Talk:One-name study

Anthroponymy Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Genealogy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy 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.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Merge

I do not see any reason to merge the Guild of One-Name Studies with this page. As a charitable organisation I think it merits a page of its own. There is potential for expanding the existing Guild page. Dahliarose 15:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics

Is a "weasel" tag on the Ethics section necessary? The ethics topic is a recurring one in the Guild of One-Name Studies and often controversial. At one extreme are critics who regard one-name folk as parasites or selfish. At the other extreme, some people are intensely possessive of their studies. It would falsify the facts if we left the issue out of the Wikipedia article, but this part of the topic should also be kept in proportion at no more than say 5 per cent of the article length. The section should be neutral, concise and accurately describe the consensus at the centre of one-namers. For accuracy, you'll have to ask the Guild itself: there isn't much "peer-reviewed scholarly literature" about it yet: it's too contemporary for that. --JB Piggin (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That section has been deleted. Mike Spathaky (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Methods

The phrase "In most other countries" is meaningless as no countries have been mentioned at this stage in the article. Can the contributor of this section please re-write to show what he or she means. Mike Spathaky (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now altered this. Mike Spathaky (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has multiple issues.

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page."

Please state what the issues are and then perhaps those interested can address them. Mike Spathaky (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now worked through the article making several changes aimed at its improvement. The style is still rather bitty and in places sentences are unwieldy so I intend going through it again soon. I have added a few references but think the article could do with more (not just to Guild of One-Name Studies!) The UK surnames section should perhaps be renamed UK resources - after all the same surnames occur throughout the English-speaking world. Can someone please write about resources for one-name studies in other countries please? There was a mix of language styles and I have changed all to British-English in the interests of consistency. Mike Spathaky (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New draft of article

Several people have agreed that this articel needs a substantial re-write. I have offered to co-ordinate this. I have created a page for the draft re-write Talk:One-name study/Temp here. Mike Spathaky (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you set about writing a lengthy instruction manual about one-name studies (which would be innappropriate), it may be better to begin by collecting together a number of published sources that can be used to support a meaningful (maybe brief) article. In fact, the solution may be to remove some of the excess, unsupported info from the existing article. Anyone wanting detailed instructions can refer to the Guild of One Name Studies etc. Sionk (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tags

To editor SovalValtos: While I agree totally with your CN tags, I wonder if it would be better to delete the information that isn't sourced so the article can be rebuilt using sourced material (if it exists). I only suggest this because a Wikipedia reader might be put off an article entirely if it has more than one or two such tags. Just my opinion. I guess it should always be a case by case thing, but in this case my preference would be for deletion of the unsourced stuff. Others may not agree... Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of CN tage is exactly to draw expert(?) attention to parts of the article in the hope that authoritative citations can be found. It would maybe be worth giving someone (the author?) a chance to source the assertions. Mind you, my guess is that this article is largely sourced from personal knowledge (or the GoONS website), so maybe needs judicious pruning at some point! Sionk (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sionk User: Tony Holkham My feeling is that much, such as the paragraph starting "While most one-name studies are conducted as a pastime" will be deleted in due course, the author or others should be given a day or three to source it. It looks like User:JB Piggin added much material 19 Nov 2005 and is still active. SovalValtos (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really 10 years ago? I am happy if you constructively do research, find your citations and rebuild the article. My only advice would be that, sourced or unsourced, the statement that an ONS is commonly a pastime is essential to a definition and non-trivial, since many readers would suppose at first glance that an ONS is an academic discipline.JB Piggin (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it should be clear that it's not (generally) a professional or academic activity (serious study nonetheless). But for that reason it's going to be difficult to find reliable/published sources other than GOONS. We can but try, though. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of girl she is

Sometimes the same number 2400:6A80:8014:2540:5D5E:B5F8:3E77:73C8 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]