Board Thread:Policies/@comment-16461120-20170104212625/@comment-4651179-20170123195204

So far only three users with privileges have weighted on this. There's only one who disagrees, but there's also only two who agree.

I'm not expecting you to convince me. I just don't see the purpose of differentiating the use of "Mister" as part of a codename or honorific due to lack of full name and you haven't answered my question as to why it's necessary to do so. The article itself would make it clear whether the "Mister" is being used as part of an alias or as a honorific for lack of full name. (Not to mention in some cases the "Mister" being part of an alias is a given, e.g. "Mister Negative," "Mister Miracle," "Mister Abnormal")

I'm asking what will be done about other types of honorifics because in case the "Mr. for surnames / Mister for codenames" thing becomes a rule I would like to see true consistency between all honorifics. After all, one of the objectives of your overhaul was to have consistency among all articles. You simply told me that you had not considered other honorifics aside from Mr./Mrs./Ms and then that we shouldn't make a distinction between titles like "Dr." and "Doctor" because of reasons.