Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy

Main Project (discussion) • Project resources • Project Standards (discussion) • Project Category Structure (discussion) • Project Participants (discussion) • Project Assessment (discussion) • Recent Changes • Project Award • Popular Articles

Wording

Rosguill noted the current wording of WP:APOS: If another article exists with the same title and the name article is not the primary article, the title should be qualified with... etc.

The article seems to imply WP:APOS applies only when the base name is an article; e.g., it applies to Hyacinth (given name) because Hyacinth is an article, but not to Jake (given name) because Jake is a DAB. Is that specific wording, "article", intended? Or is it meant more broadly: "if the base name is in use" (be it article, DAB, redirect, etc.), WP:APOS can apply?

Alternatively, it could be interpreted that article needn't mean the base name page at all. That is, does WP:APOS apply to Jake (given name) anyway, because Jake (rescue dog) is "another article" that, in theory, competes for the base title "Jake"? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could spell out what is the actual problem at hand? (I don't understand the question, sorry!) --Joy (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that "article" here is intended to include mainspace articles, dab pages and redirects. If the base name is already in use for something in the encyclopedia, and the name is not the primary topic, then a disambiguator is needed.

The next section, on hatnotes, seems much more problematic: in the example of Spencer it isn't hatnotes which are used to link the various articles, as Spencer is a dab page with entries for the given name and surname. A better example would be one where there is an article at the base name, perhaps for a town or an animal, where a hatnote directs readers to articles on the given name and surname. I can't immediately think of such an example. Another hatnotes example would be one where the surname or given name is the primary topic, and a hatnote links to the other and/or the disambiguation page. PamD 14:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Jennings illustrates the use of a hatnote, though only from a surname page to a dab page, but better than Spencer. PamD 15:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This mention of hatnotes on all Spencer articles sounds like a violation of WP:NAMB. --Joy (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Joy Yes, no hatnotes should be involved in the Spencers. Can you think of a nice example where the hatnote would be "This article is about the town/genus/band/whatever. For the surname see ...., for the given name see ...." or similar? Or even one going on to include ".... for other uses see xxx (disambiguation)" too, as a hatnote can include one or two major topics as well as the dab page? PamD 15:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

One that comes to mind is Khrushchev. --Joy (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I went searching in the same vein, and found Clinton to be a surname article with given name linked from the hatnote, plus generic disambiguation. --Joy (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

On that note, I wonder if we should make a bot request to get something to keep tabs on these kinds of things. --Joy (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Blake (surname) is an oddity I just came across. Not that it is an example of anything other than how things get confused. older ≠ wiser 20:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by editors see hatnotes on one page and assume it belongs on all pages to prevent "confusion". They wouldn't know that WP:NAMB applies. —Bagumba (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The reason it was there was probably the incoming redirects to Blake (surname) which included Blake (name). I am fixing that to go to the disambiguation page instead. --Joy (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

And then looking at Blake § Fictional characters, it appears those entries should be moved to the respective given name and surname pages (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 8 § Fictional characters) —Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Ow, I just realized this was all part of a sequence of changes starting in 2021. --Joy (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, page move from a former PT without cleaning out old hatnotes. —Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It does bring up the obvious question - are the readers actually better served by having to first click to choose given name or surname, or could it have stayed in the same page? We sure get nicer statistics this way, but there's no apparent rationale to prove this is better for the reader. --Joy (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Does it matter if they have the same origin on not? Or are we grouping by spelling only? I create them purely as lists, not knowing anything about the actual name, so I generally create them separately, combining them only if there is no dab page and there are only a few of the 2nd name type. —Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's largely organic, based on the personal hunch or preference of the editor. Which doesn't necessarily mean the readers are best served by that - maybe we're showing them a choice they see as redundant (both are human names, both lists are lists of biographies) or excessive (so many minor items that are not really worth considering).

For example, mass views for Blake now shows Daphne at 842/day yet it's just a character's name also modeled after a human name. Ditto for many others, we don't have the specific stats. BLAKE at 154/day is the first really different item but it's also clearly distinct with the uppercase and might as well be split anyway.

On the other hand there's people with the surname and people with the given name, such as Lively at 15,892 per day, Shelton at 6,169/day, William with 2,509/day, Amanda with 1,558 / day, etc.

These are differences of orders of magnitude. --Joy (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what extent readers use name lists to

1. find one specific bio when they only know one part of their name
2. just curiously browsing other people that share the name XYZ.—Bagumba (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Just intuition, but I'd think #1 is more likely with surname lists as this is a common convention for indexing people. I am skeptical that given name lists serve much of any purpose, although potentially might serve #2. Other than performers who are commonly known by their given name alone or persons with unusual given names, I can't see that such given name lists are a very efficient way to find an individual. older ≠ wiser 11:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The best example for given names I found so far has been the one described at Talk:Tito (disambiguation), where we know they often navigate from there to entries within the long list. Now, how do they do it exactly, that's not completely clear. --Joy (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's plausible that people would look for e.g. singer Blake something, or similar. Of course, then there's the issue of whether they can actually find them in a long alphabetic list. Does the average reader know about Ctrl+F to search inside the browser and are they comfortable enough with it - enough to not just go to a search engine instead? --Joy (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

And the ctrl-F equivalent on a mobile device is even more obscure. I can see these lists being helpful in the niche case where you are looking for someone that's notable enough for an artile but not popular enough to be among the top Google seach results. —Bagumba (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD: A notable example is Charles: The given name primary topic has a hatnote to the surname and the DAB. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, Clinton is already mentioned above, too. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Charles is a great example (Thanks, @Hyphenation Expert:), and I've WP:BOLDly amended the page accordingly. I hope other editors will agree that it's an improvement. (I realised, a bit late, that the discussion should probably have been at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards and hope no-one will be upset. PamD 10:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The wording can be improved for non-advanced editors. It's basically referring to when the name article is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —Bagumba (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Removal of list of names in a name article

See discussion at Talk:Tamara (given name)#List of names removal. older ≠ wiser 10:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Suga#Requested move 21 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Suga#Requested move 21 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --Joy (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about SurnameDB on RSN

There is a discussion about the reliability of SurnameDB on the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, interested editors should see WP:RSN#SurnameDB. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Henry Matson Waite

This disambiguation page that just got created is marked as of interest for this project. That isn't correct, is it? Brianyoumans (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Formally , this page is about a name, not a biography. Pages about names are generally of interest to anthroponymy. --Altenmann >talk 22:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, formally, this is a disambiguation page, not a page about a name, like one of the (surname) pages. But if you want it labelled as being of interest to WP:Anthroponymy, I'll leave things as they are.Brianyoumans (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Well it can be both. --Altenmann >talk 00:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Femke § References for each person

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Femke § References for each person, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. An editor is advocating for the idea that, in a list of people by name, each entry needs to be directly supported with a citation. —Alalch E. 05:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mokhonoana

The article Mokhonoana has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved 15 years. No reliable sources on Google. Run of the mill last name. Not enough information to merge.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)