Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Interface with DAB

There ought to be clarity between what a list of people with a shared name is: an anthroponymy article (not subject to WP:MOSDAB, but subject to WP:V, WP:RS) or a dab page (subject to WP:MOSDAB, but not to WP:V and WP:RS). I think the vast majority of the wikignomes who really aren't major players in either project treat them as dab's, removing secondary linking, removing redlinks as per WP:DABRL, etc. If they are articles, most are unreferenced and would be a big job for this project to reference what is minimally said in most, that "SURNAME is a (Fooish) surname and may refer to:" and of course, where the title is at SURNAME, when another use such as SURNAME (widget) comes up, the non-name use's addition transforms what was an anthroponymy article into a dab page or is SURNAME to be moved to SURNAME (surname) and the new SURNAME be a dab page showing the surname and the widget? The lack of clarity of guidance will leave things all over the place, as I see has been lamented above, but the wikignomes are much more familiar with the dab project's way of doing things, and it may be defaulted to that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll post a pointer here from the dab project. A related topic: if there are "X (surname)" and "X (disambiguation)" pages, I think we should make clear when/if people with X as a surname should appear on "X (disambiguation)". For example, it took me longer to get to Herman Melville when I forgot his first name than I would expect. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
While we're at it, can we also mention where to list the people with SURNAME as their forename without a surname of their own (saints, popes, royalty and others)? And then what to do about people with SURNAME as a forename, with a separate surname. For some names (eg Paul)we have a page SURNAME (name), for others (John) we have SURNAME (surname) and SURNAME (given name). A guideline, agreed between the two projects, as to how we handle all these issues would be very welcome. PamD (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think, from the dab project perspective, once the name-holder-list article(s) and the disambiguation page have been separated, the only people who should appear on the disambiguation page are those who are ambiguous with the disambiguated title, i.e., those who are commonly referred to by (and might be expected to have an encyclopedia article titled with) the single name. Definitely, this includes the primary topic, if the base "article" for the surname is a redirect to the most commonly sought holder of that name (e.g., Nixon). The separation of one name-holder article into two or more (for surnames, given names, etc.) would just be up to the Anthroponymy Project consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable - and (as a side point) also up to Anthroponymy Project consensus whether to title the people list with "(name)"; or "(surname)" or "(given name)" where all the people fall into just one of those descriptions or in all. See Harrison (name) as people have that as both a surname or a given name; and Melville (surname), also used both as a surname and a given name, and Joy (given name) which lists people with that given name and says that it's a surname too, but no one is listed in the section given for it. Some rationalization probably seems appropriate, but that's for this project not a dab/anth interface issue. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Where should this guideline be listed?

Wikipedia:Disambiguation used to have the clear instruction (long gone for unknown reasons):

Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion).

However, when there is a separate list article, it makes sense to have a link to it in a "See also" section.

It also used to say:

Disambiguation descriptions should not be created for subjects whose only articles are on pages of sister projects, even if the disambiguation page already exists.

Both are very similar to the sentiments expressed above!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither {{given name}} nor {{surname}} should be used on disambiguation pages. The redundant templating is unnecessary and categorization can be achieved by either manually adding the appropriate category or by using the {{disambig}} template with the given name or surname parameter. See here for some previous discussion which led in part to modifying the disambig template to allow parameters. older ≠ wiser 12:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. Please show where the deletion of the two long-standing guidelines referenced above was widely discussed! It seems the consensus here is being violated by the rampant disambiguators, based on a single Talk post there by an editor whose massive multi-parameter one-size-fits-all templates have been deleted in the recent past. Currently, names (and these templates) are on 4,448 disambiguation pages of 15,210 total Category:Surnames (harder to check given names, but surely thousands more). If the names should be part of disambiguation pages, then the project templates should be part of those pages.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Who are you talking about? If you are accusing me, you should check you facts. This has been discussed and the redundant templating is useless. There is no valid use to including both templates on disambiguation pages. As for whatever else you seem to be ranting about, I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. older ≠ wiser 22:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

One (name) to rule them all

Back when I started separating the names (and their descriptions and references) out of the disambiguation pages (circa 2006), only one qualifier form was used: "Blartian (name)". Since then, there have been a plethora of other variants, such as "(given name)", "(surname)", "(cognomen)", "(gens)", etc. It's very confusing, and many names end up in more than one article. I propose that only one "(name)" be used.

The templates {{given name}} and {{surname}} already incorporate text for inclusion in separate sections: This page or section lists .... And there are many such name pages with both templates, each in their own section. Having a single naming standard would greatly ease the burden on editors.

Obviously, when there isn't a disambiguation page, no qualifier is used! In most cases, there isn't a disambiguation page, as that should be limited to disambiguation of the single word.

As the pages are renamed to the common form, the other variant qualifiers should be left behind as redirects.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Order of precedence

Another gem that used to be written was the order of precedence.

If there's a disambiguation page, that always gets the unqualified name. For example:

In this fashion, each contains only those disambiguating parts that are directly related to each other.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Garza

The Garza page is a mess. There are many non-notable people there and several of the sections do not appear to be in any useful order. I know, I should fix it myself but I have a big enough backlog and I'm hoping I can inspire someone else to take it on. Matchups 18:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Three Proposals

1. Adopt Spencer (surname) as template

There is an appeal at the head of the article page “to create an article that can be an example of the model page that all name articles should reflect.” Perhaps rather presumptuously, I think I have got closer to this intention with the article Spencer (surname) than the currently cited article Smith (surname). However, there is plenty of room for improvement of Spencer (surname) and to serve as a good template it probably needs Featured Article status. If this is achieved it can be used as a useful template for all those people wishing to develop their own surname histories. Please give me feedback on ways in which you think the article can be improved to get it up to scratch.

This definately looks like the best last name article so far. We should try to get it to FA status and then make it the official template. Remember (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Article template If the above is accepted as a worthwhile idea then it would help if a there was “general agreement about appropriate universal subheadings” - a set of basic standard headings for both articles and for the Surname template infobox. To get the ball rolling I propose the following:

  • Name variations
    • English
    • Other countries and cultures
  • Etymology
  • Early family history after formation of name
  • Heraldry
  • Genetic lineages
  • Popularity, numbers and distribution
  • Web resources
This looks like a good list. Any other ideas for things to include? Remember (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Surname infobox template I have included quite a wide range of items here – and they will cross-reference with what is in the article too. It includes a bit more than the current one. What do people think?

  • name
  • pronunciation
  • crest or picture
  • caption
  • ethnicity = e.g. English
  • region e.g. Western Europe
  • early_forms
  • origin e.g.Medieval Latin dispensa and dispensator Old French - despensier Anglo-French - espenser Middle English – spens, spenser
  • related names
  • foreign equivalents
  • associated families
  • distinctions
  • traditions
  • heirlooms
  • estate
  • meaning e.g. derived from the Old French despensier, a steward
  • footnotes
I am open to adding more things to the template and these look like good things to add. Remember (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please give me your feedback on these suggestions. Granitethighs 11:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Remember for your support and comments. I have waded in not knowing the history of the Project Group so you have been very patient in your responses - especially as this ground has probably been covered several times before. If it is OK with you I will keep an eye on these headings over the coming weeks, and when there is no more feedback perhaps ask if the surname template can be upgraded - there's some really nice ones around . What do you think? Also I'd appreciate some forthright feedback on Spencer (surname) so that I can work it into better shape. Granitethighs 23:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about traditions, heirlooms, estates; since these kind of things relate more to particular families and not the majority of the surname. One possible option missing is a 'classification' tag of some sort. Something like patronymic/matronymic/occupational/habitational/nickname/ and so on, whatever the reference gives. For example, Spencer would be occupational. I'm unsure what associated families stand for. Does it stand for notable families bearing the surname; or families associated to notable families bearing the surname (for example, in the Spencer article we've got the de Ferrers family)? It seems like it'd be better if the option meant families that actually bear the surname, like Spencer family and any other Spencer family we've got on wikipedia.--Breandán MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yo dawgs. I have submitted this project to [1]. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Surname redirect under consideration for deletion

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 23#Speights (surname) which relates to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speights_%28surname%29&redirect=no . I was alerted to this on my talk-page and have rendered a 'weak keep' opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As Ceyockey was notified so late, this has been relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 30#Speights (surname) and I have appended three similar redirects to the nomination: Chuk (surname), Nowitzki (surname), & Talaska (surname). Expert advice from this wikiproject would be most welcome.-- ToET 05:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Template needed for linking to "surname" and co pages from disambig

Hi there, I just discovered this project by following a link from a "surname" page — as probably most of people. And I think there is something wrong in the way it is done.

Here is the story :

  1. I was looking for a WP entry of some random name, and was redirected to a disambig page.
  2. The name I was looking for wasn't there, so I thought there was no famous people with this name.
  3. I tried to goole at least, and found out actually, there was.
  4. I decided to make a stub of the name of the particular person I was looking for.
  5. The article actually already existed, so I decided just to add this name to the disambig page.
  6. ONLY THEN, I figured out the "blahblah (surname)" link right in the middle of a bunch of unrelated articles.

My point is that surname pages ARE disambig pages, and as such should be emphasized. So there should be a template saying something like :

Any comment ? Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea. Remember (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, surname pages are disambiguation pages. However, existing templates and practices adequately deal with the situation you have described, if they are used properly. For example, look at these pages:
The existing templates used in these articles deal quite well, in my opinion, with the various uses of the word March. Perhaps you have a counterexample. Please provide it, and I will try to use existing templates to remove any ambiguous page titles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't remember the specific case where the surname link was in the middle of a bunch of other links, and I cannot find another page as worse as this one — though many are not as clear as March (disambiguation).
The point is that when you come to a disambiguation page, you are not looking for another disambiguation page. So if you are in a hurry, you will just look for names matching the one you are looking for, and if you don't find a similar one and not even a list of names in less than half a second then you will check if there is an obvious warning in the head of the page, such as a disambiguation warning as proposed, and if there is not you will assume that the page you are looking for is not listed. This is how I work and I bet many work like that as well.
In the example you provided, as the surname link is within the first sentence, it is less problematic because you will read the first sentence anyway. But still, I don't find it satisfying, because it may be moved at any moment, and there is still a risk that I won't see it if I'm in a hurry.
Two examples : in Knight (disambiguation), the surname link is in a "see also" section, at the bottom of the page. No chance I will look there for such a page. And in Thomson (disambiguation), the surname link is at the top, within the page (ie not in a warning template). However, I expect a bunch of famous people named Thomson, so I won't have the slightest look at a one line long section : I will look for a bunch of names. (Ok, in the latter case I will finally think "WTF ??" and probably find it, but there are similar cases for which I may just think that though this name is common, nobody worth noting had it…)
Without such a warning, I am sorry to consider the surname disambiguation pages as a regression. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to join WikiProject Anthroponymy...

Hi there, I want to join in this wiki project... Because I'm interested in some name's meaning... I'm already create some article about name meaning too... but mostly on other Wikipedia language... How it's sound? Ivan Akira (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Great! Feel free to start working. We have a lot to do. Thanks for the help. Remember (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Remember, I will add my name to the list of participant then... Oh yeah, please tell me if I'm doing wrong in any Anthroponymy articles, because I'd like to improve Anthroponymy articles too... Ivan Akira (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Duggan Dugan Dougan Homepage

I started the [Duggan Genealogy Homepage](http://duggan-family.org) many years ago but now find I have difficulty in keeping it up and I could use some assistance. If anyone is in the family and interested in working on the site with me, please write to me lyman@duggan-family.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.182.8 (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alquimou

The article Alquimou has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Alquimou – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sheynhertz-Unbayg

There is a Japanese banned editor who is really, really interested in surnames and placenames (in particular of Jewish families in the former Austria-Hungary). He was banned (indefinitely blocked by me, with nobody willing to unblock) 3+ years ago (he is also banned on the German Wikipedia for threats against me and on the Japanese Wikipedia for copyright infringement, POV pushing and sockpuppetry). For the kind of edits he does, see the edits of his socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheynhertz-Unbayg/Archive and the old cleanup project Wikipedia:SU. I am not really familiar with the current standards for surname pages, but to me, it seems that about 80% of his edits require that somebody else checks them and performs some cleanup (to which he often reacts by calling the cleanup "vandalism"). So I currently just revert and delete whatever he does. I would be very happy to see this work done by people who know what they are doing (e.g. by people who actually care about surname pages). Each of his edits isn't a big problem; the problem is that he makes so many of them and never listens to others (check the SPI page for some 3000 recent edits, all of which needed work, or my block log for some more usernames and IPs. He typically creates a new username when his old one is contacted on the talk page, so it is difficult to talk to him (although email might work). Is there anybody up to the challenge? I'm really, really tired of this... I wouldn't even mind unblocking SU himself if somebody can get him to behave in a more reasonable way. — Kusma talk 11:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Anthroponymy to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. Remember (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done The bots should start in the next 24h.--Oneiros (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tidy up article

Could anyone cleanup and add references to Bugden? I don't know where to start. Thanks Mattg82 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That was easy to start: it was just non-encyclopedic trivia, not to say unreferenced. Mukadderat (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

First names

Is there a task to make an order with given names. Eg., to group/classify them by origin, to structure the related articles, e.g., separate the etymology from namelists in different pages, etc. My question is because I've just looked at the Margaret (name) and I don't know how to deal with it. I have a number of general suggestions, but again, I don't know where to start the discusion best. Mukadderat (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Project banner tagging

Shouldn't all the pages in Category:Given names be tagged with the project's banner? --Siddhant (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

uh

I didn't see any other Katherine article when i searched. I met all the guidelines as far as i could tell and dont see why it should be deleted.

Kjs1100 (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion over at Template talk:Dmbox#Surname pages should be considered by bots as disambig pages that needs more input from you guys. It is about how to handle interwiki links between set index articles on the English Wikipedia (like surname pages) and disambig pages on other Wikipedias. And about if the {{surname}} template is a set index box or disambig box.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Surname + Given name + disambig

What do you recommend doing with items where all 3 are relevant? Currently, we have a disambig at Luna which includes a long list of people with the surname 'Luna', and a separate Luna (given name). I was contemplating merging the names to a single location, Luna (name), but wasn't sure what to do with character names, or what other options there are. Thanks for any help. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea - now done! There were not enough examples of people with the surname to justify a separate article. If the surname list grows longer, it can of course be split. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Please review Carpenter (surname). I have tried to follow the guidelines given and suggestions regarding surname, disambig, lists, et cetera. Any assistance or suggestions welcome. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Listing people by given name

Looks like all members of this project missed the above discussion. It seems to have been resolved satisfactorily. I have now split the page Michelle to Michelle (name) to respond to the original issue. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment regarding "List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations"

I have just developed a need for information regarding English names with conterintuitive pronunciations and would like to see this item remain in Wikipedia. If, in my research, I come across additional names, I would like to opportunity to add to the data already available.

151.190.254.108 (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation & back-linkage

I noted the entry

Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation (no back-linkage)

as a related project. I'm not sure what constitutes "back-linkage" in this context, but i note that i came to the accompanying project page via a lk at WP:MoSDab#Given names or surnames that calls the accompanying page the sec'n's corresponding "Main page".
--Jerzy•t 00:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox personal name

FYI, {{Infobox personal name}} has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

New template needed

I think there is a need for a new template that combines {{given name}} and {{surname}}. There are lots of names that are used as both surname and given name. Recently I had to create name pages for such names: Miron (name) şi Dragutin (name). It doesn't look good to use both templates in the page at all. There should be one single template to mix them -- Ark25 (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Surnames lists and piping

What's the view on if surname-only pages should have piped links or not. In particular, note the recent changes I made at Powell (surname) relating to not piping. Is there a consensus for whether article names in surname lists should be piped or not? Eldumpo (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember specifically discussing it here, but I think it is fine on name pages. It's only on disambiguation pages that it should not be done. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Organisation of surname lists

User:A bit iffy recently reorganised the page Barker (surname) from a strictly alphabetical list into a list sectioned by categories. I find this unhelpful when trying to find a specific person, because I first have to classify the person I'm searching for according to the page's presented sections; those are prone to errors (see: John Barker (footballer) listed on that page in "Sport / Other"), Ben Barker in "Film and television") and subject to personal preferences. Similarly, when an editor wants to add an entry, it needs to be categorised to fit into the current sections or a new section needs to be created.

Organising the page into sections is also likely to create, and does on this page, the technically undesirable situation of more than one section with the same name ("Other").

I find a strict alphabetical listing much easier to use for disambiguation purposes and easier to maintain. The only suitable sections are the initial letters from the subjects' first name. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of American Family Names, by Robb and Chesler

Does anyone have access to this book, like at a library or something? Could someone please look up a name for me? There's a user who consistently has had a problem with 'misquoting' references. I'd really like a second opinion on a certain name.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Surnames of Scotland, by Black

I've got this book out of the library for a couple days, so I can lookup a name if anyone wants me to.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Origin of surnames

Please could the project comment here on the issue of whether the surname "Johnson" is of Irish origin or not - I am not an expert in the subject of the origin of surnames. I came to the page Johnson as one of many surname pages where 140.211.82.5 (talk) had added Irish as the origin of the surname concerned, with edit summary "Copy edit", or similar, without giving any source. He was reverted by various editors (myself included), then gave up for a few weeks. More recently, 75.145.71.178 (talk) has begun editing along very similar lines, so there are potentially several pages in need of similar expert attention. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a job for an expert, this is something to look up in a reference book. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Occupational surname

There is now Category:Occupational surnames and the page Occupational surname, now a redirect to Surname. About 200 articles refer to occupational surname, but so far I have linked only a few of them. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice one. There are number of new cats we could make like that. Also, I think we could incorporate classifications of names into the infoboxes too. I just made Category:Surnames derived from patronyms.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd welcome a hand with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cowman (surname). 69.3.72.9 (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you've got the article going: Cowman (surname) is live. Just a note, you can easily create a user account, that way you won't have any trouble creating articles yourself (see: Wikipedia:Why create an account?).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Anthroponymy articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Anthroponymy articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Claudine (given name)

Just created this article. Having never done a given name set index before, it may require some additional work and/or cleanup. There is a related move request at Talk:Claudine if anyone is interested. Regards. PC78 (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names

A project list currently up for deletion.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've closed it with a move to your projectspace, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/List of given names.  Sandstein  07:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Title convention

Hi. There does not seem to be a convention for surname pages. There seem to be several formats:

Where there is no other contender, "FOO" seems reasonable. Where there is, should we not have a standard method of disambiguation e.g. "FOO (surname)"? --Bermicourt (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What does FOO stand for? I think XXX (surname) is the way to go. It's more specific than XXX (name); although maybe sometimes an article can easily combine both a given name and a surname. IMO, a title like List of people with surname XXX should really only be for lists (like longish lists); the actual article on the name itself should be XXX (surname). Something like what is done for the surname Wilson. The article on the name itself is Wilson (surname), the list of people with the surname is List of people with surname Wilson. Every reader knows what they're getting with simple titles like that. If they're after a discussion on the name they go one article, if they're only after a list of people with that name, they go to the other.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC) I think "FOO" is Wikipedian for "thingummybob" or "XXX". Was I wrong?! --Bermicourt (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Haha I have no idea.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This is kinda related. I'm working on this article about the given name Randal (Randal (given name)). I think I'm going to combine the variant Randall into it, rather than have an almost carbon copy article for that name. So I wonder how should the article be named. Randal, Randall (given names)? Randal and Randall (given names)? Something else?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "given name" means. But you could have "Randal (surname)", assuming that's the most common variant, and then "Randall (surname)", etc, as re-directs. Anyone typing in Randal(l) should end up in the right place. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
A given name is just like a forename/first name/Christian name - it comes before a surname. Yeah the redirect is one way to do it. But some people are fussy about names being merely variants of others. The most common one wins I suppose. I'd like to treat them as equal as possible though, unless one is specifically derived from another. I just moved it to Randal and Randall (given names).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. But here's a question. If a list of people with surname "Foo" is occupying an article called "Foo" when there is actually a contender for "Foo" (e.g. where the surname derives from an occupation or placename) should the people be moved to "List of people called Foo" or to "Foo (disambiguation)" (which would list both people and the link to "Foo")?--Bermicourt (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Good question, and here is the answer (which we have discussed before -- sorry I'm late!): NO, name pages are different from disambiguation, see MOS:DABNAME. Instead, use "FOO (surname)" or "FOO (given name)".
BTW I would advise moving the Randal(l) article to just one of them e.g. Randall (given name), and making sure that there is a redirect from the other. See Leila (name) for an example of multiple variants within one article.
I don't really want to do this, cause it's picking one over another, but i can't think of how to include a number of variant forms in a title. But you're right, the best thing to do is to just pick one. So I'll go with Randall (given name), it's been the most popular one in the US.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hilary (name) is a case of 2 spellings of a given name and only a few instances of a surname, where there were not enough for a separate article. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I was curious because, taking one example, the Vogler is a mountain range in Germany and was recently moved to Vogler (mountain range) purely in order than "Vogler" could become a list of people with surname Vogler. Not sure that's right. Surely it should be "Vogler" for the mountain range and "List of people with surname Vogler" with maybe a redirect called "Vogler (surname)". Views? --Bermicourt (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I see it the same way as you. I'll make a disambig page for the word.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

names and dabs

On the project page I found the statement "As of Q1 2008 there is an ongoing discussion around what distinguishes a dab page from a name article and what things belong in each." Could someone tell me where this discussion is, or if it concluded, where the conclusions are? Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Greek name "Fragko"

Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#What does "Fragko" mean? (Greek, I'm assuming) (permanent link here).
—Wavelength (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Geier

Geier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alas, the article "owner" is resisting efforts to rid this article of things brought up merely in order to state that they have nothing at all to do with the article topic (Geier#William Butler Yeats) and a partial dump of a book catalogue (Geier#Prominent Authors with the Surname Geier). Witness the "Geier Glove" and "Geier Sausages" and the reference to Hitch (movie) in this revision of Geier hitch to see the pattern here. The attention of more editors is needed. Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an WP:Anthroponymy article. Are you suggesting a disambiguation page Geier (disambiguation) is needed to hold these other things? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that this needs the attention of more editors to even make that determination. Maybe it's anthroponymy, maybe it is surname disambiguation. But what it's been written as so far is just one giant incoherent grab bag of stuff some of which isn't even related to the purported subject at all. Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no surname disambiguation. The new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Geier is the right place for it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a very strange page, and makes no mention of the existence of non-American Geiers such as DJ Hell or Oscar Geier. The sole place name is a supposed variant spelling not mentioned on the page for Geyer. The page seems partly a surname page and partly a page which should be split off as Geier (word). There is perhaps need for a disambiguation page to lead to these, and to the existing red-linked ship German fast attack craft Geier (S11). In the surname page, the list of people with the surname needs expansion. PamD (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
This is what it looks like as a disambiguation page (linking to current version in case it gets reverted). Fences&Windows 21:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Surname holders and partial title matches and disambiguation

General issue from Talk:Freston, Suffolk#Move request. There is only one article that could have the title "Freston", so (IMO) it's the primary or only topic. Surname holders (excepting those who are commonly referred to by the surname alone) are partial title matches per consensus at the disambiguation and anthroponymy projects. Partial title matches cannot be the primary topic for the partial elements of their titles (if they are actually ambiguous with the partial elements, they are not partial title matches, but again, this is not the case for surname holders in general). Instead, the anthroponymy article or list article (if one exists) might be primary, one of the ambiguous entries might be primary, or there might be no primary. If there is only one article that is not a partial title match, there is no ambiguity. A surname that does not also have ambiguous topics and no anthroponymy article or list article might redirect to the only notable holder as an {{R from surname}}, but if there are multiple notable holders, an anthroponymy list article (at least) would be needed. If instead there are topics that could have the name, the title should lead (directly or redirectly) to one of them (if there's only one, that one; if there's more than one, the primary one) or lead to a disambiguation page if there a ambiguous topics (possibly including an anthroponymy list article) and none are primary.

This is my understanding of the current consensus and guidelines of the disambiguation project and anthroponymy project. Other views on the general case are welcome at WT:D#Surname holders and partial title matches and disambiguation, or on the Freston case there in the move request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Anthroponymy article AfDs

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliburn (surname). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

US name rules?

I am interested in articles about name rules in the US, or resources to write such an article. Some of the questions I'd like such an article to address are

  • May a person have more than one legal name at a time?
  • Fields where pseudonyms may / may not be used
  • Relationship of business oriented "doing business as" vs. personal pseudonyms
  • Right to use names not written in Roman characters
  • If any state places any restriction on names, what are the rights of a visitor from another state to use a name allowable in his/her home state

I am aware of Doing business as and Pseudonym; I find the first rather shallow and the second lacking information on the legal status of pseudonyms.

I would appreciate being pointed to any Wikipedia articles or outside resources that touch on these issues. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Names

I have been periodically going through Category:Names and tossing all the individual name articles into subcategories - originally Category:Given name and Category:Surname, now various sub-sub-cateogories. I am starting another run at this job - a lot of articles need to be recategorized, I haven't done it for awhile (help anyone?) But, to the point: Names now has a sub-category Human names. Is this necessary? It seems like the Names hierarchy has way too many levels of categories and needs to be simplified. Getting rid of Category:Human names would be a good start. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Automated process to tag articles in project scope and/or auto-assess unassessed articles

A request has been made at User:Xenobot/R#WP:APO to tag & auto-assess articles in the scope of this project based on these categories and/or auto-assess the project's unassessed articles.

To auto-assess, the bot looks for a {{stub}} template on the article, or inherits the class rating from other project banners (see here for further details).

Feel free to raise any questions or concerns regarding this process. The task will commence after 72 hours if there are no objections.

–xenotalk 17:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Standardization

Hi guys, I'm new to this project although I've been working on DABs and Name articles for years. I've seen a large range of Name articles from Smith (surname) to name articles setup as DABs. I'd like to see some examples of how the perfect Name article should be setup. Thoughts?

p.s. It'd be cool to see someone with a design-eye tune up the project page :) --Hutcher (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Upgraded Project page to the new framework laid out by the WikiProject guide. New Standards page in the nav. --Hutcher (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Great job! Keep up the good work! Remember (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
One thing that is bugging me is categorizing double-barrelled names like Smith-Washington for example. Most of these are rather temporary in nature and we could end up having Smith-(every other name under the sun) and (every other nameunder the sun)-Smith in the surname category. So far I haven't actually touched any of these in the category, but it bugs me and I'm not sure what to do. I'd suggest a subcategory for hyphenated names etc, but not sure that is way to go. Williamb (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Danish Pronunciations and Immigrant Name Changes

Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Danish Pronunciations and Immigrant Name Changes (permanent link here).
—Wavelength (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Name legislation

The Vermont House of Representatives has a bill] introduced that would place requirements on names. In particular, page 47 has these requirements (line numbers at beginning of line): 

14 § 5111. NAMES ON BIRTH CERTIFICATES
15 (a) A birth certificate is not complete and correct and acceptable for
16 registration by the state registrar if such certificate contains:
17 (1) items completed with pictographs or ideographs or writing that is not
18 part of the standard 26-letter English alphabet;
19 (2) given names or surnames written with symbols that have no phonetic
20 standing on their own, provided, however, that numerals used for generational
21 identifiers; common punctuation such as hyphens for hyphenated names,
1  apostrophes used as part of a given name or surname, 1 commas to separate
2  surnames from generational identifiers, and periods in generational identifiers;
3  and initials and abbreviations used as part of a name shall be permitted; or
4  (3) given names and surnames that exceed a total of 50 characters in
5  length for each of the first, middle, and last names, to include hyphens,
6  apostrophes, and periods when used as part of the name.
7  (b) Only one generational identifier may be used after the surname.
8  Generational identifiers may not take the form of commonly conferred
9  academic honorifics, including M.D., J.D., D.O., Esq., B.A., B.S., M.A., M.S.,
10 or Ph.D. or other designations not commonly used as generational identifiers.

Any thoughts about whether such requirements would create problems? Some issues that come to my mind are:

  • Vermont offers certificates of foreign birth and birth certificates for adopted persons; what if the person was named in a place where the above restrictions don't apply?
  • Line 5 uses the singular "middle name", so are multiple middle names forbidden?
  • If a person who's parent(s) have diplomatic immunity were born in Vermont, a birth certificate would be required, but Vermont probably wouldn't have the authority to impose its name restrictions. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
This is only a bill at this point and not yet law. Regarding your questions:
a) Adopted? It seems to be asking for a Transliteration of the name because the bureaucracy can't really deal with 毛泽东 but they can deal with Mao Zedong. The sound and meaning are the same just a different writing system.
b) Middle? It does say "each of the ... middle ... names". I don't read that to mean only one middle name but each names should be 50 characters. That's alot.
c) Immunity? Well it's only Vermont's certificate, it's not a permanent tattoo, brand or something. Baby Mao should still be able to move to Hong Kong and get papers with: 毛泽东
--Hutcher (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Jan Nowak (name) material removed

The material below was just removed a few minutes ago from Jan Nowak (name), maybe because this article was listed in the backlog cleanup effort. I thought it was interesting, but now it is gone. Perhaps an editor who knows more about Anthroponymy and Polish names can update it or replace it in the Jan Novak article, or elsewhere.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Jan Nowak" ([ˈjan ˈnɔvak]) is commonly regarded to be the most widespread personal name in Poland and hence often serves as the Polish equivalent of the English "John Doe" or John Smith. Another Polish name thought to be very popular is "Jan Kowalski". Also, in the Czech Republic, a very similar phenomenon is represented by the very similar name Jan Novák (see Jan Novák, composer, there is also Jan Novák, a writer in Chicago).

If replaced, perhaps the Poland template should be on the talk page.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Avian surnames

The category Category:Avian surnames has been put up for deletion, here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_18#Category:Avian_surnames. What do you think?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Bonita

The first sentence of the Bonita disambig page makes little sense, and I'm not sure what it is trying to say and so can not fix it. Anyone willing to take a look? Beach drifter (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

External links?

I noticed that the page Sláine (Gaelic name) contains an external link and departs in other ways from the MoS for disambiguation pages. I wasn't sure, though, whether given name pages are supposed to follow MOS:DAB, or if there is some other preferred style. Specifically, are external links appreciated on given name pages? Cnilep (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hearing no response, I removed the external link and otherwise brought the page's style closer to MOS:DAB. Feel free to revert if I was in error. Cnilep (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction within text

Within this article you are contradicting yourself when you state that rob can be used when referring to Robert as this is still an abbreviation of this name as you pronounce Robert in the same manor but dis include "ert" with Rob still being stated in the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.142.14 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How are spelling variants treated?

There are two way to treat different spellings of (etymologically more or less) "the same" name, such as Silvia, Sylvia, and Sylwia: Either on separate pages, referring to each others by See also's, or by one page, naming and allowing for different spelling variants. I do not know which methods you in this project prefer. However, an inconsistent mixture hardly is acceptible; see Talk:Sylvia#Confusion with Silvia.

Best, JoergenB (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert in this area, but spelling variants which have information supporting the origin of the variation should be treated on different pages, I think. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Surnames

Are surnames articles, and can be stubs? Or are they basically disambig pages? Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Americanized surnames

Just noting here that I've just created Category:Americanized surnames. So if you ever come across a surname that's labelled as one you can plug it into this cat.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/McCown Surname

If someone could take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/McCown Surname and see if it's worth creating (in terms of notability, sourcing etc. - obviously it needs a little cleanup in other areas) it'd be appreciated. It's been languishing in AfC for a few days now and I don't think we really know what to do with it, since there don't seem to be a lot of guidelines for this type of article. Thanks. —Joseph RoeTk•Cb, 20:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well . . . 'origin' isn't really a good name for a DNA studies section . . . and I looked at the first citation and it did not link 'McCown' with 'MacEóin', so the reference is misleading . . . I wouldn't block its creation, but it needs work, including some elimination of irrelevant content. Anyone else want to comment? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll take care of it. British names are interesting to me.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Weeks

The usage of Weeks is under discussion, see Talk:List of people with surname Weeks. 65.94.47.217 (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Frei Caneca

Hi, I have an editing problem and can't figure out who to turn to. I made the above article which is about a 19th century historical figure, and my problem is that "Frei Caneca" is actually a nickname meaning "Brother Mug". He is more or less universally known as that in Portuguese literature (including the Portuguese Wikipedia), but I am unsure of how to refer to him in a Wikipedia article. While it is clearly okay to call him Frei Caneca in articles where he is only mentioned once or twice, he seems redundant to do so repeatedly on his own page. At the same time, "Caneca" seems very informal, as it is actually only half of a nickname. At the moment I have successfully avoided saying his name too often so as to not distract the reader, but it would be good to have some guidance in the matter. Thank you! Eladynnus (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

List of names with no proof of notability

I had a look at WPAPO:ENTRIES and I'm still not sure. Is something like this, where the names have no links at all, acceptable? It definitely does not serve as a disambiguation page in this case, and no proof of notability is provided in any way. --Muhandes (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, no one active in this WP? --Muhandes (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, for foreign names in English Wikipedia, it is sufficient that (i) notability is asserted and (ii) notability could be verified, either (a) by reference to biography articles in the native language Wikipedia, which of course will require proper sourcing in its articles; (b) by providing sufficient identifying details for a web search to confirm the name and notable role; or (c) by adding footnote citations to good-quality offline resources.
I do think the links to foreign language Wikipedia articles need to be displayed in a different way, e.g. as footnotes, or like this: (see tr:Yonca Cevher Yenel (in Turkish)).
So I would not delete those entries from the list. However, it would be better to add a footnote citation to a WP:RS for each one, e.g. copied from the foreign wiki. I would also keep the foreign wiki link for each entry until it gets its own English article. Where there is a list or name page in the other language, it would also be helpful to add the relevant template from Category:Expand by language Wikipedia templates. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Prononciation of Scottish surnames

Please, can anyone ask some of Good Scottish actors to prononce properly Scottish surnames for Wikipedia? Big raws with it. Many thanks in advance to all.77.251.35.49 (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Question at the Language Refdesk

Please participate in this discussion at the Language Refdesk - Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#naming custom of Salva Kiir Mayardit?. This issue is important to the newly established country and Wikiproject South Sudan. The question is about the naming system used by the Dinka people. Roger (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Middle Names

This discussion may interest some readers of this page.

It deals with the question of whether on a dab page for the name Sherman, it is permissible to list persons whose middle name is Sherman.

(Or, are we limited to people whose first or last names are Sherman).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Suffix

I just deleted a sentence from Suffix (name):

In legal terms, nothing changes. If a man is born a III and legally named a III, then he retains that name forever, but may drop the suffix socially if the man with the original title has died or all the men closest to the original have died.

The article already contains a citaton to a Connecticut court decision showing there was no law concerning the status of suffixes such as Jr. and III. If readers of this page know of better sources on this, I would like to know about it. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Anthroponymy in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Anthroponymy for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  • without having read the signpost article ... how many people thought to contribute to this? I considered it and did not step forward because my own activity has been very varied and not really much work recently. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I looked at it (here is a permalink to the questions) but didn't reply because most of my answers would have been "no", although I could have said a few things. I hadn't realised the opportunity would be so brief. Perhaps it would still be worth posting answers on Mabeenot's talk page if a couple of us are interested in doing so. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Geier (surname)

I've got no particular interest in this topic, but created the page when I realised how much sourced content had been lost when the ragbag of a page at Geier was stripped down and converted into a conformant dab page in this edit. (I also created stub articles on 3 ships and the Geier Indians). Someone might like to tidy it up into a better surname page. PamD (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Templates for discussion - given name templates

I looked in the archives and did not see this mentioned. There was an entry over at Templates for Discussioninvolving the templates {{infobox_given_name}} and {{infobox_given_name2}}. The outcome of the sparse discussion was merge. However, this decision was rendered back in January and I don't think there has been progress on the matter. Rather than having this just sit there, I'd like to see the discussion and outcome taken to Wikipedia:Deletion Review so that either a) the outcome can be rendered null based on insufficient input or b) the outcome can be considered insufficiently substantiated and the template(s) be returned to active queue for further discussion. The third option is to, indeed, just take inaction as a response, so that there is an essentially 'un-enforced decision' on the books. This is pretty much the current case as the decision is not reflected on the templates or their talk pages, thereby rendering it invisible for most purposes. I'm no rule-mongering fiend who must have order; I just thought to toss this itchy thing out and see who might take a bite out of it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

notability and an AFD

dear anthroponymists: first of all, I tried to notify you all of this afd through your article alerts, but then I got worried and thought that that should only be automatically updated and that maybe I'd messed up your system. I'm sorry if so, and the article of interest that is AFD right now is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelibandla.

second, though, have you all considered putting together an explicit standard for notability that could be reached and referenced through the usual means of finding notability criteria? i mean, maybe you have one already, but i can't find it. there seem to be an awful lot of deletion debates about names, and some clarification of standards could be useful. maybe this has already been discussed and everyone's sick of it? maybe i just missed something really obvious? if it's the first, i'm sorry and feel free to ignore me, if the second, i apologize, if something else... then ? thanks for your time. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Austin (surname) merging into Austin

This is somewhat bothersome (despite being from 2008) → Talk:Austin (disambiguation)#Re-merge of Austin and Austin (surname). I would like to de-merge these, but am considering that this would lead to a fight. Thoughts or volunteers to take on this fight (not sure I've the time to wage the battle properly)? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI my surname activities

I've become involved in porting content from Wikipedia to WeRelate; the latter resource has established a crude templated method for drawing content from Wikipedia to augment content in Surname pages in the resource. This has led to some editing of Wikipedia content to either better source or do minor revisions to enhance or better sectionize content here. (my user page on WeRelate). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge Elias with Elijah

I proposed to merge Elias with Elijah, see Talk:Elias#Merger. Please comment.  Andreas  (T) 23:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)  Done  Andreas  (T) 23:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suozzi

ok, this time i actually read the alertbot materials, and consequently placed your all's template on the talk page in the hope that the bot would add it to the article alert list, but since this is the first time i've tried that, i'm doing belt-and-suspenders and mentioning it here too. neutral, as always, yours— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Need help with making improper page into Anthroponymy disambiguation page

What's the best way to make Thomas Knight (MP) into a disambiguation page? I'm tempted to go ahead and stick the {{hndis-cleanup}} template on it to request assistance... Thanks! Allens (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Name articles and Name disambiguation pages

There is a discussion related to this Wikiproject beginning at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Disambig pages and name pages. Please comment. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Given names pronunciation task force?

It would be very useful to have audio files to accompany given names. Has anyone tried starting such a project for Wikipedia or Wiktionary? There are other sites out there that attempt this (http://namepedia.org/; http://www.pronouncenames.com) but it would be preferable use a more open, collaborative location for this.

I've been talking to a faculty member at my school about using this activity for class projects - a particularly multilingual student community here. Maybe we could start with adding pronunciation to existing given names + adding missing given names for a few target languages? Any thoughts or advice? Mozucat (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Should not limit yourself to en.wikipedia or even wikipedia; the wiktionary projects are in scope as well. Further, all of the audio files should be stored in Commons. In general, Commons will not retain for the long term material which is not cited / used by other projects. Finally, should consider the creation of infoboxes for given name and surname which would include an audio trace as one of the parameters. Right now, such infoboxes do not exist, only footer-boxes for the two. Another approach would be to provide spoken traces for full names ... adding an audio parameter to the biography infobox. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Right, the Commons would be good for the audio files. Thanks for your advice re: infoboxes, will work on that. I'm thinking about using Wikitionary as the main site of activity due to how difficult it is for this to be "sourced" (as pointed out by PamD). But it would be useful to have some pronunciation examples, even though there are so many variations. Mozucat (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • But what constitutes a "reliable source" for pronunciation of given names? In the UK context, the one with which I'm familiar, a name-holder or their parents can decide how they want their name pronounced. A friend's son was named "Weland", intended to be pronounced "Wayland" but often pronounced "Welland". (Next child was given a very plain, no-nonsense, name!). "Caroline" is pronounced "..linn" or "line" at the preference of the name-holder. And so on. And of course one name may be pronounced differently in different English-speaking countries, and differently again in other countries where it is used as an exotic name. Complications abound! PamD 09:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    +1 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Subsequent use of names when there is more than one

Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The surname of the subject is Hohenzollern. However, he is AKA Prince Paul of Romania. An editor wants to refer to him as Prince Paul when the cited source refers to him as Prince Paul. I believe the article should consistently refer to him by the main subject name throughout (unless, of couse, in a quote). WP:SURNAME doesn't appear to address this wrinkle. Are there any relevant policies or guidelines on this question?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Biographical metadata and article statistics

I've mentioned this WikiProject at a proposal I made at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Biographical metadata. Please comment there if you would be interested in helping with that proposal or have ideas or suggestions, or know where such statistics are currently documented, if anywhere. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Patrial name

Can someone look at this please, it seems very strange that WP doesn't have an article on actual patrial names, real geographical surnames (as opposed to surnames derived from toponyms, which does have a category). I'm wondering if there's another article somewhere? Thanks : In ictu oculi (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there anyone there??? :) In ictu oculi (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm here. I just don't know the answer to your questions. But I do know that our coverage of anthroponymy subjects is very sparse so it wouldn't be surprising to me if the article you are looking for doesn't exist. Remember (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Remember. Then it exists now, I've expanded it a little. I suppose given that it's ancient-to-medieval it's not that surprising there wasn't an article before. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Lists of eponyms

There is a whole category, Category:Lists of eponyms, in which almost all of the lists fail to demonstrate that they satisfy the notability criteria for stand-alone lists. That is, there must be reliable sources that discuss the list as a list. The only list that does establish notability is List of medical eponyms with Nazi associations. I have tagged all the rest with {{Notability|list}}. However, some of the lists may be notable, and this seems like a good forum for finding people who can locate the appropriate references. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Pagan" is essentially derogatory, inappropriate capitalization of "god"

Can someone please change the disrespectful phrase "pagan God" to the appropriate religion with a lowercase "god" following it? "Pagan" is a word that Christians use for everyone else. The term devalues other religions and centers the conversation onto Christianity. So for example, "ancient Greek god" would be an appropriate replacement phrase. HelpyHelper (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this project have a category?

I was wondering if this WikiProject has a category on Wikipedia that lists all users that are in the project? I didn't see a category appear on my userpage when I added the userbox for this project. Steel1943 (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Found it!! Steel1943 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Colton (surname)

Can someone please take a look at Colton (surname) for MOS issues? An IP editor has added all sorts of trivia and statistics to the page, which I think are inappropriate for a disambiguation page. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a disambiguation page - that's at Colton. This one is a surname page, to which different rules apply - WP:MOS and any guidelines from this project, but not WP:MOSDAB. PamD 13:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A problem

80% or maybe less, of the English people are descended from Edward III,http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/w/i/l/Ann-L-Wilson/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0358.html. 25% are descended from William the Conqueror. (same ref).

This implies to me that article need to be bracketed in some manner to include generations that would have known one another. A century's worth of family at the most.

We all have 2 parents, 4 grands, 8 gg, 16 ggg (b about 100 years ago), 32 gggg, 64 ggggg, 128 ggggg (200 yrs ago). And this gets worse. There are always cousins marrying one another, but this usually doesn't help the fact that a descendant 200 years later is usually related to the original "famous" founder by 1/128.

Do we want article with hundreds of thousands of people in them? See Petrucci Family which is fine in the Middle Ages, but gets preposterous once we get to the 20th+ centuries. 1/4096-related? That is idiotic! Student7 (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Got preposterous. I changed it to Middle Ages only. No proof of descendancy. Student7 (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Gawas

I've just PROD'd Gawas and then it struck me that we have a project for most things. Does anyone fancy taking on the article? - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a goner. There are not yet any articles on people with this name in Wikipedia, nor in Times of India. The article seems to be written by Agawas from personal family history (WP:OR) and still manages to be contradictory about the etymology. Ancestry.com and ancestry.co.uk have a few records of this name but don't confirm any of the contents of the article. As it lacks both notability and sources, I'm seconding the PROD instead. – Fayenatic London 18:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Rather stupidly, I didn't think to check out Ancestry before the PROD but did do the rest and a couple more. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

if the page lists most popular names by country or geographical areas - meaning a Group of Countries, not administrative regions or cities I don't see the reason to add Bologna as a separate entity I don't see the reason to add Bolognese names [Bologna is not a Country, obviously!], or even small communes in Luxemburg. I don't think they are that relevant, otherwise everyone should add their own city lists for their own most popular names and we won't end it anymore.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.193.249.236 (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Given names set index articles

Disambiguation pages are excluded from the article feedback tool, but it seems that given name set indexes aren't (e.g. Anil) - should they be? Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that they should not be excluded. People might leave feedback, e.g. the page Anil is a bare list that does not give the region, origin or meaning of the name. – Fayenatic London 18:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Pope Theodoros II of Alexandria

Hello, there is a little discussion at a new article Talk:Pope Theodoros II of Alexandria about the popes name. I stated "I think the name should not be based or our preferences, but reflect the way he is presented by sources. All the souses in the article refer to him as Tawadros II, so I think Theodoros is original research and the name should be as the sources give it: Tawadros II." I got a long answer that it is basically Wikipedia policy to translate peoples names. Are their guidelines on this? I find it odd that Wikipedia gives a translated name yet nearly all the news organizations give another [google]. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's outside the scope of this WikiProject, which is just articles about given names & family names, not biographies. Nevertheless, some members here might be interested to comment at the article talk page. – Fayenatic London 13:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I asked the same question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Czar Brodie (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Surname pronunciations

This page may be useful.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Surnames van & von

To avoid duplicate discussions I started thread at WT:MOSCAPS Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Dutch_and_German_surnames_van_.26_von Input from members of this project is important....JGVR (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lists of people with common names

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Jacob. – Fayenatic London 19:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

None of these are eponyms

None of these words are eponyms! They are merely personal names used to name other things. They are not words derived from names. See a strict definition of "eponym" at http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/eponyms/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbeard (talk • contribs) 15:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rbeard. I wasn't able to tell from your note above what you mean by "these". If you could provide a link to the place you are referring to, that would be most helpful. SchreiberBike (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC at David (disambiguation)

FYI, an RfC is being held at Talk:David (disambiguation)#RfC: Explanation of King David. StAnselm (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dorner (surname)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Dorner_(surname)#Proposed_move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Set index needed: Zarzycki

Most names of people with the same last name have pages listing most (or preferably all) the different persons sharing that name, which is very helpful when a reader has only the last name - or a last name with title - to search for. Such a listing would be useful for the name Zarzycki; but I am not the wikiuser to undertake it. Perhaps someone may have the time, interest, inclination, and wikiknowledge to look into this. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Zarzycki: done. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Question re pages on the "borderline" btw surname & disambig

Is anyone in this project also involved in discussions about disambiguation pages? I had a question from recent experience relating to articles on some West African surnames, which I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Borderline between dab page and name page II. --A12n (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a bright line between a name page and a disambiguation page. At the extremes, if there is going to be a lot of content about the name, it should be a name page, but if there is only a list of names, it should be a disambiguation page. In the middle there may be pages that could go either way. SchreiberBike (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_12#Category:African-language_surnames

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_12#Category:African-language_surnames. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sunni Zaidis

not all zaidis are shia ...i am a Sunni Zaidi ...pleas provide the percentage of zaidi peoplle according to the sect or some comparison of Sunni and shitte zaidis

If you are looking for the answer to a question, you might ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk. If the information is in Wikipedia, they might be able to find it. If you want to add information to Wikipedia relating to the Zaidiyyah page, you could discuss it at Talk:Zaidiyyah. If you can provide reliable sources about what you would like to add, you can make Wikipedia more accurate. I hope that helps. SchreiberBike (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Surname pages containing a single entry

(Sorry if this is answered elsewhere, but I've no previous knowledge of your project). Please could someone clarify whether it's OK to create a "Surname" page with a single entry in it, and no sources, references, explanations etc? or is this striking me as pointless - which it is - only because I'm thinking of disambiguation? I've just noticed a string of newly-created ones - e.g., Adiloğlu, Akagündüz, Ahmaoja, Ahokainen, Ahosilta, Akkanen, and others - and was about to send them to AfD, but thought I should seek a less confrontational second opinion here first. Jsmith1000 (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've answered my own question: according to WP:APONOTE, a single instance of a surname isn't enough to justify a surname stub.Jsmith1000 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure - WP:APONOTE seems to say that a list of name-holders wouldn't be notable with less than two entries, but also "A properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list.". I'd think that a surname may be notable (very widespread, interesting origins) but not have any notable name-holders at all. These unsourced stubs have a single sentence "X is a Y-language surname", though with no indication of a source for that one fact, the language of the surname - whether it's just "sounds right and is a member of the Turkish/Finnish/Swedish sports team", or anything better. The question is whether the name is notable and merits an article. If not, then a redirect to the single name-holder would be appropriate (or deletion for any more like Adiloğlu which have no name-holders). Ah, I see you've already PRODded that one. Still, I'll leave this comment here anyway. PamD 07:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
That's helpful - I like the redirect option better, as it leaves a place for a resurrected article in case more information, or more name-bearers, appear later. I suppose that in a way if any surname is notable they all are, but I don't think a content-free stub acting in effect as an index entry for every surname in the world is a good idea. (Fuller articles on surnames from "difficult" languages like Turkish would be very worthwhile, however). Anyway, thanks for the second opinion.Jsmith1000 (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC on title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)

Hi, there is an RM/RfC here that may be of interest to this project. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Chinese names

If there's anyone familiar with Chinese language and Chinese family names, please take a look at Feng. That disambiguation page lists four different entries for various surnames/family names. One of the entries, Feng (family name), has been redirected to Feng (surname), but the original version of that page does not appear to have been merged. Many of the entries are relatively recent creations by Bmotbmot (talk · contribs). It appears there may be multiple characters that can be transliterated as Feng -- should these all be treated on a single page or is there basis for having multiple pages? And it seems the current article titles are not very meaningfully distinguished from each other. older ≠ wiser 16:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The same user also made many cut and paste moves in addition to creating articles, like moving Lí (黎) to Li (family name) which contains a disambiguation as good as none. I myself think that there certainly is a basis for separate pages, since they don't actually sound the same (different tones) and have widely different origins, not to mention the distribution and demographics involved. I suggest asking WikiProject China as well for this. _dk (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Li family and various homophonic family names, and various spellings

See Talk:Lì (chinese surname) for a mess regarding various Lee/Li surnames. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerard vs. Gerhard

I discovered that Gerard redirected to Gerhard and requested the former to be deleted, which it has. I just want to get get second opinions about moving the current Gerhard to Gerard (and splitting off Gerhard/Gerhardt), seeing as there is quite a tangle of redirects to fix and other work that I would have to do. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Arabic written forms?

I've just entered a request on Talk:Srđan:

Can someone supply the Arabic written form(s) of the name, as has been done for all the other non-Roman scripts?

I'm not qualified for it, but to me (I'm a linguist) it's a conspicuous gap, especially at the top of the list (languages in alphabetical order). ISTM that supplying forms of names in other scripts, including (especially?) those that only have transliterations, is a type of task that could be reasonably included in this project's routine. --Thnidu (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Qin"

See talk:Qin (surname) for two colliding surnames and WP:PDAB issues -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Li"

See Talk:Li (surname), where a (new) merger discussion has been opened concerning the various Li's -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The older discussion is still going on at Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit") -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Guðrún

The usage of Guðrún/Gudrun is under discussion, see talk:Guðrún -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Chinese names

FYI, this may touch on the area of concern of your wikiproject's topic. See Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Inadequacy of current WP:UE guideline with regard to Chinese names -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"Gretzky"

The usage of Gretzky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk: Gretzky (disambiguation) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Jágr"

The usage of Jágr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see talk: Jágr (surname) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiNames

Participants in this WikiProject may be interested in WikiNames - Meta.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Arabic and Russian terms

FYI, Template:Arabicterm and Template:Infobox Russian term are nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 15#Language_term_infoboxes. Are these templates useful or not? Any opinions would be welcome at the TFD discussion. – Quadell (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 15#Dayna

Some professional opinions, please? DeistCosmos (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"Georgia"

The usage of Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see Talk:Georgia (country) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Andranik

The usage of Andranik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Andranik Ozanian -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Suffix (name) article

I feel the "Generational titles" section of the "Suffix (name)" has accumulated mind-numbing details about the suffix practices of certain American families. Unfortunately I have not found enough convincing sources to undertake a rewrite of the section. I'd appreciate pointers to some really good sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Name organization

No offense intended, but it seems like the given name article organization is just a mess. It is on two levels:

  1. Article - Some names have male, female, variants all in one article while other names have separate articles for very close variants (separate articles for Caroline and Carolyn, for example). Between this polarity between lumpers and splitters, there are also a wide variety of combinations.
  2. Categorization - It was confusing to me to look at one given name and found it categorized under "Hebrew names". In this parent categories, there was also a "Hebrew female names" category. But for any female Hebrew name, they might be filed under one category, the other or both. And if I'm going to recategorize them in the standard parent-child system (Hebrew names>Hebrew female names>Elizabeth, not Hebrew names>Elizabeth), I want to make sure it has the blessing of this project as it looks like a lot of work. By the way, there is also a "Hebrew male names" category so it wouldn't be specific to female gender. For unisex names, they'd be filed under both male & female name categories.

Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess this WikiProject is inactive. Was Newjerseyliz, now just Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Mr. Hughes"

The usage of Mr. Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Curtis Hughes -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"Gary"

I've tried to include sourced information where Garaidh has a diminutive form "Gary" and "Garry", but it keeps getting deleted. We are discussing it at talk:Gary (given name), I'd like to invite other people to provide input. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

article "Emilia"

Hi there,

the English version of the word "EMILIA" has a section of two names that are not relevant to the article: " Emilia the coolest girl ..etc". I guess this is not on purpose...

Alicja, October 21st 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.121.3.126 (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've deleted that line and another that did not appear to relate to a notable person. Feel free to edit articles yourself to fix errors you see. You can either do so without logging in, or you can create an account and have you're own identity on Wikipedia. SchreiberBike talk 18:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Should pages about given names be merged?

Should articles of closely related names be merged? For example Ann, Anne, Hannah or Mary, Marie, Maria... How does style in this part of Wikipedia deal with the issue of only having one article about one concept with multiple names, as in Gasoline/Petrol or Controlled-access highway not Freeway, Motorway, Autobahn?Nankai (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this project still live?

Just wondering.., seems to get questions asked but no editors. If it is live please give input re Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Article alerts, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Genus/Genera and genealogy v biology in categories

Hello, WikiProject Anthroponymy. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology#Genus_and_genera_categorization_and_category_disambiguation.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI, a discussion on naming and disambiguating categories that use the terms "genus" and "genera" is under way, related to the biology and genealogy senses. For the discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology#Genus_and_genera_categorization_and_category_disambiguation -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology § Genus and genera categorization and category disambiguation

Merge proposal

Proposal to move family name to surname. Come weigh in, but (a) kindly read the existing discussion first and (b), if you feel that family name is distinct from surname, kindly be able to articulate how. — LlywelynII 04:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"Mellor" page

The Wikipedia page for the family name is merely a 'cut and paste' from http://www.houseofnames.com/mellor-family-crest which is a commercial website. Is this allowable on Wikipedia? The content is also contentious as it claims that the name Mellor is Flemish, while most other internet sources such as http://www.ancestry.co.uk/name-origin?surname=mellor state that it comes from ancient British words that are ancestors of Welsh moel ‘bare’ + bre ‘hill’. Redmelons (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - now resolved at Mellor. – Fayenatic London 17:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Chick (name)"

On the page for the name 'Chick' It states that Chick is "an alternative to the first name 'James'". I have never heard of anyone using Chick as a nickname or alternate for James. I was also unable to find any examples of this anywhere. No reference is given for this claim. I believe that the person who wrote that may personally know someone who uses 'Chick' as a nickname, or knows of an example of this. However without any evidence to back up this claim I suggest it be removed to prevent confusion and speculation. 72.11.91.140 (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Ryan Peck


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_(name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.91.140 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria on a given name page

Should Marleen Veldhuis be included in Marleen, even though her formal first name is Magdalena? What about L. Frank Baum in Frank (given name)? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It would seem to me to be appropriate to include Marleen Veldhuis in Marleen, as that is the name she is best known by and effectively Marleen is her given name. I wouldn't include L. Frank Baum in Frank (given name) because Frank is his middle name, but it might be added to a ==See also== section. Regardless, I don't see much value in lists of people by given name. SchreiberBike talk 23:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Poudar

Could someone please take a look at Poudar? It says it's about a surname, or an indigenous group in Nepal, or a community in Brazil, or... Actually, I can't figure out what the page is meant to be about, and I'm beginning to suspect it is a candidate for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tails of it, my best guess is that is a good faith attempt at something by someone new to Wikipedia (and English). Regardless, it has no reliable sources and a web search shows nothing relevant. I'd think it should be proposed for deletion. SchreiberBike talk 04:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poudar; comments are welcome. (I didn't think PROD was appropriate, as that user who created the current content would probably object.) Cnilep (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I recently came across Fieraru on new pages patrol. Not being aware of this wikiproject, I identified the page as a disambiguation page with only one link (there is a second redlink) and so redirected the page to the only name on the list. The creator of the page reverted my edit without an edit summary. On reading the WP:DAB policy I was directed to this project, but I don't see any clear guidance on what to do in this situation. I haven't made any more edits to the page, but I'm leaving this notice here in case someone involved in the project wants to take a look. Ivanvector (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You could try this project's archives in case there is a prior consensus, but in this case the name is part of a navigation template and is referenced, so I would be inclined to keep it as a name article, unless there was a close variant name to which it could be merged. – Fayenatic London 22:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Nicknames on name list pages

On Rock (name), Clarityfiend (talk · contribs) removed all of the people with Rock as a nickname and moved them into Rock (a disambiguation page) instead. To me, this seems like a horrible idea, but maybe this is how it's supposed to be done? Ego White Tray (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As I suggested, a possibility is to create Rock (nickname). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
But that's just silly. Why not just put a Nicknames section in Rock (name)? BTW, Skippy (nickname) is different because, as far as I know, nobody has Skippy as a real name. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Ego. I see no reason why given names, surnames, and nicknames can't be listed on one page.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with Ego. However, under the sole name rule at MOS:DABNAME, they could be listed in the dab page as well. – Fayenatic London 22:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Harris Family Name

Could someone take a look at this? The article suggests this name means "son of Harry". There is no reference for this nor is there any evidence of this anywhere I have searched. The typical explanation of the name is that it comes from Henri, which comes from Heinrich which means "home ruler" because it is similar to the Old Scots word for home which is "hame". The only article I found about this was one which said that the Scots word "hame" is similar to the Old English word for home which is "hearth" meaning "fireplace" with the "th" meaning "place of". This is the typical way this name is explained. It overlooks the similarity of the name to the same name in Sanskrit "Haris" where it has a similar meaning ie., "vigilant ruler". There is a possible explanation of this name that it comes simply from old English for fire, ie., "heor" and the suffix "ris" for lord or king. This seems to make more sense than the circuitous and unsupported explanation in the article.Burdenedwithtruth (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you've done the right thing raising the issue for discussion at Talk:Harris (name). If there are no reliable sources to support a statement, Wikipedia is just a collection of rumors. If there are other unsourced statements in the article, you could put a {{citation needed}} template on them or continue to raise issues on the talk page. Then if no one has provided sources after a while, feel free to start deleting the unsourced information. The same would apply to your "typical explanation" above; it should come from a reliable source which should be referenced in the article. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 14:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I found an explanation of the parts of the name on Wiktionary and have put that on the talk page under my previous comment. I am not sure how long I should wait or whether using a Wiktionary page constitutes a proper reference in support of a change. My point is that the English word may have its own meaning in English rather than being descended via Henri from Germanic, then from Scots, then back to Old English. The problem with Old English is that it is largely unwritten so I am not sure how to go about finding a reference. Burdenedwithtruth (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I usually wait at least a week for any proposal which might be controversial. Editors sometimes don't respond until a change has been made, then discussion works things out. You probably don't want to reference Old English texts, but publications written about Old English. Good luck. SchreiberBike talk 17:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Taku

The usage of Taku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk: Taku people -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton requested move a matter of anthroponymy, perhaps?

It has been argued by some that the current proposal at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8, proposing to move that page to Hillary Clinton as a common name hinges on the quality of "Rodham" as a continued element of her surname. So my question is, does this question fall under the broad brush of anthroponymy? Is there a definitive answer to be found in the field? DeistCosmos (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Rehal (name)

Looking at the history, editors seem confused about the surname Rehal (name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC) .

Macko

Stephen John Macko (1969) - American Composer/Author of music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenjmacko (talk • contribs) 01:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the intent of the above is, but if it is a question, perhaps the answer is at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Given the similarity between the user name and the name mentioned, Wikipedia:Autobiography might help. Both of those links have a "This page in a nutshell" section near the top which is easy to understand. Another link which might be useful is Wikipedia:Requested articles. Also feel free to clarify what you meant. SchreiberBike talk 03:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"Unisex" Names

Some of Wikipedia's lists of given names include a category called "Unisex", for names that can be given to either boys or girls. I know I'm fighting popular usage here (at least with regard to hair-cutting salons), but, strictly speaking, "unisex" means "single-sex", and so should apply to names that are generally considered suitable only for boys (like Roger)or only for girls (like Susanna), but not equally suitable for both (like Leslie or Dana). I would suggest that names equally suitable for either sex, instead of "Unisex", should be designated, "Either sex", or perhaps "Dual-sex". (The nearest analogue to "unisex" would be "bisex", but that has other implications.) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is this Project Page in Hindi?

The majority of the text on this project page is in Hindi, and seems to be an article on Jainism. I looked at the page's history, to see if it had been vandalized, but the Hindi content seems to go back to the beginning. Is this because somebody used a template written in Hindi to create the page? In any case, it's quite off-putting, and it suggests that nobody is minding the store. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the vandalism; the vandalized page was Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/banner. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Well done. Thanks. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Barrington (name)

I would appreciate someone to look at Barrington (name) and tell me if it has the right categories, if I have added a correct lede, Barrington is both a given name and a surname." There was no lede before I added that.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't say whether or not the list has the right categories, but I will point out that Barrington presumably was a surname before it became a given name, and that, at least in English-speaking countries, any surname may be used as a given name. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 23:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thank you for that information. The only surname in Category:Surname is Barrington (name), so I doubt this particular category.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Surname and Category:Surnames

I hope that I now understand the differences between Category:Surname and Category:Surnames. I see that Surname is much smaller than Surnames. In category Surname I see the specific surnames:

  • Barrington (name), Ahmadzai, Coffey (surname), Dehmel, Mahato, and Wassan, and the name Harry Hon Hai Wong. I would make sure that those specific names be in Category:Surnames, and that the name Harry Hon Hai Wong not be in either category. Please tell me if I am wrong to make these changes.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks to me like you've got it right. Go for it. SchreiberBike talk 23:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Anthroponymy At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

There is an ongoing discussion about moving Gomez to Gómez, which can be seen here. Any and all opinions would be very much obliged! Corvoe (speak to me) 11:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"Personal name" versus "given name"

I haven't visited this project before, but as one of the editors from WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, I've been working on articles related to names (mainly Roman names) for several years, after a long period of researching names in various languages on my own. One of the issues that I've avoided wading into during this time was the definition of "personal name." But after spending many days working on this article and that article touching on names, I'm finding myself bumping up against this question repeatedly.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines personal name as "a name (as the praenomen or the forename) by which an individual is intimately known or designated and which may be displaced or supplemented by a surname, a cognomen, or a royal name." This is the definition I've always used; it contrasts personal name with surname, but indicates that it includes praenomina or forenames. Given name simply cross-references the terms Christian name and forename.

I do find lots of dictionaries supporting the use of "given name" to mean the same thing as "personal name," but I don't find any that define "personal name" to include surnames. I checked the American Heritage Dictionary (cited for the definition of "given name" in that article), Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, American College Dictionary, Webster's New World Dictionary, Random House Dictionary, and Funk & Wagnalls' Standard College Dictionary, most of which, oddly enough, used the same definition word-for-word under "given name" but provided nothing under "personal name."

At the end of this process the only source indicating that "personal name" means something other than the definition here used for "given name" is Wikipedia itself, for which the only source cited is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which can't possibly be reliable authority for this definition.

I suppose that whether "given name" should be retitled "personal name" is a matter of taste, since the two terms are synonymous; I'd like to do that, since I think "given name" sounds rather confusing, while "personal name" clearly contrasts with "family name" or "surname." But if the majority disagrees with me, it's not a disaster. But I do think that the article personal name clearly has the wrong title, since it describes the opposite of a personal name; that article is about names in general (perhaps the confusion arises from the word "personal," which in "personal name" refers to a name that belongs to an individual, rather than a family; the author of the article may have assumed that it meant "names of people" as opposed to places or things).

My suggestion would be to revise the "personal name" article to eliminate the incorrect use of that term, and redirect personal name to given name, indicating in the lead paragraph that the terms are synonymous (unless, of course, the majority agrees with changing "given name" to "personal name"). Of course, that still leaves the question of what the article now titled "personal name" should be called; for now I'm thinking perhaps "Names (people)". Can I stir any interest with this proposal? P Aculeius (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think P Aculeius's expectation that if it were a valid phrase, "personal name" would be found in dictionaries is a reasonable expectation. Of course, this isn't true for all encyclopedia article titles, but I think it should be for this one. Since P Aculieus, after a reasonable search, was able to find the term in only one dictionary, I think it is unsuitable as an article title. Perhaps "Personal name" should be turned into a redirect page pointing to the various plausible meanings.
I think the "Given name" article is moderately well-titled. It suggests that the name is chosen by the name-giver, rather than dictated by law or custom. So the family name is legally required or at least there is some social pressure to assign the family name in a particular way; in the Anglo-Irish tradition it would be the father's surname. FOr the given name, in the Anglo-Irish tradition, any name can be chosen, although there it is usually chosen from a large set of words considered suitable as given names. From what I was told by a friend at university, in China the given name is not freely chosen but rather chosen according to a Generation poem, although our "Given name" article suggest this is only one possible way to choose a Chinese given name. "Personal name" would be a poor choice to mean "given name" because it might though to distinguish from other kinds of names, such as corporate names or domain names. In that context, it might be thought to be a synonym for something like "full name".
As for what "full name" means, I throw up my hands. Have a look at the forum section of http://www.notaryrotary.com. There are all kinds of tales of woe about whether a full name must include a middle name (when one has been assigned to an individual), whether a generational suffix is part of a full name, or which official document should be used to determine what an individual's full name is. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess my thought process rambled a little as I consulted various authorities. My original intent had been to ask that "personal name" be used as the title of the "given name" article instead of the one currently titled "personal name." Since I was familiar with the term as a synonym for "given name," one used in scholarly sources, I expected confirmation from more than one source (although Webster's Third is a better source than any of the others I cited). But as the two terms are synonymous, and the editors here seem to be much more familiar with "given name" I suppose that's a losing battle.
Nevertheless, "personal name" definitely means the same thing as "given name", and does not mean someone's full nomenclature. So rather than create a redirect page linking to several other articles, it should automatically redirect to "given name" (which ought, in fairness, to contain the term in the lead, even if the title remains the same). The sentence contrasting the two terms is in error. This is confirmed not just by Webster's Third, but my compact OED (which I forgot to consult last night), which explicitly states that the primary meaning of "personal" is "having to do with the individual, as opposed to the community," rather than "relating to people, as opposed to objects or places." The article currently named "personal name" misuses the term to mean something that it does not.
That still leaves the question of what term or phrase should be used to contrast what's now covered under the title "personal name" from the subject of "given name." Last night I suggested "Names (people)"; perhaps "Names of people" or "Names in different cultures". Or perhaps we should consider using "Name" or "Names" (both currently lead to disambiguation pages, but "Name" is an automatic redirect to "Names (disambiguation)" so that could stay if "Names" were the title); I think the word might be primary with reference to people, and only secondary with reference to places and other things.
Whatever the title, the lead needs to explain that there's no universally-agreed upon term for a person's full nomenclature (unless we say "a person's full nomenclature"), and that "among the terms commonly used are 'full name', etc. The lead should also distinguish these from "personal" or "given" names, which exclude names identifying a person as a member of a community (family, tribe, clan, etc.). Does anybody agree with this? P Aculeius (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It's worse than "there's no universally-agreed upon term for a person's full nomenclature". There's no universal agreement on what characters are part of a person's name, and what characters are a description. From what I've read, in some state of the US, a suffix like Junior is considered a description, just like "eye color: brown" that might appear on a driver's license. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, this is one of the pitfalls I run into as a genealogist; whether to record "Junior" and "Senior" (or II, III, IV) as part of the name. People are all over the place on this, but it seems that before the 20th century there was never any doubt that they were descriptive only. Until quite recently (in historical terms, at least) someone labeled "Junior" would drop that once the "Senior" died, and if he had a son by the same name, the son would become "Junior." Nor was there any requirement that the people so referred to be father and son, or even related. Anyone taking a list (such as a tax list or census) could simply use "Junior" and "Senior" as means of referring to the older and younger people of a particular name, irrespective of any relationship. This is why when I record people's names in genealogies, I always omit these suffixes. It's a little different in Wikipedia, of course, since we go by the most familiar "name," using that word in a broad sense, rather than a technical one. P Aculeius (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course Junior is a description: it means, "the younger", and when the elder of the same name dies, it is customarily dropped, unless both elder and younger are well-known—as in the case of Oliver Wendell Holmes, père et fils—so that the distinction remains important beyond the life of the father; or when the younger has become famous during the life of the elder, as in the case of Roy Blount, Jr., so that Jr. has become as it were a part of his "brand". Even then, Senior and Junior remain adjectives descriptive of the persons who bear a name, not part of the proper noun itself. I can imagine that a state might declare otherwise by law, but it would go against general usage, and I'm not aware that any has done so. Is Jc3s5h? That would presumably require a formal change of name when the father died, unless the son were willing to keep the now-incorrect descriptor.
As for personal name, I strongly agree that—in English usage anyway—it means the same thing as given name, and refers to the name by which an individual person is distinguished from other members of her or his family. Anything on Wikipedia that suggests otherwise should be boldly revised. In every English-speaking society I'm aware of, "full name" or "full, legal name" means one or more personal names, plus surname or family name. Generational descriptors may be added to aid in distinguishing among individuals who bear the same personal names, but are not strictly part of the full name. See, e.g., Black's Law Dictionary, fifth ed. (1979):
A person's "name" consists of one or more Christian or given names and one surname or family name. It is the distinctive characterization in words by which one is known and distinguished from others, and description, or abbreviation, is not the equivalent of a "name."
J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not aware of a state law or binding regulation that explicitly says a suffix is part of a person's name. But consider that the Centers for Disease control recommend all states adopt a birth certificate described on this web page. The certificate contains a box 1, and within that box it states "1. CHILD’S NAME (First, Middle, Last, Suffix)". This certificate has been adopted within many states. It creates the impression among regular folks, and minor state and local officials, that the suffix is part of the name. If you happen to butt heads with a minor official who goes by the birth certificate rather than Black's Law Dictionary, you better have tens of thousands of dollars on hand to sue the minor official and get a judge to compel the minor official to obey the law. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we're in agreement on what "personal name" does not mean, then I'd be happy to undertake some revisions. But we'd still have to come up with a new title for that page. Looking over what's on it, do any other ideas come to mind? You raise a good point, Jc3s5h. Today's record-driven society tends to regard a piece of paper (or its electronic equivalent) as the instrument that defines a person's name, to the exclusion of both custom and the intent of the parents. I suppose if it were up to me I would make clear that suffixes of this type are not part of the name, but exist solely for convenience. And of course I would provide some method by which the original intention of the parents would be legally binding without the need for a court order to reform errors. Sadly it's not up to me! P Aculeius (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I would simply move the "Personal name" article to "Name". The primary meaning of name is the word that characterizes and distinguishes a person (as shown by, e.g., the entry from Black's Law Dictionary I quoted above). Other uses of the word name are mostly qualified somehow (e.g., corporate name, place-name). If some qualifier were deemed necessary here (maybe to distinguish it from the article on animals' names?), I'd grudgingly suggest "Name (person)" or "Name (of a person)".
Now that I think about it, of course another encyclopedia has long-since solved this problem. There, "personal name" is used for any name applicable to a person, not just for the given name. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the Britannica entry pretty much rules out any expectation that people will understand "personal name" to be a synonym for "given name". I don't have Black's Law Dictionary handy, and I wouldn't want to agree or disagree with Jdcrutch's interpretation of it without seeing the whole entry, including the word which is being defined. But American Heritage Dictionary 3rd ed. gives, as the first definition for "name", "A word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from others." So I don't think we can presume "name" means name of a natural person. It can also mean a name of a corporation, political entity, machine, ship, poodle, etc. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that's overstating the case. As I'm sure we all know, words and phrases can have multiple meanings. I can't possibly argue that the Britannica is wrong in using the definition that it did, even if I learned the phrase in a different context, and prefer it (and even if Webster's disagrees with EB). Ironically, I am a lawyer, but it didn't occur to me to check Black's Law Dictionary. Two points! But in the law we call this kind of thing a "conflict of authority." Because we can't resolve it, we have to acknowledge both uses. In other words, "personal name" can be used in either a narrow sense or a broad sense. It's a synonym, not an antonym, of "given name", and so the use here, which simply states that it's the opposite of "given name," is still wrong. But, it can be used to mean the opposite, so that also has to be anticipated. There's no chance of changing the name of the "given name" article, but I guess I can live with that.
As for what to call the other article, I still don't know. But, having participated (in a very minor capacity) on a couple of other debates about article naming policies, there's something I think should be considered. It's the policy at WP:PTOPIC. Essentially, it provides guidance for whether a term with multiple uses should lead directly to a disambiguation page, or to one particular use, with a separate disambiguation page linked via a hatnote. The relevant question is whether a specific use is "primary" for the term. I can't phrase it any better than the policy: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." So, granted that there are lots of types of names, not just names of people. But when I ask myself what I'd be looking for when typing "name", I'd expect to see names for people before any other type of name. So, we could call that use primary. Or come up with another title. P Aculeius (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
"Name" would be among the earliest words a baby would learn while learning to speak. Babies learn the name of the family pet right along with the names of other family members. I had a niece who had a pet female dog named Gretel. When she was two years old, as far as she was concerned, every female of any species, other than her mother, was named Gretel. So I really don't know if most readers would be thinking of "name for a natural person" when entering "Name" in the search box. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
True, it wouldn't necessarily be restricted to people. Or humans, anyway. But it's actually the same type of name, whether you apply it to a human or an animal. The example you gave was a human name, although I don't think it's fundamentally different if you talk about a human named "Mac" or a dog named "Spot." I think both would fit under the same heading, as opposed to "Empire State Building," "Dodge Ram," "U.S.S. Intrepid," or "Enid, Oklahoma." But of course we can sidestep the issue if we can think of a different (or more specific) title. "Human names" doesn't sound like a good article title to me. "Personal nomenclature" at least avoids confusion with the use of "personal name" to mean an individual name, but it also doesn't sound at all intuitive. There has to be something better... P Aculeius (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The entry I quoted from Black's Law Dictionary is Name, and the definition given there is as follows:
The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation.
Then follows the passage I quoted above, after which come several cross-references, followed by sub-entries for Corporate name, Distinctive name (as used in the regulation of trade), and Generic name (of a product).
In light of this discussion and the Britannica 11th article, I'm coming around to the view that Personal name is the correct title for an article on the names of human beings, but that personal name should not be contrasted with or distinguished from given name; nor should it be identified, as the present article has it, with the full name (defined as given name, middle name, and surname) for all purposes and in all cases. In many cultures, past and present, the given name is the only personal name an individual has. In some cultures, and in some cases, a person has no personal name, and is designated by his or her relationship to another. Many, if not most, cultures do not follow the pattern of "First (given) name, Middle (given) name, Last (family) name". Even in the English-speaking world, that pattern may not be universal: I have the impression that Americans tend to use multiple given names a good bit more than Englishmen, even today. Personal name, it seems to me, is the term by which a person is individually designated, and that may or may not include various components, depending on the person's relationship with the speaker, his or her social status, the circumstances under which she or he is spoken to or spoken of, and a myriad of other potential variables. In some contexts, I am "J. D. Crutchfield"; in some, plain "Crutchfield"; in others, "Jim"; in still others, "Crutch", and so on. All of those are personal names for me, because they all, in context, refer only to me—even though none is my full, legal name.
So the article, Personal name (or at least the lede), needs rewriting, but I think the title should probably stay as it is. I would also be in favor of a more generic article entitled Name, which, like the Britannica 11th article, would treat of all kinds of proper nouns, and could be branched to various main articles for the several kinds of names. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've had a go at both articles, leaving Personal name at its current title, but adding a hatnote directing to Given name, and mentioning the various common alternative terms for both types of names in each article. I also revised a few paragraphs for clarity, and added note sections for information that seemed relevant but potentially distracting in the main text; otherwise I left the basic structures of the articles alone. Have a look and let me know if this seems okay. I'm still not convinced about the title of "Personal name", though. After revising it, I think it might be better under "Full name." P Aculeius (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Does the title of the article have to be a noun, I agree that Personal Name is ambiguous, but Personal Naming gets over this and while referring only to human names, clearly includes multiple possibilities.Manninagh1958 (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that gets around any difficulties. Technically "naming" as a process would still be a noun. A gerund, I believe. But I think that would be confusing. How would "personal naming" be distinguishable from the concept of a "personal name?" I'm afraid what we have here is a conundrum that arises from differences in usage. The term "personal name" can mean two different things, and each meaning clearly contradicts the other. At this stage there's little to recommend a change other than personal preference, and there's no consensus for that. But my impression is that "personal naming" would involve moving the article to a title so ambiguous that nobody would have a clue what it meant before visiting the article. And almost immediately there would be calls to move it back. So for now I think our best course of action is to leave things as they are. Until there's a consensus for changing "given name" to "personal name" and "personal name" to "full name" or something similar, the status quo seems to be the best solution. P Aculeius (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nalawade

There is an article at Nalawade which is listed as belonging to WikiProject Anthroponymy. At present it does not have a lead section that would indicate what the article is about. It is unclear whether the article is about a surname, a clan, a caste or some other grouping. The references do not go to the topic, but all seem to be specific to individuals. At present the article is a miscellaneous collection of information and is subject to being sent to Articles for deletion (AfD) discussions if it is not rendered into an encyclopedic article. --Bejnar (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Kennedys

A discussion on a hatnote for disambiguation of this term (it is a redirect) is currently occurring at Talk:Kennedy family (the target of the redirect). -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Anthroponymy articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"Batista"

The usage and primary topic of "Batista" is under discussion at talk:Dave Batista -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Distinct disambiguation templates for national surnames

Is it OK to create a template named {{Romanian surname}} in order to replace {{surname}} with it in pages like Manolescu, Popescu, Grosu or Ilie? The template can add the Category:Romanian-language surnames automatically, I feel tempted to create such a format but I prefer to ask first.

The same question for creating {{Romanian given name}} for pages like Călin, Costel, Silviu, etc. —  Ark25  (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't. The standard template + relevant categories works fine; a template will just encourage people to use them on unreferenced articles that do not assert whether they belong in the corresponding category. And what about surnames that belong to more than one language? You'd have to use multiple templates, messy. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

re: 'COYNE

The Wikipedia entry for the surname 'COYNE' limits it to one meaning-'servant of....'.It excludes the definitions offered by McLysaght ,his major definition being that the name is a translation of the irish 'O'Cadhain' meaning the barnacle goose.He also gives the possible location of that sept.He also considers the variations of the surname spellings of this sept-there are several- and to the similarities in spelling to other surname groups;e.g.Kilcoyne.

The list of prominent bearers of the COYNE surname includes JERRY COYNE,which name needs no further introduction.His biography notes that he is of Jewish origin.Surnames are a pointer to ethnicity/culture etc.COYNE is typically ,but it seems not necessarily,of Irish origin,as the name also appears with a French background.Being a notable apologist for Atheism,as well as being notable biologist,Jerry Coyne,of Jewish background,joins other similar controversialists who actually have an irish background.I think of Mairtin O'Cadhain,novelist,writer in irish,detained during WW 2 for his political opinions.And this being in Ireland,ended up as a scholar of Trinity College,Dublin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.57.206 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be referring toEdward MacLysaght, Jerry Coyne and Máirtín Ó Cadhain. However, the page Coyne (surname) gives "descendant of Cadhan", not "servant", so what page are you looking at? As for McLysaght, please specify your source. – Fayenatic London 23:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Bibi

I've cleaned up Bibi, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do with Bibi as a respectful title for women. There was a Title section there before, but that didn't really belong in the dab page it used to be or in the name page it is now. I'm wondering if there's an article that Bibi (disambiguation) could point to, or if anybody has any suggestions as to how to handle it. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Good work, thanks! I've started the separate page Bibi (title). – Fayenatic London 18:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Ester Ishtar

Not a half word to argue that more likely is Ishtar. 86.115.15.163 (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request‎ to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided because this proposal is of interest to this project. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Þorláksson

I just came across the article, "Þorláksson", which raises a couple of issues that I think this project should consider addressing, not just for that article but generally.

  1. The article calls Þorláksson a "surname", but goes on to say, correctly, that it's not a surname, but a patronymic. The name is Icelandic, and Icelandic society doesn't use surnames as such. Yet the article freely uses the term, and is even assigned to the category "Surnames". It's like treating "the Great" as a surname. It seems to me that all articles regarding Icelandic "surnames" should be revised so that they speak not of surnames but of patronymics.
  2. The title of the article uses the letter Þ, which is not a part of the Modern English language. It seems to me that the spelling of foreign names should be Anglicized when they use non-English letters, just as, for example, Russian, Hindi, and Japanese names already are, even when the foreign alphabet in question derives from the Roman, as the English alphabet does. Thus, the "Þorláksson" article should be entitled, "Thorlaksson", and should begin, "Thorlaksson (Icelandic: Þorláksson) is an Icelandic patronymic . . . ." Compare Hussein. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with rendering the name "Thorlaksson" (or "Thorláksson," at least English speakers can be expected to recognize accent marks, as long as the unaccented version redirects to it). But I disagree about whether it's a surname. A surname, by definition, is any proper name borne by an individual in addition to his or her personal names (or "given" names if you prefer). It doesn't have to be hereditary. Most of today's patronymic surnames were originally not hereditary, but changed every generation that a son bore a different name from his father. Occupational surnames, place-name surnames, and others were subject to the same kind of changes. We may have become used to the idea of fixed surnames, but that doesn't mean that they have to be. P Aculeius (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree on both counts. There's nothing wrong with the term "surname" (see Information on Icelandic Surnames). As for the spelling, in theory all the listed men are all named Þorláksson in reliable sources, so that's the spelling we ought to use.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I am in agreement with both P Aculeisu and Brianann MacAmlaidh on the matter of using "surname"; there is a precursor-relationship between patronymics and surnames and there is not a need to artificially segregate these. On the matter of the spelling ... I am in agreement with Jdcrutch and P Aculeius on the matter of using "Thorl[a|á]ksson" rather than "Þorláksson" in the English Wikipedia. In the Icelandic Wikipedia, though, using "Þorláksson" would be perfectly apprpropriate, as indicated by https://is.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%C3%9Eorl%C3%A1ksson&title=Kerfiss%C3%AD%C3%B0a%3ALeit&fulltext=1 ; unfortunately, the Icelandic Wikipedia lacks an article on this patronymic ... which is understandable considering the small number of Icelandic-editors. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ceyockey: Þorláksson is perfectly appropriate if reliable English-language sources use the spelling. That's what matters (see WP:ENGLISH: "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources"). So, what a foreign-language Wikipedia does has no bearing on us, and the language of the name itself has no bearing. Remember, Þorláksson is presumably the actual form of the name that these guys are known by. That's why the list shouldn't be renamed.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem with keeping it at Þorláksson instead of Thorláksson is that the letter thorn hasn't been used for writing English for nearly a thousand years, and isn't familiar to most English speakers. Few readers can type it, and even fewer will expect to find the name under that spelling. Few readers will know how to pronounce it, either, even though it's the exact equivalent of the hard th sound (as opposed to the voiced dh usually spelled the same way, represented by the letter eth). Partly that's because Icelandic is the only language that still uses the letter. Note that the articles about such letters are very deliberately placed under thorn and eth rather than Þ or Ð, even though other letters represent their own articles.
English-language dictionaries and encyclopedias acknowledge the existence of the letters under those titles, and in articles about the alphabet, but they don't contain sections for words beginning with them, which are invariably rendered with th. If someone named Þorláksson is mentioned in English-language news media, the name will almost always be rendered "Thorláksson," and if his name appears in official documents written in any language other than Icelandic, it'll be as Thorláksson, because no other language uses the letter thorn or has it in their alphabetical filing system. Which raises another complication.
Where should names beginning with these letters be filed? I would place both within th, or if impractical before t, or after t, but might someone consider placing eth before or after e simply because that's how it's spelled when written out? Or, like computer code, would letters like this automatically come at the beginning of the alphabet, before a? With a whole string of other characters not used in modern English, like a second alphabet, with no definite number or list of letters? Or more logically at the end, after z, even though the same name can be and is normally rendered with th in English?
My recommendation is to begin the article with something like, "Thorláksson, in Icelandic, Þorláksson, is an Icelandic patronymic surname..." This makes all of these unresolved and probably unresolvable issues unnecessary. Simply use English orthography for the title and first instance of use, then point to the technical native spelling in the same sentence, so that it's clear it's not of inferior status to the English orthography. P Aculeius (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

See also Harðardóttir. How would an English-speaker, using a standard keyboard, search for these articles? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried Hardhardottir but that didn't work... Hardardottir does though.Siuenti (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Strange, because /ð/ doesn't correspond to English /d/, as far as I know. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I presume the letter is a modified form of letter d. Another thing that should work but doesn't is Harthardottir. Siuenti (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Historically, the letter eth (/ð/) is indeed a modified letter /d/, but it represents the sound we write with /th/, as in /then/, /fathom/, and /bathe/, so I'd have expected "Harthardottir" to work; but it doesn't, as Siuenti discovered. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to split hairs, eth (Ð, ð) is /dh/, as in the three examples you gave, while thorn (Þ, þ) is /th/, as in /three/, /thick/, and /bath/. In other words, it's the voiced version of the same sound, just as we render voiceless 'f' as /ph/ and voiced 'v' as /bh/. Not that it's a really important distinction; they didn't really use them consistently in early written English, frequently transposing them as they saw fit. Ultimately we didn't think that the distinction was important enough to keep two separate letters that weren't in the Roman alphabet! The same thing happened with Æ, which could be simplified as either A or E, depending on your preference... which is why we usually pronounce Æthelbert "Ethelbert," but "Æthelstan" usually becomes "Athelstan." Usually, I say, because the other forms occurred too, and nobody would be surprised to hear "Ethelstan." P Aculeius (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and since ð is a separate letter, it'll be counted as such and not as 'th'. That's why I think the article should be moved, and redirects used for alternate spellings of names like these using thorn or eth. I recommend that all article titles containing these letters be moved to titles using 'th', with the native spellings used as redirects, mainly because most English speakers can't type (and won't recognize) them. It's fine to place them prominently in the lead, but as article titles they create an accessibility issue. P Aculeius (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Redirects are easy to make, so I have made them for Harðardóttir. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Anthroponymy article needs work

Hello name experts. I noticed that the Anthroponymy article had no references, so I added some. However, in my relative ignorance of this subject I may have introduced error, so perhaps someone from this project could check my work. Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Anthroponymy page standards

The standards for pages which this WikiProject is concerned with have been proposed to be promoted to a formal part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. An RFC has been running for a couple of days now and I suggest WikiProject members participate in that discussion. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards#Proposed move to align with rest of MOS . --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Vlado

It looks like a decent list of people named Vlado could be created. There seem to be dozens with Wikipedia articles. Crispulop (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Dans les débats ci-après, ont été rassemblés tous les débats à ce jour et classés par thème, dans un ordre allant du plus général vers le plus particulier : portail, liens avec d'autres wiki, articles, contenu des articles.

Vous êtes tous invités à participer à ces débats.

Bien amicalement. --Guy Courtois (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Débats sur le portail lui-même

  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur la sensibilisation de la communauté Wikipédia à ce portail
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur le périmètre du portail
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur le titre du portail
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur la palette du portail
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur la notification de projet

Débats sur les liens avec d'autres wiki

  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les liens avec Wikidata
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les liens avec le Wikitionnaire
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les liens avec les autres projets sur l'anthroponymie des Wikipédia dans d'autres langues

Débats sur les articles

  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les possibles regroupements des surnoms, prénoms et noms de famille au sein d'un même article
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur le regroupement des variantes
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur le choix entre "nom de famille" ou "patronyme"
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les liens entre les articles de "noms de famille" et les articles de "famille"]]
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les pages d'homonymie
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les titres des articles de famille
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les surnoms

Débats sur le contenu des articles

  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur la structure type d'un article
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les infobox
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les possibles contenus encyclopédiques dans les articles
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les sources
  • Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur la catégorisation des articles et le choix des portails

On this project's page, the link in

Check the to do list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Things to do

is dead: there is no section headed "Things to do" and no such anchor. That comes from the transcluded subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/HowToHelp. I'm not a member of this project and can't afford the spoons to become one— just a wandering wikignome— so I'm not going to demonstrate the chutzpah to modify the page myself. --Thnidu (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages with surnames

Perhaps I'm missing it somewhere, but I can find no guideline as to when a separate disambiguation page should exist for a surname, such as Presley, Alder (surname) or Blew (surname), and when it should just be a section, such as at Sutherland (disambiguation).

There's another possibility of a name page for both surnames and prenames, such as London (name), but for now I'd be happy just to find some guidance on surname pages.

Or is this better asked of WikiProject Disambiguation? TIA Andrewa (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Maybe better to ask at disambiguation, which is a little more active. Though it doesn't address your question directly, there's an active thread about treating surnames as disambiguations or set indices at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#dab_to_surname_conversions (which is what prompted me to check out this project). Whether surnames should kept as sections or spun off into separate pages may be worth discussing there. Plantdrew (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. Andrewa (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I mostly spend my time on disambiguation. There's a concensus in the disambig project to keep small lists of name holders (whether given name or surname) on the main disambiguation page for a topic. When the list becomes too large, or when people want to elaborate on the etymology and history of the name (which is not allowed on dab pages), then a separate anthroponymy article is being created. Mind you, those are "articles", not dab pages (a dab page is not considered an article). If the articles is about a given name, it gets the "given name" qualifier, the "surname" qualifier for a surname page, and just "name" for both uses. See MOS:DABNAME. Hope this clarifies.--Midas02 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines for adding categories to anthroponymy articles

Hello, could someone tell me what the guidelines are for adding categories to anthroponymy articles? I'm asking because user Che829 is rather agressively refusing me to add the Spanish given name category to the Stella (given name), which is a very common name in Spanish-speaking countries. I don't care that the name comes from Latin, because by that standard just about every Western European name is derived either from Latin or Indogermanic, and we could drop all other categories. So your guidance please. --Midas02 (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"X (disambiguation)" redirecting to "X" where X is a name page; necessary or not?

There's currently a discussion about this at Wp:RFD. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 2#Indrani (disambiguation). Thanks, 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Lorraine"

The usage and topic of Lorraine is under discussion, see Talk:Lorraine (duchy) -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Imelda

Someone with an Imelda Marcos bias has gone through and rewritten Imelda, can someone check to see if this is the proper form? (s/he removed the full names of people, and replaced them with the article titles) And shouldn't the "disambiguation" tag be removed, as it is a given name article? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I noticed this late, but I have just reverted these undiscussed changes. I am not at all convinced that Imelda Marcos is the primary topic for the term "Imelda". Not when Imelda Staunton exists, among others. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a multi-month campaign by Imeldific (talk · contribs) to make Imelda Marcos the topic of the Imelda article -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Lisabeth" and "Lizabeth"

Lisabeth and Lizabeth are under discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_22 -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

DeLaney/Laney/Slaney Surname

I have an idea about the origin of the Laney/Delaney/Slaney surname that is a little different than the explanation listed on the Delaney surname page. The page in question explains the origin as "Dubh meaning black and Slaine for the River Slaine", but looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_clans#Tuath-an-Toraidh and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sl%C3%A1ine_mac_Dela the origin of "Slaine" could possibly be the legendary Slaine mac Dela, the mythological first High King of Ireland. Any thoughts by an Irish historian? Lodeswrath (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Middle name" in Nepal

The description given contradicts the example, and no sense can be made of the paragraph as it stands. Please see the Talk page there. --Thnidu (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove accent?

Talk:Siobhán In ictu oculi (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Otaran

See deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otaran ~Kvng (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

So... what is the meaning of "personal name"?

The article Personal name contradicts itself badly... it opens with "A personal name or full name refers to the set of names by which an individual is known..." and then later in the lede says In Western culture, nearly all individuals possess at least one given name (also known as a personal name, first name, forename, or Christian name), together with a surname ..."

And the article Given name starts with "A given name (also known as a personal name, first name, forename, or Christian name)..."

Well which the heck is a personal name'? Is my personal name "Feric Allen Jagger" or just "Feric"? Or do I have three personal names -- "Feric", "Allen", and "Jagger"?

Going by Google, just clicking on the results as they come up in order:

  1. Behind the Name: "A personal name is a name that belongs to a person. Family names and given names are prominent examples of personal names."
  2. Personal Names Around The World: (basically states that personal name = full name)
  3. Wiktionary: "Personal name: A proper name identifying an individual person, especially the full name."
  4. Swedish Registration Office: "The Names Act divides personal names into different types. Today there are three types of personal name: first name, surname and middle name." (Dunno why the Swedish Registration Office comes up so high. They say that the personal name is not the full name, but also is not the first name, but rather that a usual person with a middle name has three personal names. But that's just Sweden.)
  5. LegalZoom: (Not crystal clear, but looks like strong implication that personal name = unique identifier for legal purposes, so first name alone would probably not do.)
  6. OCLC: (Strong implication that the Swedish system is operative -- a person has (usually) three personal names, first-middle-surname)
  7. Britannica: Paywall. The lede opens "There are many subdivisions and terms within the category of personal names" FWIW.
  8. Merriam-Webster: "a name (as the praenomen or the forename) by which an individual is intimately known or designated and which may be displaced or supplemented by a surname, a cognomen, or a royal name". They are definitely bucking the trend and saying personal name equals first name. ("Praenomen" is the classical Roman first name; our article Cognomen says "According to the 2012 edition of the Random House Dictionary, cognomen can mean a "surname" or "any name, especially a nickname." So the basic sense in English is 'how one is well known.'"
  9. Roger Darlington (whoever he has) has long and complicated essay, but he does say "There is a tendency in Wales for people not to use their first personal name but instead their second." So put him in the Swedish camp I guess.
  10. (The next two are just about Ancient Greek names.)
  11. (The next one is about internet domain names, but assumes that personal name means full name, or first+last at least)
  12. (Next one doesn't apply)
  13. Ah, here's A short history of English personal names at the Oxford English Dictionary -- some real firepower. They say "...middle name, which could be a personal name or a surname...", and "...relationships with the natural and supernatural worlds have long been expressed through the use of personal names..." and so forth. They are in camp of personal name = first name, whether formally given at birth or pet name/nickname.

Well let's end it at the OED. So for the 11 top Google results (not counting Wikipedia or unhelpful pages), we have:

  • 5 say personal name is your full name.
  • 3 say you have several personal name. If your full name is "John Jacob Schmidt" you have three personal names.
  • 2 say your personal name is first name. Note that the OED is one of them.
  • 1 (Britannica) says its complicated, and we can't drill further into the paywall.

Well let's look at some people who's job it is to define stuff like this.

  • OED we know is going for personal name=first name.
  • Oxford again, if we can count them twice: looking at a snippet from the book The Oxford Companion to Family and Local History (2 ed.) we get "...personal names have been derived from an independent †folklore tradition. For example, Meadhbh, Deirdre, Connor, and Naoise are names..." So personal name=first name.
  • Merriam-Webster we know is going for personal name=first name.
  • Britannica we know doesn't have a clear answer.
  • Dictionary.com doesn't have a definition, but its companion thesaurus.com gives, as synonyms for personal name, "Forename", "Christian name" and "Fontname" -- those are first names.
  • Collins has nothing.
  • Funk and Wagnalls has nothing.
  • Strunk and White has nothing, I don't think. Don't have a searchable version.
  • Fowlers, I don't think so. I don't have a searchable version.

Well boy howdy. Looks like a majority of sources, and everyday usage might lean toward "personal name=full name", while the most snooty sources such as Oxford say "personal name=first name".

I don't know which way to go on this, but the way we're doing it is not working. IMO we need to do one of these two things:

  1. Everywhere where we use the phrase "personal name" clearly indicate that its defined different ways by different people.
  2. Pick a meaning of "personal name" that we want to use and stick with it.

I'm for #1. #2 is original research IMO. But it'd be reasonable. It's reasonable to follow the OED and the Oxford Companion to Family and Local History. They're not morons. It'd sure be better than using it with different meanings in different articles (and even different paragraphs in the same article) as we do now.

I request counsel. Absent that, I propose to go thru the articles "Personal name" and so forth, remove the definitions, and replace with something to the effect of "personal name can mean three different things, all related to the name a person is given or called by... yadda yadda". Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

All of which goes to show that when inconsistent meanings of a term are in widespread use, it makes sense to describe what those meanings are, and suggest that whatever form is chosen for a specific meaning in a particular article is not intended to be dispositive of the issue, but is used for convenience.
In other words, if the phrase "personal name" may mean either (1) any name referring to a particular person, or (2) a name chosen for a person rather than inherited (i.e. excluding surnames, and probably excluding patronymics and similar names), so that the use of the phrase is a matter of personal preference, then the article should say so in reasonably clear terms. For example, "the terms 'a' and 'b' are synonymous, and both may be used to mean either 'c' or 'd'. For convenience, in this article 'a' refers only to 'c', while 'b' refers only to 'd'."
To the extent that the lead paragraph suggests that "personal name" always or necessarily has one meaning, it should be rewritten. Something along the lines of the lead from "given name", followed by an explanation that the phrase is often given a more limited meaning, and what it is. Since the distinction is not trivial, it should be clearly explained, either by reference to a terminology section following the lead, or (if it can be done succinctly), immediately following the list of synonymous terms. P Aculeius (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Only one idea pops to mind at the moment: Herostratus wrote 'everyday usage might lean toward "personal name=full name"'. As an American, and a notary public who has to check people's ID documents and compare what is written on the ID to what is written on the document to be signed, my impression is that the phrase "personal name" is not used in everyday use. Phrases that seem to be used everyday, in my opinion, are "first name", "given name", "nickname", "middle name", "last name", "surname", "family name", "full name", "legal name", and "full legal name". Of course various entities have vague or conflicting definitions for these phrases. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this question has been discussed at some length before, at which time both P Aculeius and Jc3s5h ably participated. (I also took part.) In that discussion, I started out thinking that personal name should be treated as synonymous with given name, but came around to the conclusion
that Personal name is the correct title for an article on the names of human beings, but that personal name should not be contrasted with or distinguished from given name; nor should it be identified, as the present article has it, with the full name (defined as given name, middle name, and surname) for all purposes and in all cases.
I confess I don't know to what extent, if any, the proposals offered in that discussion were ever implemented. P Aculeius made some revisions, but apparently at least one person (Herostratus) still finds room for improvement. I note that the lede still begins, "Personal name, or full name," as if the two were entirely synonymous, which they manifestly are not. It should at the very least reflect the ambiguity that exists in English. In the next day or so I'll take a crack at making it do so. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 00:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"Imelda"

I just reverted Imeldific (talk · contribs)'s addition of Imelda Marcos as the representative Imelda at Imelda name article by removing the image of Marcos at Imelda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the infobox. This seems part of Imeldific's continual campaign to make Imelda Marcos the most prominent Imelda. (see talk:Imelda for the campaign)

Related is Imeldific's move request at talk:Imelda (disambiguation) which you may be interested in -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Jane Ryan"

The usage and primary topic of Jane Ryan is under discussion. Is Imelda Marcos the primary topic? See the discussion at talk:Jane Ryan -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Imeldific is now making "Imelda Marcos" the topic link for Jane Ryan, seemingly promoting her on yet another page -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Narcis

Hello. I'd like to put another person to the page Narcis, namely Narcis Iustin Ianău who is mainly working under the stage name of Narcis. But as I am new to the English Wikipedia I wasn't sure whether I could just add him or it needs to be applied. Thank you very much for your help. Best regards --Patrick H. (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You can add him straight ahead. Uanfala (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Maiorana surname

Can someone look at the Maiorana surname article and make it more like the Carter (name) article, as in add an infobox and coat of arms, etc. Thanks. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Terrible articles, both of them. Misrepresentation of sources, use of bad sources, coats-of-arms of no relevance to all or most people of these names. Absolute junk. --Hegvald (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Topic regarding Ukrainian Surnames wiki article and editor's neutral point of view

The quoted sentence I copied directly from the Ukrainian surnames article , pasted below, is extremely opinionated. Saying certain surnames are funny is clearly the editor's personal feelings which is the antithesis of academic writing. An editor who cannot leave their personal points of view on a subject that is meant to be informative, definitive, and factual is bad journalism. If anyone ever needed to illustrate what poor scholarly work looks like, then this would be a perfect example.

"These can often be somewhat comical such as Dobryvechir, Perevernykruchenko, Vyrvykhvist, Vernydub, Kryvonis, Chornovil, Navarykasha." Whatkatherineknows (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If just the editor felt these are funny, then this is a personal opinion that has no place on wikipedia. However, if these names are generally perceived by Ukrainian speakers as comical, then this is a fact that might merit inclusion here, subject to the availability of sources. Uanfala (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 22:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Updating article alerts

Currently this project is subscribed to article alerts via talk page banners, i.e. we receive alerts about articles whose talk pages carry the {{WikiProject Anthroponymy}} banner. I'm planning to update the subscription at Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscription list so that we will also receive alerts to about articles that are in the categories Category:Surnames and Category:Given names. Uanfala (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Does it matter? Uanfala (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The inclusion of the categories is a step to get over the incomplete addition of banners. Ideally, one would only need to monitor the banner-presence. Knowing which don't have a banner would make adding the banner easier ... unless one is thinking to create a banner-bot to add to articles in the target categories, in which case would only need to monitor the banner-presence. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, there probably is some easy way to do it, but I'm not tech- or wiki-savvy enough to know that. What I'm proposing however (receiving alerts for all name articles) only involves a simple edit at the subscription page and one I'm planning to perform if there isn't any objection here. Uanfala (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@Uanfala: Might I suggest Category:Human names instead? -- Tavix (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tavix: Unfortunately, the AA bot doesn't recurse through subcategories in the article namespace. [1] Uanfala (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, well thanks for checking! -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
You can find articles in a given category that lack (or have) a WikiProject banner with PetScan. Click here and then hit "Do it!" to see surnames that lack the Anthroponymy banner. There are 1862 unbannered given names and 8138 surnames, so if Article Alerts only accepts one category, surnames would catch more. There are some other reports, such as the Anthroponymy cleanup listing, that depend on the project banner being present. It should be pretty straightforward to get a bot to add the banner to pages in the anthroponymy categories that lack it. Plantdrew (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: That's precisely what I was looking for. Thank you! Uanfala (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Undeferenced lists of given name variants in numerous languages.

What's the deal with them? I am talking about my recent removal. My problems are both policy and commons sense:

  • Unreferenced
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary
  • Why "Alexandra" is Danish? That a Dane has this name does not mean it is "Danish"
  • How the feck I know that "Sass" is Estonian form and not a joke?
  • Chinese – 亞歷山大/亚历山大 (Yàlìshāndà) - really?

Is there any guideline about this? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I hate wikidata. It has entries Alexander and Aleksander, but I am not going to jump thru the hoops for half an hour to merge them into one. The most user-unfriendly wikiproject of all. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly unencyclopedic about a list of variants of a given name. Almost all the issues that you raise boil down to the current lack of references. As for "Alexandra" being Danish, maybe that wasn't worth including in the list, and maybe it could have been worded better, but it does communicate a determinate piece of information: that in Denmark, "Alexandra" (rather than some other variant) is used. Uanfala (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Links_to_anthroponymy_pages; it is of relevance to this project. Thanks, —swpbT 15:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Surnames by language

Does the Category contain any language Category or is it the highest level of a tree of langauges? (Such tree would be very controversial) Polish and Russian have been removed from this Category, but German and English survived, so I'm returning Polish and Russian.Xx236 (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

We need dit

Or perhaps Template:French-Canadian name.

Louis Riel mentions the subject's wife Marguerite Monet dit Bellehumeur, his friend Father Fabien Martin dit Barnabé, and "a passionate romance with Evelina Martin dit Barnabé, sister of his friend, the oblate father Fabien Barnabé", but links/says/indicates nothing about this "dit", not even a dot or a dah. See Talk:Louis Riel § dit, and please {{ping}} me and discuss there.

--Thnidu (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Pardon my French : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dit Staszek Lem (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually even we have it right here, in en:wp: Dit name, in addition to "dot name"; never heard about dah names, though. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Page edit notices

I've recently come across a few anthroponymy articles that have custom edit notices for the page that imply redlinks are forbidden. See below for an example from Template:Editnotices/Page/Edward.

First, I don't think the guidance given here is in line with the project standards. Second, while I'm not sure if there is any easy way to locate such manually created templates, the project might want to consider encouraging transclusion of a common template as described at Wikipedia:Editnotice#Batch of identical editnotices. FWIW, disambiguation pages use a different mechanism to display the Template:Disambig editintro on all disambiguation pages. It depends on the presence of a special attribute on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 17:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Podesta – help needed

Please see this post. It's beyond my abilities. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Reliable source for surname origins?

Hi there, I've come across a surname page where an editor is insisting on a certain heritage origin, but has only been able to provide Ancestry.com and sickening vitriol in support of their argument (they've been blocked). I did some searching on my own but all I came up with was surnamedb.com, which is related to Ancestry but I don't know how reliable it is. I would ask at WP:RS but I thought you folks might have better input as to where to look for this sort of info. The article in question is Breitbart (surname). Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I had the same issue even when there where links to the WP clan pages that confirmed the data. seems that as soon as you try to attempt to improve something that edit warring and over zealous deletion starts before you can finish 109.202.157.153 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I found a very short entry in the Dictionary of American Family Names on google books. Google Books is usually the first place I go when fixing [citation needed] tags. --Dicewitch (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy/Archive_7&oldid=1200952915"