Talk:Aptronym

Mary Yu

I propose that the Honorable Judge Mary Yu be added to the list. She holds the judicial record for most marriages officiated by a judge in Washington State, and also performed the state's first same-sex marriage. She already has a wikipedia page of her own that could be linked! 131.229.236.145 (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We need more than one person's opinion that this name sounds like an aptronym. I personally don't consider it an aptronym because "Mary" is not pronounced the same as "marry". This is not a list article. We only include items that are unequivocal aptronyms and are supported by very reliable sources that clearly identify the name as an aptronym. Having a Wikipedia article is not sufficient. Sundayclose (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In many American English accents, Mary and marry are the same. I think the judge's name fits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_vowel_changes_before_historic_/r/#Mary%E2%80%93marry%E2%80%93merry_merger DangApricot (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, we need a reliable source that the name is an aptronym, regardless of how it's pronounced. Sundayclose (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Peter Crouch

@JesseRafe: on your removal of Peter Crouch from the inaptronym section, that's not the contention being made. It's there because it is considered, by two reliable sources, to be an inapt name. Much like Rob Banks (policeman) wouldn't be removed because "policeman" isn't the opposite of "robbing banks", removing Crouch because his surname doesn't directly contradict his height isn't a good decision, imv. Again, we have two reliable sources describing it as an inaptronym. I urge you to reconsider your reversion. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

What is the contention then? Just offhand sources that call him "inapt" without a reason why doesn't make it so. What is inapt about a tall human named Peter Crouch? There's a lot of crap websites in the world, we're not just going to regurgitate something that's wrong or nonsensical because they use the word "inapt" somewhere. If there's a meaning in there someone I'm genuinely curious. JesseRafe (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ser!: I agree with JesseRafe. First of all, it was in the inaptronym section, not the aptronym section. And there is no reliably sourced indication that the name is an inaptronym. As has been stated here many times, this is not a list article. The examples are illustrative, not exhaustive. There are lots of unequivocal examples. Those that do not clearly fit the definition should not be included. Sundayclose (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: and @Sundayclose:: I’ll try to respond to both of you in one message. What is the contention then? Fairly straightforward. To crouch makes you shorter in stature, and the height of the person (notable within football for his stature) in question makes it an inaptronym. As for There's a lot of crap websites in the world and there is no reliably sourced indication that the name is an inaptronym, neither of you are correct. The sources I added were The Times (literally specifically DEEMED by RfC as a reliable source per WP:RSP) which describes him as “inaptly named”, and ESPN (widely described at RSN as being a reliable source), which describes him as having an “ironic name” - sure, this isn’t the exact phrasing for inaptronym, but it’s the *exact* phrasing used for the Rob Banks example, which even only has one source which isn’t deemed reliable. If your arguments here (as it seem from your responses) are to deem The Times and ESPN as not reliable or a “crap website”, then I really don’t know what to tell you. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to ping an active conversation. Obviously we both have this page on our watchlists. When I first reverted I asked in Edit Summary "is the contention that "crouch" means short? It doesn't." And you responded by opening this talk section (an earnest 'thank you' for that!) that that is not the contention being made. But now in your latest comment you are backtracking and saying that that is the contention being made, that crouching equals short (again, that is not what the word means). As this is not an exhaustive list as Sundayclose explains, we only need best examples. Not tenuous ones or any that need long explanations, but immediately ascertainably apt and inapt names, like your example of Rob Banks - it's obviously ironic for an LEO because it's a verb phrase for an iconic crime that's also composed of two common English names. As to the sources, the RS board has to be interpreted with a degree of analysis. ESPN is a great source for objective sports facts and plain reporting, but they also publish a lot of BuzzFeed/Bleacher Report listicles and wires without bylines, as well as a lot of opinion content. It's hard to take at face value that the ESPPN article cited must be taken as genuine news when the subheading is "The Toe Poke Daily is here every day to bring you all the weirdest stories, quirkiest viral content and top trolling that the internet has to offer, all in one place." Plus, again, anyone can crouch whether tall or short, toddler or senescent -- it's just a position to hold your body in. Tall people, to be honest, would be expected to crouch more often, making the name closer to apt than inapt. I'm only slightly above-average in height and I have to crouch to get into car, bus, and airplane seats that shorter people just sit directly into without extra bending at the knees or waist. People taller than me have to crouch to get into a shower or under a doorjamb. The fact that there is possible a good-faith argument about whether the name is apt or inapt itself precludes it from being listed as either. Let's keep the list as strong as possible. Thanks again for respecting the BRD process and your engagement, but, respectfully, I don't see how this name can be included. JesseRafe (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No problem re the opening of a talk page discussion, it's always much more productive than ending up in an edit war. And copy, I won't ping in future replies on this talk page. But now in your latest comment you are backtracking and saying that that is the contention being made - this isn't the case. My contention is that to crouch means to make ones self shorter, not that it means short. I take your point on the ESPN source, though I disagree that the byline of The Toe Poke hinders its reliability as a source (the HuffPost citation for the Robin Mahfood example is from their "comedy" section, for example), but even taking that argument at its best, that leaves one reliable source (The Times, which you did not mention in your reply) outright describing Crouch as "inaptly-named" - which is a stronger contention than the majority of the examples in the inaptronym section. In fact, even looking at half of the examples there, even leaving the already mentioned Rob Banks example to the side, most of them have even weaker sourcing than the Crouch example - the Larry Playfair example doesn't even refer to his name (which I will be removing after I post this comment). Josh Outman is sourced to someone's personal blog website (using the free version of Wordpress), which is hardly the "RELIABLE SOURCE" mentioned in block capitals in the edit warning. The Samuel Foote citation (also The Times) does mention that he made the "foote and leg" jokes and why, but also makes no reference to his name being an aptronym. Colleen Lawless's citation just describes her as having "an incredible name for a judge" - no mention of an inaptronym, or even being inapt, just "incredible". Bob Walk's name is cited to an article saying "When The Stats Match The Name", which if anything indicates it's the opposite of an inaptronym. I could go on, but that's just four (plus Rob Banks, five) examples of inaptronyms that are much more weakly sourced than this one. By arguing against including Crouch on the back of it not being obvious enough (which is a matter of personal judgement) then I fear the criteria in big block capitals at the top is not being consistently applied. I maintain my view that the Crouch example is an inaptronym and bears inclusion. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You're strawmanning as I never argued on the strength of the sources, but, on the meaning of words in the English language. "Crouch" does not mean "tall"... or "short" or anything similar, it means bending one's body (specifically the knees and/or waist) and nothing else. I am not backtracking at all, and have never wavered from this point. If you agree that its obviousness is a matter of personal judgment (your own words and conclusion), then you should agree it does not belong on this list as it not as strong an example. JesseRafe (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ser!: It's fine to challenge other examples, and I appreciate your going to the effort to look at the examples in detail. That, of course, does not make the case for Crouch any better. I think you may have misinterpreted our objection to be whether the source explicitly uses the word "inaptronym". There are other ways to express that concept that could be acceptable, but when the meaning of the name, in fact, is not the opposite of the profession or activity, the item is at best questionable, regardless of whether the word "inaptronym" is used. My contention, and I also believe that of JesseRafe, is that "Crouch" does not mean "short". Sundayclose (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

JesseRafe: I didn't imply you did. I was arguing about your point on the reliability of the source, and discussing the reliability of the sources of the various others in the inaptronym sections. No strawmen here at all. As for "I am not backtracking at all", I never implied you did - my only mention of the word backtracking was to quote you accusing me of it. My point on the "matter of personal judgment" thing is that this is seeming increasingly less like "do not add examples without a reliable source" and increasingly more like "Do not add examples unless the two editors who usually edit this article personally judge it as an aptronym". It's not our job as editors to do original research and personally judge each example based on whether we think it's a good example or not, it's to repeat what reliable sources say - in this case, you deem this not to be an inaptronym, but reliable sources do. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not Original Research, it's the plain interpretation of the words, which editors are expected to do. We're not automata, and use human discretion. Please, for the sake of the argument, describe in a sentence how the name "Peter Crouch" is an inaptronym for a soccer player, because so far, Sundayclose and I have only been able to guess what your insinuation is, and you've denied that you believe "crouch" means "short", so, please establish what you do believe to be the case making the name inapt. Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It's plainly original research - reliable sources describe this as an aptronym, Wikipedia user JesseRafe does not see this as an aptronym, and it is seemingly removed on that basis. I have already explained several paragraphs above why this is an aptronym, as reliable sources have backed up. To repeat what I said above, My contention is that to crouch means to make ones self shorter, not that it means short. To have a name relating to making ones self shorter while being tall enough to be notable as an outlier in his field makes it an inapt name, hence why we have an RS backing this up. Furthermore, him being a soccer player is immaterial, it's about whether it's an inapt name or not, else Frank Beard (whose beard has nothing to do with his job as a musician) or Samuel Foote (whose absence of a foot has nothing to do with him being an actor) wouldn't be in the list. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you please make your case without trying to use other examples as justification? Whether or not other examples are inaptronyms is entirely independent of this particular proposed entry. If you want to challenge other entries you are perfectly entitled to do so, but don't mix that up with your claims for Crouch. Foote (foot) is the opposite of no foot. Beard is the opposite of no beard. Crouch is not the opposite of tall. Sundayclose (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh? If you read JesseRafe's response a question was asked about how his job (per the sentence above the inaptronym list) was relevant to his name. The reason I'm mentioning the other examples is because I'm responding to that part. To respond to your own point here though: names don't have to be an exact black-and-white, night-and-day parallel to be inaptronyms, so your point falls on this ground. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a dictionary you can reference that says "crouch" means "makes oneself shorter"? It means bend at the waist and lean forward. I just don't get what you're trying to say and you haven't yet in good faith proposed a one sentence inapt comparison, so since I'm only guessing you think "crouch" means "is short" because it definitely does not make "make short" it must have something to do with some intricacy of football as most of these are occupational. As I said earlier, and can be readily observed in nature, taller people are more likely to crouch than average or shorter. Sources can use words differently than this Wikipedia article uses them. We have to interpret the words used, that is not OR, otherwise we would be not only allowed but encouraged to plagiarize sources, instead Wikipedia rules call for re-writing and paraphrasing - how is that not the same as a common sense interpretation of rules? The entry simply doesn't belong. JesseRafe (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

since I'm only guessing you think "crouch" means "is short" - this is now the third time I am telling you that this isn't what I'm saying. It's a fairly routine observation to make that crouching makes you shorter, as per the various pieces of pictorial evidence on the article to which its disambiguation page links on enwiki. Even per the first dictionary entry I could find when googling it means to bring yourself closer to the ground, ergo shorter. Sources can use words differently than this Wikipedia article uses them - the sources verbatim say he's inaptly-named. The section on inaptronyms is for.. people who are inaptly named. We have to interpret the words used - I don't get how you can't interpret "inaptly-named" as meaning it's an inaptronym. As for the sentence about you haven't yet in good faith proposed a one sentence inapt comparison, I have in this thread, you just disagree with it. And finally on the good faith thing - I'm not sure if this is your intention here but if you genuinely are trying to accuse me of arguing in bad faith, please actually state this rather than alluding to it. It'll make things easier for the purpose of any future dispute resolution. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, squatting and crouching are similar terms, (as are cower, cringe, hunker, etc.), and none make a person shorter. Googling 'crouch definition "short"' and 'crouch dictionary "short"' include no definitions of height, only the word "short" when used in examples like "scooch a short distance".) Does Crouch make himself taller? Does he never bend his knee or waist? You have claimed to have supplied the sentence but you still have not, what would the entry look like? "Peter Crouch, 6'7" footballer, because he's taller than 6'6" instead of less than 6'6" as it would look if a 6'6" man were crouching down and you ignored looking at his lower limbs and assumed one's squatted height were their fully erect height, but in fact he's an inch taller than 6'6" instead"? Is that what you think makes the name inapt? We have to use the plain meanings of words and we have to interpret the sources, we don't know the mind of the writer of that article, but it does not make sense with the definition of the ordinary English word and the definition of the less-ordinary English word used in a specific way as defined within this article, where introducing such an example would be clearly contradictory to the purpose of the list of examples. Lastly, consider your own possible bias, which has been called out from the get-go that you interpret the word "crouch" to mean "short" which has been pointed out is not the standard definition or association with it, or you are now pivoting to claim "close to the ground" means "short" when no one calls plant roots or a sidewalk or litter "short" because they're close to the ground, yet you decry others for interpreting words. JesseRafe (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm frankly not seeing the benefit to this discussion anymore, because you have now repeatedly accused me of saying something I haven't said (I never said or interpreted that crouch meant short, and literally stated that verbatim in my last reply, in spite of you having now said that no less than FOUR times in the thread), have made borderline allegations of bad faith against me and now talked down to me with this deliberately obtuse example entry. On the whole "interpreting words" thing, I still maintain that it's OR, but my contentions on the interpretation of the word were entirely taking your argument at its best even though I disagreed with it. In light of this and in light of the WP:CONLOCAL outweighing me, I'll leave this discussion, because as you said yourself in your edit summary, this is going nowhere. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

How do maiden names apply to this?

I stumbled across the Wikipedia page for Composer, Pianist, and Artist Jessie Baetz, who was born Jessie Elizabeth Drummer, despite her not playing the drums. It made me curious, if someone’s maiden name was an aptonym or in-aptonym, but their married name isn’t, are they still eligible for inclusion in this article’s list? I couldn’t find an answer elsewhere, so figured I should ask here. Thanks! Slamforeman (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I think as far as this article is concerned, the answer would be something like "if a reliable source mentions them as an example of an aptronym". AJD (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see why it'd be a problem as long as you can find a source that says it's either apt or inapt. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, good! I just wanted to be wary in case there was rule against changed names or something I wasn’t aware of. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find an appropriate source that mentions Baetz as an in-aptonym, but it is very useful to know this for the future. Thank you both once more! Slamforeman (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Encountered this today

Ashley Bland Manlove, the first openly lesbian African-American member of Missouri's House of Representatives. No source yet, but it would be a beautiful inaptronym if one ever comes up. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Notable examples section

A tag was placed today: "This section may contain excessive or irrelevant examples"

The section has also an inline comment that says "This is not a list article. DO NOT ADD EXAMPLES WITHOUT A RELIABLE SOURCE STATING THAT IT IS AN APTRONYM, PER CONSENSUS"

All items in the list has refs; I randomly checked some and these do say something to the end, e.g., "Bert Beveridge, the founder of Tito’s Handmade Vodka, is appropriately named for a spirits entrepreneur."

I was thinking aboout listifying the section, but it seems there are no similar lists, i.e., lists based on the peculiarity of a surname. Let us see what WP:LIST say. - Altenmann >talk

For the record, I placed the tag there and my concern is not that the references are insufficient, it's that list is too long. Per WP:LONGSEQ, "material within a list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail". To that end, I believe the list is cluttered with examples, a great deal of which would not benefit the average reader. After, like, 5-10 examples, they get the point.

Instead of trimming the list though, it would be nice if we could spin the list off into a new article, something like List of notable aptronyms. Interested to hear other people's opinions on this matter. Slamforeman (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That's what I have written just above: I am not at all sure that such list will survive our policies.. - Altenmann >talk 05:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That's something I kind of lament about Wikipedia. You make a fun article like list of unusual deaths or toilet paper orientation today and you get laughed out of the room. I'm still regretful I never got to read Tiger versus lion.

Despite this, I think a list article on Aptronyms would survive. The fact there are so many listed and most seem to be well referenced means a spin-off would probably pass WP:NOTABILITY. Slamforeman (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've combed through the names on the list as the last few editors to gatekeep the page applied rules inconsistently, and the majority of the names at least have "aptly named" or something in the source, apart from some painfully obvious ones I just didn't feel were right to remove, like Ian Bishop - the source just says "Thetford to have Bishop Bishop" which at least slightly implies apt-ness. If you were to start a cull because of excess examples, you could start with that and the four that are unsourced - though I don't know if we need to. Given if we cut it down to 5-10 examples as mentioned above the actual article on "aptronym" would be minuscule, could we not just let this article act as a list of aptronyms? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

...would be minuscule - a good point. There is not much to write about the word, which is about funny coincidences, nothing more. - Altenmann >talk 16:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no problem if an article is short to stub length if it satisfies what the reader is looking for. There is an argument to be made that readers would primarily like to see examples, but that'd be all the more reason to spin off the list. Considering on proposing that.

Also, to be entirely honest, if an article is little to nothing without a list of examples, would it not be suited more for something like Wiktionary? I imagine you can take quite a few entries on there, add a list, and you'd have a new article. Slamforeman (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This one does have a bit of history, and an enthusiast could have written more, so it is reasonably encyclopedic, although rather on a curiosity side rather than "real" knowledge. - Altenmann >talk 23:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Dean Karen Bacon of Yeshiva University

Does this work as an inaptonym? [1] [2] Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If you could find a source directly describing her name as an inaptronym, then sure. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's a source that describes a fictional film about an Orthodox Jew who “obsessively enters contest after contest...when he finally wins, the prize (ironically) was bacon." [3]. It's not about Karen Bacon. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)