Talk:Eponym

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

why no clothing category?

Given how many articles of clothing are named after the people (both real and fictitious) who popularised them, I'm surprised that there isn't a category/link on this page for items such as Wellington boots, Fedoras, Daisy Dukes, Cardigans, &c. I'd do it myself but I don't know how 165.91.64.136 (talk)RKH —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Fancy Word

It's a fancy word for people who want to seem more intelligent than they actually are as evidenced by the (too) many uses of the word in Wikipedia articles, many of which are incorrect. For example: "Dickie Roberts is an eponymous former child star on a TV sitcom " from the Wikipedia article on the movie Dickie Roberts Former Child Star. As written, this doesn't make much sense. Or how about this? Previously in the Wikipedia article about The Last Picture show this statement was made: "...Sam the Lion, owner of the eponymous movie theater..." The movie theater in the film was not named The Last Picture Show, so how could it be eponymous? When the word eponymous is correct, how about using "named after" or "named for" instead? Why use a fify cent word when a nickel word will do? Isn't the point of an encyclopedic article supposed to be to communicate clearly with the reader rather than confuse and aleinate them by using big words and using them incorrectly. I'm starting a petition to outlaw the use of the word eponymous in every Wikipedia article as well as outlawing the use of Family Guy episodes in the trivia section of every Wikipedia article. Sign below :-)

Anonymous Wikipedia user here who figured there had to be something in the Talk section of "eponym" about this. What is this craziness? Every other article on Wikipedia now seems to have some variant of this word in it. Even if it's used correctly, it often seems forced. Therefore, I second your motion to eliminate it from Wiki entries. --205.129.12.253 17:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. I see it used all over wikipedia, even in cases where a person's name is not used. "It's a fancy word for people who want to seem more intelligent than they actually are as evidenced by the (too) many uses of the word in Wikipedia articles, many of which are incorrect." is exactly what I have been thinking about this. Sahuagin (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List

I plan to move the list of eponyms to a new article where it can be made into categories. See the "Eponyms" section in the Lists of etymologies for an existing category-based listing. The list moved from this page could become the default alphabetically ordered list. Jay 17:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done. Was waiting for Wikipedia to complain about the 32 KB limit. Jay 09:58, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Medical

I added an Internet link to a very useful site on medical eponyms (i.e. what did Dr James Parkinson do for a living apart from describing the hypokinetic-rigid syndrome named after him) Jfdwolff 10:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Move

some discussions have been moved over to talk:list of eponyms

Eponymic vs. Eponymous

Are eponymic and eponymous synonyms? The article says to use "eponymic" as an adjective to describe the relationship of an object to its eponym, but I frequently use "eponymous". Am I wrong? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:19, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they are synonyms. Not sure if there is the British English/American English divide here though. Jay 08:04, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Misunderstood usage?

"Some books, films, and TV shows are eponymous with their principal character(s): Beavis and Butt-head and Daria, for example." "Are eponymous with" is an ungainly construction that shows its unfamiliarity with the term. Isn't the better usage that these books have eponymous heroes? This text (I haven't moved it from the article) seems oblivious to the passage that directly precedes it. --Wetman 16:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "eponymous" is an adjective that applies to the person, not to the named item. AxelBoldt 22:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect definition?

I'm not sure the definition of eponym is correct. MSN Encarta lists it as being the person named after or the thing being named.

http://ca.encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861608906/eponym.html

The Oxford English Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica both agree with us that an eponym is the person, not the named thing. (Webster and WordNet both allow the named thing to be called an eponym as well.)

It makes more sense if the eponym is the "named thing" because this is the way other -nym words are used. Examples: NATO is an acronym formed from North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is not the acronym. George Orwell is a pseudonym, the author's real name Eric Arthur Blair is not the pseudonym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.73.3.203 (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, I believe our definition is too narrow in that it requires the name of the person to be synonymous with the name of the item. With that strict definition, there are few eponyms. For instance, Alexander the Great would not qualify as an eponym of Alexandria, and neither would Avogadro be an eponym of Avogadro's constant. I think the definition given at list of eponyms is better. AxelBoldt 22:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The eponym must be the name (its the name not the thing, but that is a subtle distinction). "Plimsoll" is the eponym (referencing a show), the person Samuel Plimsoll is an eponymist. I have never seen "eponym" used in this way, and indeed I have a dictionary of eponymists (sic) at home to which I refer frequently. To use the term for both the originator and the thing named after them seems exceptionally clumsy. OED and EB are not law, they describe usage. Clearly usage is muddled (as witnessed by this page) but can we not strive in the rest of the wikipedia to use eponym and eponymist as distinct terms and note the ditinctions here? Francis Davey 21:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some google searching leaves me none the wiser as to "the truth". In particular the definition of the eponym as the eponymist seems identical everywhere, which may be an original mistake (yes they occurred, see old OED for aardvark). However "eponym archon" on this page appears to beg the question. Archons of Athens has the usage archon eponymous, can we not say "eponymous archon" since this (a) does not beg the question on usage; and (b) is a better borrowing from the Greek? I will change if no-one minds. Francis Davey 22:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything like "eponym" when I do a search for epon- at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform. Are the quoted etymologies even vaguely right? Eponomazo just means to call something by a name. Francis Davey 22:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went to dictionary.com and there are both examples of eponymous being an adjective to describe the thing with the original name and the thing being named. I'm so confused --Gbleem 13:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what I find especially awesome about this completely crappy page is that it includes a link to wiktionary, which gives the following definitions:

The name of a real or fictitious person that has, or is thought to have, given rise to the name of a particular item.

A word formed from a real or fictive person’s name.

but the page leads off with it's own completely wonky definition. Would it help to fix the first sentence? 146.115.123.180 (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing things always helps... You could start by telling us what you think is "wonky", since both the definitions you mention are included? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

Could some one please add a useful pronunciation guide? I can find them online but they are confusing. How is this pronounced? hdstubbs

Definition

It seems to me that eponym is the name of a person, not the person itself. Since the name is then shared by the eponymous person and the thing named after him, eponym can also be used for the thing named after that person. Zwart 00:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say eponym, where the same word is used, clearly refers to the *name* of the thing, but not to the thing itself. Hence eponymous should be used only for the giver of the name, not the recipient. The word is widely used in what I consider to be the wrong way, however - there has to come a point where usage defines meaning. -- Ian Dalziel 09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I was changing planes at Heathrow I noticed the fuel trucks said inflamable. Most people would consider inflamable to mean the opposite of flamable. The question may be at what point do we switch from one definition to the other or can we have eponymous mean both? What about a person named after the city of Georgia. --Gbleem 13:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph seems to have a backwards definition:

One who is referred to as eponymous is someone who gives his or her name to something, e.g. Julian, the eponymous owner of the famous restaurant Julian's Castle.

This suggests that the owner's name was derived from that of the restaurant. Finwailin (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't! Exactly the opposite - calling the *restaurant* eponymous suggests that, in the strictest sense of the word. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The restaurant on its own is not eponymous. Nor is the owner. The owner's name is eponymous, as is the name of the restaurant, because the owner and the restaurant are eponymous with each other. Therefore they are both eponymous - they are eponymous with each other, with an implied directionality (from the owner to the restaurant). To say that one is eponymous without explicit or implied mention of the other makes no sense. It is like saying, "water is superior". Without an explicit or implied other thing to be superior over, it has little meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.51.11.2 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed phrase

I took out, "chanceries, especially at the court of a prince aspiring pivotal importance to his entire state's society, and was copied by minor dignitaries, even prelates", and substituted, "courts". The use of chancery here does not match the Wiktionary definition, and b/c this is too much detail for an article on names, not political movements. Maybe the whole parethetical comment should be removed, too. Mdotley 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited "administration" eponyms

I've added a few examples to the governmental/administrative eponym list; as originally written, it sounded like the Americans are the only ones in the English-speaking world to use eponyms in this way. If anybody knows some good examples from other English-speaking countries.... --Charlene 12:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must be American. Bloombergused it for Bernard Madoff. Byeboer (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a simple definition?

I read the whole page, I read thjis whole talk page, and I still don't quite understand what an eponym is. Could someone explain it, or give an example? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.111.167.39 (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A person's name which has also been given (transferred) to something else. "Bistro George", the name of an eatery started by George Godwin (fictitious example) -- the eponym is the name "George". The person and the eatery are each "eponymous with" the other. --204.97.183.31 19:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. a person, real or imaginary, from whom something, as a tribe, nation, or place, takes or is said to take its name: Brut, the supposed grandson of Aeneas, is the eponym of the Britons.

2. a word based on or derived from a person's name.

IE: both the person and the word are eponyms. the thing named is not. Sahuagin (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Overuse

This is possibly the most overused word anywhere in the whole of Wikipedia. Tomwhite56 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

One thing I dont get is my spelling book says An Eponym is a word that comes from someones name. For Example, the leotard was named after Jules Leotard, a trapeze artist. Write the content word that was formed by adding the old latin term for "ten" to part of Alexander Graham Bell's name. I really needed help. I came to Wikipedia and I found what I needed. Now I know that the answer to the guestion is Decibel. Wikipedia doesn't give you the answer but helps you out alot more than any other website I have been. I appreciate all the help Wikipedia. Thanks, Wikipedia Lover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.187.123.112 (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eponym means either the thing OR the person it is named after

Clearly some people are keen to show their erudition by emphasising the 'person' definition, or even, as at present in this article, eliminating the 'thing' definition altogether.

Well, language evolves, and in the real world 'eponym' is mostly used to mean the thing named. Increasingly rarely, it can still mean the person it is named after or for.

Collins dictionary (which reliably balances contemporary and accepted usage) gives both definitions, of course, but puts the 'thing' ahead of the 'person'.

So please will anyone who objects to our including both meanings in the opening sentences of this article discuss it here, to avoid a silly edit war when I amend the entry in a short while. Earthlyreason (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly object to what you have just written. "Eponym" means neither the person nor the thing, it means the word. Which, being the same word in each case, applies to either. The argument is about "eponymous", which can, being pedantic, only be applied to the person. It is freely used for either in modern usage, though, and the lead clearly states as much. So, amend away - and I hope there won't be a "silly edit war" if I copyedit what you've written. :-) Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian - yes, 'eponym' is the name of the thing or person. Sorry if I was lazy in my presentation. (Though the two words may not be exactly the same, eg. Mesmer and mesmerise.) And you recognise that modern usage is broader than the pedantic (ie. outdated) meaning. But I will adapt the article lead to say more clearly that there are two main meanings, adding perhaps that 'eponymous' still more often refers to the person than does 'eponym'. Earthlyreason (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcherism as a North American eponym?

Thatcherism appears under North American examples. Last time I checked, Thatcher was from the UK. Is this a section of history I've neglected or a logical error in the article? 220.233.199.72 (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-titled

The article says "In contemporary English, the term eponymous is often used to mean self-titled." There is no definition of "self-titled". This is not good! I think "self-titled" means "named after oneself." That seems to be just a special case of the normal definition, so do we need a special statement about "self-titling"? I will put in a definition of "self-titled" and see what happens. Zaslav (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-titled music albums

How do we know that self titled Albums are really the name of the band? For example Led Zeppelin I, just has Led Zeppelin on the title, It only says that name once. How do we know its saying the title of the album is Led Zeppelin and not having that as the name of the Band? Led Zeppelin IV didn't say anything and it's Untitled. Almost no bands have the name of the band on the album twice. So either the band or the album isn't getting credit. Or the album isn't really self titled. --24.94.251.190 (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]