Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

MOS:JOBTITLES currently reads:

Offices, titles, and positions ... are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically. They are capitalized only in the following cases:

1. When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
2. When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the King, not the king (referring to Charles III); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).
3. When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description

Should we simplify MOS:JOBTITLES by removing exceptions #2 and/or #3? Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The policies and guidelines on this site should be as clear and simple as possible, in order to minimize the amount of text any editor need wade through to get it right. Reducing this creep would be in support of the overall desire to encourage more editors and more frequent editing.~TPW 13:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently prescribed by MOS:JOBTITLES	Simplified MOS:JOBTITLES
Donald Trump is the president of the United States. Donald Trump is President of the United States. Donald Trump is US president. The President was inaugurated on 20 January 2025. The president is inaugurated on 20 January. He had a meeting with President Trump. The king of Jerusalem, Fulk, defeated Pons, Count of Tripoli.	Donald Trump is the president of the United States. Donald Trump is president of the United States. Donald Trump is US president. The president was inaugurated on 20 January 2025. The president is inaugurated on 20 January. He had a meeting with President Trump. The king of Jerusalem, Fulk, defeated Pons, count of Tripoli.

• Remove both #2 and #3. These elaborate exceptions have turned MOS:JOBTITLES into rocket science. Experienced editors struggle to make heads or tails of it. The readers may be distracted by the constantly changing case. We, the editors, certainly are distracted by the frequent disputes on who is interpreting JOBTITLES correctly. No other style guide is so complicated: the likes of Oxford Style Guide, The Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, etc, advise only to capitalize titles preceding the name. It is time that we take our cue from them. Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How would "current president Trump" be treated? According to the current MOS:JOBTITLES, that would be lowercase because it's modified by "current". Does your proposal capitalize "President" in this case? —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 23:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not think MOS:JOBTITLES is presently clear on whether it should be "current president Trump" or "current President Trump". On one hand, it is modified; on the other, it is followed by a person's name. Chicago is strict and clear: never capitalize unless it precedes a name, and if it precedes a name, always capitalize. In my opinion, there should always be a comma before the name in such a case because "current president" is apposition. Thus, I would always write "to the current president, Donald Trump" rather than either "to current President Trump" or "to current president Trump". Surtsicna (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The current wording at #3 of is not preceded by a modifier would make it "current president Trump", as it's modified by current. There's also this current example in the MOS: Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972. —Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd recast the sentence. The word "current" mostly smacks of recentism, and there surely are other ways to phrase it such as "Trump, who was president at the time." ~TPW 13:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. I don't see them as "exceptions", but as common-sense usage when using a job title to refer to a specific person, rather than the position itself. E.g.: "Many popes are from Italy", versus, "The Pope is not from Italy." This natural usage promotes understanding by readers regarding who or what is being discussed; therefore, keep. Mathglot (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Common sense" has a neurotypical bias baked in which in this case is not necessary.~TPW 13:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., as a housekeeping issue, Surtsicna, you placed your WP:!vote in the § Discussion section, but I believe it is more conventional to place it in the § Survey section. In any case, the closer will find it there, but let's not make it harder for them. Mathglot (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is this usage natural when it is not common (if attested at all) in reliable sources? Can you name one style guide that promotes this "Many popes are from Italy" vs "The Pope is not from Italy" distinction? Surtsicna (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to #Discussion

• Use the simplified version. No part of MoS sees more confusion and debate than this section, and we've needed to simplify it for a long time. Previous attempts have stalled despite a general desire to get it done, so let's get it done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove #2 and #3. Based on the The Cambridge Guide to English Usage quoted below, this seems like the modern practice. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be on board with that too. The very fact of "do it differently when ..." inconsistency and exception making (with quite complicated exception rules no one can seem to quite remember) is the entire source of conflict and confusion about this segment of MoS. It would be better to have a simple rule, if a somewhat arbitrary one, than to continue to have a grotesquely complicated rule that has been made complicated simply to appease aficionados of some particular capitalization habits. Our entire site (like many modern style guidese including Cambridge and CMoS, reflecting shifts in real-world usage) is more and more "down-style" (lower-case by default) with every passing year. It's not possible for this (or any other shift) to make every single person perfectly happy, but it is certainly possible to just go with this flow using a much simpler rule, which in the end will make far fewer people active unhappy and fighting with their editorial neighbors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure how this fits in with this proposal, but I would certainly be against any proposal which requires us not to capitalise British peerage titles, which are capitalised in standard usage when the full title is used (i.e. "the earl entered the room" is fine, but "the Earl of Arundel entered the room" is standard, as is "John, Earl of Arundel, entered the room"). It seems to be accepted in the discussion below that this is clearly necessary when there is no "of" in the title ("earl Spencer entered the room" or "lord Palmerston entered the room" are obviously wrong), and even apart from the standard usage issue, we certainly don't want a situation where we're switching capitalisation depending on the format of the title ("the duke of Norfolk, the marquess of Salisbury, Marquess Camden, the earl of Shrewsbury, the earl of Devon, Earl Spencer, Viscount Hereford, the viscount of Arbuthnott and Lord de Ros entered the room"). Proteus (Talk) 14:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, @Proteus, we are already in a situation where we switch capitalization seemingly at random: "the duke of Norfolk participates in the coronation of the king or queen", but "the Duke of Norfolk participated in the Queen's coronation". The proposal would reduce these inconsistencies, which must be puzzling to the reader. In my experience, the standard differs depending on the type of publication (and the level of deference the publisher wishes to express): government publications prefer to capitalize, and so do etiquette authorities, while academia and journalism do not. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, for example, consistently uses lower case, so they have "John, earl of Arundel". See @Ham II's analysis down at #king/Count example. Surtsicna (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If we have to be consistent, we should consistently capitalise. And I'm afraid I don't agree with you that journalists do not capitalise: at least in the UK, they do. I've just run searches for "the Earl of" on BBC News, the Times and the Telegraph, and they all capitalise "Earl". Even the Guardian - hardly known for its deference to the establishment! - does the same. Proteus (Talk) 15:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Consistently capitalizing would put as at odds with the academic practice, i.e. with what we consider to be our most reliable sources. Wikipedia should be in sync with them. Surtsicna (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We're going to have to agree to disagree then. My view is that our primary guiding principle is to follow common usage, and it's clear that in this case that is capitalising peerage titles. If that puts us at odds with academic texts, then so be it. Proteus (Talk) 16:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, common usage would have us use "their" instead of "there" and vice versa :) Surtsicna (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Proteus's claims don't entirely match my experience as a reader and researcher. I pore through enormous amounts of material that references the British peerage, and it's pretty common to see constructions like "earl of Foo" (and "earls of Foo" and "earldom of Foo") when not attached to a name of a specific individual (as in "Robert, Earl of Foo, was robbed by highwaymen in June 1742"), or not standing in for the name of a specific individual (as in "Smith's second letter to the Earl of Foo in 1894"), or not a reference to the title itself (as in "the Earl [or "Earldom"] of Foo was created in the 12th century by Henry I"), and even some of the latter two sorts are sometimes in lowercase. The only near-universally uppercase version is attachment to an individual's name. The "uppercase it no matter what" habits are primarily found in a) old material that pre-dates English's shift (after about the middle of the 20th century) to avoiding unnecessary uppercase; and b) British conservative-leaning news, which is highly classist and very deferential toward people with titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These two ("the duke of Norfolk participates in the coronation of the king or queen" and "the Duke of Norfolk participated in the Queen's coronation") have different meanings. The first is similar to "a person holding this title/office" and the second is "this exact person". It isn't random. It is subtle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is random because that distinction does not exist in the world outside Wikipedia. The reader should not be expected to pick up on the subtle differences in meaning that Wikipedia has invented. It is not useful. Surtsicna (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be very surprised if an analysis of usage outside Wikipedia found that "the queen" was more often used than "the Queen" for Elizabeth II. Ham II (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So would I. The official UK government usage is pervasive and the UK media have generally been very keen to express deference. The US media (e.g. the Washington Post) have, of course, not felt the need to bend orthography for the British monarch. And, tellingly, the BBC does not capitalize when it refers to e.g. the Dutch queen as "the queen".[1][2] The orthographical deference in the British media is thus reserved for the British monarchy. Would it be right for Wikipedia to so elevate the British royals over other royals and over republican heads of state? Either way, Elizabeth II is not the only queen the world has ever seen. It does not make sense to me that our article on e.g. Cleopatra should call her "the Queen" throughout to accommodate Elizabeth when the modern academic sources we use for historical figures do not capitalize; nor does it seem right that this should translate to cases such as "the Baron", "the Mayor", "the Minister", etc. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "The Emperor" is another example which has come up recently. Your points about "the Mayor" and "the Minister" are especially good ones, because those titles aren't a part of the British peerage or its equivalents elsewhere – so no-one would consider them to be part of the person's name – but it's hard to see how or why one would formulate different rules for the titles "queen", "baron", "mayor", "minister", etc. Ham II (talk)

  On the other hand, what about the use of "the Shah" in Mohammad Reza Pahlavi? It looks as if references to "the Aga Khan" would have to retain their capital letters, judging from ngrams. Ham II (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not something that Wikipedia has invented. You capitalize a title when it is used as a substitute for a person's name. Compare:

  • After his announcement about the storm, a nervous passenger asked, "Oh, Captain, is it as bad as all that?"
  • After his announcement about the storm, a nervous passenger asked, "Captain Smith, is it as bad as all that?"
  • After his announcement about the storm, a nervous passenger said, "The captain makes it sound very bad."

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See also The Daily Telegraph Style Guide:[3]

  "By convention, the names of bishops and archbishops always follow the title of their office: the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams (use Christian and surname). Then Dr Williams or the Archbishop." (pg. 40)

  "For example, Prince Philip is the Duke of Edinburgh on first mention and then the Duke. Prince Charles should be referred to as the Prince of Wales at first mention and then as the Prince. Princess Anne should be the Princess Royal at first mention and then the Princess."

  This means that it is correct to write "Picking up the decanter, the Duke asked the Archbishop whether he would like a drink", and also correct to write "I saw three earls and a duke at the wedding". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  From The Wall Street Journal Essential Guide to Business Style and Usage:

  "TITLES: Capitalize formal titles immediately before a name. Lowercase formal titles used alone or in constructions that set them off from a name by commas. Lowercase terms that are job descriptions rather than formal titles." (pg. 36)

  "The male heir to the throne normally is designated Prince of Wales, and the title becomes an alternative name. The queen’s eldest son is Charles, Prince of Wales; the Prince of Wales; the prince. Prince Charles remains in informal usage.Charles, Prince of Wales, married Lady Diana Spencer, who became the Princess of Wales. Their two children are Prince William and Prince Harry." (pg. 167)

  "On the editorial page, capitalize President in all references to a President of the U.S." (pg. 191; but they take the opposite approach in news articles)

  Also, from Writing Skills for Public Relations:

  "For titles that are both formal and descriptive, such as President, use capitals for a full reference, as in John Smith, President, of XYZ Association. Subsequent mentions could just be John Smith, the president. The same applies to royalty: Prince Charles becomes ‘the prince’ and the Princess Royal ‘the princess’ in subsequent references. A following reference to Her Majesty the Queen should be written as either Her Majesty or the Queen."

  On the diversity of existing practice: "Note that if office holders are referred to only by their office, the titles prime minister, chancellor of the exchequer, foreign secretary and so on are in lower case in some national newspapers. Most will use capitals when the complete name and formal title are given. You will never be criticised if you always put such titles in capitals. But you will soon be in trouble with the purists if you don’t." (pg. 28)

  "Use capitals for proper nouns, names of companies and formal titles." (pg. 29; "He is the president" is not a formal title; "He is the President of the United States" is a formal title) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In general I am opposed to using capitalization as a form of deference or to signal importance. It's inconsistently applied in all English dialects and just causes confusion.~TPW 13:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove #3 and #2, especially #3. Frankly, I understand rocket science much better than I understand exception 3. It is convoluted and unnecessary. Exception 2 makes some sense, but it is not necessary, and if we're moving towards decapitalization and simplification then I can support removing it. Toadspike [Talk] 10:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Reword entirely, broadly in line with the Cambridge Guide to English Usage overview given below, and especially the first point Official titles and offices are capitalized whenever they are used to name a particular holder or incumbent. I'd tend to argue that #2 ought to be moot anyway, as referring to a specific titleholder by their title it is at odds with MOS:LASTNAME. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed removal of exceptions #2 and #3 would make the style perfectly in line with Cambridge, Rosbif73. Surtsicna (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More or less, yes. But it recommends capitalisation of titles when referring to a specific person rather than when followed by a person's name, thereby resolving concerns about peers. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The example it gives is what this proposal would include, though: "Cardinal Newman". In its third point it makes it clear that capitalizing titles used instead of a person's name is an outdated practice in British English–"and Americans just would not". If in modern times neither Cambridge nor Oxford worry about offending British aristocracy by referring to them with uncapitalized titles, then (I think) we should not have such concerns either. Surtsicna (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support a rewording like this one that would vastly simplify the text of MOS:JOBTITLES without much changing the practice. Toadspike [Talk] 12:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep exceptions Mainly per Proteus. I believe the reader expects more capitalization than we give them, given the number of edits I see to restore it. Also per the (at present unsigned) comment immediately above me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is now signed, by Rosbif73. Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Does that mean that Wikipedia should insist on outdated capitalization in a show of deference to the British aristocracy even if it puts us at odds with Oxford, Cambridge, Chicago, etc, and quite possibly with all our academic sources? Surtsicna (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We're not an academic journal and we should consider our readership. Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been reunited with my copy of New Hart's Rules: The Oxford Style Guide (2014 edition), and it turns out that Oxford University Press is more ambivalent on this than an analysis of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography would suggest. Among other guidance in its section on "Titles of office, rank and relationship" (pp. 102–103; all my quoted examples are from p. 102) it says the following: "Historians often impose minimal capitalization, particularly in contexts where the subjects of their writing bear titles: the duke of Somerset. This style can be distracting in works for a general readership."

  The section begins as follows: "Words for titles and ranks are generally lower case unless they are used before a name, as a name, or in forms of address"; "the rank of a duke" and "the Duke of Wellington" are two of the examples that follow. Although it doesn't have an example like the article title Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, that would presumably be one of the valid exceptions to the general rule of lowercasing because it has a title or rank ("Duke") before a name ("Wellington"). A search of the Oxford Reference site for "duke of Wellington" brings up mixed usage in the OUP's reference works, but with apparently more instances of "Duke" with a capital D.

  That section of New Hart's Rules also gives "Prince of Wales", "Princess Royal" and some other titles as exceptions "which in many styles are capitalized in all contexts" because they "are unique compound titles that have no non-specific meaning"; note that this is not the ODNB's style. Also, "references to specific holders of a rank or title are often capitalized", and "[i]t is usual to capitalise the Pope and the reigning monarch (the King/Queen) but not all styles do". (There is a general absence of firm rulings in all these quotes.) This has me wondering whether the ODNB is following a different style guide, or whether Hart's Rules has changed some of its positions since the ODNB first came out in 2004. Ham II (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I wish we'd go back to upper-casing in all situations. But, I'm resigned to the fact that lower-casing is here to stay :( GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You might find then German more to your liking than English, @GoodDay. It's upper case galore! Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To my neurodivergent eyes, frequent capitalization is the literary equivalent of drivers hitting a pothole outside my home. It jangles my nerves and makes thinking difficult.~TPW 13:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep exceptions per Wehwalt and Proteus largely; like GoodDay i regret all the lower case usage which looks wrong (to mine eyes), but i am resigned to accepting that it appears to be the way of the future ~ Lindsay^Hello 14:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Does this mean that you are opposed to Wikipedia joining "the way of the future" mainly out of concern that the British aristocracy would have their titles in lower case? Surtsicna (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Surtsicna I strongly recommend that you stop accusing everyone who doesn't !vote on your side of being partial to the British aristocracy before you are accused of badgering. Toadspike [Talk] 12:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Proteus's reasoning for objecting to lower case is that it affects our writing about the British aristocracy. I want it to be clear whether other editors object for the same reason so that this discussion, or a next discussion, can take that into consideration. I am sorry that you see that as accusatory. Surtsicna (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, i missed this at the time. Surtsicna, i hope you didn't intend your comments to come across as entirely obnoxious, but they do. No, my opinion doesn't mean that i'm opposed to us following the fashion and general usage (which i take is what you mean by opposed to Wikipedia joining "the way of the future"), nor is it triggered by any concern for aristocracy (i mean, what the heck? are you actively trying to be rude?). If i am concerned about anything which triggers me, it is my utter love for the English language and its incredible variety, flexibility, and changeability. That love, and my vague general conservatism leads me to believe that we should not be in the forefront of making language changes, but should be changing only when it is clear that RSs show it necessary and within common usage; not a position i believe we are currently at ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a bit much, @LindsayH. You wrote "per Wehwalt and Proteus". Wehwalt in turn wrote "per Proteus". Proteus wrote only that they "would certainly be against any proposal which requires us not to capitalise British peerage titles". That is the sole concern raised by Proteus. How am I being rude when I ask whether this is your concern too? And no, we are not being in the forefront. Virtually all academic style guides have been prescribing lower case for half a century. Oxford and Cambridge are among those cited in the discussion below. Surtsicna (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are quite right: I overreacted on my first time taking a look at this page in a month as i was surprised and felt (wrongly) attacked. I sincerely apologise ~ Lindsay^Hello 07:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 2 and change 3, because it's unidiomatic. Donald Trump is "the" US president. It sounds weird to say that "Donald Trump is US president". (You could say "Donald Trump is president", in some contexts, but you wouldn't normally say "is US president".) More generally, for the OP and other people who speak languages that don't make much use of grammatical articles: This list exists in the hope that it will help people with some of the subtler, trickier bits of English conventions. It's complicated because English is complicated. Don't worry about what sounds right or seems rational, because English is in many ways a deeply confused language. If you follow the examples here, it will actually be right even if it seems weird. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why keep 2? Is making a distinction in meaning between "the president" and "the President" attested outside of Wikipedia? None of the manuals of style we are discussing here advise it or even mention it. Surtsicna (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Item #2 does not contain the word "the", so I'm not sure why you are asking this question. Making a distinction between "is ____" and "is the ____" is attested in every English grammar book. The correct and natural use of the definite article is probably very challenging for people who do not speak English natively, but the fact that you don't intuitively grasp the difference doesn't mean that there isn't a correct answer here.

  There is a difference between "is the president" and "is President" and "is US president". Trump is "president" (holder of a position); he is also "the US president" (specific and sole holder of a more clearly specified position). You can even write that he "is President of the United States" (holder of a title; titles and positions have separate rules). However, you would never write in English that he "is US president". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It sounds weird to say that 'Donald Trump is US president' @WhatamIdoing: FWIW, that example is from the RfC, and is not currently in the MOS. The MOS instead has Richard Nixon was President of the United States —Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove both #2 and #3. I searched books for "the Pope" and found lowercase "the pope" overwhelmingly more common even when referring clearly to a specific pope during his time in the office, so it seems clear that 2 is not something that's commonly done outside WP; and I see no need to make exceptions for the Brits. And 3 is just confusing and difficult, leading to a combination of arguments and awkward workarounds; where would it end? John Doe was Mayor? Formal enough, or not? . It's simpler and easier on the eyes to just use lowercase for things that are not proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Keep both, mainly per Wehwalt. People already often chafe at the current amount of lowercasing prescribed in the MoS, and I believe these match typical practice. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Typical practice where? Can you name publications that make the distinction between "the president" and "the President"? Neither the media nor the academia do it. Surtsicna (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Removing the exception would prescribe lowercase. I didn't say typical practice makes a distinction, and I don't know what particular publications do or what style guides prescribe. I suspect typical practice would actually be "Donald Trump is the President of the United States." This NGrams comparison seems to confirm that, although the statistical balance seems to be shifting somewhat toward lowercase in recent years. If an indefinite article is used, or if it's plural, it seems more clearly to be a common noun usage rather than a proper name, and should be lowercase (despite what the NGrams [4] [5] seem to say). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I suspect that the Google Books Ngrams you are showing include government publications, which capitalize "President" in every instance. A consistent capitalization, while even more anti-academic, would be much easier on our readers than the current mish-mash, where the words are upper case or lower case for reasons that a casual reader cannot understand. That "President of the United States" without an article is proper name usage also seems to be something we on Wikipedia invented over the years to justify JOBTITLES because I cannot find anything about it outside of Wikipedia talk pages. Surtsicna (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both #2 and #3. #2 is logical and clear, but #3 needs a rewrite with a clear example to explain what it means. The proposal for changes looks like another of these solutions searching for a problem that we don’t really have, and would affect a countless number of articles. MapReader (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both #2 and #3. Per Mathglot, these aren't really "exceptions" at all as if there was some ironclad rule mandating lowercasing, but rather reflecting some common use patterns. "The President was inaugurated on 20 January 2025." is correct because it's clearly referring to one specific president, not a generic one, and that specific case is often capitalized. SnowFire (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My point is exactly that capitalizing "President" when it refers to one specific president and otherwise not capitalizing is not common or even known outside of Wikipedia. The US media does not do it. The academia does not do it. Where have you seen such usage? Surtsicna (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If the format were being proposed as new, you might have a point - although it has been pointed out before that WP doesn't follow any particular style guide, and taken as a whole the combination of style and format choices here don't reflect those of anywhere else. But it's the status quo, and therefore you don't have a point. The question is whether any proposed alternative is any better? MapReader (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My point is to refute Snowfire's assertion that #2 and #3 reflect common usage. They do not. Nowhere outside of Wikipedia is distinction made between "the President" vs "the president" and "is the president of the United States" vs "is President of the United States". JOBTITLES status quo does not make this incorrect or my point invalid. That Wikipedia's capitalization maze is unattested outside of Wikipedia is in itself a problem. It puts us at odds with modern practice in our sources for no objective reason, causes constant interpretation disputes, and cannot possibly make sense to the reader if long-established editors struggle to understand it. Any alternative that brings us closer in line with the outside world, and chiefly with our sources, is better. Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be better if you let editors respond to this survey of views, without responding personally to so many of them, trying to argue their views. Be aware of WP:BLUDGEON MapReader (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both #2 and #3, with reasoning similar to that of MapReader above. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove both. These exceptions are subtle and hard to grasp – with #3 I don't even have much of an idea of what it's trying to say, let alone when it's supposed to apply. I'm pretty sure that they have never been followed consistently and as others have pointed out, they don't reflect common usage outside of Wikipedia either. Without them life will be easier. Gawaon (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove MOS:JOBTITLES from the MOS; while internal consistency inside each article is useful for such questions, we should not prescribe such a style when there are clearly variations between different varieties of English, especially with respect to British nobility. Failing that, keep the exceptions, or make them work better for nobility. —Kusma (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove both Job titles have always begged the question of what is important enough to capitalise and that is somewhat arbitrary and in contradiction with MOS:SIGNIFCAPS - we don't capitalise for emphasis, significance or importance. Points 2 and 3 fall foul of this, with some confusion at point 2 as to whether the Queen would only be used for ER2 while she was alive and all such references at WP should now be changed or do we retain it for references while she lived? Point 3 has work to a degree despite its complexity but KISS would be much better. Regardless, there is an inconsistency between point 3 (When a formal title for a specific entity ...) and the example Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016, since the formal tile is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is near universal to capitalise an honorific per example 1. I might only suggest by way of example that there is a distinction: ... after which President Trump joined them ... but ... after which current president Trump joined them ... not ... after which current President Trump joined them ... since current president is not being used as an honorific. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove 2 and 3, especially 3. The wording of 3 is a total mess and to the extent it does anything, it just creates messes like the Count/count example. 2 is less bad but still seems like an unnecessary exception. Ideally we'd like the base case to cover as much as possible, and there doesn't seem to be any kind of strong motivation for 2. It's certainly not universally agreed on in style guides or anything. Loki (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove 2 unless someone can clarify the issue raised by User:Cinderella157. I can see no good reason for bullet point 2 to use Charles III and Francis as examples unless the intended meaning is "capitalize when a title is used to refer during their time in office to a specific person as a substitute for their name". Is this the intended meaning? Confusion arises because an alternative interpretation of bullet point two (as demonstrated here) is that we capitalize a title such as king or pope when used as a substitute for any historical king’s or pope’s name when referring to their activities during their time in office. This means we should refer to Prince Albert of York as "the king" between his birth on 14 December 1895 and his ascension to the throne on 11 December 1936, and "the King" from then until 6 February 1952 – but who would use "the king" as a substitute for Albert's name before he was king or after his death? He might be referred to as "the future king" or "the late king" but bullet point 3 already addresses a title preceded by a modifier, rendering rule two useless. I see that FAs, which should serve as models, sometimes follow my interpretation but more often the other, and often are inconsistent. The language could be clearer. Ewulp (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should include a past tense example. I believe it is about when they were the officeholder, regardless of whether that time is in the past or in the present. "The King ordered his generals to invade Elbonia", describing an action taken as the officeholder. We should add an example that is in the past. I don't believe we are supposed to do mass changes to lowercase when someone dies (such as Queen Elizabeth II). See also Talk:Julian (emperor)#Capitalization of "emperor". Prince Albert of York was not King until he became the king, so we shouldn't be calling him the king before that. Future king is OK, I suppose. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep status quo per Wehwalt's I believe the reader expects more capitalization than we give them. Yet, this proposal would lower case more. MOSs are house styles—they don't necessarily fully match <insert your preferred style>. Standards exist to avoid rehashing arguments and churning edits, and I don't see this as egregious enough to confuse the many editors that do follow the existing style, who undoubtedly will not get the memo, and the busy work to fish out the affected pages. Back to creating actual content.—Bagumba (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Avoiding rehashing arguments is exactly why this simplification was proposed, @Bagumba. See @Amakuru's comment below. Main Page editors constantly deal with disputes about capitalization, especially in the fast-changing In the news segment, because the current reading of MOS:JOBTITLES is absurdly complicated and counter-intuitive. And as a content creator, with dozens of GAs, especially on medieval kings and queens, I feel that I would rather not invest my time into writing high quality content if it is going to be knocked down to a blog-level entry by outdated orthography that's out of sync with all that we consider to be our reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the status quo as well argued by Wehwalt and Begumba. Andrewa (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove #3, and weak support removing #2. Contrary to Wehwalt's argument, real-world analysis shows that a preference for lowercase is not just something favoured by academic publications, but in every-day sources too. In particular, when looking at ngrams for terms such as is president of the United, elected president of the United, elected prime minister, and other similar phrases, every one of them shows either a small or large lead for the lowercased version. News sources such as the BBC, Washington Post etc. also tend to downcase these "job titles", whether there's a "modifier" or not. Wikipedia's house style of rendering this is as Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, but only under those very specific circumstances where there's no modifier, is very clearly at odds with modern usage across the board. It will also make life so much easier for those of who work in venues such as ITN, where there's constant wrangling about which hooks have modifiers and which don't, leading to weird-looking inconsistencies between blurbs in the same set. Finally, "I believe the reader expects more capitalization than we give them" is a completely unsubstantiated comment; basing such decisions on a vocal minority who favour capitalising job titles because we've "always done it that way", in the fact of stark and overwhelming evidence that the world doesn't agree, is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. As I've said many times over the years, I don't feel strongly about capitalisation myself, but I do feel strongly that we should follow what the rest of the world does.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep status quo although I am very strongly attracted to Kusma (talk · contribs)'s proposal to scrap MOS:JOBTITLES entirely, especially given the attempts by some people to apply it beyond the article space. I also feel that this proposal treads on WP:ENGVAR as it conflicts with the Australian style guide. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are citing the Australian government's style guide, @Hawkeye7. All governments in the Anglosphere promote an orthographical deference to themselves. The academics and the journalists dropped this deference about 50 years ago. But in any case, MOS:JOBTITLES already conflicts with the Australian government's style guide: whereas the government's style guide prescribes "the Governor-General of Australia", JOBTITLES would have us use "the governor-general of Australia". And perhaps scrapping JOBTITLES altogether is not such a bad idea after all. Surtsicna (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, that is the fundamental truth which opposers of this proposal don't seem to address at all. MOS:JOBTITLES as it stands is a complete contradiction, given that it mandates using "John Smith was Governor-General of Australia" on the one hand while arbitrarily changing it to "John Smith was the governor-general of Australia" where a "modifier" is inserted. This sort of distinction is not at all reflected by real world usage, which generally has the same capitalisation whether a modifier is there or not. e.g.:

  • was the governor-general of vs was governor-general of shows a lead for the capitalised form in either case, while
  • was elected the president of was elected president of shows a lead for capitalisation in the modified form only (!) and a lead for uncapitalized with no modifier.

  In short, whatever this RFC decides, it should not be to retain the status quo. We should pick a style and stick with it - either always capitalise the job title, or never capitalise it. The current dogs biscuit results in all sorts of complaints about consistency and handwringing on the main page and elsewhere.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove both. Complexity that does not lead to clarity is one of the factors that discourage participation as editors. Excessive capitalization, and extremely nuanced rules, can be particularly harmful to neurodivergent editors. Context-specific rules such as capitalizing when referring to the current holder of the title presumes a lot of updates when a new individual is given the title, and assumes a lot of knowledge by the reader which can't always be drawn from the article itself.~TPW 13:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Quite a read, I do agree with Goodday that I would prefer caps as the default setting, beyond that the discourse for keeping seems to be the most reasonable.Halbared (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove #2. Using a job title instead of specific person's name does not make the job title a proper noun. In general, if "the" appears before a job title it is a common noun and does not need to be capitalised. It doesn't matter that there is only one of them, and it doesn't matter how important they are - the president, the king, or the cleaner - by using the definite article you have implicitly denoted a specific instance (typically, but not necessarily, the current one) so there is no need for capitalisation for disambiguation. If I mention "the cleaner" then the context should already tell the reader which cleaner. If I mention "the queen", the context should already tell the reader which queen. Note that "context" here may be the words the follow: "the cleaner at my workplace", "king of England", "the president of the US". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until an actual systematic survey of major external style guides is conducted. While external usage should guide (not dictate) Wikipedia's, in the whole four months that this has stood open, there's only the proposer's blank, handwaving claim that the proposal matches such guides, without any citations or quotations that could plausibly have informed the discussion. The quotes from the Cambridge Guide below are vague and inconclusive. This discussion has just been too poorly informed for any constructive outcome to emerge. --