Looking for further input on the above discussion titled "Preferred prime minister proposal" (from April 2025). Helper201 (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Should the provision MOS:POSTNOM (under WP:MOSBIO) that allows post-nominal letters only outside the LEAD SENTENCE be overturned, maintained, or modified? Specifically, the guideline currently reads: "When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post‐nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence." Obviously, this RfC would also invite alternative solutions, etc. I will add options if so-requested. As such;
Option 1: Full Reversal of the Exclusion
Overturn the existing guideline entirely so that post‐nominal letters may be included in the lead sentence. Order will be determined by awarding-nation's order of precedence (I.e. the higher-ranking award is listed first after the name). If one award is from one nation, and the second award is from another nation, list them in chronological order of receipt (assuming they do not recognize each other, such as Commonwealth awards).
Option 2: Maintain MOS:POSTNOM As-Is
Maintain existing guidelines.
Option 3: Conditional Inclusion Based on Infobox Presence
Allow post‐nominal letters in the lead sentence only when an infobox is absent. If an article provides an infobox, then post‐nominals should be confined there (with full details in the body text OTHER THAN THE LEAD SENTENCE).
Option 4: Partial Inclusion with Limits
Allow a limited number of post‐nominal letters (for example, one or two of the most important honors) to remain in the lead sentence, with any extra post‐nominals moved into the infobox or detailed in the article body. Order will be determined by awarding-nation's order of precedence (I.e. the higher-ranking award is listed first). If one award is from one nation, and the second award is from another nation, list them in order of receipt (assuming they do not recognize each other, such as Commonwealth awards).
Option 5: Open-Ended Policy
Refrain from requiring or excluding post-nominals within the guidelines. Refrain from limiting the number of post-nominals in either the lead, body, or infobox. Require consensus on an article-by-article basis on their relevant Talk pages (if-so required).
AGAIN, THIS PERTAINS TO THE LEAD SENTENCE OF AN ARTICLE.
EDIT: the order of precedence stuff can probably be ignored.
EDIT 2: For transparency, I have attempted to manually ping each participant in the original discussion. I apologize if I missed you, it was a long discussion and my thumbs and eyes grow weary.
This RfC invites discussion on whether excluding post‐nominals from the lead remains justified, or if a revision is warranted given concerns about clarity, consistency, and the conveyance of useful information. The original discussion was not an RfC proper, and as such, I have taken it upon myself to start one. The discussion was productive enough that I feel it warranted an RfC. This is my first RfC, so, I apologize in advance for any mistakes.
Hi there, I've created this RfC as the equivalent discussion(s) on the talk page have gotten completely-out-of-hand. I'm pretty neutral on the matter but leaning towards DMY as his role as pope transcends beyond the MDY format of America to the DMY format of the Church, Vatican, and arguably the world. However, I will add a summary below of some of the main arguments that were popping up on the talk page. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Should the text of Wikipedia:Citing sources be changed to prefer templates over hand-formatted citations, while welcoming contributions from editors who continue to format manually? 23:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
In 2014, there was an RfC about using definite articles to achieve natural disambiguation. I have copied the proposal almost exactly below (only fixing some links that have changed since then), although I would urge all participants to read the RfC itself.
Is putting "The" at the beginning of an article title an acceptable innovation for WP:NATURALdisambiguation?
Context: Recently, a move request at Hulk (comics) to Hulk resulted in a "no consensus" close. Multiple editors, while perhaps opposing the proposed move, suggested moving Hulk (comics) to The Hulk instead (as The Hulk already redirects there). One editor intelligently noticed that WP:THE currently is directly opposed to that, as per its dictum that The Joker redirect to Joker (comics), and not vice-versa. But should that be the case?
Please respond support if you believe adding "the" is OK in order to disambiguate.
Please respond oppose if you think adding "the" should not be allowed, as is currently the case.
Thanks for helping Wikipedia.
For additional context, the article currently located at Hulk was then at Hulk (comics).
The RfC was closed as follows:
Result: The definite article may be used to disambiguate articles in certain circumstances.
There were 8 supports and 4 opposes. One oppose was based on the objection that the DABNAME guidance would be affected, but how this was the case was not explained and it doesn't seem true to me (nothing stemming from what has been discussed here would mean we would not retain the DAB page Hulk, for example). A second oppose was made on the basis that "the" should only be used if it is part of the formal name of the article subject. However, that argument seems contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. A third oppose suggests that "the" is insufficient disambiguation because we use it in many articles. I can't work out if there is a typo in the comment or not, but this doesn't make sense to me as an argument. The fourth oppose was on the basis that it would be confusing. I don't think any of these are knockout arguments, and so the numerical victory of the supports should be recognised.
There also seems to be consensus that the applciation of the principle should be resticted to article titles where there is genuine natural disambiguation (e.g. one this is commonly called "The Foo", the other is called "Foo" and not normally "The Foo") and a genuine need for disambiguation. There also seems to be consensus that a case-by-case approach should be taken and common sense applied to avoid unnecessary confusion, and so that conflicting considerations can be taken into account.
To the best of my knowledge, no change was ever implemented after the closure of that RfC, and it has not been overturned or overruled by a subsequent RfC.
Should WP:THE include some language that indicates that use of a definite article to achieve natural disambiguation is acceptable?
An example of proposed language (although this is open to change) could be something like this as a third condition, after the first two listed:
3. Use of definite articles is acceptable as a form of natural disambiguation, if the article is not the primary topic for the article title without parenthetical disambiguation.
Here are some articles whose titles might be different if this were to pass (all of these have redirects in the format of "the x"):
Should the following sentence be included in the lead section of T. V. S. N. Prasad?
His bureaucratic career, including his role as Chief Secretary of the Government of Haryana, has been the subject of sustained public and legal scrutiny due to a series of controversies and administrative decisions that attracted criticism from courts, media, and civil society.
This statement was added after the RfC began to satisfy WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCBRIEF. 03:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
This RfC proposes improving the wording of the existing WP:BLPCRIME policy. The intent is not to change the policy or principles. The goal is to make the guidance clearer and easier to apply. Below is the current wording followed by the proposed revision.
Current version
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material[a]—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.
If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[b] include sufficient explanatory information.
Proposed version
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests, and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material[a]—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of committing a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[c] sufficient explanatory information should be included.
When deciding whether to name a living or recently deceased person in connection with a crime, editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted. The earlier the stage, the higher the threshold for inclusion. Names should rarely be included for persons of interest. For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply. For intermediate stages, editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing, whether the subject is a minor, and the person’s public status.
This RfC proposes improving the wording of the existing WP:BLPCRIME policy. The intent is not to change the policy or principles. The goal is to make the guidance clearer and easier to apply. Below is the current wording followed by the proposed revision.
Current version
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material[a]—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.
If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[d] include sufficient explanatory information.
Proposed version
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests, and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material[a]—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of committing a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[e] sufficient explanatory information should be included.
When deciding whether to name a living or recently deceased person in connection with a crime, editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted. The earlier the stage, the higher the threshold for inclusion. Names should rarely be included for persons of interest. For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply. For intermediate stages, editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing, whether the subject is a minor, and the person’s public status.
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
