Talk:Avery (given name)

1910 census?

"The name was the 634th most common given name for males in the United States in the 1910 census." This may be factually correct, but who cares? What is the relevance to this article? Grendelstiltzkin (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

Previously I saw that this name was listed as french in origin, and now it's been entirely switched to Hebrew. I'm not married to either definition and want the correct one listed, and see both origins cited online with a quick cursory search. I'm concerned to see that the switch was made wholesale (erased original listing of origin) and the edits were made entirely by one user (KingDavidCohen). Azotochtli (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since KingDavidCohen's alterations to the first paragraph (etymology of the name) did not provide any references supporting the derivation of the modern name Avery from the Hebrew name, I have reverted in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability and have also added references to two books that support the derivation from Old English/Old French (including the Oxford Dictionary of First Names).

If the connection between the Hebrew name and the modern name can be supported with Wikipedia:Reliable sources, fully cited, I suggest it could be added back alongside the existing text. I searched for references that would be suitable for this, but was unable to find any. — Hebrides (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gender origins

To try to resolve the ongoing dispute on whether the name is male/female I have created a new regional variations section as the name is used differently in different areas of the world. I have left the gender as masculine as this is how it was originated and has been for 4 centuries. Please use this page to discuss any future edits on the matter before making changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by English Prof 17 (talk • contribs) 17:04, April 29, 2021 (UTC)

Finding reliable sources for modern name usage is challenging. I have a female relative named Avery, but obviously my anecdote doesn't qualify as a source, and I have no idea how common it is as a female name (I've only known one other Avery in my life, so the sample size is small). Perhaps it's enough to leave the "gender" part out of the infobox, but mention in the lede that in it's original usage it was predominantly male? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The behindthename.com entry for the name Avery shows that it is more popular as a girls’ name than it is as a boys’ name, not just in the US and Canada but also in England and Wales. Here is the source showing this- https://www.behindthename.com/name/avery/top/england-wales?type=percent. The listing for this name should reflect this information by listing Avery as unisex. Notably, the name Aubrey is etymologically associated with the name Avery and is listed as unisex on the Wikipedia entry for that name.71.191.251.153 (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under regional variations, it is claimed that "The feminine form is rare in European countries but where found is usually used with the feminine alternative spelling Averie/Averi." This is not an accurate statement. The name "Avery" ranked number 442 for girls in England and Wales and number 449 for boys. It is no more "rare" for girls than it is for boys, in fact less so. There is no data or evidence in the reference cited to support the claim that Averie or Averi is usually used for females given this name in Europe.71.191.251.153 (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

We have sources that say that 'ric' can translate to king/ruler/powerful; in the context of a modern English translation, "Elf King" seems more logical than "Elf Power" (which happens to be the name of an indie band. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reviewed the two sources for "ric" cited. The issue with choosing "elf king" is that it genders the name to masculine. However, this source providing data on name popularity for Avery in England and Wales - https://www.behindthename.com/name/avery/top/england-wales?type=percent - and this one providing name popularity for Avery in the US in 2020 - https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/index.html - indicates that this name is more popular for girls than boys in both regions, making it solidly unisex. I proposed listing the name as unisex but, if that is disputed, then perhaps listing this definition as "Elf Ruler" is a way of accurately translating the name's meaning without gendering it.71.191.251.153 (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem at all with a translation supposedly gendering the name. We should not pick a translation based on current trends in name use. The name was historically male, as the article says. The US source shows that it has only been the last 20 or so years that it has been more common in the US as a female name than as a male name, and that it first appeared on the female list in 1989, while the male name has shown up every year since 1900, as far back as the records go.

We can rewrite things to clarify the increase in recent female usage, but I don't see a problem with the " traditionally a male given name". Meters (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And please indent your responses. Meters (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I do not see a problem with the "traditionally a male given name" part either. The only issue is related to denying it is unisex in the US, Canada, England, and Wales by not including this information. The references cited on this entry for the meaning and history of the name Avery notate that the name is unisex. See here - https://www.behindthename.com/name/avery - and here - https://www.thenamemeaning.com/avery/. Also, as previously mentioned, other names that have become more popular for girls than boys within the past few decades are listed as unisex on their respective Wikipedia entries (e.g., Aubrey, Bailey, Riley, Ashley, etc). I am curious as to whether an entry for a name should only reflect its original usage in 1900, or provide that history and context as well as reflect "recent" trends in its usage, as the other unisex names I have given as examples do, by recognizing them as unisex? Moreover, the lede of the entry only mentions its usage as a traditionally male name, and readers would need to dig further to discover its more common, modern usage for females.71.191.251.153 (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does any of this have to do with your push to use "Elf ruler" as the supposed translation? It is a traditionally male name that is now also being used for girls. Again, We should not pick a translation based on current trends in name use. Meters (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with the fact that the name is unisex but not currently listed as such. As I mentioned above, "I proposed listing the name as unisex but, if that is disputed, then perhaps listing this definition as 'Elf Ruler' is a way of accurately translating the name's meaning" and compromising on this issue. Using Elf Ruler is not 'picking a translation', as it is one multiple references cited on this page uses for "aelf ric".71.191.251.153 (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what picking "Elf Power" or "Elf Ruler' is. The name ~~was~~ was not unisex originally. It makes no sense to pick a translation of the original words based on current usage of the given name. Meters (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the name was unisex originally, then it seems it makes no sense to pick the definition "Elf King" only to strip it of that important historical context. If you disagree to recognize its modern usage as a unisex name, why would you simultaneously disagree to recognize its historical usage as a unisex name through the translation chosen for it? I am confused. If rewriting things to clarify the increase in recent female usage, as you suggested above, is the best that can be done, that is at least better and more accurate than leaving it as is.71.191.251.153 (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote. We can rewrite things to clarify the increase in recent female usage How is that not agreeing "to recognize its modern usage as a unisex name"?

And despite what you write, 30 years of US usage does not qualify it as a historical female name. It was a male name. It is now used by both. All I'm saying is that it does not make sense to pick a particular translation of a historical name based on recent usage. Use the best translation regardless of what gender it implies. It is irrelevant to how the name is now used. Meters (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only wrote that because you stated the following above: "The name was unisex originally." That is precisely why I said I was confused. I will now assume that was a typo and that you meant to write that it "was not" unisex originally. Every other unisex name I have looked up here (Ashley, Lindsay, Shannon, Courtney, Bailey, Riley, Aubrey) is listed as unisex, despite the rise in popularity for girls occurring within the last few decades. For some reason there is some bias taking place where Avery is being treated differently. But, as you said, that isn't related to the translation issue at hand here. I have already conceded that rewriting things to clarify the increase in female usage is better than doing nothing. 71.191.251.153 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was a typo on my part. Corrected. My apologies. Meters (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

In keeping with WP:OVERLAP, I suggest merging Avery (given name) with Avery (surname) into the prospective Avery (name). Because both the surname and given name are etymologically the same, the ledes for both articles are inherently nigh-identical. The only drawback I can see is that the merged page would be longer than either existing article, since lists of so-named people (which, for the most part, are not redundant) make up the majority of their actual lengths. However, even the combined length would not be unusual compared with other articles about names—see, for example, Jackson (name), Jonas (name), etc.

Alternatively, if this merger does not have support, I would suggest truncating the lede of Avery (surname) in the vein of Charles/Charles (surname) and James (given name)/James (surname) to remedy the existing redundancy. Pangur Bán & I (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, on the grounds that it's unlikely that people will be confused as to whether they are looking for a given name Avery , or for the surname, and the lists are long enough that consolidation doesn't bring significant advantages. Klbrain (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]