This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics 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.
This is really a disambiguation page -- it's even marked as such -- it should be merged with the standard disambiguation page. An article called "Daniel_(name)" should probably be an etymological discussion of the name. --Delius1967 19:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this page should contain a discussion of the etymology of the name, and perhaps someone will add one. In that case, it would not be good to combine the pages. The "name" pages - Daniel (name), Anita, etc. - seem to often contain an etymology and a list of people with that name. I think it would not be a bad thing to just have the "Daniel" disambiguation page refer to the Daniel (name) page for a list of people with the first or last name of Daniel.
The problem is, whatever you do, people will start adding names onto the other article. And if you combine them, it will have to contain the etymology and other text on the name as well as the disambiguation part. You can't win...
I have been moving all the "name" pages to Category:Given names from Category:Names, so that they will all be in one spot.--Brianyoumans 04:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
In the "Daniel as a first name" section, wisely or not, the names are split into categories--should the same be done for the "Daniel as a surname" section, given that it is quite long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
I don't think splitting the list by profession is a good idea, as it makes things complicated when a person is notable for than one profession they have had during their lifetime, such as an actor-turned-politician or a person who is an actor and a musician. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Splitting the list by profession is a good idea. And it is done on other articles about common names. Where a person is known for more than one thing, they would best be listed according to their primary area of notability. If there are cases where the primary area of notability is not obvious, the name could be listed in more than once section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
This article is not only a list, it also gives info about the name, hence the current name of the article is correct. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
But the article also seems to contain a very long list of people named Daniel (or some variation of Daniel), and doesn't contain very much else. It is unclear whether it is attempting to list everyone who is mentioned on Wikipedia who is named Daniel, and if not, who should be listed and who should not. This seems like a basically undesirable situation. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Sentence in the lead about finding in English roots in American countries
The lead contained a sentence saying "Daniel is commonly found in English roots in American countries." To me this sentence seemed strange in several ways. Rather than listing the various ways it seemed strange, I have simply deleted it. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Support - this is the practice with many articles such as John. This page should be a disambiguation page. StAnselm (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Splitting the article does not mean that there is an absence of a primary topic. Census reports alone show that "Daniel" is far more prevalent as a given name than as a surname, with the surname generally being derived from the given name as a patronymic anyway. bd2412T 01:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Support in any case, but we should also get rid of the silly primarytopic claim and make Daniel the disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. No consensus on whether the proposed moves are a good idea. Number57 21:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
– In the recently closed RM, it was not clear whether Daniel should be reassigned to the names page or the disambig page, as people had suggested both and the closer chose the partially disambiguated alternative; and the names page is being split (it looks like) into surname and given name pages. It makes sense to do more like John and make Daniel be the disambiguation page, with the given name, surname, biblical figure, and other meanings needing to be disambiguated. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Support as nom. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose A result either way is not particularly significant as there is precedent for either as the primary article. However, there is a tendency for names that also have other meanings (e.g. mark, john, bob) to have the disambiguation page as the main page, but generally the name is the primary article for words that are only used as a proper noun (e.g. Michael, Chris, Joseph).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
But so are Luke and Micah. And the book of Daniel is linked in the first sentence of the name article anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I have just initiated a discussion at Luke to bring it in line with Matthew, Mark, and John. As you can imagine, I think Micah should be changed as well' but I will wait to see what happens with the other discussions first. StAnselm (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The words 'mark' and 'john' have uses other than as proper nouns. Matthew should probably be brought in line with other names that are only proper nouns. But it's not the end of the world either way. The claim that names that are also titles of books of the Bible are different to other names is essentially an invented arbitrary distinction.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, the page was just moved here. Let's give it a few months to see how the page views settle out before rushing to another move. Also, given that Mark and John are two of the books in the Jesus narrative, they are likely to be substantially more significant historically than the Book of Daniel. The Biblical book may be the origin of the name, but see Boston, Lincolnshire and Boston. bd2412T 03:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The Move Review was just closed on the basis of having this RM discussion as an alternative. One would not say that because a mistake was just made it would be too soon to talk about fixing it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
One might say, however, that we should give this arrangement some time to shake out to see if a change in pageviews suggest that this is indeed the primary topic sought by readers. bd2412T 04:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Since page views are always biased toward the base name, spending time to look at such numbers wouldn't really tell us much useful. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The biblical book isn't the origin of the name, though it contributes to its popularity. The character in the book of Daniel is neither the only nor the first person with that name even in the Bible. Daniel, the son of David, predates the character in the book of Daniel. However, the name originates from the name Danel from at least 1400 BCE. That character is also mentioned in the book of Ezekiel, but is often misinterpreted as referring to the Daniel of the biblical book instead, even though the spelling in the original text of Ezekiel is different and the context alludes to an ancient character).--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. We agree for a change. But maybe this comment is not where you intended it? Bit of a non-sequitur here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I was responding to bd2412's suggestion that the biblical book may be the origin of the name.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Resolved issue not relevant to this discussion
I have just contacted User talk:PaleAqua to request a review the procedural close. It seems logical to start with whether the original move was a good one according to consensus, and then to come back here. StAnselm (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I predict you'll not make progress with a review of a close of a review of a close of an RM discussion that left the results ambiguous and up to the closer. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, this last closure was a procedural one, and had nothing to do with assessing consensus. StAnselm (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, I don't think I will get anywhere along that line. StAnselm (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Anyway, back the the matter at hand - eight of the top ten results in Google Books are for the Book of Daniel. If there was a primary topic, it would be that book; it's certainly not the personal name. StAnselm (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion about the biblical figure has been closed, and there has been no suggestion of the book being made the primary subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think he is saying that the book should be primarytopic; just that the name should not be. Dicklyon (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Support in lieu of what is probably the best solution, which is to make the book the redirect's location (or just bring it over here). RedSlash 05:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose as I think there is a propensity for the over elevation of Judeo-Christian frames over broader cultural conceptualities. Only a fifth of the globe hews to the Bible, but a far larger proportion likely knows or knows of a "Daniel." .... DeistCosmos (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. There are plenty of articles about names of people where the main article is about the name, even though they have disambiguation pages that typically refer to towns, works of art, literature, music and so on. But as soon as there's something about 'the Bible', suddenly it's supposed to be the dominant subject by fiat?! There has been no claim that books of the Bible are not notable, but they are not more notable than other subjects.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
How is this a rationale to oppose putting the disambig page at the base name? Did DeistCosmos misunderstand the proposal? Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The proposal specifically asserts that the disambiguation page should be the main page on the basis of giving prominence to the article about the biblical subject. You don't seem to be suggesting that the disambiguation page for other articles about non-biblical names be made the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it does not. It says "It makes sense to do more like John and make Daniel be the disambiguation page, with the given name, surname, biblical figure, and other meanings needing to be disambiguated." Exactly how the biblical character is treated on the disambig page is not the issue here. Dicklyon (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
If anything is a certainty it is that Daniel is no John. No. No, I think that the widely given human name Daniel holds the ground here. But nice patronization there!! DeistCosmos (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Support. Per the information above, the biblical character or their book in the Bible are just as notable as the given name, if not more, given that the given name's strong connection to the biblical figure. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Given names have incredible long-term significance, and it is quite reasonable to think that someone entering just a given name in the search box is expecting to find an article about that name. And Daniel isn't just any name, it's consistently been one of the most popular, and not just in one place, but many. When it comes to names, the most thorough stats come from the US, where it was the 10th most popular boys' name of 2013, has been as high as 5th (1985, 1990, 2007, 2008), within the top 15 every year since 1972, the top 20 every year since 1952, and has never been lower than 55 as far back as these statistics go - to 1880. Other countries' data is much less detailed and doesn't go back nearly as far, but the name still has an impressive showing in, for example: England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, British Columbia, New South Wales... there's a list of them here. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, don't move any articles, but as per my comment in Talk:Daniel#Split_article, the lists of people so surnamed or first names should be spunout, leaving this page like a DABCONCEPT, detailing the meaning, origin, popularity, etc. Keep the dab page separate. "Daniel" the name is the PrimaryTopic, but this PrimaryTopic is not a list of Daniels. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.