Talk:The Wachowskis

Prominence given to their deadnames

Even if their deadnames are associated with their professional work, why are the deadnames so prominent (currently in the very first sentence of the article)?

If at all the deadnames need to be specified, why can they not be mentioned in the "Early lives and careers" section or the "Film and television careers" section?

There is no justification for parading the deadnames so high up in the article. Splitpeasoup (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

They were extremely notable under the names (perhaps more so than they are now). It's a similar case to Elliot Page given the prominence of the names. I don't see why we'd downplay that. — Czello ^(music) 08:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: Czello

Agreed, though I'll add that a more neutral analogue would be Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali, whose lede is handled in the exact same way, noting, too, that Ali had enormous success and fame garnered under "Clay" (and was crowned heavyweight champion of the world) before changing his name. ~2026-81743-5 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Elliot Page doesn't have a "Born Ellen Page" Section in his side header, or such prominence as the Wachowskis' page does. perhaps removing the Born as section from the side header is for the best?. JabbingQuirker (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely agree - as much more of an avid reader as opposed to an editor it immediately struck me as incredibly strange to see two mentions of both women's deadnames within the intro and summary of the article. Can we fix this please? Optimal-Soil672 (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

No - they were very notable under those names. Perhaps even more so than their current names. — Czello ^(music) 08:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Czello These two women are human beings currently alive - I understand you may want to preserve information, but I advise you to consult with people within the community that these women exist in; it is disrespectful and strange to insist that this information be displayed front and centre of the article when it can exist as a footnote/later down in the article Optimal-Soil672 (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately, notability is what matters here. They were most notable under their deadnames, so it's appopriate that it's listed where it is. We haven't mentioned it more than necessary, but we also can't pretend that this isn't how they have been most well known as. I don't agree at all that it's strange - in fact it would be strange to try to hide it. It being disrespectful is matter of opinion and not wholly relevant. — Czello ^(music) 13:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Czello The suggestion that they were perhaps even more notable under their deadnames is also a claim that cannot be verified or substantiated. It implies that their work before transition is somehow more significant than their work after, a value judgment that has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. It also ignores the fact that their later work, including Sense8 and The Matrix Resurrections, has been critically acclaimed and deeply influential, particularly within queer and trans communities.

There is a simple and respectful solution here: move the deadnames to the Early life or Career section, where they can be noted in context. They do not need to be in the very first sentence, or the infobox, or anywhere that implies they are still their primary identifiers.

Also that's fantastic that you do not agree at all, but as you so wonderfully put it, that is a matter of opinion 😊 Optimal-Soil672 (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Czello Also I note that your editing history does not appear to include contributions to articles on trans or LGBTQ+ topics. That doesn't invalidate your editorial opinion, but it does raise a question about whether you have engaged with the relevant community guidelines and cultural context that inform this discussion. Deadnaming is not merely a stylistic preference, it is a matter that has been extensively discussed within both Wikipedia's own policies and the broader trans community. I would welcome input from editors who have experience with these guidelines and who understand the broader implications of giving prominence to deadnames in biographical articles. Optimal-Soil672 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The primary intent for the prominence in the first sentence is to let our readers know they are on the correct article.

If you are unfamiliar with the Wachowskis, pick up some pre-transition work of theirs in a second-hand shop or library with their deadnames printed on the cover, and then go to their Wikipedia article and get redirected to a page about Lana and Lilly you may think you're in the complete wrong place. Given they were extremely notable under their deadnames, it is only fitting that we tell the readers "yes, you're in the right place because A and B used to be know as Y and Z".

I do understand that this is a sensitive matter in the trans community - and Wikipedia's policies do seek to show respect to the trans community by not using deadnames as much as possible - but this is one of those cases where by making minimal use of their deadnames we have an opportunity to educate our readers to the subjects' current names and thus making minimal use of deadnames is appropriate. stwalkerster (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Stwalkerster I appreciate the practical concern about readers finding the right article, but I don't think that justifies placing deadnames in the first sentence and infobox. A brief note in the 'Early life' section would accomplish the same goal, allowing readers to connect their past names to their current ones without making those names the first thing someone sees. The current prominence implies that their deadnames are still their primary identifiers, which they are not.

I also want to gently push back on the idea that this is an 'educational opportunity.' The Wachowskis are not teaching materials. They are living people who have expressed their preference for how they are referred to. Our job as editors is to represent them accurately and respectfully, not to centre the reader's potential confusion over their dignity. Optimal-Soil672 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The "Early life" section is far further down the page than most people will actually read if they suspect they are on the wrong page, so I strongly disagree that placing their names there will have the same impact. The current prominence is exactly as designed - catch your eye and highlight that this is the correct article but that the reader may be using outdated names. It clearly says "formerly" next to their deadnames, so I also strongly disagree that these are presented as their current names.

I didn't say that the Wachowskis themselves are teaching materials, but the article about them (and this entire website) are teaching materials about the subjects of those articles. They have indeed expressed a preference as to how they are referred to, and it our job as an encyclopedia to teach our readers that their names have changed. Disregarding their pre-transition accompliments by causing reader confusion over their identity would also be a disservice to them. stwalkerster (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I am implying their work pre-transition is more notable than post. We can get into the weeds of that if you want, but I'm sure it's clear the Matrix is obviously their most notable work by far.

As for my editorial history on LGBT topics, I'll say this. You seem to be seeking editors who are aligned to your view. This is not in keeping with our editorial practices, nor is it NPOV. The fact I have not edited on these topics , I believe, makes me more impartial on this topic. We should be actively avoiding partisan editors in this manner.

I do not wish this to sound cold, but how the trans community considers deadnames is irrelevant. We're an encyclopedia, and we're not here to appease minority groups.

And I think this is what you are missing. We are an encyclopedia. We, ultimately, need to be emotionless and stoic about this. We simply need to report on the facts and what's notable. What's offensive is secondary. — Czello ^(music) 00:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Let me just reiterate my suggestion: Keep the amount of usage of deadnaming, but format it to a different section. That is literally it, my guy 😭

You've just argued that a lack of expertise on a topic makes you more qualified to weigh in on it. That is not neutrality. That is the Dunning-Kruger effect dressed up as editorial principle.

- Imagine if a medical editor said, 'I've never studied oncology, which makes me more impartial on cancer treatment articles.'

- Imagine if a historian said, 'I've never read a single book on the Holocaust, so I can approach it without bias.'

You would rightly recognise that as absurd because knowledge, not ignorance, is the foundation of accurate representation.

But when it comes to trans people, suddenly ignorance becomes a virtue. Suddenly the people who have never engaged with the community, never read the guidelines, never considered the harm; they are the ones best suited to decide what is 'neutral.'

Neutrality is not the absence of knowledge. Neutrality is the fair application of knowledge. What you are offering is the comfort of the status quo, dressed up as objectivity.

You are not impartial. You are just uninformed. And the fact that you mistake one for the other is precisely the problem.

You have just argued that the perspective of the people most affected by an article's content is 'irrelevant' to how that article is written. That is a declaration that the subjects of your writing have no say in how they are represented. The idea that excluding marginalised communities from the creation of knowledge about them leads to incomplete, inaccurate, or harmful scholarship is a well-established concept in contemporary academic discourse. It is not a niche argument but a central critique across many fields. The academic consensus is that knowledge is stronger, more accurate, and more just when it includes and centers the perspectives of the people it claims to describe.

Wikipedia is not written for the benefit of the people it describes; it is written for the benefit of the people who read it. But that does not mean the dignity of the subjects is irrelevant. Wikipedia's own policy on Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) states that we have a responsibility to protect the privacy and dignity of living subjects. That is not appeasement. That is the policy you are supposed to be upholding.

You are not being neutral by dismissing the trans community's perspective. You are being selective about whose perspectives matter. You have decided that your comfort with the status quo is more important than the dignity of two living people. You say objectivity, I say bias masquerading as principle.

How beautiful that you can use the term 'we' to assert authority on your words.

WE are here to take on new information from communities in relation to the articles that concern them. You seem to be under the impression that topics in an encyclopedia should be primarily edited and maintained by non-experts in that field - please contact any higher learning institution and explain your principle to them, I'm sure it'll give them a good laugh 🤗 ~2026-45972-70 (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The current prominence reflects the notability. As I say, their most notable works are under their deadnames.

You seem to think I'm ignorant to the points opponents to deadnames make here. I'm not. I know exactly why people don't want the deadnames here, or as prominent. You seem to think me not agreeing is me being informed - but I've heard it all before, because we've had these debates several times on this article and others.

To be clear, as you've made this point a few times here: I am not saying the affected communities should excluded from editing these articles. However, it was you who brought up my editing history, so that is why I will say that my opinion is not worth less than a trans person's, nor that I should defer to them on the way to structure this article. This isn't performing medicine, or interpreting history, it's applying the policies of encylopedia. That's why being detached from the emotion is a virtue here, because those who want the deadnames deemphasised aren't coming at this neutrally. We do listen to the concerns around including deadnames, and marginalised communities are of course welcome to edit, but that doesn't mean they get the final say. — Czello ^(music) 07:11, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Disrespectful to whom? Itsthesoftlifeforme (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

kinda silly to not give them their own pages, is it not?

I mean they're different people 2607:FEA8:2BA0:5E00:32B9:4BEB:13A0:BD8F (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's what's silly here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.220.12 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

A significant amount of their work was done as a duo. It's reasonable to keep them together.CRBoyer 17:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

But looking at other filmmaking duos, the Coen brothers each have their own page in addition their shared page despite the fact that Joel has directed only one film solo. Lana directed Resurrections alone and Lilly developed Work in Progress alone among other things -- that's about equivalent to Joel and there are people with dedicated pages who've done less. Crazylittlefrog (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Image

I understand that there is no image in the infobox because there are no free of use photos of Lilly post-transition, but I feel like that having an image of only one of the two sisters in the infobox is better than none. I think this image would fit well. The One and Only Brett (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the picture you added is an improvement. It's a little strange that the Wachowskis still only have a single page rather than separate ones for each, which causes some of these issues. – notwally (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious, why can't we justify a non-free image of both Wachowskis in the infobox? The page is clearly and unequivocally about two people, and there is no free image that shows both people post-transition. I have uploaded a non-free image under fair use, and have put it in the infobox. Please offer your thoughts, and feel free to revert if I've made a mistake or have misunderstood the image guidelines. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

https://www.gaypost.it/lilly-wachowski-trans-glaad-awards

Looking at this link, This Italian paper is licensed under CC BY-SA and has a post-transition image of Lilly Wachowski, Could this image not be used? Fairly new to Wikipedia edits, so I don't want to edit directly, in case I'm incorrect, however it seems that this fits the image criteria. JabbingQuirker (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It's the correct license, but I don't know what that website is enough to trust that they actually have the rights to that image. I'm in a rush right now, so I can't think about this or help any more right now. ～ Misha Vargas (talk | contribs) 10:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I just looked a little further into it and it seems copyright lies with Chris Pizzello of AP news, and is copyrighted. Still looking for a CC BY-SA image of her, but it seems that none exist. JabbingQuirker (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Castration Movie

I can confirm that Lilly Wachowski is credited as an executive producer in Castration Movie Anthology ii. The Best of Both Worlds, as I have seen the film and her name appears in the credits. However, as the film is brand new and pretty obscure, I can't find any online sources that verify this; just a couple of articles that mention that she contributed to the Kickstarter for the first part. Do I need to wait for a reputable source to mention this before I add it? Because I don't think this movie will get a lot of media coverage BossBabyIsAMasterpiece (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Names in the lead

I would like to get input on how the Wachowskis' names are presented in the lead. Currently it says they were "born Larry Wachowski" and "born Andy Wachowski" but that is not true. They were born Laurence and Andrew. Larry and Andy are nicknames and the names they used in their early directing work (and the names they used when they became famous), but they were not born with those names.

My suggestion would be to make this edit to the lead. You will notice that another editor reverted this change and requested discussion, which is absolutely okay with me.

@Czello, what are your thoughts? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

How about "formerly" rather than "born", given that they were very notable under those names? — Czello ^(music) 14:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe this?

Lana Wachowski (/wəˈtʃaʊski/) (formerly Larry Wachowski, born June 21, 1965) and Lilly Wachowski (formerly Andy Wachowski, born December 29, 1967) are American film and television directors, writers and producers.

Do you have any thoughts about how to make it look less awkward with the pronunciation key, which creates two sets of parentheses in a row? The key was formerly after "the Wachowskis" a bit farther down the page, but I thought it was even worse there, as it broke up the sentence and didn't come until after the fourth mention of the name Wachowski. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. I don't see a huge issue with the two sets of parantheses in a row (not ideal, but not the end of the world). Perhaps they could be merged into one, so it reads (/wəˈtʃaʊski/, formerly Larry Wachowski, born June 21, 1965). But, as I say, as it is in your reply I wouldn't lose any sleep over. — Czello ^(music) 14:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Great, I implemented the change. And of course, other editors are welcome to chime in on this issue! OrdinaryOtter (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Pre and post-transition images required?

Hi, i've seen that there is an image of Lana on the top of the article on the "table thing" (i don't really know how it's called). Perhaps a portrait of Lilly could be added there? Also, images prior to the their transition would be a nice add, since they did it quite "late" and they already presented work by that time. I'd be bold and do it myself, but i'm not really confident on my research skills for images right now. 73s de BoredEktachrome (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no images of Lilly that are under CC, which is required for images to be added to Wikipedia, I recently reached out to a photographer who seemed willing to upload her photos of Lilly to Wikipedia under a CC license. Hoping she gets back to me soon! ~2026-41185-31 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: Success!

The only issue now is that the infobox doesn't, as far as I know, support putting two images at the top. The only solution I can imagine right now (without splitting the article) is to make an image that combines the two images into one and use that. It certainly wouldn't be unprecedented. ～ Misha Vargas (talk | contribs) 07:22, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

No wait, what am I thinking. Of course there's a way. Very simple. Just a moment. ～ Misha Vargas (talk | contribs) 07:32, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2026

It's confusing because the back of my movies say the wachowski brothers, then, when I get redirected here instead of reading about the movies, i'm trying to figure out if they're the same guys or not ~2026-46136-86 (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: They are. See The_Wachowskis#Personal_lives EvergreenFir (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2026 (UTC)