Talk:Suffix (name)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Anthroponymy (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


Just for reference, the legal name on my birth certificate is "James Patrick Howard, II" and my father is "James Patrick Howard".

I believe you, but it's still not de rigueur. Quill 21:48, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wife DOES use husband's suffix[edit]

Whoever deleted this reference is completely wrong. The wife of Mr. John Doe, Jr. is indeed Mrs. John Doe, Jr.

Please refer to Emily Post's Etiquette if you won't take my word for it.

Quill 20:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-Although I suppose it's possible it's highly non-traditional and unusual, especially if the suffix is a roman numeral type. The family name does not really include the suffix. The suffix comes after the family name. While I'm sure it's been done before to include the suffix in a family name when changing a name for a marriage I can't help but think it's... incorrect usage because a suffix is factually NOT a family name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Mrs. John Doe, Jr." is correct because it may be thought of as "Mrs. (John Doe, Jr.)". Her own name may be Jane Doe, but by using her husband's name, she is referring to herself by her relationship to John, not her own name.Duane on Wikipedia 19:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duane-light (talkcontribs)


The article states that neither tradition not etiquette decide whether names are promoted (III to Jr., Jr. to Sr., etc.) upon the death of the eldest member of the chain. However, other sources suggest that it is traditional to be promoted. Should I change it, or do others disagree? --ComplexZeta 21:04, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

Disagree. I have done (and still do) a fair amount of reading on points of etiquette. It's not 'wrong' either way (Emily Post, Elizabeth L. Post). Still, if you feel strongly about it, please name the sources and by all means reference this in the entry. I would object to an unsubstantiated 'some souces suggest' or words to that effect. Quill 22:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In that case, I'll leave it. You've probably done more research than I have. --ComplexZeta

According to Miss Manners, "Everyone does move up a notch."

-- Martin, Judith (1991). Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior pp. 31-32. New York: Galahad Books. ISBN 0-88-365-781-3.

Jonathunder 05:35, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Fair enough. (We'll just skip the whole 'does Miss Manners count' argument ;)
I actually like the promotion method myself, but I do understand why others don't want to use it. Does my edit suit? Quill 22:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Promotion doesn't make any actual legal sense. Since the suffix is typically encoded on the birth certificate, credit record, legal papers, etc., changing from "Junior" to "Senior" or "III" to "Junior" would require a legal name change. I suspect it just doesn't happen much anymore at all. --Chetfarmer (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Chetfarmer, I will suppose you are discussing the US, since most of the sources mentioned so far in this discussion are US sources. We have a specific citation in the article showing that Connecticut has no statute or court decision about the proper use of suffixes. If you search on Google scholar, checking the box for legal sources, you can find Texas court decisions that say the suffix is definitely NOT part of the name.
If you look at a page in the CDC website, you will find many relevant documents. The general idea is the CDC issues recommended standard vital records certificates, and most of the states adopt those certificates. In particular, if you look at this page towards the end, you will find both the 2003 and 1989 versions of the standard birth certificate. The 2003 version includes the suffix in the name field, the 1989 version does not. If you read the various documents on the first site that discuss the revision process, you will find that virtually all the reasons for revision related to medical statistics, and there is no explanation of the suffix change. If you look at the names on the panel that did the revision, you will see medical people and state vital records people, but no lawyers. Therefore I contend that the format of birth certificates provides no information about whether suffixes are part of the legal name or not. I intend to bring this up at Wikiproject Law. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The law in the United States is that you may freely adopt a new name at any time provided you do not do so for fraudulent purposes, it is held out to the public for a period of time, and there is no state statute that prohibits this common law right.[1] The question as to whether a suffix is part of the name or not hasn't been given much thought. In most cases, it is irrelevant because of the common law right to change your name at any time. A court may deny a person attempting to promote their suffix if that would lead to confusion or fraud, such as claiming a contract is invalid because the individual (the senior) is dead. It is possible to have a different legal name than what is listed on a birth certificate. You can petition a court to change your name and have a court order that your name be changed (the legal document that would permit you to change the name on your birth certificate) and then fail to have your name on your birth certificate changed. It is at your option to change the name on your birth certificate if you wish. The issue comes up quite frequently with women wishing to use their maiden name. A married woman can ask that their name on their birth certificate be changed to their married name, but they are not required to do so. In some jurisdictions, they can use either their maiden or married name interchangably as long as it is not done fraudulently. Gx872op (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

UK Public Schools[edit]

Clarification and/or expansion is needed here. What about the use of primus and secundus? And is such use limited to boys? Quill 22:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Origins of US social convention?[edit]

Does anyone know the history of how the convention of naming subsequent generations with numbered suffixes came about in the U.S. as it is almost non-existant in other English speaking countries (ther than aristo's of course)? 13:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd venture that the answer is at least partially explained in your question: Imitating the aristocrats and stroking the ego by starting a dynasty of one's own. This practice has several practical complications, for example fathers and sons constantly receiving one another's mail. And, if the practice of "promotion" is used, a second source of confusion arises from the fact that written documents aren't necessarily updated. So it becomes necessary to know the senior's date of death as well as the date of any written record where a person in the chain is mentioned. Seems to me that these practical complications aren't really outweighed by any real benefits to the family or society. Naming laws are anathema in the US but I believe that outlawing this anachronistic practice would save lots of money in the long run. --CodeGeneratR 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

skipping a generation[edit]

So there is debate in my family as to the proper customs when a generation is skipped. If the father is not named after his predecessors (ie. NOT named john smith III) can his son pick up the number where it was left off? Or would the new son be considered the first?

I'm not from the US, but a paragraph in the article would seem to give a clue: Primarily in the U.S.A. (and never in the U.K.), boys who should be styled junior are sometimes incorrectly labeled with the suffix ‘II’, particularly if there is a third or fourth with the same name. Even if a legal title, this is socially incorrect; strictly speaking, ‘II’, pronounced the second, refers to a boy who is named after his grandfather, uncle, or cousin. The suffixes ‘II’, ‘III’, etc. are also correctly written 2nd, 3rd, etc. (Emphasis mine.) If the numbering down the generations goes "John Smith, Henry Smith, John Smith II", it would seem logical that it would also go "John Smith, John Smith, Jr, Henry Smith, John Smith III". (Besides, if a son had to have the same name as his father to continue the numbering then presumably "II" would never be used, which clearly isn't the case.) Proteus (Talk) 19:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is the same as yours, Proteus. Things can get confusing very quickly, e.g. in your second example, upon the death of John Smith, or if John Smith also sired Michael Smith and Robert Smith, either (or both!) of whom decides to name his son after his father. In the anon. user's case as well as the others, I would opt for a different middle name so that the new son is, indeed, the first. Quill 01:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

One should note an interesting scenario that co-exists between two branches of the Astor family, the American and the British branch. Within the Astor family, many male-line descendants of John Jacob Astor have been named in his honor in both branches and skipping generations. The practice for the Astor family is to assign the next suffix (IV, V, VI, etc.) to the net individual born who is named John Jacob Astor. As a result, it is not uncommon to have sequential numerals be held by distance cousins. One possible reason for this practice could be due to the prominence of the family internationally so as to avoid having to living individuals sharing the same suffix and both being well known to the public. This is obviously not a concern for the average family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comma before Jr. and Sr. not mandatory; it's optional[edit]

Modern usage does not require a comma before "Jr." Most American newspapers and news magazines, in fact, following the Associated Press Stylebook, leave out the comma. Acsenray 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Acsenray.
1. There is often a significant if not vast difference between social etiquette and what is printed in American newspapers and news magazines (e.g. that poor lady was NOT called "Princess Diana"!! Still, I don't feel strongly enough about this to change back--or even to look up what the majority is.
2. As far as I know, this type of edit: 'blah blah' to "blah blah" is a correction from Commonwealth styling to American styling and is considered rude at Wikipedia unless it is germane to the article. Just a 'heads up!' before you lose your mind change every 'aluminium' to 'aluminum' and take a lot of flak for it! Cheers Quill 02:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
p.s.--If Wikipedia has made a style decision on inverted commas--or on quotation marks--please let me know so I don't take flak for it! Thanks.
Quill 02:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not on a mission to change all 's to "s. The only thing I'll say on that point is that there is a separate character for ", so it seems to me that writing it with two 's is not appropriate, or at least disfavoured.
However, what I am interested in working out is the claim in the article (which I changed) that "Jr." requires a preceding comma. I've taken out that claim and I note that you don't object to my change.
I'd also like to point out that when a comma is used before "Jr.," it is usually the case that one is required after as well. Such as in this case:
Interestingly, the son of actor Lon Chaney, was billed by Hollywood as Lon Chaney, Jr., to capitalize on his father’s success, even though he had an entirely different birth name.
That second comma is necessary. However, if you follow modern style, then you don't have to worry about it:
Interestingly, the son of actor Lon Chaney, was billed by Hollywood as Lon Chaney Jr. to capitalize on his father’s success, even though he had an entirely different birth name.Acsenray 14:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What about same middle initial?[edit]

My father has the same first name and middle initial as I do, however different middle name.

I know it's not right, but I happen to consider myself "Robert J. Salender, II"

I don't think it is right to be a junior by middle initial... just by middle name. So that's why I do this.

But it's completely wrong.

Most businesses want first name and middle initial. They are both "Robert J." for my father and me, so what am I supposed to do?
Rjsec4ever 07:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Complain to your dad perhaps? :-P Anyway, I think it's entirely up to you to style yourself "Jr" or "II" as you please, so-called "etiquette" be damned. --CodeGeneratR 06:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Merriam Webster online states that "Junior" is a suffix used to distinguish between family members with the same given name, and it elsewhere defines "middle name" as anything that follows the given name and preceeds the family name. Consquently, using "Jr." when only the first names are identical is acceptable according to the Webster's Dictionary definition. By contrast, the Wikipedia standard seems to require identical first and middle names. (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A tradition for several generations in my family was for one generation to have the first name "William" but different middle names and so avoid the use of "Jr." or "III" etc. But all this is a matter of convention and there is no reason why I couldn't have used a generational suffix, other than personal preference and the fact that I don't know how far back this practice goes, so I don't know whether I am a "III" or something higher. Oh, and by the way, I have never heard, until now, of the practice of "promotion" following the death of an ancestor, not to say it doesn't exist. Wschart (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In the U.S.,...[edit] does a father add "Sr." to his name(by court-ordered name-change?), when he names his son after himself?--Anglius 01:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out whether a suffix is considered part of a name in the US myself. I looked at the Center for Disease Control web site; it turns out they collect medical statistics about births, and as part of that effort, they create a model birth certificate that they recommend that the several states adopt. Their older model certificates did not have a place to indicate a suffix as part of the baby's name, but the new one, adopted in 2003, does. Also, if you read things like the Chicago Manual of Style, you will find that some families change the survivor's suffixes when a person dies, and other families don't. My take on it is it is a hopeless mess.
Add into the mix what I call $10,000 despots. These are local officals who think they know what they are doing and impose their will upon all the people who have to deal with. If the amount in question is less than around $10,000, it does not pay to sue them, so people are forced to put up with these jackasses. So, my bottom line is never, under any circumstances, put a suffix on a birth certificate. It would be equally foolish for a father to go through a legal process to add Sr. to his name. A typical problem would be that you buy a house using a suffix, and then you want to sell it. In the mean time, the rules for identity documents have been made stricter, and at the closing, you can't provide adequate proof that the suffix is really part of your name, and the closing falls apart. --Gerry Ashton 02:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I thank you, Mr. Ashton.--Anglius 03:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Question of suffix placement in Last, First[edit]

Where should the suffix be placed when the name is rendered in "Last, First" order? Should it be "Williams, Hank Jr." or should it be "Williams Jr., Hank"? Or is there not really a definite guideline? A Pattern O 15:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have always seen it as, to use your example, Williams Jr., Hank. That is the suffix stays attached to the last name. However, I cannot source this. 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the way the US government does it, at least for passports. I'm looking at mine right now... - Acq3 (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was always taught that it would be "Williams, Hank Jr." Mainly because Jr is not part of his last name; it is a suffix. Also because "Last, First" lists are mostly used for alphabetization. With your method, a computer-sorted list would show: Williams Jr, Hank; Williams Jr, Henry; Williams, Hank; Williams, Henry

while the following seems more correct: Williams, Hank; Williams, Hank Jr; Williams, Henry; Williams, Henry Jr. Of course, Uncle Sam never makes mistakes .... Mmmonica (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Relation to Post-nominal letters article[edit]

I suggest that most of the details about post-nominal letters could be moved to that article and this article could provide just a summary. Nurg (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but suffixes of the form "junior","the younger", "the third" et cetera ought to remain here. (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Two's compliment scheme[edit]

The scheme described as "two's compliment" appears to be more what is known as a "one's compliment" system. I never heard of "two's compliment" with regard to name suffixes, but if it does have any basis in actual usage, it was misnamed. When the next lower number from positive zero is negative zero, that described a one's compliment system and not a two's compliment system. -L.Smithfield (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The two-edit editor who inserted material under the heading "Two's Complement Naming Scheme" did use the correct spelling; that material was removed in under 5 hours, a couple of days before the above contrib (whose timestamp is confirmed by the tk-pg edit history).
    --Jerzyt 01:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Junior: distinguishing legal names from nicknames[edit]

I think a source of confusion in the article is that if fails to distinguish cases in which generational suffixes (Jr, Sr, II, III) are part of a person's legal name or not. It should be obvious that if the suffix is used informally (as a nickname), there is more leeway in adding it or changing (e.g., George W. Bush as George Bush Jr.). But if the suffix is part of one's legal name, any changes are more difficult, since it would need to go through a legal process.

I added a short paragraph, but I thing the whole section could be reworked considering such distinction. Some of the discussion becomes moot with such proper distinction (e.g. one nicknamed Junior can move up to become Senior upon the death of the father if his family wanted, but not if "Junior" is part of his legal name). Just my two cents. -- (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the suffix is in fact part of a person's name, it is merely a description, just as the place of residence would be a description. I don't have it at hand, but my reading in the "name" entry in the West legal dictionary supports this. Also the reference 3 in the article suggests there is no clear law on the issue.
Since I have made a credible challenge to the concept that the suffix is part of the legal name, I suggest it would be the responsibility of anyone who wants to include a claim that it is part of the "legal" name to provide sources to prove it.
By the way, I think the term "legal name" is hardly defined in the U.S.A., and I have not seen it used much in laws until the passage of the REAL ID Act. In my opinion, the drafting of that act is terrible and the implementing regulations are even worse. I wouldn't use it as a guide to anything. However, those who are willing to pay attention to it may note that the final implementing rules contain this definition:

Full legal name means an individual's first name, middle name(s), and last name or surname, without use of initials or nicknames.

Notice there is no mention of a suffix as part of the "full legal name". --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Are juniors who become seniors disrespectful?[edit]

The following claim was added by User:EEEThomas1:

In some American cultures, it is considered disrespectful for a son to move up from Jr. to Sr.

This moving up, actually erases the thought or memory of the Father or Senior family member in the tree line which causes the confusion and is more or less a slap in the face to the Senior because it states there was no other Senior before the son who moved up.

This definitely causes confusion on family trees when family members are trying to trace their roots.

I am not convinced of this and would like to see some reliable sources to support this claim. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't have any sources, but that quote entirely agrees with my sentiments. I have known several people with Sr/Jr/III etc suffixes and have never heard of this "promotion". It seems to go completely against the entire point of the suffix. That is just the impression I've gotten growing up in the culture of the American south. --Khajidha (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Relevant misplaced talk[edit]

The following talk contributions were made on talk:Junior, at times when that page had already been (and presuambly still was) a Dab page. They were off topic there, and have been struck thru. They may be relevant here. (The box was added by me for clarity of attribution status.)
--Jerzyt 01:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(Exact name?)[edit]

"By convention, the child must have the exact same name as the parent (same first, middle and last name)."

So if, for example, John Smith (with no middle names) is the father of John Paul Smith, then what is the correct way to refer unambiguously to the father? -- Smjg 11:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Same way we unambiguously refer to former U.S. presidents John Adams (no middle name) and John Quincy Adams, I suppose...
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2007


The definition says 'They are sometimes also called II, '. I had heard that 'II' refered to being named after an uncle, not the father. Any truth to this? 12:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not use Sr?[edit]

The article states:

Importantly, Sr is never used by a man.

This is surprising to me as I know men (not in the public eye) who use Sr. Furthermore, when my son was born my wife wanted to name him after me. We did so, and she included JR. on his birth certificate as part of his name and we have tried to include this on all paperwork related to him (example, it is on his U.S.-issued passport, social security card, U.S. savings bonds, etc.). Then I changed my name to include the suffix "Sr.". So, Sr. is now on my U.S.-issued passport, state-issued driver's license, FAA-issued pilot certificate, credit cards, bank accounts, legal documents such as wills and durable power of attorneys, etc. Yes, doing this was a bit of a hassle, but it helps prevent ambiguity. For example, when mail arrives at our home, so long as it has a suffix, it is clear to which one of us it is addressed. We have still had some mix-ups (i.e. at the pharmacy and with an insurance company), but I do believe consistently using both the Jr. suffix (for my son) and Sr. suffix (for me) has prevented more confusion than it has caused. It seems helpful to have the suffix explicitly written, vs. assuming that the absense of the suffix means it is referring to the elder (as in some cases a suffix may get dropped either accidentally, or intentionally).

He is given a name and that remains his name for life. He is the original article and does not change his name.

This sounds untrue. Women certainly may change their names (for example, when they get married) and there are legal processes in place for doing so. These same legal processes can be used by a man to change his name to add a Sr. suffix.

I also find other information that seems to contradict what is written in the Wikipedia article. For example, states:

In the U.S. if a son has the same name as his father, the father will assume the suffix of "Sr." for senior and the son the suffix of "Jr." for junior. For the Senior/Junior suffix to apply the names (first, middle and last) must be exactly the same.

I realize that this is just someone's blog, but at least it helps to support that my view is not alone. Again, the wikipedia article states:

Importantly, Sr is never used by a man.

Could someone please clarify for me why this is so "Important"? The importance of this seems like an opinion, and one that is certainly debatable. Perhaps a statement more like "It is uncommon for a man to use Sr." would be more appropriate. (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the absolute statement that men never use "Sr." is not true, as are virtually all absolute statements about names in English-speaking countries; indeed, there seems to be slightly more evidence that the suffix isn't even part of the name than the contrary position.
There are practical problems for the person who adds "Sr." after his name. With the concerns over terrorism and identity theft, plus the fact that much ID checking must be done by relatively unskilled persons, I could easily imagine a scenario like this in California:
Notary to person who just signed real estate deed: "I see that your driver's license says William Smith, but the deed says William Smith Sr. I'll have to see some ID that says William Smith Sr."
Signer: "The state where I live won't put Sr. on driver's licenses. But here is my son's birth certificate."
Notary: "I'm sorry, but the state made a list of the documents I can use, like driver's licenses and passports, and birth certificates are not on the list. I can't pay any attention to the birth certificate. I guess you'll have to hire a lawyer to straigten this out. Goodbye."
Jc3s5h (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The section on professional suffixes is rather U.S.-oriented[edit]

What could be done about this? Perhaps divide the section into regional subsections? (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So-called legal names[edit]

This article should avoid the term "legal name". Just within the US, there are various agencies and states which do, or do not, include a suffix as part of one's legal name. Then there is the rest of the world to contend with. I don't believe it is possible to define the term "legal name" except in a narrow context that would not be suitable for a Wikipedia article. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


The current version of the "Esquire" section indicates that in the US, "Esq." is used both socially and by lawyers. Certainly it is used by lawyers, both male and female. It's used occasionally by men socially, but it's pretty unusual. Perhaps this should be reworded. If we are to indicate it is used socially by men of high social standing in the US, it might be good to find a reliable source that says so. Maybe it's only used by US men who think they are in high standing socially. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Few absolute statements[edit]

Few absolute statements can be made about names. This edit contains at least one absolute statement that I don't think could be proven even for a single English-speaking country, much less the whole world. (Statements in Wikipedia should be true for the whole world unless a narrower scope is stated or implied.)

  • A man is born with and dies with his suffix. For example, when a Sr. of a family dies, his son remains Jr. and grandson remains III.

There are some preexisting statements that also label some usages as absolutely correct or incorrect, but even for just the United States, I can't find any source that isn't contradicted by some other equally plausible source. For example, "The term "junior" is correctly used only if a child is given exactly the same name as his or her parent." (See footnote 4 in the article.) Also, citations are in APA Style, as indicated by the second version below


On the basis of the style established in the early versions below, I am marking this article as using American spelling and dates formatted like September 9, 2013.


Jc3s5h (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Way to much detail on particular families[edit]

Does anyone else feel that the many paragraphs devoted to particular families and the succession of suffixs down several generations is over long given the breadth of the article?

One family might be interesting if it has a lot of corner cases, but there are multiple ones in the article. It seems over weight for the scope of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If I ever find a useful discussion of the topic in a thoroughly reputable source, I'll replace the whole awful section. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yay.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Rename and reorganize as a CONCEPTDAB page[edit]

These are not suffixes. The es at the end of suffixes is a suffix. And we're mixing and matching completely different classes of name elements. This probably serves some kind of purpose as WP:CONCEPTDAB page, but should branch out to artiles that handle these things separately and correctly, with proper sourcing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: If you don't call "Jr." and "Sr." suffixes, then what do you call them? Suffix (disambiguation) makes a distinction between the meaning in linguistics, and other meanings such as in names. Wiktionary defines Jr. as "a title used after a son's name when his father has the same name", but our article on title makes no relevant mention to say that "Jr." or "Junior" are titles. A quick Google search shows that "suffix" does seem to be the common name for this topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Also note that. as you're disputing the title we have a template for that: {{disputed title}}. But the way you did it is fine. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This is more than a title dispute, and I wouldn't use that tag unless there were WP:NPOV problem, e.g. describing something as "The [something] Genocide" without RS for such an appellation.

Junior and senior are post-nominal patronymics, and should be covered in detail at Patronymic. We have too much material here rambling on and on about it, while that article is missing the information. Much much else is missing or not covered properly there. E.g. fils and Fitz- are covered under England, but fils is French, and Fitz- is almost exclusively Norman-Irish, but not mentioned under Ireland, and fils is not mentioned, nor is the counterpart père, under France. And so on. That article could be improved my fixing those problems, and moving the junior/senior material here to England over there and paring it down. Then that subsection over there should be be rearranged by culture, since it doesn't have anything to do with national borders (the "English" traditions are also native to southern Scotland and are of the Anglo-Saxon and later Anglo-Norman culture; the Gaelic ones should be described as such; the French traditions can probably be called that, since it's found in other French-speaking areas like parts of Belgium and Switzerland; etc.)

The Suffix (name) article probably needs to move to Post-nominal (usurping that redirect and Postnominal from the article Post-nominal letters), and be a much leaner WP:CONCEPTDAB page, in WP:SUMMARY style, than it presently is. It should mention and illustrate post-nominal letters without trying to define them in detail, just give {{Main|Post-nominal letters}}, some examples of different types, and leave it at that. It's not acceptable that it's WP:POVFORKing from that article so much that it has a {{Contradicts other}} tag on it. The {{Globalize}} problem is resolved by not trying to address it in-depth here, but only at the main Post-nominal letters article, which is already broad. The current should-be-conceptdab page need only present a summary of these two things, the use of post-nominal appellations of other kinds (e.g. professional ones that are not acronyms, and legal terms), again branching to main articles whenever possible, e.g. the one at Esquire. Much of the content presently here is also even internally redundant on this page, e.g. we cover "Esq." twice, back to back.

The purpose of a page like this is to get people to the real articles they're looking for, not to compete with those articles. "Name-like stuff that comes after a proper name" is not really a discrete topic at all. There is no relationship between any of these things other than the accident of where they are placed (in English). Trying to treat them all as the same topic is a classic example of original research. A summarizing conceptual disambiguation page can and should exist, providing just enough information to help people locate the proper articles, because there's a legitimate reader need to serve. Someone who encounters a post-nominal with which they are unfamiliar is not likely to already know whether it is patronymic, professional, legally categorizing, honorary, etc. It's also fine that Suffix (name) continues to redirect here, since the distinction will not be clear to everyone and plenty of people are likely to think of these as suffixes, so we should continue to help them find what they're looking for if they use that search term.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There are two parts to this suggestion: (1) renaming and (2) reoganizing as a CONCEPTDAB page. To take these in order:
Renaming: It seems to me that the problem with moving this to 'post-nominal' is that some suffixes (e.g. Jr.) are part of the name, rather than being post-nominal. This is why they're not discussed on post-nominal letters. I note that while the Oxford Dictionary (at least the free online version) doesn't support this usage of suffix, referring only to the grammatical sense, the Collins Dictionary does, having "anything that is added at the end of something else" as one of their definitions. That would seem to fit with the use of 'name suffix' here to mean "anything that is added at the end of a name". 'Post-nominal', by contrast, can only mean something added after the name, not something added at the end of a name. I would oppose renaming this page to 'post-nominal' on these grounds.
Reorganizing: This sounds like a good idea and I support this.
Robminchin (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This probably wouldn't alter Robminchin's point, but the claim "some suffixes (e.g. Jr.) are part of the name, rather than being post-nominal". is controversial, and whether a suffix is part of the name is likely to vary from one jurisdiction. For example, I've seen a court decision from Texas saying the suffix isn't part of the name, another one from Connecticut saying the law doesn't provide any rules at all about suffixes, and the Oregon DMV will add, remove, or change suffixes on the driver's say-so, with no documentary proof. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Various RS, including the leading British style guide New Hart's Rules (AKA Oxford Style Manual, Oxford Guide to Style) strongly disagree with Robminchin's assertion that "Jr" and "Sr" are "part of" the name, and state categorically that "Sr" is never part of anyone's name, but a disambiguator added after he has son with the same name, and that "Jr" is also an add-on, which is dropped in most contexts when the father dies. The present title is sourceably incorrect, both as a linguistic matter and as style matter, using a looser definition of "suffix".  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see how whether the name is, or isn't, an official part of the name makes any difference as to whether it can be called a suffix. I personally am more lenient about extending the meaning of a word such as "suffix" when there isn't any better alternative. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)