as the content was not non-contentious and has now been referenced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sojourner in the earth, an editor might run across information that is true, verifiable, neutral, appropriate, and encyclopedic, like "Smoking cigarettes can cause lung cancer", and still believe that the sentence should be followed by an inline citation.

MINREF doesn't set any rules. It repeats the rules that exist elsewhere. No content policy has ever required a citation anywhere on the page for everything; citations are only required for certain kinds of content. (Depending the subject area and your personal POV about what's Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged, the amount of content required to be cited could be anywhere from 10% to 95% of article content, but the requirements are for specific kinds.)

Every time a citation is required by a policy, the policy requires an inline citation. You can think of this as an accidental happenstance, but it's what we've got. Consequently, according to policy (and accurately reflected in MINREF), there are two kinds of content: content that is required to have an inline citation (e.g., contentious matter about BLPs), and content that is not required to be cited at all (e.g., "The capital of France is Paris"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• This sounds like a case where tagging is more appropriate than removal. Yes, each article needs to stand on its own regarding Verifiability and citations, but we should also assume good faith (at least initially) that the information is properly cited at the linked articles. So… instead of removing… what needs to be done is to copy those citations from the other article into the table. Now, if it turns out that this can’t be done (ie the linked article does not actually contain an supportive citation to copy over)… THEN we can talk about removing information from the table. Blueboar (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: the reason WHY we need to copy the citations into the table is that our articles are never set in stone. The linked article might undergo a complete re-write at some future date… and the citation that supports the information in the table might be not be included after that future re-write. That would “orphan” the information in the table. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

In the case of what awards a film has received, yes it absolutely needs to be referenced and shouldn't have been restored per WP:BURDEN. The awards a film has received is obviously not WP:BLUE or non-controversial, and the references in the award article are not good enough. Vandals regularly target awards and having to verify each award in the award article isn't acceptable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

But... if that really concerned you, then why didn't you just copy the sources over from the linked articles yourself? It probably would have been faster, and it certainly would have won you more friends. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The burden to do so is with the editors wishing to keep the content, as you well know. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but standing on your inalienable right to remove good content is not a way to win friends and influence people. Wikipedia is a community, not just an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I have never edited the page in question, thus am uninvolved. As sympathetic to table inclusion as I am, one argument in its favor – "the Awards table has been up for a very long time and has hitherto been unchallenged." – reminds me of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages, specifically WP:UNCHALLENGED aka WP:CONTENTAGE: "While WP:Consensus policy reminds us that any undiscussed edit that is not disputed by later can be assumed to have consensus, the act of challenging it (in good faith) removes that default assumption, by definition. 'It's been here a long time' does not equate to 'it has had actual consensus for a long time'. [...] There is a big difference between material that, on the one hand, someone simply inserted and no one bothered to talk about until now, and, on the other, material that has been repeatedly challenged and retained (by source- and/or policy-based consensus, not a false consensus)." One specific example given, of an argument to avoid, is: "Has remained in the article for 6 years already and no one has challenged it." [emphasis added] – .Raven  .talk 06:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe such tables should be sourced. I wouldn't add an unsourced award to a table. To add a citation needed tag and then remove it a few weeks later if no citation was added might be solution, this practice I have also observed in other articles. There is likely no consensus to prohibit unsourced tables, even though I'd welcome that every table is sourced. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason for contents of a table to be any different than any other contents; that is, citation needed tags can and most certainly should be added for an uncited Awards table. What exists in other Wikipedia articles is irrelevant. (And WP:MINREF is neither policy nor guideline, but that's off-topic here.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC

I thank all of the editors who have offered their comments on the issue. The two editors are as far apart as they were when the discussion at DRN began, so I will be starting an RFC on whether the table should be removed or kept. If a third editor pops up and provides sources for the awards, that will render the RFC overtaken by (useful) events. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I have launched the RFC. Participants in this discussion are welcome to add their opinions and statements to the RFC on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

A third editor, User:Schazjmd, popped up and provided sources for the awards, which rendered the RFC overtaken by useful events. The RFC served a secondary purpose of publicizing the need of the table for references. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon can you link to the RfC? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Paradise Chronicle - It is/was at Talk:The_Adventures_of_Priscilla,_Queen_of_the_Desert#RFC_on_Table_of_Awards. It has been closed because the table now has sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Would have reasoned similar. Sourced content is preferable to unsourced. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Romanization of Ukrainian

I’ve posted an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Ukrainian#RFC: Romanization of Ukrainian as a guideline in the Manual of Style. —Michael Z. 03:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

NSPORTS proposal and outcome should be null and void

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:About begins with the following quotation by Mr Wales:

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.

In my opinion, people who insist on deleting thousands of articles which are classified as WP:STUB are disruptive. They are obstructing the site's stated purpose. Their activities totally contradict "that's what we're doing". The wording of WP:STUB does not prohibit stub creation, providing the subject is notable, not a hoax, etc. Equally, the guideline does not say existing stubs should be deleted, again subject to notability and so on.

Lets take this to case study level. A politician who has been elected to a body such as the US Senate or the British Parliament is surely a notable topic and a fifty-word stub about that person MUST be acceptable. The same is true of recognised film actors, international sportspeople, published authors and the like. On the other hand, if one of my friends were to create a stub about me, an ordinary person who has had some minor career successes that have attracted a little bit of routine media coverage, I would expect you to delete it because my career is not a notable topic.

The "sum of all human knowledge" is not going to be achieved if you allow prejudicial activity such as User talk:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification to continue. I use this site as a researcher and only on occasion as an editor. It seems to me, as effectively an observer, that the so-called "deletionists" are taking over. Assuming the site does not have server capacity issues, how does a mass deletion campaign help readers and researchers? Checking forum histories, I find that the deletion campaign was launched by someone calling himself User:RandomCanadian with this proposal on 19 January 2022. In it, he calls for the abolition of WP:NSPORTS specifically but the inference is that all such notability guidelines, sitewide, should be abolished.

Quite frankly, the rationale given for the NSPORTS proposal is absurd and demonstrates a negative attitude fuelled by anger about an article deletion discussion in which consensus was against him. This is obvious when you consider his behaviour in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cook (footballer, born 1885) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 19 on the same day he raised the proposal. Indeed, when you read contemporary comments by reputable editors like User:GiantSnowman, it was obvious at the time so I am not indulging in hindsight.

That proposal developed into a prolonged discussion and was eventually adopted in one form or another, enabling RandomCanadian's supporters to insist on mass deletion of thousands of stubs that are useful to readers in general and could certainly be expanded by interested editors given time and opportunity to do some research. Take a typical two-line stub which has a subject that is unquestionably notable but has only a single source, probably an online one. The deletionist people would no doubt wish to add this to their tally, but have they looked for other sources such as books or contemporary newspapers?

I contend that the whole NSPORTS proposal and outcome should be ruled null and void. Why? Simply because its author RandomCanadian was a rogue editor who was subsequently banned indefinitely. How can you possibly allow someone who was in serious breach of site rules to influence such a drastic change of policy? The only way forward from a mess like that is by veto and the restoration of the guidelines that the proposal attacked. Of course, should a bona fide editor wish to raise a new notability guidelines proposal, they must be allowed to do that. At least you will then have a clean proposal without the toxicity of the one raised on 19 January last year.

I read a news item recently that the number of regular WP editors is now less than 100,000 and falling. That is only to be expected when good editors find that their work is under attack from disreputable people like RandomCanadian, especially when his toxicity continues to be sustained several months after he was "found out". You might also read this report which is valid because it is editors like yourselves who have to fight against distortion of the kind described. The inevitable result of such conflict is that the good editors call it a day and find something more rewarding to do instead.

As a researcher, I have found this site useful on the whole and I want it to remain useful. I do not wish to use a research tool that is tainted by toxicity and distortion. 92.30.240.106 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Citing the G&K distortion of the Holocaust paper to justify a position on sports articles? This is a new frontier in wikilawyering. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• The sum of human knowledge, not the totality of human knowledge. Also note that other research in fact says that its the bad editors who leave and thats what makes wikipedia so great: Rule Ambiguity, Institutional Clashes, and Population Loss: How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet[3] (in addition G&K don't actually appear to say what you're attributing to them). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  And people accuse the "bad editors" of a battleground mentality. Rschen7754 00:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  The cited paper also discusses ways in which civil POV pushing can have a negative effect on a topic space and claims that the disproportionate banning/self exiting of bad editors (both the civil and the uncivil) is what has made wikipedia so successful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• I agree IP user. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• To be honest, no-one can win here. The removal of NSPORTS has indeed led to some biographies of people that are quite frankly obviously notable (but their notability wasn't easily found with a Google search which is the most that many AfD voters can manage) being deleted at AfD, but on the other hand whilst NSPORTS existed, a significant number of biographies of people that clearly weren't notable were being kept with pile-ons of people from various sports projects yelling "Keep per NSPORTS"! What can you do? Black Kite (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• There's room for the sports completionists to resurrect the WikiSport proposal so they can have a place to keep this information without being harassed and disrupted by those horrible, destructive and mean people who want articles to have high quality sources.—S Marshall T/C 17:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I would take it a step further… we should create a new Wikialmanac sister project to separate the encyclopedia part of WP from the gazetteer/almanac part. They are both needed, but they don’t play nicely together. Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Blueboar Great idea. I thought of something like a wiktionary for the mass created 1-2 line stubs. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've checkuserblocked for block evasion; the editor behind the IP is a banned editor.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Blueboar has an interesting idea. It would take some time to get started. In the meantime, I have these comments:

• Every BLP represents another liability of sorts for us. Another article for someone to watch and guard against innocent errors, vandalism and defamation.
• There’s nothing wrong with stubs otherwise. We have a notability guideline but we don’t have a stubs policy.
• If we have verifiable information on these players and they’re on public rosters of notable teams, it’s good to have them on Wikipedia.
• For these reasons, I think all these stubs should be merged into larger list articles giving basic details about each person. We can wiki link to full article’s as some of these people acquire greater notability. We have a solemn responsibility to each living person mentioned on Wikipedia. This will help us meet that responsibility while continuing to add to the sum of human knowledge.

Thank you for raising this issue, 92.30.240.106.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm generally in favor of combining articles of questionable or borderline notability into a "list of" article. As you say, the fact that they're BLPs only makes that solution seem more appealing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I'm interested in knowing what banned user that was. Are you allowed to say or is that private checkuser business? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: per our Privacy Policy, I can't link an IP to an account based on CU evidence lest my extra bits get yanked. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The page cited by the IP above, User talk:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification discusses planning for an eventual RfC, shown in draft form at User:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification. I am concerned that this sort of semi-private organizing will lead to an RfC that immediately starts with a pre-canned groundswell of support for deletion. A form of advanced CANVASSing. While I think an RfC is a good idea and it would take some planning, any advanced work should be publicly announced and accessible. The current setup smacks of “cabal”. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The people involved in drafting an RfC voting in that RfC is not canvassing. I'm sure that BilledMammal will be more than happy to have you help in drafting the RfC, its an open access cabal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The thing is he's pinging all the users who support his views to come up with it, seems to be trying to block others from getting to the pre-RFC discussion (every time someone who doesn't support his view comments, he says "how did you get here?"), and once he starts the RFC he'll ping them all again and they'll pile on support. Thats canvassing IMO. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Every time? They only appear to have said that once and it was to you... At which point you hemmed and hawed before proclaiming that "I'm not completely sure" how you got there. Which is... Why we have an AGF policy, lol. It sounds to me like "canvassing" is whatever results in an outcome you don't like. Have you ever considered that your position might not be widely held on wikipedia and consensus might not be with you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Quoting the response to Matthew Anderson701 finding this subpage

”MatthewAnderson707: "I apologize if this is wrongful intrusion or I wasn't supposed to reply to this." I'm a little confused how you found this discussion (can I ask how you found it? - given we have never interacted I doubt you are following my edits) but you are welcome to comment; it is helpful to have input from editors who disagree with the broad concept.”

I encourage readers to check out the talk page and decide for themselves.

Had it not been for the IP flagging that page, none of us would know of this undertaking except the supporters that were pinged.

Our collaborative processes run on trust.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

List of those pinged for that page:

@Paradise Chronicle, @Avilich, @Levivich, @Dlthewave, @S Marshall, @FOARP, @XAM2175

— A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This is the exact same issue as the recent RFC on the use of maps. I would suggest once they have even a draft of the RFC proposal that they take it to WP:VPI so it can be finalised in public. But I don't see any harm in getting the initial proposal done in user space. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The quoted question to MatthewAnderson707 seems entirely polite, appropriate and not even slightly cabal-like It literally invites them to share opposing opinions also can it even be called a cabal if there's no admins in it?. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

See also this reply that I made, where I said In reply to this, and your other comment; the discussion will take place in a central location, with this just a preliminary drafting process. I had been intending to ping editors like Blue Square Thing, who I have found while opposed to this contribute productively and in a non-disruptive way, prior to opening the discussion to give them time to comment on the draft. BilledMammal (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC) BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Quoting the page intro:

”@Paradise Chronicle, Avilich, Levivich, Dlthewave, S Marshall, and FOARP: Now that WP:LUGSTUBS is closed we need to decide what group of articles to move forwards with next, using the precedent set by LUGSTUBS.”

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

There’s an interesting discussion about some of the practical details associated with mass deleting a large list of cricketers at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Heads up.

While I’m uncomfortable with some of the scheming on this stuff, the criteria used at User:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification to generate the current list looks reasonable. I think if WP:CRICKETeers and BilledMammal group can work together to tune the process, it would be a win-win for Wikipedia. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment regarding the IP's comments: No. Policies should not be repealed because the proposer was eventually blocked. Policies take effect because of community consensus, not because of one person. (Also, I suppose it is ironic that it is a banned editor making that argument.)
  Regarding the various "canvassing" accusations above: This is a collaborative project. When the completely normal and acceptable behavior of "asking somebody to give feedback on a proposal" leads to hostile accusations, the predictable response is for editors to not edit. People need to stop obnoxiously crying CANVASSING every time two people discuss something controversial. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• The mass-draftifying of these stubs is, in a large way, the result of mass-creating stubs in the first place. Whether useful or not, WP:N is how we judge articles' merits. If editors for a biography can't provide what N requests, then the person shouldn't have a biography. I've backed down on AfDs of sportspeople when other editors provide compelling evidence that they meet N. Having a large role or major accomplishments presume notability, but they don't mean they are notable. We're the sum of all human knowledge; we're not all human knowledge. SWinxy (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment -@SWinxy The articles were not breaking any rules at the time of their creation. That's why they were made. It's really asking a lot of people to follow rules that don't currently exist and may not ever exist or risk having the article being drafted wrongly like Alfred Keene, Addin Tyldesley and Alexander Duncan were.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we are getting so lost in the CANVASS discussion that we are losing sight of the bigger picture. What do we want Wikipedia to become? The sum of all human knowledge? Or a place that spirals out of control as the notability requirements keep being ratcheted up in every subject area, much like Twitter that keeps losing editors and readers (read: donor $$$?) --Rschen7754 00:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOT already establishes that we are not the entire sum of knowledge, even if this was a vision of WP at the start. Our focus is on providing verified summaries of topics in an encyclopedic manner. A full list of every athlete is not appropriate for this purpose, per WP:NOTWHOSWHO among others, and NSPORTS was designed to try to quell the number of stub athlete articles that had no immediate route to becoming encyclopedic articles. Masem (t) 00:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy. Knowledge was not lost in the Olympic stub removal. They were autogenerated sentences that repeated information we already have on other pages. If encyclopaedic knowledge is actually lost at some AfD, find an appropriate place for it. CMD (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest reading this study, sometimes the lose of certain editors is a good thing, and at 10B page views per month (up 15% on last year) we not doing badly on readers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting anecdatum: Despite (I think) writing the most women's sports bios out of anyone, if every sports bio (male and female) from Lugnuts was deleted, the proportion of women's biographies on wikipedia would go up. He was the single leading contributor to the gender gap. JoelleJay (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

By "certain editors" you mean the people that actually write the content? Why would anyone spend the time to write anything on this site if there is significant uncertainty that it will be here 5 years from now? Rschen7754 15:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I see again that you chucked WP:AGF out the window, maybe try reading the study and how it shows Wikipedia's practices may run slowly but generally lead to improvements of the project. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The study does not suggest that editors with more contributions are more likely to leave or be run off, largely the opposite in fact... The most disruptive editors are those pushing fringe POVs with long tenures and its those editors whose voluntary or involuntary separation from the project is most valuable to the project according to the study authors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

But the people that the draft discussion would be driving off are not pushing fringe POVs, they are pushing... comprehensive coverage of cricket players. So the article that you are pushing is a red herring. You do that to every subject area (we both know your feelings towards road editors, Catholicism editors, NFL, MILHIST...) and do you have a Wikipedia left after that? I don't think so. --Rschen7754 17:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you criticizing consistency across subject areas? Generally its inconsistency (for example applying special rules to your preferred topic area) which is an issue, not consistency across all subject areas. I've created over 200 pages and nominated less than a dozen for deletion, it would appear that we will have a much larger wikipedia left after me. Why would you think otherwise? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no fucking feeling towards road editors, catholic editors, NFL editors, or Milhist editors (other than inside your head). I could only name two editors that are in those areas, yourself and BeanieFan11, an editor I have a lot of respect for as they have an amazing ability to find obscure sources. Just because I might disagree with someone on minor details doesn't mean i have any feelings for them good or bad. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The personal attack is directed at me not you... Those are most of my core topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the "sum of all human knowledge". The "sum of all human knowledge" would include the entire internet, everything stored in every computer, every written and printed word, everything contained in every brain. So excluding any of that per se is not a violation of Wikipedia's mission; quite the opposite. So if you start with the entire internet, that is already available. The extraction, selectivity, vetting, & formatting of an encyclopedia is what defines it and it's mission and provides it's particular value. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Have a look here. As called by people like myself in the original olympic draftification discussion, it was just going to be used as the new guideline for future mass drafting/deletion projects. Don't take my word for it, have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BilledMammal/Mass_Creation_Draftification. Some of my favorite lines included, "but I also don't want to propose anything too risky while the process is still being established.", "Nominate articles created by editors other than Lugnuts, to avoid the process becoming a Lugnuts cleanup process", "Nominate articles on topics outside the sports topic area - or at least the Olympics topic area - to avoid the process becoming a sports cleanup process" and "Nominate a larger number of articles, to avoid the process being limited to ~1000 article batches". I'd really love to know how anyone can take stuff like, "we don't want to propose anything too risky here" and "we want to do ___ in this manner to avoid being called ____" as being WP:AGF. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean "as being good faith"? Because you linked AGF which tells you to assume good faith, which is the opposite of what you're doing... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back - I have a lot of concerns about people basically grouping up in what is essentially private and saying things like "we don't want to propose anything too risky" and "to avoid the process". I know I'd like to know more about these risks and processes that already seem to be mutually agreed upon, especially in a situation where you only need to have the most people present to get what you want.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

And you think that AGF doesn't apply to you because... ? I'd also note that unless you're doxxing someone it wasn't private, you are prohibited from sharing private communications on wikipedia without consent so I assume that what you are sharing is not private. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back - Only certain people got pinged for this discussion and one of the people who didn't get pinged yet found out about it were asked, "how did you find this discussion?"KatoKungLee (talk)

Again, if you can quote from it without fear of sanction it wasn't essentially private. Nobody has restricted access or participation, in fact the page creator appears to have welcomed new editors... Which you must be aware of if you're pulling quotes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this discussion especially since it involves "risks" and affects "the process" would probably have better been had at a more public place like the Village Pump and I think phrases like "how did you find this discussion?", shouldn't have been used if it was indeed a public, open discussion that anyone can join in on.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

That is a completely different point from the accusations of bad faith you made above or the claim that the discussion was "essentially private." Note that pulling that quote but not "I'm a little confused how you found this discussion (can I ask how you found it? - given we have never interacted I doubt you are following my edits) but you are welcome to comment; it is helpful to have input from editors who disagree with the broad concept." would appear to be misleading as far as communicating the intentions of the pages creator, I hope you didn't intend to mislead anyone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think when there's "processes" and "risks" involved that may affect hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands or more articles, these discussions should be held in very public places much like this, so large amount of users can be involved and so we can avoid more situations like Addin Tyldesley, Alexander Duncan (athlete), Alfred Keene where people like myself had to fix articles that were knowingly drafted incorrectly. And I think when people find out about these discussions, they should be welcomed instead of being questioned.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"you are welcome to comment; it is helpful to have input from editors who disagree with the broad concept." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• As called by people like myself in the original olympic draftification discussion, it was just going to be used as the new guideline for future mass drafting/deletion projects. Including myself and the other drafters of the original discussion; we said "This proposal suggests a method for resolving this question, with a group of articles that can be used to test the proposed resolution." This isn't some big secret that you are revealing; we articulated, and continue to articulate, honest motives. BilledMammal (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account [RandomCanadian] has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse." Does anyone have any further information on this? I thought he had simply quit. Avilich (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Could someone hat or close this, we're at the stage of scuttle butt and mudslinging. I very much doubt anything useful can be added at this point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposed_variation_to_WP:NOTDIRECTORY_(revisiting_simple_lists) has an RFC

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposed_variation_to_WP:NOTDIRECTORY_(revisiting_simple_lists) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Soft deletion at AfD, WP:NOQUORUM process

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Soft delete has another question on the soft deletion process opened about a week and a half ago, and I was also thinking of removing the line from NOQUORUM. I figured I'd advertise it here to get some input and maybe some sense of temperature from non-DELPRO-watchers before starting a RfC ^{totallly not because I'm too lazy to just start one myself, no way} Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Make Template:Wikipedia ads ID gaps show ad #174 ("Your ad here")

For example, there is a gap between #3 and #6. I think the algorithm should pick a random number between 1 and 276 and display #174 if the ad indicated by the random number doesn't exist. Additionally, ads to defunct things (like certain WikiProjects) should be removed. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: I don't see that this is a policy issue. I see you already posted at Template_talk:Wikipedia_ads. Since you have no response there, try the related project page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Userboxes RudolfRed (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, meant to put this in proposals, I always get VPP and VPR mixed up. Should I delete this part? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANI polices and guidelines

Are there specific policies and guidelines that pertain to conduct and editing behaviors at WP:ANI? I didn't find this particular question in the searches. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I also meant to say, that I have been unable to find policies and guidelines specific to ANI. As far as I can tell, all that is available are policies, guidelines, and often mentioned essays that are applied across Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If the participants at ANI would abide by the existing policies and guidelines regarding editor conduct, a lot of the drama would be drained out. Why should we expect additional conduct rules just for ANI to help? Improving the atmosphere at ANI will require a culture change, which is hard to achieve with regulation. Donald Albury 13:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

In theory, WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQ, etc apply on all pages, including ANI. But in practice? Less so. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No, there's no specific policies for ANI. Policies for a single page are, I think, unheard of. But do read Wikipedia:ANI advice. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:VERIFIABILITY question

I and User:Nythar are having conflict about implementing WP:V and WP:PRESERVE, which the two policies are conflicting. Nythar insist on retaining unsourced content to provide citation but don't specify how long that unsourced content can stay to allow time to verify. While I said there must be deadlines for those unsourced content to stay, Nythar say there will be no deadline, citing "Wikipedia is not a deadline", seemingly indicating that unsourced content can remain in articles forever as long as they are tagged. I believe this is ridiculous, since anyone just add a new unsourced content and just need to add citeneeded tags and that content will be able to stay there. Nythar reverted loads of my removals of unsourced content on multiple articles, asking for these content to stay but seemingly is not working on providing source for those challenged content. Brlob (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Ban-evasion by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albertpda 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

First, this is quite negative in tone. Second, I did not cite "Wikipedia is not a deadline". Third, this user believes it is reasonable to blank massive amounts of content just because it is unsourced or partially sourced (here they blanked the entire Sports section from Sierra Leone, even though it has at least two sources). In this edit to Politics of Oman, for example, they blanked the whole article (almost) just because it was unsourced, and completely ignored the tag at the top of the page. Most of this content is entirely true; arbitrarily blanking unsourced or partially sourced sections not only makes articles somewhat incomprehensible, but also makes it almost impossible to find and reinsert the deleted content in the future. (A sample of a few of their edits.) Brlob seems to think this can acceptably be done to any article, and also believes that if their [citation needed] tags go unanswered within three or four days, they are entitled to remove the unsourced content. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't "believe" they can be removed going unanswered for 3 or 4 days, this is literally what I'm wondering here about the policies regarding how long unsourced content can remain. The policy wording need to be more precise and not conflicting. The unsourced reason is wholefully enough for any content to be removed or blanked. Wikipedia's core policy is Verifiability. Brlob (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Ban-evasion by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albertpda 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If the policy were more precise, we would be limited and forced to add sources to articles within a set period of time, and if we do not do so, large article sections would be blanked arbitrarily. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Is the content being removed suspected of being incorrect? —Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oh, so this is sockpuppetry, then, huh? Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Nythar, Yes editing pattern as this user. Tumbuka Arch^★_★^★ 09:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Userpages displaying deleted userbox

Many userpages post the original code of User:UBX/onemanonewoman (MfD), circumventing its deletion & displaying the box "This user believes a marriage consists only of one man and one woman." Is it appropriate to remove this from people's pages? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. I had a quick look, and all the examples I found date from before the MfD (and are on the userpages of editors who haven't edited since then), so it's probably not going to be a controversial issue. Black Kite (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  great, and I just saw this. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC on MOS:SECTIONCAPS after a colon

Should MOS:SECTIONCAPS recommend that, in a heading, the first letter after a colon is capitalized?

That is, should this example be reversed?

Use: 1891–1940: early history
Avoid: 1891–1940: Early history

Similar past discussions: May 2023, October 2022, March 2022. Wracking ^talk! 05:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Nobody follows this guidance, on or off Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, most people already capitalize after the colon. (85% of articles, by my count.) The Chicago Manual of Style and APA style recommend capitalizing after a colon in a heading (yes, even in sentence case). Wracking ^talk! 05:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove the example/don't specify. Thanks all, for your thoughtful comments. I agree. We really didn't need this example in the first place per WP:CREEP. Wracking ^talk! 18:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. AP Stylebook as well: Capitalize only the first word and proper nouns in headlines that use AP style. Exception: The first word after a colon is always uppercase in headlines. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove, capitals used as is consistent with the page's variant of English Hyphenation Expert (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

    The idea that variants of English come with capitalization styles is novel to me. Did you just invent that, or does it come from somewhere? Dicklyon (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

    Yeah, I've read nearly every style guide published since the late 19th century, and I've never seen any evidence for such an idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Don't specify. We don't need a rule about this and we certainly don't need to follow what some American style guides do.—S Marshall T/C 08:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. No one's reading speed or comprehension is going to be affected by a single capital letter. This specification provides absolutely no benefit to readers and belongs to the WP:CREEP territory. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 16:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• US usage varies. The guideline is fine as it is. Tony (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Treat it as just another WP:STYLEVAR issue. Either is fine, in case of dispute retain whichever variant was first used. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Australian government style manual: After a colon, capitalise the first word of questions that are complete sentences. This makes it clear that the question mark applies only to the text after the colon. [4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't cite the "Snookbook": it's crappy. Tony (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  There's no such thing as a crappy style guide. Language is whatever people want it to be. The better question is if the style guide unpopular? That's the real issue... I would agree an unimportant, unused style guide's opinion doesn't matter. (but Chicago Manual of Style, regardless of an Australian guide, is pretty damn important regardless.) SnowFire (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  capitalise the first word of questions — Not applicable here, because MOS:SECTIONSTYLE says that "section headings should ... Not be phrased as a question". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• No change (the existing "use lower case, avoid capitalisation" is correct). According to Colon_(punctuation)#Use_of_capitals, with my emphasis here, "American English permits capitalisation" but does not require it. Wikipedia's MOS:CAPS says "avoid unnecessary capitalization", use sentence case (and a colon does not start a new sentence) and we should be consistent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs)
• Remove guidance. Initial capitals following colons are standard, as a quick browse of many published books or Internet sites shows. Wikipedia should follow actual usage, and besides, plenty of perfectly valid style guides explicitly recommend the usage. I'd personally be inclined to reverse the guidance and mandate capitals, but per WP:CREEP, just let the main editor of an article use a consistent style, regardless of what it is. People who prefer the lowercase can be happy that way, just let others use the valid, common, and style-guide approved capital. SnowFire (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• No change for the following reasons:
  1. The existing guidance is marginally simpler (no need to carve out an exception to sentence case for word after colons).
  2. There’s no need to comply with any particular 3rd party style guide - Wikipedia defines its own style and doesn’t need to stick to sources in this respect, unlike for article content. This is not to say we should completely ignore best practice in sources, but they are a weak influence. There’s every chance that we are the experts for our use case and will come up with better guidance than any external style guide.
  3. Change may prompt a flurry of rather pointless edits to achieve “compliance”.
  4. There does seem to be some (very) slight advantage to the existing guidance: Linking is easier if titles are in sentence case. It is easier for articles to be merged or split if headings resemble titles.
  5. There’s so little difference either way that my second choice after no change would be to remove the guidance completely and leave it to local consensus. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove guidance , unnecessary rules creep with no demonstrated strong advantage. It is also good to remove rules in the MoS that go against common usage and real world style manuals. —Kusma (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove. No need to have MOS guidance on post-colon capitalisation if nobody follows it anyway. Can be revised if situation changes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Do specify - There have been several suggestions to ""remove guidance", but I propose that we should have an example or explicit guidance in any case: either a specific example, or an explicit statement that either is acceptable (so MOS:STYLEVAR applies). The reason:
  1. MOS:CAPS and MOS:SECTIONCAPS already say "sentence case", and - in the absence of any other specific guideline - from that one can reasonably deduce that lowercase "1891–1940: early history" is both correct and mandatory. (The text following a colon is not a new sentence.)
  2. Multiple other style guides say "capitalise" and that is (apparently) common practice already on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

If we don't explicitly specify one, or explicitly state that either is acceptable, we run the risk of ongoing disagreement between those who assert that lower case is implicitly required by MOS:CAPS, MOS:SECTIONCAPS (and they could legitimately uncapitalise existing instances because STYLEVAR does not apply, because CAPS, SECTIONCAPS is clear), and those who assert that capitalisation is OK, or even necessary (because of common practice). Mitch Ames (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

STYLEVAR applies whenever there is no specific guidance; it would be neither practical nor desirable to list out every single case where it applies, even if occasionally we do so because some specific point has become particularly contentious. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Such a change would violate the sentence case we've had for two decades on WP. Tony (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, it would change an old rule. But it would change an old rule that most people already don't follow. Wracking ^talk! 17:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Most people don't follow any of the capitalization rules. They create new articles with title-case titles, and populate them with title-case headings, and capitalize what's important to them. Those things get noticed and fixed by gnomes like me. I hadn't done much on this particular pattern yet, but I might try taking it on (the trouble is that the thing after the colon in the heading has to be looked at carefully, case-by-case, to see if it's a proper name or not, so this will be slow). Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
      • I provided a source when I said "most people do X", so I'd ask that you do the same. :] Capitalizing after a colon while maintaining sentence case is not the same as unexperienced users improperly using title case. My guess would be that most gnomes don't notice this "issue" because they don't know the rule exists—and they don't know the rule exists because it's unintuitive (going against other prominent style guides). And if they do know the issue exists, I think they don't want to devote their time to its (as you noted) tedious mending. Wracking ^talk! 01:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
    • @SchreiberBike: for example fixed the ": Early years" to ": early years" at Charlie Chaplin in 2021. Nobody gave it a mention or touched it since. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• No The proposal is to mandate capitalisation after a colon in section headings. While some styles guides might advocate this, it is far from being consistent and one must also consider whether such guides would advocate sentence case or title case for section titles. MOS:COLON specifically deprecates capitalisation after a colon with few exceptions, of which this would not be such a case. Removing the guidance at MOS:SECTIONCAPS would create an inconsistency with the superior guidance and with the overarching principle at MOS:CAPS to avoid unnecessary caps. It is not shown that the proposal falls to a case of necessary caps. I am seeing no cogent (evidence based) arguments to change the existing guidance and sound reasons to retain. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • For clarification, the guidance I cited is specifically for sentence-case display text such as titles and headings, not body-text sentences. Wracking ^talk! 17:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    • My first sentence makes it quite clear that I have understood the proposal. The rationale I give is that the proposal would be inconsistent with superior guidance, which applies generally and not specifically to just body text. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
      • Sorry for misunderstanding you, thanks for explaining. This was a point of confusion in the past. Wracking ^talk! 01:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• No, leave it – There are many different reasons for why people do not always follow the guidance, e.g. to use sentence case in headings, but mostly it's just that they aren't aware. Having this guidance as a reminder for a common error case is useful, and guides that who want to move toward consistency. It's not clear what kind of simple rule could replace what we have and expect more people to do the right thing; sentence case except after color is just arbitrary and awkward, and inconsistent with out general guidance of avoiding unnecessary capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd recommend no changes be made in any pages, concerning this uppercase/lowercase topic. Until this RFC's decision is rendered. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Was that comment in reaction to the edits I made shortly before? I fixed case after years with colons in 3 high-profile articles, not just because the guideline says to, but also to test the waters and see if any of the many editors of those articles notice or care; you can look at my contribs it you want to see which, but please do not revert to the un-preferred state. Dicklyon (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• No change: continue in sentence case for consistency with treatment of colons within the text. Certes (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove guidance. As long as articles are internally consistent that's all that matters for something so completely trivial as this. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• No change. I've thought about this (see original WT:MOSCAPS thread), and the reason that some other style guides do this is they are treating each element as a "title" and giving it sentence case independently. WP even does this (usually) with sentence-case citations of articles with a title and a subtitle (|title=Mammal barbering: Proper procedure for shaving weasels). However, WP headings are headings, they are not article titles; "Colour: palettes and meaning" looks kind of ridiculous as "Colour: Palettes and meaning", and makes the reader wonder why "Palettes" is capitalized. "Is it a proper name? Is this some kind of emphasis?" Capitalizing after a colon is fussy as well as potentially confusing, half of editors won't do it, and changing to that style would involve a tremendous number of twiddly edits to probably a hundred thousand+ pages (WP:MEATBOT?). I agree with Dicklyon above that current advice is consistent with MoS's general avoidance of capitalization that is not necessary. I am quite certain we should keep a rule on this, as just the heat in this discussion makes it clear that certain individuals feel very strongly about this, which means people will editwar about it if there is no rule. MoS's two purposes are presenting consistent content to readers, and forestalling (or at least quickly ending) repetitive "style fights" among editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  STYLEVAR is a thing. We don't need MOSBLOAT; if people start to editwar, whichever style was used first controls. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Defunct companies: can they stay in the company section of a navbox or not?

I've noticed someone has moved an article for a company which went defunct in 2019, from the company section of a navbox, to the miscellaneous section of a navbox, where it looks out of place next to crime, history, military, timeline, and geology.

Can I move it back to the company section? Danstarr69 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say that this is an incredibly vague question with no context, so it's difficult to say. Gun to my head, I don't know why it would've been removed from the company section in the first place. I would probably move it back. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is some more context: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Defunct_Companies_-_Can_they_stay_in_the_Company_section_of_a_navbox_or_not? RudolfRed (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would definitely reverse it. We navboxes for a reason. Greenwood's page is missing history like it's ownership of stores like Busbys in Liverpool.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

New RfC on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity

I created a discussion and a RfC regarding pronouns of AIs, chatbots, etc. I would appreciate if other users gave their two-cents on the subject. The discussion can be found here. Thanks, Di (they-them) (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed addition to MOS:GENDERID - when to include deadnames

Should the following text be added to MOS:GENDERID, inserted before the fourth paragraph? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

For a deceased trans or non-binary person, their former name should only be included if the encyclopaedic significance of the deadname is established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources, or if they were notable prior to transitioning. Introduce the former name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

• From Leelah Alcorn: Leelah Alcorn (November 15, 1997 – December 28, 2014) ...
  Note: While Alcorn's gender identity is discussed in significant detail in high quality sources about her, her former name is not.
• From Gloria Hemingway: Gloria Hemingway (born Gregory Hancock Hemingway, November 12, 1931 – October 1, 2001) ...
  Note: Hemingway's struggles with her gender dysphoria, and relationship with her gender identity, gender expression, and name are discussed in significant detail in sources about her life.
• From Danielle Bunten Berry: Danielle Bunten Berry (February 19, 1949 – July 3, 1998), formerly known as Dan Bunten, ...
  Note: Berry was notable prior to transitioning.

Notes

Background (GENDERID addition)

A recent RfC closed with the consensus that the community believes that, for the most part, the prior name [of a deceased trans or non-binary person] should not be used. However, the community fell short of finding a consensus for a specific phrasing based on the options presented. The purpose of this RfC is not to re-litigate the previous RfC, but to find consensus for a phrasing that reflects the closure of the previous RfC, namely that previous names of deceased trans or non-binary people should have some relatively high but not absolute barrier to their use. Loki (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC) based on wording proposed by Sideswipe9th below

Survey (GENDERID addition)

• Support as proposer While the previous RfC did not find consensus for the proposed options, it was remarked in the closing that it is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3, and that there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. This proposal builds upon the wording of the closure, by setting out two inclusion criteria for when a former name of a deceased trans or non-binary person could be included in an article: that the deadname is of clear encyclopaedic significance based on in-depth coverage or discussion in high quality sources, or if the person was notable prior to transitioning. Explicit links are made to the WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:BESTSOURCES policy points, with the intentional effect of tying this guideline to both the What Wikipedia is not and Neutral point of view policies.
  With regards to the specifics of the closure, this sets the bar for inclusion at a level that is both lower than never (option 3) and higher than sometimes (option 2). It fulfils the consensus that articles should not routinely include the deadnames of deceased trans or non-binary individuals, while giving specific policy based guidance for what the inclusion criteria are. Finally it provides three examples of the applications of the inclusion criteria.
  While I had hoped that we would be able to find a consensus for inclusion through a discussion at WT:MOSBIO, it seems as though a clear consensus for or against this proposal is not emerging and an RfC is necessary. Finally, while the examples give what I believe to be clear applications of how those articles could meet the proposed criteria, they are not perfect. If better examples are found, either during the RfC or after, I don't think there should be any objection to substituting those in as they otherwise would not alter the scope of the proposal itself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:BLP adequately covers the issues of former names, quality of sources, privacy issues, and transition time of the deceased. Specifically, WP:BLPNAME for privacy of names and WP:BDP for the continuing privacy of recently deceased. I would support a proposal to specifically recommend extending the range of privacy concerns to the maximum recommended for the special case of transgender individuals, but not indefinitely. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Extending BDP to its maximum of two years would still leave us in a situation where in the lack of other specific guidance and once that time period has elapsed, the deadnames of deceased trans or non-binary individuals who were not notable prior to transitioning could be routinely included. Such a situation would be against the clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest that was established just under a week ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's a blog (inherently non-RS), but this addresses the concerns many trans people have that their life choices will not be respected after their deaths. Two years is long enough to wear away the lipstick marking Wanda's name from the gravestone engraved "Alvin". – .Raven  .talk 23:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  This oppose should be given no weight by the closer, as it is explicitly at odds with the result of the above previously closed RfC. This discussion here is not to re-tread the arguments made there, but to determine the specific language in the MOS in order to enact the result of the RfC. Silverseren^C 23:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think you should focus on the merits of your argument and not turn to authoritarianism. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:DISCARD. – .Raven  .talk 04:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing there would justify throwing out my comment about BLP. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  What justifies "throwing out" the conclusion of the prior RfC less than a week ago? – "With around a hundred editors responding across these RFCs taking place at VPP, it is obvious that there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest." [emphasis in original] – .Raven  .talk 07:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:DISCARD is an info page, not policy/guide, and even that does not say to throw out my comment. It says a closer may discard arguments that, flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. So, if anything, most of the comments on the last RFC should have been thrown out as personal opinion that flatly contradict established policy, but certainly not this one. Again, try making good arguments that are based on policy. You are proposing expanding an exception to WP:NOTCENSORED and acting like people who don't agree with you are violating policy, when they're not. You are WP:RGW, and I hope the closer has some sense. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  And WP:LISTEN is a behavioral guideline. Don't relitigate the closed RfC from just a week ago; respect that consensus. Here we are in fact following that closure's recommendation: "Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion...." That is the topic of this discussion. – .Raven  .talk 16:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Cuñado you're repeating arguments you already made in the previous RfC on 7 May 2023 and 31 May 2023. By definition that is re-litigating the same points. If you have a specific reason for why this proposal doesn't fulfil the requirements of the existing consensus from a week ago, by all means make contributions on those points. But simply rehashing the same arguments you made previously is not helpful here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per proposer, although I would prefer "...notable under that name" rather than "...notable prior to transitioning" as transitioning is a process not a moment in time and at what point in the process people choose a new name varies; and also people can have multiple names - for example someone may have extremely private birth name, a different name under which they became notable but before they transitioned and a post-transition name under which they are notable, our article should include the latter two but not the first. However, while not perfect the proposal is better than the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think that might've come from me. based on your reasoning, I agree that it's imperfect, but I think time has to be taken into account. When I was researching prior discussion in preparation for the last RFC, I saw a few arguments that, effectively, went like this: If a person became notable after transitioning but was widely noted or principally identified by their former name, the person was notable under that name.

  When I drafted the last RFC, I substituted that for "notable prior to transitioning" because I felt doing so was necessary to emphasize the difference between option 2 (which focused, in part, on how the media covered the person) and option 3 (which rejected such focus and said the deadnames of persons not notable prior to transitioning should not be used). To put it clearly: Option 3 was supposed to be a "never include" option, but I worried that, if it used the "notable under that name" language, it would be interpreted as a "sometimes" under the argument I mentioned above.

  Perhaps "notable prior to discarding that name" would have been the better choice?--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support, ideally but not necessarily with Thryduulf's proposed amendment, as the most accurate and precisely worded version of the consensus from the previous three RFCs that anyone's proposed so far. (As a side note, I'd support pinging everyone who voted in that RFC, since this RFC is a clear follow-up to that one.) Loki (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The addition, and particularly the established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources wording, will just lead to tendentious wikilawyering and unnecessary WP:CREEP. Under this proposal, the notable deadname of the Nashville school shooter would've been excluded from the article from the very beginning, and editors who try to add the name would've been reverted and pointed to this guideline in the MOS. If an overwhelming number of reliable sources use and report the deceased shooter's birth/deadname, it shouldn't take an uphill battle to include that name in the article. Some1 (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support seems a very reasonable standard that only allows using the name when it is of encyclopedic interest. Definitely prefer "notable under that name" rather than "prior to transitioning", which matches the wording in the living section of MOS:GENDERID. Galobtter (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Some1. Apart from introducing special privileges for sourcing to a single group, this also deliberately introduces further argument points for reliable sourcing. "High quality" is another subjective determination, let alone the requirement of 'in depth analysis and discussion'. The simple and relatively common example of someone's published work under their prior name would fail those, as sources rarely do that level of discussion/analysis on specifically their name. It's setting the inclusion criteria to a level that will be functionally unachievable, on the basis of an ideological starting point rather than the goal of a comprehensive encyclopedic article. If the goal is to prevent their prior name ever being used, the wording above is certainly suffices, if the goal is to provide a MOS guideline on the appropriate context? It fails miserably. The MOS is a style guideline, it is subservient to our actual policies. If we start including proscriptive content rules that directly come into conflict with policy, it will be ignored. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "special privileges for [...] a single group" – Oh, where have I seen/heard that phrasing before? – .Raven  .talk 07:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  You could always say what you actually mean. Or perhaps you can't because they would be unsupported allegations which our editing rules prohibit, but sadly do not explicitly disallow cowardly snide insinuations. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's a lot of extra policy wording for what is essentially a restatement of WP:WEIGHT. We have determined there is a consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest, and so inclusion of the former name must be justified by analysing and weighing sources. This is surely business as usual for all content? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support The intent is to align Wikipedia's editorial policy with the best practices which the organized LGBT+ community recommends. Wikipedia's style guide should bend, comply, and conform to the wishes of communities who assert wishes for how they want to be represented. There is still debate among LGBT+ commentators about how to do this, and we can tweak the wording, but this proposal is another improvement. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia's style guide should bend, comply, and conform to the wishes of communities who assert wishes for how they want to be represented. — No. Following the broad principles of:

  WP:NOTCENSORED, whereby we do not remove information about an organizations (group of people, communities) just because that group does not like it

  MOS:ISLAM, whereby we don't confirm to Islam's rules about using "PBUH" and no images

  ASFAQ 8, ASFAQ 14, whereby Wikipedia is not obliged to remove article contents that the article's subject does not like

  We should not "bend, comply, and conform to the wishes of" the people we are writing about, just because they don't like what we said. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  This issue affects more than "a community": more broadly, does Wikipedia not abide by name changes? Then we treat others worse than we treat ourselves. (See also.) – .Raven  .talk 16:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support: While I have some concerns about the precise wording here (though I couldn't come up with an alternative!), I think this proposal is both (1) superior to the status quo and (2) a reasonable extension of the closer's findings as to the last RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 11:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support I agree this is a reasonable proposal and works well with the close of the last RFC. Nemov (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think "in-depth analysis and discussion" is too high a bar, and I don't know what "analysis" of a name would look like. I could support "is established through discussion of the name in high quality sources", which is already a much higher standard for inclusion of a former name than the default of mere verifiability. If a name is not just given but discussed in the best available sources, it would also be discussed in an article reflective of those sources, and a name discussed in the article is clearly of encyclopedic significance.--Trystan (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support This is a reasonable proposal and provides better guidance to editors. I could also support the language Trystan suggests above - but in any event, the proposal is better than the status quo. Further refinements are possible in the future. Enos733 (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Why do we need a separate rule about this?—S Marshall T/C 17:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  We have ~2700 words on which small horizontal line to use despite no readers caring or being able to tell the difference. ^{spoiler: it's probably not the one on your keyboard, for some reason} This doesn't seem like a wild amount of clarification. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  As general info, users of Firefox/Thunderbird may find AddAccent helpful, as it makes very many more characters quickly available via keyboard. I can type hyphen followed by one backslash (\) to get ndash (–); followed by a second backslash to get mdash (—); more backslashes give me super- and subscript characters (⁻₋). – .Raven  .talk 05:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose more updates right now, seems to be getting in to FLOG territory after just running an RFC on this for a month. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  In fairness, as Sideswipe9th noted: the closer of the last RFC suggested this route. In the prior RFC, as to whether Wikipedia articles should include the deadnames of deceased persons who were not notable prior to transitioning, there were multiple options presented. Option 1 said "always". Option 2 effectively said "sometimes", suggesting WP:PUA (and consideration of a majority of reliable sources) as providing the appropriate guidance. And Option 3 said "never". (Option 4 said "no change".) As the closer said: "[I]t is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3. ... I suggest that some language taking into account the responses and concerns be workshopped, and possibly another RFC be held if the language doesn't get consensus through discussion."--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sure they can suggest it, but the reason it was able to be suggested was because no consensus emerged. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I mean I don't think that's at all consistent with "the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3", but my larger point is that, regardless, it's hardly FLOGGING in light of that finding.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  To add to this, back in August 2021 there was a similar RfC on the inclusion of former names of deceased trans and non-binary people, who were not notable under that former name. Like the RfC that concluded a week ago, there was a split consensus and a recommendation from the closers that a subsequent RfC was held on a narrow subset of the original question. Neither that RfC, nor any other discussion on that specific point was ever held.

  The reason why I feel this implementation RfC is necessary, is because I don't want a repeat of the August 2021 situation, where there is a clear consensus for change with the recommendation of a subsequent RfC that is ultimately never held. With all due respect to your point on FLOG, because this is an RfC for a proposal that implements the existing consensus, and is not framed in a manner that it re-litigates the pre-existing consensus, this is not the case of myself or others flogging a dead horse. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, I think the RFC could be framed in a way that makes it clearer that it implements an existing consensus, seeing as we appear to be getting several questions on that point. Loki (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Would a background section do? (I think Sides mostly captures that background with her !vote, but maybe people are glossing over that)--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you think a brief note that this is an implementation RfC of an already existing consensus, and not one that's trying to re-litigate that consensus would be helpful, then feel free to add it above the survey section. Not sure if that'd be a background section or just a note or something though. On the whole though I don't think it needs as much detail as the background section in the last RfC. A couple of sentences to a paragraph at the most would suffice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Copying some comments from WT:MOSBIO, where, as with the previous RfC on this, agreement wasn't reached on what to ask. "there is a clear consensus that the deadnames of trans and non-binary individuals are not automatically of encyclopaedic interest"... a question about whether birth names or former names are of encyclopedic interest wasn't asked in the RfC referenced, so this assertion (albeit it is in the close) is questionable, making it not a sound basis for significant change in a contentious area. As with others, I struggle to understand what "in-depth analysis or discussion of the name" would be, and see the same problames as Some1 and Only in death mention. And why "high quality sources" instead of standard "reliable sources"? That slants things to academic discourse, where analysing a person's names, to the best of my knowledge, is not common. As such, the proposal is much too restrictive, particularly when we already have a policy stating that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and another policy against censorship. EddieHugh (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  As I noted there, I'd again note here that merely noting "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" fails to reflect the closer's finding that consensus was between option 2 and option 3, described above.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  so this assertion (albeit it is in the close) is questionable, making it not a sound basis for significant change in a contentious area If you wish to make a challenge to the closure, then I'd suggest following the guidance at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Unless and until there is a successful challenge that overturns the closure of the last RfC, either in whole or in part, then that is the determination of the consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  The close stated, in bold, which I've removed: "there is no consensus to change the current wording of MOS:GENDERID". I don't challenge that. It accurately addressed the question asked. But basing what is intended to be new wording on a conclusion about a question that was not asked is another matter. EddieHugh (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  It also said in bold (I've also removed) there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. and there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. If you wish to challenge that part of the closure, then I defer back to the advice at CLOSECHALLENGE. But until there is a successful challenge to it, that part of the closure is every bit as valid as the part you've quoted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have nothing to add to my previous comment, except that, as you know, I have had sufficient drama from this topic to not seek more. EddieHugh (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support This wording seems to support current best practices on referring to trans and non-binary people, as I understand them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per the close of the previous RfC, this wording seems to properly explain a position between options 2 and 3, as stated as the consensus result from said RfC. I hope the closer here will discard any arguments trying to re-litigate the previous RfC, which is not what this discussion is about whatsoever. Silverseren^C 22:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in this form, per Some1. There's the germ of a good idea in here, but it needs considerable further wordsmithing before it's guideline-worthy. WP:Writing policy is hard.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. Points between prior RfC's options 2 & 3 in a manner compatible with the points made there, and with BLP's goals. A short simple "*never* mention deadname" guideline would stumble on exactly the situations where that had already been notable; this longer guideline allows navigating such situations. I would hope that BDP eventually follows the same rule, beyond any time cutoff (such as 2 years), but I think that will need a separate discussion. – .Raven  .talk 05:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support As a consequence of the consensus established by the previous RFC. I'm not that fussed over the exact wording here, this is pretty much what we concluded consensus was at during the previous RFC. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - We already have multiple policies covering names and privacy (WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BLPNAME), the encyclopedic- or not value of facts (WP:NOTEVERYTHING), and a specific policy for the recently dead (WP:BDP). Adding more rules is unnecessary instruction creep. I don't see why we should treat a dead person any differently just because they were trans. In any case, the wording "in-depth analysis or discussion of the name" is problematic. What constitutes "in-depth analysis or discussion"? How much analysis of a person's name is required? Why does a simple fact need to be analysed or discussed to be deemed notable? We don't require "in-depth analysis or discussion" of other facts. If reliable sources think it important enough to simply state the fact (of a person's former name) - without needing to "analyse" it - then we should also treat the fact as notable. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose … it’s not the name that needs to be discussed and analyzed, but the subject’s pre-transition life while he/she used that name. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support My !vote's similar to SMcCandlish, but I like the proposal generally, and don't see the need to oppose just because some of the wording isn't perfect, even if the general rule/principle is on point. We can keep tweaking if we need to. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Why would we be excluding previous names of persons which are both public and sourced? This is part of what should be in a useful encyclopedia article. North8000 (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Respecting off-wiki name changes just as we do ON-wiki name changes. – .Raven  .talk 16:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  ??? North8000 (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  On-wiki, you can change your username, and even dissociate your new name from the old one, for instance as a WP:CLEANSTART, or because of some personal information released about the old one. Showing the very same courtesy to OFF-wiki individuals seems a matter of ethical consistency. We may not be able to, if per RSs the person was notable under the old name, as in the case of Chelsea Manning, but otherwise that should be the default assumption — don't include unless there's "encyclopedic interest", which is "not automatic"... per last week's RfC. – .Raven  .talk 18:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. This proposed addition to the rules is, in my view, an important step in implementing the close of the previous RfC. Opposition on the grounds that the RfC technically closed as "no consensus" misses the forest for the trees, in my opinion; the "no consensus" finding did not reflect an overall lack of agreement on how to handle this issue, but instead reflected a general agreement that the ideal result was within the grey area between two of the originally proposed options. Finally, I want to express my particular support for the inclusion of multiple examples in the language; including examples is a helpful eludicating factor for guidance that could be otherwise vague. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as currently worded. I don't think "in-depth analysis or discussion of the name" is quite the right bar to set, though I admit that I'm unsure how exactly to improve it. I think this bar is a bit too high; extending this to "extensive use or discussion" may be better, or perhaps it may be a bit too low. Overall, I also wonder if setting a firm guideline is for the best — perhaps it would be better to simply advise against including former names in these situations unless there's an overriding encyclopedic interest, and let individual cases be determined locally. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (GENDERID addition)

• Notified WikiProjects LGBT Studies, and Biography. Notified WT:MOSBIO. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Any thought about pinging people who participated in the last RFC? Or posting to WP:CENT like the last one? Since this RFC is clearly a continuation of that one I feel like it'd be appropriate. Loki (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think posting to CENT is a good idea, and I have no objections to pinging people (although preferably only those who haven't yet commented in this RFC). Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Posted to CENT. Pinging prior optionTypo fixed—I did not just ping the option 2 supporters; sorry for the miscommunication! topic 2 !voters who have not !voted here (trying not to ping those who have already participated, apologies if I fail on that front) @Skyerise, Bilorv, Starship.paint, Ineffablebookkeeper, Tekrmn, DanielRigal, RoxySaunders, Yasslaywikia, HTGS, Stwalkerster, BilledMammal, Hatman31, 3mi1y, Mitch Ames, Jayron32, Trovatore, ModernDayTrilobite, Springee, Voorts, Spy-cicle, Ficaia, Stifle, MJL, MarijnFlorence, A Tree In A Box, Anomie, WhatamIdoing, CoffeeCrumbs, Nosebagbear, SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, Chaotic Enby, Why? I Ask, Ser!, Thesavagenorwegian, XOR'easter, RAN1, Rutebega, GRuban, Casualdejekyll, and TheCatalyst31:@Herostratus, Locke Cole, Adumbrativus, Rab V, CandyScythe, Lights and freedom, Sceptre, Gnomingstuff, Ad Orientem, -sche, LilianaUwU, Jc3s5h, Brainulator9, Blindlynx, Gobonobo, Tryptofish, Bastun, XAM2175, Shibbolethink, Jamesday, Funcrunch, Horse Eye's Back, Cambial Yellowing, Tol, Nerd1a4i, SWinxy, AquilaFasciata, Aquillion, Licks-rocks, EddieHugh, GreenComputer, SportingFlyer, and Patar knight:--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Do you mean question 2 rather than option 2? Loki (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, absolutely—sorry about that.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Question… wouldn’t having “in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources” be (itself) an indication that the person was considered “notable prior to transitioning”? Why else would the source discuss it? Blueboar (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Off the top of my head, in good faith it could be discussed in the context of names, or of name changes (e.g. an in-depth article about people called "Monica" and why they chose or didn't choose to change their name to or from that). There are also several ways it could be used in bad faith to out and/or attack someone. There are probably other ways too. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  So the consensus of the just closed RfC is that the former names of trans and non-binary individuals are not considered to be automatically of encyclopaedic interest. There has to be something about the name change that raises it above being a minor aspect of the person's fuller life story. For example, is there a reason why the person picked the name? Was it in honour of or to remember a friend or relative? Is there a deeper meaning behind the name that links in to other aspects of the person's life? Does it tie into their spirituality, religion, or cultural background in some meaningful way?

  As for why the bar is high (and this is as much a reply to Trystan as Blueboar), I'd like to draw attention to a side discussion on Barkeep49's talk page, from just after the close of the last RfC. Barkeep49 said The way I was going to handle the near, but not quite reached, consensus for option 3 (what SFR is calling 2.8) was by saying that 3 had consensus, but by footnote or other mitigating language the not completely absolute nature of that consensus should be noted. By my reading, and that of the RfC's closer, that is setting the bar higher than just discussion of the name in high quality sources. There needs to be a depth to the discussion, in order to adequately reflect just how high a bar for inclusion the current consensus is. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Note, I got this for example bit backwards. We're discussing why we should include the old name, not the new one. Sorry. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  While I definitely said what is quoted here, I'm having trouble parsing that is setting the bar higher than just discussion of the name in high quality sources. Namely whether my comment is being used to support Sideswipe or whether Sideswip is criticizing my comment. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  For clarity, I'm not criticising your comment. I think it's a good and fair reading of the consensus that exists from the previous RfC. I'm simply using an interpretation of your comment to explain why the proposal's barrier for inclusion is set high. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  If indeed the individual had been notable under the prior name (before or after physically transitioning), surely that could be established by usual measures of notability, without our needing to state more? LOW-quality sources (e.g. yellow-sheet journalism, "scandal rags") are generally not accepted as RS for that, are they? – .Raven  .talk 07:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "There has to be something about the name change that raises it above being a minor aspect of the person's fuller life story." – Umm, that would be a matter of the new name, not the old one, so not affect notability of the old name. Just as, if there's nothing about the name change that raises it, etc., it still won't affect the old name's notability at all.
  Chelsea Manning had... notoriety?... under her old name; it was in worldwide news, it will always be notable. Why she chose "Chelsea" doesn't matter, even if she earns fame for a different reason under that name. But (to use the Sandman character) a non-notable "Alvin Mann" who transitions to the chosen name "Wanda" and only then becomes notable should be discussed here only as "Wanda"... again no matter what her reason for picking that name. – .Raven  .talk 07:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. The question is not what makes the new name of encyclopaedic interest, it's what makes the old name of interest. From the last RfC we already have a clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest, so there has to be something about the former name that makes it of interest.

  Manning isn't a great example here, because she's alive and so subject to the guidance in the second and third paragraph of GENDERID. However as a thought experiment, if Manning was decased, the incident that lead to her notability happened prior to her transition. So she's covered under the if they were notable prior to transitioning clause.

  So for Wanda (and thanks for using that example cause Sandman is one of my favourite graphic novel series), we in all likelihood would not include her former name. That she changed it from Alvin as part of her transition doesn't raise above the minor aspect threshold for us as an encyclopaedia, though obviously it is hugely important to her own sense of self and personal life. We also don't need to state her former name in order to record that her parents deadnamed her at her funeral and on her tombstone. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "... so there has to be something about the former name that makes it of interest." – This is what I thought I just supported, as with Manning and Mann. Meanwhile, asking about the name change – "... is there a reason why the person picked the name? Was it in honour of or to remember a friend or relative? Is there a deeper meaning behind the name that links in to other aspects of the person's life? Does it tie into their spirituality, religion, or cultural background in some meaningful way?" – only concerns the new name, and doesn't affect the notability of the old name, i.e. doesn't give a reason why that too should be in the article. – .Raven  .talk 16:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Re: ... only concerns the new name, and doesn't affect the notability of the old name .... — well, only if the only old name is the birth name. Theoretically a person could change names before transitioning and then switch to their current name.

  I think, as I currently understand the policy, that it would be most likely to capture persons who have either wavered (or been thought to waver) on their trans identity after becoming notable or embraced multiple names/identities (like Hemingway and Izzard).--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "or embraced multiple names/identities" – We report on all of David Bowie's names, including David Robert Jones and Ziggy Stardust, but then he never attempted to hide any of them, and no physical transition was involved. (This may not even be a fair example to use, as "stage names" are involved.) People who change names (and genders) before becoming notable may prefer a complete separation, the equivalent of WP:CLEANSTART... and I'm suggesting that we extend the same courtesy to them as to each other here. – .Raven  .talk 20:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh I think I misunderstood. You're saying you'd prefer Option 3 in the last RFC to this proposal. I think that's fair (IIRC, I went with option 2, but that was because my experience in a prior RFC had lead me to think that option 3 didn't have a chance, and I figured some increased restriction was better than no change. (I have no idea why I believed this ... but I for some reason assumed that if there was a consensus to change the current guideline, the closer would pick the compromise option. To be clear that's not a critique of the closer ... I'm baffled that I just assumed that ... even then, I knew better, and if someone had asked "What are you talking about?" I would've immediately been like "oh wait. no." ... but there multiple instances of me being like "yup; here's what I'm planning" in various comments before the RFC.) Anyways ...--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well, #3 ("never") would be simpler, but as I said above, not well cover situations where the old name was already notable. This proposal (between #2 "sometimes" and #3 "never") helps navigate that situation, making the exception only for names notable before the change – again, as with Chelsea Manning. I think that threads the gap between the two options. – .Raven  .talk 22:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  only concerns the new name, and doesn't affect the notability of the old name You're absolutely right. I made that comment in error and will be striking it in a moment, as I got it the wrong way around (I blame the summer heat, it's too warm where I am!). Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Summer heat is indeed distracting!   😅💦   – .Raven  .talk 18:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• The above background section is, inevitably, a partial description of the previous RfC. I encourage people to read the original questions, options and closes. To be clear, the question that was asked was "If a deceased trans or nonbinary person was not notable prior to transitioning, when should an article mentioning that person include their deadname?" and the closer stated that "For the specific proposals of the RFC, there is no consensus to change the current wording of MOS:GENDERID". EddieHugh (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm unclear what that adds. Yes, "for the specific proposals" that were previously advanced, there was no consensus, because the censuses was between two of those proposals. And how did I not capture the question asked in my first sentence? Oh well.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Note, I've moved these two comments from the #Background section above. If you want to discuss changing the wording of that section, do it here please, not up there. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  ok. Please state clearly in that section what the question and main finding were. EddieHugh (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Question is already stated (see first sentence). Will add the "for the specific proposals" line.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly I would just reword that section into something much simpler. Something like A recent RfC closed with the consensus that the community "believes that, for the most part, the prior name [of a deceased trans or non-binary person] should not be used". However the community fell short of finding a consensus for a specific barrier for inclusion based on the options presented. The purpose of this RfC is not to re-litigate the previous RfC, but to find consensus for a barrier for inclusion that reflects the closure of the previous RfC. This summarises the relevant part of the closure of the last RfC, and states clearly that the purpose of this RfC is to fulfil the consensus that was already established by it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your RFC! Feel free to change. I personally think mentioning the baseline, at the very least, might be helpful, but if you disagree that's totally okay.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't really care enough to change it either way. I just prefer simplicity over verbosity on something like this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've changed it. I agree the new phrasing is clearer. Loki (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish: Above, you say the proposal has "the gem of a good idea" but that it needs "considerable further wordsmithing before it's guideline-worthy". Would you mind elaborating on which parts you think are good versus which parts you think need more work? Loki (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  @LokiTheLiar: As I indicated, I agree with Some1's reasoning why "established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources" is problematic (Only_in_death_does_duty_end also gets into it). I'm not really certain yet of alternative better wording. (There's a reason why major change proposals for P&G pages are often workshopped for some time in advance of being proposed in RfC; P&G writing is challenging and often requires a lot of head-scratching to get right.) Edit: Trystan's "is established through discussion of the name in high quality sources" might work, though some may object that it still is creating a "special class". 'Introduce the former name with either "born" or "formerly"' is probably unnecessarily prescriptive, and even if we did prescribe so narrowly, it would be in the material above that, on how to write about TG/NB people at all (remember this proposed material is only about the deceased). The example material to me seems a bit tumid; while the explanations are probably needed, they could be done as {{efn}} footnotes. Or the two long ones could just be made more concise, e.g. by eliminating the redundant "Note:" introductions, and by compressing things like "While Alcorn's gender identity is discussed in significant detail in high quality sources about her, her former name is not." to something more like "Alcorn's former name is not covered in high-quality sources.". The really blathery "Hemingway's struggles with her gender dysphoria, and relationship with her gender identity, gender expression, and name are discussed in significant detail in sources about her life." can be reduced to "Hemingway's former name is covered in high-quality sources." Even leave out "in significant detail", which really doesn't make sense in this context (a name is a name not a novel; once you've given the full name what more "significant detail" could there be?)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 04:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think a questions here are a) is the proposal closer to community consensus than the existing policies and b) does the proposal contain language (from the onset) that is problematic and should not be adopted (even if it does better reflect community consensus)? I do agree that writing policy is hard - my question is do these concerns rise to a level that requires more perfection rather than the normal process of word smithing (that can be completed on the MOS talk page)? - Enos733 (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  I might agree with you if I even slightly trusted the idea that various participants here would not editwar against textual and wiki-logical improvements, on the bogus basis that the wording was what was "approved" in this RfC (witness already the attempts to have the closer discount comments, on the basis that they don't agree with what was "approved" in the last RfC!). There has been a palpable WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality surrounding this entire subject at Wikipedia since at least the mid-2010s, and it has gotten worse not better. So, no, I expect the wordsmithing to happen before the guideline is substantively changed. And this is not a strange expectation, but pretty much SOP when it comes to major P&G changes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not getting into this discussion too much, but I do think what you're saying here is probably a fair assessment of the situation. Any future change will likely lead to another RFC, where it will probably be argued that the new RFC shouldn't be happening at all because "the consensus was already established in this RFC". Now, whether those arguments will hold merit is another question. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Procedural issue: excluding dissenting views

The suggestion of excluding views that don't fit within the bounds of the previous RFC's close keeps getting suggested. That would be the wrong approach for a closer to take.

As an overarching principle, our guidelines reflect consensus. Practically, they require actual the consensus of the community behind them to function. This is a centrally located, well-advertised RFC, and if the proposed change reflects community consensus, that will be shown in the result, without the need to artificially exclude any dissenting views from consideration.

The suggestion that editors are free to challenge the previous close has been made. In my view, that would be unproductive. The close of question 2 found no consensus for change, suggested that a consensus could be found between options 2 and 3, and contemplated a further discussion or RFC would be "likely to result in consensus language". All of which is quite reasonable. I'm somewhat skeptical on how likely a compromise option will be to actually attract enough support to establish a consensus, but the current RFC will answer that exact question, provided it is run in a fair and open manner.--Trystan (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Those who didn't get the outcome they desired are more motivated to try to continue pushing over and over to overturn a result through decreased participation of the community versus the group trying to reverse a decision. Hence those trying to overturn will show up more readily in a secondary discussion than the much larger group of people that were involved in the original community decision because the latter community group will more generally feel like a decision was made and implemented. I contend that re-litigation of RfCs, particularly in discussions that aren't on the original questions, with much smaller turnout is an attempt to use local consensus to reverse an actual community decision. If re-litigation of an RfC is desired, then those desiring that should re-start their own RfC on the original topic and specific questions, not try to bog down other RfCs that are about implementation of the community decision. Silverseren^C 00:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I do think this is a tricky issue: on the one hand, we wouldn't be having this RFC if it weren't for the prior one indicating that a consensus existed between two options. The prior close indicated that option 2 was the baseline, and it does seem like a waste of time too, effectively do the prior RFC over—it only closed a week ago! Per WP:CCC, "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive."

On the other hand, I think it will be difficult to accurately distinguish between comments that say "this particular bar is too high" or "too ambiguous" or whatever ... and comments that are asking for a lower bar than option 2 / trying to re-litigate the first RFC. And, at some point, we're just encouraging gamesmanship by trying to enforce that line—it's pretty easy to craft a "this bar is too high" !vote even if your real goal is "let's make sure the consensus from the prior RFC is never realized". Hopefully, of course, the eventual closer won't have to consider any of this, but I don't envy whoever tries to take it on.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Those who didn't get the outcome they desired are more motivated to try to continue pushing over and over to overturn a result through decreased participation of the community versus the group trying to reverse a decision. I note that the warring over these issues has been going on for long enough that participation bias may already have applied to the original RFC that this RFC is following up on. And even several RFCs before it. Anomie⚔ 11:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

At the time of writing this reply, there are two !votes above that I would consider to be re-litigating part of the just closed RfC. Specifically the text there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. (emphasis original) Had there been more time between this RfC and the close of the previous one, say six months to a year, I think an argument could be made that potentially consensus on this had changed. However for this particular topic, I don't think that it's plausible that consensus has changed so radically that those points I've quoted no longer apply.

With regards to relevant guidance for closures, a closer discounting certain contributions based on a number of criteria is covered in both the information page on closing discussions, and the advice essay on closing discussions. Asking that a closer discount those !votes is within the spirit and letter of that guidance. Of course ultimately it is up to the closer whether or not they do this, and whether or not they fully discount or otherwise reduce the weight of those contributions.

I have to agree with what Silver Seren has said just above. If re-litigation of the previous RfC is desired, then those desiring it should start their own RfC on this. And I'd also like to repeat what I've said above to another editor, if editors feel as though the close of the previous RfC is not an accurate reading of the consensus, whether in part or in whole, then their only reasonable recourse would be to request a closure review at the appropriate venue. Stating that you feel that part of the close should not apply is re-litigating the consensus from that RfC by another name, and I believe is out of scope of this RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Sideswipe. In any other situation, trying to start an RFC to undo a consensus that was reached literally under a week ago would be so disruptive you'd plausibly be brought to ANI for it.

The only possible reason to do so would be gaming the system by hoping that a less representative chunk of the community shows up to this RFC than the previous one. Loki (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Concur with Trystan at the top of this subsection. If the proponents' ideas are solid and have consensus, there would be no need to try to exclude opposing viewpoints. They are also forgetting that WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, sometimes quickly. We have that policy for a reason, and closers are not magically empowered to pretend it does not exist. (That said, I don't think the consensus in the former RfC is wrong or will change; I object to trying to whitewash away other editors' entire comments by ignoring most of what they say, focusing on their alleged disagreement with the old RfC, and trying to suppress their entire message. It's a classic logic fallcy, the fallacy of division, in which if one element of an argument is wrong everything the argument presents must also be wrong.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Of the two !votes that I consider to be re-litigating part of the last RfC, only one has made a partial contribution that is not re-litigating the prior RfC, and which largely amounts to a "per X" !vote. The other makes absolutely no substantive arguments that are not re-litigation of topics that were already discussed during the previous RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

And you have no right to suppress the "per X", even if closers do not always give such !votes as much weight. I consider my point made. Doubling-down on censorious antics is not a good look.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps you have misunderstood what has been said. No one here has called for a "per X" contribution to be discounted, either in whole or in part. Only those arguments, or parts of arguments which amount to re-litigation. If a comment contains arguments other than rehashes of what was discussed in the previous RfC, then naturally those would not be discarded. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you say.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of the above points are getting dangerously close to saying that some people should not participate in an RfC. In abstract terms: if the spectrum of possible wording on a guidline or policy is from 1 to 9 and a proposal is made to change it from its current 5 to 2, then someone who prefers 1 is entitled to support while arguing that 1 would be better, even if 1 or anything else was rejected previously. Similarly, someone who prefers 9 is entitled to oppose while arguing that 9 would be better, even if 5 or anything else was rejected previously. Someone who doesn't like spicy food but who is given the choice between adding more spice to the spicy food pot or leaving it as it is has a valid argument when saying "It's too spicy already, so I oppose adding more spice". EddieHugh (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Those numbers have thrown me a bit. I think the arguments aren't directed at who should participate in the RFC but what the RFC should discuss. A prior RFC considered Option 1, Option 2, Option 3, Option 4. The closer said the consensus was between Option 2 and Option 3. Now, imagine the closer had said we should have a runoff: asking the community to pick between 2 and 3. Obviously, it wouldn't be productive to consider voters saying "1!!" and "4!!". Instead, though, the closer said we should try to find a compromise between options 2 and 3. And I think the editors who are saying some points should be discarded are saying that, just as in the runoff, the "1!!" and "4!!" comments (or their equivalents) aren't relevant.

That said, as I said, I do think it'd be very tricky—except in the most egregious situations—to distinguish between comments that, in effect, say, "I think this proposal trends too close to option 3 and it should trend closer to option 2" and the comments that, in effect, say, "I support option 1 or option 4" (since obviously people don't—and shouldn't) phrase their !votes in that format.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Jerome on this one, It's not about who participates, it's about how. I think there's a solid argument that the consensus on this is already established, and that we need to be working within those bounds. Any argument that doesn't contribute that would be wasted space, in this view. I'm personally inclined to agree. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if it's likely to be a major issue here, but I agree that excluding viewpoints in this way would be a problematic thing for the closer to do. To say that project-wide consensus has been established seems to me to be saying that we should be following a waterfall-type decisionmaking process, where we lock in the answer to question A before proceeding to question B. I understand why that would seem like a good idea, but I don't think that kind of structured decisionmaking is really compatible with making good global decisions on a vast open wiki (and one in which any given RFC's sample of opinion is unlikely to be representative). Moreover, leaving out step-1 dissenters in the evaluation of step-2 consensus creates a lot of opportunities for "majority of the majority" (or "consensus of the consenters") process-gaming that tends to lead to poor decisions. Although consensus is of course not purely numeric, purely for purposes of illustration: if we model the consensus threshold as 2/3 then this approach would lead to a step-2 "consensus" supported by less than half (4/9) of all participants. As pointed out above this approach would lead to unworkable outcomes, because any decision can only be implemented if there is an actual consensus of the community in support. Again, I don't see this as an overwhelming concern here. But IMO the closer we keep our understanding of "consensus" to the ordinary meaning of the word, the better our decisions are going to be. And that means excluding as few viewpoints as possible from the determination of whether a consensus exists. -- Visviva (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Any such closure would be invalid under present policy, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What license applies to versions of documents prior to May 31, 2023?

Wikipedia's license changed to CC BY-SA 4.0 after June 1, 2023.

So, what license applies to versions of documents prior to May 31, 2023?

CC BY-SA 3.0 or CC BY-SA 4.0? Ox1997cow (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously the old content will remain licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 but later derivatives (adaptations) will be licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. Ruslik_Zero 20:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Can somebody ELI5 what changed? Reading https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ they look identical to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

https://creativecommons.org/Version4 may be helpful, as well as some of the other links at https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License%20Versions#License_Versioning_History . isaacl (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)