Talk:Maxwell

Wikipedia :Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) explains how dab pages should look. The origins of the name Maxwell do not belong on this page. Tedernst 16:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

There. I just created an increadibly small article about the surname Maxwell and added a re-direct to the dab. Good job, buddy! You made a difference! It was worth it! Primetime 22:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

James Clerk Maxwell
I added a direct link to James Clerk Maxwell. It was reverted, with a comment about that entry being on the surname page.

The Manual of style, at MOS:DABNAME, give the following guidance: "People who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name should be listed in the main disambiguation list of the disambiguation page only if they are frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare). "

JC Maxwell easily meets this criterion, as evidenced by five entries on this page in the Science and Technology section that use just his surname.

Meanwhile, the page is littered with less notable individuals who do not meet that criterion or the other criteria.

Is there are reason I should not reinstate my edit?

Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I moved James Clerk Maxwell because, although many of his discoveries bear his surname only, James Clerk Maxwell, the man, is always referred to by his full name which is not ambiguous. The other people on the page either have the given name Maxwell or are known by the mononym. Leschnei (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, and for making it on a very clear basis. The clarity makes it easily falsifiable. A quick google search turns up this page: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/more_stuff/Maxwell_Eq.html, where, for example, it says, "Maxwell’s own contribution to these equations...".  His first name doesn't appear there.  Also, the MOS page I linked does not allow listing people with the given name, unless it's a mononym.  Seeing that your choice to revert my edit was based on two misunderstandings, I'll go ahead and reinstate it. Ccrrccrr (talk)