Category talk:Onomastics

I'm dubious about whether these pages should really be in en.wikipedia. I'm not going to go off and delete them, though, because there's been quite some work put into them, and they may have their place. Anybody want to have a go at forming a consensus on whether they meet inclusion criteria? Grobertson 14:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have serious questions about the health of the individual, and he might fly off the handle and do damage to himself at any moment, see here. I suggest postponing any action on deletion until the issues in WP:MEDCABAL can be acted on by an admin. I'm certainly no psychologist, and this is just my personal feeling based on my observations of his behavior, but better be safe than sorry. --Batamtig 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, these pages do belong in Wikipedia. What they do need is drastic change. Most (if not all) of the redlinks should be cut, as well as the unnecessary tables and linguistic descriptions. Then they would just be disambiguation pages. Mo-Al 21:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation pages are not just lists of similar-sounding names, to quote from WP:DAB,
 * Disambiguation serves a single purpose: to let the reader choose among different pages that closely relate to various meanings of a particular term (some of which might logically utilize said term in a titular fashion). The considerations of what Wikipedia is not are not magically invalidated for disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages are not intended for games of "free association." Please use them carefully and only when needed.


 * So, for instance, it's unlikely that anyone on English WP is likely to confuse "Wahlstedt" with "Walldorf" and "Walldürn". This is unlike the case with Kugel (disambiguation) where the same word has different meanings, so this is a legitimate disambig. page.  The pages in this cat are nothing more than "free association", listig all names and words which have one syllable in common.  Adding a whole lot of prefixes and suffixes to a word to find different words is not appropriate for an English language disambig.  Also, I see no reason to group together bio's of people with the same last name on one page, unless those people are primarily known by their last names, e.g. Marconi. Most of the bio's he links to have no notability and he links to them, as far as I can see, just because they're examples of people with a given last name.  Take a look at WP:DAB and see if you think these pages fulfill the criteria there. --Batamtig 07:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, however it would be possible to split off the different names that he has lumped together in the same article (for example, I split off Wohl and Wahl, however those articles still contain many different names). There definitely is a lot of material which does not belong in Wikipedia. Mo-Al 16:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then it should be called Wahl (surname), and should not be a disambig. page, in my opinion. I still have pretty much the same issues as above:
 * - Why does the page belong in Wikipedia?
 * - Links like Wahlstedt, with Walldorf and Walldürn (geographical locations) don't belong on Wahl.
 * - Many (most) of the bio's linked here simply aren't notable.
 * - Names like "Wahlmann", and "Wahltuch" don't belong on the page.
 * Batamtig 05:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC
See Requests for comment/Sheynhertz-Unbayg.

SU
I created a page with a list of all of the pages that I have found so far. I do not think that the pages should be deleted, as long as there are at least two names of people who either have articles already or will almost certainly have articles in the future. Remember that there are not just the onomastic pages. There are also a ton, possibly almost literally, of redirects to them. Besides this he also created other problems, like creating extremely short articles just to put a link to the person's last name at the top and adding such links to existing articles. -- Kjkolb 12:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "onomastics" is a valid encyclopedic subject, and a valid category title, so that I don't think this category should deleted. It should contain articles on onomastics, of course, not articles listing random names. dab (&#5839;) 13:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that most of the pages here have nothing to do with onomastics, so after the unsuitable pages are removed, the category might be almost empty. I do agree, however, that it's a valid category.  BTW, the pages are not being deleted, they're being cleaned up, see SU.  Batamtig 20:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)