User:TimeToFixThis/Discussion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the discussion
This page serves as a place for me to document and reflect on the various issues, inconsistencies, and formatting quirks I encounter during my day-to-day editing on Wikipedia. Over my two years of editing, I’ve found that many rules and conventions - especially around formatting and style - have deeper reasons behind them, even if they aren’t always obvious at first.
I use this space to organize what I’ve learned about these rules, explain why certain formatting choices are the way they are, and explore unresolved questions or conundrums that still puzzle me.
If you’ve noticed similar issues, have insights to share, or can help clarify some of the unanswered questions I’ve posted here, feel free to jump in and contribute. This page is meant to be a collaborative space for understanding Wikipedia’s guidelines more deeply and improving consistency across articles.
Wikipedia’s rule on capitalizing titles (MOS:JOBTITLES)
Why it causes contention
Many people are taught in school or journalism to capitalize official titles out of respect, but Wikipedia isn’t written in a ceremonial or honorific tone. Instead, it follows a neutral, style-based rule meant for clarity and consistency. Editors who enforce lowercasing are following the MOS, even if it looks “off” compared to newspaper or government usage.
General rule of thumb
- If the title is part of the name, capitalize it.
- If the title describes the person, lowercase it.
Capitalize formal titles only when they are used as part of a proper name.
That means when the title directly precedes a person’s name and forms part of their official title, it should be capitalized:
Correct: President Clinton met with Prime Minister Chrétien in Ottawa.
Correct: Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke at the summit.
These are formal titles being used as part of a name - like a proper noun.
Lowercase titles when they are used generically, descriptively, or after a name.
If you’re simply referring to someone’s role or office, and not attaching it to their name as part of a formal title, it should be lowercased:
Correct: The president met with the prime minister to discuss trade.
Correct: Antony Blinken, the secretary of state, spoke at the summit.
Correct: The prime minister announced her resignation today.
Here, president, prime minister, and secretary describe the role, not form part of the official name.
When in doubt, default to lowercase.
Wikipedia prefers lowercase for general mentions to maintain a consistent and neutral encyclopedic tone.
This is because capitalization can imply extra importance or reverence (which goes against Wikipedia’s neutral point of view).
Examples that clarify the difference:
| Example | Correct? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| President Joe Biden met with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. | ✅ | Titles are used as part of names. |
| The President met with the Prime Minister. | ❌ | Should be lowercase - not attached to names. |
| The president met with the prime minister. | ✅ | Generic references. |
| Joe Biden, President of the United States, met with Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. | ❌ | Titles should be lowercase here because they follow the names. |
| Joe Biden, the president of the United States, met with Rishi Sunak, the prime minister of the United Kingdom. | ✅ | Descriptive references, so lowercase. |
Standard officeholder lead format
One recurring challenge I’ve encountered is maintaining clarity and consistency in how officeholder biographies begin. Across Wikipedia, lead sentences use a range of phrasing styles to describe current or former roles — often without a consistent pattern. While each approach can technically fit within Wikipedia’s Manual of Style, the lack of uniformity makes it harder to maintain cohesion across political biographies.
Common phrasing variations
Editors often alternate between the following constructions:
- “who is the”
- “serving as the”
- “who has been the”
- “who has served as the”
- “who has been serving as the”
Each conveys slightly different nuances of time, tone, and formality - and editors often default to whichever seems most natural for the article in question.
Examples in use
| Example | Office | Phrasing used | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Donald John Trump — "Donald John Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States." | President (U.S.) | who is the | Common for sitting presidents; direct present-status wording. |
| Gavin Christopher Newsom — "Gavin Christopher Newsom is an American politician and businessman serving as the 40th governor of California since 2019." | Governor (California) | serving as the | Active present-tenure phrasing; widely used for state governors. |
| Ronald Dion DeSantis — "Ronald Dion DeSantis is an American politician and former naval officer serving as the 46th governor of Florida since 2019." | Governor (Florida) | serving as the | Same active phrasing as Newsom; consistent for current governors. |
| Justin Pierre James Trudeau — "Justin Pierre James Trudeau is a Canadian politician who has been the 23rd and current prime minister of Canada since 2015." | Prime Minister (Canada) | who has been the | Longer construction; includes "current" and ordinal—less commonly used outside a few PM articles. |
| Douglas Robert Ford Jr. — "Douglas Robert Ford Jr. is a Canadian politician and businessman who has served as the 26th and current premier of Ontario since 2018." | Premier (Ontario) | who has served as the | Common in provincial articles; descriptive ongoing-tenure phrasing. |
| David Robert Patrick Eby — "David Robert Patrick Eby is a Canadian politician and lawyer who has served as the 37th premier of British Columbia since November 18, 2022." | Premier (British Columbia) | who has served as the | Matches Ford's phrasing pattern for Canadian provincial premiers. |
Known discussions and consensuses
Conclusion
When in doubt - "who has served as the..." will do you well.
Discretion is key - if the officeholder has a unique situation, go with what is best.