Template talk:Surnames by language

Excluded parameter
When using the optional 'Excluded' parameter the template adds the text, "This category should not contain name lists and/or generic disambiguation pages, where some entries may be Japanese by ancestry, culture, ethnicity, or nationality." At first I was confused by this because it seems that that's exactly what these categories contain. I think the comma after the word "pages" caused the confusion. As I understand it now, this parameter is excluding disambig pages and name lists where only some entries are Japanese (either by ancestry, culture, ethnicity, or nationality) while the rest are not? Can someone please show me an example of the types of pages that this parameter is meant to exclude? -- &oelig; &trade; 06:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is this clause that results in the template being removed from category pages, e.g. . Unless the authors of this template provide an answer, then I think the clause should go. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The comma is proper English. These are supposed to be categories based exclusively on LANGUAGE, not ancestry, culture, ethnicity, or nationality. The wording was an agreement based on restrictions already in many of the categories, and is an amalgam of previously existing boilerplate (much written by Carlossuarez46). These categories weren't supposed to contain ANY name lists. But a few folks aren't using the category properly, and simply remove the restriction because they don't like it. The template was created after much discussion on CfD because of all the problems resulting in a mess of surname categories. As folks forget, they ignore the template and exceptions (or abuse the field) and the mess has returned.


 * Failing to simply link the relevant CfD discussion is what contributes to the mess and makes you sound like you're pontificating. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

This template is a complete waste of space. Few people see its text and even fewer take the slightest notice of it. The words "Articles without references must be promptly removed" were on 6 November accurately described by‎ 85.220.127.198 as "Weird hectoring with no apparent basis in actual practice." I couldn't have expressed it better myself. The remarks by William Allen Simpson above only serve to advertise the impotence of its authors in the face of the more common-sense behaviour/behavior that "folks" favour/favor. That said, by the same token it's pretty harmless, and it's not worth the hassle of attempting a TfD on it.

The category system for surnames is indeed a mess. Let me suggest some steps whereby it might become less so: SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, names and boundaries of all categories should be based on WP:RS. This ought not to need stating; WP:RS is a core principle of wikipedia and no-one has ever exempted the category system from it. This does not mean that it is necessary to give sources on every category page, but it does mean that sources should be taken as the main basis for decision where there is dispute. For surnames, one of the depressing things about the discussion leading to the disastrous mass application of Cydebot in June 2009 was that so many editors did not know, and even denied, that sources for surnames exist, whereas there are dictionaries and research materials in abundance. Those better informed should have been much more assertive on this point.
 * As a consequence of the use of WP:RS, it must be accepted that it is not necessary or desirable to impose uniformity of categories or their nomenclature across all languages and cultures; indeed the concept "surname" varies widely and for many times and places did not or does not exist.
 * If the categories themselves are based on WP:RS it becomes more persuasive to get the individual articles similarly based, and if the category sources are actually stated it is made easier for editors perhaps to use the same source for the article (particularly if it's on line).
 * In all other parts of wikipedia pages can belong to several different categories. The attempt to apply a different rule to name and dab pages is a source of endless difficulty and should be abandoned. In some cases it is helpful and clear to have separate dab and name pages, but in other cases, particularly for rare names, it makes much more sense to have a name page which is also a dab page.

The phrasing of this template confused me as well. After reading up on this, it looks like it was made in a good-faith effort to avoid wrong categorization, but this is simply not the way to do that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I rephrased it to sound less draconian. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)