Talk:Aptronym

Anthroponymy B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crapper

Resolved

You've put the horse before the cart. "Thomas Crapper, maker of Vicrian flush toilets" is not an aptronym of the same vein as the others listed. The term "crap" became synonymous with defication AS A RESULT of Mr. Crapper's occupation. It wasn't just a coincidental name to be born.

Leave it, cut it, make a cute little side note... whatever. I just felt it appropriate to clarify.

[--anon.]

Sorry, not true. The recorded use of the word in that sense dates to 1846, when Mr Crapper was 10 years old. See the article on Thomas Crapper. -HFM.

Tony Snow

Why is Tony Snow listed but not John Snow?

Is "Tony Snow" only listed because of the colloquial meaning of "snowjob"? That would be kind of lame... AnonMoos 15:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snow job. Hmm... I guess it passes. ~ Rollo44 00:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is some proof that Tony Snow is "covering anything up," of which I am unaware, it would need to be cited. As such, bye-bye Tony Snow. Cliffietheman

Wikified as part of the wikification drive.

Resolved

Wikified as part of the wikification drive. KarenAnn 14:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Sinner

Are "Cardinal Sin" and "Rev. Richard Sinner" actually ironic, considering that Christian theology holds that all men are sinners? - Calmypal (T) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thusly all the more fitting!

Merge proposal

Nominative determinism should be merged into this article. They are largely duplicative, and the combined material will be better than both articles separately. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that it should go the other way; we ought to merge this article into Nominative determinism. But that's just me. Thor Rudebeck 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles would seem to suggest that they are different things. I had not heard of aptronyms before but they seem to primarily refer to fictional names. The other article is about an alleged or humourous theory that roles are assumed according to one's name. It is widely discussed in papers and journals and deserves an article. I has become something of a boffins game to find them in technical journals. I just found all this on the random page, sorry if I am late to discussion. - Fred 14:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: They overlap in subject but not in article content, and thus would make a merged article far superior to either of the individual articles.–Skomorokh 16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should stay separate as Fred suggests, due to the largely fictional nature of aptronyms vs. the happenstance nature of nominative determinism (which makes it funnier). Though they would both benefit from expansion to become proper encyclopedia articles.Andybuckle 08:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Strummer

Should Joe really be included, as his real name is John Mellor, he just gave himself the name Joe Strummer after his playing style? Pennywisepeter 15:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for Alicia Keys; that wasn't her birth name. Surely these names should be verified for them to be considered aptronyms. Thefamouseccles 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. Losman, Bills quarterback

Is it appropriate to add J. P. Losman, current NFL quarterback for the Buffalo Bills, as his name is synonymous with his team's performance since joining ("loss man"), or is it more irony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgriebel (talk • contribs) 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an aptronym, it's a soundalike / lookalike. Even if his name were " J. P. Loser", it would still be a subjective view of his team's performance in a current sports season. Deiz talk 13:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Spikes, former Major League Baseball player

What does the term "spike" have to do with baseball? If he were a volleyball or football player, the name would be an aptronym, but baseball? Am I missing something? — DIEGO ^talk 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Spikes" are the names of the shoes worn by baseball players because of the small spikes on the bottom of the soles (for traction). Keeper | 76 14:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of specific association

I think that aptonyms must be quite specific. I don't agree with the inclusion of the following:

George Best: The word "best" may apply to him (in someone's opinion), but it doesn't have anything to do with football; it doesn't tie in to any aspect of George Best's specific individual achievements.
Eric Gagne: He may be a winner, but the word doesn't tie him with any specific individual achievement either.
Mario Lemieux - Lemieux means "the best" in French. Same complaint; the association is not specific enough.

As an aside:

Tiger Woods. It is interesting to see the mention, but somehow he needs a partner (does Jeremy Irons play golf?) :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.209.46 (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations?

I've had a brief discussion with Saltation on his talk page and mine regarding the inclusion of BAAPS here. Saltation added it, I removed it, we discussed the removal, and it has now been added back in by Saltation. instead of just removing it again, I'd like other input regarding organizations names - do they fit here? Keeper | 76 23:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. Company names are chosen.. aptronyms are inherently coincidental, not selected. Deiz talk 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that was correct, fictional aptronyms could not exist. Yet they are widely cited.
Probably better in context to say "Unintended", not "Coincidental". Mens rea. I agree that intentional aptronyms should not be bundled with "genuine" aptronyms. (For example, Alicia Keys and Joe Strummer could be reinstated in a section labelled "Deliberate Aptronyms" or somesuch, although the extant mingling of fictional and nonfictional aptronyms then becomes problematic.)
This particular aptronym happens to be both coincidental and unintended. Speaking to the element of intention: does anyone seriously think a brittle brit "professional" group would deliberately choose to associate that cliched euphemism with their professional standing and their public brand? When the group was put together specifically to push that public brand? Check their media presence if you think they're not serious.

As I said in my initial response to your post on my talk page, Deiz (which I noted used a different reasoning to your post here), I'm not particularly motivated to correct this deletion. It's hardly central to the topic.

However, I do not regard it as appropriate to justify that deletion by warping the definition.

Saltation (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "Chip" Jett included but "Chip" Reese was removed?

Poker player Charles "Chip" Jett was included, so I added David "Chip" Reese. Why was Chip Reese removed but not Chip Jett? That makes no sense. 68.45.106.216 (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]