Talk:Wolfgang

Wolf's Walk
Despite what is claimed in the Wiki article, I have found numerous citations for the name meaning either Wolf's Walk or something similar:

http://www.behindthename.com/name/wolfgang http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Wolfgang http://www.babynamescountry.com/meanings/Wolfgang.html http://baby-names.adoption.com/search/Wolfgang.html http://www.babynamespedia.com/meaning/Wolfgang http://nameberry.com/babyname/WOLFGANG http://www.babynameshq.com/name/Wolfgang http://babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com/meaning_of_Wolfgang.html

I found no reference to the name meaning "Wolf strife" nor what "wolf strife" is even supposed to mean. Axeman (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

it was just unreferenced nonsense. You can just remove such stuff. It was introduced in good faith in September, apparently based on an equally flawed wiktionary entry. Please stop taking Wikipedia (or any Wikimedia project) as a reference for Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 14:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't use Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project as a reference. Not a single one of the references that I listed above is a Wiki project. Also, I didn't want to just remove something that someone else contributed right away. I hate it when power trippers will edit another users contributions without hearing them out first. That is why I posted the "citation needed" tag. I wanted to give the contributer who wrote that earlier contribution a chance to find a source for it before simply erasing it. Axeman (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, you misunderstood. I wasn't complaining about you, you discovered the mistake. I was complaining about the edit of 2 September by which introduced the mistake. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Path of the Wolf, Journey of the Wolf. That sort of idea. Baby name websites are notoriously WRONG. I would never use them as a source for anything. Even back when we had books, they were always TERRIBLY wrong. Not just inaccurate, but totally flat out wrong etymology. I currently find about a 90% or so accuracy in wiktionary, which is pleasantly linked in wikipedia now. Though neither is a source...112.198.83.250 (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I must correct myself. It appears that http://www.vorname.com/ is a good and accurate site. At least for German names. The site is in German. I also have not checked non-German names, though they exist on the site. 119.92.93.84 (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Latin translation?
What is the relevance of the Latin translation "Lumpambulus"? I looked it up, and it appears this name/word is used nowhere in existence. It seems it would be just as relevant to ask for a Swahili translation...119.92.93.84 (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it just the old reference? Is it a reference to the Saint? Seems like it is missing a vital detail...119.92.93.84 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Prohibition on Toys
Curious what the wiki protocol was that prohibits listing toys?119.92.93.84 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't any prohibition on listing toys on this page. Can you tell us what toy you want to include on this page?  -- GB fan 03:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not. However, there was a Transformer toy listed here called "Wolfgang". The link simply said "Wolfgang". I edited it to have a description as to the fact it was a Transformer and its series and so on and the entire thing was deleted and I was accused of vandalism. Vandalism for adding a description? And now the whole thing is deleted.


 * I really do not care about a toy. But it had been here forever. And why not list it?119.92.93.84 (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it was you...119.92.93.84 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was me that removed it. I didn't accuse you of vandalism.  When I first did it, I didn't look close enough and thought it was actually Wolfgang and none of the linked articles contained Wolfgang.  It isn't, it is Wolfang and that is cloes enough that it could be confused so it does belong and I have restored it, properly formatted.  Discussion works when you do it civilly.  -- GB fan 12:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I had removed it as well, and have removed it again. That character is not mentioned on the target page, and even has a "Minor characters" section.  Clearly not notable enough to be included.  Scr ★ pIron IV 12:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * And I have restored it, after seeing my error in spelling. It is on that target page, and that was the only issue I had with it.  Scr ★ pIron IV 12:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I mean, it is an odd reference, but someone added it. It must have value. It is related to Wolfgang, so why not? Apparently the missing "g" is related to the Japanese transliteration and language restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.220.34.167 (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to split
This article contains good content that does not belong on a disambiguation page. I think we need two pages: Please see Eric and Eric (disambiguation) for a model to follow.
 * Wolfgang - current content up to but excluding the "Places" header, and of course the References;
 * Wolfgang (disambiguation), currently a redirect - a prominent link to Wolfgang with a brief statement that it is a name, followed by the content from "Places" onwards.

Any objections to a split? Certes (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to splitting the content into it's own article.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me too. — Kleio (t · c) 18:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been bold. Thanks for your support. Certes (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternate etymology from "ganc"
Since no one else has bitten the bullet...

There is debate over the addition of the content quoted below.

An alternate etymology is from OHG "ganc", to assail, attack, or kill. This claim seems to be supported by the two references given: and. If we accept them as reliable sources, each stands on its own without any undue synthesis.

Thus rendering the name meaning "Wolf-Hunter". Which may refer to one who hunts wolves or to a warrior that dresses in wolf hides. The first source says "der, der mit dem Speer den Wolf erlegt." ("he who kills the wolf with the spear") and "Krieger in Tierverkleidung" ("warrior in animal clothing"). I don't know where vorname.com got the bit about the spear from but the IP editor has wisely removed it, leaving what looks like a sound translation.

A likely reference to the Berserker. Unless I've missed something, this does look like original research and probably should not be included.

Can we agree to include the first two quotes, with references, and not the third? Certes (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree with its inclusion on various bases:


 * 1) The word ganc does not seem to exist in OHG, and in MHG it is just the descendant of OHG gang. I have no idea where these "sources" (they look amateurish and unreliable at best) are getting the sense "assail, attack, kill" from; neither OHG gang nor MHG ganc has this meaning.
 * 2) The bit about berserkers is pure speculation too, and it makes me doubt that the IP who added this knows much about etymology. The IP, by the way, seems to be the same as (or related to) the exceptionally ignorant anon in this Wiktionary discussion.
 * 3) I know of no Germanic language where any word similar in form to ganc means hunter.
 * 4) I strongly doubt that the name would refer to a hunter of animals anyway, since a lot of Germanic names have animals as totemic? elements (think of the Bjorns in North Germanic names; e.g. Thorbjorn, Arinbjorn, even Bjornolfr, but also stuff like Beowulf, etc.) and not as some sort of implied trophy.


 * Everything about this proposed etymology seems off. — Kleio (t · c) 13:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the detailed explanation, . To make explicit what I hinted at above: if the sources fail WP:RS, then my analysis falls flat on its face and we should leave this contribution out of the article. Certes (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The website used as a source seems not to base its content on actual research; it apparently lists whatever etymologies people choose to add. So I think it cannot be cited as a reliable source. — Kleio (t · c) 18:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)