This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This edit request to The Wachowskis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Why include the names they don't go by in the main name indication area? The names they go by are placed there as if it's not who they actually are. 209.6.114.172 ( talk) 01:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ edit semi-protected}} template. Please see the multiple discussions above about this topic. aboideau ^{sapere aude} 01:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This is also covered by Wikipedia policy, which this article complies with. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 02:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gender_identity

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender_identity

The article does not comply with Wikipedia policy currently.

96.50.68.204 ( talk) 00:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP ^{( talk • contribs)} 02:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I've re-protected it. This issue has been edit-warred to death and discussed multiple times on this talkpage. The current consensus is to include their names, with support from the MOS based on noting that they being known/notable also by their old names. DMacks ( talk) 03:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Gender_identity :

When a subject changes names as part of coming out as transgender, it is often impossible to continue to use that person's former name without misgendering them and thus causing harm as discussed in #Self-identification and #Transphobia. However, the old name should be kept as a redirect if it is still a well-known name likely to be searched for by people unaware of the name change.

We should be using their current names only in the article. They were as you say known/notable by their old names ( deadnames) but policy indicates that those should be used for redirects instead. -- ERAGON ( talk) 10:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:DEADNAME, In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly". The current format is correct. — Czello 11:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

ERAGON, please note that Wikipedia:Gender identity is an essay presenting commonly held opinions, not a policy or guideline. MOS:DEADNAME is part of the official Manual of Style. Also, there's an important difference between using their former names, and simply mentioning them (which is what this article does). - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 14:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah fair point. I was under the impression that the gender identity document was part of the MoS. -- ERAGON ( talk) 19:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

In a related vein, the article states that "Beginning in 1993 they wrote several issues of Ectokid for Marvel Comics' Razorline imprint (created by horror novelist Clive Barker), which were credited to Lana.[16]". Lana was not known as Lana in 1993, so it's unlikely that it was credited to "Lana Wachowski". Further, the reference does not support the statement at all; it only mentioned that the two wrote comics for Marvel, not that only one of them received credit, for Ectokid. As the article is protected (and it's part of the whole trans thing, which I don't want to get involved in, in any way) I'm not going to add tags for that sentence, but it needs a better reference and if it was credited to one of the Wachowskis, it's not going to be a name that was not chosen by the person until a decade later. Is it proper to cite written credits under a person's previous name, because that's what the sources say? The Manual of Style is not clear on this, either in MOS:GENDERID or MOS:DEADNAME. (And FWIW, I ended up here because of a series of tweets from Netflix addressing by their current names; I was confused because I wasn't aware that they had transitioned.) Horologium (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This source seems better for the Ectokid bit. I also don't see why MOS:GENDERID wouldn't also cover citations. From editing other articles I think editors generally go by currently used names for citations as well. Rab V ( talk) 21:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that the writing was credited to "Lana Wachowski". It says that it was credit to Lana Wachowski. The statement that it was credited only to her is self-citing: look in the credits of the books. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 15:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The Wachowskis was a highly notable filmmaking team whose success was established in the late 90s. However, three decades have passed since their initial rise to success and they are both separate people who have accomplished professional projects and personal milestones and activism separately. They are also two different people. Why is it that the Hemsworth brothers do not have a redirected page to 'The Hemsworths' and they have all different pages 'Liam Hemsworth', 'Chris Hemsworth' and 'Luke Hemsworth' but the Lily and Lana Wachowski get redirected? Also, the combined pages for the Wachowskis can stay, but they still deserve their own pages. Rockenthusiast1979 ( talk) 07:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

There's some previous discussion of this here [1]. The Hemsworths are a very different situation, because they haven't spent most of their careers working together on the same projects. The Wachowskis aren't a special case: we do this for a lot of people who primarily work as a duo e.g. (the Coen brothers, Sid and Marty Krofft, the Tappet Brothers, Siegfried & Roy. This isn't about what they "deserve"; it's about what works best for explaining their careers to the reader, and at this point there isn't enough info that's only-about-Lana or only-about-Lily to require separate articles. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 12:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the earlier discussion. I couldn't find the right word; I didn't mean "deserve" as in placing a preferential value judgement on the Wachowski Sister's merit being deserving of a solo Wiki pages, I thought Lana had enough solo work to justify splitting the page, which might make it easier for the reader. Regarding the sibling reason, Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan are siblings who have worked together on most of their films. Christopher has worked on all of Jonathan's films except one. But they are not redirected to "Nolan Brothers". I accept and won't contest to the non-splitting of the Wachowskis, but I just wanted to present the example of the Nolan's and seek clarification for work on future articles. Thank you. Rockenthusiast1979 ( talk) 14:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

They aren't known as the "Nolan Brothers", in the way that the Wachowskis (and the others I mentioned) are known collectively. I see that Jonathan also developed two well-known television series (and two more in development) without Christopher, and Christopher has produced/directed quite a few films independent of Jonathan's involvement (except sometimes as co-writer). That's apples-and-oranges. What we have here... works. When/if it becomes difficult to cover both women's careers in one article we can figure something else out, but right now, it ain't broke. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 14:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned earlier, I wasn't going to suggest changes anymore. So, the Wachowski's initial notability and entry into Wikipedia was based on their initial reputation, marketing and other self-identification as a team, 'The Wachowskis', and any future splitting of their article would be based on if their solo works were to increasingly diverge to a point that their article would be more difficult to navigate and read. Got it, thanks! Rockenthusiast1979 ( talk) 16:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 23:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to The Wachowskis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to remove the part where the article states the sisters' dead names. 67.190.103.168 ( talk) 18:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done See MOS:DEADNAME. _ ValiumColoredSky [talk] 18:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

A sentence in the introduction reads "The sisters are both trans women". The word "woman" is clearly redundant here, since the word "sisters" already conveys the fact that they are women. I think the sentence should be changed to "The sisters are both transgender." Saying "The sisters are women" breaks the Maxim of quantity Crockett623 ( talk) 22:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I take the point about trans woman being a better destination than transgender, but we usually solve that problem with piping, not by making our prose worse. Popcornfud ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

If one of you wants to make the change including the proposed piping, I suppose I have no real objection, but it still wouldn't be my preference. Transgender in that context isn't clearly an adjective vs. a noun (and transgender as a noun is offensive), while trans women is precise. But I won't crusade about it if the link is good. Newimpartial ( talk)

If using "transgender" as an adjective in this sense isn't the right terminology then that would persuade me not to use it here. Perhaps the sentence could be rewritten in some other way. Popcornfud ( talk) 22:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Chiming in to say I think "trans women" is more accurate here. Though "sister" implies "woman" to most readers, it is possible to use "sister" and have someone be non-binary or trans-fem (and thus transgender). I do see what you mean about the redundancy, but personally I think a bit too much to preferred on topics like this. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Language is not simply a matter of efficiency, but also of nuance, and I disagree that trans women is "worse prose". Trans women as a phrase has a clearer meaning than just transgender (especially for people who are still catching up on the whole concept), and places an affirmative emphasis on their identity as women. It further confirms that they are adults (which the sisters are transgender does not). It also reflects a growing usage of trans as an identity or descriptor, rather than a medical term (analogous to the use of gay or lesbian rather than homosexual). Additionally, it's preferable to use the phrase that one is linking to, to avoid surprising the reader by taking them to a different article than they were expecting. Finally: trans women isn't broke; don't "fix" it. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 01:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of wading further into these dangerous waters... I think some of this reasoning is a bit silly. "It further confirms that they are adults"? Come on. Popcornfud ( talk) 01:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

No sillier than the "redundancy" argument. Human language is full of redundancies, because it's often helpful: English has verbs that are plural or singular even though the nouns already indicate that, and it says things like "yes, I can" or "no, I cannot". Spanish has articles and adjectives repeat the gender of their nouns. French expresses negatives doubly. German has adverbs that repeat the tense of their verbs. It isn't an evil to be eradicated. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 03:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the fact that all languages have redundancy does not mean that all redundancy is ideal, so I don't think this is a very useful point. As a general rule of writing, redundancy is best removed where possible.

The question here is whether this is a helpful redundancy (in which case, from a certain perspective, it's not redundant at all). Popcornfud ( talk) 13:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Belated comment: I'm fine with changing it to "transgender" but would oppose [[trans woman|transgender]] per WP:NOPIPE and WP:EASTEREGG. WanderingWanda ( talk) 04:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Transgender sounds less repetitive in this case. - Daveout (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to The Wachowskis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It is no longer common practice to mention previous names of transgender individuals. The Wachowski sisters’ dead names should be removed from their page. 97.113.180.89 ( talk) 04:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please review the previous discussions on this page as well as the archive. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity, Wikipedia only mentions previous identities if the individual was notable under that name; the Wachowskis were notable under their previous names (same applies to Chelsea Manning, Elliot Page, etc). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to The Wachowskis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could you please remove the deadnames? 79.72.135.114 ( talk) 21:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. This has been discussed over and over again. See the above discussions. Crboyer ( talk) 21:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

. 2A02:C7F:7C6F:8700:DCBD:B9DB:A047:C6F9 ( talk) 22:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length. Wikipedia policy is to include those names in the article, because the two women were rather famously well known by those names. See MOS:GENDERID. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 23:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion both are imprtant enough for their onw articles as they do not do all their work together anymore. 93.106.175.246 ( talk) 09:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

There's been discussion about this before: [2] [3] It isn't about "importance"; there are plenty of not-very-important people who are the sole subjects of articles, and there are very important collective subjects (the Wright Brothers, Romulus and Remus) who are covered in one. To me, the two main reasons are: 1) Most of the material about one woman would be duplicated in the other's article, which leads to problems when one article gets changed (better phrasing, corrections, additions to history, etc) and the other doesn't. 2) There isn't a need to split the article into two – this one works pretty well – so there's little benefit to the extra work. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 00:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

As noted below, it is no longer practice to reference the dead names of trans folks. I understand the stance that it should stay on the page but the inclusion of the names in the introduction in ADDITION to the ‘Born’ text box is repetitive and unnecessary. Helicasehaley ( talk) 02:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

For instance, that is how Elliot Page’s dead name is referenced on his page. Helicasehaley ( talk) 02:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity for more information on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding that topic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

According to MOS:GID, the only pre-transition names that should appear in articles concerning living people are names by which the subjects were Notable at the time. I am unaware that either of the Wachowskis was notable using their birth name (as opposed to their professional names, which are correctly included in the lead), so these birth names should be removed from the infobox according to the MOS. I understand that this is "long-standing content", but it is also long-disputed content, and its inclusion here is clearly against last year's MOS:DEADNAME RfC result and the current text of MOS:GID. Site-level consensus overrules page-level consensus, per WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you complaining that the infobox identifies Lana's birth name as "Laurence" rather than "Larry", and Lilly's as "Andrew" instead of "Andy"? Wikipedia generally treats obvious variants like those as self-evident equivalents. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 03:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"Larry" is usually (but not always) Laurence/Lawrence/Laurent, but "Andy" is generally not "Andrew Paul". The infobox clearly contains information that is not in the article and that MOS:GID does not justify. Newimpartial ( talk) 04:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but at the same time, is it particularly useful to mention "Laurence" and "Andrew" either? It seems sufficient to just cite the names they were widely known by in their early career. We're not entirely consistent on this either; I note that Caitlyn Jenner cites a formal former name, but Elliot Page no longer cites the formal full name that was on the article a year ago. If it's borderline, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution/consideration. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I recently added to the section on Lanas personal life expanding on how she and her wife Karin Winslow: *Following the release of The Matrix Lana began attending the Los Angeles BDSM club The Dungeon where she met Karin Winslow who worked there as a Dominatrix under the name 'Ilsa Strix', Bloom divorced Lana in 2002 after discovering the relationship.* and citing Rolling Stone for this: ttp://web.archive.org/web/20060207081803/www.rollingstone.com/news/story/9138137/the_mystery_of_larry_wachowski/ - but it was quickly taken down. Is this not relevant? Is there something wrong with it? LamontCranston ( talk) 18:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I would write three articles, one about Lana, one about Lilly and one about their work together. I would compare the situation to pop-duos who work also separated. They are famous enough and there is so much written about them, that the articles would not be short. -- Persephonear ( talk) 05:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Check the earlier comments above from May (I recently unarchived it). Read through the linked comments, and then feel free to continue here addressing the earlier comments in your reply. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 20:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"Lilly married Alisa Blasingame in 1991." This is very confusing as in 1991 there was no Lilly Wachowski. At that time, that person's name was Andy Wachowski. To say "Lilly married Alisa Blasingame in 1991" forges history. 95.117.63.178 ( talk) 17:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Whatever your personal feelings are (and The Forge is my favorite men's soccer team), the community has agreed on MOS:DEADNAME in very widely participated RfCs, over many years, and that is the basis for the treatment of the Washowskis' names in this article. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Spy-cicle: The lead currently has an excessive amount of bolding with this edit. We're obviously in a slow-moving edit war right now, so I figured it would be better to just start a discussion.

Since this is a joint-bio, I don't feel the normal MOS:DEADNAME rules apply here (regarding Newimpartial's point). If you ask me, the birthnames (ie. their deadnames) should be moved to the section actually talking about the subject's birth. To do otherwise means the article starts with a whopping five bolded terms (which is against the spirit of MOS:LEADCLUTTER (footnote alternate names if they clutter the opening sentence) and MOS:LEAD § Separate section usage (don't have more than 3 bolded terms). – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 21:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you aware, MJL, of any policy-compliant argument to include the Wachowskis' non-notable birth names in the lede? Because I haven't seen any presented here. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't particularly care whether we use the birthname-version of their deadnames or the more common ones. It's all the same to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 21:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

OK. And I don't think we need to BOLD the deadnames, under the circumstances. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a middle ground to be had here, and it's one that we have had before, and that's to keep their names in the lead but not have them bold. I do think their names need to remain their as they were very notable under them for a long time, but I agree that the bold is excessive. This strikes me as a nice balance. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 21:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

agree with Czello. - Daveout (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

My preference is to first use the deadnames in the Early life and careers section. I think unbolded in the lead is an acceptable compromise, and bolded in the lead has too much counting against it. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 02:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That's where I'm at too, Firefangledfeathers. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 03:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I am stil not seeing a good reason to unbold their former names in the lead. They were notable under them hence why we include them. MOS:DEADNAME and MOS:LEAD states to bold them, due to them having consensus among the community. Moreover, to use Newimpartial's line of logic they have have had consensus thus going against it here is against WP:CONLEVEL, etc. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

My own take is that the MOS:BOLD has been addressed by far fewer editors in RfCs than MOS:DEADNAME and therefore enjoys less support per CONLEVEL, and that therefore more local exceptions could be entertained. But this is not a very strongly held view. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Spy-cicle: Again, MOS:DEADNAME does not generally account for joint-bios. Regardless, if you look at MOS:BOLD, you'll see it say the following: These applications of boldface are done in the majority of articles, but are not a requirement. It will not be helpful in a case where a large number of terms redirect to a single article, e.g. a plant species with dozens of vernacular names. [ emphasis added – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 17:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the concern that five bolded terms in the lead seems like too much, and I think it would help readability to have the former names not bolded. Also, MOS:DEADNAME doesn't state anything about bolding at all. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 18:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to take this opportunity to reiterate my preference for the deadnames being in the lead, just unbolded. — Czello 18:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

MOS:BIO, including MOS:DEADNAME, is not restricted indivdual biographical articles (like Elliot Page), it also applies to joint biographies such as this one (or Wright brothers). I am not sure why you quote this "large number of terms" becuase we are not including every single alternate name that could possibly redirect in the lead, in bold only their current name and their former name (each, so four in total for lead paragraph). This is by no means "excessive" or "large". MOS:BOLD perhaps may not have had widely held RfCs like DEADNAME, but DEADNAME helped strengthen its CONLEVEL via the listed examples, etc. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

That may be so, but I don't recall any discussion of bolding in the most recent few DEADNAME RfCs, including the implementation discussion that produced the current examples. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no requirement that all articles follow MOS examples. MOS:DEADNAME itself does not mention bolding at all, and certainly not "state to bold them". Bolding alternative or changed names is not even required. There is clearly a consensus here to not have the former names bolded in the lead. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 16:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Wallyfromdilbert: I would disagree with you there. It very is clearly implied there with those examples; and while bolding alternative/changed names is not required, it certainly considered the default practice unless there is a good reason not to (I guess you could argue that deadnames are a reason not to, but that would have to be stated explicitly in MOS:DEADNAME for it to carry any weight). – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 17:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

MJL, I'm not sure if we disagree. I agree that the default practice is usually to follow examples in the MOS, but that certainly does not mean the examples set a required rule, and it is not accurate to state that MOS:DEADNAME "states to bold them" as it doesn't state anything about bolding at all. There is no reason to not follow the overwhelming local consensus here given that everyone except for one editor has provided good reasons to not bold them in the lead. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 17:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you have that impression about MOS:BIO. The only reference to a joint-bio on that page is Brothers Grimm which doesn't have much to do with this current situation since both members of the joint-bio in that case have separate pages.
The point of my bolding is to demonstrate that the bolding per MOS:BOLD says right there we don't have to bold in every case. For the record, I would agree with the statement that MOS:BOLD has the same level of consensus as MOS:DEADNAME (though I believe it to be because of its status as a MOS guidelines rather than the number of RFCs held). However, if you follow the guidance in MOS:BOLD, it says don't link to so many alternate terms just because they redirect to the article (ie. the article title, both the current names of the subjects, and their deadnames for a total of five in a row).
I guess to you five is not a lot of bolded terms, but that contradicts the reasoning behind MOS:LEADCLUTTER and MOS:LEAD#SSU. I see no reason to deviate from that logic here when, and I must reiterate, we are discussing the lead section of a joint-bio which inherently is different from the singular bio described at MOS:BIO.
The only reasonable alternative, as already mentioned above, is to move the deadnames from lead section altogether and to include them bolded in the early life and careers section. This would be the most efficient way to stay compliant with MOS:BOLD, but it obviously strays farther away from your interpretation of MOS:DEADNAME. Therefore, I suggest you accept the compromise that everyone else (besides you) has thus far agreed would be fine. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 16:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

But you're assuming those 5 names are only 5 that would redirect, there are many more that would/do redirect. For example both of their full birthnames would reasonably redirect (will redact them here out of respect; I know the inclusion of full birthnames here is a separate discussion). Moreover, we neatly tuck away the other alternate name they are know collectively by ("Formerly the Wachowski Brothers. They have also been referred to in the media as the Wachowski Siblings and the Wachowski Sisters.") Perhaps if all 8 or so terms were bolded in the lead paragraph I would understand the concern. However, we only put the 4 (current and former names) in the lead paragraph, and the final collective in the next one.

MOS:LEADCLUTTER only says "Consider footnoting foreign-language and archaic names if they would otherwise clutter the opening sentence.", and I do not see how MOS:LEAD#SSU is relevant either.

In terms of MOS:BIO yes it does apply to joint bios, including MOS:DEADNAME, though I am more than happy to start a discussion on that page. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my point here with mentioning MOS:LEAD#SSU and MOS:LEADCLUTTER. I'm trying to show you how other parts of the guidelines agree that more than 3 bolded terms is too much. I'm also more than a little disappointed you just said there were only 4 bolded terms. It's obviously five of which 4 redirect to the page and one being the page title. You bringing up that there are more terms that redirect here seems to defeat your own point because it isn't exactly clear why you are saying these specific terms must be bolded except based off a disputed interpretation of MOS:DEADNAME.
Seeing as multiple commenters from all sides of this issue have agreed to the compromise besides you, I'm going to revert you because you clearly don't have consensus. I waited for you to respond, but I don't see a point in holding this up any longer now. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 00:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I just came here to echo the other discussion posts about removing their deadnames. Those names are not necessary to print as both women’s transition and career history are referenced. Their work prior to transition is not lost. 67.198.78.53 ( talk) 07:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Suggest policy changes at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. - Daveout (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

delete "formerly known as (former name)" from both Lilly and Lana's descriptions as it serves no point and is harmful to the actual people by sharing information they have not stated they are comfortable with people knowing Charmmander ( talk) 16:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: @ Charmmander: This is the major exception to the policy of excluding deadnames: they were both notable under their former names, so it is useful for people to know that they are the same Wachowskis who worked on The Matrix. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: As per MOS:DEADNAME, the names should be included in the lead. Signed, I Am Chaos ( talk) 16:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

How many times does this need to be posted until they’re removed? Remove the deadnames. It’s offensive and unnecessary. 96.8.248.220 ( talk) 04:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

See above ( [4]). General Ization ^Talk 04:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy boils down to, if they were notable enough for a Wikipedia page at the point when they transitioned and stopped using their deadname, the deadname should be included in the article. Naraht ( talk) 09:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Theyre called dead names for a reason. Theyre dead. They arent needed and including them is transphobic and unneeded. 2600:100E:B0D1:C957:ADAB:4409:FC85:4A2F ( talk) 11:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles about all sorts of dead things. Popcornfud ( talk) 02:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The excuse of "the wiki policy said-" to excuse deadnaming a trans person is disgusting. Stop using your lame excuses and just remove them. 2600:100E:B0D1:C957:ADAB:4409:FC85:4A2F ( talk) 11:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read MOS:DEADNAME as well as the numerous other discussions about this above and in the archives. Their prior names are kept for encyclopedic purposes, as they were notable under them. — Czello 11:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

In the credits for The Matrix Resurrections Lana’s wife is credited as “Karin Wachowski”. I think her name should be changed on this page unless there is some reason not to use that as a source. Also found a Vulture article that uses that as her name https://www.vulture.com/2021/12/the-matrix-was-when-the-wachowskis-ambition-went-mainstream.html (which is itself quoting something I can’t read because paywall). Also not sure if this is necessary after reading the wikipedia guidelines on changed names for people who arent the article’s main subject, although I’m not sure how it applies to infoboxes. 88.104.61.174 ( talk) 05:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The passage where this would most apply is "a production company created by Lana Wachowski and her wife Karin Winslow". That could either be truncated to just "Karin" or changed to "Karin (née Winslow)" since it's the first mention of the spouse in the prose. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to The Wachowskis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

She unfortunately didn’t create the matrix she stole the idea from a black women and admitted in court during the lawsuit. That should be included 104.167.180.167 ( talk) 09:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis ( talk) 09:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"In 2016, Lilly mentioned having a boyfriend. In 2019, she said Mickey Ray Mahoney became her partner and moved in with her." Had to read this sentence a few times before I realized that "her" refers to Lilly. Couldn't tell if it was "she said ... and moved" or "Mahoney became ... and moved" Maybe a rewrite for clarity? -- 2607:FEA8:FF01:4B63:40D8:D86D:E84F:5735 ( talk) 16:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

the chart background colors do not have enough contrast to the color of the text within each cell. this is particularly noticeable for the cells with yellow background color. text color should be changed appropriately. Aasci ( talk) 08:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I commented out this section as it was completely uncited. ALL AWARDS REQUIRE CITATIONS. Skyerise ( talk) 17:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

As I have understood they do not do their things together anymore, and would be easier to have their own articles (or third article about their work together). Is it possible? -- 130.232.239.43 ( talk) 12:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Im not entirely familiar with this side of WP procedure but from what I understand you would need an RFC(?) to split the article. Googleguy007 ( talk) 02:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

...here, with dead names and so on.

Why not just doing it this way: Before their transitions they are called with their male names and films or anything else they did after their transitions they are called by their female names.

Maybe you went through all this already but to me this seems to be not such a bad solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.76.247 ( talk) 20:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

To me, it seems a bad solution. See MOS:GENDERID, particularly "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." Firefangledfeathers 21:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@78.55.76.247 It's a problem because transpeople don't want their gender assigned at birth and deadname plastered over the internet. It's disrespectful to our entire sense of identity. We want nothing to do with our dead names, are trying to leave that aspect of our pasts behind and most of us would be horrified to find a Wikipedia page referring to us by the wrong gender and name. We call it a dead name for a reason. It's dead to us!

- Sincerely, a transwoman. 142.122.154.2 ( talk) 17:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but WP:DEADNAME is our policy. We're en encyclopedia and as they were notable under their deadnames it warrants inclusion. — Czello 18:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@78.55.76.247 Doesn't make it right. 199.119.233.170 ( talk) 18:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a matter of historical record - encyclopedias aren't in the business of erasing history. We do abstain from including deadnames if the person was never notable under it, however. — Czello 18:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@78.55.76.247 Doesn't that apply to many famous transpeople?

Either way, it's disrespectful to deadname people. 199.119.233.170 ( talk) 19:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy and clarity override that. We do include their deadnames in the article so that readers can confirm that these are the same two people that were involved in The Matrix, but we minimize how often the names are included. — C.Fred ( talk) 19:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It depends on whether or not they were famous under their deadname. For example, Paris Lees or Nyla Rose are famous trans people, but their deadnames are omitted because it's not encyclopedic. The deadnames of Chelsea Manning or Caitlyn Jenner, however, are included because they were obviously very famous under those names, and it's an irremovable part of history. — Czello 19:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to The Wachowskis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

+=African American screen writer Sophia Stewart wrote the original work, she was finally awarded her copy right infringement law suit. Your information does not reflect the accurate information. https://www.cctvcambridge.org/node/209881

208.84.32.8 (
talk) 17:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 17:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a hoax, as this article explains. Same website that the OP sourced their article from. $chnauzer 19:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)