Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

can popularity eclipse any other information from lead?

Following a discussion with @Haukurth I would like this guideline to be more clear regarding a specific case that I've noticed to be prominent in leads of popular biographies.

Should a vast amound of prizes on body be able to eclipse any other relevant piece of information on lead?

According to MOS:LEAD the space for "prominent controversies" is guaranteed, and the lead should "cultivates interest in reading on". Looking at the leads from Spielberg, Swift or Blackpink this is far from true. The lead is basically a collection of releases and prizes, accomplishing the role of excluding any potential controversial information from a first read regarding the subject. I would have expected a similar approach regarding politician pages, but the issue is extremelly prominent in the entertainment ones as well. This is in stark contrast to a multi faced developed lead as in the Stanley Kubrick page.

My question is, how can this be by design in an encyclopedia? And if it isn't, shouldn't the Manual of Style appropriatelly put a limit to the amount of lead paragraphs exclusivelly reserved to records and awards? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps it's hard to write and maintain a rounded summary when the subject persists in living and creating - you happen to have contrasted three articles about living, active artists/creators with one dead one. Casting around, I notice the engaging lead of Mick Jagger would serve as an obituary with a few tweaks of tense, but that would be a grim guideline to include in WP:BLP. NebY (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

you surelly have a point about living persons being more difficult to summarize, define and such. But isn't that the whole point of wikipedia, to try to look for consensus for edits? Conceding flat out doesn't seem appropriate to me. Jagger page is also a better exemple as you note. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

What I am noticing is that this issue is presented on body of articles as well. I got an editor telling me that some fully sourced and relevant material should not be added because (not precise quote) "it is not what makes the group notable". Doesn't this transforms BIO pages in promotional tools? Shouldn't this be addressed in the guidelines? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Bdushaw since we are discussing the MOS:CRIMINAL section I would like to know your opinion on this one, if you got the time, as well. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't really say (though for lack of patience I spent little time trying...) but I'll make two points. A gray area not often acknowledged is that editors have a great leeway in selecting and organizing material - that's what writing is about, and good writing necessarily sparks the readers interest, is clear, and quickly states the point. I do object to blinding following whatever guideline. Elsewhere, (Trump's "hush money" case) there was a conflict between popularity and the use of the term "hush money", and accuracy of what the case was actually about (not hush money, but election fraud). There are times when popularity (and sources) ought to be overruled in the interest of better accuracy. This is an encyclopedia where the 2nd interest is paramount. Perhaps all off point, but these thoughts came to mind (since you asked). Bdushaw (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines should not indeed be something to follow blindly, but for exemple the case you are mentioning is on the opposite side. The Trump lead is almost exclusivelly full of criticism, I was very surprised to not even find a basic phrase that explained how/why he won an election. You were able to go into details of terms to use for criticism, that's great.

In the exemples I am refering to, pages of popular artists (I noted this in Kpop but then discovered that it also applies to Taylor Swift etc) get a lead which is almost fully composed of prizes and records. Almost no analysis, let alone criticism. The reasoning from editors to defend this has been "only notability matters", which basically means that a popular person that has a strong PR team can dilute any info that they don't like. That's what a guideline should make clear is not an desirable writing approach. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

We're just talking here (or rather at least I am...disinterested...). The situation you describes strikes me as relating to what I mentioned above - that gray area of writing that is the author's selection of material and how to present it. You describe what seems to me to be poor writing. Other than to highlight that a biography should perhaps start with interesting text that would capture and maintain the reader's attention. I can't think of guidance that would do away with poor writing, or, rather as you seem to suggest, a writer's invested interest in spinning an article a certain way. Though what you also describe is a conflict of interest - writing by the subject's PR team. That's explicitly a no no. I hope my random comments are worthwhile. Bdushaw (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Surelly it's poor writing, I think that the root of the problem may be on the not sufficient limits given to the "weight" concept itself. No need for a PR team in most situations, fans do the job instead. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't think of guidance that would do away with ... a writer's invested interest in spinning an article a certain way. That is WP:NPOV policy, and if the OP can make a clearly evidenced case that this is what's happening, the place for it is WP:NPOVN. It's a neutrality policy issue, not a style matter. The WP:RFC process can also be used to get at such a problem. But both NPOVN and RFC expect a good-faith effort to work matters out on the article talk page and/or in user-talk before firing up processes that suck up other editors' time (see WP:RFCBEFORE for the gist).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish I am not sure I understand your point. As I tried to explain this is not about editors "trying to spin an article", but about pages where legitimate sources focus by default on prizes and achievements, because of a weighted media landscape where only those are predominant. Those sources don't have to be neutral, and they can focus on prizes as much as they want, but an encyclopedia should not rigidly follow them to establish weight.

With this in mind, this is clearly a style issue for me. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at. However, if you are running into "page owners" who revert you trying to include reliably sourced critical and non-critical material that doesn't have to do with awards, just because various pop-culture sources gush on and on about the awards, that's still a WP:NPOV problem more than style one. WP:DUE policy means not giving undue weight to fringe or other minority viewpoints; it doesn't mean hiding facts that are reliably reported but not as frequently as flattery.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

What is important here is the subject's notability and the reasons for it. If the awards are themselves the reason for the subject's notability then by all means mention the award. (see Timothy Ian Britten for example). The lead is not the place for minor details or critique. I would not normally bother with controversies in a lead either, but that is an issue of WP:UNDUE . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish Yea, but I would have appreciated some new section on guideline (maybe DUE as you note) to make this clear.

@Hawkeye7 see, that's the issue. There is a big difference from "mentioning the awards" and a lead section beeing exclusivelly awards. I am also not refering exclusivelly to critiques on lead.

I brought the Kubrick vs Spielberg leads as exemples of a lead that gives various informations and a lead which doesn't.

If someone gets a lot of awards, of course they will be known for awards, but if that becomes a reason to not give space to *anything* else it means transforming an encyclopedia into a PR tool. Such a prominent design flaw. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LEADBIO says:

The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person

It's subject to consensus what content is considered due for the lead. —Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously consensus is core to Wikipedia. Guidelines are a tool to generally shape this consensus around broaded goals to fit the project. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes I read a complaint like this and then I read the corresponding article and end up bewildered, scratching my head and wondering if the OP and I have read the same article. Supposedly, the lead of Taylor Swift is dominated by an excessive focus on her awards. Supposedly, her vast amound of prizes has served to eclipse any other relevant piece of information. This is belied by the actual lead of the article which consists of thirteen, count 'em, thirteen sentences, before any awards or prizes are mentioned, and her many awards are succinctly summarized in just one sentence. Was the article totally rewritten in the last few hours? If not, what is the problem? Or, as Clara Peller plaintively asked five years before Taylor Swift was born, "Where's the beef?" Cullen328 (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I've read it now, again. As I said in my OP it's a bullet point list of releases and prizes. So yes, we have indeed different opinions. But if we can agree that a lead should not be only prizes, that's already something. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328 that I do not understand what the problem is. Speilberg and Swift, for example, appear to be some of the most awarded people in their fields. The mention of these accolades appears to be less than 20% of the lead. I could see trimming a little of the Blackpink article, but it does not seem close to a serious enough issue with any of these examples to create new policies or guidelines. Local consensus based on reasons and discussion of sources in consideration of WP:DUE seems more appropriate to me. – notwally (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the Kubrick lead? Do you see a difference from the Spielberg lead? Do you think that a bulletpoint of releases and achievements "cultivates interest in reading on"? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

To at least try to understand "what the problem is" for me, you can read again what I wrote against strictly following sources quantity to establish WP:DUE in this kind of pages. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Making up false claims about what is in the leads of other articles isn't helping your argument. And WP:DUE has never been based solely on quantity of sources. – notwally (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

But still a balance and neutrality (WP:NPOV) matter, not a style matter – not in the sense of the WP:Manual of Style. In the very broad vernacular sense, I suppose it's a matter of "writing style" in a vague way. But it's one covered by neutrality policy here, not by our text-formatting and article-layout guidelines (MoS).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Criminal acts

I appreciate the recent edit by Bdushaw regarding the Criminal acts section. And I wanted to ask them and other editors about how they feel about my latest addition (in green).

Labels such as "criminal", "convicted felon", "fraudster", and "convicted sex offender" are imprecise, could imply a moral judgement, and their placement in an article's first sentence may give undue weight.

To me this feels like a very important precision. Saying that a label is imprecise is not very clear, and arguably false. A label can be precise in its own way, for exemple being precise in adding a moral tone. I feel that this phrasing makes the whole section more clear and logical. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I came to these issues in a squabble over the use of "fraudster" in the Elizabeth Holmes article. Then I discovered that similar such disputes occurred regularly throughout Wikipedia - countless, endless arguments over labels, most often crime labels. The expense of editor man-hours on these endless, pointless disputes is staggering... I have no desire of engaging in another one! I was a primary editor of the WP:Crime labels essay, I am viewing these issues through the specific prism of a large number of RfC's and their resolution that I've reviewed. That being said, a label IS shorthand for something, hence unavoidably imprecise (indeed your very argument is suggestive of imprecision!). I don't disagree with "moral judgement" but think that more often such labels are used as "name calling", as seems obvious to me in many of these disputes. Though that be the case, I know of no editor who has recognized their advocacy for a label as name calling and admitted as much. There was recently a surprisingly stupid gigantic RfC on whether to label Donald Trump a "convicted felon" for example. These endless discussions occur because it is all imprecise, with people having differing interpretations of meaning and nuance, all inconsistent and conflicting, citing definitions and sources. With all due respect to editors, I have also often detected an element of misogyny in biographies of women.

I don't object to the recent edits, but find the statement "If the crime is not a significant part of the person's notability, it may be undue to mention in the lead at all." unhelpful...what happens when a notable person commits a crime is the press goes nuts, creating all manner of "sources" on the crime. Hence, it becomes notable for being notable (the lead for the article Martha Stewart likely unduly represents her crime, but good luck trying to correct that!). It seems likely that not mentioning the crime in the lead is not often a practical solution. I find I prefer a more explicit, stark style, whereas it seems to me guidance over time becomes fairly muddled from the diverse edits - as mentioned, people see these issues in different and conflicting ways.

This section might benefit from a notice near the top that indeed there have been extensive, exhaustive discussions/RfC's on these issues. To warn editors that there is no need to go through all the arguments again. Editors could benefit from reviewing the numerous past RfC's summarized in the handy table in WP:Crime labels#References. Makes me exhausted just thinking about it. :) Bdushaw (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there are labels in lists (e.g., List of fraudsters) which is a whole can of worms. Labeling on steroids; slap a label in bulk on a large number of people, irrespective. Ugh. Bdushaw (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've made some bold suggested edits (not knowing how else to make such suggestions). Revert or correct as desired! Bdushaw (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

All the edits make sense to me and make the section flows better. I don't have personal experience about misogyny on pages so I can't comment on that.

"name-calling" is to me a specific version of moral judgment, it's probably OK to keep both just for the sake of be clear, since this is indeed a very regular source of edit conflicts. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm neutral on including the "moral judgment" or "name-calling" bit. It makes the section a bit more pointed, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Since reversion or refining was invited, I've removed the warning about the topic being contentious. That goes without saying for really anything in the MoS, and we don't have such a warning on more contentious topics like MOS:GENDERID. As to the scenarios where no mention is appropriate in the lede, they actually happen all the time; they just don't come to mind for most people because, well, by definition this concerns people who aren't strongly associated with their crimes. So I've restored that with a bit more clarification. I think it's important to have at least a few words on this topic, lest this section be incorrectly cited for the proposition that a conviction must be mentioned in the lede. (And believe me, whatever you put in MoS saying people may do something, guaranteed that sooner or later someone will interpret that as a must.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Strangely enough the exemple provided with Letourneau didn't respect the guideline in the following phrases of the lead. It refered to the crime in a general way and avoided being specific. That, among other things, led me to fully rewrite the lead. If the edits stand I will reflect the opening paragraph changes here. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Formatting post-nominals examples

Since MOS:POSTNOM now says (after the 2023 RFC) "post-nominal letters may be included in the main body of the article, but not in the lead sentence of the article", why are the examples in MOS:BIO § Formatting post-nominals formatted with boldface names, as they would appear only in the lead sentence of the article? Can we maybe find some actual article where a post-nominal is properly "included in the main body of the article" but not in the lead, and copy the formatting from there? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Good grief. How did I miss this RfC? This is yet another example of cultural bias on en WP, something which was explicitly not taken into account by the closer. But in answer to your question, it actually now makes it awkward to explain what a post-nominal is when they haven't been introduced in the lead sentence with the name (where they belong, frankly). For example, in the body you might say, "In January 1927, Fooist was made a Companion of the Distinguished Service Order (DSO)." But then why is the (DSO) there? It essentially requires an additional sentence or explanatory footnote like "This award entitled the recipient to place the initialisation DSO after their name, or some similar formulation if it could be written generically to apply to all awards the person received that came with a post-nominal, which would be particularly important in the case of highly decorated Commonwealth generals, for example, who might have six or more postnominals, where you wouldn't want six separate notes. Talk about a solution in search of a problem... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Even as an anti-royalist and anti-classist, this doesn't make much sense to me. It's conventional to give post-nominals after the name of the person to whom they pertain, on the person's first mention in biographical materials about that person (or, I guess, about them in substantial part, e.g. if the article were about a band and its members, or covered both a person and the company they founded). What's not conventional is to keep repeating the post-noms in the same article, or to pepper other articles with them where they are not pertinent because the person to whom they pertain is being mentioned only in passing. The RfC alluded to must have happened while I was off doing something else, since I would have opposed this extreme result. The RfC is over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies, and the conclusion is "There is consensus in support of moving post-nominals outside of lead sentences." So, that equates neither to "removing from the lead section" nor "removing from the article". While I don't think that the practicalities of this were thought through at all (thus the current thread), and would support revisiting this as a WP:Consensus can change matter, I would think that in the interim, the most sensible approach would be to have the lead sentence read something like "Dame Amelia de Groot was a prominent underwater basketweaver, who ..." or whatever; then at the beginning of the first non-lead section, start with something like "Dame Amelia de Groot, MSW, POEE, was born Marie-Amelia van Phluph in ...", and progressively lay out her life and achievements in the course of the article. At that spot, use the same template, links, and (when deemed appropriate) footnotes with regard to the post-nom. abbreviations as we formerly used in the lead sentence. In other words, treat the non-lead first mention of the subject as the first mention for post-nom. purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone is going around removing the post-nominals from the article. It is a shame, because this is very important information, and sums up a career very well. But it is more important to assert American control over the internet lest the United States pull the plug on our servers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Postnoms should be retained in the infobox. The big problem is that some editors are going around removing postnoms from the first line and either not adding them to the infobox if they are not already there or not adding an infobox where there is none. This is deleting information and is a very bad idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

G'day SMcCandlish, I entirely agree with your anti-royalist and anti-classist position, but I'm not sure about putting postnoms in the first sentence of the "Early life" section or whatever, because that bit is about the person at the time of birth, who their parents were, where they were born etc. It seems incongruous to put postnoms on their name at the point in the narative that they were born. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixable with sensible writing. Start the "article proper" with an introdutory sentence that nutshells who they were in life, then have a second sentence that harks back to their birth. Or put the post-noms in the first sentence of a "Career" section, or whatever. Or even later in the lead. My point was that "don't do it in the lead sentence", as a rule we're stuck with until this is re-RfCed, doesn't mean "don't do it anywhere in the article".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to import a line-item from WP:JUDAISMSTYLE into MOS:BIO

One important element of what will shortly be at WP:WikiProject Judaism/Style advice is a line-item, targeted by the shortcut WP:JESUSCHRIST, which is entirely correct and addresses a frequently recurring and sometimes disputatious WP writing issue, but has nothing to do with Judaism, really hasn't been seen by much of anyone, and actually belongs in MOS:BIO#Honorifics.

I propose importing that line item about use of "Christ" into that guideline, though with more guideline-appropriate wording:

Jesus should not be referred to in Wikipedia's own voice as "Christ" or "Jesus Christ"; the word Christ is an honorific title ('The Anointed'), used by those who believe specifically that Jesus is the son of God and is the Davidic-line messiah, in Christianity and some related doctrines including Theosophy. Wikipedia asserting this term would be against the neutral point of view policy. Jesus should be referred to simply as "Jesus" or, when more clarity is needed, "Jesus of Nazareth" (or "Isa" in the context of Islam, in which he is considered a prophet).

Having a locus for this in that section of MOS:BIO will also provide a place for whatever is eventually decided about Muhammad and "the Prophet" or "the prophet" (used alone or with his name), a subject of some continuing dispute. (An RfC about it earlier this year failed to come to a clear consensus, and it will probably come up again sooner than later.)
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Title link or no?

Hello there. There is bit of a dispute over at the article Victoria Starmer's talk page, about whether or not to link the title. My view is that, as a rule, the title should not be linked - e.g. King Charles III, as oppose to King Charles III - as that would be consistant with what is written in MOS:SIR. However, there is no clear policy there and its led to misunderstandings.

Can there be a policy made on this to avoid such disputes or at least clarified? Much appreciated. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish, you seem the most active on here. Pinging you first. Please ping others if you know who is most active here. Regards. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging @Bagumba, @Tcr25, @Rosbif73, @Jerome Frank Disciple. They took part in a previous survey on MOS:JOBTITLES. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't link to the title, please. I'd say the same with President Joe Biden, for example. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid its another user who is being VERY adament in linking the title. I think you found the initial talk page as well where I gave this example, along with others. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't see anything in MOS:SIR that is relevant to this. All that is saying is don't change it from including the "Sir" to omitting it, of vice-versa, as both are equally correct. It doesn't mention whether to include the "Sir" in the link text, or not. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I know that "Sir" is USUALLY not linked in the event it is mentioned, which is where I'm coming from here. There isn't really a policy otherwise on whether a title should be linked in the name. That is partly why this should be clarified here, so there isn't any dispute/confusion about it going forward. And yes, this policy may not be the exact one but it is related to titles and I'm just making an argument based on what it says about titles in general as well as other policies on here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

What's the reasoning for not including King Charles III's title in the link text and writing it as "King Charles III"? We don't write "Pope Paul VI" instead of "Pope Paul VI" or "Princess Margaret" for "Princess Margaret", or "General de Gaulle" for General de Gaulle. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I already explained that but I will repeat it here: because "Princess" and "Pope" are both part of the article names - it it is part of the article name then it should be linked. I wouldn't link General based on that; I'd write General Charles de Gaulle if I had to, same as I'd write President Joe Biden. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, I've explained before to you specifically on the Victoria Starmer talk page, and I don't want to repeat everything all over again on this one - just see here if you want to see my stance fully. Regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a different discussion though, with a potentially very different audience. All relevant detail needs including as a matter of courtesy. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If anyone asks for my opinion, then I'll given them my opinion. You already know it, however, and I don't feel the need to explain it to you in detail again. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You cannot assume that I'm the only reader of this though, and should write it so that others know where you are coming from. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I began this convo so others can chip in and give their opinions. My view is that it should not be in the link which I made clear at the start and, if someone wants me to elaborate further, I will do so when asked. Since you know already, I don't feel the need to as of yet (and I've also put in the link). Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

So you think the link text should match the article name? Wow. What would be the purpose of redirects then? Or even pipes? Surely the link text should be in keeping with the article prose flow, style and English variant. Editors should not have to compromise the prose to incorporate the exact article name.

You would have fun trying to write prose in an article that referred to the Buddy Holly airplane accident. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, given that this discussion is related to TITLES only and my response was clearly in relation to titles in article names, I clearly meant it in relation to that. I would have thought that was fairly obvious. Please refrain from twisting what I actually meant; I was pretty clear and conscise in my reply. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Would redirects for articles about people become redundant then if we adopt your idea? How about pipes, would they be allowed? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

*shrugs* I don't see how that is relevant to this conversation. I think I spelt out to you I'm just not in favor of the title being included in the link when the full name is being used - e.g. King Charles III or President Joe Biden - unless its part of their common name and/or article title, like Pope Francis or Prince Harry. If you want to a pipe/use or redirect where it is appropriate, go ahead. I'm not at all against piping Charles III to simply King Charles or using the redirect Prince William in place of William, Prince of Wales, nor have I ever said so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You obviously haven't made it clear. And now you've made it even more confusing. So you're ok with piping Charles III as King Charles, but not with using the redirect King Charles III? Is that correct? How about piping Charles III as King Charles III? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If you still think its confusing, I'm afraid that's not my problem. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Now I think it is best to wait for others' opinions on this matter as well. I've pinged a fair few people who partake in this talk page regularly and I hope we can hear from them soon. One other, @GoodDay, has already shared theirs on the matter. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't answer the questions, especially the one about piping Charles III as King Charles III. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I did. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Where? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, it's not my problem. And I already said I won't repeat myself to you. You don't seem to be interested in understanding either so its a waste of my time. Good night to you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in trying to understand your objection to using redirects to link articles directly from vocabulary used in prose. At the moment, your arguments seem to wobble, and appear inconsistent to me, and I'm trying to unravel the confusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)