Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 4

The scope of Archive4 relates to discussions about the relationship between name articles and disambiguation pages which are covered by WikiProject Anthroponymy and WikiProject Disambiguation, respectively. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"See also" section links
I've been trying to get links in the "See also" section of name disambiguation (dab) pages that link to the first and last (given and sur) names of the name. So, for example, John Smith would have links to John and Smith. This is for navigation purposes mainly, but is also encyclopedically interesting, nonetheless (at least I think so anyway). Unfortunately, a few vocal dab proponents don't like this and refuse to see reason regarding this minor addition to the dab system. With the recent addition of Infobox Given Name Revised (which has has a link to Special:Allpages/) to given name dabs, I'm wondering if a similar template could be added to full-name dabs (like John Smith) which link back to the given/sur names. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 23:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * John Smith already has links to John (name) and Smith (surname) in the text; is that not what you mean? I agree that links to the name articles are warranted; but where these are separate from the main dab pages, I don't see the need to link to the dab pages as well. -- Visviva 01:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, John Smith does, but it was just an example. There are still many full-name dab pages that do not link to their given/surname counterparts (and have recently been removed/reverted by various dab project-affiliated users, but not Art Davis (disambiguation) yet). The problem is, most given/surnames don't have separate "Given (name)" and "Surname (surname)" dab pages. Likewise, I believe all full-name articles (and given/surname dabs) should link to full-name dabs (and vice versa) to facilitate better name navigation. Unfortunately, the few more vocal dab project-related users don't agree (even deleting a List of people named John--see it's AfD and Talk:John for more info). ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "the few more vocal users ... don't agree" bit is just a different spin on "this is counter to consensus". No, in general, a page like Kevin Smith (disambiguation) doesn't need or warrant links to Kevin and Smith (surname). Readers looking for those pages won't be searching on "Kevin Smith". John Smith is a special case given its genericness, and the inclusion of links to its components is done in the body text, not in a "See also" (where they wouldn't be needed). -- JHunterJ 13:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I disagree. Consensus can change, JHunter, and I'm trying to build up support to change it. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Exclude weather events from name pages?
As hurricanes and tropical storms are given human names, should such weather events be included on name pages? Someone has added them on Jennifer. I think they should only go on disambiguation pages; do we have a consensus on that? - Fayenatic (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they should be on disambiguation pages and not name pages, but name pages should be moved to a name page (i.e., Jennifer (given name)) and have Jennifer redirected to a disambiguation page. But that is just my view. Remember 15:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the name page should be at Jennifer (given name). However, I think the disam page should then move to Jennifer, not use a redirect to Jennifer (disambiguation). - Fayenatic (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Saints/rulers on disambig and name pages
Referencing comment above, I'll start a new section here. I removed rulers/saints etc. from a disambig page yesterday, think it was Benjamin (disambiguation), and pasted into Benjamin (name) which included all people. I thought all people in one spot was easiest for accessing info, but I'm cool with including them on both, especially if there's a way of placing boundaries in the disambig pg so that other less notable names don't seep in. Rosiestep (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the order of names on name pages
I had a brief discussion with an editor who challenged an ordering decision I made on a name page. I thought I would direct you to the exchange so that you could weigh in on the topic.
 * original post
 * my response
 * original poster's response

As I see it there are three topics under consideration here:
 * 1) what order should names appear in when listed on a Surname page (e.g. Hogan (surname) or Brooks (surname))
 * 2) what order should names appear in when listed on a Name page (e.g. John Hogan or Patrick Hogan)
 * 3) whether Surname pages are disambiguation pages and need to abide by WP:MOSDAB or not.

Regards, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To continue our discussion here, I would suggest first that surname pages are not dab pages - they tend to include etymology of the name and exhaustive lists of people with the name and that tends to make navigation through them take longer than would be desired; there is usually a small number of people that are generally known by that name or are most likely to be targets of a search. One purpose of surname pages, from my standpoint of a dab page maintainer, is to provide a place to move long, ungainly lists from dab pages!  I would suggest you would want to establish a different criteria for ordering and use some of the dab concepts as a guide.
 * I tend to think, however, that Name pages are dab pages as they are generally short and suitable for quick navigation and, unlike surname pages, there isn't much you can say about the name itself (no etymology, variants of the name, etc.). I would suggest that any special treatment of Name pages be included in the Dab Manual of Style pages.  In general, we try to put the most likely hits on top.  I plan to suggest that Name dab pages (like John Hogan and Patrick Hogan) continue this trend, but if they are all reasonably likely to be what the reader is looking for, that we tend toward chronological order.  That will generally be more useful than the usual alphabetical order, which ends up being a sort by middle name.  The reader will usually know whether they are looking for an 18th century John Hogan or a more modern one rather than what the middle name might be (or what the disambiguating parenthetical in the title might be). (John User:Jwy talk) 04:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * some more information about distinguishing name from dab pages is found in the section below  User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

DAB Project
I'd suggestion you include a reference to Disambiguation. While the goals of the two projects are different, poor implementation of the goals by either project could effect the other. Its useful for the two to know about the other. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, cross-referencing the two would help the aims of each. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 18:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added this cross-reference in the section. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fictional characters

 * some more information related to distinguishing name from dab pages is found above in the section  User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do fictionals belong... disambiguation page? vs. name page? Some are under a header "Fictional characters", others under the header "Fictional people"; is there a style guideline? Rosiestep (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The rules of thumb I use:
 * If it's a human name dab (a full name, like John Smith), then any fictional character with that full name should go on that dab. OR:
 * If it's a character with only one name or very commonly referred to in secondary sources by a single name, and there's a dab page for the title that is the name, then the character can go on that dab. EITHER of these two might be combined with:
 * If it's a character with a surname (or given name), and the surname (or given name) page has a list of name-holders, then the fictional character can go on the name-holder list as well, usually in a "fictional" subsection. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Multiple choices: While name page placement has merit, there is a good case, too, for placing fictional characters on the dab, except for the exception (see below); and editors who place them on both pages can explain why that best serves the objectives of both pages. Lacking a formal style guideline allows for freedom of choice and a variety of ways to present the same material, but there are other consequences:
 * Confusion to the reader who finds one search item on the dab and another on the name page.
 * Lost time to editors who, with good intention, find the placement done one way and change it to another, until someone else, with good intention, takes time to revert.
 * Lack of consistency in how anthroponymy, as a body of work, is presented. Rosiestep (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on this matter is based on my feeling that a surname/given name article is not a disambiguation page; rather a surname/given name article should be about the name first and the listing of instances second, though the life cycle of such an article typically begins as a list. The goal in developing a surname/given name article is to provide an encyclopedic treatment of the origin, meaning, distribution, uses and perhaps future of that name. The inclusion of biographical article links aids in this treatment by providing the instances of use of the name among the population of individuals who meet the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. The inclusion of these links is, in my opinion, not so much a navigational aid as it is a view into the spatial and temporal distribution of the name through selection of instances, which is the reasoning behind my propensity to organize listings on such pages by year of birth rather than by alphabetical order (a matter that has not been discussed here at length). These characteristics of a surname/given name article definitively distinguish it from a disambiguation page. Application of this characterized definition of a surname/given name article also allows selectivity in representation of articles in the listing of instances; in other words, not every person sharing a surname or given name need be represented on the page ... though precedent suggests that comprehensive inclusion the current consensus, at least for surname articles if not given name articles. A set of inclusion guidelines has not been definitively expressed for this article class, and this particular thread is probably not the place to work out the details of those guidelines.

Should fictional characters be included in surname/given name articles? In so far as the appearance of a name in a work of literature or art or popular culture can influence the prevalence of that name in the culture, I would say yes, they are appropriately included. Biblical, religious, legendary and mythological figures are often cited as originations of names prevalent in society in association with undeniably real people. Such names that are not directly attributable to "real people" are appropriately set aside in a separate section of the article; as with the treatment of a human name, ideally article content should accompany a listing so that information based on reliable sources can be included to explain the reasoning behind and perhaps after effect of usage of the name (e.g. was there a reason that Luke Skywalker was given the Biblical name "Luke"? has the usage of "Clark Kent" over the decades as the alterego of Superman led to an attributable increase in the usage of the given name "Clark" in the general English-speaking public?). To reiterate, a surname/given name article should be about the name first and the listing of instances second. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Remember (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Rosiestep (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)