Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 1

Archive1: The WikiProject itself &mdash; creation of the WikiProject; the WikiProject Council; formatting/content of WikProject pages (not articles); relationship to other WikiProjects (except WikiProject Disambiguation, which is covered in Archive4)

Names discussion from WikiProject Council/Proposals

 * Description : The purpose of this project would be to develop all the articles related to certain given names, nicknames, and family names. We would try to develope more articles to the standard of William (name)

Very, very, very, very interesting. --necronudist 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
 * 1) Remember 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) User:Hailey C. Shannon
 * Comments
 * See the proposal below at People Name Origins. Chris 23:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I created WikiProject Anthroponymy. Let's see how it goes. Remember 21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

People Name Origins discussion from WikiProject Council/Proposals

 * Description : This WikiProject would primarily aim at describing where various first and last names (of people) come from and what they mean. It would also improve articles about names of people, and add more information to the articles.  Many people wonder where there name comes from, and this would be a great opportunity for them to find out.  If names are put into this encyclopedia, then a person can come and look up their name here.


 * Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
 * 1) Swannie (proposer of the WikiProject) 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

While I think the *idea* is a wonderful idea, I think this project belongs on Wiktionary. See http://en.wiktionary.org/. -- TimNelson 01:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Many such articles under several heritages are already part of WikiProject Disambiguation, perhaps you want to give those folks a jingle. Chris 03:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See the proposal above at Names. Chris 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I created WikiProject Anthroponymy. Let's see how it goes. Remember 21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Pending deletions: some revision
I have revised the section WikiProject Anthroponymy somewhat. I hope these revisions are ok with other WikiProject members: --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * converted 'resolved' to a subsection of 'pending deletions'
 * created an archive subpage, WikiProject Anthroponymy/Pending deletions archive, and moved current resolved items to that subpage
 * added a note regarding the low throughput on the page
 * revised the 'take action' line
 * added aside-note regarding anticipated content of the section


 * Good work, thanks. Can we have a subpage which is part of WikiProject Deletion Sorting? I've never looked into it long enough to figure out how to set one up. For instance, here's one for another WikiProject: WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity - there is a prominent link to this from WP Christianity's project page, and it can be watched separately. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been thinking about that, but I don't think the number of articles in this WikiProject's scope that are nominated for deletion is sufficiently high to justify creation of a new Deletion sorting page under WikiProject Deletion sorting. Admittedly, there are some low-traffic WikiProjects that have their own Deletion sorting pages (such as many of the single American states), but those were usually created as parts-of-a-whole type of multi-page actions.  I spent a couple of months not long ago taking and using a census of the ways in which WikiProjects deal with deletion notifications; my feeling is that probably notification via a sub-page transcluded to main and transcluded to a larger-scope DelSort page might be a good solution.  I'll look to formalize a proposal with some details at some not-too-distant future date - or please anyone else could do so.  If, though, the consensus does go toward soliciting WP DelSort for creation of a page under their auspices, that would be fine as well.  My negative words in that direction are based on current practice, not on philosophical opposition.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Background reading - Controversy section
I have changed some things about the Background reading: Controversy section:
 * ordered items from oldest to newest
 * used templates such as if available
 * added some 'conclusions' statements where it was easy to do so
 * added date where it was previously missing or not provided by template employed
 * added a request to ask here before adding more links with a statement of purpose for the section

If you feel that this change should be reverted then discussed here before reimplementing any of it, please do so; this is the current permalink for reference.

My feeling is that the changes a) make the section look a bit cluttered and b) do add some useful additional information. I think that trying to summarize more "conclusions" would be useful. Such conclusions could help to describe precedent, consensus or how consensus has changed ... i.e. over time a picture of how names are handled in Wikipedia could be evolved with supporting evidence in the form of discussions such as those currently listed.

I added a statement about asking here before adding more. I think that perhaps a statement that "these are not current but past discussions" might be helpful as well.

I hope these are welcome additions/changes. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates section and new template
I have revised the main page section WikiProject_Anthroponymy and created a new template that can be used to annotate deletion discussions that are added to WikiProject Anthroponymy. Hopefully the changes are in line with what participants will find useful. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They are useful. Remember (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indicating members who are admins
I took a cue from WikiProject Scouting and, in a quite different form, indicated who of the members are admins in the Members listing. This information was gotten from quick consultation against List of administrators (I wish there was a lookup tool implemented there). I did this without prior discussion, so please revert if you disagree and we can discuss here. Regards User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

"Old" new articles
I have revised the format of "old" new articles listed on the main page, that is articles from sectionized time periods that are past, such as '2007' or 'January 2008'. I've added a table format to conserve the vertical space on the page, as the full listings were beginning to take up a major % of the whole vertical span of the main page. "New" new articles remain in the former one-column list format. I hope people feel that this increases the readability of the page by reducing the vertical scrolling needed to get between secitons. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested articles (and requested splits)
I have created a sub-section on one of the WP Requested articles pages entitled "Surnames": see Requested articles/Social sciences, which is a subsection of Requested articles/Social sciences. I don't think that there will be a lot of requests flowing into this page page-section that are not generated by members of this WikiProject, but I created it anyway for two reasons: first, as further advertising for Surname articles on Wikipedia; second, to utilize existing infrastructure to provide a place to put thoughts of what needs to be created without cluttering the main or talk pages here with red links. I will be moving the items in the main page section WikiProject Anthroponymy over there shortly as well. I've also added a cross-reference to this section in the WikiProject Anthroponymy listing (I will drop the cross-ref to splits when I move those into this new Requested Articles subsection). If you would prefer that such things as these remain listed in detail on the main or talk pages or a subpage of this WikiProject, I'm not opposed to reversing these changes if there is opposition to their having been made. Regards --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

General
I have somewhat revised the WikiProject Anthroponymy section. In so doing, I've seen that none of the listed WikiProjects have back-linkages to this project. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have added an explanatory note alongside each related project link that goes toward explaining why WP Anthroponymy is related to each specified WikiProject. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Countering systematic bias
I have said a word about systematic bias in Wikipedia over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias as a result of my work on List of most common surnames. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Clans of Scotland
What do people think about adding a 'related wikiprojects' section to the main page and adding WikiProject Clans of Scotland as the first member of that section? As a reciprocal would it be reasonable to ask that that WikiProject add a link to this one in their own related WikiProjects section? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great idea! Remember (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Remember. I have broached the topic to WP Clans of Scotland; see this discussion thread. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and the other WP has been previously listed under the Related WikiProjects listing. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, great idea! Rosiestep (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Arabic names
WikiProject Arabic names is listed as being inactive, and it appears to be so. There is a merger proposal on the project page targeting WikiProject Arab world. I would suggest that we propose a merger of the inactive WikiProject into this one as a task force; this would fit with the mission of this WikiProject and it would also stave off the potential for the Arabic names WikiProject being nominated for deletion. What do you think about this? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should merge with it. Remember (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've so-tagged the inactive WikiProject and so-indicated in the list of inactive WikiProjects. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a 'last call for input' at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arab world and will refer the two WikiProject participants to this. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Skirting the boundaries of original research
I am looking for your opinion on whether Smit skirts or wanders across the original research line. I put this section together in order to articulate a particular type of article content and Wikipedia use case that has utility in the context of one-name studies. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems to be somewhat similar to the idea of meta-analysis, insofar as one can imagine that the verifiability of this work depends on the verifiability of the underlying biographical pages. However, part of the definition of OR reads - "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." It further requires that cited sources "directly support the information as it is presented." This seems to present a problem; it seems to me that you might have crossed the line. What do you think? --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I'm afraid that probably does count as original research, because it is the analysis that needs sourcing not just the data. Although not necessarily a big deal here you could see how this kind of thing could get out hand if people could add their own analysis of sourced data. (Emperor (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC))


 * OK. Thanks for your input. I will remove the section momentarily.  I am exploring ways to make surname pages more useful while trying to avoid violations of the underlying principles and policies of Wikipedia.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have done something a little different now with Smit; I've taken the list of notables and prepared a proportional bar chart that helps to illustrate the dominance of the Netherlands with respect to the biographies in Wikipedia ... without doing a self-reference, but rather referring to the people as "notables". Thoughts on this striking a balance between OR and proper re-packaging of information we already have in Wikipedia (i.e. graphical presentation of list content)? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for tardy response. I think this probably falls within OR on a letter of the law basis, but perhaps not within the spirit. I do think it's significant that you assert "the dominance of the Netherlands" here but not in the article; that, to my mind, would be OR, albeit fairly obvious. So I'm not sure if the bar chart really communicates what you want to communicate. You've certainly spent more time thinking about this than I have - is there not a citable source for this sort of conclusion? --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have removed the bar graph from Smit with an edit summary that refers back to this discussion.  There is an assumption that goes into creating a graphic like that which we do not have hard information available to assess the truth of, that being "the distribution of surnames geographically and over time is not correlated with personal notability as reflected in Wikipedia guidelines and Wikipedia authoring and retention trends".  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)