Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy

Beginning

Hello to everyone that is joining this WikiProject.

I had originally proposed this WikiProject months ago, but I only recently decided to set something up this past week. I think this project is necessary for Wikipedia because of the large amount of articles currently on wikipedia that deal with human names and the lack of coordination among these articles.

Please feel free to take as much responsibility in managing this project as you want because I am probably too busy to helm this project myself. Also please state below any ideas you have that you think will help improve Anthroponymy-related articles. Best regards, Remember 02:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completed first entry on my first WikiProject

Hello. After 6 months of Wiki editing, I decided to make Anthroponymy my first WikiProject. I started today by editing the Woodson article, and creating the Woodson (surname) article. Had a problem with a Bot sending me an error message in the midst of this process, but I think I overcame the problem, though the Bot's error message is still lurking on my Talk page. Can an Admin or someone with more experience on Wikiprojects take a look at what I did with Woodson and Woodson (surname), then give me feedback? Thank you. Rosiestep (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thanks for joining the project. Remember (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you, Remember. Rosiestep (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, welcome! Just splitting the list of people with the surname from the disambiguation page is useful in itself. Here are some suggestions for further improvement as requested:

Either delete the redlinked line, or search for the subject and see if it exists under another name e.g. without the middle name or "Jr" in which case you can fix it, or make sure that the subject has been added at Requested Articles.
Add nationality for everyone, and the years of birth & death where given in the main article (see note 1 below). Zacharias (surname) is an example that I worked on.
Reduce links to one per entry. This is standard style for disambiguation pages, and I think it is best in lists of names too.
Simplify the heading "first, middle or nickname" to "given name".
In the case of Woodson, as the given names are a 'recycled' use of the surname, I'd have put them on the same page as the surnames and titled it Woodson (name). You can still do this yourself, using the "move" tab at the top to rename the new article you just created. Give it both templates, {{given name}} as well as {{surname}}.
When you are editing, there is a panel (below) with a list of accented characters, so you can enter André properly instead of relying on the redirect.
Add something on the original meaning of the surname, even though it's perhaps not very interesting in this case e.g. son of [[Wood (surname)|Wood]]?

Note 1: If you don't use WP:POPUPS yet, I highly recommend it. You can preview the start of articles and copy info from there without actually opening the page. POPUPS is also very useful for one-click reverting of vandalism, and you will have plenty of chances to do that if you put Name pages on your watchlist!
Thanks again! - Fayenatic (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you, Fayenaticlondon. This was very helpful! No, I haven't used WP:POPUPS but I'm ready to try new wiki things. Rosiestep (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lists of people with a given name

I recently discovered that Benjamin (disambiguation) currently lists several dozen people of that given name, both real and fictional, while Benjamin (name) also has a handful of examples. In my opinion only one of the two pages should be used to list such entries. Is there a policy on this? Btyner (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No formal policy here as of yet. But we should probably develop one with work from the disambiguation project. Remember (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a policy for disambiguation pages: they should only list people who are widely known simply by the name in the article title, in this case Benjamin. It's at WP:MOSDAB#Given names or surnames. I've moved the list of people with that surname to Benjamin (name). I have no problem with given name and surname sharing a page; perhaps we could discuss that here. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some follow-up work to Benjamin, Benjamin (name), and Benjamin (disambiguation). Let me know if there's a problem. Thanks. Rosiestep (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. Keep it up. Remember (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for joining this project! As for the list that one of you removed from the disambiguation page: it seems to me that people known by that name alone, e.g. rulers & saints, should be on BOTH the disambiguation page and the name page. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the topic of this heading: we should probably formulate an indicative policy as to when to have a list of people with a name, and when to have none as it would be too long - e.g. the list just removed from Jennifer (given name). There are others which are much longer, sectioned by vocation, e.g. David (name). - Fayenatic (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Any proposals? Remember (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that if there are many existing articles about people with given name X, then

1. A separate article called List of people named X should be created to list them

2. X, X (name), X (disambiguation), etc if they exist should not include such a list but instead link to List of people named X

Note that this proposal is completely independent of the existence of X (name), though I would conjecture that it is rare for a name to be notable enough to warrant its own article but yet fail the hypothesis in bold above. Btyner (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing a few "name" pages and the biggest flaw with them seems to be overuse of listing people with that name. It does make sense in some places to have a list (for example, the list of mainly popes in Gregory), but generally for any name that is at all common it's far too cumbersome and non-encyclopedial. Jennifer is absolutely way too popular a name to distinguish notability on. A search for "Jennifer" of the site in Google gives 25,400 results [1]. How could we possibly determine who is notable enough to be included on the Jennifer page? Further, one guideline does give some indication of the intent on this specific point: "unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare)". While that clearly is speaking of creating pages for specific people, the same justification can be applied here, I think. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that rather than the "list of" suggestion, the solution is already in place and used in the Jennifer (given name) article: Special:Prefixindex/Jennifer. This works perfectly for given names, though not so much for surname, which may have post-name additions (Jr., III, Esq., etc.) --Kickstart70-T-C 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should make a page specifically listing all the people with a name that starts with a certain given name because that is taking care of with the link to the special prefix finder. I do think we should have some notable people on a page but I'm not sure what criteria that we can set to limit the list. Remember (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection, your honour. A list, when completed, mentions the person's years of birth & death, nationality and occupation. Special:Prefixindex cannot do any of those things (except for the cases where some of this is in the article title}. In my view the lists can be useful and encyclopedic, e.g. for someone looking for David whatshisname who led the Liberal party. Also, for the most common names, Prefixindex can extend over multiple pages, so a list is the only way to present the most notable people with a popular given name. I accept that this requires us to come up with indicative criteria for inclusion. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order...if someone with a specific name is notable enough for prefixindex to work, then the notable-ness has already been justified, making a list of those people superfluous. --Kickstart70-T-C 20:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do like Template:lookfrom as an automatic solution; however, doesn't this also include redirects? Btyner (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of One-Name Studies

Hi all, last year a discussion broke out on the Guild of One-Name Studies members forum about Wikipedia and the work that could be done to improve articles about the names that people are studying. Is it worth returning the courtesy and providing a link to their website from this project page? They could prove a useful resource for adding information to some articles. -- Roleplayer (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be beneficial to include a link-out from the Main Project page. I think that records found via searches against old record sets (e.g. this interface would be useful in providing citations for verification of facts. Would this information on the origin of a surname withstand scrutiny as a reliable source? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer that question myself, being biased towards the organisation (having suggested it in the first place). I would say though that most members of GOONS are somewhat more reliable than other online sources because in the majority of cases they have actually traced the lines back to their origin, rather than just relying on hearsay evidence as to a name's origin. The profiles are not required to have references however, which is a downside. -- Roleplayer (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be eminently useful to communicate to the Guild that their including references in pages like the summary page I linked above would significantly increase the palatability of their site content to the stricter Wikipedia editors who are sticklers for tracing back to published sources. The truthiness of those published sources, though an important matter, is largely not in scope for WP:V or WP:NOTE consideration (yeah, there's a looooong conversation in that one). Their existence and potential availability is what counts. There is the matter of "trusted reliability" too, though. For instance, most blogs are like poison to people who live for citations ... but how can you dismiss a blog entry such as this from the Wall Street Journal (just the top body, not the comments). So if people have reason to believe that the content of the site is reliable, such as being overseen by eminent name historians ... who are named ... then the matter of internal references becomes much less of an issue. Thanks for considering these comments. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second everything Ceyockey said. Remember (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Guild of One-Name Studies added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/External name resources. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

standardisation

Hello, there are a few things I think should be agreed upon to create more uniformity throughout name pages. The articles themselves generally are of 4 possible forms: A, B (name), C (given name), D (surname). There doesn't seem to be a need for any more than that, as a name would be either first, last, or used as both. Form A really shouldn't be used as a name page anyway. It would be better to save as a disambiguation page. The other three need to be condensed somehow as well. Whenever a name is used as both first and last it seems we would eventually join those articles, so I suggest doing away with (given name) and (surname) altogether, and just use articles titled "NAME (name)".

Another aspect that can be quite ambiguous is the two infoboxes. Someone else had mentioned they were unsure of the difference between 'region' and 'origin'. I consider 'origin' to be sort of depreciated and just use 'language' and 'region'. I find the difference between 'alternative spelling' and 'related names' to be even more unclear. To make it more complicated those names are usually listed in the See Also section of the page. Nicknames could be the same too. 'derived' seems similar to 'meaning'.

I also noticed that only french, finnish, swedish, and norweigan names are sub-categorised by gender. We could probably modify the template so that categories would be based on that information. That way any infobox that says Gender-female Language-spanish name will add it to "Spanish feminine given names", for example.

Anyway, I have lots more ideas and questions, so I'd feel silly going through and changing a bunch of articles only to have to go redo it all again once it is determined how it should be presented. Feedback is appreciated. Until then I will keep my edits at a less-than-renovating level. Thanks for reading all that. Quickmythril (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All good ideas and great points. And this project is definitely designed to help organize these articles and solve the exact problems that you are mentioned. As for your ideas, I would propose that you formally propose what you want to do and then have people vote or comment on them for about a month (so people are given time to respond) and then if people are in favor of the idea we will adopt it and implement the changes. What do others think? Remember (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NAME (disambiguation) pages

Should the list of people with a particular name be listed at the name page or the disambiguation page. I vote on the name page, that way all named related content can be taken off of the dab. It could say: Jack, can mean several things. Go here for information associated with Jack as a name. For example i just found Velazquez (disambiguation). I think most of that should just be moved to Velázquez (name) (note the accent) or surname if we must. Quickmythril (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree- I agree with this idea and would support the implementation of this change. I would add that I think if there are 2 to 3 that are very prominent (such as a Madonna disambiguation page with both the artist and the Virgin Mary) then those could be listed and then the rest would say see the name page.Remember (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with implementation of Bladdibop (name), including:

Moving Bladdibop (given name) and Bladdibop (surname) to Bladdibop (name).

Merging given name/surname when applicable, as in James (name) and James (surname), with exceptions, per below. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree Velazquez (disambiguation) → Velázquez (name), assuming 'Velázquez' is the most common variant or the root version of the surname
the principles here are a) use (name) in favor of (disambiguation) and b) use proper unicode in titles
agree in many cases that Bladdibop (surname) and Bladdibop (given name) could be moved individually to Bladdibop (name) or merged to same
where we might want to keep 'surname' and 'given name' separate is where the origins of each are clearly distinguishable. The principle here is to apply the same reasoning to 'surname' and 'given name' that is being applied in the case of objections to the merger of Jacob (name) and James (name) (see the talk page of each article).

Agree that surname and given name articles can remain separate where origins are clearly distinguishable, but with recommendation that we re-address this in 6 months, after gaining experience moving other articles to Bladdibop (name).--Rosiestep (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unisex vs. both

Is there a difference? Karen (name) is both masculine and feminine, however in different cultures. Would unisex only apply to names that a particular culture felt appropriate for both genders? That might be unnecessary though, as many people choose names from a culture other than their own. Still I feel funny applying adding Karen to the unisex category. Maybe just because I have never heard it as a boys' name before... Quickmythril (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot my main concern! How do we fit multiple sets of information in an infobox? Karen has several languages, regions, meanings, etc... Maybe a different infobox for what can be determined to be each seperate unrelated usage of the same name? (I already feel like the infoboxes are so huge as it is. Hm, smaller font?) Quickmythril (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to any proposals to reform the infobox. Best to try to do a mock change and show it and then we can see how we like it. Remember (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pike & Pike (surname)

Hello, Would one or two of you mind weighing in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Pike & Pike (surname), please? Thanks. I'd appreciate this project's pov. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor is a member of this WikiProject, but I've weighed in as well ... I don't think I said anything directly contradictory to Emperor's words. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great thanks - it is a handy summary. I have only just joined up so it is good to get it nicely boiled down, as it is what I'd thought from reading around (and is also solid common sense) - surname pages tend to fall out of the remit of the disambiguation project (at least as far as the MOS goes) and fall more into the purview of this project but there is clearly going to be a lot of cross-over and it is a bit like a set index in that it takes the standard disambiguation page and allows for more flexibility - this just pushes it further, hopefully in the direction of a full-blown article (which still works well for the purposes of disambiguation - as the footer makes clear). I'm sure there are also minor issues that need thrashing out but that all seems good to me. (Emperor (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Template

There is a heated ongoing discussion regarding the use of external links in this template that can be found at Wikipedia talk:External links#Input needed. Please review the proposals and add your two cents. Remember 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why is there an external link in the template? Its almost an advert for the 'behindthename' website, and the only piece of information it links to is a number.--Celtus (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A similar question crossed my mind when I first saw the template. I would prefer to see the 'behindthename' link removed from the template. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I found a better site that provides more than just a number. Actually it provides as much as most of the name articles we have! Quickmythril (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me rephrase that: I would prefer to not see an external link added to the name infoboxes (any of them), period. I see that User:UnitedStatesian considers it linkspam ... I don't think it is so much linkspam as it is addition of an external link that chooses one from among the hundred or so name sites out there to support. Further, just adding an external link to an article does not improve the article; in fact your statement "it provides as much as most of the name articles we have" suggests that perhaps you would feel that improving the articles would not really be necessary if the link were added due to the accessibility of the information at that site. That is the conclusion that many less-than-diligent editors would come to (I'm not accusing you of that .. rather, I'm pointing out why an external link can be a negative incentive to article improvement). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it isn't linkspam. The template promotes behindthename website by name. The only info the link contains is one number sometimes two. Plus when you click the link there are ads on the page.

Whoever made the template wants readers to visit that particular website for a single number - when it would be a whole lot simpler, and less tacky, to include the ranking in the actual article and cite it like any other reference. The behindthename link belongs with the other resources listed on the main project page, not in the template.--Celtus (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually not been following the discussion regarding external links, though I am aware that it is something often misused here in the Wiki. I basically just changed the external website, because it was a quick change and is more useful as a database for several of the often-empty infobox fields. Now, (at least until they decide to remove it) any name I am editing, I can quickly check that page and fill in some missing tidbits. The way I see it, once we get a better handle on all of the name articles, every stub-class should have more than what is at babynames.com. So to me it is a positive incentive, almost a minimum requirement for any name article. I hope that any editors, present or future, reading this, would take the initiative and update empty boxes. Also, I was thinking, perhaps there would be a way to fill empty infobox fields using a bot... Quickmythril (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at your contributions, so I would ask whether you are including the external link in the infobox among the references when you pull information from the site for inclusion in an article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who originally designed the templates and included the link to "behind the name". I wanted to include popularity information about a name in the template, but I realized that including popularity information about a name was tricky. This was because you had to limit specifically what country you were referring too, and what time period you were referring to. Because there is an infinite way to slice up the popularity of names, I thought it would be better just to have an link to a site that would compile that information in a quick and easy readable format. I searched around the web and the best I found was "behind the name". I am in NO WAY affiliated with that site. I just thought it did the best job of describing the popularity of given names and surnames. I didn't see a problem linking to this site since other templates link to external sites that provide good information (i.e., imdb database links in movie templates). So that was my thinking. I am happy to defer to consensus if people don't like it, but I think we should do something so that people can easily know the popularity of a name. Remember (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now i kind of feel like i insulted you, sorry Remember. You're right it is tricky and hard to make simple. I understand your point.--Celtus (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Support no embedded external links in anthroponymy infoboxes as no external website, including behindthename, currently provides a repository for names of all nationalities, as, for instance, ethnologue.com does for all languages. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also support removing the external links in the templates for the reasons mentioned.--Celtus (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on input from Rosiestep. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would further suggest adding a note to the Templates section on the main Project page that establishes this as a Project Guideline. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name article title convention proposal

Initial consensus appears to be working with Version 3 as the base to move forward from
Current discussion focusing on adding onto Version 3 to reach a broader guideline

I'm soliciting input on page naming convention in order to reduce present-day variety. You may want to review WP:NAME and these examples first:

Benjamin, Benjamin (name), Benjamin (disambiguation)
James, James (name), James (surname), James (disambiguation)
Patrick/disambiguation, Patrick (given name), Patrick (surname)
Alexander/given name/surname, Alexander (disambiguation)
Joseph/disambiguation, Joseph (name), Joseph (given name), Joseph (surname)
Johnson, Johnson (surname), Johnson (disambiguation)
Conner/disambiguation, Conner (surname)
Washington/U.S. state, Washington (disambiguation), Washington (name)/given name/surname
Fraser/disambiguation, Fraser (surname)/a set index article/list, Clan Fraser --Rosiestep (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An initial comment: There appears to be room for a convention Wikipedia:Naming conventions (personal names). Would you agree? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good idea, but "reducing variety" should not be a goal in itself. There must be better reasons than just an aversion to variety. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Let me rephrase. My reference point was earlier dialogue regarding discontinuing, with some exceptions, the practice of Bladdibop (given name) and Bladdibop (surname), and opting for Bladdibop (name) instead. Whether or not we operationalize that, it's obvious that anthroponymy articles do not follow a naming convention. While Wikipedia:Naming conventions addresses many issues, it doesn't address anthroponymy article naming conventions to the extent that we have variety in naming anthroponymy dab pages, name pages, surname pages, etc., rather than a standard.

Example1:

Johnson, Johnson (surname) Johnson (disambiguation)
Conner/disambiguation, Conner (surname)

Example2:

Benjamin (disambiguation), Benjamin (name)/given name/surname, Benjamin/origin
Joseph/disambiguation, Joseph (name)/origin, Joseph (given name), Joseph (surname)

Example3:

Peter/disambiguation, Peter (first name)/includes fict characters
Paul/disambiguation, Paul (male name)/incl surnames/fict characters
Mary (disambiguation)/incl fict characters, Mary

My goal is to further dialogue regarding naming variety vs. naming orderliness/convention. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So let's propose a general rule that we can go by and see if it gets support and then change all the articles to reflect the change. I would propose the following:

Remember's Page name conventions proposal

Proposal - If an article about a name is notable enough for its own article then it should be named as follows: the name discussed followed by name in parentheses (e.g., "William (name)"). The scope of this article will be to discuss the use and history of this name and can include a discussion of both the use of the name as a given name and a surname. If a page becomes too big to discuss both a name as both a given name and a surname, then the articles should be split into two articles one for the given name and one for the surname (e.g., "William (given name)" and "William (surname)"). A disambiguation page should exist for any name that could cause confusion about what the reader may be looking for and should be titled like this "William (disambiguation)." Remember (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Remember (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - input provided below at #Remember's proposal ceyockey comments. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Cautious support~~Oppose. ~~The reason I'm cautious on this is that~~ If the pagename "name" redirects to "name (name)", this makes it easy for POV-pushers to change the redirect to point to their favourite person by that name. I think this is why, after I created Hillary (name), another editor moved it to Hillary. It may be better to locate the Name article at the pagename without (name), if that is not already taken by a notable character or a disambiguation page. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to Proposal (this can appear immediately after the end of the proposal as written) — Redirects (cases where {{R from surname}} can be used) should be named without a "(name)" suffix to the redirect title. For example, Viscardi→Michael Viscardi, not Viscardi (name)→Michael Viscardi. If the Redirect is converted to an article, the naming convention for name articles will apply, in which case the original redirect would remain a redirect: Viscardi→Viscardi (name). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Remember (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but it's confusing. Suggested rewording:

A page titled by the name alone should also exist. This should be used as follows.
(i) An article about a notable person known by that name alone, in cases where most readers (or editors adding links) will expect to find the article on that person by the name alone.

(ii) A disambiguation page, in cases where people are likely to search or link using the name alone, but more than one person or other meaning may be intended.

(iii) Otherwise, a redirect to the (name) page; {{R from surname}} may be used.

~~The reason I'm cautious is to do with the main proposal. If the main proposal is accepted, then this follows. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose. If there is no article about a most notable person who is known by the name alone, nor a disambiguation page, then the article about the name should be titled simply by the Name. In these cases, any qualifier in brackets would be redundant; however, in case it is used as a search term, a redirect could be added in these cases from "Title (name)" to "Title". - Fayenatic (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember's proposal ceyockey comments

I will try to dissect point by point, some points I am in agreement with and some not.

If an article about a name is notable enough for its own article then it should be named as follows: the name discussed followed by name in parentheses (e.g., "William (name)").
- Support - this would be the baseline for a new name article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, except that there is currently no set way to determine if a name is notable enough. How do other lists (books, websites) decide inclusion? I think as long as a valid source of use as a personal name can be provided then no name should be removed for lack of notability. For example Lukyan is listed on lots of websites, but it's not really notable. Quickmythril (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Alternative spellings such as Lukyan should be merged and redirected with the more common forms, in this case Lucien and Lucian. This approach seems to work fine at Zechariah (given name) and Zacharias (surname), and I would argue that it is even necessary in cases where there are alternative transliterations into English. A form with a clear national origin such as Lukyan can keep its national category on the redirect. Merger may also be helpful for more notable names, such as Sara which has been merged into Sarah (female name). I suggest that merger also produces a more notable article, e.g. Aaronson including Aaronsohn. Hmm, maybe I'm getting too far off-topic; we might want a separate discussion later about the optimum approach to merges & splits of related names. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I think this is a discussion that goes beyond considering the current proposal, and it is something that needs discussion. Personally, I do not think such mergers are in the best interests of Wikipedia; for instance, I don't think the Sara/Sarah merger was a good idea at first glance. Consider Smith (surname), Smithe, Smit and Smyth, which would all be merged into Smith (surname) (not to mention a couple dozen additional variants) given your content proposal. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Sara/Sarah merger is certainly unfinished, and it may be better to reverse that one, as Sara has more derivations, and both were sufficiently notable on their own. It was a bad example. However, I would defend the combined page Zacharias (surname) incorporating Zechariah, Zachariah, Zacarias, Zaccaria, Zakaria, Zakariya, etc; and I am open to merging it with Zechariah (given name). - Fayenatic (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - this would be the baseline for name articles, and would require changing those name articles that are named differently. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment1 - Most, but not all, Korean surnames follow the naming convention of "William (Korean name)". Is there a subject-matter expert within our membership who can comment on how WP:KOREA chose its surname name convention? WP:KOREA should have an opportunity for comment after we’ve had some discussion. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment2 - This will have some affect on the Scottish Clans wikiproject but I don't believe there would be opposition. Thoughts? Scottish Clans should to have an opportunity for comment after we've had some discussion. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Scope recommendation - I think we want to exclude disambiguation-type name pages that fall under Template:hndis. At least in the beginning, we should probably scope to "single-name study" fodder, but I am not sure how to say that without invoking the term "single-name study", which our work would not be a study and the term would need explanation. Thoughts? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support excluding disambiguation-type name pages that fall under Template:hndis during first 90 days of implementation period, then re-evaluate. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support - Pages like John Young, could perhaps link to John (name) & Young (name), but the article would be more the domain of the Dab Project. There are pages with T:hndis like Hedwig & Micah that should become name pages eventually however. Quickmythril (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support- Remember (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support. Disambiguation pages should be split from anthroponymy pages. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this article will be to discuss the use and history of this name and can include a discussion of both the use of the name as a given name and a surname.
- Support - however, I think this could be shortened to "A "(name)" article would include discussion of both given name and surname/family name usage."
- Support and agree that only (name) should cover all uses as a personal name. Any other uses would be on a disambiguation page. Quickmythril (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ceyockey revision --Rosiestep (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a page becomes too big to discuss both a name as both a given name and a surname, then the articles should be split into two articles one for the given name and one for the surname (e.g., "William (given name)" and "William (surname)").
- Oppose - based on the criterion for split. The primary reason why a "name" article would get too long (based on what I have seen so far) is the inclusion of the instances list of biography links. I would recommend that the solution for "If a page becomes too big" would be to offload the instances list(s) first. I think the primary criterion for splitting along the surname/given name divide is demonstration that the two have different origins ... or different enough to be only indirectly related. To say this another way, technical issues related to usability of Wikimedia software should not be a driver for splitting given name from surname; rather, semantic or etymological issues should drive this split.
- An orthogonal way of looking at this - a very different way of looking at this is to consider only using "(name)" when there is evidence that surname and given name have similar origins, or one is a derivative of the other. In this scenario, the default would be "(surname)" and "(given name)" and only evidence suggesting common origin would drive a merger to "(name)". I think both the evidence-based merger and evidence-based split scenarios are viable ... but my gut says to go with the evidence-based split scenario. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as well. All uses of a name should be at one page. Having Kari (japanese) and Kari (germanic) would be too complicated and break the (name) naming conventions. If there are multiple uses of a name it should have multiple sections and corresponding infoboxes on the same (name) page. Quickmythril (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Revision recommendation - If a page becomes too long, then the nameholders should be split into a separate article in accordance with WP:SETINDEX. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page should exist for any name that could cause confusion about what the reader may be looking for.... Support - this is simply acknowledging that there are cases where disambiguation is needed....and should be titled like this "William (disambiguation). Oppose - I think this should be worded something like "...and should be titled in accordance with WP:MOSDAB." --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Support revision- good pointRemember (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Support revision, but "... in accordance with WP:DAB#NAME". MOSDAB refers to that section and has no further content on naming. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - WP:WPDAB should have an opportunity for comment. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Support Fayenatic's revision. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Current proposed policy based upon comments aboveI tried to synthesize the information above into our current policy that has the support of all members. Feel free to revise it to include information that you think has been agreed to by consensus. Remember (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] REVISED PROPOSED GUIDELINE - If an article about a name is notable enough for its own article then it should be named as follows: the name discussed followed by name in parentheses (e.g., "William (name)"). A "(name)" article would include discussion of both given name and surname/family name usage and history. A disambiguation page should exist for any name that could cause confusion about what the reader may be looking for and should be titled in accordance with WP:DAB#NAME.Support --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment My feeling is that we should not be proposing this as policy, but as guideline; as a guideline, we still have significant leeway in implementing good faith variations while reaching a mature, fully qualified, (almost) universally applicable naming convention, which can take months of active application — though I do think that this covers >90% of cases, which is essential for a guideline. If that is accepted, then it comes down to what introduction box to use, such as Template:Style-guideline (as used on MOS:BIO) or Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline (as used on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft)) or some other intro-box. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] P.S. My feeling is that the first "official act" under this should be moving Smith (surname) to Smith (name). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I support these comments. Remember (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Neutral note: if that "official act" does go ahead, might as well merge People with the surname Smith at the same time. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Hold on... Rosie was right, we should first obtain consensus at WP:WPDAB. The proposal does not follow existing guidance at WP:MOSDAB#Given names or surnames, which currently refers to long lists of people frequently referred to simply by the single name being moved to Title (name), Title (surname) and/or Title (given name) pages as disambiguation pages. I'm not aware that there are any such pages; if there are none, then let's ask WP:WPDAB to release all three or at least Title (name) for our use as non-DAB pages. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I think the use of (name) where it would be redundant goes against common practice. It does not seem necessary to use it purely for consistent naming of anthroponymy articles. (i) If there is a most notable person known by this name alond, then they get the article with that name. In this case there may also be Title (disambiguation) and Title (name). (ii) If there is no such person, then the disambiguation page has priority for the main title. The article on the name should be at Title (name). (iii) If there is no need for a disambiguation page, then the article on the name should be simply titled by the name. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Refocusing discussionRecap of versions considered to dateVersion 1If an article about a name is notable enough for its own article then it should be named as follows: the name discussed followed by name in parentheses (e.g., "William (name)"). The scope of this article will be to discuss the use and history of this name and can include a discussion of both the use of the name as a given name and a surname. If a page becomes too big to discuss both a name as both a given name and a surname, then the articles should be split into two articles one for the given name and one for the surname (e.g., "William (given name)" and "William (surname)"). A disambiguation page should exist for any name that could cause confusion about what the reader may be looking for and should be titled like this "William (disambiguation)."Version 2If an article about a name is notable enough for its own article then it should be named as follows: the name discussed followed by name in parentheses (e.g., "William (name)"). A "(name)" article would include discussion of both given name and surname/family name usage and history. A disambiguation page should exist for any name that could cause confusion about what the reader may be looking for and should be titled in accordance with WP:DAB#NAME.Suggested way forwardConsidering the purpose of this effortLooking through the discussion, I think I would say that the purpose at hand is not simply "Consistency". Rather, I think that one purpose is to "Avoid Poor Titles" for name articles. We have general agreement that...Benjamin (disambiguation) is a type of Poor Title to Avoid...for a name article. Purging the set of name articles of these titles would be one worthy goal that could take some time. Also, it would not be crazy to simply begin with a very simple statement based on this as a proposed name article title guideline, which would be worded something likeVersion 3If a name (surname or given name) is notable enough for its own article, the title of this article shall never be Name (disambiguation). Rather, such an article should be at Name, Name (name), Name (surname) or Name (given name) depending upon the content of the article. For advice on the titling of name articles, consult WikiProject Anthroponymy. I think that a notification to WikiProject Disambiguation with a good faith period for input provided (somewhere between 5 and 14 days ... need to settle on a period) would be good, but I don't think that this would garner any controversy among the members of that WikiProject because it would appear to be consistent with discussions that have taken place there previously (documentation on Template:Hndis; the "Listing people with that surname or given name, or not?" and "Lists again" at WP:MOSDAB; and the discussion leading to a 'keep' consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica (given name); among other discussions). I think that 'Version 3 — Proposal' is a step forward, though it does not go the full distance to satisfy the range of discussion represented in this thread. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. I don't consider Benjamin (disambiguation) a name article, but it seems that you do. Are you saying that because Benjamin is a name, is it not acceptable for its (Hndis) disambiguation page to be named Benjamin (disambiguation)? I don't see anything wrong with it. This project has its separate anthroponymy page, Benjamin (name). There needs to be a DAB page to resolve inadequate links & searches, and, as Benjamin is already taken, the DAB's long name seems fine for its purpose. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]I read this differently. I thought the first point about "Benjamin (disambiguation) is a title to avoid" meant it was a bad title for an anthroponymy page; Benjamin (name) is much better. Hence, the family of Benjamin pages seems to be broadly in compliance with the proposal. because Benjamin (disambiguation) is, appropriately, an hndis page. We could/should remove the one sentence at the beginning of Benjamin (disambiguation) about the origins of the name, but that's a minor issue for now. Am I missing some subtleties here? Entirely possible, of course. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]↵ outdent It is as AndrewHowse interpreted — I realize that Benjamin (disambiguation) and Benjamin (name) are properly titled as both DAB and Anthroponymy WikiProjects suggest. Maybe a better statement would be...Benjamin (disambiguation) is a type of Title to Avoid for Anthroponymy articles...the "Anthroponymy articles" wikilink targeting Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Scope, which happens to be a missing section on the main Project page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Silence descendsThis discussion seems to have come to a screeching halt. Any thoughts on how to restart the engine and move forward a notch? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]Perhaps this is how consensus makes itself known? No further comments? --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] This policy works for me. But we need to clearly state when it should be William (name), William (given name) or William (surname). Remember (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] OK — if I am correct in the notion that the minimalist Version 3 is the acceptable base version, then I agree that we should formulate some name vs. given name vs. surname guideline to include. (to continue in a new section) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]Selecting title qualifier (working forward from V.3)in-page link to section with Version 3 for referenceIt will likely be easiest to move forward along the lines of "what do we agree is bad" than "what do we agree is good", which was the approach used to reach Version 3. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]Stand-alone lists of namesSometimes, as in the case of James (name) and James (surname), a name origin article is given the "(name)" qualifier, while a separate list of biographical instances is given the "(surname)" or "(given name)" qualifier as appropriate. If we consider the existing naming convention for stand-alone lists (which James (surname) qualifies as), the first line of this section reads: "The name or title of the list should simply be List of _ _ (for example list of Xs)." It goes on to specifically address lists of people. Based on this guideline (not policy), it would seem that a list with the title James (surname) should not be used; rather an appropriate title might be List of people sharing the surname James or more generically List of people named James to include both surname and given name instances. Thus, I would propose the first addition onto the base of Version 3 to be: Version 3—List-titling additionA stand-alone list of people sharing a name should be titled according to list naming guidelines and have the form of "List of people ___".--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]Example: Recently split List of people sharing the surname Coker from Coker (disambiguation); classified as List-Low with WikiProject banner. The creation of a surname article for Coker is unlikely, and using this name format avoids confusion between content rich and content free name articles. Also, should a name article be created, this title could be easily moved to a more appropriate title for expansion (e.g. move to Coker (name)). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]Red links on given name list and disambiguation pagesIs there a policy on these? Sometimes they are kids/aspiring actors trying to get themselves into Wikipedia, sometimes they are legitimate notable people that don't have an article about them yet. My opinion is that if you don't have an article about the person, there is no need to list them on one of these pages, even if they are notable, so they should be removed until they link to something useful. I'd be interested in hearing other opinions though. MrChupon (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Eh after thinking some more, I suppose if they are notable, they should probably stay, I'll continue to check for notability when cleaning up these pages. I'll leave this here should people like to discuss it, though - MrChupon (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]I once redlinked all of the unlinked cast and crew in the infobox of Fight Club. It was reverted and he posted a comment at User_talk:Quickmythril#Re:_Redlinks. Since then my personal general rule has been blue stays, red goes, again unless there is notability or another exception. I usually try to find an article at an alternate spelling before delinking. Maybe a legitimate edit could receive a note on their talkpage suggesting they make at least a stub before linking... -Quickmythril (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]The trend in this WikiProject is toward treatment of names with articles containing lists rather than lists alone. The red-link question and a related question of whether or not a name article should contain (directly or as a split) a comprehensive list of people sharing the name should be interpreted in light of the three main types of articles that exist: articles, simple lists and redirects. This isn't an answer, but is the way I think we should think about the problem. There has been vigorous debate in WikiProject Disambiguation over the years about the "including red-links" question. This (ongoing) debate has led to Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Red_links as a statement of the guideline for disambiguation articles. I think we should consider this as a starting point on which to build a red-link guide for name articles. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Thanks Ceyockey.. I wasn't aware you could do "what links here" on a red link. It seems thats at least another valueble tool in determining if the red link is a valid placeholder for a real article, or just vanity spamming of name pages. - MrChupon (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] If I put a red-link onto a disambiguation page, I add a  indicating the article that I found the instance at. I never add a red-link 'cold' but only if it is needed to provide disambiguation at one or more target articles. That doesn't exactly apply to the name-articles case, I know. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Format for lists of peopleAs some of you have likely noticed, I have been imposing a particular style of list for people on Surname and Given name articles. This list format is quite different from standard list formatting and was designed to provide information that is related to the aim of name articles to speak to the origin and history of the topic name. I have done enough of this formatting now to think it is time to bring up the format for debate and to discuss the pros and cons of various list formats so that we might as a WikiProject settle on a recommended though not exclusive style (moving toward a WP:MOSHUMNAME or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Name articles) ... WP:MOSNAME is already taken, unfortunately). The list style I have been putting in place (e.g. Smyth, Reed (name), Dickinson (name))Section title as "Notable people sharing the XXX surname" or "Notable people sharing the YYY given name" Soft sections (definition-header) for centuries in the format ;Born after 1700, with a separate section starting at 1950, due to the major jump in article numbers for people born after 1950 (I don't have statistics to prove the jump) Line item format of Country of birth, Lifespan, Biography link, name-history relevant comment (see the name article examples noted above for line item examples) Line item order by (1) year of birth and (2) country of birthThis format differs radically from the standard name list format (e.g. pre-reformatting versions of each of the initial examples: Smyth, Reed (name), Dickinson (name))Section title variable, but along the lines of "People" or "People named XXX" Sub-sections based on letter of first name or profession Line item format of Biography link, Lifespan (optional), Profession or description of notability Line item order by either given name if a surname list or surname if a given name list.The existing primary format for lists is based on the use of the list as a navigational tool and is a revision of the disambiguation page format. I have not received any negative response on my list formatting style, but I do recognize it as a WP:BOLD implementation and likely not tasty to all readers or editors. I would like to get a sense of whether a consensus-driven list format can be arrived at. What I am concerned about is having sacrificed almost all of the navigational utility of the list in favor of serving the end of name demography. Thanks for your input and suggestions on a compromise solution. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]I'd switch the name and country, keep the sort order, add 'first name' as the third order criteria (in case of same year and country births). I like it not being sorted by name, but that should still be the first thing listed. That way you can have demographics and navigation... -Quickmythril (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] What is your thought on adding profession/reason-for-notability for the listed people? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]I have finished the next formatting iteration. See current version — compare to last list format and last standard list version. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]The tabulation, with the historical division as a coloured row across the table, is good. However, within these divisions, I strongly prefer line item order by name, and having this as the first column. For one thing, it avoids difficulties where the dates or origin are not recorded here; but I find it a more intuitive and attractive presentation anyway. For line item format, I suggest that a column for the occupation/reason for notability is very helpful in these lists. I'd keep nationality/ies in the same column, and drop the countries of birth and death. For instance, Joanna Lumley should be identified as "English actress"; for the name article, it is not important that she was born in India. Shall we paste examples here for easy reference? I propose the following line format. Combining the years of birth and death allows use of the word "born" for living people, which I prefer to "(living)".Name Born & died Nationality, occupation, & notes Born after 1400 William Smyth c.1460 - 1514 English bishop. Surname may appear as 'Smyth' or 'Smith' Born after 1900 Tommy Smyth Irish-American soccer commentator Born after 1950 Mark Smyth Born 1985 English footballer- Fayenatic (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Proposed changes:Name Born Died Nationality - Occupation - Notes Born after 1400 William Smyth c.1460 1514 English bishop. Surname may appear as 'Smyth' or 'Smith' Born after 1900 Tommy Smyth Irish-American soccer commentator Born after 1950 Mark Smyth 1985 English footballer(a) I put back the "Died" column for two reasons: I'd be delighted to stop re-writing the word "Born" (see Fayenatic's Mark Smyth "Born 1985" example directly above) on living entries, and "Born" is found at the top of the column then repeated in each subheader row. (b) The style change to "Nationality - Occupation - Notes" appears more formal. (c) The font size change to "Small" for header and subheaders is a further distinguisher from the nameholder entries. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]I'd be very happy with that too, except that I wouldn't reduce the font size in any kind of heading. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Regular font size is ok with me. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Including country of birthI should explain why I have been opting to include the countries of birth and death and migration information for a person in a name-instance list. My original reasoning was that including at least the country of birth would complement distribution information that might (or might not) be available for a name. For instance, compare Smit to Lopes to Ba (surname). Such a treatment fills a very common gap — the absence of frequency data outside of the anglosphere. The question in my mind has been, though, whether such information is misleading (I am of the opinion now that it is biased but not necessarily misleading) and how to better present such gap-filling information without crossing over into original researh (see #Skirting the boundaries of original research above). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Should name-instance Vital Statistics be included on Name pages by citation only?Ceyockey brings up an interesting point. Country of birth anchors name locality at one point in time, while country of death anchors name diaspora at a later date. Both are relevant to Name articles and, coupled with Vital Statistics' years, are, especially in list form, "raw data". But do Vital Statistics (birth/death/year/place) appear as original research if ...migration information for a person in a name-instance list does not also include Bio article Vital Statistics citation migration? One future solution would be an embedded link between Bio pages/Name pages, with Name page name-instance entries autopopulated by Bio page cited Vital Statistics. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]There are a couple of questions wrapped up in this ... Do lists that contain information found in articles linked from the list require duplication of citations? This is an issue for lists in general in Wikipedia and it has been the subject of some debate elsewhere. Though there does not seem to be a consensus presently, it does appear clear that failure to duplicate citations makes the list not viable as an 'article' when abstracted from Wikipedia as a whole, which would appear to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the GFDL licensing agreement - the violation comes in taking one editor's work in composing and supporting information with a citation and copying that information to another article without either a) carrying over authorship recognition or b) conducting one's own research against existing sources, thereby presenting a valid new attributable authorship. This fast gets into the realm of wikilawyering, but I think in the long run there will be a tide-turning in favor of citation support for aggregate lists like the Name article lists; one hopes that the development of a central citation solution that facilitates re-use of citations will be in place before the tide turns too far. Let's put it another way: If it were to become policy that lists require citations that both support inclusion of an article in the list and support inclusion of any line-item information that provides added value to the list, there will follow a wave of deletions not seen since the Userbox Wars. Further, a logical extension of such a policy would be citation support for inclusion in categories and some changes in categorization practice would need to be made (though the citation burden would rest with the article and not with the category). Does duplicating information across articles without duplicating citations constitute original research? I would argue 'technically, no', but the argument is pretty convoluted and relies on a few assumptions, chief among them being assuming good faith on the part of the editors of a biographical article that they have not conducted original research ... let's stop there, shall we? Does pulling information from what-links-here articles into a list for a red-link line item constitute original research? An example of this exists in each of Hayes (surname) (Janet Gray Hayes) and Smyth (John Smyth (1748-1811)). I was a bit hesitant to do this, but I thought it better than excluding a red-link that would appear to have a viable future as a stub and later full article. There are alternatives to what I've done, if this approach is particularly uncomfortable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Revised tableI've completed another version of the table at Smyth. The current format looks like:Name Born Died Nationality • Notability • Notes Born after 1400 William Smyth^[1] c.1460 1514 English • Anglican Bishop; Lord President of the Council of Wales and the Marches; co-founder of Brasenose College Richard Smyth (Regius Professor)^[1] c.1499 1563 English • first person to hold the office of Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford • migrated to France late in lifeAll line item information is drawn from the corresponding biographical article, though when a red-link is presented, the information has been drawn from the what-links-here article content. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] A second transformed example rests at Hayes (surname). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Text related to Redirect templatesWhile creating Template:R from given name, I noticed that the text associated with the given name and surname redirect templates and their companion categories needs updating in light of discussions and agreements we've had here over the past couple of months. This would be a relatively straightforward authoring task if someone would like to take it on. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]How notable is notable enough?Following from the discussion around a guideline for titling name articles is the question: How notable need a name be to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article? I need to think this through more before proposing something, but I wanted to toss the question out there to be tugged and toyed with nonetheless. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Test Case: Is this notable enough? → Smithe--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]No idea how we do this. I would say the top 100 first and last names are notable and the top 100 first and last names in the English language are also definitely notable (since this is an English Encyclopedia). Outside of that limit, I don't how we draw the line. Remember (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] An input to such a "calculation" would be how much information for source material is available. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I strongly agree that reliable source material is a quantifiable predictor of notability, especially when coupled with a requirement for X number of nameholders. The top 100 (or any X) masculine given names, feminine given names, and surnames of every (or just some) English as an official language country could be construed as narrow focused (or even biased/censorship against common foreign language names) as English language wikireaders are interested in a world beyond their backyard. As for Smithe, a rare surname related to Smith, I'd consider adding it to the Smith page within a discussion of alternate spellings (if a citation supports this recommendation). --Rosiestep (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Well that would be good if the types of sources used to support notability for standard articles applied in general to name articles. Unfortunately, there are very few names for which the content of the source would be considered anything more than an incidental mention (see WP:NOTE#General notability guideline, the passage related to Significant coverage). One way to interpret this is that there should only be a very small number of name articles (a couple of dozen at most); however, I think that no members of this WikiProject would agree with enforcing the consequences of such a conclusion.What if we look at human names from the same point of view taken for inhabited places (down to hamlets, small villages, tiny but permanent settlements). The oft cited notion for places is that populated places are intrinsically notable, an argument used time and time again when an editor decides to bring a village to WP:AFD as being not notable, too small to matter. Application of a criterion like "if there is a single notable person who has a particular surname, then a redirect should be created; if there are two notable people who share a surname, then a redirect to one article should be created and both articles embellished with a cross-referencing hatnote; if there are three notable people who share a surname, then a name article is justified" would amount to a de facto statement that "human names are intrinsically significant". This would be an approach similar to that used by the DAB project, where dab pages with two entries are tolerated but not encouraged (use a hatnote instead), while dab pages with three entries are not uncommon.--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Following that pattern for DABs, I'd suggest that if a name article is only linked to one or two articles about people with that (given or family) name, and there is no strong expectation of expanding that any time soon, then it would be liable to lose an AFD debate if nominated for deletion as a non-notable name. After all, some names are made up e.g. by parents and authors, and these are generally not notable as names unless and until they are widely copied. For such articles, if there is a similar name, then the articles should be merged (or expanded if the similar name does not yet have an article). I suggest that in these cases merger is appropriate even without evidence that the names are etymologically linked; an encyclopedia can just as well contrast names as connect them, e.g. Ba (surname) (good work, by the way!). In this case, I'd recommend merging Smithe with the name/people section of Smythe. No other related names should be merged, as Smyth is significant enough to keep its own article, on the basis of the number of links to people. This goes some way towards a conclusion on our opening thoughts above about merging (see mention of Lukyan higher on this page). A possible alternative, especially for cases where there is no similar name, would be to create Lists of rare family names, perhaps split by cultural origin. A list provides context and notability, provided that the concept is notable. The frequency information might lend itself to a tabulated format, with a broad column for etymology. Going the other way, I suppose we might also think about criteria for demerging... the Ba articles seem good as they are, yet we don't like Sara merged into Sarah... can we formulate Why? - Fayenatic (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]FAR for Korean nameKorean name has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]I made a couple of minor fixes on the article and quite a few copyedits on the References; also, clustered References and External Links by language. Rosiestep (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] The outcome of the FAR and FARC were to downgrade the article from FAR to B-Class. I have placed a question about best-practice related to re-classing articles that have lost their FA classification through FAR/FARC; see Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#when articles are downgraded from FA-status (redux). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Guideline for content of the list of names associated with a name articleI think there is a matter that needs discussion and resolution before I move farther with editing lists of names on name pages.What should be the content of the list of names associated with a name article?I have had this question on my mind for some time now and have opted for the notion that at least in the case of surname articles that the list should be comprehensive rather than representative. However, this edit by User:Fayenatic london on the Hunt (surname) article brings the question to a head. The edit summary "Use disambiguation pages rather than specific individuals on various lines." highlights a difference of opinion between Fayenatic and me that needs to be resolved as a matter of consensus by the WikiProject and established as a guideline to best practice. There are essentially two ways to go here:Surname articles should include a comprehensive listing of notable people sharing the surname. If such a list becomes too long for a single page (as the case of People with the surname Smith would be), the matter of how to split or otherwise handle the unwieldy list should be discussed toward a consensus resolution. Surname articles should include only unique name instances (unique combinations of given name and surname). In cases where there are three or more articles that could be identically titled, a disambiguation page should be created and a link to that disambiguation page provided. (added late) Surname articles should contain instances of use of the surname that are relevant to understanding the origin and history of the surname. For instance, the first recorded instance of a name in a particular country's census, or instances where there is documentation that a person has altered their surname, thereby establishing a new variant lineage. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]Personally, I think that #2 is not consistent with the goals of this WikiProject nor with what appears to be an emerging consensus from the discussion above at #Format for lists of people. However, I won't assume that, but rather put it to discussion. Thanks for your input. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Actually, there is a third option for list content guidance that just occurred to me (duh). I have added it above as #3. This criterion might, in fact, exclude the inclusion of any notable person links, as none might be relevant to the article's topic. In fact, #3 would be a major change and would unambiguously and (perhaps) permanently put to rest the question of anthroponymy vs. disambiguation. Then we could defer name lists of all kinds to WikiProject Disambiguation for resolution and concentrate on the core of the WikiProject's aims. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]Actually, I don't have a clear proposal or view on this yet. I started editing Hunt (surname) because it had some incorrect links, and ended by going for a quick fix rather than spending ages on it. My initial inclination is to include the more notable persons with a name (given or surname), i.e. make a representative list rather than a comprehensive list. This was my approach when expanding Mona (name) recently, as there seem to be a lot of barely-notables by that name; I did include a geographic spread. However, I don't have a ready proposal for general selection criteria to support this approach. As mentioned above, I an quite impressed by the concise selection at this version of Sarah. I prefer this to the long list at David (name) with its TV show contestants, etc. For an example of a surname list that attempts to be comprehensive, with an alphabetical structure, including both the disambiguation pages and (some of) their members, see Collins (surname). I'm not saying it is right, but it's worth a look. Responding to the three suggestions above: Not my preference, but at least it's objective. The Sarah page was created in June 2006 and has stayed in a similar format ever since; it shows that a small selection of persons for a popular name can survive by consensus. However, whether long lists like David could be reduced, and then stay small by consensus, is another question. It would of course help if we (this project) reached consensus here on general principles. Although I did this myself on Hunt, I don't think it is desirable as a fixed rule, because some ambiguous names were held by very notable persons, e.g. John Brown or George Washington. sounds genuinely scientific i.e. pursuit of knowledge rather than random data, but could stray into original research. If we were to go with it, I'd be inclined to include real/fictional instances that added to or detracted from the popularity of the name, but this may be even more POV. Last thought: while this is a desirable section to be included in a (sur)name article (subject to reliable sources), it doesn't rule out having another section listing (the more) notable people with that name. Other thoughts?- Fayenatic (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]Web statistics toolSomething that I just came across: Wikipedia:Web statistics tool. This tool is a beta-version right now and could disappear or change at any time. I thought it might be interesting to note what articles might be in the name-article space or one-removed from that space via a hatnote. For instance (ranks are for Feb 2008)(23rd of 1000) http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Muhammad — Muhammad → Muhammad (name) (92 of 1000) http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Newton — Newton → Newton (disambiguation) → Newton (surname) (recommend amending Newton hatnote to directly refer to Newton (surname) (103 of 1000) http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Rihanna — Rihanna (middlename=>single name for singer) (309 of 1000) http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Paris — Paris → Paris (disambiguation) (which is a split candidate) (376 of 1000) http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Juno — Juno (a disambiguation page with name content) (388 of 1000) http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Mario — Mario → Mario (disambiguation) → Mario (given name) (recommend amending Mario hatnote to directly refer to Mario (given name) (477 of 1000) http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Michelangelo — Michelangelo → Michelangelo (disambiguation) (which is actually an improperly titled list-type name article) (490 of 1000) http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Lolita — Lolita → Lolita (disambiguation) → Lolita (name) (recommend amending Lolita hatnote to directly refer to Lolita (name))--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]Its unclear what you are suggesting here. The hatnotes should point to the dab page as there is more than the name page listed there. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] "Amending" does not mean "replacing", Jwy. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]Templates being discussed at WikiProject DisambiguationSee Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#variant templates for a consideration of {{surname}} and {{given name}} lumped together with {{hndis}} and other "variants vs. {{disambig}}". I and User:JHunterJ have provided comments that state these templates are not part of the WikiProject Disambiguation template set and that they have nothing to do with disambiguation. This seems to be a perennial issue that comes back from time to time. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]Revision to "Surname" templateUser:16@r recently made a revision to Template:Surname (diff). An edit summary was added to one of the two consecutive edits stating "optional parameter nationality", but nothing was stated on the template talk page about the change. I have asked at User talk:16@r that they say something on the template talk page about the change. If nothing is forthcoming in a matter of days, I will (unless there is objection here) revert the change on the basis of its having not been discussed prior to implementation. I do not mean to be protective of the template, but such a heavily used template should have some discussion before adding features, I think. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]No manual of style for name articles?There doesn't appear to be any guideline article stating what surname or given name articles are supposed to look like. To what extent do they follow the same rules as Disambiguation pages? Is there only supposed to be one blue-linked term per entry, or can the pages be a sea of blue links as our article pages are? What about the other disambiguation manual of style guidelines? --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]Surname and given name articles are not disambiguation pages or part of the dab page family and dab page MoS does not apply (by consensus agreement between the two WikiProjects and other editors; see for instance Archive4). There is a wide variety of article content formats presently and the articles aim to be articles about names, not just lists of instances. That being said, there are many many name articles that are lists (not dab pages). On the main page there are sections for examples of high-quality name articles and featured articles; additional 'good by consensus' articles could also include the A and B class articles (see the assessment table for category links). If you look on this talk page and the archives, you will see that participants in the project actively discuss best practice in article content, format and titling, though these discussions have not yet led to a MoS for name articles. Consider that other topical areas have been in existence and have more active participants than this one in most cases. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your response. I am doing cleanup on Disambiguation pages, and I'm trying to figure out what to do with all these disambig pages which are about surnames and given names. What, for example, should be done regarding Peretz and Perica. Both of them contain entries for people with the article title as both a given name and a surname. Both of them are listed as Disambiguation pages. Should they simply have the Disambig template removed? And, what about those disambiguation pages which contain large numbers of name entries, but also non name entries? If you don't have a particular format you use which I can easily follow at this point, than I shall leave the surname and given name articles alone, but I still have to figure out what to do with all the name content which appears in the disambig category. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Suggestions based on what we've been doing recently: One-Name (surname/given name) articles that are labeled as disambiguation pages — replace {{disambig}} with either {{surname}} or {{given name}} or both depending upon content; add {{WikiProject Anthroponymy | class = | importance = }} to the talk page, removing {{disambigproject}} should it be present. We have been discussing how to properly title articles and it appears that the consensus is to go for "Bladdyboop (name)" in general if "Bladdyboop" is not available or contraindicated. Disambiguation pages that include both one-name and non-name content — list these on the main Anthroponymy page in the section Articles that could be split. If you want to go about splitting some, take a look at the Splits from disambiguation pages for examples of how this has been done by several of us. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ok, done for the two articles I mentioned above, and thanks again. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]Comments on "Frequency table" styleSee Diaz, the frequency table I have included. Is this a useful format? What would you suggest in terms of revisions to the format? Would this be useful to implement across surnames (and given names) in general? Should it be templated for substing such that commonly encountered countries and columns are auto-added for filling? Thanks for your input. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]I like the idea of the table. I think the format is useful. I just wish it had more data. I think it would be useful to implement some sort of standardize table to show popularity of the name across time and this format works for me. Also, I think once we have decided what the proper format should be we should make a template to make it easier for future formating. Remember (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] I have been trying to collect some surname and given name frequency sources over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/External name resources, but surname frequency sources seem rather rare. Any additions would be helpful and would go toward filling holes in a table of this kind. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Great Job!!! Have you checked out this page List of most popular given names. It has some links at the bottom as well as various sources in the footnotes. Remember (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. There is also List of most common surnames to include. I think devoting some time to cleaning up the citations for both of those articles and reflecting generally useful sources in the page I've started would be time well spent on my part. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]ImageThis project uses an image which is a Wiktionary logo image copyrighted for WikiMedia and not related to this project, and it's used as a logo by some Wiktionaries. I tried to browse Commons to look for a new image for this project, but what kind of image would you like? Here's a signature image which I could edit to be more square. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 09:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]Just a quick note, you can make an image square by changing the size of it in the |px parameter by adding 2 variables. for example, adding |20x20px will make the image square 20 by 20 pixels. -- penubag (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]75 pixel square parameterI thought your suggestion was quite interesting; however, it appears that imposing a square parameter pair does not either crop the image nor distort it into a forced square, as illustrated at right. Am I missing something in applying this parameter?--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Having a look at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax it should work. -- penubag (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Whatever new logo/image is selected should also appear on the currently logoless Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy#WikiProject participant template. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] I am not sure what the problem is here. Is it that we are not allowed to use the current logo because it is reserved for use by WikiMedia? That seems to go against the GFDL and related licensing schemes that underlie most all of what we do here. Could Rhanyeia point to the information that indicates we cannot use the logo here? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Regardless of whether we can use this logo, we should probably come up with a logo of our own. I just grabbed the current one just to have something, but it doesn't really fit what we do. Any suggestions for a different logo would be appreciated. Maybe the signature of "John Smith" (since this is perceived to be the most popular name. Remember (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]I like the current project logo, "Scrabble tiles" in various languages. If we can't retain it, then consider an unreadable signature, such as the WP 'Edit toolbar signature icon', with maybe a beige background instead of blue. ...Or a portion of Jimbo's signature. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]It's not licenced under GFDL but still it's not illegal to use it here, but I think not very good either because this project doesn't relate to Wiktionary. The idea of an unreadable signature sounds good, and I left a message to Penubag if he would be interested in trying to make a signature image. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 08:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]I'd be glad to help, I will just be inactive for a moment. -- penubag (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]Okay, how's this? Suggestions for improvement welcome. -- penubag (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]support: Interesting ... it is unique, artistic and well rendered. I support using this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]Nice work Penubag, thank you! Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 09:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]support - works for me. Thanks for the image Penubag. Remember (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]You're welcome all! -- penubag (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]support: Very nice! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]Implementation: UserboxCompare {{Participant WP Anthroponymy}} to {{User Wikiproject Anthroponymy}}. I chose to create a new template which can be deleted and the revisions migrated into the main existing template. If the new-disposable template is acceptable in form, the in-use template can be revised to match. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]I like it. Remember (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Considering the userbox lacked an image at all before, I think that it is reasonable to adopt the change now. I will resolve the template fork momentarily. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Suggestions: "This user is a participant in..." (or "This user participates in...") rather than current "This user is participant in..." --Rosiestep (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]Implementation: WP BannerCompere {{Anthroponymy}} to {{Anthroponymy v2}}. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]I like the old one for being demonstrably multilingual, which is good from the angle of equalities and diversity. However, the new one is evidently about human names, whereas the old one could suggest languages, alphabets etc. It makes sense to use the new "signature" logo consistently in the project, so let's change the banner to use it. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]It looks good and there seems to be no opposition to this image, I'll edit after some days unless someone else is faster than me to do it. :) Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 09:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]RialYou might want to split this to save the name content, before we disambig cleanup people end up cleaning it all away. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]What you are suggesting is that you are going to be deleting content for expediency rather than appropriately addressing content. It is the responsibility of the editor to 'do the right thing' not to warn another party that unless they do the right thing a steamroller is going to come and wipe it away. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] P.S. what Xyzzyplugh conveniently avoided saying is that the warning emerges from discussion over at WikiProject Disambiguation; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Disambiguation_page_cleanup_drive.3F. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Xyzzyplugh, we disambig cleanup people should keep all the content on Rial or take it upon ourselves to perform the split to an anthroponymy article and a disambiguation page as part of our cleanup tasks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]Actually, I originally intended to add Rial to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthroponymy#Articles_that_could_be_split, but I wasn't sure if this was exactly the right place to put it, as the section didn't really explain itself, so I decided to just put it here. I was half joking about the "disambig cleanup people cleaning it all away" comment, the non-joking half of that being that it is possible that someone might come along and just chop out all the text which doesn't belong on a disambiguation page, as many people are aware of what disambiguation pages are supposed to look like while few are aware of WikiProject Anthroponymy.The Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Disambiguation_page_cleanup_drive.3F discussion had nothing to do with this, it was a proposal by someone else which had barely begun to be discussed (if it ever does go anywhere). I'm on my own personal cleanup drive, and my message above, which apparently came across badly, was not from anyone but me. I didn't intend any offense, nor did I intend to literally suggest that the WikiProject Disambiguation people were going to delete name content if you all didn't hurry up and save it. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]Considering a radical proposal - delete 90% of all name articlesI want you to seriously consider a radical proposal that I have been giving some thought to. By the primary notability criterion that the topic of an article needs to be the primary topic of one or more reliable sources, nearly 0% of name articles are 'notable'. However, notability is a guideline and there are many cases where it is trumped for a class of articles by other considerations. For instance, it is generally accepted that biological species are encyclopedic without meeting the primary notability criterion (consider the hundreds or thousands of plant stubs where the reference is an index listing in an external database). Further, someone proposing Martin (name) or Wang (surname) to be deleted would be accused of violating WP:POINT, even though neither of those articles are supported by topic-specific reliable sources. Therefore, we have a dilemma, in my opinion, around a specific criterion of what makes a name encyclopedic, and in the absence of that the entire topic area of this Project is vulnerable up to the fuzzy boundary of what should be included by general consensus as opposed to notability guideline. My thinking on this is that human names are as much a part of the natural world as are flower species — unlike, for instance, companies or car models. The question then is what can we do as a wikiproject by way of risk mitigation so that the assembled group can concentrate on improving the encyclopedia rather than fending off what I see as an eventual effort to prune content in this area back to the consensus core (those types of activities come in waves and have not reached this topic area in the time I have been working on it). A radical suggestion would be to take it upon ourselves to rigorously define an encyclopedic inclusion criteria set and act on it, perhaps leading to the deletion or merger of 80–90% of all anthroponymy articles, in order to secure a diamond-hard, essentially unassailable and eminently defensible core from which to expand out from. I toss that thought into the ring to be stalked and cornered. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]Referencing this sentence (By the primary notability criterion that the topic of an article needs to be the primary topic of one or more reliable sources, nearly 0% of name articles are 'notable'.), I'm unclear where you came up with 0%. I'm assuming that all/most editors on this project (including me) place an inline citation from a reliable source in each name article IAW WP:CITE, and that they are familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Name information links and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/External name resources when selecting a source. By "nearly 0%" I mean that there are very very few names that are the primary or sole topic of a work (this would be the "Significant Coverage" criterion at WP:N). I agree that there are many citations added by members of this Project (myself included). However, the vast majority of cited works treat a group of names and address the notability of the group rather than the notability of the individual names. For instance, consider "Lea and William top list of Quebec's most popular baby names in 2007". The topic of the article is forename selection trends reflected in most popular names of 2007; the topic is neither William or Lea. This is a reliable source, but in an AFD discussion mention of a topic in a news item is not the same as establishing notability for that topic. I am trying to play Devil's advocate here by taking a hard stance that I've seen evinced by people bent on deleting entire swathes of articles in the past. Another way of taking "nearly 0%" is to look at the "Presumed" criterion at WP:N. It could be argued that, for instance, William should be presumed to be notable based on the plethora of "top names" lists (popular, scholarly and official) that it appears on; another way to put this would be "we presume the most popular/common of names to be notable". This leads into thinking about encyclopedic inclusion criteria which you address below (3). sig--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] There are many name articles created by editors who aren't a part of this project, and perhaps some of those editors aren't aware of WP:N/WP:CITE, therefore, some of those articles lack an inline citation. We could capture that data (missing citations) by running a Tag & Assess drive, such as WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008. We'd need to add a B-class criteria list (5 yes/no questions) such as this (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Project banner) to our banner in order to capture uncited articles, articles lacking an infobox, etc. data. Agreed, many of the name articles have been created by people outside this Project. I would be more inclined to believe that most people who are occasional editors tend to know about notability and the need to present citations but ignore these needs for a variety of reasons, probably the most common being 'if it is TRUE, it belongs in Wikipedia' — which is patently wrong but a very widely held assumption among infrequent and first time editors. One source for finding articles lacking citations is to look at Category:Articles lacking sources. I perused Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 and found five instances (Pandarathil, Sava (name), Safavi, Sostre and Tabatabai). As there are 163 pages remaining in this category, this reveals a spot-frequency of 5/163 or 3% of unreferenced-tagged articles as in-scope for this WikiProject. Note that only 1 of the 5 has been tagged with our WikiProject Banner. A Tag&Assess drive would yield benefits; however, our article count is 10% or so of that for WikiProject Military History. It would not hurt to have a formal drive, but I don't think it is necessary. I only see occasional names pop up on AfD when I look, though I am not looking at PROD or CSD so there might be a steady flow out that channel. There are few good ways of comprehensively monitoring individual deletions from a significant article set; probably the most effective would be to auto-generate a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/All articles monitor where when the page is built all links would be blue and deletion indications would emerge if any turned red. I do not know myself how to auto-generate a page like that, but there are folks about who do (just need to find them). A B-Class criteria checklist would be quite good to add to the Project Banner, though they would need significant modification from those used for Military History; for instance, we would need to add something about global point-of-view (limited by availability of demographic data outside of the "Developed World"). sig--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Referencing rigorously define an encyclopedic inclusion criteria set, I recommend that we develop and follow quality guidelines such as these the 5-part B-class criteria list mentioned above, or developing something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD in order to standardize articles and mitigate future risk of name articles becoming WP:AFD nominees. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]split categoryInstead of managing "dab pages in need of name splitting" on this project page, why not create a repair category that editors like me that aren't into making the changes but want to help. I could then simply add the category to the dab page and you could pick it up from the category page. It would have the advantage that I wouldn't have to remember the name of this project ;-). (John User:Jwy talk) 22:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]It is a good idea. I suggest a template to be affixed to a dab page in similar manner to {{disambig-cleanup}}, entitled {{disambig-split}}; this could be used for all types of splits including those that are name-content driven. The code could be a variation of that used for {{disambig-cleanup}}, but we need to identify a proper informational page to link to that explains the rationale and consensus behind this cleanup activity. An alternative to creating a new template would be to expand the cleanup template to include a cleanup-type(s) parameter. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] A very good idea! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]I'd prefer if it were just a category - and a hidden one. I'm not sure most people looking at the page need to know that it needs to be split. But that's just me and as long there is a way for me to mark it for you I'd be fine with it. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] :-) I saw that edit summary wondering where the category was when you needed it. I'll create the category momentarily ... I need to investigate how to make it hidden. Other embellishments like linking categorization to templates can take place in due time if desired. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]^ ^a ^b Surname can be found as either 'Smyth' or 'Smith'

[Smith-Smyth-1] Surname can be found as either 'Smyth' or 'Smith'

[1]

Beginning

Archives

Archives format discussion

Completed first entry on my first WikiProject

lists of people with a given name

Guild of One-Name Studies

standardisation

NAME (disambiguation) pages

unisex vs. both

Pike & Pike (surname)

Template

Name article title convention proposal

Remember's Page name conventions proposal

Remember's proposal ceyockey comments

Current proposed policy based upon comments above

Refocusing discussion

Recap of versions considered to date

Suggested way forward

Version 3

Silence descends

Selecting title qualifier (working forward from V.3)

Stand-alone lists of names

Red links on given name list and disambiguation pages

Format for lists of people

Including country of birth

Should name-instance Vital Statistics be included on Name pages by citation only?

Revised table

Text related to Redirect templates

How notable is notable enough?

FAR for Korean name

Guideline for content of the list of names associated with a name article

Web statistics tool

Templates being discussed at WikiProject Disambiguation

Revision to "Surname" template

No manual of style for name articles?

Comments on "Frequency table" style

Image

Implementation: Userbox

Implementation: WP Banner

Rial

Considering a radical proposal - delete 90% of all name articles

split category