Template talk:Social titles

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 2019 July 24, see discussion.
Keep, 2018 August 16, see discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Social titles template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Linguistics

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles

England

This template is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles

Scope of this template

I think a template for all commonly-used titles would be good to have (in particular since the page at Titles is so bad). But I don't think it should be limited to "social" titles. I'm making a template for other titles, but in reality I think they should be merged, and if necessary we can create different sections for social and others/professional Alexd (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Professional_titles Alexd (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a page on commonly used titles, social or otherwise. It should be clarified whether that should mean honorifics (i.e. titles preceding the name, such a Mr., Lord, Dr., Father, etc., or also suffixes (Esquire, Ph.D., M.D., etc.). In the latter case however, the list could grow indefinitely. While I realize people are rightly proud of the honors they have earned, this may allow the article or template to grow far, far beyond what the original intention was, and in fact drown it out. Perhaps it would be best to leave the social titles alone, and simply create a second template for other titles.

Re: "Father" as a social title, while technically this is a professional title, it is exceedingly rare for a priest to be in a completely social setting, so this is a de facto social title for him in practice. The only time he might be considered to be in a totally non-professional setting is when he is surrounded exclusively by members of his own family. Using "Dr." "Judge" and "Mayor" socially is done more pretentiously, though "Dr." for M.D.s use socially is steeped in etiquette history, and can squeak by, even though it is still pretentious. -Njsustain (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Debrett's, Doctor is used socially by academics [1] so I added it to this template. This is both a professional title and a social title according to reliable sources so should I feel it should be included here. Robminchin (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was reverted with the claim that Dr is a professional title. While it can be, it should also be clear that this is not always the case. An unemployed PhD, despite having no professional status whatsoever, is still correctly addressed socially as Dr Jones. As Debrett's says "The recipient of a doctorate conferred by a university or other body … is entitled to be addressed as ‘Doctor’." This is different from, e.g., "Professor", which is dependent on holding a professional rank – a retired professor only retains their title if granted an emeritus appointment. Robminchin (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it has been a week without any objection being made to my argument for the inclusion of Dr, I will go ahead an re-include it. Robminchin (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most correctly, a Ph.D. should not use "Dr." socially, but an M.D. certainly can and should. Powers ^T 17:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As shown in the quote above, Debrett's disagrees with you, and is a recognised authority. The idea that Dr is not used socially by PhDs is pretty much confined to North America, and even there authorities differ on what is correct (Emily Post, for instance, is in favour of its use by both PhDs and MDs). Robminchin (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I let me NA-bias show. But your original statement was not geographically limited either. =) Powers ^T 19:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esquire

Dylanmc678 (talk · contribs) moved esquire from masculine to neutral. This is a difference between UK and US usage. The question arises, however, as to whether the US usage by lawyers regardless of gender is purely professional or is it extends to the social – of the former, it should not be included here. Robert Hickey writes:

The traditional use of Esq. is in the U.S.A. is for others to add it to the attorney’s name when writing to a practicing attorney (e.g., on and envelope or on a letter) to note/specify that the attorney is being addressed in his or her role as counsel in litigation / as professional representation in a legal matter.[2]

Which certainly seems to say that it is specifically used professionally, not socially. This is backed up by what he says under 'how to address am attorney'.[3] Similarly, Emily Post says '“Esquire” is a professional designation in the legal arena—not a social title.'[4] I have therefore returned esquire to the 'masculine ' group as describing its use as a social title. Robminchin (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]