Talk:List of people called Mahato

Merge with Mahto
I don't see any point in having this article as separate from Mahato Mahto, which also contains a list of people, largely overlapping with the one here. And its subject is primarily the surname, nevermind the badly written paragraph about the caste that this surname comes from. Uanfala (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to remove all the caste stuff from Mahato and can reasonably do so per WP:GNG etc then you have a point. Otherwise, User:Sitush/Common applies - we can't make connections in that way. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am not even sure what you are referring to here. The Mahato article is a redirect to this one, which is why the list is the same. What is the "badly written paragraph" about the caste that you are seeing? - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oops, the article is Mahto, not Mahato. Uanfala (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * So is it better then to have an article about the surname (which will include the list of people) and another article on the caste (which will not necessarily contain a list of people – due to the tricky verifiability, as you've pointed out).
 * In that case my proposal will be to move the present article to "Mahato (surname)" or something similar. I can see a rationale for having a title like "List of people with name X" only when the article separate from the one about the surname (as in Davis (surname) and List of people with surname Davis) Uanfala (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There should be no article or even mention of the caste - what you are seeing is essentially a pov fork. And thus Mahato (surname) would be an unnecessary disambig title. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. So we could just redirect the caste article to this one then? But at least it has some info on the geographic distribution of the name and its etymology, won't that be useful to keep? Uanfala (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You could redirect, yes. But keeping the alleged distribution and etymology is a no-no - people make this stuff up all the time, usually to support some caste puffery, which is rampant in India-related articles. No source = no mention and we absolutely do not imply any association with a caste unless the person has self-identified (BLP) or we have a really good source (dead). - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I'll then merge the list of people from both articles into this one (assuming Mahato and Mahto are variants of the same name) redirect and then move List of people called Mahato to Mahato, if there are no objections to that. Uanfala (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there are objections. History tells us that if we do that then the Mahato article will be subject to further attempts to link the listed people with the caste. That is why the title here is as it is. We should not conflate lists of people with a caste name because of the implied connection. There is no easy solution but the current title here is the least confusing. - Sitush (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am off to bed now. I can see what you are trying to do but it might be useful to have a cross-project discussion about this issue (the Anthroponymy and India projects). I'm not sure that it needs a full-blown RfC but it certainly affects other articles in the Indic sphere. I'll leave it up to you. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)