Jump to content

Talk:Carpenter (surname)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment

[edit]

Carpenter (surname) → Carpenter — Most surnames do not need "(surname)" added.  Not done

Carpenter currently redirects to Carpentry which is an occupation. "Carpenter (occupation)" should redirect to Carpentry. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Ron Carpenter (designer)

[edit]

http://www.linotype.com/357/roncarpenter.html
http://www.fontshop.com/fonts/designer/ron_carpenter/

Macmillan, Neil (2005). Designing Type. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300111517.

I plan to write an article on Ron Carpenter (designer), but not within the next week or so. Other editors interested in the subject should go ahead if they want something quicker. --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

". At this point it looks like an ad the way you have it posted above. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is the bes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.116.160 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article started on Ron Carpenter (designer). Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect mentions of Carpenters - discussion

[edit]

The following A) & B) have been deleted twice now. I have asked the editor to explain why here instead of getting into an edit war. Comments welcomed. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A) Mentions of Carpenters within Wikipedia - can only be found using search - possible articles pending? To my knowledge, people noted in wikipedia articles can be listed in surname pages as a form of wiki search. Am I wrong?

Note: The editor mentioned above is using a generic page for all people mentioned as "David Carpenter." The problem is that disrupts the flow of the surname pages. For example, think of all the John Carpenters, but that is not done on this surname page for them. I would rather have all David Carpenters mentioned on the Carpenter surname page. And if needed also on the "David Carpenter" page.

The following info is on the "David Carpenter" page.

One possible solution is to just merge all the David Carpenters here and change David Carpenter to a redirect, but I don't see the point of having them listed identically on two different pages. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doing so would then cause all the John Carpenters, Ken Carpenters and similar to all have redirects to disabig pages if all things are equal. This then defeats the purpose of a Carpenter (surname) page. Is that your intent? Do you want this for ALL surname pages? I do not like this idea and that you did this on the Carpenter (surname) page without consensus is wrong. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You keep talking about "consensus". How about providing me with a link to this consensus. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the input/consensus was based on emails between major participants building this surname page. So, my apologies there. Also, I want to thank you for some general cleanup that made the page better. I am admiss in not acknowledging the good. It is just a few items that I have a serious concern about.
Again, primarily A & B as noted.
Under A) I want to see all Carpenters mentioned directly or indirectly on the Carpenter surname page in Wikipedia listed here. And not shuffled off to other disabig pages. I feel this weakens the surname pages. See --User:Ceyockey talk to me below on this. The idea of creating List of people with surname Carpenter is good, as mentioned below.
Under B) I would like to have the information preserved in some manner. I do not disagree some may never have an article written on Wikipedia. That is the reason why I suggested a possible supplemental list. I like the idea of creating List of characters with surname Carpenter as mentioned below.
Would creating the two suggested list pages be agreeable? I would be happy to do it. Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B) Should this section be redone to stress the fictional name of Carpenters then the name of the book and authors? For example:

  • Josh and Lynette (Boudreaux) Carpenter, from Murder on Pine Island Bayou, Vantage Press, 1992 by George W. Barclay, Jr.

Or, should this section be provided as a list format or adjunct page to the surname page? Thoughts?

Most of these fictional Carpenters are from non-notable books and authors, which don't have, and likely never will have, articles. I've kept the ones that are mentioned in existing pages and linked to them. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. For fictional characters you keep those mentioned in exisiting pages and linked to them BUT delete real people in exisiting pages and the links to the related pages they are mentioned in. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just which real people have I eradicated? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a repeat, in case you have not read the above material (those removed from the Carpenter (surname) page) ... Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested input

[edit]

I have been asked to provide some input on this discussion. First, I've added a section to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy entitled 'related guideline and policy pages'; some material here was buried at the end of the page in the 'resources' section, so I've surfaced and expanded it.

The Carpenter (surname) page is one of those reasonably developed surname pages which goes beyond a simple listing; most surname pages do end up being simply lists, which is a point of criticism for the anthroponymy-related articles in general. As such, it would be appropriate to split off the listings to pages like List of people with surname Carpenter and perhaps also List of characters with surname Carpenter; whether to do separate lists depends upon the length of the lists. Don't intermix real people and characters in a list, though; this is generally something avoided. There is no hard guideline which addresses the question of when to include a list like David Carpenter in a List of people with surname Carpenter and when to split off. David Carpenter is, obviously, a disambiguation page, whereas List of people with surname Carpenter is a standard list page. I personally tend to repeat the dab list in the people list if the dab list is short; the problem here is not one of policy/guideline but maintainability. I've tried things like page transclusion, but have not found a good way to repeat a long list and not create a maintenance problem.

About the matter of people / characters and other article mentions ... if published material is sufficiently notable to have an article here, then a character mentioned in the article can be represented by a redirect if the name appears in the article; this character name may reside on a name-related page. That is just an application of the general redirect and notability guidelines and policies.

About the matter of people / character red links ... the Wikipedia:Red link guideline applies.

Please try to avoid edit warring above all else. Be flexible and compromise to achieve this. There are no hard rules as to the content of pages in this area, so arguments based on style should take a backseat to arguments based on functionality and usability.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Resolving the issues on the talk page is ideal. I appreciate your input! Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't like having all the David Carpenters duplicated on two pages, I'll concede there are not enough of them to create a major problem. However, my main concern centers on the fictional characters. Jrcrin001 wants to keep them all, but "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." Clarityfiend (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with WP:NOTDIR. However, if the fictional character content is restricted to those characters that are included in the exposition of the fictional work here on Wikipedia, then the scope of the inclusion is sufficiently narrowed to a navigational purpose rather than an all-inclusive listing. The first item in the Fictional Characters section, Dr. Carpenter, is a pretty good example an appropriate item; Dr. Carpenter is mentioned over a dozen times in the target article and appears to be a major character of the work. I generally support the creation of redirects for said characters, typically tagged with either Template:R to list entry or Template:R from subtopic without possibilities or Template:R to section depending upon the circumstances. Such redirects should be created during the course of improvement of the target article, not as a mechanical implementation of an interpretation of a guideline. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I know it can be frustrating (it is to me) if it appears there could be more fictional Carpenters than real Carpenters ... that is a consequence of the inclusion decisions which have come up over time which make the inclusion of people more difficult than the inclusion of works in general. I think that this leads to an odd bias, but it is the direction the community has gone up to now. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just what I did. I went through the list and reinstated the two Drs. Carpenter and Joe, with links to their novels. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. I also created the two lists as mentioned above and resolved a few more fictional character issues. I have narrowed down the list of the questionable fictional characters, See "Books" below. Before removing the "lists" of surnamed Carpenters and fictional characters from the Carpenter (surname) page, please review the following two lists. Comments and such are welcomed. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did some cleanup. How does it look now? Any idea of a rating or suggestions of how to make this better? Please note, I have not insert any of the material now under "Books" below. Input please. Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So much for the effort not to have an edit war. It is frustrating. I am happy to work with people. My efforts show this. But, now I am beginning to feel "bullied" by this editor. The editor has continued to remove material dispite efforts above. I have asked again for him to discuss before insisting on his way and no other. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if, when you complain about edits, you provided a WP:DIFF to identify the edits about which you complain. LeadSongDog come howl 15:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of fictional characters with surname Carpenter for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fictional characters with surname Carpenter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters with surname Carpenter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. WilliamH (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The result was delete. There is clearly a consensus to delete this, but I have userfied it to my own userspace at User:Black Kite/Carpenter so that it may be merged back into the main list if necessary. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I added the information above to explain why List of fictional characters with surname Carpenter was deleted. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Books with Carpenter characters not listed in Wikipedia

[edit]

Maybe this "narrowed down" list will encourage a few articles to be written on either the author or title?

- George W. Barclay, Jr.: Murder on Pine Island Bayou, Vantage Press, 1992 -- Josh and Lynette (Boudreaux) Carpenter.

- Louis Bayard: The Black Tower, William Morrow, 2008 -- "Vidocq is founder and chief of the plainclothes force called the Sureté...to meet his greatest challenge yet, Vidocq teams up with Hector Carpentier, a medical student whose name has turned up on a dead man's body."

- John Grisham: The Innocent Man, Doubleday Books, 2006 -- "Mike and Terri Carpenter both worked at the Coachlight, he as a bouncer, she as a waitress..."

- Eva (Carpenter) McCall: Edge of Heaven, Bright Mountain Books, Inc., 1997 -- "When the author’s grandmother, Lucy Davenport, is traded by her father to Holman Carpenter in exchange for a mysterious favor, her simple mountaintop life is abruptly changed..."

- Deborah Powell: Bayou City Secrets, Naiad Press, Tallahassee, Fla., 1991, Houston Town, Naiad Press, Tallahassee, Fla., 1992 -- "Lesbian crime reporter Hollis Carpenter solves mysteries in Houston in the 1930s."

*See - list

[edit]

WP allows details on pages to explain or redirect. As mentioned before (see above) you can have the information on more than one page. Please do not delete the "*See" section without discussion. Your efforts without discussion then over riding (the above info) are disruptive. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

[edit]

A maintenance tag was placed on the Origin section. I have redone that section to be more wikified. This effort should resolve the issue. If any further concerns with this or any other section, please discuss on the talk page. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend (talk) Thank you for pushing for a better article. While your style is often abrasive, your goals are for a better Wiki articles. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not discussing every change I have made; it's just that I consider them to be pretty straightforward. My mistake.
Now, about what I think still needs work. IMO, the various See also items I've already deleted once don't belong here. A reader will likely get here by either (1) specifying "surname", or (2) from the dab page. In either case, they don't need the links. You shouldn't partially duplicate the functions of the dab page. See Taylor (surname).
Also, I still find the "arius - ARY" bit rather confusing. I would either get rid of "ARY" or at the very least put it in lower case. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "arius - ARY" - I concur, I was not sure if it could be left out. I removed it. If there are any problems, it can be redone.
Regarding "See also" - If a person is familar with Wikipedia they will eventually find the material. BUT, most people are not familar with Wikipedia. The duplication is to make it easier for the reader/visitor not familar with Wikipedia. I believe in KISS - keep it simple simon - make it easier for the customer to use. This means providing duplicative links. After working for over a quarter of a century with the public, this type of duplication will not only increase the ease of use but higher use.
FYI, the search feature is what most people use. If you type in "carpenter" (the main subject) the first option you see is "Carpenter (surname) - That is the keystone. From the keystone article, everthing related should be referenced through that key article. Remember, new visitors will not type Carpenter (disambiguation) they will type just carpenter and the majority will use the first entry. Just as you mentioned, that will be "Carpenter (surname)" in the search field.
Wikipedia is flexible enough to allow duplication. If we make it harder for new people to use, they will use it less. If we make it easier they will use it more. I often have a hard time explaining this, so I hope I got the idea across. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English origin?

[edit]

The name Carpenter has its roots in Latin then into the French languages and was brought into England with the French speaking invaders circa 1066. It is not an English origin word and it is not a strict occupational name. Evidence of its use as a surname is varied. One good description of its first surname use was due to a nickname given to the Lord & Knight of Melun, France. He was called in English, William the Carpenter. His son, became William Carpenter. I hope this helps you understand the revert. Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hastings

[edit]

Battle of Hastings 1066

[edit]

There are several items wrong with the use of this statement.

"On 20 October (current calender) 1066 at about 10:00 - 11:00 (14 October 1066 of the calendar then used), William the Conqueror and his forces commenced Battle against King Harold's English army. Viscount Guilluame (William) de Melun fought under Robert De Beaumont, commander of the Norman Knights." ... "His comrades rewarded his efforts with the title "le charpentier." His strength and ability with the English Battleaxe was associated with the great strength and precision of the carpenter trade. So William the Viscount of Melun became known as William the Carpenter. His descendants became known as "de Carpentier" and later shortened to the surname of Carpenter."

This was compiled with the help of a Willard Carpenter. AND The tapestry of the Battle at Hastings does show an event similar to the above event. However, it has been proven that it was another Norman Knight, not William (le charpentier), being depicted. That this type of event happened several times in history is of no doubt.

And all that said, the Carpenter surname is a general page focused on all Carpenters and not just one line. And that is the primary reason it does not belong in this article. I hope this helps. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carpenter (surname). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y-DNA section

[edit]

The Y-DNA section provides information from a professional run Y-DNA Project supported by FTDNA and other DNA testing companies. It is similar to a crowd source and citizen science project overseen by Doctorate level DNA specialists since 2002. It has on staff a professional genealogist who is a FASG. It is part of the ISOGG model projects. It is considered the most reliable and professional Carpenter (and related surnames) DNA project on the web today. It has been cited in several professional journals. Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd-sourcing web pages are not WP:RS. It is just a collection of primary data, of research results, representing neither peer-reviewed nor independent publication. Being the 'most reliable Carpenter DNA project' doesn't mean any of them is a WP:RS. Agricolae (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing an information section with a source citation. The DNA section you deleted is basic info regarding a Y-DNA surname project that exists. It is informational and not a primary portion of the article on the Carpenter surname. Do you have a problem with the section or the source for that section. I suspect you are challenging the source the section refers to.

As a side note, Wikipedia has accepted the source citation you are questioning in dozens of articles that are on Wikipedia already.

You may challenge the source citation and cite it as improper. But since you are not an Wiki Administrator your action of blanket removing a section of an article is being contested by me. It is wrong and not the Wiki way. I request that you leave the article and the sub-section as it was. Then we will ask a Wiki Administrator for guidance. Other wise you are conducting a edit war. I do not wish that.

I will restore the section once more and then you can properly contest the citation the section is citing. Then a proper Wiki Administrator can make a ruling. I believe that is fair.

BTW - I wrote "It is similar to ..." then you state, "Crowd-sourcing web pages are not WP:RS." Again, the cited source is informational in that a DNA project exists for this Carpenter surname. There are limited citations for this DNA section and most others simply refer back to the source location you are questioning. Curious, would you find one of the following source citations better than the one currently in the DNA section? Even though they refer back to the current cited source for the DNA section? I would be happy to add them to the Carpenter surname article.
https://isogg.org/wiki/Carpenter_Cousins_Y-DNA_Project
https://www.familytreedna.com/group-join.aspx?Group=Carpenter
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/carpenter%20cousins%20%20dna/default.aspx?section=ycolorized

The Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project or it sub-parts is cited or referred to in a few places like ...
https://www.coursehero.com/file/peaftu/Howe-Bancroft-California-Pioneer-Register-and-Index-1542-1848-Regional/ - see 2nd section
http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Repository:Carpenters'_Encyclopedia_of_Carpenters
http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Source:Zubrinsky%2C_Eugene._Carpenter_Sketches
and for the fun of it ...
http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/william_carpenter_(rhode_island) - I get a kick out of "Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles."
And indirectly cited at: http://www.rehobothantiquarian.org/museum-book-shop/ - look for Carpenter Encyclopedia and Carpenter Cousins.
Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of these DNA results have been compiled in an independent, peer-reviewed published source. Saying that it has been 'accepted' elsewhere on Wikipedia is a misrepresentation of how the system works. There is always unvetted material, and just as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't justify keeping a bad page just because there are other bad pages, the analogous argument doesn't justify keeping a section based on a non-reliable source, just be cause there are other pages that cite similar unreliable sources - it does not reflect some form of official endorsement. The data have been compiled by a group of hobbyists depositing their personal DNA reports and the page administrator putting them together as he saw fit, and drawing whatever conclusions he chose, with no editorial control over how the site manager has chosen to arrange them or to interpret the data. This is not a WP:RS. It does not solve the problem to leave in a whole lot of material for which you obviously cannot cite a WP:RS, and hence fails WP:V - it just continues to propagate the unsupported material. It is not the Wiki way to throw in any old information you choose and insist it stay there even when you don't have a reliable source to support it. The information deleted is not 'basic', whatever that means - it is primary research results. Even the use of published primary results is frowned on, but when they are just pulled off a web page, that is not treated as a legitimate approach to compiling a page - it is original research and should not form part of a page. A scientific result should have been published and then summarized in secondary sources before it properly gets incorporated into Wikipedia articles - it is not just a venue to propagate the unpublished results of a group of enthusiasts. Agricolae (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You ask me to name specific sources I am finding fault with, but the entire section is based on the same single source, the private web page of the DNA project. Your first paragraph cites the project's web site to demonstrate the project exists, which is Original Research. "A web site exists on the subject because I found it right here" is original research. All of the remaining paragraphs summarize alleged scientific findings from this same web site, scientific conclusions that have not passed independent peer or editorial review. This represents, at best, a non-reliable source in the Wikipedia sense: Wikipedia prefers secondary sources - ones that summarize original research publications themselves, and this isn't even a primary research publication, just a web-site of self-reported DNA results and self-reported 'paper-trail' genealogies. I say 'at best' because I am beginning to wonder whether you might not have a WP:COI, and whether the inclusion of this material isn't being done by as a recruitment tool. Given the nature of the material, there is no prospect of a viable independent peer-reviewed source for these findings will be available to cite, and so they shouldn't remain - Wikipedia was never intended as a way to publicize novel unpublished results of Original Research. You suggest we go to a third party, but you already did so and were told I am ". . . probably speaking for mainstream opinion on Wikipedia. The sources are not in scientific journals." What now, a fourth party, and fifth?
As I look more closely, even the non-DNA portion of the article is rife with Original Research - you can't cite an Index for the fact that a name appears in it, nor a census bureau page listing all last names - you need someone else to have drawn that conclusion, that you then cite. I think you are using this Wikipedia page as your own private family web page. There are places for family web pages, but Wikipedia is not such a place. I am challenging the following statements as Original Research:
  • that Carpenter is the 189th most common surname in the US (link dead, but clearly drawing original research from a list of all surnames).
  • the Old French origin of Charpentier, which only cites English-language dictionaries
  • the supposed earlier forms and forms in other languages, which go too far to be explained by the vague citation given
  • that Wright is an equivalent name, which has no citation
  • that Charpentier originates from French Norman, which is not found in the only source cited for the paragraph - that source only documents that two random people of that surname appear in a particular set of records
  • that Carpender is a variant, which has no citation
  • the use of a DNB article about an Irish person named Carpenter that says nothing about the surname or family origin as evidence for anything relevant
  • that the use of the name Carpenter in Ireland may derive from the 1465 law - you are quoting the text of the law, but the ramifications for the Carpenter surname are your own conclusions.
  • that the name is found in Ireland as early as 1636, simply drawn from a will index entry
  • the documented American instance of MacIntire becoming Carpenter, citing a collection of wills (I can't see the original, but this would seem to be drawing a conclusion directly from a will or will abstract)
  • the entire remaining list of other languages
It seems, then, that the problem is not restricted to the DNA. What makes the DNA different - you may be able to find legitimate sources for the other conclusions, because this or similar information may well have been published somewhere, but the DNA results are entirely novel and would never have been published, so there is no prospect of that being rescued by discovery of a yet-to-be identified independent peer-reviewed source. Agricolae (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carpenter_(surname)&oldid=1200041009"