Talk:Lists of most common surnames in Asian countries

Previous discussion on this topic

Remains at Talk:List of most common surnames. — LlywelynII 05:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal: What does caste have to do with it?

The Nepal section lists castes rather than surnames. I just opened an India section, but only to link to another article -- which isn't very helpful or precendent-setting.

Anyhow I think the caste breakdown in this article should be moved to Ethnicity and caste in Nepal and/or Nepalese caste system (which perhaps should be merged). This article mainly needs to list surnames. It wouldn't hurt to indicate in which caste/ethnic groups they are mostly found. LADave (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka

@Chanakal: The names “Chathuranga”, “Lakmal”,”Sanjeewa” and “Madusanka” are clearly first names, but they are mentioned here as surname. What is the source for these data? It is also not clear what the numbers here represent.(Sudamwasala (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I feel this section should also mention about the structure of the Sri Lankan surname system, particularly, the surnames used before and after the given name. And the statistics should also take into account the surnames used before the name as there are people who simply do not have a surname after the given name.(Sudamwasala (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Cambodia and Thailand

How about these two?--113.53.213.172 (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)--113.53.213.172 (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to ask about Thai surnames too.

I think this content is very rare, because there are many Thai surnames. I think it is very difficult to list, because new surnames are created everyday or everyweek (change surname to a new one that not duplicate), and some surnames can be delete because no one use it anymore due to death or surname change. (In my opinion, Thai surname are approx between 200,000 to 2,000,000 surnames.)

In my memories : An unknown TV program in Thailand, unknown date (1990's/2000's), said "ทองคำ" (Tongkham, Tongkam, Thongkham, Thongkam, etc.) is the most used Thai surname.

Since 1913, surnames are possible to duplicate. Today, with the new law/rule, can't create new surnames that duplicate anymore.

My surname is old enough and possible to common too. In Google, I found many names with same surname as mine but I don't know who are them. --Love Krittaya (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit : Some "first names" with two syllables or more can be another persons' "surname", it is possible. Some rare cases are "first name is same spelling as surname". Some persons are "his surname have his first name in it". --Love Krittaya (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored previously removed information on Thailand explaining the current situation. The Thai census should be able to provide information on which surnames remain the most common even given the current situation, but not all censuses bother (Canada's doesn't.) — LlywelynII 05:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I think the Thai census never did about surnames because of private right, privacy, group rights, personal informations, etc. --Love Krittaya (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Some surnames are commons because of duplication, when Thailand has no computer online database for census.
2. Some surnames are commons, I guess it is because they are noble surnames or high-class/famous appearance so it is easier to find wifes or people who want to use them, and/or they have many sons. :-)
3. In the same village or district, some surnames are share similarities. For example, in Phutthaisong and nearby districts, there are many surnames with -thaisong suffix. List of something-thaisong surnames (in Thai): http://www.phutthaisongmncp.go.th/?name=page&file=index&id=136 --Love Krittaya (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update : Top 20 surnames in Korat (Nakhon Ratchasima), Thailand, revealed (in Thai language) : https://www.thairath.co.th/content/1140102 https://www.facebook.com/KoratNextStep/posts/2166229740084759
(http://archive.is/BCvPi )
(http://web.archive.org/web/20171130070111/https://www.facebook.com/KoratNextStep/posts/2166229740084759 )
(http://web.archive.org/web/20171130070254/https://www.facebook.com/KoratNextStep/photos/a.1024591357581942.1073741829.1022588091115602/2166228613418205/?type=3&permPage=1 )
It seemes to be an unreliable source, but to show that it is possible to finding the most Thai common surnames. --Love Krittaya (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 2017, the Thai gov shown the most common full names: สมชาย แซ่ตั้ง Somchai Saetang/Sae-tang, อับดุลเลาะ สาและ Abdulloh Salae, สมชาย แซ่ลิ้ม Somchai Saelim/Sae-lim, อับดุลเลาะ อาแว Abdulloh Awae, สมชาย แซ่ลี้ Somchai Saelee/Saeli/Sae-lee/Sae-li. --Love Krittaya (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(September 2021) In the news, database with 16 million or 30 million Thai names is hacked. If it really hacked, the hacker must know the answer of "what is the most common Thai surname(s)". (https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/2178051/warning-over-cyberattack-threats )
The website Forebears.io claims to know about 2,435,104 unique surnames in Thailand, but the top 10 or top 20 surnames in the list are mostly Chinese origin, this database also seems to be unofficial (the human forename Qwerty seems to be not legal in Thailand, and it should not exist!), maybe a compilation of various source such as facebook or some network else. --Love Krittaya (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Alright, verifiable criteria for which surnames should be included in this article are much needed. There have been too many unsourced additions, and this has gone on for far too long. Any suggestions? Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've been shepherding this page since I came across it (and Europe's). I like the idea of "important" countries being going up to 50 or 100 because those tend to be sourced and presented nicely in a graph or chart by rank (and even with pop figures!). For others that are unranked, it seems that if a lot are listed, they should be surnames of importance enough to at least merit a wiki article. If not, then sure, why not at least 10-20 that seem reasonable per country. So for a stupendously pluralistic country like India, I see no problem with a list of 100 or more wikilinked surnames, in seemingly random order (which is what the latin alphabet is). For a homogeneous country like Japan I see no problem with 100 surnames because the data is so expertly curated. With relatively-homogeneous countries like Syria or Iraq, I see the list of names not needing to exceed 10 or 20.

Of course, this is not canon or a standard, just how I've been checking the inclusions of data. Against the article becoming over-long and adding columns etc to decrease scroll-length. I'd welcome any attempts at putting an actual criterion at work. JesseRafe (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm yes I thought of surnames that at least had a page because that would definitely mean notable. Yeah, some of the sections in this article are well-sourced and could stand on their own but way too many are just so... random. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia

As Fakirbakir said in the talk page of List of the most common surnames in Europe, "Based on territory Georgia and Azerbaijan can be defined as European countries. Armenia is a special case, but from historical and political points of view (and this article deals with peoples) it belongs to Europe. See:

Definition of Europe or Sovereign states in Europe

I think the best compromise might be to keep the three states (as well as Turkey or/and Kazakhstan if one were so inclined) in both articles. I'm an inclusivist by nature, and nobody ever said these two articles have to be exclusive, so might as well make them exhaustive. JesseRafe (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing to break the page layout over!

If you got any sources to prove that a common name is in a country, feel free to put it in, but leave the table formatting alone! Also, state where you got your sources from. Last known good restore point was around 1 hour, 10 minutes ago. 205.214.244.90 (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

India: Devi is not a surname

This page sayis that Devi is the most common Indian surname: million of people would have this surname. Please try and find any man having this surname. Devi just means lady and you will find it only in the signature of Indian women and in association with other parts of the surname. Devi is not a surname, it means mistress, as an English woman would sign Mistress Smith. The surname is Smith, not Mistress. If an enciclopedia says that Mistress is the most common English surname, and that 45% of people in England has the surname "Mistress", then the enciclopedia is making a shameful mistake. Please check, please search, please ask to someone instead of just reverting my edits without explaining why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.212.123.60 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://names.whitepages.com/last/Devi saying Indian: honorific term used with the names of women, from Sanskrit devī ‘goddess’. It is used as a last name by some women who do not have a surname as such — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.212.123.60 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your own source says it is a surname. If it is not a surname, then why do "1,086 people in the U.S. have this name"? Your edits were removed because they're not written in any way that makes sense and Wikipedia is not a forum where one editor says one thing but another another, an article should be presented with one voice. Your edit makes no sense since it left Devi in the number one position on the chart. Plus, if you have to go diving through archives of Nazis to find sources to back you up, you probably don't have a very well-respected academic position to argue from. Also, look up "mistress" it means a quite different thing than "lady" as you previously attested "devi" to mean. JesseRafe (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok understood for everything, THANK you for having the kindness of explaining the reasons of your reversal. I don't know which of the links I put are nazi. I just made a google search and I quoted more than one link. Of course I am not an academic scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.45.249.138 (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– As per other pages starting "List of the most ...". As per grammar example: "This is one of the most exciting films I have ever seen." As per Ngrams for "List of the most,List of most". The content within these lists is not of, say, a "List of most of the common surnames in Asia" but a "List of the most common surnames in Asia". Greg Kaye 07:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a solution looking for a problem. There is nothing ungrammatical about the ellipses of title-style syntax being used for article titles (and it's more of a style than a grammar issue), and as User:Iryna Harpy notes here, these mass proposals are borderline disruptive. — AjaxSmack 03:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - So we now have two RMs (this one and and this one) being run simultaneously over the same issue on completely different areas of Wikipedia. I can't help but wonder how many more have been started, or are on the agenda. What has been accomplished if they end up with two different outcomes? Given that it's undoubtedly going to impact on the nomenclature for a host of articles, I see this as being an RfC matter before even bothering to embark on a large, time consuming enterprise. This form of small-fry name changes has gone from being potentially disruptive to undoubtedly disruptive: i.e., it's not an issue for local consensus per any minor group of related articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Not another one of these with another irrelevant singular example and another meaningless search. This is just wilfully misreading perfectly fine and easily understood titles which have nothing wrong with them and is getting disruptive.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AjaxSmack, Iryna Harpy, JohnBlackburne Please look at the way this type of grammar is presented in books. As you should have seen from the other thread: I proposed the use of a books search :(most OR least OR lightest OR heaviest OR tallest OR longest OR shortest) AND "in the" which gives the results (as they contain a "fooest" followed by something like an "in bar" type content). These results in sequence are:

The Most Beautiful Girl in the World
The Most Misused Verses in the Bible
The Most Important Fish in the Sea
The Most Dangerous Area in the World
The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business
The Most Wonderful Doll in the World
The Most Dangerous Man In The World
The Most Important Little Boy in the World
Vesuvius: The most famous volcano in the world
The tallest, shortest, longest, greenest, brownest animal in the jungle!
The Most Successful Small Business in The World
Burj Khalifa: The Tallest Tower in the World
The Least Examined Branch: The Role of Legislatures in the Constitutional State
A short synopsis of the most essential points in Hawaiian grammar
A brief summary, in plain language, of the most important laws of England concerning women
Catalonia: An Emerging Economy : the Most Cost-effective Ports in the Mediterranean Sea
The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World
The Most Powerful Idea in the World: A Story of Steam,..
Notices of the Most Remarkable Fires in Edinburgh
Most Beautiful House in the World

I went through 18 examples (not including, presumably, reprints or the "in Most of the World" example) that consistently used "the fooest" before finding one example, which happened to be at the beginning of the phrasing, which omitted the article. All I am trying to do is to present content that does not mak, as I see it, grammatical error.

Please explain how this is disruptive or strike your content. I have proposed consecutive proposals so that they can be viewed together on the Request moves page which gives the benefit that the whole content can be considered in one go or that words may be considered separately if desired. I am also providing a long list of relevant articles which might not otherwise be a feature of an RfC. Greg Kaye 10:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a search on grammar guide superlative

Results in sequence were:

http://esl.fis.edu/grammar/rules/comp.htm presenting:

1-syllable adjectives: add -est to the adjective (plus the)

My sister is the tallest in our family.
Yesterday was the coldest day of the year so far.

... and so on

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/adjectives/comparative-and-superlative-adjectives presenting:

Superlative adjectives:

We use the with a superlative:

It was the happiest day of my life.

Everest is the highest mountain in the world.

That’s the best film I have seen this year.

I have three sisters, Jan is the oldest and Angela is the youngest.

http://www.edufind.com/english-grammar/comparative-and-superlative/ presenting:

SUPERLATIVE ADJECTIVES

Superlative adjectives are used to describe an object which is at the upper or lower limit of a quality (the tallest, the smallest, the fastest, the highest). They are used in sentences where a subject is compared to a group of objects.

Noun (subject) + verb + the + superlative adjective + noun (object).

The group that is being compared with can be omitted if it is clear from the context (final example below).

EXAMPLES

My house is the largest one in our neighborhood.
This is the smallest box I've ever seen.
Your dog ran the fastest of any dog in the race.
We all threw our rocks at the same time. My rock flew the highest. ("of all the rocks" is understood)

This text is as presented on the website and represents basic grammar.

The fourth website - http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/adjectivesuper.html - shows that even the Germans get this right. Why can't we???

Please check other grammar guides to see if anything different is presented.

Ping: AjaxSmack, Iryna Harpy, JohnBlackburne: Nothing I have done here has been in any way disruptive. All I am proposing is that the English version of our encyclopedia should present correct usage of English grammar. Greg Kaye 10:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregKaye: Please see my response on at the List of tallest bridges in the world RM. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is disruptive. To keep ignoring other editors and going on as if they are all wrong and you are right is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, in other words a failure or refusal to "get the point", one of the main forms of disruptive editing. You need to read other editors replies and understand them: they are right and you are wrong here. Even if you think you are right you need to accept consensus and move on. You achieve nothing by continuing to ignore other editors, dismissing their arguments by just repeating your own rejected ones.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These are headlines, not running prose. The expectations are different, and the entire discussion of proper grammar in text is therefore irrelevant. They read better the way they are, and even a slight saving in the length of long titles is helpful. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of most common surnames in Asia. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 07:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of most common surnames in Asia. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of most common surnames in Asia. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 14:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Countries not included

Pakistan and many other countries are not included in the article 2601:2C4:700:4970:DA68:C3FF:FEFD:2B91 (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree - I don't understand how 1 middle eastern country was included, and not e.g., Nepal, Bhutan, Mongolia! 2A02:6B65:27FA:0:909:7F79:1C1C:FBB8 (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]