Talk:Julie (given name)

This article was nominated for deletion on April 25, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Overkill

Surely this is overkill. Why do we need two articles - this one and Julie? Julie (given name) is never going to be much larger than it is now (maybe a few more translations or synonyms or someone finding an alternative "meaning") and I can't imagine anyone typing in "Julie (given name)" when seeking info on the subject, they are much more likely to type simply "Julie". I suggest these two articles be combined. In addition I suggest that it is perfectly OK and encyclopedic to include links to all the Julies in Wikipedia - see Derek for a good example of how to do itAbtract 11:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julie is only a disambiguation page (see WP:DAB), if someone simply types "Julie" that is where they would start. Dab pages should be "non-article pages that contain no content and refer users only to other Wikipedia pages. This is the reason that Julie (given name) was created. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 19:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mmm I understand that but don't DAB pages start with the most common definition (in this case the given name)? It seems to me that we have a nonsense here ... if Julie started with the content of this article and then went on to disambiguate that would make more sense for me. Abtract 19:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were also a part of this discussion, in which case you should be familiar with this which makes it clear that a list of people connected only by a given name should not be created. I tend to agree, I don't think that the list has any business being in the article itself, that's why I created the now defunct List of people with the first name Julie; so the two would be separate, and no longer confusing. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should not? Abtract 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo... - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 20:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, you didn't mean it?Abtract 20:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't included the word "not" in my first post, that was the typo; I thought you may have read that before I edited it. Let me restate for clarity: lists of loosely affiliated topics (i.e. people with the same given name) should not be created. There is an argument that people with the same surname should be grouped, because they are much less common, and could indicate a family or hereditary connection. But the same cannot apply to given names. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 20:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My query is "who said they should not be created? ... see Derek for why I believe they should be created. "Abtract 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is my interpretation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#DIR. I have seen the list on Derek and in all honesty I think that that is an overkill; these people have nothing in common besides their given name. It sets a terrible precedent as far as listing relevant information, and the list is nearly impossible to keep up to date with every notable person by that name. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indentation) I think there should be two pages. It might be questionable whether it be Julie as it is (a dab page) and Julie (given name) OR rename things so we have the given name page at Julie and Julie (disambiguation). The two pages clearly serve different purposes. The dab purpose may not interfere too much with the list purpose (at worst, an extra click right at the top of the page to get there). But clearly the opposite is true: having a cluttered dab page containing information beyond that necessary to disambiguate what the user entered slows down access to the desired information.

If we have two pages, the question of the naming would have to be answered by guessing what most people entering "Julie" will be looking for. If 90% are looking for information about the name itself, then we should change the names. If 90% are looking for one of the other articles, we keep it as is. I don't know what the percentages will be nor where to draw the line exactly, but that's the general concept.

The answers for "Derek" might be different, so there might be a different choice there. It appears that there is no need for a general disambiguation page. If I enter Derek, is there any clear subset of the people named Derek that people would be looking for? If so, I'd say create a dab page. But the only single named "Derek" I know of is 1970's era Eric Clapton and I don't think we need that link. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and in particular I would emphasize John's point about the purpose of dab pages. Dab pages become less useful as navigational tools when content (such as information about the name Julie) clutters them. Definitions (of the title of a page) are generally not added at the top, which is why it has become fairly common practice to include links to wiktionary—so that we would avoid the situation of people adding definitions. My two cents.--Paul Erik 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why do we have an article Julie (given name)? This is simply a definition and should therefore be in wiktionary surely? Abtract 08:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are so right ... thanks for that suggestion it solves everything. Abtract 08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, seems like a rather drastic response, shouldn't there be some kind of vote or consensus reached first? At the very least you should integrate all of the information into the wiktionary entry, else we neglect all those who put work into that entry. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 09:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to transfer the info to wikidict, will you do it? Abtract 10:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done as you suggested.Abtract 10:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about this solution. It makes sense only if we accept the assertion that Julie (given name) is never going to be much larger than it is now. On what basis is that claim being made? An example of a page about a given name that is evolving into something more than just a dictionary definition is Matthew (name). My inclination would be not to delete the content here, but to wait and see what Julie (given name) might evolve into. --Paul Erik 10:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew (name) is surely all definition and should therefore also be in wikidict ... with the possible exception of the popularity bit at the end.Abtract 11:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Matthew (name) will not be nominated for featured article status any time soon! But as to the issue of Julie (given name), to make my point a little more explicit: I can see a future possibility of there being more then a dictionary definition. Editors might add sections about the history of the name, its popularity, the impact of certain famous Julies upon naming trends and other aspects of culture. Who knows?

There is also a process issue involved here, and maybe an editor more experienced than me might comment. When you cut and paste content from one article to another, all the page-edits are then lost. It now appears as if Abtract (appearing as an anon IP on wiktionary) is the author of all the content placed there, which was not the case, and thus raises the usual GFDL issues. There is also a whole process set up for making a transwiki page-move (see m:transwiki) which I will not pretend to understand. --Paul Erik 01:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Reset indentation- I tend to agree with PE here. I think that Abtract acted prematurely by deleting the contents of this page and redirecting to wiktionary. There must be a procedure for this kind of discussion, and I don't think an article should be cleared without some kind of consensus. Therefore I am going to revert to the final contents of this article, and initiate AfD procedures which will be much more formal and procedural. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 20:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my lack of procedural excellence but I hope you all see my point. Abtract 22:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julie (given name). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070320213611/http://meilleursprenoms.com/stats/histogram.php3?recherche=Julie&sexe=1 to http://www.meilleursprenoms.com/stats/histogram.php3?recherche=julie&sexe=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]