Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Anthroponymy and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
![]() | Anthroponymy Project‑class | ||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Anthroponymy page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
Tagging ambiguous surnames
I have proposed a tag for articles that refer to a person by two or more names and it is not clear which is the surname that should be used throughout the article per WP:LASTNAME. I know that editing general biography articles is outside the scope of this project, but it seems like the best place to ask for comments on the value of this. See Template talk:Family name hatnote. Thanks MB 23:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Footers for a surname list
What footers should a simple little page like Méresse have? A full surname page would have a lot of sourced content about the etymology and distribution of the name, of course, but there are many many of these useful surname lists which are similar to, though not the same as, disambiguation pages. Does it need both a "surname" footer and a "surname stub" one (which looks terribly clunky)? If not, which, and how can I avoid it getting given the other? Any thoughts? PamD 09:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Those are the ones I typically add (because they exist).—Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Someone over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation alerted me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. I see there that the example it gives of a surname stub at WP:APOSTUB does not include the {{Surname}} template - thus depriving readers of the useful information it contains, which is just as relevant for a stub article. I wonder whether there is a case for creating a different kind of template for {{surname-stub}}, which would be in effect a combination of those two templates, so that we can give all the information to readers in one elegant template rather than cluttering the article with two? PamD 17:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- If the wording was combined, we'd ideally need to find instances where both are currently used and remove one.—Bagumba (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Someone over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation alerted me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. I see there that the example it gives of a surname stub at WP:APOSTUB does not include the {{Surname}} template - thus depriving readers of the useful information it contains, which is just as relevant for a stub article. I wonder whether there is a case for creating a different kind of template for {{surname-stub}}, which would be in effect a combination of those two templates, so that we can give all the information to readers in one elegant template rather than cluttering the article with two? PamD 17:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I do not think one needs a stub template for surnames. For very few of zillions surname pages there is have enough information to be expanded. All expandable ones already have most of what can be found.
- In fact, I think the whole idea of "stub" templates is outdated. They were necessary in early days of wikipedia, when people were not well aware the "wikipedia is an encyclopedia which everyone can edit" and we needed various extra encouragement to attract editors. There are zillions of stub-tagged articles which set there for 10 years and nobody cares. If there is a two-liner article and nobody cares to expand it, then "stub" template will not help. It is just an annoying litter in the page and a clickbait for powertool-assisted editcountitis-suffering wikignomes, who, as I often see, plop various templates everywhere without a second's thought. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging user:PamD, who seems to be regularly using the "surname-stub". May be they have an important reason for doing so. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello @PamD:. I think either, but not both, {{surname-stub}} or {{surname}} are required, but @Staszek Lem: is right, there are very many surname pages that have scant information about the surname but that use {{surname}} instead of {{surname-stub}}. And I agree that in any case {{surname}} is better. So, here's an idea:
- Ask a bot to find instances where a page contains both {{surname-stub}} or {{surname}} and delete {{surname-stub}}
- Redirect {{surname-stub}} to {{surname}}
- Hello @PamD:. I think either, but not both, {{surname-stub}} or {{surname}} are required, but @Staszek Lem: is right, there are very many surname pages that have scant information about the surname but that use {{surname}} instead of {{surname-stub}}. And I agree that in any case {{surname}} is better. So, here's an idea:
- What do yo (and others) think? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to include {{surname}} and not {{surname-stub}}, but I remind you that this WikiProject has a page called "Standards", which includes an example of a 2-entry surname list, which includes {{surname-stub}} but not {{surname}}. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards#Surname stub. Perhaps it's time to modify that standard. PamD 19:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- This standard merely describes the syntax and gives it example usage on a small article, not to clutter the overall text (notice it does not even include the {{surname}}). But does not give any guideline where to use it. I I've tried and modified this standard] and let us see how it sticks. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'll try that, and see how long it is before someone comes along and slaps a {{stub}} tag onto a little surname page. I create them quite often, when someone I'm stubsorting or otherwise working on has a surname which hasn't yet got a page, but there are other people sharing the surname so that a redirect isn't appropriate. PamD 19:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- You are doing a good job by bcreating these surname pages. I am doing exactly the same. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- See, for example, this edit: {{stub}} added with comment "(stubby; the article is short; the navigation banner is bigger than the article)". Found it while stub-sorting. Do I revert, or stub-sort? Revert would be sensible and probably as per consensus above; stub-sort would be according to the published instruction. PamD 06:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Reverted, with comment linking to this discussion. PamD 06:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I imagine that stub categories in general were created so that anyone on a campaign to expand a particular subcategory of stubs could easily find those pages. I don't mind categorizing them, and have been doing so, but I otherwise don't "use" those categories, per se. If they are not deemed useful, they should just be TfDed instead of redirecting them from a misleading "stub" name.—Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's not quite as simple as saying "TfD the {{surname-stub}}": there would need to be a case made, and agreement reached, that surname articles are different from other articles, given that a small surname list with minimal info about the surname itself is definitely a stub, by normal definitions. PamD 15:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- My point is that the only full-proof way to make sure the name stub templates are not used is to TfD them and establish consensus. However, what would stop anyone from placing generic {{stub}} instead?—Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your point is exactly to my point in the suggestion in #"Surname-article" template required: you cannot prevent anybody from slapping any tag. But we may prevent a tag-revert war by having a guideline in place. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
"Surname-article" template required
Sorry, I cannot write coherently now, I am on heavy medication, so please bear with me, even if my text will be somewhat chaotic
but reviewing the above discussion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards in came to my mind that the template {{surname}} and surname article titles themselves are the sources of confusion.
- Problem
(1) Normally it is an extremely rare case someone links a surname bearing in mind that they indeed want to discuss the surname. The latter usualy happens in the anthroponymy-related articles. But in most cases IMO it may happen when someone links it without much thinking, such as in "Sergeant McMahon", because even the sources cited do not know and don't care who the heck this sergeant was. And I do not think the readers care about this sergeant either. Therefore this link will probably stay, like, forever, because
- unlike disambig pages, the link is a normal blue one
- when someone clicks on it, they will see a normal article and the {{surname}} with the advice to disambiguate is way down below the page and random people either will not see it or just ignore it: if they read to the very bottom, it means they were absorbed with the interesting reading and hence most probably will care less with formalities.
(2) There is a relative small proportion of the articles like McMahon. A vast majority are like Smythe.
(3) WP:APONAME-LIST gives a clueless example: IMO Spencer (surname) does not need the advice "If an internal link intending to refer to a specific person led you to this page,...". Because if a person, who gives himself a trouble to type "Spencer (surname)" most probably they knew what they were doing, unlike, say, the link in "sergeant McMahon".
(4) An extra layer of complication (or simplification :-) is that Spencer, Smith, etc. are in fact disambiguation pages, which lends a natural usage of surname articles with disambiguated titles, like, Smith (surname).
Suggestion
- (1) Follow consistently the example Smith (surname):
- Convert all substantial surname articles, such as McMahon, into "Smith" format: make a split XXsurname (surname)/List of people with surname XXsurname, and add a hat note "for list of people"
- Do not convert surname articles which are just lists, possibly with a brief header on etymology, such as Mazheika or Paszkiewicz. Brief headers (even not so brief) in lists is a common practice.
- Modify the ledes of Mazheika-type articles to tell that is a list article without renaming the page. Eg. the phrase "Notable people with this surname include" relpace with "
A list of
notable people with this surname include", as in List of people with surname Smith. - If there is no real XXsurname (disambiguation) page, use the main title XXsurname (and not XXsurname (surname)) for the list, And redirect XXsurname (disambiguation) to the respective list article.
- Introduce {{surname-article}} template for substantial surname articles titled XX_substantial_surname (surname) It will serve only for bookkeeping categorization and does not need the advice present in {{surname}}.
- Modify the text of "surname-stub" template and of its instruction to clearly indicate that it is intended only for XX (surname) pages.
- The the guideline state that the "list-only" surname pages should not bear any "stub" tags, because they are basically navigation pages, unless there is a potential of the expansion of the lede beyond etymology. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- (2) Sorry, I forgot already what was (2) :-)
Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
@Bagumba: @PamD: @Shhhnotsoloud: If, after a brief discussion my idea gets some traction, it is better to carry out a full-fledged RFC for this. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- I honestly don't think there are any improvements here, and the introduction of a third template would mean there would be two more than we really need. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Planning for upcoming large RfC on surname clarification
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote § Planning for the future of surname clarification. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48
Yahya-Name origin
I beg to differ that this male name is of Arabic origin! It is in FACT of a HEBREW name (& the 2 Semitic twin languages-together with Aramaic, are naturally & inevitably bound to each other & intricately-intertwined anyway!)-for, in Hebrew, the name is pronounced: Yihyeh which translates into: shall live (יחיה). The ONLY form of the word: to live in Arabic which coincides with that in/of Hebrew is the noun form, like the word: Life (in Arabic=حياة/hayat & in Hebrew: חיים/hayim & some other derivatives, like: تحيتي/tehiyatee-which means, greetings/regards while, in Hebrew, תחיה/Tehiyah-also a female name, means: revival, the coming alive of...-as in: תחיית-המתים/tehiyat-Ha'Meteem-The Resurrection of the Dead).
However, as a verb, it is precisely where the 2 languages already diverge, each, respectively: in Arabic, to live is: عيش/ayish or, 3eish (with the 3-sign symbolizing the harsh guttural sound of the letter ein) yet, ONLY in Hebrew, this words exists ALSO as a verb (לחיות/l'hyot)! Additionally, there is the reverse case where the name Ayish (or, 3yish) exists as a Jewish last name (usually, for people of Middle-eastern descent-such as, Yemeni Jews which, ONLY in Arabic, means: will live! Finally, the version (or, translation of the) name of Biblical Sarah (in the Old Testament) in Arabic is: Ayisha (or, 3yisha) who also happened to be one of Prophet Muhammad's wives!
note: I am a full time caregiver to my severely handicap spouse & am also a (linguist, teacher) & private tutor-therefore, I have NO time or energy left in me to figure out how to post correctly on Wikipedia. I am BEGGING someone else who can, to post this information correctly.
Thank you so much & may you only know happiness, infinite blessings, health & good life! AK63 (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)