Talk:Toponymic surname

My revert
I apologize for the revert of a reasonable (unreferenced) addition (some of it restored). It had a significant flaw (absent in the (referenced) deteted text): one must be cautious about name origin, in particular indicating time frame. In any case, pleas be sure to provide references to whatever text may be added. The subject of names is prone to common misconceptions. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the problem. The sole reference you are using for this article is an attempt to resolve an argument between researchers of Crusader-era nobility in the Christian kingdoms in the Middle East.  It is a reference to one type of toponymic, in just one context.  It is flawed to generalize this as applying to all toponymics in every context.  In Sweden, for example, toponymic surnames arose not in the 12th century, but in the 18th and 19th centuries.  In Iberia, it was late-11th, early-12th for nobility, but for commoners it was much later - more like the 15th or 16th centuries.  Yes, in a perfect world, every statement in every Wikipedia article would be fully referenced from the start, but sometimes the lesser of two evils is to build an article step-wise, filling them out with accurate if not-yet-referenced text, then finding the supporting references as time permits, to avoid misconceptions that might derive from overly simplistic or deceptive text that while referenced only refers to a small part of the whole story, as it the case here.  (And why would you take out the See Also that was pointing to what is a specific application of a toponymic surname?) Agricolae (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)