Talk:Ashley (name)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anthroponymy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Fake legend removal[edit]

I have removed the following paragraph:

The origins of the name come from an ancient Anglo-Saxon legend wherein a lovely young woman was kidnapped by an ogre and imprisoned in an ash tree. Over the years, the tree took on the form of the woman. Her name long since forgotten, she is now only remembered as "Ashley". The fabled tree is located in Devonshire, UK.

I must say the above is very creative fiction writing, but it's complete nonsense! Clevelandkentevans 04:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Split[edit]

Note that this is a split from Ashley. Does this serve the reader? --Wetman 04:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • As the person who did the split, I believe so, yes. In reality, the reader should not be exposed directly to disambiguation pages if possible; they are a necessary part of the infrastructure but should be as unobtrusive and efficient as possible. Courtland 12:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll have to side with Wetman on this one. This really seems dreadfully inefficient. When a disambig page starts to get long, WP's Disambiguation guidelines suggest such things as subheaders and eventually sectioning; it never recommends for such mundane situations as this, when it would be so very easy to just keep the info compact and centralized. Plus "human name" is such a friggin's silly disambiguation page name; what's wrong with just "Ashley (name)", when it comes down to it? It's not like there are many fish names or comet names to confuse this page with. But really, just having it all at Ashley is best. That's what most people who go to Ashley will be looking for anyway! The reader's interests and ease are more important than going to strange lengths to hide important info in odd places. -Silence 09:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that "human name" is acceptable because there are entries in the WP for fictional beings and characters. It is true there aren't many fish or comet names to confuse, but when you take into account Klingon names, Wookie names, or anything along those lines, you have enough names to where it should be specified. I don't know if the WP has a lot of fictional names, but I know it allows for it and can grow in that direction. Perhaps it should be noted whether a name is fictional or not as well, though this could be mentioned at the beginning of the article as well. -Hastor 02:38, 24 February 2006
The things is though, there is no Klingon name Ashley to confuse it with and thus saying Ashley (name) is enough. What's more, I'm sure people have named some non-human pets Ashley as well. Theshibboleth 21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
What kind of TV obsessed jerks are you klingons don't exist and the artical ashley refers to it as a name of some towns so merge them.Pʰil 06:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Precedent[edit]

There seems to be precedent for both keeping the articles as one called Ashley (see eg. Paul or Andrew), and also for a seperate page called Ashley (name) (see eg. Matthew (name) or John (name)). I could not, however, find any precedent for the use of (human name). My opinion is to leave the pages seperate, but to rename this page to Ashley (name). Kcordina 09:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

But Matthew (name) and John (name) are not listed as disambiguation pages. Added the standard {{otheruses2}} and removed {{hndis}} stuff.
--William Allen Simpson 10:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Boy vs. girl names[edit]

This is a name that is widely perceived as a girl's name but can be a boy's name. Any name where it is vice versa?? Georgia guy 00:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That perception depends on where you're from. In England (it's country of origin) it began as a boy's name and remains a boy's name. For some reason, Americans started using it as a girl's name and many others have followed, even a few people in England (though it's still generally considered a boy's name there). Holymolytree2 14:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In NZ all my classmates who had the name "Ashly/Ashley" were girls. I have yet to hear of any male in NZ called Ashley. To be honest, most people would think he is a girl. --BrianJ35 (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protect[edit]

Should this be semiprotected to reduce the vandalism that happens in nearly any given name's article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.172.30 (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin[edit]

The use of Ashley as a celtic/gaul male name goes back quite some time. Ash is a traditional druidic wood and represents Ygdrasill, the World Tree. It is one of the three sacred woods of the Fae Triad (Oak, Ash, Thorn). Ashley as a given name would have been considered a name of power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.138.11 (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ashlyn[edit]

Should Ashlyn really be considered a spelling variant of Ashley? Sounds like a separate name (perhaps derived from Ashley) but it wouldn't be pronounced the same. -KaJunl (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC) KaJunl (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)