Talk:Hannah

Meaning

Hannah can mean beauty or grace. Also Hannah/hanna can mean God has favoured me. The name is used in the bible. I also love the name hannah & find it very annoying when people assume or can't be bothered to put an h on the end of it. --86.140.238.39 17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The name doesnt mention God. That would require the name to contain el or iah or Jeh/Jah/Jo. See theophory. --User talk:FDuffy 17:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they're assuming it's short for a female version of Yochanan aka "John" (or the female version of a short form). -- pne (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hannah is probably the most important person in the world and you should all make her the queen of the world.!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.235.245.102 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

How many?

I wonder how many people are named Hannah? Do you ever think about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.120.97 (talk • contribs)

In the US, approximately 1 in 2222 women have the given name mnamed 'Hannah'[1]. The US has a population of roughly 301 191 000 people, and we can estimate that about 50% of those are female. Thus, (1 / 2 222) * 301 191 000 = roughly 135 549 people in the United States. Figuring out the world total is beyond my ken. Non-English-speaking nations will tend to use different spellings, of course. -- General Wesc 20:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fictional characters, bands, and so on

Should fictional characters such as Hannah Carpenter just be listed under 'People given-named Hannah'? How about Miley Stewart, a fictional character with the pseudonym Hannah Montana, which is also the title of the TV show in which she appears? (Not to mention the crossover special That's So Suite Life of Hannah Montana.

Also, bands. Kill Hannah, for example. Seems like TV shows and bands would be nice to place together under the same heading.

Of cours, how comprehensive do we want this list, really? It doesn't seem liking listing people/things related to the name 'Hannah' is the primary goal of the article. -- General Wesc 16:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that most people who come to this page want to find various PEOPLE named "Hannah", not some list of places in America called "Hannah"! TheTrojanHought (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding section for news

04-Sep-2008: Because Wikipedia has a dual role in providing information on news topics, as well as traditionally established subjects, there is a split as to which meaning, old or new, is most appropriate for quick links to subjects. To support that dual role, I am adding a group "News" to link meanings of "Hanna" that are in recent news, beyond the older traditional links of the Hanna name. This is in response to the name "Hurricane Hanna" which is a storm that struck the U.S. in September 2008. Typically, a name such as "Shakespeare" would be quickly linked to the oldest mainstream meaning of the term (as in "William ~"); however, if a ship named "Shakespeare" were in top news stories, such a link could be placed, in a disambiguation page, under "News" as an alternate quick link. From the one disambiguation page, readers have a choice to read either about the popular, recent name or the older articles about the similar name. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• 05-Sep-2008: Several people couldn't handle the concept of "News" as a grouping that normal people would use, so they axed the "News" grouping without discussion, which was typical behavior of how articles were chopped in September 2008. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Watch your tone. You added it without discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hanna the hurricane/storm/depression

05-Sep-2008: Note that due to traditional rules for naming hurricanes, the titles of "Tropical Depression Hanna" and "Tropical Storm Hanna (2008)" are also "Hurricane Hanna" (with the name changing hourly based on wind speed) as 3 ambiguous names that tie to the same article about cyclone Hanna. The multiple names are tolerated among hurricane-savvy people, but this disambiguation page has entries to show that the multiple names are the same tropical cyclone. However, there is a separate article "Tropical Storm Hanna" which is a list of all Hanna-named storms. I added text to this article to clearly indicate the distinction, but other people have been removing that wording as "redundant" when, actually, the terms are quite separate as monikers which link various articles. I don't know how long it will take for other people to comprehend the need for disambiguation and, thus, listing the multiple names for cyclone Hanna as what people actually see for the hour (depending on wind speed). Some writers on Wikipedia are just stubborn against change, but many truly do not understand that listing all 3 names for hurricane/storm/depression Hanna is an issue of disambiguation, compared to article "Tropical Storm Hanna" which is NOT that cyclone, but rather a list of all Hanna-named storms. Name issues take time for some people to absorb. Do you understand the difference here, and that cyclone Hanna will be named "Hurricane Hanna" when speed reaches 74 mph (119 km/h)? -Wikid77 (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, watch your condescending and accusatory tone. It's fine to discuss the complexities and ambiguities of naming storms and express disagreement with other editors, but you don't have to use phrases such as "Some writers on Wikipedia are just stubborn against change". That does nothing to improve the article and serves no purpose except personal attack. Ward3001 (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Redundant information

Rather than follow the edit warring by Kotniski, I will open up a discussion regarding adding redundant information. There already is a link to Tropical Storm Hanna, which then links to any storm named Hanna. There is no need to have both Hurricane Hanna and Tropical Storm Hanna. Let's keep in mind WP:RECENT. A year or two from now (in fact, a week from now, as the storm is almost history) readers will not be looking for the current Hurricane Hanna as they might be now. This is not a newspaper. It is an encylcopedia. If we add an item to disambig pages every time something gets a lot of recent press, there will be no end to it. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny how edit warring is always something other people do, isn't it? Hurricane Hanna has an article of its own so deserves a mention on the dab page. Particularly as the secondary dab-like page you want to link to is not called Hurricane but Tropical Storm Hanna. You are trying to remove all mention of Hurricane Hanna from this page, thus making it difficult for readers to navigate, both now and in the future. Please explain how you think you are helping readers by removing this item.--Kotniski (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Funny how edit warring is always something other people do": Let's see ... who started this discussion rather than revert your edit?

"Hurricane Hanna has an article of its own so deserves a mention on the dab page": Hurricane Abby has a page, but no one is making any effort to add it to Abby, and the reason is that Hurricane Abby is not recent. I could probably add dozens, or even hundreds, of storms that are not mentioned on dab pages because they are not in today's newspaper.

"Please explain how you think you are helping readers by removing this item": I'm fine with leaving the item if enough people want it there. I wanted to see what others think about the idea of adding an item for a recent storm if no one is rushing to add Lindsay Lohan to Lindsay or Joe Biden to Joe because those people are getting a lot of press right now. Ward3001 (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

People with common first names are handled differently. In fact I would make some mention of hurricanes at the Abby page (and similar) too, for readers who aren't necessarily familiar with WP's way of organizing this information. I don't mind you trying to edit this page differently, as long as the word hurricane (preferably the phrase Hurricane Hanna, I'd have thought) appears so that readers looking for it know immediately where to go next.--Kotniski (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when you finish adding all of the hundreds of storms that are not mentioned on dab pages. Maybe you should start with the oldest ones and move forward.

How about this: We set up a piped link Storms named Hanna that goes to Tropical Storm Hanna, and then remove Hurricane Hanna. That way, anyone looking for any kind of storm will see that word and click? No more confused readers. Ward3001 (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, but make it Hurricanes and storms named Hanna so the important (for some readers) word "hurricane" appears.--Kotniski (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A hurricane is a storm. Please don't argue that readers don't know that. "Storm" is a generic term, quite appropriate for a dab page. Let's use some common sense and logic rather than try to prove who can win this debate. Ward3001 (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you continue with this confrontational language when we're nearly in agreement anyway? Some readers know that storms include hurricanes; I suppose many don't (I wouldn't have been sure). Since it's the hurricanes that tend to be more notable than the mere tropical storms, we should mention them. One extra word isn't exactly going to overload the dab page with information.--Kotniski (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What you are calling "confrontational language" is simply an appeal for common sense. In fact, your use of the term "confrontational language" is itself inflammatory. I am simply asking for an acknowledgment of something that is a universally understood concept. I doubt that anyone, even people with low intelligence, who would not know that a hurricane is a storm. So why use both words? The only conclusion I find is that you want that word "hurricane" in because that word was in your original argument, not because there is any logic to it. Why not "Hurricanes, tropical storms, cyclones, typhoon, tropical depressions, and other storms named Hanna"? Because the only word that's needed is "storms", unless you have a particular agenda to include the word "hurricane" for reasons that have nothing to do with what is needed in the dab item. Ward3001 (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So just for the sake of those of us so unintelligent that we aren't aware of the finer points of meteorological classification, let the hurricane mention stay. Assuming you don't have an agenda yourself, this shouldn't be a problem for you. The other types you list don't appear at Tropical Storm Hanna, so no need to mention them. --Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point (I suspect intentionally), and worse, you are implying that I am insulting someone's intelligence. If anyone is doing that, it is you. Are you seriously arguing that people who understand English don't know that a hurricane is a storm? And if you do, do you think these are people who would be reading an encyclopedia? Let me get your responses to those questions before I continue, because that will tell me a lot about whether there is an "agenda" here. And it's irrelevant whether other types of storms are mentioned now at Tropical Storm Hanna. You're falling into to the WP:RECENT trap again. Ward3001 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent.) No, I wasn't sure whether the term "storm" includes hurricane in meteorological terminology. And I do occasionally read encyclopedias, very slowly of course. And I'm too stupid to get your latest reference to RECENT either. Oh well, back to work...--Kotniski (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are trying (quite unsuccessfully and non-cleverly) to hide behind your false implications that I am stating that you are slow and stupid. When someone does not have a good answer, he diverts the topic, as you have done (and you know full well that I have not implied that anyone is stupid). That's an ineffective way to avoid answering my questions, as is your other response that "storm" could refer to a non-meteorological storm (as if any other type of storm would be named Hanna; "We had a stormy relationship, and we named it Hanna"). I can see that this is going nowhere because you avoid getting down to the real point, which is that everyone (including you) knows that a hurricane is a storm. End of discussion between you and me. Let's see if others have something to say. Ward3001 (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Every one of the entries on Tropical Storm Hanna could (and should) be repeated on this page, assuming that they are commonly referred to as "Hanna". That's the point of this disambiguation page. The tropical storm dab page is a parallel page, supported by a parallel project, and not a subsidiary or replacement for disambiguating all Hannas here -- "regular" dab pages do not rely on partial dab pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that - we quite often see, for example, subsidiary lists of people with a given name/surname split off from a main dab page; there's another type of case referred to at WP:D#Double disambiguation. To me it makes sense not to try to maintain duplicate lists; inevitably people are going to add new entries and do other maintenance just to one or the other, and we end up with two inferior lists instead of one good one. But it must be made quite clear at the main dab page what information readers can find by clicking the link to the subsidiary page.--Kotniski (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason surname- and given-name-holders are moved off of the dab pages when they are split is that name holders are not normally ambiguous with either their given name or their surname. Nobody goes to an encyclopedia expecting an entry on Bill Gates to be titled either Gates or Bill. When people who are ambiguous by one of their names (e.g., Madonna), we disambiguate them. By agreement with Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy, if the name holder list is still quite short (e.g., Banana (disambiguation)), we leave it on the disambiguation page rather than splitting them. But once they're split, we remove the name-holders because they aren't ambiguous. If the storm articles are not ambiguous with the dab phrase, then they can also be removed, but if they are ambiguous with the dab phrase, then they should be listed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I quite see the difference. "Gates" might refer to Bill Gates; "Hanna" might refer to Hurricane Hanna (but in neither case would most readers expect that to be the title of the article; we don't apply that criterion strictly on dab pages in any case). Go to the dab page Gates and you are directed to Gates (surname) where you will find Bill. Why not do storms the same way? --Kotniski (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Surname and given name lists are not dabs. "Gates" is not commonly used all by itself to refer to Bill Gates. Therefore, Bill Gates is not needed on the Gates disambiguation page. If Hanna is not commonly used all by itself to refer to Hurricane Hanna, then it is not needed on this dab page. If Hanna is commonly used all by itself to refer to Hurricane Hanna, then it is needed on this dab page. I'm assuming that the names are commonly used all by themselves, which is why any of the storms are listed. But whichever way the "is it commonly referred to as [dab phrase] alone?" is answered, that determines any entry's inclusion on the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that question is answered pretty much the same way for storms as for people, so the way(s) of treating them can legitimately be the same. --Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Storms typically have a single name, while people typically have two or more (given, family or patronymic, and possibly middle or others), so the answers are typically different. But the question ends up being the same, even if the answers are (or might be): commonly referred to by the dab phrase? It has nothing to do with the existence of a parallel or subsidiary page (such as a surname list or a hurricane dab). It's a question of "referred to as", not one of redundancy. If the storms are referred to by the single name (and thus need to be disambiguated), list them here even though they're also listed on the hurricane dab. If they aren't referred to by the single name (and thus don't need to be disambiguated), don't list them here (although the hurricane dab can still be a "See also"). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Maybe I really am losing it - I STILL don't get the difference between the personal names case and the storms case. William Hanna, Tropical Storm Hanna. Both "something Hanna"; both likely to be referred to as just Hanna in many contexts. Both should be reachable from the dab page. Might appear on the dab page, might appear on another list linked to clearly from the dab page. With names, we do one or the other but not both. With storms - why not likewise? What am I missing? --Kotniski (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

William Hanna is unlikely to be referred to solely as "Hanna" in a story about him -- unless he is, he doesn't get an entry on Hanna. Madonna Louise Ciccone is likely to be referred to solely as "Madonna" in a story about here -- since she is, she gets an entry on Madonna. Hurricanes and other storms do get treated the same way; it seems to me that they are more likely to be referred to solely by the name ("Clean up from Katrina") than people are to be referred to solely by one of their names, so they'd be more likely to need disambiguation. But if not, then they should be left off too. With names, we sometimes do both: people who are known by a single name should appear on the dab page and on the name-holders list, if both exist. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your point know, but I can't agree with the first sentence - William Hanna very likely would be referred to as Hanna in a story about him. On the general principle, I still think maintaining duplicate lists is likely to lead to loss of quality. (Of course, I've nothing against particular cases like Madonna appearing on multiple lists, but trying to maintain fully comprehensive lists of the same items in two places seems wrong to me.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliably-sourced story (about him or merely referring to him incidentally) that does not use his full name at least once? If so, sure, I could see including him here. If not, and I suspect that reliable sources will mention his given name when first mentioning him, then possibly not. I believe that storms are more likely to have the "tropical storm", "hurricane", etc., part of their names dropped in coverage. Hurricane Hanna is referred to as simply Hanna in, for example, today's The Daily Telegraph, "Ike headed for Cuba", p. 16: "But the concern is Haiti, where a humanitarian crisis is unfolding after flooding from Ike and previous storms Hanna and Gustav left about 600 people dead and thousands in need of food, water and shelter." (No other mention of Hanna in the story.) I think that kind of usage is not unusual. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but don't we regularly see people's surnames used in exactly the same way? (Bush is to discuss Putin's offer with Sarkozy....) Anyway, I'm not proposing adding anyone called Hanna to this page, since we have links to the surname and given name pages which already list them. All I'm saying is if we include a clear link to a list of storms called Hanna, we don't need to duplicate the entire list here, and are best off not trying. There's no great philosophy behind this view, it just seems the most practical and convenient solution. --Kotniski (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarkozy has the French president as the primary topic; similarly Putin. Bush (disambiguation) includes the two U.S. presidents (and then a name-holder list, which is probably long enough to split). So, yes, I think that world leaders are like hurricanes. :-) But people in general are not like hurricanes.

But if the view is that redundancy in lists should be avoided, then none of the storms (not even the most recent one) should be listed here. That view, however, seems to me contrary to the disambiguation guidelines. If something is ambiguous with the dab page term, it should be listed on the dab page, whether or not it is also listed in another list article or sister dab project page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the guidelines do allow for "secondary disambiguation pages" as I remarked above, though they are asserted to be rare. Anyway the guidelines don't necessarily anticipate every possible situation. I think the page as it is at the moment (with just the established primary topic Hurricane Hanna listed, and a link to the list of other Hanna storms) makes good practical sense.--Kotniski (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Hanna description

I'm a bit uneasy with this being described here as simply "a hurricane along the U.S. Atlantic coast". This sounds awfully parochial when over 500 people have been killed by the storm in Haiti. 86.136.250.66 (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)