Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Apted

Apted is a redirect to Michael Apted, but there is also Charles R. Apted, Harry Apted, Paul Apted, Roy Apted, and William Apted. Should we create Apted (surname), or turn the redirect into a list please?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

In such cases we have to figure out the WP:PRIMARYMEANING. Of persons listed, I would say Michael is most commonly looked for. A good indicator is the number of wikipedia pages that link to a particular person. Here Michael beats all by a wide margin. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I though. To be clear, should I create Apted (surname) please?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes (my opinion), and place the hatnote {{otheruses|Apted (surname)}} on top of Michael's bio article. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Staszek Lem and Zigzig20s: I think a person should only be a primary topic for a name if they are known mononymously by that name. Think Obama or Zuckerberg. I'd say Apted should just be the name list.—Bagumba (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Good point. Michael also wins on Pageviews, but is he the primary topic for the term "Apted"? Certes (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Per our article Mononymous person, Obama is not one. It just so happens that Obama is far more famous. By the principle of least astonishment, someone searching for Apted will have in mind Michael, just as someone searching for Obama most likely will think Barack. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Serves me right for using a technical term. What I meant is that they are recognizeable by a "single name" ( terminology at MOS:DABNAME).—Bagumba (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
That's what my argument says: in narrow circles of film buffs, the name is widely recognized. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd say to create a surname page at Apted: only a few exceptional people are the target of a redirect from their surname if it is shared with other people. As soon as there are two or more people I'd create a surname page to overwrite the redirect to the single name-holder. PamD 18:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Given that Apted (surname) now exists, I suggest it should be moved to Apted. PamD 18:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Policy say: frequently referred to simply by the single name - a matter of judgement. Surely I see Apted as Apted frequently. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I withdrawing my opinion, because the case is really borderline. @Zigzig20s:: since you are the only author of Apted (surname), IMO you may simply copy/redirect contents of Apted (surname) into Apted. This will not violate our copyright policies. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
"The page could not be moved, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask for the page to be moved. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text."Zigzig20s (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The page history is to be preserved for copyright reasons, which IMO in your case is ignorable, because you are the only author and may do whatever you want with your contribution, including request for deletion by {{db_author}} . But if you want to be 100% formal, use {{rename}} template in article talk page per WP:REQMOVE instructions. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I think what we have now is fine. I am not convinced that Michael isn't primary. But feel free to move it if you want.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphan tag

Isn't this undue please?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Undone already. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
It was not me but I did revert this editor in some other places. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Gamíz and Gámiz

Gamíz and Gámiz are different surnames, correct? I am considering creating Gámiz for Andrea Gámiz, Roberto Carlos Reyes Gámiz and Sergio Gámiz, and leaving out Luis Gamíz. Any suggestions/objections please?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Many times in English texts the diacritics are not written (you can easily see this in google search). Therefore we often create an article without diacritics Gamiz and redirect various diacritics versions into it. Of course, if there is only one version of diactitics exists, such as Krušec, then we use it as the article title. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Since this is an English-language wikipedia, the searching reader may even not know which diacritic is correct. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I see what you mean. But I wonder if they are different surnames?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The words are definitely pronounced differently, so in Spanish they must be different surnames. But whether they are variants of the same surname or have the same origin like Smith and Smythe, I do not know. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Probably you have to ask at the talk page of WikiProject Spain, where more people known Spanish. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Can never go wrong with vetting it out. That said, I typically just concentrate on creating the initial lists, and leave it to others to improve by separating or combining later based on origin, if needed. In this case, since there are not that many, I'd be inclined to combine them all at Gamiz.—Bagumba (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
If there were separate entries differing by diacritics, either hatnotes or disambiguation pages should ensure that readers not using diacritics can get to the article they are interested in.—Bagumba (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
If there were sevaral versions with 2-3 items, my choice would be to put into a single page, rather than making the searcher to jump through several hoops. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
After a quick look, it seems to me that the word is of Basque origin <confirmed: es:wikt:Gamiz>, where it is written without disaritics, also eu:Gamiz. So it seems that "Gamiz" must be a disambig page (I see 3 items already: *Gámiz, Álava, *Gamiz, a former parish, now part of Gamiz-Fika, *Gamiz (surname), while the surname goes to Gamiz (surname). Staszek Lem (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Compare Gamez. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
P.P.S.: Pedro López de Gámiz [es] seems notable enough to include, and some more in es:wiki. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I created Gamiz and Gamiz (surname).Zigzig20s (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable sources for anthroponymy/surnames

Some time ago I've seen a big amount of cleanup in surname pages removing sources considered non-reliable, such as babynames.com. Does anybody remember a discussion in this respect?

In particular, I am concerned with forebears.io (I see it used in Lal), as well as other websites, such as familysearch.org, genealogybank.com, etc. Staszek Lem (talk)

I cite the Dictionary of American Family Names whenever I can. I think we should just remove unreliable sources, or categories without sources (even when it seems obvious--I still think we should have a reliable source first).Zigzig20s (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
That was my question: which sources are unreliable. I would not hesitate to delink forebears.io, but I am afraid getting into edit war. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
If in doubt, the source is probably not reliable. Better not fall for it. I note that there is no Wikipedia article about forebears.io. Who is behind the website?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if FamilySearch is ever reliable? Or even a good place to retrieve reliable sources (in case they cite them)?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
our article says it allows user-generated content, hence by our rules it is not reliable sources. Of course, if someone cites a reliable source, you may use it, but better double-check the source yourself. I often find good sources at message boards and chats. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean does not allow?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
from our article about FamilySearch: The Family Tree section allows user-generated content to be contributed to the genealogical database. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
To get a more qualified answer about source reliability, please post a question at WP:RSN. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I thought you meant we don't allow user-generated content (which is true). My point is that Mormons take their genealogical work seriously, so it is not as unreliable as other websites. But obviously we would still need to find reliable sources (which they may cite). In general, I think books published by reputable publishers are the best option.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
P.S. In fact, in searchable archives of WP:RSN I found an answer about forebears.io: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_235#Forebears and in some other places there. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
P.P.S. FamilySearch was also discussed there: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_250#FamilySearch_and_LDS_historical_figures and more. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be reverted?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
No. Ancestry.com cites dictionary, so this is reliable source. The text is formally correct, but it is a very sloppy relelling of what the source says and must be rewritten closer to the dictionary cited. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Failed G14 attempt

Hello again. This happened because of User:Jackreed86. It was quickly reverted by User:Euryalus. Has anyone else had this experience please?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Reguera and de la Reguera

Do you think Reguera (Fernando Olmedo Reguera) and de la Reguera (Ana de la Reguera, Luis Fernandez de la Reguera) are the same surname please?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

We often distinguish them: de la Vega and Vega (surname); de Vries and Vries; De la Cruz and Cruz. Formally they are different: "From XX" and "XX". (But sometimes I saw them in the same page.) Staszek Lem (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Rosli

Is it better to keep Rosli, or to turn it into a disambiguation page for Rosli (given name) and Rosli (surname) please? I prefer the second option. Is there consensus about this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to have three pages when one works fine. The names aren't obviously different nor is the page unwieldy. -- Tavix (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I've just created Arinze and Obiora. I think disambiguation pages with sub-articles for each given name and surname would look better.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Unless you've got sourced information to add about the names, I'd just leave it at the simple dab pages as at present. The reader won't benefit from having to go to look at another page. PamD 18:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, don't split it. If there's no encyclopedic content, the page serves only a disambiguation purpose: with so few entries it's easier to navigate when they're on the same page. An additional, and in this case crucial consideration is that you shouldn't create articles about a topic unless you've got reliable sources at least confirming the existence of the topic. As far as I can see there's only one person listed with the surname "Rosli": all the other people whose name ends in "Rosli" are Malaysian, and in Malaysian personal naming conventions, surnames don't normally exist. – Uanfala (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Bywaters (surname)

Shouldn't Bywaters (surname) be moved to Bywaters?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes. Done. 07:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Sahdev

Sahdev needs some attention, if you look at the history.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Next time just revert and place a notice in the user talk page. Obviously he is WP:NOTHERE and on his way to be blocked. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
It happened again. It seems to be a bigger issue than I can handle.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Why you did not revert him? Anyway, I reported him at WP:AIV.Staszek Lem (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
It just happened again.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Reported at AIV. PamD 13:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Bodenstedt and von Bodenstedt

Are Bodenstedt and von Bodenstedt the same surname please?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should cover them on the same page. That's how Patrick Hanks handled "von" in general in The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Great Britain and Ireland. See e.g the entry for Cornberg [1]. What do others think?59.149.124.29 (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Fictional characters

Hello, I started a conversation on the Standards talk page and was advised to cross-post here to potentially elicit more traction. I'm looking for a bright line ruling on when non-bluelink fictional characters should be added to a list of names article, as I've seen growing tendencies for dedicated fans to list every single character and every one of their names on anthroponym articles, resulting in hundreds of crufty entries at a time. JesseRafe (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sidebar - Assessments section, updated

Greetings, For Anthroponymy WP I added wikilink for "Quality operations" log. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hypocorisms

FYI

Most of Hypocorism, particularly lists of common nicknames, was recently removed per concerns at Talk:Hypocorism#Unsourced_/_original_research_moved about it being uncited. For those with resources, it would be particularly helpful to resurrect the English ones, which is also referenced by the MOS:HYPOCORISM guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Undue?

Isn't this undue please?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(not to be confused with WP:UNDUE) Name lists are not dabs per MOS:DABNAME. I removed it.—Bagumba (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

there is an enormous problem

on this category there are many names we don't use.. today you don't find a living Atenulf, for example, here.. --2.226.12.134 (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Even if it was a historic name, why is that a problem?—Bagumba (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
for example, because if "John Doe" is a wannabe author and he's seeking a name for his main character, looking on wikipedia he can believe it's possible there is an Atenulf Cuomo in Benevento. If he call the hero with this name, everybody here in Italy laughs. --2.226.12.134 (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
What are you suggesting should change?—Bagumba (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
imho here we must insert only italian names we use in XXI century, otherwise wikipedia includes names we used last time 900 years ago.. another problem with Atenulf is in italian the name for Atenulf of Benevento is Atenolfo ;).. --2.226.12.134 (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
It seems like you want subcategories for active vs. non-active names. However, it would need to be verifiable how to place it in one vs. the other.—Bagumba (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
If the only criteria for a category of names in a MODERN country is that the name had been used at some point in history within the current boundaries, then shouldn't Sextus (praenomen) (and many other similar names) also be in Category:Italian masculine given names? There is of course Category:Latin masculine given names, which suggests the categorization is by language -- so can anyone provide evidence that Atenulf is an name with an Italian language origin? older ≠ wiser 12:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means :)): if you don't find on italian wikipedia or a facebook there is a living Atenolfo maybe it's better the name is not in that category ;).. then in italian the name isn't Atenul but Atenolfo and last person with that name lived 900 years ago.. 2.226.12.134 (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not a problem of wikipedia that an idiot picks a weird name for a nationality he is not familiar with. We've seen this in zillions of books and hollywood blockbusters. The real problem is that many articles, such as Atenulf, are unreferenced, and hence difficult to caterogize correctly. We could, for example, introduce the category:Obsolete Italian given names. But in order to place the names in this category we must have a reliable source that says so. As for your suggestion about XXIst century, it is unusable, because then we will have categories for XX, XIX, VIV century names (because encyclopedias are not only about today), which is an obvious nonsense: something like category:Given names used in 18th century is of questionable utility. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Atenulf may be an Italian name (i.e. notably used in Italy), but it is definitely not an Italian-language name. And it will be a really interesting subject to cover, Germanic names in Italy about all these -ulfos and -olfos. I am giving y'all one chance to guess where they came from :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
of course it's not our problem what people do but we must be careful when we write something: Atenolfo (not Atenuulf) was a name used in XI century, not now. In that age here in Italy nobody used anglicized names (it was a mirachle if we used the same language ;)..) so it's like saying "Ivan and Giovanni are english names": no, Ivan is russian and Giovanni is italian. 2.226.12.134 (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I added the clarification to this end into article. The category is still valid, because it lists native Italian spellings, which are redirected to this page. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
guys, the problem is not only Atenulf, there are other names we dont' use.. italian names are Michele, Giovanni and so on, not Michael, John or Pandolfo, Galleria and so on.. 2.226.12.134 (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, guys, to resolve the issue, I wrote up a stub Germanic names in Italy and created the category:Italian names of Germanic origin. Please help to fill the latter one (and expand the article; I am but an amateur linguist). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Croatian surnames

I've been confused within a discussion for consensus about these Croatian surnames, unlike Cyrillic and Latin surnames based on Serbo-Croatian. --122.2.99.126 (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Tagging ambiguous surnames

I have proposed a tag for articles that refer to a person by two or more names and it is not clear which is the surname that should be used throughout the article per WP:LASTNAME. I know that editing general biography articles is outside the scope of this project, but it seems like the best place to ask for comments on the value of this. See Template talk:Family name hatnote. Thanks MB 23:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Footers for a surname list

What footers should a simple little page like Méresse have? A full surname page would have a lot of sourced content about the etymology and distribution of the name, of course, but there are many many of these useful surname lists which are similar to, though not the same as, disambiguation pages. Does it need both a "surname" footer and a "surname stub" one (which looks terribly clunky)? If not, which, and how can I avoid it getting given the other? Any thoughts? PamD 09:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Those are the ones I typically add (because they exist).—Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Someone over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation alerted me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. I see there that the example it gives of a surname stub at WP:APOSTUB does not include the {{Surname}} template - thus depriving readers of the useful information it contains, which is just as relevant for a stub article. I wonder whether there is a case for creating a different kind of template for {{surname-stub}}, which would be in effect a combination of those two templates, so that we can give all the information to readers in one elegant template rather than cluttering the article with two? PamD 17:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
If the wording was combined, we'd ideally need to find instances where both are currently used and remove one.—Bagumba (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not think one needs a stub template for surnames. For very few of zillions surname pages there is have enough information to be expanded. All expandable ones already have most of what can be found.
In fact, I think the whole idea of "stub" templates is outdated. They were necessary in early days of wikipedia, when people were not well aware the "wikipedia is an encyclopedia which everyone can edit" and we needed various extra encouragement to attract editors. There are zillions of stub-tagged articles which set there for 10 years and nobody cares. If there is a two-liner article and nobody cares to expand it, then "stub" template will not help. It is just an annoying litter in the page and a clickbait for powertool-assisted editcountitis-suffering wikignomes, who, as I often see, plop various templates everywhere without a second's thought. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Pinging user:PamD, who seems to be regularly using the "surname-stub". May be they have an important reason for doing so. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello @PamD:. I think either, but not both, {{surname-stub}} or {{surname}} are required, but @Staszek Lem: is right, there are very many surname pages that have scant information about the surname but that use {{surname}} instead of {{surname-stub}}. And I agree that in any case {{surname}} is better. So, here's an idea:
What do yo (and others) think? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll try that, and see how long it is before someone comes along and slaps a {{stub}} tag onto a little surname page. I create them quite often, when someone I'm stubsorting or otherwise working on has a surname which hasn't yet got a page, but there are other people sharing the surname so that a redirect isn't appropriate. PamD 19:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
You are doing a good job by bcreating these surname pages. I am doing exactly the same. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • See, for example, this edit: {{stub}} added with comment "(stubby; the article is short; the navigation banner is bigger than the article)". Found it while stub-sorting. Do I revert, or stub-sort? Revert would be sensible and probably as per consensus above; stub-sort would be according to the published instruction. PamD 06:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Reverted, with comment linking to this discussion. PamD 06:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I imagine that stub categories in general were created so that anyone on a campaign to expand a particular subcategory of stubs could easily find those pages. I don't mind categorizing them, and have been doing so, but I otherwise don't "use" those categories, per se. If they are not deemed useful, they should just be TfDed instead of redirecting them from a misleading "stub" name.—Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as saying "TfD the {{surname-stub}}": there would need to be a case made, and agreement reached, that surname articles are different from other articles, given that a small surname list with minimal info about the surname itself is definitely a stub, by normal definitions. PamD 15:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
My point is that the only full-proof way to make sure the name stub templates are not used is to TfD them and establish consensus. However, what would stop anyone from placing generic {{stub}} instead?—Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Your point is exactly to my point in the suggestion in #"Surname-article" template required: you cannot prevent anybody from slapping any tag. But we may prevent a tag-revert war by having a guideline in place. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"Surname-article" template required

Sorry, I cannot write coherently now, I am on heavy medication, so please bear with me, even if my text will be somewhat chaotic

but reviewing the above discussion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards in came to my mind that the template {{surname}} and surname article titles themselves are the sources of confusion.

Problem

(1) Normally it is an extremely rare case someone links a surname bearing in mind that they indeed want to discuss the surname. The latter usualy happens in the anthroponymy-related articles. But in most cases IMO it may happen when someone links it without much thinking, such as in "Sergeant McMahon", because even the sources cited do not know and don't care who the heck this sergeant was. And I do not think the readers care about this sergeant either. Therefore this link will probably stay, like, forever, because

  • unlike disambig pages, the link is a normal blue one
  • when someone clicks on it, they will see a normal article and the {{surname}} with the advice to disambiguate is way down below the page and random people either will not see it or just ignore it: if they read to the very bottom, it means they were absorbed with the interesting reading and hence most probably will care less with formalities.

(2) There is a relative small proportion of the articles like McMahon. A vast majority are like Smythe.

(3) WP:APONAME-LIST gives a clueless example: IMO Spencer (surname) does not need the advice "If an internal link intending to refer to a specific person led you to this page,...". Because if a person, who gives himself a trouble to type "Spencer (surname)" most probably they knew what they were doing, unlike, say, the link in "sergeant McMahon".

(4) An extra layer of complication (or simplification :-) is that Spencer, Smith, etc. are in fact disambiguation pages, which lends a natural usage of surname articles with disambiguated titles, like, Smith (surname).

Suggestion

Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

@Bagumba: @PamD: @Shhhnotsoloud: If, after a brief discussion my idea gets some traction, it is better to carry out a full-fledged RFC for this. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Planning for upcoming large RfC on surname clarification

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote § Planning for the future of surname clarification. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yahya (name) -Name origin

(Posted here by an inexperienced wikipedian. Moved to Talk:Yahya (name) . Please join the discussion there. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Page fixes

Can someone restore the etymology of Maiorana to the page and move the notable named Maiorano to that page instead please? Linking to it through the See also section, as it infers here that its only "possibly a variant of MAIORANA, but more likely a habitational name from Maiorano di Monte, a locality of Dragoni in Caserta province". Regards, 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:5577:29A0:A9C8:1D41 (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the edit by an IP with edit summary "rm trivia" and edited the page ta bit. Although I doubt that reference to Italian Yellow Pages is a valid ref. Staszek Lem (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree about the Yellow Pages ref, and also that the distribution section for the name is unneeded. Could you move the notable named Maiorano to that page instead please? The pages can still be linked but the Hanks source suggests its a seperate name and meaning just similar etymology. 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:6434:2AE0:2CB9:89C0 (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Notable people

On an English-language Wikipedia surname page, are there any rules against or discouraging adding a French Wikipedia name bearer with no article in English? 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:5C6B:3290:821D:CC46 (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

No such general rule. Usually the {{interlanguage link}} template may be used to link to the French article. There is a major caution, though: the person must satisfy the notability rules of english wikipedia: WP:NBIO. Other conventions also apply. In the case of dispute, please ask a specific question. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

In this instance I am considering if Bruno Maïorana should be added to the Maiorana page here. How do I find if they meet the notability criterea please? 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:5C6B:3290:821D:CC46 (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you click the link in my answer? In any case, I don't think Bruno Maiorana is notable according to our criteria, specifocally he fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE, sorry. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Kou (name) and Kou (surname)

Input welcome at Talk:Kou (name)#Requested move 5 November 2020 for how to handle these articles. Basically it's a question of whether we should:

  • Have separate name pages for every different etymology of a name, e.g. one for each Chinese character, one for a Laotian name, etc., and then list people at each page regardless of how their name is romanised (and then use the disambiguation page for the "remainders" who who don't fit onto any of those pages)
  • Have one page for each Latin-alphabet spelling, which lists all possible origins of that spelling, and every person whose WP:COMMONNAME matches that exact string of Latin letters (regardless of how it's originally written in some other script)

Thanks, 61.239.39.90 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Case for Dutch "van"

This issue is probably covered somewhere but I cannot find it, I wanted to understand why it is written John Hasbrouck Van Vleck with uppercase V in "Van" and not van Vleck. It is lowercase for other names e.g. Pieter van der Werff. External sources do not help either, for example the Nobel Foundation uses van Vleck but in most other places it is Van, also he is not Dutch. What is the convention for these kind of names?--ReyHahn (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: I wouldn't worry: both forms seem to be in common use, and at Enwiki the lower case form is a redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. My issue was related to effects named after these personalities, should Van Vleck paramagnetism be called van Vleck paramagnetism instead? --ReyHahn (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
That would almost certainly be capitalized, even under usual Dutch conventions for compound terms. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! --ReyHahn (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of the Congo naming customs

Comments would be gratefully received on Template talk:Family name hatnote#Congolese names. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The Ancient Hebrew and Arabic translations of the name James

Moved to Talk:James (name)#The Ancient Hebrew and Arabic translations of the name James, where it belongs. Please leave your comments there. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Splitting List of places named after people

I've started a discussion at Talk:List of places named after people about how to divide that lengthy-yet-incomplete page. Please comment there if you have opinions on the article setup. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Technonym or occupational surname

Please state your opinion in Talk:surname#Technonym. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Rayan

An article that been involved with (Rayan) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Rayan (disambiguation)). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"Sayuki" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sayuki. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 8#Sayuki until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Name, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

"List of people" naming convention

FYI

You are invited to join the related WP:RMs at Talk:List_of_people_with_surname_Brown#Requested_move_18_April_2021 and Talk:List_of_people_with_given_name_Alan#Requested_move_16_April_2021 regarding the naming convention of name lists titled "List of people ..."—Bagumba (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Margevicius/Markevičius

I created the page Margevicius but was unaware of the existing page Markevičius. A couple of questions.

  • Are these forms of the same surname or considered distinct? (i.e. should they be merged?)
  • Both pages list surnames with diacritic and non-diacritic forms of the respective surnames. If they are distinct, should one of the pages be moved so that they are consistent (either both pages named with diacritics or both without)?

Grateful for any help on this. --11:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Margis is a well-known Lithuanian given name (diminutive of Margiris) from which Margevičius is a valid derivation (son of Margis). Russian form: Margevich, Latvian form Margevics, Polish: Margiewicz/Margewicz.
Please move to spelling with diacritics (original). Lembit Staan (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Have now done so, thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Help needed re how to classify Burmese names as mononymous

Hello. I'm trying to maintain the List of legally mononymous people, and need help regarding how to classify Burmese names. If you're familiar with Burmese language and naming customs, I'd appreciate your contribution to the discussion there. Thanks! Sai ¿?✍ 19:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ordering

How do you order in lists people who insist on not having surnames? E.g. Icelanders, Indonesians. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Also Tamils, among others; see Indian name#Tamil. Surnames are a relatively modern invention, and many cultures have done perfectly well without them (including the Irish, Scots and Welsh, until the English insisted that they adopt the then-novel English style).
Sometime after 9/11, I remember a report (CIA?) something like "Ali bin Mohammed AKA Ali abd Daoud" as if that was something devious if not nefarious. It wasn't. In different contexts, under Arabic naming conventions the same man might be called "Ali son of Mohammed" or "Ali father of Daoud". Narky Blert (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello, I'm trying to organize the listings of three names, which might or might not be related, to the appropriate name or DAB pages. I'd be grateful for your help and contribution, here is the discussion so far for background. Thank you 94.15.165.206 (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

German names

I'm not sure about German names: should the page Raumer be moved to Von Raumer? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm advised elsewhere not, so I'll leave it where it is. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Zelensky

An article that you have been involved in editing—Zelensky—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

New User Question About Repeat Use of Chinese Names

So I ended up here and I hope this is the right direction. I'm American and I've been reading articles on Wikipedia about Chinese historical figures for years. The one thing that keeps driving me crazy, the thing that motivated me to make an account, is how the articles repeat names generally. Here's an example: [[2]]

In the middle of this article there is a sentence that begins "Han borrowed Shang Yang's emphasis on laws" , it's about the person Han Fei but it can be confusing because Han also refers to the state he is from and his family. This may not seem confusing to all, but there are definitely instances in other articles where it becomes extremely hard to follow the names and cities and groups and styles and so on. So my two suggestions would be either just always write out the whole name, so it would read "Han Fei borrowed Shang Yang's emphasis on laws" or to use the East Asian style given name first and say "Fei borrowed Shang Yang's emphasis on laws"

I didn't see anything here [[3]] about subsequent use. I did however find here [[4]] in the section about culture specific use "In Vietnamese names, given names also take priority over family names. The given name, not the surname, should be used to refer to the person. The given name is nevertheless placed after the family name, following the East Asian naming scheme, even when written about in English." I would think this would apply to Chinese names as well. Thoughts? Has this already been discussed? HanFeiZiFuRen (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This issue must be raised somewhere in the guildelines WP:Manual of style. I will try to find an appropriane place (you may search these pages yourself as well). Meanwhile please fix the articles yourself by putting full names. They are not that long. I had similar issues with Korean names: "Mr.Kim" ??? - a quarter of Korea are "Mr. Kims". Lembit Staan (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it depends on context. If a different "Han" is referred to, use "Han Fei" in the next reference to the person. Revert back to "Han" thereafter. If the state is constantly being referred to, "Han Fei" might be inevitable. (Incidentally, I agree WT:MOS is probably a more appropriate venue if you still have questions)—Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
We desagree here, and the only thing sure, we do not have full expertise in Chinese naming conventions. I asked for an advice in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles and in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China Lembit Staan (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@HanFeiZiFuRen: The general rules can be found in MOS:SURNAME (which is about subsequent use), MOS:GIVENNAME (which is about cultural specific rules), and MOS:SAMESURNAME (which covers cases with people of the same surname). The basic rule is that after the first mention, a person should generally be referred to by just their surname, and generally speaking, Chinese biographies shouldn't have too big of a problem with this. That is why Chinese names don't have any culture-specific rules like Vietnamese names, which mandate that the given name be given precedent because of how prevalent certain surnames are. Of course, the MOS is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule (like most things on Wikipedia), and in cases like the example you pointed out in Han Fei, it may be necessary to prevent confusion by using the full name. In fact, most of that particular article actually continues with the full name. I've actually fixed up the example that you pointed out, because I agree that it has the potential for confusion. bibliomaniac15 06:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Masih (surname)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Masih (surname)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

What's the general rule?

If I create a page to list 4 people sharing a surname, should that be a dab page or name page? As in the name has no existing Wikipedia article except people with the surname and red links for an animal genus. Maybe this has already been covered somewhere?2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:2DF5:1F4C:B280:896E (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

If should list these 4 people and have the template {{surname}} at the bottom. I assume all of them have wikipedia articles. Please create this page, and I will show you how to deal with the animal genus. Since you don't have user account, you can only create the page in the draft space, see WP:DRAFT#Creating and editing drafts. Please let us know when you do this, and we will help you out with the rest. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Abela

The surname article Abela has a huge wall of text apparently supported by three references but no inline citations. Someone more familiar with the MoS could diagnose this or fix it better than I can. 93 (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed. The text (unpublished in RS) was pinched in toto' off some company's website with Abela among its founders. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages in a list article

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Disambiguation_pages_in_a_list_article. I have started a discussion at WikiProject Dismbiguation with this post:

Is it standard practice to use a disambiguation page in a list to substitute for listing the articles individually even when there are only two or three articles on the disamb page? For example in Lancaster (surname), the disamb redirect "Mark Lancaster (disambiguation), multiple people" is used to substitute the two articles, Mark Lancaster, Baron Lancaster of Kimbolton and Mark Lancaster (artist). This seems to me to be making it more difficult for the reader to find the articles they want for little gain. If a list article is becoming unwieldy, and/or if there are many articles on the disamb page, as in the case with List of people with surname Brown and the disamb pages Aaron Brown, Adam Brown, Alex Brown, etc, listed at List_of_people_with_surname_Brown#Disambiguation_pages, then using that system seems appropriate. But for disamb pages with less than five entries, I am unsure of the benefits. If this matter has been previously discussed, and consensus is to include disamb pages of less than five articles in a list article, then fine - it's just that this is not an area I travel in frequently, and it looks a little unwieldy to me. I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy (as it seems to be mainly lists of people's names where this happens) of this discussion.

Please add comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Disambiguation_pages_in_a_list_article so discussion is in one place. SilkTork (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thomas McDonnell should probably be a disambiguation page

At this point, English Wikipedia has biographical articles on (chronologically):

Two of these are listed at MacDonnell (surname), none of these are especially prominent, and none of these are very helpful for search or navigation. According to WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC, it's probably time for a knowledgeable editor (administrator?) to set up a disambiguation page specifically for Thomas McDonnell.

I'm also posting this at Talk:Thomas McDonnell. Further suggestions welcome. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Africa (surname) vs List of people with surname Africa

I have noticed that @Fourthords: has moved Africa (surname) to List of people with surname Africa with edit summary "article has no sourced prose about the titular surname, but is just a list of people with the same; in keeping with precedent at other "List of people with surname [X]" lists". I'm not sure I support this: any expansion of the article to include substantive content about the surname would require a page swap back again, and this is a Pandora's box: there are very, very many surname SIAs of this type. Does this project support that move and others like it? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No "List of" per WP:APONAME-LIST. We only use "List of" when the prose for a name warrants a split of the list of people per WP:APOLIST.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Unreferenced "history" of a surname

Perhaps solid history, perhaps oral history (FWIW), or perhaps just myth. Toss your two cents (piastres, groats, whatever) into Talk:O'Hagan. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Anthroponympy of Biographies

On biography page, a proposal at the Village pump has suggested moving clarifications on surname order from hatnotes to footnotes. In a discussion on that page, I’ve proposed that the we update the Infobox Person template to include infobox parameters for a variety of “surname” elements across languages, such as “patronym” and “matronym”.

I know this project is for editing name pages themselves, but I assume someone here will know the right place to discuss adding Anthroponympy information to Infoboxes for biography pages. Tvquizphd (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Typo correction: “On biography pages” Tvquizphd (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Link correction: to view the discussion, open the “Method of surname clarification” proposal. Tvquizphd (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Method_of_surname_clarification Tvquizphd (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for seeking advice here, Tvquizphd, but this is a discussion fork. I'll put a formal neutral invite to the VPR discussion below, and anyone interested should comment there, not here, to keep things centralized. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Method of surname clarification

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Method of surname clarification. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Confusion on Sinhalese names

I just created Ranasinghe (name), which is a patronymic Sinhalese name according to the latter article. I placed a generic hndis template at the bottom, would calling it a surname be correct, as everyone besides Ranasinghe Premadasa seems to use it as a surname? Is Ranasinghe both Ranasinghe Premadasa's given name and a patronymic? 93 (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion to talk about "See also" sections of "Just_n"

I have started a discussion to talk about what the "See also" sections of various pages should contain. Please visit this section to participate in the discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

When is a given name deemed unisex?

This started out as a dispute at Max (given name). In the course of my checking, I noticed that Haley (given name) is classified as unisex, despite the fact that the vast majority of the entries are for women, only two for men (Haley Barbour and Haley Joel Osment). So what's a good rule of thumb? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Categories

WP:FORUMSHOP. Continue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Categories—Bagumba (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

A while back, I came upon {{Nicholas}} and did some work on it. It inspired me to create {{Anthony}}, {{Charles}} and {{Anastasia (name)}}. None of these templates have categories. Can people help me categorize these and help me see if there are other similar templates out there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This thread continues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Categories. – Uanfala (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
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.

RS

User:Fram, I see you have removed sources at Charleson, Charleston (name) and Antionette based on the fact that the sourcing was not up to WP:RS standards. I asked on your talk space whether there are some fields where RS standards can be waived. You said that this never occurs. Yet we have policy such as WP:PRIMARY when the regular standards do not apply. I see almost no reliable sources in this field. It seems common for editors here to post pages without sources at all or with substandard RS. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I have found that although you might not be able to produce editor names to stand behind, http://www.thinkbabynames.com/about, gives me some comfort on this not being a wiki. Similarly, https://www.houseofnames.com/aboutus.asp, seems to be above the wiki fray.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Thinkbabynames is a one man site ("This site and its information are maintained by me, Kian") combining apparently reliable sources (which we should then use directly) with "contributions on baby name meanings from helpful users all over the world.". Fram (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Houseofnames is a commercial site which no special reputation for fact checking or reliability. When looking at e.g. the "Janssen" entry there[5] it should be avoided at all costs (the "Early Origins of the Janssen family" section is laughable in its lack of anyting specific). Vandersteen again is written in a way to make people with this name feel as if they belong to a very important family ("acquiring a status and influence which was envied by the princes of the region", "In their later history the surname became a power unto themselves and were elevated to the ranks of nobility as they grew into this most influential family.") Hey look, when I look for Schiltz[6], I get "each house acquiring a status and influence which was envied by the princes of the region. " and "the surname became a power unto themselves and were elevated to the ranks of nobility as they grew into this most influential family." and the same nonsense reference to the Teylingen castle. It's just a generator of random nonsense designed to sell stuff, the complete opposite of a WP:RS. Fram (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Fram, clearly there is a lot of flowery content. However, I rely on that site to help me understand name origins. In terms of what names are related to Charles or not it is reliable. This morning it helped me distingusish between whether Karolik and Korolik are related to Charles. I consider it a reliable (Tertiary) source in regards to this content. These sources are good for understanding what parts of the world names come from. However, the name meaning stuff gets WP:CRUFTy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not complaining about "flowery language", I'm complaining about completely made up, utterly unreliable information. That there may be some correct information sprinkled inbetween is not really relevant; it is obvious that a site which produces such garbage as houseofnames should never be used on Wikipedia, no matter if you find it useful or not. Fram (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Fram, I have been doing a lot of work on {{Anthony}}, {{Charles}} and to a lesser extent {{Nicholas}} and {{Anastasia (name)}}, I have been adding a bunch of names to each template and use these sources for the purpose of confirming that a name is related to the same root source that is at issue. Like I said earlier, just today, used it to confirm that Karolik is while Korolik is not in the Charles family. These sources are pretty reliable for that content. Furthermore, they are reliable for language of origin and countries of prevalence. Made up or not, that is not the stuff I am citing. I don't quote stuff like "The surname Anton was first found in Saxony, where the name became noted for its many branches with the region, each house acquiring a status and influence which was envied by the princes of the region. In their later history the name became a power unto themselves and were elevated to the ranks of nobility as they grew into this most influential family. The name is associated with Saint Anthony (Antonius,) the founder of monasticism and the patron saint of farmers." from https://www.houseofnames.com/Anton-family-crest I use the basic stuff at Anton (surname).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
(ec)Not clear what primary sources have to do with this. The discussion is about sources like this, which aren't up to WP:RS standards any way you look at it. But also the use of sites like forebears.io and many other dubious name or ancestry sites which are way too often automatic scrapings of other sources and books, and statistics with unclear sourcing and methodology. Fram (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
(ec)Other sources that I find somewhat credible are https://www.name-doctor.com/about-us.html, https://www.ancestry.com/ and https://forebears.io/about. https://www.kidpaw.com/ is more than a wiki as well. Basically, when I work in this space, I am reduced to the more than a wiki standard. I regard most of these sources as WP:TERTIARY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Name-doctor? Which discusses the numerological value and chakra number of names? Forebears.io, where Janssens gives me a user-submission as only explanation[7], is not a wiki? Kidpaw has no indication why it would be a notable site at all, seems instead like a cheap scraper of information from elsewhere. Tertiary sources should be reliable in their own right (e.g. Britannica), not random websites that take their information perhaps, if you're luckyn from reliable secondary sources. Fram (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I think in terms of the previous content at Antionette, we are dealing with simple counts. I don't understand the qualms with the methodology.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
http://www.thinkbabynames.com/about actually seems to have actual scientific data behind a lot of its content. E.g. that cite points you to data on name rankings historically. Similarly with https://forebears.io/about. I think these pass TERTIARY.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you shouldn't rely too much on what these sites claim about themselves... Fram (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I dropped a link to this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Fram (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd have though that this was better discussed on the noticeboard itself, where it would likely get more input. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it may help to first hear from other editors with this project, to see if these sources are generally accepted by the project, or whether it is one or two editors with this issue and then perhaps the other project members can guide them to other, acceptable sources. Fram (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about one of these sources at WP:RSN#Houseofnames.com. More similar discussion will probably follow. Perhaps there we can get consensus abotu whether these sources are acceptable or not. Fram (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Name list entry

I have received a message which I assume refers to this edit. Do we have a written guideline on inclusion criteria for lists of people in name articles? WP:NAMELIST would support my action if Pevsner were a dab, but it's not. I can't find anything concrete in MOS or WP:APOS (which is an essay anyway). The IP presents (for the first time) a case for the subject passing WP:JOURNALIST but we have no article, just one mention in Hudson Valley Rail Trail. Please can anyone help? (I don't know where the "worthy" quote comes from. I watch the page because new links to Pevsner are invariably intended for Sir Nikolaus Pevsner.) Certes (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe WP:APORED, and to a lesser extent WP:WTAF? (yes, both have only essay status). Personally, I leave entries alone if the subject is notable in a very obvious sort of way (say, a government minister), or if it's less clearly notable (or even sub-notable) but described at good length in a related article (say, a member of a band in the article about the band, or a famous murderer in the article about the crime). – Uanfala (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I can back away from this case as the editor just received a site ban, but APORED will be a useful link for the future. Certes (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:NAMELIST would support my action if Pevsner were a dab...: @Certes: That solo red link wouldn't pass muster in a dab either per MOS:DABRL.—Bagumba (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Exactly: DABRL would support my action in removing it from any hypothetical dab on which it might appear. Certes (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rikki (name)#Requested move 14 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rikki (name)#Requested move 14 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 06:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

TFD notice

Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_22#Template:Charles regarding {{Charles}}.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  • It seems that in spite of WP:APORED, {{Charles}} is going to be deleted. The following are the notes from the template talk regarding pages not created or links not included:

These names are worth looking at in the future. Currently, either there is a single relevant encyclopedic article or there are multiple names but no source linking the name to this content.

Singleton given names
  • Carellin
  • Carellina
  • Cariel
  • Carji
  • Carlan
  • Carlese
  • Carlester
  • Carletes
  • Carleth
  • Carlia
  • Carlicia
  • Carolein
  • Carolena
  • Caryle
  • Charleszetta
  • Charleta
  • Charlis
  • Charlise
  • Charlison
  • Chuckey
  • Chuckii
  • Karalina
  • Karalyn
  • Kari Lynn
  • Karilynn
  • Kari-Lynn
  • Karleigh
  • Karletta
  • Károlyné
  • Roline
Singleton surnames
  • Carlesi
  • Carlesso
  • Carleto
  • Carlotti
  • Carlovich ⋅
  • Charlette
  • Charlson
  • de Charleton
  • Di Caro
  • DiCaro
  • di Carli
  • Karlíček
  • Karlino
  • Karlsons
  • Karlzon
  • Kharla
  • Kharlton
  • McCarrel
  • O'Carolan
  • Qarlsson

Has or would have multiple entries but unclear connection to the name. Need content saying nickname of, diminutive of, derivative of, variant of, son of, or descendant of Charles. (p.s. I have been including -ton and -ston suffixes as well)

  • Carlesimo
  • Carlevarijs
  • Carliss
  • Charlon
  • Karleuša
  • Chickie (nickname)

Only alternate derivation content found. Need content saying nickname of, diminutive of, derivative of, variant of, son of, or descendant of Charles. (p.s. I have been including -ton and -ston suffixes as well)

Given names
  • Arlo
  • Arlette
  • Caddy
  • Charo (primarily nickname for Rosario, occasionally for Charlotte, but none found)
  • Ina (Sometimes nickname for Carol/Caroline/Carolina, but none found)
  • Curly/Curley (pages currently merged; Curley is associated with Charles, no examples found; of the Curlys one is first named Charles, one is middle named Charles and another middle named Carlyle)
  • Karrell
  • Lolita (predominately nicknames for Dolores, but also for Carol/Charlotte, no examples found)
  • Chacha
  • Chachi
Surnames
  • Carille
  • Carillo
  • Carlebach
  • Carlevaro
  • Carola
  • Carolla
  • Carollo
  • Charlier

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems that in spite of WP:APORED ...: There's nothing at WP:APORED that is related to sidebars or navboxes. APORED is a subsction of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthroponymy/Standards#Entries, and it discourages red link entries on name list pages. It doesn't promote WP:OR, which is a policy.—Bagumba (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Another TFD notice

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_11#Template:Anthony is at issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The following are redlinks that would be related to this template that looks like it will be deleted.

Singleton Surnames
  • Andonaegui
  • Antall
  • Antas
  • Anteunis
  • Anthes
  • Anthonisz
  • Anthuenis
  • Antogna
  • Antognazzi
  • Antognini
  • Antognoni
  • Antonakos
  • Antonatos
  • Antonazzi
  • Antonazzo
  • Antoncich
  • Antonetta
  • Antonevich
  • Antoniade
  • Antonicelli
  • Antonick
  • Antonides
  • Antoninetti
  • Antoniolli
  • Antoniutti
  • Antonn
  • Antonoglou
  • Antonozzi
  • Antonsdatter
  • Antonyan
  • Antosch
  • Antoski
  • d'Anthès
  • Dantona
  • De Antoni
  • de Antonio
  • De Antonis
  • de Toeni
  • de Tonei (several redirects)
  • McAnthony
  • MacAnthony
  • Togna
  • Tognolli
  • Tognozzi
  • Tones
  • Tonitza
  • Tonolli
Singleton Given names
  • Andonios (a few redirects & Anthony Gergiannakis)
  • Andony
  • Antawn
  • Anthonette
  • Anthonique
  • Antjuan
  • Antonique
  • Anttoni
  • Antonei
  • Antonel
  • Antoneta
  • Antonida
  • Antonne
  • Antonya
  • Antowain
  • Antwaan
  • Antwaine
  • Antwaune
  • D'Ante
  • D'Anton
  • DeAntoine
  • Deantoni
  • Entonio
  • Entonjo
  • Tonee
  • Tonisha
  • Tooske
Other related content not yet clearly linked

-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Maya (given name) has an RFC

Maya (given name) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Khouri

Khouri seems a bit of a mess at present - the list of nameholders is in no obvious order. There was a major change to the article in Dec 2020 with the summary "This article is about the LEVANTINE Khoury. Including people with the same or similar last name may only be included here if they have the same origin Levantine origin. Including a bunch of disambiguations that point to a surname that has nothing to do to its Levantine counterpart/variant defeats the purpose of this article.", at which point the structure was changed from a list split into differently-spelled names to a single list of indecipherable ordering.

The initial section, about the history etc of the name, has a single source which includes one relevant phrase: "Among Lebanese and other Arabic-speaking Christians a common surname is Khoury, an Arabic word for "priest" ... ", but has no sources to support the rest of its content. PamD 15:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Surname template

There is a TfD discussion here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_28#Template:Lambrecht-surname (the template has been renamed during the discussion and is now {{Lambert-surname}}. It has some similarities to the templates for forenames discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_11#Template:Anthony and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_30#Template:Charles. PamD 16:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

TfD discussion

Members of this project may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_6#Surname_navbox_templates where six templates have been nominated for deletion. PamD 15:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

More at TfD

Following the deletion of six templates, another 30 have now been nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 May 17#Surname navbox templates, continued. PamD 13:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_24#Surname_navbox_templates,_part_three for the final batch. Now I'll have a look at some of the other categories of unhelpful surname navbox templates. PamD 20:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC at Vladimir (name)

Should the "Presidents and prime ministers" section have removed from it the lists of military campaigns as “one of the principal commanders” against each name? Comment here. DeCausa (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Brayan

General question as to if anyone has insight about the given name Brayan? I ask because I recently populated the page Brayan with notable people who have that given name, by doing a search using the look from template. Oddly (to me), every person with that given name who has an article on Wikipedia is a sports figure. They are predominantly footballers (soccer players), plus a few other sports, but there is not a single example of a non-sports figure out of the 40 or so biographical articles. It also looks to be a relatively "new" name, as all of those people were born in the 1980s or later. Seems unusual, so thought I'd ask. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fok (surname)#Requested move 10 July 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fok (surname)#Requested move 10 July 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Diego, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Organization of Reed (name)

Is there any reason why the list of names at Reed (name) has information in the opposite order from virtually every other list of names in Wikipedia?

A typical snippet from the page looks like this:

BD2412 T 15:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems we should follow the present-day standards. —Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I have taken a reasonable shot at reversing the order back to the standard. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

McFoo and MacFoo surnames

I have just nominated McLachlan and MacLachlan to be merged, and I think this should generally be the practice with relatively short entries for McFoo and MacFoo names, since they will otherwise share a common history and pronunciation. BD2412 T 23:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC on disambig and surname pages

Please state your opinion in Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Surname pages are disambiguation pages or not?.Yossi Rimon (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

How to know when someone has two last names or one compound last name?

When searching on Wikidata for da Silva Santos a lot of examples show up. I'm familiar in general with Spanish-language names work but this seems to be Portuguese, is this a compound last name for most/all these people or just a coincidence that a lot of people have the two of them? ★Trekker (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Surnames of Anglo-Saxon origin?

Can this category be moved to "Surnames of Old English origin" please? Because this is how Wikipedia refers to the language, "Anglo-Saxon" more commonly refers to the culture in England during the Dark Ages. The term has also become contentious among scholars, in part because of its adoption by the far right [8]. PotterPayper (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Fallon (surname) vs John Fallon

I was surprised to find that John Fallon (golfer) is not listed on Fallon (surname), and was going to add him; then I realised that there is a DAB page John Fallon, where he is listed, but that is not linked from the surname page. How should this be handled? Should the contents of John Fallon be transferred to the surname page, and the DAB page retired? Or is it appropriate to add a link to the DAB page (which it seems to me ought to be a APO page anyway)? --ColinFine (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  • The dab should be kept, since someone looking for "John Fallon" is most likely looking for someone specifically on that page, and does not need to a see a list of results irrelevant to their search; a link to the page should be included at Fallon (surname). Note that there are well over 100,000 disambiguation pages at well-established full names like this. BD2412 T 00:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Best to follow the precedent already set on the Fallon (surname) page for Richard and Sean, by adding a link to the John Fallon dab page.
That said, to my mind these links to dab pages from surname pages are not very useful to the reader. If they want to learn about a poet, guitarist or scientist called Fallon, they should be able to scan down a list of Fallons, looking for poets etc, without having to click out into umpteen separate dab pages. Someone was working, a while back, on a way to transclude name lists from dab pages into surname lists, but I don't know how far that got. PamD 00:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, there is nothing wrong with duplicating the content between the surname page and the disambiguation page, if the surname page is distributed by something like profession or era. BD2412 T 01:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I missed the fact that some of the entries were already DABs. And that was exactly my use-case: doing a crossword, I had come to the conclusion that the answer must depend on there being a golfer called Fallon, and I went to Fallon (surname) and didn't find one. Google showed me that there was a golfer called John Fallon, which led me to this question. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Salzmann#Requested move 23 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Salzmann#Requested move 23 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Template for citing SurnameDB

FYI - I've created a template that can be used to cite SurnameDB; see Template:Cite surname db. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Windsor (surname)

  1. Should QEII be included on this list?
  2. If so, should there be a reference?
  3. If so, it needs a reference section and {{reflist}}

Thanks for taking a look and fixing as needed 76.14.122.5 (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Solanki#Requested move 17 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Solanki#Requested move 17 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Grinter

From where does this name originate? Does it need it's own disambiguation page, e.g. Barry Grinter, Rod Grinter, Matt Grinter, Tray Grinter, etc.? 86.187.160.118 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Guidance on amalgamating multiple pages that contain spelling variations of the same name

I am looking for some guidance on how best to amalgmate multiple pages that contain spelling variations of the same name.

The pages are

I have created a draft page that contains information about the history of the surname, using it's original (and still current) Irish spelling Draft:Ó Ríordáin. This page includes the most common anglicised spelling variations, including the ones referenced in the individal articles that I listed above.

Unfortunately this page was declined due to a lack of secondary sources. To my knowledge these secondary sources do not exist so the reviewer suggested I reach out to this group to get advice on how to proceed. Thesraid (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, a wortwhile effort. You draft looks good and thorough @Thesraid but needs more sourcing and slightly more encyclopedic language. In order to find more secondary sources, I suggest you look at how authors did the sourcing in other Irish spelling last names articles such as Ó Rothláin. You can find more examples in the: Category:Irish-language surnames.
In your draft article, I would sort the list of people with the name by variants. I wouldn't suggest merging those three articles (O'Riordan, Riordan, & Reardon), instead just add a link in those articles to the Ó Ríordáin article when it passes. Don't give up on the Draft:Ó Ríordáin article, it is a worthy addition! Unrelated, have you considered adding an article on Ó Ríordáin to the https://ga.wikipedia.org/ ? - Wil540 art (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

27 Jan '23

Hi there I got a list of topics named after scientists issue. Ema--or (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

See here. Ema--or (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Engineers (/(and/or) inventors) and philosophers too. Ema--or (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Explorers/adventurers too? Ema--or (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)?

Capitalising or omitting words in Dutch surnames

Hi everyone. At Talk:Historiography of the Eighty Years' War, Ereunetes and I ran into an issue of whether to capitalise or omit words such as van, de, der, den etc. in Dutch surnames whenever their first name is not mentioned. I said that capitalisation of words such as van in modern surnames is indeed a (rather recent) convention in written Dutch that appears to have arisen out of a need to distinguish such surnames from other words in a sentence that aren't part of the surname. This risk of confusion is minimal in English as it doesn't regularly use van, de, der, den in front of surnames, so with the exception of names such as Van Halen, you are right that this convention has no necessity in English. But especially for names before civil registration was introduced the Low Countries in 1811 by Napoleon, there appears to be no agreement amongst modern scholars whether to capitalise or omit such words whenever a person's first name isn't mentioned, especially for non-noble people whose surname isn't a dynastic title, but often reflects the place of origin (or profession) of a patrilineal ancestor. Is there any convention on English Wikipedia about this? I couldn't find it, but I would presume participants in this project would know it if there was any. If not, we might want to set one up to address future issues more easily. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know of any conventions specific to Wikipedia, as I'm only here casually, but names have always interested me, and this page was on my watchlist. I would say it makes the most sense to follow standard English conventions when writing about persons with Dutch compound names in English. If there's no personal name, include and capitalize the whole surname; if the full name (or at least one personal name) is present, don't capitalize the prepositions/preposition-like words, unless there's evidence that the person himself intentionally did otherwise. So, "Cornelius van der Grift went to buy some pickles", but "Van Dyck was ambushed by orcs while returning from the bank". Note that in some contexts (certainly American people) the prepositions are usually capitalized even within a name: Martin Van Buren, Dick Van Dyke. Unless your sources omit the prepositions, don't do it—I've never seen it done, although perhaps it is in some English-language sources dealing with Dutch history. P Aculeius (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I am one of the people with my colleague Nederlandse Leeuw who started this discussion (as a sidebar) on Talk:Historiography of the Eighty Years' War. I think we already found the page van (Dutch) which addresses the problem for Dutch, Flemish and Afrikaans, but not for English, or American. It appears that those languages use different conventions on the capitalization of the family-name affix "van" within sentences. In Dutch, for instance, the word should be capitalized within a sentence, when the surname is used without the preceding Christian name ("Van Leeuwenhoek"), but not capitalized when the full name is used ("Anthonie van Leeuwenhoek"). However, the article Antonie van Leeuwenhoek is an example of a Wikipedia article that uses a different convention (we suspect the American one) that spells the stand-alone surname within a sentence with a lowercase "v". It may seem a trivial problem, but for a native Dutch speaker the use of the apparently "American" convention ("van Leeuwenhoek") jars, while in my experience some American editors object to the use of the Dutch convention ("Van Leeuwenhoek") in Anglophone Wikipedia articles. Ereunetes (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The Chicago Manual of Style also recommends this rule (van, van den, ter, and the like are lowercased when full names are given but usually capitalized when only the last name is used. 17. ed, 8.10). Whatever decision is taken about that, it will be helpful to add an entry at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography# Culture-specific usages. – Uanfala (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I suspect that this isn't so much a convention as the writer guessing how to treat the name, and applying his choice consistently. Standard English conventions for capitalization would agree with the way you describe it in Dutch, and it's what I suggested above, as a native speaker of American English. If normal English capitalization happens to produce a result consistent with Dutch practice, then that seems like a good argument for doing it the same way on Wikipedia, unless the individual in question expresses a clear preference for something else, or it's treated consistently in published scholarship. P Aculeius (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
To P. Aculeus: Thanks for your reply. First of all, the capitalization in published scholarship is not consistent; both types of capitalization are used for the same surname by different authors. So that does not help us out of the quandary. But I think there may be a twist which may explain why in many Wikipedia articles the capitalization is not done conform the general rule for capitalization of Dutch surnames containing affixes in English (like van which is also a preposition, and de which is also a definite article; examples Antonie van Leeuwenhoek and Jan de Witt). My hypothesis is that these Anglophone editors do not recognize these Dutch surnames as the noun-phrases they are, but treat the preposition and the definite article as free-standing entities in the sentence, in which case it is not "logical" to capitalize them, unlike the noun to which they relate. In other words these family-name affixes are not recognized as such, which misidentification leads to "incorrect" capitalization. But one cannot expect laymen in linguistic matters to understand such obscure subtleties. If my hypothesis is correct, we native Dutch speakers may be "in the right" if we insist on the Dutch (and according to you also English) convention for capitalization of the affixes, but enforcing such a norm would not be politic, to say the least. In any case, our question was occasioned by our fear that as non-native English speakers we ourselves were "in the wrong" if we applied the "Dutch" capitalization convention in our English Wikipedia articles. Thanks for putting my mind at rest in this respect. To Uanfala: Also thanks for your reply, which appears to legitimize the application of the "Dutch" convention. But in view of what I wrote before, I think it would be impolitic to formalize the rule retro-actively, as this might cause a lot of unrest under Wikipedians who used the "wrong" kind of capitalization in their articles in good faith. Of course, an entry in the manual you mention might be useful for future reference. Ereunetes (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Still replying to @Uanfala: I have followed your link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography# Culture-specific usages and happened upon the problem of the lexicographical ordering of surnames for Collation in Defaultsort. see Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Sort_by_surname This is a problem for Dutch surnames also, that is only cursorily touched upon in van (Dutch) (that article also conflates the problems of collation and capitalization in my view). The affix van is so ubiquitous in Dutch surnames, that it is useless to sort names in directories by it. So the Dutch sort on the first letter of the noun in the surname, and then append the prepended affixes after the surname. Example:"Meijlen, J.P. van der." I myself have always followed this convention in Defaultsort in my articles. Unfortunately, in American phone directories Dutch names with van are mostly ordered under "V", and looking at some Wikipedia pages listing categories of Wikipedia articles (for which Defaultsort is used), my impression is that many Wikipedians also follow this procedure. So the Dutch aspect of the subject is then also covered under "V" :-). I do not intend to become involved in editing these kinds of manual pages myself (it is not my kind of expertise), so I hope you (or a friend) might pick up on this?--Ereunetes (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Interesting! I don't think I'll be able to do anything here myself: this is outside my area of expertise and I don't really care about categories and titles much. There are people who do though: maybe throw a suggestion at one of the MOS talk pages? – Uanfala (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Uanfala Thanks for your reply. I think I found the appropriate MOS talk page Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people and left a suggestion there. Ereunetes (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Uanfala Sorry to return to the same subject again. But I think I discovered why the flouting of the "rule" that stand-alone Dutch surnames starting with a family-name affix like de or van should be capitalized, despite the fact that they should be lowercase within a proper name, is so ubiquitous, may be partly due to this sentence in the MOS: "Minor elements in certain names are not capitalized, but this can vary by individual: Marie van Zandt, John Van Zandt. Use the style that dominates for that person in reliable sources; for a living subject, prefer the spelling consistently used in the subject's own publications." Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Personal_names In itself there is nothing wrong with the sentence as it describes an eminently reasonable policy. However the two examples given, that concentrate on two capitalization conventions in two different languages, namely Dutch, and American English, without mentioning this, may give rise to misunderstandings by the unwary reader, as two different matters are confused here. The first is the fact of the two different national capitalization conventions itself, and the second that concerning the Dutch convention there is a difference between stand-alone use and within-a-sentence use. In my view it would have been better to unravel the two problems and deal with them separately. And to choose different examples for the MOS section. Maybe even more importantly, the clause Minor elements in certain names are not capitalized can give rise to the problem, as this may be unduly generalized as pertaining to all cases of "minor elements" in a surname, such as the affix van in question, if one is not aware of the superseding Dutch convention of capitalizing stand-alone surnames. Maybe we should kick this upstairs to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page)? --Ereunetes (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I should have done this before :-) To "prove" my assertions that Dutch stand-alone surnames starting with a family-name affix like van are capitalized, and that the same noun-phrase is left uncapitalized in a full proper name, one need look no further than Wikipedia: Dutch name. Unfortunately, this need not decide the issue. The MOS-rule I critized above states: Use the style that dominates for that person in reliable sources;. Let's take the example of the treatment of Rijckloff van Goens. This Wikipedia article, though Anglophone, follows the Dutch capitalization convention, as does the version in the Dutch Wikipedia. However, there was also Rijklof Michael van Goens, an 18th century Dutch pamphletteer (who only has a page in the Dutch Wikipedia, which does not follow the Dutch convention, only proving that there are illiterate Dutch Wikipedians) who is mentioned in both Jonathan Israel, The Dutch Republic (1995) and Simon Schama, Patriots and Liberators (1977), both considered "reliable" historians, writing about Dutch history. Israel uses the Dutch capitalization rule (cf. pp. 1063-1064), but Schama uses stand-alone van Goens in a sentence (cf. p. 84). They can't both be right, but how to choose between them? It surely cannot come down to counting the citations of both adherents of the "Dutch" convention, and of the "other" convention and let the majority decide? How would that work out in practice? Ereunetes (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
If there is no consensus in actual practice, then it makes no sense to implement a rule taking one side or the other in Wikipedia. The best practice would therefore be to amend the guideline to state what the usual practice is in Dutch, and that some English scholarship follows this practice, while some does not. I think this is as clear as it can get when the surname comes in the middle of a sentence. Do you know of any authority for not capitalizing a surname at the beginning of a sentence? I have no doubt that this occasionally happens when the writer is unsure of what to do, but I don't imagine that there is much in the way of authority for it, in which case we should at least be able to make a recommendation for this situation. P Aculeius (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I do not know of any linguistic authority in English for not capitalizing a surname at the beginning of a sentence. That is because in practice nobody does that, including the people who do not capitalize in the middle of a sentence. The problem is with the latter group. The Dutch authority for capitalizing separable family-name affixes (called tussenvoegsels in a separate Wikipedia article, because they think affix is not specific enough and separable affix is a redirect page to "separable verb") in stand-alone Dutch surnames is clear enough and is alluded to in "Dutch name" and other places, like List of family name affixes. What is very frustrating to me is that I can find no linguistic authority (English or Dutch) for not capitalizing such a separable family-name affix in a stand-alone Dutch surname within a sentence. And still that happens very frequently in English Wikipedia articles and even in the "outside world". I referred to Jonathan Israel and Simon Schama as practitioners of either capitalization habit. I have since found that Israel consistently follows the official Dutch guidelines in his work, and Schama consistently flaunts them. But Schama goes further in his Rembrandt's Eyes (1999), where he consistently drops the vans and van ders in the text (that is also a solution of course), and where I found a long list of van der surnames (uncapitalized) under the "V" in the index, like in any American phone directory. Helmut Koenigsberger follows Schama's example in his Monarchies, states generals and parliaments: the Netherlands in the 15th and 16th centuries (2001). On the other hand, the American scholar James Tracy conforms, like Israel, to the Dutch capitalization norm in his The Founding of the Dutch Republic: War, Finance, and Politics in Holland, 1572–1588 (2008). In short, it is a total puinhoop (debris heap) if I may use a batavism in this context:-) So I agree with you that the guideline could be amended in the sense you propose. However, the terminology should be more specific. "Minor elements" could be much more specific. Elsewhere I found the term particles (where grammatical particles was intended) in a MOS rule about collation, but I think that refers to "loose" exclamations, like Oh and Ah also. My personal preference would be to use separable family-name affix, as this is at least English, but in a pinch I could agree to tussenvoegsel as there is a Wikpedia article they could link to. And the difference between the capitalization practices for the first separable family-name affix (because further affixes should remain uncapitalized, except in some American and Belgian cases) in a stand-alone Dutch surname (but maybe this could be generalized to French and Spanish surnames too; I don't know), and for "not stand-alone" cases where initials, or Christian names (but not aristocratic or other predicates; e.g. it should still be Cardinal De Jong) precede the surname in (the middle of) a sentence. The two examples given in the current guideline could remain, but they should be qualified by nationality, e.g. (Dutch) and (American of Dutch extraction). However, I think it would really be a nice exercise to use the married names of Audrey Hepburn's mother (both from her first and second marriages), properly capitalized, as examples :-)
And, as a general cri de coeur I think it might be an idea to get real professionals involved in the writing of these MOS guidelines, and no longer leave it to linguistic dabblers, like myself (though I have learned a lot in the last few days). Do we need any more, or could we present this on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page)? Ereunetes (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I have been thinking on possibilities to broaden the approach that heretofore has been mostly focused on the problems with capitalization of Dutch personal names. The guideline we are talking about has of course a much broader scope. I have been looking at a number of other articles like Dutch name, such as Spanish name, French name, German name, English name and other such articles in the category of Personal names and Anthroponymy. All have sections on capitalization and collation (and Maiden and married names) in their respective spheres. The technical terms differ, however. In the French article the term particule is used for what I have termed separable family-name affixes; in the Dutch article tussenvoegsel (equally left untranslated) is used (and should be partnered by voorvoegsel (prefix) and achtervoegsel (suffix) for completeness); in Spanish naming customs the term particle is used for the phenomenon that interests us. I think it would be helpful to name all these technical terms in the guideline, if only to avoid a battle of linguistic ideologies. But that said, the guideline could refer to the "national" articles for specifics on the orthographic, capitalization and collation prescriptions that are in force (with different severity of legal authority) in the respective spheres. That way the guideline would not have to be overly long (especially if wikilinks are used to help elucidate the several technical terms used). Ereunetes (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I would like to to propose a number of amendments to the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Personal names Personal names are the names given to people, but can be used as well for some animals (like race horses) and natural or man-made inanimate objects (like ships and geological formations). As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized. An exception is made when the lowercase variant has received regular and established use in reliable independent sources. In these cases, the name is still capitalized when at the beginning of a sentence, per the normal rules of English. Minor elements in certain names are not capitalized, but this can vary by individual: Marie van Zandt, John Van Zandt. Use the style that dominates for that person in reliable sources; for a living subject, prefer the spelling consistently used in the subject's own publications.
The paragraph from "As proper nouns etc." should become: "As proper names these names are almost always first-letter capitalized. However, those capitalization conventions differ by country of origin of the biographical subject in question. Use the style that dominates for a person in reliable sources; for a living subject, prefer the spelling consistently used in the subject's own publications. However this is not always feasible. Following the advice of the Chicago Manual of Style the national conventions on capitalization should be followed. Information on these conventions may be gleaned from a number of Wikipedia articles in Personal Names and Anthroponymy, like Dutch name (Flemish name redirects to this), French name, German name, Italian name, Portuguese name, and Spanish name (some of these titles redirect). The conventions may be somewhat confusing to the Anglophone mind. There are particular difficulties with names that contain (separable) family-name affixes. Examples of these are given in List of family name affixes. The technical term family-name affix is not universal. The Dutch use tussenvoegsel; the French and Spanish use a translation of the term Grammatical particle though this term actually refers to a different concept. However this may be, these articles may further elucidate the subject and therefore be useful for a correct application of the conventions. The U.S. as a nation of immigrants, presents a special problem as these immigrants often flouted the capitalization conventions of their countries of extraction. Nevertheless, in this case the American practice should be followed. Example Martin Van Buren (instead of Martin van Buren, according to the Dutch convention), DePaepe (instead of De Paepe), Mrs. Vanmeer (instead of Mrs. Van Meer). Finally, be mindful of the conventions on Maiden and married names for women." Ereunetes (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't have much experience with these issues on Wikipedia, but the proposed additions seem to me like good advice. But the place to take them forward will have to be that guideline's own talk page: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Also, given the degree of past consensus that probably exists for the current wording, I suspect that such a change will likely also eventually need an RfC. – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@Uanfala Going to Wikipedia talk: Manual of Style/Capital letters was exactly what I had in mind also. But how do I go about that? I understand the topic has to be added to the list at the top of the page. Do I do that by adding a new topic (i.e. lower down the page); enter the text, and then put the title in the list at the top? And as far as the text goes, I think I should briefly allude to the discussion on this talk page (for reference) and then enter the current text of the guideline, followed by the proposed amendment? The RfC would follow later, if at all. Ereunetes (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
You can ignore the section Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page) (that keeps track of discussions on other pages) and just start a new topic as usual. Just point to this discussion here, add a brief summary of the main issue, and explain what changes you're proposing (the template {{talk quote}} may be useful for clearly marking current or proposed guideline text). Yeah, an RfC comes at the next stage: you're looking to get informal feedback first, get an idea of how likely the proposal is to pass, and see what tweaks can be made to it. – Uanfala (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@UanfalaThank you very much. I really do appreciate your good advice. I have now added Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Amendment of guideline for capitalizing foreign personal names. I hope I did it correctly. Feel free to correct any mistakes and add your own opinion. Ereunetes (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ursula (name)#Requested move 15 February 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ursula (name)#Requested move 15 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Fuzheado | Talk 03:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:X-language surnames and Category:Surnames of X origin

Apologies if there is a well-established consensus which I've failed to find, but what is the difference between Category:Dutch-language surnames and Category:Surnames of Dutch origin (and numerous similar examples; probably also among given names)? Because for the life of me, I can't see any at all, or any that's worth making. Narky Blert (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Zack (personal name) § Requested move 25 March 2023

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zack (personal name) § Requested move 25 March 2023. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Supposedly conflicting etymologies & reliability of sources

Resolved
 – The leading prose was expanded and much improved with new sources.—Alalch E. 12:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Gaelicbow is saying that the best thing to do is to remove the leading prose in McNally McNally (surname) because there is, as they claim, if I understand correctly, a controversy around what the true etymology is. There seem to be elements of a slow-burn edit war starting around September last year.

When there is a dispute about whether something should say A or B, removing that thing altogether usually does not resolve the dispute and usually does not improve the encyclopedia. Maybe it should say A, maybe it should say B, maybe it should say both A and B, and maybe it should say "according to X, A is true, and according to Y, B is true". But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe it's totally the best thing to remove all of this prose as none of it is good.

I am asking for an expert in anthroponymy to take a look at this article, review the sources for reliability, and state their opinion on what the supported etymology or etymologies are. Thank you—Alalch E. 23:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Beaney" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Beaney has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 30 § Beaney until a consensus is reached. 65.92.244.249 (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Aiko

Am on this to get what i want to know am Aiko too 197.250.197.243 (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Vulpius and surname templates

If I go to Vulpius, it transcludes Template:Fox-surname, which displays the text Family names derived from the word "fox", and an image of the fox. There are two problems with this

  1. The claim that "Vulpius" derives from a word meaning "fox" is uncited.
  2. On a mobile, the template does not appear at all, so that claim does not appear. The picture of the fox, however, does appear (though only in preview, not when viewing the article) - and is thus completely unexplained.

We could get round this by adding the origin to the article - but I dislike adding information to articles without a source, and my google-fu has failed to come up with any source for "Vulpius", never mind a reliable one. I agree that it is likely to come from "vulpes", but I have not found a source.

The reason I am posting here is that I think that this is a wider problem than just this article. Template:Fox-surname lists 24 names. Five of these are not links to articles (and so do not belong in a navigation template); most of the articles mention that the name means "fox" - Renard and Zorro do not - but citation is not required since the name directly means "fox" or "foxes". Vulpius is the only one, I think, where the name is altered. ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on German surnames, but I do know that a lot of prominent German speakers used Latinized versions of their original surnames, and if you look at the earliest entry on this page, Melchior Vulpius—although it's not in the English version, it is in the German one—his name was originally Melchior Fuchs. Vulpius is exactly how the Romans would have derived a nomen gentilicium, what we would call a surname (our usage differs slightly, in that the Latin "cognomen", or surname, referred to an additional surname following the gentilicium, but the gentilicium was the essential family name handed down from father to son).
Although I did not expect to find any results in Roman epigraphy, just for the sake of thoroughness I checked the Clauss-Slaby Datenbank a few minutes ago, and found an example of a Roman with this very name! Marcus Vulpius Optatus was a freedman of the imperial household, who buried his wife, Mutia Isias, aged thirty-three, at Rome (undated, but likely first- or second-century, given the form of the names). There's also an inscription from Ocriculum in Umbria, ostensibly the grave of a Marcus Vulpius Nepos, aged six, dedicated by his father, of the same name. However, this inscription might be a modern forgery.
Now, you could cite a Latin dictionary for vulpes, but Vulpius is likely too rare a surname to show up in discussions of Roman names. The best I could do is point to Chase's "The Origin of Roman Praenomina" (1897), where there is an exemplary (providing examples, certainly not intended to be complete, if such a thing were even possible) list of gentilicia derived from ordinary things (including animals, but I don't believe mentioning "Vulpius"). It's from Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, and the article is available from the Internet Archive. I wish I knew where you could document the name's etymology, but I don't know what resources are available for German surnames. P Aculeius (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
There are a large number of questionable surname templates which were created by the same editor in 2022. They were topic-banned from the area of names in Nov 2022 and subsequently indeffed because they ignored the ban. PamD 07:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
See also WP:NAVIMAGES: "images are rarely appropriate in navboxes." There is no need for a pretty piccy of a fox in this template, or a knight in {{Knight-surname}}. PamD 08:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


I have added the derivation to Vulpius, with a {{cn}}, and posted on Talk:Vulpius explaining why I have done so. --ColinFine (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

María de …

It surprises me that there seems to be no article about names like (María del) Rosario, (María de) Guadalupe and so on. —Tamfang (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tamfang: I was just thinking the same thing recently. I began working in one of my sandboxes for an article on Marian names.★Trekker (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Miguel - separate given name? merge?

Hi from Project Disambiguation!

I'm wondering if Miguel (disambiguation) should be shifted to a "given name" list, or merged with Miguel (surname) into a larger "name" list. The name obviously has some interesting notability - see Chicano names, whose mention of de-Anglicizing Chicano names made me intrigued - but not sure how to proceed. Kawa (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@ProcGenKawa: Miguel is a very common given name, I think a separate page for it would be good, merging with Miguel (surname) I would oppose.★Trekker (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Family name hatnote#Merging in efn templates

Hi all! FYI, there are plans to adjust the code of {{Family name hatnote}} so that its text can also be used as a core for the explanatory footnote template. This should be a purely technical change that will not have any impact on the existing uses of the hatnote template. Please feel free to let us know if you have any comments. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Why did a user revert my edit?

I'm very new to Wikipedia, I'm sorry if I'm being stupid and if this is not the correct place to talk about this. On Ebony (given name) I changed "Blacks" to "black people". Someone reverted it. Why? Meowmeowimacat (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Meowmeowimacat: Replying on your talk page, since my reply was going to be a bit lengthier than desirable here. Incidentally I pinged you here so that you'd receive an alert about my reply and link to your talk page, in case you don't monitor this page or weren't aware that you had a talk page yet (you didn't until I posted my reply—someone else will probably send you a welcome message there soon, with helpful links to other Wikipedia policies). It's not necessary to ping everyone when you reply to their posts, but I thought it was a good idea in this instance. P Aculeius (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Blacks is the current preferred term for national media. There’s no reason to change it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Is it? I'm not aware of any "preferred term". Which nation? In the United States, "African-American" is probably the most common right now, but all three terms are widely used, among others. Obviously "African-American" doesn't work for people from the UK, Australia, or New Zealand, and probably not for Canadians—but that doesn't establish a single "preferred term". I'm not saying that your wording is wrong, but it sounds a bit odd to me in the place where it appears, and I have some doubts about the reason given. At any rate, it might be a good idea to use edit summaries when reverting changes that aren't clearly test edits or vandalism—in fact this is what Wikipedia policy asks editors to do. It might not have avoided a talk page discussion, but it would have made it easier for the other editor to understand what was going on. P Aculeius (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the other user's reply to this.
And I will discuss this more with you on your talk page! :) Meowmeowimacat (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The style of the New York Times and Washington Post is currently to capitalize "Blacks." The Washington Post also capitalizes Whites while the New York Times does not. African American does not seem to be in favor any longer. No, I don't think it sounds racist. It's fairly typical in English language media. I used the prevailing style. It didn't need to be changed. I'm also going to add that the reference is to naming preferences in the United States so using the preferred style of U.S. media is appropriate.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/20/associated-press-style-guide-capitalize-black. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I believe the question was about replacing "black people" with "Blacks", which presumably has nothing to do with capitalization, because you can simply capitalize it if that's your objection. And while I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with it, it does sound odd—perhaps antiquated. You don't normally refer to someone as "a Black" or "a White" anymore, and the plural sounds only slightly less unusual—when I've heard it recently it's usually only following another description, and even then it still sounds a bit odd. I don't think you'll find a lot of stylebooks recommending "Blacks" over "black people" or "African-Americans" or other alternatives. It might still be acceptable, but it's not going to be "preferred". P Aculeius (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
To my (British) ear, "Blacks" (as opposed to Black people) is more reminiscent of Apartheid-era South Africa. DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
"African American was often used, but is not always accurate as some Black people do not trace their lineage to Africa."
-That article you linked
"black
should be used only as an adjective when referring to race, ie not “blacks” but “black people” or whatever noun is appropriate."
-https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-b Meowmeowimacat (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I would have said that "African-American" would be dubious because the people concerned aren't always going to be American—I can't think of many circumstances where African-ness would be disputed; I could imagine "black" being applied to indigenous people from India or Australia, but I don't think this is commonly done anymore (I could be mistaken), and I doubt "Ebony" is a name of cultural significance in those communities. At the same time, I don't know how frequently the name "Ebony" is used by people of African descent in other English-speaking countries; it might be peculiar to (or primarily) American usage. P Aculeius (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Bookworm857158367 Which "national"? This may be a matter of WP:ENGVAR. The Guardian's style guide, which I take as a good guide to modern educated British English, has this to say: black should be used only as an adjective when referring to race, ie not “blacks” but “black people” or whatever noun is appropriate. It goes on to say, summarised, that the capitalisation of B/black is a matter of choice. This item also directs the reader to its section on BAME, where "The Grauniad" lives up to its (previous?) reputation for being full of typos, with a reference to "furniture" where I think "future" is intended! PamD 07:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
That was an interesting browse! Some of the advice is excellent, while other items look strange or persnickety to me—but in furniture I shall definitely know where to look for typos! P Aculeius (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I changed the wording in the article. I don't think there was anything necessarily off about the original phrasing but I don't want it to be seen as problematic by any reader, either. I certainly didn't mean it to. It's basically just a list of people with the name and a couple of paragraphs about the usage of the name. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad we've come to a conclusion, thank you! :) Meowmeowimacat (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone thought you were trying to be problematic. An editor simply wanted to discuss the reversion, and didn't know how to get the ball rolling. In some places the wording you used is normal. To some people it sounds antiquated. It doesn't hurt to talk about it or get additional opinions. P Aculeius (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, as they say "Every day is a school day"! I've learned that "furniture", or "page furniture", is a term referring to the things on a page other than the main text and images (ie headlines, bylines, captions, etc). So the Grauniad had it right. I sent an email pointing out what a thought was a mistake, and had a courteous and prompt reply referring me to this article on the topic. I've not been the first to be confused!
I've added this to page layout and made a redirect from page furniture, a redirect from furniture (page layout), and a dab page entry at Furniture (disambiguation) ... and also added a note to Furniture (typesetting) to clarify this other usage. A typical Wikipedia rabbit-hole. But fun. PamD 17:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Surname page needed for Dawood?

Having half-remembered a name of one of the victims of the recent submersible tragedy, I looked up Dawood. This leads, as primary topic, to David in Islam with a hatnote pointing to Dawood (disambiguation), where there is Dawood (name), which leads to David (name) ... which mentions Dawood as an Arabic variant, but has no relevant onward link. Dawood (surname) does not exist.

Dawoud looks as if it might be a very similar name (I am not knowledgeable about Arabic names). Here we have a neat little page with a list of given-name holders and a list of surname-holders. There's a link in the lead to Daud, and a See also to David (name), but no link to David in Islam.

Someone with a knowledge of Arabic names might like to create a surname page (possibly also given-name list) for Dawood? There seem to be about 15 living people, plus others, and at present they can't easily be found.

It may or may not be relevant that the dab page Dawood (disambiguation) and the redirect at Dawood (name) were created by now-blocked editor Neelix. PamD 07:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

There's Daud (name) which has a surname section that includes a "Dawood" and is linked from Daud (disambiguation). I *think* that's the more common transliteration. That's the problem where there's multiple transliterations in use - it gets messy. DeCausa (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Based on https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Dawood leading to a variety of topics, I'd say we should void the assumption of primary topic there. It was actually disambiguated soon after creation in 2004 and redirected with an unexplained edit in 2007, and there's nothing there at Talk:David in Islam to explain it, so just disambiguate it again. If WikiNav in a couple of months shows that everyone clicks on David in Islam anyway, we can reinstate the primary redirect. --Joy (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Spanish name law

From what I understand Spain has decently strict laws on names, with one being required to have two surnames and at maximum two personal names with these two surnames. But I sometimes come across persons who seem to have more names than these, for example Lucía María Fátima Heredia Armada who seems to have three personal names, but I assume there is a case of a double name here, either Lucía María or María Fátima, but I don't know how to figure out which it is. ★Trekker (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Shalini (disambiguation)

There is a discussion at Talk:Shalini (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 July 2023 about moving Shalini (disambiguation) to Shalini. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Avinash (disambiguation)

There is a discussion at Talk:Avinash (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 July 2023 about moving Avinash (disambiguation) to Avinash. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yuvraj (disambiguation)

There is a discussion at Talk:Yuvraj (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 July 2023 about moving Yuvraj (disambiguation) to Yuvraj. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Bayu (name)

Bayu (name) is currently rated as mid importance. Is this male given name mid-importance? talk:Bayu (name) -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

You can change it if you think it isn't rated right, the ratings are up to users to decide.★Trekker (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eto'o#Requested move 10 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eto'o#Requested move 10 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Linking to name lists in articles

What are the norms around this? For example, is the Quandt family (redirect) link in the lead of BMW a good internal link? —Alalch E. 16:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems MOS:EGGy to leave the readers to expect something on the family, but instead only a list of people, not all of whom are relevant to BMW.—Bagumba (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. —Alalch E. 13:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The only appropriate links to such pages within article prose, that I can currently think of, are links within passages that discuss names as names. —Alalch E. 00:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ji-hun#Requested move 14 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ji-hun#Requested move 14 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion (PROD): Title of authority

FYI, the article Title of authority has been proposed for deletion (WP:PROD). The first sentences summarize the subject this way:

  • "Title of authority, title of office or title of command is the official designation of a position held in an organization (e.g. in government or corporation) associated with certain duties of authority."

The nominator wrote this summary of their concerns:

  • "I searched and it does seem to be a term but not sure if notable"

There are no reliable sources cited by the article.

If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the deletion notice for what to do.

Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Surname transclusions

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Surname transclusions about how surname pages transclude name disambiguation pages, e.g. Piotrowski listing everyone called Oskar Piotrowski. Certes (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Good article nomination for Femke

The article Femke was nominated as good article (language). You can help review it. – Editør (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Sathish#Requested_move_23_November_2023 about whether or not to move Sathish to Sathish Muthukrishnan. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Jonson

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jonson (name) about moving the page to Jonson. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC affecting name list pages

Please see Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Request for comment. older ≠ wiser 16:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Vamsi (name)#Requested move 7 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vamsi (name)#Requested move 7 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Made a merge proposal here regarding the page Alternate forms for the name John. Hasn't gotten any responses in over a month and I forgot about it 'til just now, and it could still use a look from some folks. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at List of people with surname Reese

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of people with surname Reese#Requested move 2 April 2024, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. —Bagumba (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Buttigieg#Requested move 16 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Buttigieg#Requested move 16 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Page Bosnich

As many people know, wikipedia is full of wrong information that when some try to correct it, they are prevented. The same thing happens with the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnich It is absolutely wrong to claim that the surname is Bosnich - Anglicisation. This surname originates from Bosnia (Bosnia and Herzegovina). In Bosnia and Herzegovina it is pronounced Bosnić.

Members of the Bosnich family have a family coat of arms As you know the letter "ć" does not appear in English language or any Anglican country. Not allowing these false data on the Bosnich page to be corrected and to write historically accurate statements with clear evidence is a problem for wikipedia and all members of the large Bosnich family who live around the world, and especially a large number of Bosnichs live in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnich Nedim (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

What false information does the page now have? —Tamfang (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
False information is that only Australians are notable people with the surname Bosnich. It is obvious that someone wants to appropriate this noble family and portray it as an Australian family. It is a shame to talk about the Bosnich family without mentioning their origins. 77.77.216.18 (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
If you have information about the surname's origins, sourced to a reliable indpendent published source, then please add it to the article. Or if there are other people named Bosnich who are notable, please create articles about them and then they can be included in the list.
This is not "someone wants to appropriate this noble family and portray it as an Australian family", but "there are three people with English Wikipedia articles and the surname Bosnich, all of whom are Australian". Very different. PamD 11:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz0dpY5llRGTM0ZRSDVQejJoZEk/preview?pli=1&resourcekey=0-1x1vNsvyW9_lMy7nH94IRA
(page 55)
The coat of arms of the Bosnich family appears as early as the 14th century. and at the beginning of the 15th century part of this family moved to Croatia. Part of this family settled in Hungary in the 16th century. The coat of arms of the Bosnich family contains elements of Bosnia and Illyria. - Source: Art rabic, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2016 "The Bosnian Heraldry".
Coat of arms of noble family Bosnich is in all Illyrian sets of coat of arms. Bosnich's who moved to Hungary were included in Hungarian noble. Coat of arms that they got in Hungary does not match this one represented here ("ILLYRIAN COAT OF ARMS BOOK" made 1340. Original stored in the Franciscan monastery of Fojnica, Bosnia and Heryegovina - Nedim Bosnich added this part in parentheses) - Source: Dr.A.Solovjev: "Additions for Bosnian or Illyrian heraldic" issued in "Glassnik of the National Museum in Sarajevo" New series, volume IX 1954. p. 93 (Messenger of National Museum in Sarajevo (Archaeology)) New series, notebook IX 1954. page 93.
It is an indisputable fact that the coat of arms of the Bosnich family originates from Bosnia and Herzegovina, as evidenced by the finds stored in Fojnica and Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina).
On the other hand, you cannot divide in Wikipedia the Bosnich family into American and Australian on the one hand, and Bosnian on the other or Croatian on the third, etc. etc.
There is only one Bosnich family on the entire globe, and it originates from Bosnia. 77.77.216.18 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
What do you actually want to change? We have 2 lists: Bosnich and Bosnić. They are just an index of articles of people with these surnames. They are not articles about the name. No one is saying they are the only people in the world with these surnames. If there is someone from Bosnia with the surname "Bosnich" (not "Bosnić") then (a) an article about them could be created if the person satisfies our notability criteria and (b) they could appear in the list along with the 3 Australian people. What's the coat of arms got to do with anything? DeCausa (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Bosnić is Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian version of family name Bosnich. Slavic people use letters č, ć ž, š, đ and it's for somebody who wants to know more about the history of three countries - Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia. The family name Bosnić is pronounced the same as Bosnich in the Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian languages.
Since the Roman, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and other empires came and disappeared in Bosnia (today's name Bosnia and Herzegovina), they all left a religious and cultural mark behind them.
So now the surname Bosnich (Bosnić) is found in Bosnian families of the Catholic, Islamic and Orthodox faiths, and members of the wider Bosnich family can be found in many countries of the world, Argentina, USA, Canada, England, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Australia and many, many other countries of the world.
Anyway, the root of that surname is in Bosnia and the name contains the name of the country of Bosnia. Bosnia was mentioned etymologically for the first time in 949. More than 1000 years ago.
So the answer to your question is that when we talk about the Bosnić and Bosnich family, we are actually talking about the same family.
Also, your article about the Bosnich family, to which you associate three Australians, is very superficial, without sufficient sources, information about the origin of the surname and facts that shed enough light on the whole story of the Bosnich surname. 77.77.216.18 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
As was said above, if you can add relevant information, with reliable sources, to the article Bosnich, then please do so. Until then the article is a list of the people who have English Wikipedia articles and have that surname. There is nothing more to add. PamD 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Do you believe that the state of Bosnia exists?
Do you believe that there is a town of Fojnica in Bosnia?
Do you believe there is an "ILLYRIAN COAT OF ARMS BOOK" made in 1340?
You can find numerous proofs by searching Google if you don't believe me, and it's really obvious that you don't respect or trust anything I've stated, not even the sources I've provided. It's a way to underestimate someone and to use the Wikipedia page to make subjective representations of some facts about which you don't know much, but when you are offered evidence, you look for "relevant information, with reliable sources". It's a really dirty game. And that's why I'm ending this communication. 77.77.216.18 (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
What communication? —Tamfang (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Annotated biography link#Substitute?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 00:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Surname "Uppaluri"

Greetings, After finding article Uppaluri, I checked at "Find link" here and see 20 plus people with the Uppaluri surname. Asking for help here if anyone interested would like to make a surname list article? I did search & found List of people with surname Jones, so I see how this can be done. Wondering if any WP member here is willing to build a similar list. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and apologies for the belated response. I do not think it would be wise to create a separate list just for 20 people, especially if a substantial amount of them will be redlinks. The Uppaluri page currently contains all people with Wikipedia articles who have the name and its listed variants. Red links may be added to name pages, but only if the subject of said link is obviously notable. You may also notice that not all of the subjects listed at the website you linked are people. Otherwise, you could try to find sources for the content currently in the article if you wish to improve it. Best regards, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Madonna#Requested move 1 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Madonna#Requested move 1 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Splitting lists of names articles when clearly different names

Looking at articles about names, there's two clear sets that I would separate more on coverage/quality than saying they are different types. However, the differences cause a problem. First you have detailed articles with some etymology and anthroponomy (great), and then you have what are mere listicles of people with the name - or (the problem) a name with a different origin that is spelled the same. When I improved Agron (surname), for example, I wrote about both separately but it might be better to have multiple articles. Or look at the Romeu listicle, which has a given name of one origin and a surname of another all on the same page.

Surely it is more logical to split articles and listicles into separate articles for separate origins, so that these can (now or later) be developed into articles that actually encyclopedically cover the history and usage of the name without getting wires crossed. (And on the other hand, you'd expect examples like Walsh (surname) and Branagh to be merged for the same reason.) Kingsif (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I feel kinda neutral towards this. I think that the system we currently have (one page for all variants/different etymologies) is fine in most instances, though if we have detailed histories about the different etymologies, the pages should probably be split as you said. Thing is, we often don't, so when we don't have substantial content about the history of the name, I feel that one page for any different etymologies should be fine, though I would agree that many pages currently don't delineate between etymologies well enough. On that last note, I think I'd feel naturally opposed to a merger between Branagh and Walsh, as they are cognates with drastically different spelling, though this brings up another problem: the thousands of pages which currently have nothing about etymology when such information is easily available. It'd be interesting to see others' opinions on this. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Cognates? Did you drop a "not"? —Tamfang (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
another problem: the thousands of pages which currently have nothing about etymology when such information is easily available - honestly, I might just start trying to solve that problem, and splitting/expanding/whatever where necessary. Kingsif (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
We need to bear in mind that surname pages are useful for, and used by, the reader who knows someone by surname only, doesn't care about the etymology of the name, but needs to find the philosopher / musician / footballer of that surname. They don't want to have to check multiple pages because there are several surnames of different origin which happen to be spelled the same way: all they know is the spelling used by their person. By all means provided lots of linkages between different pages, to help those readers who want to learn about the etymology of the surnames, but I think we should prioritise the reader who has read a source referring to "the important earlier work by Xyz" or "Xyz's innovative style" and needs to find the person in their subject area with surname "Xyz", especially if "Xyz" is a word which is also a common noun or placename so that a simple search on "Xyz" is not an easy solution. PamD 07:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
IMHO, List of people with surname Xyz should be the place for that (if there's too many to just put them all under a "people" subsection of Xyz (disambiguation)), and an article of Xyz (name) should be about the name. Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
PamD, as always, brings up a good point. The separate list idea works with common names though in most instances I don't think there's enough people to justify separate lists.
Also in response to Tamfang, Branagh I believe is derived from Irish Breathnach, from which Walsh is also occasionally translated, so I guess not always cognates, but wouldn't they be in that instance? I'm not a linguist though so by all means correct me if I'm wrong. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
On the "cognate" thing, I believe you are correct - etymologically related, but in different languages, potentially with significant differences. If I had to guess, Tamfang may have been thinking of cognates in terms of "false friends" perhaps? Kingsif (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Two words are cognates if they have a common origin (which these obviously have not), regardless of their meaning. False friends are often cognates, but may also have only chance resemblance. —Tamfang (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Would Breathnach not be the common origin? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
No, Walsh is from a Germanic word meaning 'foreign'. —Tamfang (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
You know, this discussion might be interesting to have over at the Walsh talk page, as I think (with sources of course) people could discuss developing the lead/content there - though I'd also make sure we're all on the same page regarding how we're using "origin" and "etymology". Kingsif (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
The Dictionary of American Family Names states that one of the origins within Ireland for Walsh is a translation of Breathnach, from which Branagh is derived. So they're usually not cognates but in that instance wouldn't they be? Though I agree that if this conversation will continue for much longer it should probably be at the Walsh talk page. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Translation and cognate are separate concepts! —Tamfang (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I kind of see now. I guess I'll take your word for it as you probably know much more about linguistics than me. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
It's funny how often I somehow give that impression. —Tamfang (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The problem with that is that it means extending the WP:NAMELIST navigation hole one step further - if we add more clicks into the navigation path it does seem to make the layout neat and orderly. But, it also risks losing many readers, as we make them click extra and as we bury the lede (many names are relevant because someone relevant is named that way, not the other way around). --Joy (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd only advocate for a separate list if there's too many people to just have a subsection of whatever the top level article is (typically, the disambiguation). So, "move the list of people to the disambig rather than have it at the surname article" is another way of phrasing the same thought, I suppose. Kingsif (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
That's not typically what happens, though. There's Foo with a people list and nothing else, or there's Foo without a people list + Foo (surname) with a people list (extra 2 clicks plus scrolling to get to a biography) or a separate List of people named Foo (which in turn is horrendously bad for navigation because each biography is at least 3 clicks and probably a lot of scrolling away). --Joy (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Taylor (given name)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Taylor (given name). Should first–middle name pairs like "John Taylor" have a name page? —Bagumba (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

How to categorize surnames that aren't really surnames?

For example, most Indonesian people don't really have surnames (Indonesian_names#Naming_forms). Thoughts on how something like Arianto should be categorized? Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you distinguishing between hereditary and non-hereditary surnames, or between surnames and family names? In some cultures, a surname is any name given to someone in addition to the necessary or traditional names chosen by one's parents. For instance, in ancient Rome, the core parts of someone's name might be Gaius Rubellius, the former chosen, the latter inherited, but in Gaius Rubellius Blandus, the last of these three is called a cognomen, literally "surname", because it's added to the standard nomenclature—although cognomina sometimes became hereditary as well, and we would call the gentile name Rubellius a surname in modern parlance. In fact such names probably came about as surnames, and are so described on rare instances. But surnames were often personal and belonged to only one person in a family, though other, unrelated persons might also bear the same surname.
In the page "Arianto", it seems clear that the name Arianto isn't a hereditary surname—that is, the bearers didn't receive it automatically because generations of their forebears were named Arianto. If it was simply chosen as an additional name at birth, then wouldn't it be treated as a "given name"? If there are instances where it's verifiably a family or clan name, or bestowed as some kind of honorific or epithet, then those instances might be classified as surnames. Are there any such instances? It's not clear that it is in any of the listed examples, but if it could be one, you could say that it's usually a "given name" because most Indonesians don't have surnames in the modern sense (or any sense?), but that it can also be a surname. You would be able to categorize it as both types, although you might wait until there's at least one example of it as a surname, if you're not sure. On the other hand, if you're only referring to it as a surname in the above question because it follows a "given name", but is simply an additional one, as in "Jean-Claude" or "Johann Wilhelm" or "Cindy Lou", then I wouldn't categorize it as a surname. Hope this is helpful! P Aculeius (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who has written a few dozen articles about Indonesians, I don't think there's any easy answer due to the sheer diversity in types of Indonesian names and naming customs. I think it requires some engagement with each person's case as for example some names that are not a family name in one generation became a family name in another generation, which may not be immediately evident. Dan Carkner (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Sadly English Wikipedia has a long-standing issue (which extends to Wikidata and Commons) of not understanding the difference between modern family names and surnames. There has to probably be a big debate about this and a lot of work to fix it.★Trekker (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Advice needed for possible merger of people named Gervais, Gervaise, Gervase or Gervas into single disambiguation page

These four names for people appear to be variants of the same root name with slight spelling variations. However, three of them have their own disambiguation pages, with people lists which sometimes overlap. I would like to consider moving all the real people page links into a single disambiguation page, as follows:

- No changes to disambiguation pages links for Places, Other uses or Fictional characters sections.

- Gervais (name): to be the main target page for disambiguation (it holds the most occurrences of the name).

- Gervaise (disambiguation): point current People section to Gervais (name). Move current list of people to Gervais (name).

- Gervase (disambiguation): create a new People section, pointing to Gervais (name). Move current list of people to Gervais (name).

- Gervas: create a new disambiguation page with a People section pointing to Gervais (name).

Can this WikiProject advise if this is the right approach? Masato.harada (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Jean Kelly (disambiguation)#Requested move 22 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jean Kelly (disambiguation)#Requested move 22 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 02:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Surname indexes by Duckmather

See contribs starting here for reference, but I found a lot of creations within this WikiProject by this user that go against the standards set by this project, including date range MOS violations, unsourced claims of origin, and unnecessary appending of the words "a" and "an" on some entries. At the moment, I cannot find the right words to remind Duckmather of this project's guidelines, and I also don't have time to go to all of their index creations and make these fixes. Is there someone in this WikiProject that is able to finish the job for me? Thanks in advance! Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 16:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

May as well ping Duckmather to this discussion as well as refer the user to WP:APOS, which includes the standards for all our surname and given name indices. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 16:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@JalenFolf: Some responses to these point by point:
  • I'm assuming the date-range violations you speak of relate to MOS:RANGE, which specifies that one should not put spaces between year dates. If so, I'm fine with following this from now on; I think I thought that year ranges with spaces looked cleaner.
  • The unnecessary appending of the words "a" and "an" might also some sort of MOS violation, I'm thinking, although I'm not seeing where. (I checked MOS:LISTS and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people and neither specified this rule). If you can point where this rule is stated I'm also happy to follow it. However, I do think "a" and "an" make the page flow better when you read out loud though.
  • As for the unsourced claims of origin, I've been following the principle that the people who bear its name represent its geography. For example, if a name has bearers who live in (say) the Bahamas, then it obviously follows that the surname can be found in the Bahamas. (C.f. WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.) If this is too problematic I could just avoid mentioning countries in the lead though. Also, sources related to names are really hard to come across. Usually, googling brings up stuff like ancestry.com and houseofnames.com which seem iffy at best. If you know of any decent citeworthy sources (eg books or encyclopedias or whatnot) related to names, I'd be happy to cite them!
(A last point: I go by he/him pronouns and have been very upfront about this for ages. Please don't they/them everyone you don't know; it gets really annoying.)
Duckmather (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@Duckmather: Referring to other editors as "they" is a useful way to avoid getting it wrong by using "he" or "she", and you can't really expect every editor to scan 60 userboxes on your page before mentioning you. Please learn to accept this.
On sources for names: if you are eligible to access Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, you can find full text access to titles like The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland and Dictionary of American Family Names, which are better sources than the ones you've mentioned above. PamD 10:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
In the spirit of MOS:DABPEOPLE:

Do not include a, an or the before the description of the person's occupation or role

—Bagumba (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

ancestry.com

It looks like ancestry.com introduced a paywall that blocks even the "Surname Meaning" sections (by blurring) (although it is snatched from Dictionary of American Surnames for all surnames). I guess we all have to borrow the book. - Altenmann >talk 17:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Yi (Chinese surname)#Requested move 13 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yi (Chinese surname)#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Xu (surname 徐)#Requested move 13 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Xu (surname 徐)#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:List of given names derived from fiction

Draft:List of given names derived from fiction started as a conversion from a category that was deleted. It's just been rejected at AfC. I had given it citations from most of the linked articles on the given names, but Asilvering judged that they were not in-depth, reliable, secondary or independent. It still strikes me as a list worth having – would anyone here like to work on it? – Fayenatic London 09:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It will only lead to eternal bickering. Would "Adam" or "Eve" be an acceptable entry in this list? Fram (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure many of the sources are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. The problem is they're not about the topic of the list - names first invented for fictional characters - but rather about individual names on that list. -- asilvering (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering: perhaps the template that you used should be revised, or tailored where it generates inappropriate descriptions of the issues.
I chose the sources as they confirm the criteria for inclusion in the list, i.e. that the name was invented in a work of fiction.
At least "Should You Name Your Baby Anakin? The Rising Popularity of a 'Star Wars' Baby Name" (Yahoo! Entertainment) and "So You Named Your Kid Daenerys. How's That Feel Now?" (New York Magazine) also address the topic of the list. The latter is about the dilemma of naming a child after a character in a current television series before it is known how the character finally turns out. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I would say that the template used does accurately describe the issue - there are no in-depth, reliable etc sources about the topic of the article. That NYMag article is, for example, entirely about people who named their kid Daenerys. -- asilvering (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The problem with the list is that it is an "arbitrary" invention of Wikipedians: I suspect there are no serious sources that discuss this type of names, not just individual names. Although I do find this list interesting. - Altenmann >talk 17:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I would simply have created the article with the sources you found, instead of submitting it to AfC. However, I think that if you did that now, someone would immediately nominate it for deletion, simply because some people don't think it should exist. I don't find there to be a problem with creating a list of things that can be individually documented using reliable, independent sources, just because you don't have a source that discusses such a list. That seems like formalism, perhaps pedantry. The list isn't "arbitrary" as long as it has reasonably clear criteria for inclusion: at least one reliable source has to state that a particular name was invented or at least popularized by a particular work of fiction (and not be clearly mistaken about this, in which case the source would not be reliable for that point). I would not include mythology under the heading of "fiction"; Adam, Eve, and other figures in the Bible do not have names coined by an author in the sense of this list. "Stella" can be included even though it's just Latin for "star", if nobody was using it as a name prior to said fictional use. If you can find any sources that would help overcome the objections of the other editors, you should probably use them to create the list instead of relying on someone else's judgment as to whether such an article should exist. P Aculeius (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I am old to remember history: this rule you are calling "like formalism" was in response to a flurry of articles List of songs about New York, List of songs about weather, List of songs about suicide, List of songs about tequila (my fav :-), List of songs about love, ad inf.... See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather. --Altenmann >talk 05:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not referring to a rule. I'm referring to an argument that isn't a rule, and which didn't carry the day in the linked discussion. That 2007 discussion was closed without consensus, and it consisted entirely of lists of songs about various subjects, some of which still exist, though you wouldn't guess either of those things from your post. There isn't a rule stating that lists of things can't exist unless a reliable source describes them as a specific class of things. The main argument against including the various lists of songs was that they constituted indiscriminate collections of data, although a careful reading of WP:NOT provides only examples that are inapposite to that situation.
I would say that nothing useful can be drawn from that discussion here, because A) it is a very old discussion about a very different topic; B) the result was inconclusive; C) the principle argument was not the one being made here. Here the question is whether a list of personal names that appear to have been invented (as names) for works of fiction, only to become accepted and used as names by the general public, is sufficiently distinct as a topic and relevant to the subject of anthroponymy to remain an article. If it is, then this strikes me more as a "you don't have to cite that the sky is blue" situation: you don't have to cite that the contents of a list of things—all of which obviously fit the criteria to be in that list—constitute a list of those things.
If the phenomenon of invented names becoming popularly regarded as legitimate names to give people is itself noteworthy—and I think it is—then a list of such names is fair game for Wikipedia, although it could perhaps be merged with an article about that phenomenon, if one exists or is created. A stand-alone list would be suitable if the two together become too large to maintain as a single article. But for the time being, that may provide an "out": I'm sure there must be some sources discussing invented names in general, with or without a list. Such an article would surely be encyclopedic, and this list could be merged with it. P Aculeius (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim (surname)

Ther is a discussion regarding Kim (surname) that may be of interest to this project. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Anthroponymy of formerly enslaved Africans in the Americas

This topic is missing from the discussion 83.42.143.2 (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this topic is discussed in literature? --Altenmann >talk 21:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Japanese#Requested move 31 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Japanese#Requested move 31 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy/Archive_9&oldid=1254570942"