Talk:Giordano

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Anthroponymy

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles

Removing names because of a conjecture they are old "hold no special importance"

This page is to list names of people who might be referred to in some contexts simply as "Giordano." For example, if people talking about late Italian Baroque art mention "Giordano," they are probably talking about Luca Giordano. In a conversation about early 20th century opera, "Giordano" would mean Umberto Giordano. It is a mistake to remove those names from this page, which exists to help our readers find information. Vaselineeeeeeee proposed removing both those names on the theory that "The two people removed old no special importance than the dozens at the surname page." Unless there is a new consensus supporting that change, however, per WP:ONUS the change should not be made. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, that was a typo - of course my reasoning is not because they are old. It does not even make sense if I really meant to use “old” there. I meant “hold”. Your reasoning about the "importance" of those two figures is pure conjecture. Factually, there is already a page for Giordano (surname), therefore people with that surname are contained at that page and thereby only that page need be listed here. All of those people with that surname may be referred to as just Giordano; those two people HOLD no special importance other than POV. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning has zero to do with their relative "importance" but only with whether they are in certain specialized contexts referred to as "Giordano." "Umberto Giordano" was added in 2015. "Luca Giordano" was added in 2016. Neither was added by me. Leaving them here may help some readers, IMO. WP runs by consensus and per WP:ONUS, you need a consensus to change the stable state. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol nice change of the title stating the fact that those two people do not hold special importance over the dozens listed on the surname page as a conjecture. Tell me why those two people should be listed at this general disam. page over the dozens that are listed at the surname page. While you’re at it, also explain to me, optimally with sources, these “certain specialized contexts”. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 04:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the solution here is to move this page to Giordano (disambiguation), move the surname page to this title, and expand it to include both surnames and given names. That way, every person with "Giordano" as either a given name or surname would be under the title, "Giordano", and the things that aren't names would be on a separate disambiguation page. BD2412 T 04:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to suggest a similar thing where we move Giordano (surname) to Giordano (name) to combine them since there are quite a few with that given name as well, but yes, if we do what you're saying there would be no need to disam. with (name). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 04:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think usage as a name is the clear primary topic of the term. BD2412 T 05:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giordano (store) looks to be the clear primary topic to me.[1] - Station1 (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a wider debate to be held (though not on this page) about whether the surname is really the primary topic for pages which give minimal information about the name itself but list people and other topics known by the name. I've just fixed about 3,000 wikilinks about burgers, wills and similar topics which would have been spotted earlier had their incorrect targets been disambiguation pages. Could we get a consensus to move convert at least the clearest cases into dabs? Certes (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like Vaselineeeeeeee's idea to combine move Giordano (surname) to Giordano (name), putting first and last names on one page, and have Giordano point to a DAB page. The number of people named Giordano is small, so it shouldn't confuse readers to redirect them from the DAB to a name page. Then the only name left on the DAB page would be the single-name footballer. (I looked a few other pages for common surnames to see if Wikipedia has a standard method to treat these issues -- afaict there is no uniformity.) HouseOfChange (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since Giordano (store) does get a couple hundred more views than the rest of the pages, should we move that here and make Giordano (disambiguation) while also moving Giordano (surname) to Giordano (name) OR just leave Giordano and move Giordano (surname) to Giordano (name)? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the latter, linking to a DAB page rather than to a page for a commercial enterprise. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are credible arguments for making the surname and the store a primary topic. They can't both get the base name. In such cases, there is no primary topic and the disambiguation page should live at the base name. Anything else would take too many readers to the wrong article, and encourage misdirected links. Whether the names are listed on the dab or in a separate surname page is debatable. I would use a surname page if it would contain real information about the surname (beyond "Foo is an Elbonian surname; here are some people called Foo:") or if there are too many people to list comfortably on the dab. The first criterion applies here, which is sufficient. Certes (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certes, do you mean there is other information at the surname page such as its distribution to warrant keeping it as a surname page rather than a name page? If that's the case, that is fine by me, but my point is that the two people with surnames that are listed here at the dab page and at the surname page need not also be listed here. There is no source-based argument for that other than POV. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I've seen no source-based argument that those two names are less important than the footballers, mathematician, etc. etc. Cherry-picking names here is a distraction from your better solution, to create a unified page for Giordano (name). We can then clear this entire page of names except for DAB link and the single-name footballer. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean that the distribution etc. information warrants a surname page. We shouldn't have that sort of information on a dab. If we have a surname page then I would normally remove all individual names from the dab unless they are exceptionally likely. (For example, when I fixed links to Schoenberg, over 90% of them were intended for Arnold Schoenberg.) Certes (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two name pages may be useful for very common names (e.g. Albert (given name) and Albert (surname), but the solution for "Giordano" could be like Jordan (name). HouseOfChange (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved the surname page to name and integrated those with the given name there. Let me know if there are any problems. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks Vaselineeeeeeee. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]