Language desk
< September 24	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 25[edit]

MOS:SAMESURNAME and similar names[edit]

While this question may be better suited for Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, I'm looking for general guidance, rather than policy (which is covered at MOS:SAMESURNAME). During the ongoing copy edit of article Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji by User:Tenryuu, some issues were noticed in its section Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji#Family and finances. Sorabji's father was called Shapurji Sorabji, so sentences referring to both of them might look like "Sorabji lived with Shapurji...", which may be ambiguous. The Manual of Style page says, "When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing" (emphasis in original), but does not offer any officially allowed approaches. One option would be to refer to Sorabji's father as "Shapurjee Sorabjee" (as some sources do), but that might be a problem in a spoken version of the article. Additionally, Shapurji Sorabji would have a bit of a claim to WP:GNG, and WP:UCN would rule out the "Sorabjee" spelling, so that is not ideal. I think it would be reasonable to use "Kaikhosru" for the son and "Shapurji" for the father throughout relevant portions of the article, but I'd like to get input from others. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has a particular preference that isn't crazy and they get prickly about it, go along with it. Otherwise just do something that makes sense and is unambiguous and don't worry about the MOS. Editors obsessed with the MOS are Wikipedia's versions of Vogons, so as a matter of sanity preservation it's good practice to avoid interacting with them too much. There is almost no area of Wikipedia as bureaucratic. Let them do their own thing while you do yours. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DDAF (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True as that may be, any reference to "Shapurji" or "Sorabji" will be potentially ambiguous, while their full names are a bit long and abbreviations ("K. S. Sorabji" and "S. Sorabji") would look odd. However, most of the events described in the section happened after Shapurji Sorabji's death, so from that point of view, there shouldn't be any ambiguity. And yes, WP:IAR should be at least as important as the MOS, but the plan for the article is a FA nomination, so one best be cautious and not too "creative" in working on it. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To an Indian reader, such abbreviations look normal. The complexities of Indian names are such that our policies are not up to dealing with them. --Lambiam 09:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Often, one can avoid such problems by referring to the father as "his father" instead of using a name or by making similar substitutions. Deor (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]