Talk:Mononym

A fact from Mononym appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 July 2008, and was viewed approximately 6,654 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Madonna, Michelangelo, Napoleon, Pelé and Voltaire (pictured) are all mononymous persons — each is commonly known by a single name?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/July.

Wikipedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 July 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Anthroponymy Top‑importance

	This article 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

References

There's some info for the article at link. GregManninLB (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very helpful lead. I hope users will feel encouraged to help expand the article's text, as the topic of people's names is a broad one geographically and historically — though an exhaustive discussion of names across space and time is not the article's principle object. Nihil novi (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not the article's principle object? This is an encyclopedia! --74.13.128.148 (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some other links

-- GregManninLB (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its current state is legitimate, but it should be clear from the above list that a stand-alone list of mononyms is not wanted on Wikipedia. It makes no difference if that list is introduced by encyclopaedic text. I've reduced the list that was here significantly, to include only a few examples that cover a good range of types, periods and regions. I've also included a warning in hidden text, but an eye should be kept on the list to prevent it from filling up with cruft. Lampman (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be deleted. Polyamorph (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested addition

Chryssa (Chryssa Vardea Mavromichali), a sculptor and an iconic figure in post-1950s modern art.

I'm suggesting this here as per the embedded note in the Examples section: "Please do not add more entries without discussion on the talk page." Comment: I had never heard of Alizée before seeing this article. — Athaenara ✉ 04:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another worthy inclusion would be Beyonce. As a currently popular singer and actress who has won numerous awards (including many Grammys), she is of more current interest than the late Liberace, who has been deceased for over 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.161.17 (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mononymous persons in sports in Brazil

I am from Argentina, and I know that in Brazil it is customary for football (soccer) players to have a nickname as their only identification. Pelé is simply the most renowned case, but I think it is worthy to note that this is common practice in Brazil.
Usually it is just the first name or the diminutive of the first name (as in Ronaldo de Assis Moreira - Ronaldinho, or Carlos Tevez - Carlitos), but it is not always the case.
I believe the practice has passed to other sports in Brazil, but I'm not sure. Perhaps someone with more clear sources as to the history of this "tradition" could put it on the article. Nazroon (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Jai-Alai athletes usually go by a single name. Their sport is scored more like horse racing (win, place and show) than like golf or tennis or a team sport, so this style fits rather well. WHPratt (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teller

It seems to me that the magician and TV personality Teller would be a better example than Alizée, whom I had never heard of. In fact, Teller is his sole name both legally and on the stage. Paul Davidson (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could go along with a trade... but, then, I'm not a teenager, French or otherwise. Nihil novi (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is that claim that Teller is his single legal name, and the only name on his passport. But there is no credible reference to a credible source. Penn and Teller's comedy website is hardly a reliable encyclopedic source. Is there any independent verification of this unusual claim, or is a joke considered good enough for Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there should be some distinction between whether the choice for choosing a mononym is cultural or personal. The example of Teller was not just a personal choice but a professional as well. He was born Raymond Joeseph Teller, but allegidly had it legally shortened to Teller for personal and probably professional reasons as well. ([User:retrograde62]) 11:54, 15 August 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.57.112 (talk)

Here's two credible sources:

della Cava, Marco R.' At home: Teller's magical Vegas retreat speaks volumes; USA Today;; November 16, 2007.
TMZ.com; Penn & Teller: Rogue Magician Is EXPOSING Our Secrets!!!; April 12, 2012: http://www.tmz.com/2012/04/12/penn-and-teller-gerard-bakardy-rose-shadows-trick/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Mononymous persons"?

Would there be support for creating a "Category:Mononymous persons," to accommodate a large number of notable individuals known by single names, while reserving the list in this article, as now, for a small number of representative examples? Nihil novi (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per be bold, I created Category:Mononymous persons. — Athaenara ✉ 22:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Nihil novi (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! — Athaenara ✉ 00:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to report that Srnec has referred "Category:Mononymous persons" for deletion, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 12. Interested persons are welcome to comment. Nihil novi (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result, on July 20, 2008, was no consensus to delete the category. Nihil novi (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Likewise on July 20, 2008, no consensus to delete the article.) Nihil novi (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boris

Can we add Mayor of London Boris Johnson into this list? I guarantee that if you walk around London and ask what Boris has been up to, everyone will know who you are referring to. 92.11.56.50 (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't really a list, maybe there should be a list, and maybe that might be on it 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary examples

How about some more modern examples and photos, like Bjork or Madonna? These two alone are far more famous and established mononymous persons than Teller, and it would also firmly establish simply by glancing at the page that mononyms are not only used in the 17th and 18th century (a reader could be forgiven for just glancing at the page, which we ALL do sometimes, and thinking that a mononym is pretty much something that could only be used in the past.)JayKeaton (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add some newer examples and photos? Why not? Nihil novi (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought maybe there would be some traditionalists that would object to contemporary personalities being shown here, besides the two already there of course. JayKeaton (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your initiative. There had been controversy, on a number of grounds—which is why the illustrations had largely been limited to the least disputable examples. Nihil novi (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what about Bjork? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.73.155 (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Aaliyah should be one. Ke$ha isn't as good of one considering her actual name doesn't have a dollar symbol, therefor should not be used as an example of a mononym being one's first name by birth. SecretName101 (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary

Is someone, including the NY Times, overlooking the obvious? Most famous people are commonly referred to by just their last name. The previous Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, was regularly called "Kerry", similarly "Obama", "McCain", "Romney". But since the name "Clinton" clearly referred to her husband, the former president, in most Americans' minds other people started referring to her as "Hillary", in order to keep them distinct. She then adopted this custom. Why argue with the voters? Bostoner (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to disagree, but that's just their family names. By that standard all American presidents would be mononymous. Most, if not all examples of mononymous persons in this article show that their known name is not related to their given name. Leonardopsantos (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh a wikipedia article is your source? mononymous refers to one name, be it given or family name. The convention in newspapers is to refer to people(famous or not) by their full name, and then after that just by their last. besides plenty of people in this article use their last name as a mononym. anyway, rarely are most people referred to by their full name. Also, Hilary is referred to as Hillary Clinton, and just Clinton quite often. Really, just Hillary is used in rallies and campaign signs, places where most candidates use one name. this article focuses way too much on nicknames and stagenames while ignoring people with truly one name. I am not saying people that have two or more names legally but use only one name shouldn't be listed. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Football or Soccer

Some parts of this article talk about football players in Brazil. Others talk about soccer players in in Spain. I edited the article to use Football for the sport's name to make the article coherent.Leonardopsantos (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I think the context makes the sport referred to clear. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Reference Magician Teller Having "one of the few US passports that has been issued with a single name"

I work for a U.S. passport issuing authority. Despite what Teller thinks, having passport issued with a single name is not at all uncommon, especially for naturalized Americans from Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.127.130 (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you aren't a valid source, sorry. besides, what is uncommon? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayawati

With the increasing importance of India on the global stage, it may be useful to include the important example of Mayawati. Colipon+(T) 03:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal Emperors

I think it also bears mentioning that most of the mughal emperors were known by just one name, a title adopted upon their accession by each Emperor. there are six of them known only by just one name, they are listed in the mughal empire wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire
I have added a mention of the mughal emperors in the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.71.17 (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I've moved the images into a gallery at the bottom of the page; this is per the same reasoning at Talk:Perfection#Images. Having a continuous border of images along the side of the page is cluttersome, hurts readability, and doesn't improve the reader's understanding of the topic. I've left a few images of well-known people in the appropriate sections. If you think more images are needed in the main text, feel free to move a couple up, but don't just wholesale revert.
To be honest, it would be more useful to have an alphabetical or chronological list (using bullet points) than an image gallery, but that's not a big deal. The important thing is cleaning them up. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do we need a gallery for this? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested addition to the gallery

Please someone add Raphael, the painter, everyone knows him by his first name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.37.28.184 (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halston

The late fashion designer Halston would be a worthy inclusion for those known solely by their last names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.161.17 (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare? Plato? etc.

How about Shakespeare, Homer(except apparently he didn't exist..); Socrates, Plato, Aristotle; Galileo... I'm not sure what we're trying to do by listing lots of examples, but these people seem important and famous, and likely to remain that way for many more hundreds of years. If you agree, comment here and maybe go ahead and add it yourself —Isaac Dupree^(talk) 01:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Shakespeare would not qualify. Neither would Galileo Galilei. Also, it seems most ancient greek guys where mononymous. --Damiens.rf 15:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Shakespeare wouldn't qualify, although Hillary is mentioned. Often just surnames are used to refer to people, for brevity's sake. Hillary is only unusual in using her first name on the signs, to separate her from her husband. as for Greeks, not everyone should be mentioned, but that Greeks are mononymous should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.160.47 (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monotesticular persons?

Why is there an article for Mononymous persons but no article for Monotesticular persons? Like former Phillies first baseman John Kruk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.172.168 (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of Wikipedia articles depends on the degree of interest generated by the topics. Nihil novi (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because being mononymous is something usually publicly known and relevant, while the number of testicles is mostly irrelevant to everybody but the subject and his immediate family. /87.96.197.64 (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So there, wise guy! Respecting tradition, now's the time to take your ball and go home. ;) WHPratt (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List?

Is this a list? anyway, I think the article should be reformatted, right now it is pretty much a list that is organized history, royalty, Asia, and west. which is an odd way of doing it. partly because it leaves out geographical areas, but other reasons as well. I suggest it be done by type. for example, overview, cultures without surnames, historical persons(such as Plato), pen-names(Voltaire goes here), royalty, modern celebrities w/subcategories. Instead of a list with in consistent info on various people,(some get long explanations while others are simply listed.) also there is some bad grammar and formatting. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

citations

most of the citations are really footnotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.160.47 (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true and the definitions that can be found in dictionaties are scarce and are in no way a basis for anything more than: 'mononym' from the latin single-name. 92.233.71.47 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition -- Govindjee

There's an Indian-American Ph.D. plant physiologist (University of Chicago [correction: U of Illinois WHPratt (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC) ]), I believe) who goes by the name of Govindjee. A quick search for that name here will convince you that he's a renowned authority on photosynthesis, and the abstracts list invariably just the one name. The story is that he rejected most of his familial names in rebellion against the caste system in his native land. He probably deserves an article, but at least should be listed here. WHPratt (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I note that he's on the "List of biophysicists" article, though he doesn't have one of his own. WHPratt (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever made the edit for including Dr. Govindjee's case and the reason for it. My college advisor was one of his students. WHPratt (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he disappeared in some cleanup. That's a shame, as his case (not a nickname or stage name) is definitely relevant to this topic. WHPratt (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you put together a stub article about him, and enter him in "Mononymous person"? Nihil novi (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone created a page for him. He should be added back here. WHPratt (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

stage name

If a person is known by a stage name that doesn't coincide with their real name or surname (who uses a moniker) they couldnt be considered mononymous. Madonna was born Madonna but Pele is called Edison if he were known as Edison he would be a mononymous person. That is what's wrong with this article the difference is not shown. 92.233.71.47 (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added 'addressed' to distinguish a stage name. A person who is known and addressed by a mononym (single name) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.71.47 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis

I think Elvis is a good candidate for inclusion in this article somehow. The beginning of his article even says "A cultural icon, he is widely known by the single name Elvis", which probably also could link to this article somehow. -- Spug (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here looking to explain why I'm about to revert this addition. We should distinguish mononymy from just "being the most famous person with a certain first (or last) name." For example, you probably know who I mean when I say each of Elvis, Sinatra, Lenin, Hitler, Eisenhower, Oprah, Hillary. But if you didn't know, you could always ask: "Wait, do you mean Elvis Presley or Elvis Costello?" "Hillary Clinton or Edmund Hillary?" With actually mononymous people, you can't ask questions like that. "Wait, do you mean Madonna Thunder Hawk or Madonna... um... the singer?" Of course it's a continuum from one end to the other, and there are bizarre corner cases like (Joseph) Stalin; but right now the article is making just completely off-the-wall claims, such as identifying "Dubya" as a mononym. I plan to go roll back some of those claims right now. --Quuxplusone (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how the above examples can get out of hand, but I wonder if "Lucy" (for Lucille Ball) isn't an exception. Her familiar name was always used as if everyone knew exactly to whom we were referring, as though the diminutive made the last name superfluous. She never was called "Lucy Ball" or just "Lucille."

Unless you want to argue that "Lucy" was just the character played by Lucille Ball. WHPratt (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland : only one name (and the parent's)

Someone talked about Björk, but it's actually all icelandic persons who only have one name - and they use thair parent's name (mostly the father, but not always) to explicit it. Björk Guðmundsdóttir means "daughter of Guðmund". The telephone directory sorts people with their given name... deserves mentionning in the article, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.70.86 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is accurate, feel free to add it. Nihil novi (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footballers

I added Marta (footballer) in that section to provide an example of a female footballer engaging in the practice of adopting one name. The list is fairly long so if someone wants to have a go at trimming it down have at it. I just think this change adds a little wider perspective. FilthMasterFlex (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

OK I went ahead and cut it down to five examples. Didn't really have a specific method for choosing who to keep so if anybody cares and wants to swap a name for example to include natives of different countries, go for it. FilthMasterFlex (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change in examples

I've changed the listed examples slightly. Before, the article said: "Some mononym stage names are invented (e.g. Cantinflas, Bono), adopted words (e.g. Capucine, French for "nasturtium") or nicknames (e.g. Sting, Moby)."

I've changed that to read: "Some mononym stage names are invented (e.g. Cantinflas, Xzibit), adopted words (e.g. Capucine, French for "nasturtium") or nicknames (e.g. Sting, Bono, Moby)." As the article on Bono states, his mononym is a nickname (originally "Bono vox", meaning - roughly - "good voice").

By the way, should there be any comment that mononyms based on a person's first name are more common when that first name is distinctive - that is, you're more likely to get a mononym developing naturally from a full name if there is little likelihood of confusion about who is being referred to. Say "Elvis" and there are only a couple of people you could logically be referring to, so it's more likely that they'll be referred to (in the press and by the general public) by just one name, than say one of the multitudes of "Steve"s or "Joe"s. Grutness...wha? 08:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good points.

Your third-paragraph point, concerning distinctive original names, seems intuitively — and likely is also factually — true. If this observation has not yet been made in the article, please do add it. Nihil novi (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1960 film North to Alaska had both Capucine and Fabian (Fabian Forte) in its main credits. Probably not unique, even for a Western film, but perhaps interesting. WHPratt (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ/Jesus of Nazareth

He is always called "Jesus" (guess he didn't have a familiy name), does this case qualify as an example`for the article? --93.134.230.151 (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from his epithets (which can be taken as names), he had a family name. Jewish sources are pretty consistent about mentioning his father Pantera. —

Llywelyn II

22:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plato caption

The Greeks weren't at all consistent about it but he could easily have gone by or been called Aristides even if we don't call him by that name. Fixed. — $Llywelyn II$ 22:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U Thant

U Thant should surely be in this article, but I'm not sure where. 201.230.113.222 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done ("In Asia"). Thank you! Nihil novi (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm really impressed. You've done a beautiful piece of work there. Thanks so much, Nihil novi! 201.230.113.222 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll continue contributing to Wikipedia's development. Nihil novi (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mononymous is not a word

I propose that this article be deleted from WP, also from Wictionary. I was unable to find either "Mononymous" or "Mononym" in a real English dictionary such as Oxford or Webster. (One can find any sort of nonsense on websites that pretend to be dictionaries.) Reference [1] is not reputable. A real dictionary is one created and maintained by people/institutes with valuable academic reputations. Layzeeboi (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Mononym... f[rom the] Gr[eek]... mono- + ... name" is defined in The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1989, volume IX, p. 1023) as "A term consisting of one word only.... Hence mononymic... a[djective], consisting of a mononym or mononyms; mononymy..., a mononymic system; mononymize v[erb], to convert into a mononym; whence mononymization." The term is attested in the English language as early as 1872—143 years ago. Nihil novi (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that interesting point, and the improved citation. But my original comment was based on the absence of mononymous from Oxford Dictionaries Online, not the historical OED. So I should have chosen the title of this thread to be something like "Academic dictionaries do not consider mononymous to be in modern use". On the OED web site, we can read: "The OED and the dictionaries in Oxford Dictionaries are themselves very different. While Oxford Dictionaries focuses on the current language and practical usage, the OED shows how words and meanings have changed over time", and also "The OED, on the other hand, is a historical dictionary and it forms a record of all the core words and meanings in English over more than 1,000 years, from Old English to the present day, and including many obsolete and historical terms". I found no comment in mononymous that this is an historical word, not in modern use, being absent from both Oxford Dictionaries and Miriam Webster. I suggest that in other articles we avoid using these words as primary text, followed by the parenthetic "(one-word name)", in order to avoid the risk of seeming pedantic. But I withdraw my proposal to delete the article! I respect and support those who care about language, and I also wish that mononym would come into modern use. Layzeeboi (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This Google search [1] will reassure you that "mononym" continues into modern use. Many contemporaries have found it a useful word, and some have even reinvented it themselves. Nihil novi (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit explanation mentions my "incorrect comment". Is this what you meant? "The words mononymous and mononym appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, which includes many obsolete and historical terms, but not in Oxford Dictionaries or Merriam Webster, which are restricted to words in current language and practical usage." Which elements of this sentence are incorrect (according to what source), and which are irrelevant? Also, your citation of a google search to make your point appears to me to risk injury from WP:OR. thanks. Layzeeboi (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OED, as you will find by reading the Wikipedia article on the Oxford English Dictionary, gives only the earliest attested uses of words. It is not an exhaustive or up-to-date listing of instances of the use of a given word. Both "mononym" and "mononymous" continue in use, contrary to what you seem to be suggesting. Plentiful contemporary examples are found on Google, which is a modern-day equivalent of the lexical sources that were used by OED's early contributors and editors. Nihil novi (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K-pop and J-pop stars?

I don't feel qualified to add this to the main page, but I've noticed that a lot of K-pop (and J-pop) singers and performers are often known by just a single name. In a number of cases this is their given name (e.g. BoA) but many take a stage name (e.g. Mamamoo's Solar). StaticSan (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate sentence

In the section "Modern Times", the article says

"In Turkey, surnames were introduced only after World War I as part of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's program of modernization and westernization."

and "Surnames were introduced in Turkey after World War I, as part of his westernizing and modernizing program, by that country's first president, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk."

The two related paragraphs should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB05:495:3300:B48C:ED3D:44D0:B2B9 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks!

Nihil novi (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious example of a surname

"By the end of the period, surnames had become commonplace: Edmund Ironside, for example, ruled England". Surely "Ironside" is a nickname or epithet rather than a surname. Iapetus (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Bias

There needs to be a section in this article, or at least a mention in one of the existing sections, concerning the widespread cultural and technological bias faced by mononymous persons.

Example 1: my friend's Javanese music teacher could not obtain a visa to teach in the US because he had only a single name. US immigration insisted that he have a "first" and "last" name to put on the official forms before they would issue the necessary documents and allow him into the country. In essence, he was compelled to invent a surname to satisfy these conditions.

Example 2: In signing up for on-line services, nearly all websites make use of forms which insist on entry of both a "first' and "last" name, else one cannot proceed to complete the form. This Euro-American-centric feature of the generic web-design format that 90% of websites seem to employ can deny a person services ranging from blog access and participation in discussion fora, to access to credit cards, on-line purchasing, medical information, and otherwise allegedly "public" government informational materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestion !

Unfortunately, Wikipedia insists on secondary sources. What you relate, if not yet published, would be primary-source material.

Perhaps you could publish this information elsewhere, then submit the published material to Wikipedia?

Or perhaps someone could find similar, already published (secondary-source) material?

Thanks!

Nihil novi (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not sufficient for Wikipedia however this article is well known (among programmers) and has been quoted and copied countless times since it was originally published, could be a place to start: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names 49.225.122.91 (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

CANTINFLAS.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have an image gallery

What is the point of the image gallery in this article? The article is about people's names, not about the people themselves, and a thumbnail portrait adds no insight into the names. --Macrakis (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A visual representation of a phenomenon often makes it more memorable.

I would, however, gladly see a broader range of occupations shown; mainly, a smaller crowd of singers.

Nihil novi (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that there should be some magazine covers, book title pages, movie posters and other adverts that use one name to identify a certain person. (Newspaper headlines are problematical, as they're intentionally terse.) For example, this poster, which has two one-names in upper right.

http://2h3mh837ken53kitqv1co5fh83o.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/North_to_Alaska.jpg

WHPratt (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Link to poster is dead, but it did credit "Capucine" and "Fabian," and is thus doubly name-short. WHPratt (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List cruft

I just fixed the below to add a space after a comma, likely originating as a result of some one-shot IP editor shoehorning their favourite example in to the list.

Some mononym stage names are the performer's given name (e.g., Marina, Brandy, Shakira, Adele, Prince, Elvis, Usher, Selena, Cher, Madonna, Kylie, Beyoncé, Kanye).

Do we really need this many examples? Almost certainly not. Past Elvis, Cher, Prince and Madonna, further examples strike me Millennial window dressing. — MaxEnt 21:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames as Mononyms in Anglophone Countries

I feel this needs a section of its own. Many people I speak to from other countries are vwry uncomfortable with the way that English speakers, especially in TV shows and films they watch, use surnames WITHOUT titles. As it was explained to me, this is unusual to non English speakers--either the surname is used with a title, or not at all. The fact that this is uniquely Anglophone should be addressed in the article. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ann-Margret

Ann-Margret is a stealth Mononymous Person, with the easily-overlooked hyphen. Terry-Thomas is another. They're reasonably well-known actors with no surname and a plausible half-name that looks like a proper one (for people who can't spell 'Margaret.' WHPratt (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Declining Mononimity in Europe

The following paragraph is not only uncited, but simply factually wrong:

An example is Edeko, the East Germanic chieftain whose son ruled Italy as Flavius Odoacer. By the end of the period, surnames had become commonplace: Edmund Ironside, for example, ruled England (although Ironside was an epithet added later in life), Brian Boru was High King of Ireland, Kenneth MacAlpin had united Scotland, and even in Scandinavia surnames were taking hold.

The etymology of Odoacer is not clear as his own article suggests. It may simply be an epithet, not a proper surname.
Ironside, as is even mentioned here, is an epithet. It's like citing "the Great" or "Megas" as Alexander the Great's surname.
Boru is a posthumous epithet.
Kenneth MacAlpin (or Cináed mac Ailpin in Gaelic) lived before Scottish patronyms became proper surnames. His father was Alpín mac Echdach, and his son, Constantine, was appropriatly called Causantín mac Cináeda, not Causantín mac Ailpin.

I'm removing those examples. There's no way to justify keeping incorrect factoids, even if the point they attempt to illustrate (the rise of surnames in medieval Europe) is correct. --Av = λv (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 February 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Mononym Mike Cline (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mononymous person → Mononym – The topic is the use of a mononym, not any one person who uses a mononym. Mononymity would be another option. Both are sufficiently precise for the topic IMO. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Also more concise. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE. The "Mononymous person" article is not about a mononym or mononyms generally, but about the use of mononymous names by some persons ("mononymous persons").

Wiktionary defines a "mononym" as:

"1. A single name by which a person, thing, etc., is known"; or

"2. A single term for a thing or concept, allowing for no synonyms."

Wiktionary gives examples of both above senses of "mononym" which make clear that the proposed change of title from "Mononymous person" to the overbroad "Mononym" is inappropriate.

Nihil novi (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. The article is about the use of mononymous names, not a person or persons themselves. WP doesn't seem to have an article about mononymous things, so I don't see any risk of confusion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is "[your] point exactly"? That a "Mononym" article is to discuss both mononymous persons and mononymy as applied to things and concepts?

Nihil novi (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have such an article, and since WP is not a dictionary, the proposed title seems descriptive enough for the article as it exists. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.Showiecz (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom; also, no need to use a non-idiomatic phrase in place of a plain noun unless there is a particularly good reason to do so. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 19:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Nihil novi. Shoestringnomad (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I see Nihil novi's concern, but if anyone wants to add the content after the move, this article can incorporate coverage of mononyms for non-human entities or concepts. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 03:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Nihil novi. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 16:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The article uses "mononym" much more frequently than the full name. Vpab15 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are two senses to the word "mononym".

This article isn't about mononymy as a general concept or phenomenon, but about the use of a mononym by some persons, or for some persons.

By that differentiation, the specific mononym for the subject of this article is "mononymous person", not "mononym".

Implying, via a misleading title, that every "mononym" is a single-name person, would be akin to suggesting that every truck is a fire truck. The distinctions need to be maintained.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That distinction doesn't really exist in wikipedia since mononym already redirects here. Vpab15 (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME, per above. "Mononym" refers predominantly to human names in normal discourse, and it already redirects here, meaning this article is already about that. If someone wants to add a section about mononyms for other entities they could do so ,but that needn't hold up this move. — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Comment - MOS:NICK uses the wikilink mononym for one of its guidelines. Perhaps it was there since before the page was moved originally. The move was in 2008 and nobody noticed because there was no reason left on the edit summary.

On a related sidenote, I came across this discussion because I keep noticing certain editors keep removing "known mononymously as" from article ledes despite it being MOS. —DA1 (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the relevant thing is the name itself, not the person who uses it. Red Slash 22:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. And refactor the article accordingly. And if there are other uses of the term, with sources to back this up, then add them to the article. Andrewa (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elvis… again

@NJZombie: You seem to have an issue with including Elvis as a mononym stage name because you claim that Elvis Presley never used his first name as his stage name. Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Because oh yes he did. Here are some examples: The Frank Sinatra Timex Show: Welcome Home Elvis (1960), Elvis (1968), Elvis: That's the Way It Is (1970), Elvis on Tour (1972) and Elvis in Concert (1977).

Beyonce Knowles-Carter toured the "The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour", does that mean we shouldn't include her as a mononym?

What about Kylie Minogue?

File:Km ialtposter.jpg

Her full name is there as you can see but she still often used just "Kylie", so should we remove her too?--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have an issue with discerning between using a mononym as a stage name and commonly referring to a well-known artist by just one name. Madonna, Prince, and Cher are all those artists have ever used as stage names. Perfect examples of artists who use only their first names as stage names despite us knowing their full names. Elvis Presley never said one day, “you know what? I’m going to drop Presley from my name and be known simply as Elvis.” He was always Elvia Presley. Did he get referred to as Elvis on record titles? Certainly. Records can be titled anything the artist or label choose. The title isn’t a statement that he is to be officially known as simply, and only, Elvis. Same goes for venue marquees. All of those choices are based on the familiarity the public had with him, not a decision to only be known that way.

As far as Kylie and Beyoncé go… I’m fine with them being removed too. Being known simply as Kylie is more of a reference to her than an adoption of using the name as mononym. Using a poster with her full name is pretty much proof of that. Beyoncé is probably more a case of someone who actually chooses to simply be called by her first name. Her tour name is based on her name, once again, that’s not a basis for to NOT be called simply Beyoncé. During the tour, she didn’t advertise herself with her full name.

All in all, a few names being removed from the list, even if they do fit the description, is fine as well. It’s only meant to give an idea of what the sentence is trying to express. It’s not meant to be an exhaustive list of everybody who’s ever used their first name as a mononym stage name. NJZombie (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pets

The whole article is implicitly dedicated to people, but nowhere in the definition of mononym it says that it only applies to humans. Maybe it should be mentioned somewhere that almost all, but certainly not absolutely all, pets have mononymic names. Here, the exceptions are maybe interesting. --2003:DC:C734:BF00:8919:1A49:FA07:D323 (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]