Talk:Johnson (surname)

On 10 July 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Johnson to Johnson (surname). The result of the discussion was moved.

Split

I've split this page off from Johnson, for two reasons. (1) This list is very long, and will grow longer. There are certain important parts of a disambiguation page that need to go at the end, and I think it's confusing to have a huge list like this sitting on top of those elements. (2) Not many people are likely to search for or link to "Johnson" if they're looking for a specific person. --Smack (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to just link to List of people by name: Joh#Johnson? Saves people from editing in two places Sam Vimes 12:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the split. The very point of name disambiguation articles such as Johnson is that people do look for people by their family name. Indeed, people are usually listed first in name disambiguation articles. A separate list is not the way to handle name disambiguation articles. Uncle G 12:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Johnson

I do not know enough about the prominence of the various Samuel Johnsons. However, I changed the Samuel Johnson link descriptor to multiple people. This is less drastic than moving the Samuel Johnson article to make way for a dab page, which I am considering posting on Requested moves as well. TonyTheTiger 22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

Survey

Add * Support or * Oppose followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Comment--can someone put a concise description of just what this survey is about? It is not at all clear from the discussion above what people are voting on here. older ≠ wiser 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I believe that as an article the Surname article is incomplete and as a dab page the dab page is incomplete. I believe as with most names regardless of the length of the list of articles a surname dab page should include the related (by title) articles. Having a separate dab is unnecessary, confusing and contrary to standard procedure. TonyTheTiger 21:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In virtually all cases, two disambiguation pages (although, strictly speaking, this article is more than just a disambiguation page) are not a good idea, because they can just confuse the reader. This is the exception, I think. While two pages can make the reader follow a extra wikilink to the page he/she wants (bad), combining the two pages would put the non-names at the very bottom of the article (worse) or at the top (worse) or mixed (terrible), and the non-disambiguation info on the surname would be problematical. (In other words, I think this is the exception that proves the rule.) John Broughton | Talk 20:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The dab page should list pages naturally called Johnson, such as places called Johnson, and organisations called Johnson. A list of people who share only the same surname does not belong on a disambiguation page; see the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. This has been discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Also, accidental links to Johnson usually belong at one of the places called Johnson. If you wanted a person, you would type both names. If you know you're looking for a place, you shouldn't have to wade through a long list of people. A merge would result in an unmanageably long page, causing problems when using pop-ups to fix the incoming links. CarolGray 19:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
!voting. I thought the consensus at WP:MOSDAB was to only mention the names on the disambig page that people might frequently refer to by only their their last name. Furthermore, merging them would force the "family name" page to be formatted per the guidelines at WP:MOSDAB, which would mean a removal of the current introductory prose, and would prevent future expansion of the explanatory text. I think it's obvious it's better to keep them separate. --Interiot 20:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the previous two posters. Two pages are appropriate here. In fact, I'd be tempted to say Johnson should be (or redirect to) the dab page and there be a Johnson (surname) page. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MoS:DAB. The guideline currently recommends shifting long lists of surnames to separate disambiguation pages. For the reasons stated above, it would be a bad idea to go against established convention in this case. --Muchness 22:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Since I'm not entirely sure what people are voting on here, I'm going to refrain from voting just yet. But I'll comment that I am in complete support of having a separate page for listing people named Johnson and another disambiguation page for all the other things (and perhaps possibly including some people who are commonly referred to solely as "Johnson"). older ≠ wiser 22:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

I'm removing the proposed merger tags from the two articles, based on the comments above. John Broughton | Talk 15:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surname vs. disambiguation pages

While I have no problem with the split as voted, I have an issue with the naming. The current set up makes the disambigation page pretty useless. If I were to enter "Johnson" in the search box looking for a 60s politician, a reasonably likely thing, I would get this page. I would then have a sea of bluelinks to navigate first to find LBJ. I would suggest we structure it so the disambiguation page is first. This would probably mean moving this page to Johnson (surname). Does this make sense? (John User:Jwy talk) 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I support moving this page to Johnson (surname), then moving Johnson (disambiguation) here. CarolGray 20:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

As a Johnson myself, I've never seen the coat of arms on this page before. The coat of arms I most commonly see is as shown here http://www.celticobsessions.com/Johnson.jpg but with a black background.

Although I am well aware that there are MANY Johnsons and therefore many branches of the name with their own arms, the one I've linked came top of the google image search, and seems to be more common. Spugmeister 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR

This article tries to make the mundane Anglo-Scandinavian surname Johnson into an aristocrat-ish name that came with the Normans to England.--Berig 07:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

Bot-generated content

A computerised algorithm has generated a version of this page using data obtained from AlgaeBase. You may be able to incorporate elements into the current article. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to create a new page at Johnson (alga). Anybot (contact operator) 17:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Didnt see Lyndon Johnsons Name Cited in article.Why? Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC,Decided/dated wed.July1,2009 PM> 21stcent.SWORDINHAND (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wang?

See also: Wang? 81.86.49.118 (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly humour - both Johnson and Wang are slang terms for the male reproductive organ. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson → Johnson (surname) — Modeled after many other common names such as Anderson, Barnes, Jackson, Jenkins, Lancaster, Lincoln, Lowe, Smith, Springfield, and Walsh. I just did this days ago and it was reverted for some reason by JHunterJ with no explanation other than that "he contested the move". ~~The revert may have been WP:COI due to vested interest in his own surname as WP:PT.~~ ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 17:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson (disambiguation) → Johnson

P.S. ...in fact, this move has been suggested/supported twice just on this current talk page.

Since CelticWonder has seen fit to accuse me of a conflict of interest in his proposal, let me add some stats. In the absence of any other actual indicators that the surname page is not the primary topic, the hit counts indicate that it is correctly the primary topic:

Johnson 4702 hits in February[1]
Johnson (disambiguation) 576 hits in February [2]
Only 12% of the people who reached the surname page were looking for something else.
88% of the readers of the pages were best served by the current arrangement.

It would make as much sense (i.e., none) to accuse CelticWonder of a conflict of interest in moving the dab page to the base name because his surname isn't Johnson. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet pick any two (or in some cases one) of the people listed on this article that is temporarily working as a person dab anyway and you have way more hits than the Johnson surname article. I've mentioned below that your simply having the exact surname of this article naturally reflects your need to give undue weight to your POV that the descriptive article about the name itself should be PT over a dab, which is indeed still contrary to how things are typically done here (as per my related examples above of other popular-use names). Also, there is no technical capability yet of removing "click-through" hits from "total" hits to a primary [article] without actually making the change and waiting a month for a "test phase". This is, in fact, the only TRUE reason why we can absolutely confirm that the dab pages are "more popular" than the name/surname pages of the other names I listed on here. What's to say that 87% of the 88% of the viewers "best served by the current arrangement" weren't in turn clicking on one of the names of people there that they were looking for initially (which for all intents could very well have been on the dab anyway by now), rather than information about the history of the surname?

Given this as-yet untested anomaly, I believe it could have best been served by the manner in which Smith and the current dab page for Johnson that also includes a link to a List of people with surname Johnson. Case in point, random example: why isn't Erik Johnson (17222 hits) listed on here also and not just here? Who makes the decisions about who is "more important" than others to be on two different lists? And seeing how large the list page has gotten with plenty of just as notable people on there, why hasn't the list on the current surnames page been merged yet with the list article, with simply a link on the surname page TO the list article? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 21:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor consensus decides, like anything else. And the make-up of the lists at those two pages is unrelated to the primary topic of "Johnson". Please stop trying to shift the rest of Wikipedia into better alignment with your desire to keep/move the band Clannad at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Thanks for the unfounded accusation! If I was trying to "shift ... WP" to my will, I would be agreeing with your stance on this proposed move, not proposing a dab! Hilarious... ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 21:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson (as a surname AND PT page, which includes double-linking with next page) = 4,702 hits
List of people with surname Johnson (as a link from surname and dab pages) = 495 hits
Johnson (disambiguation) (navigated via hatnote) = 576 hits — BUT...

How can we prove beyond all doubt with verifiable STATS that someone didn't do "GO: Johnson" → "Click name listed here" — as opposed to — "GO: Johnson" → "Read intended article about surname" ... IF the current PT is the article about the surname that INCLUDES information that would be better served on a list page that already exists (and with only prominent people actually referred as simply "Johnson" in the past listed on the dab page where they belong)?
Since we cannot do that, wouldn't the only way we could test this be to move the surname article to it's own article, remove the "popular names" off the surname article to be primarily on the list page already in place, and then see after a month's time whether the "surname" article is more "popular" than the "dab" page? (Note: I've removed the alleged "more important" people double-listed on the surname page since it would be unfair to decide who's "less important" than others to NOT be listed there also.)
This is the inherent flaw with using page view stats to compare an already-existing primary article that may NOT necessarily be the primary topic.

...so 4,701 hits for Johnson COULD easily have been a stepping stone for:

...and then why is Alan Johnson (6,461 hits, listed on surname page AND list page) decided to be "more important" than Brian Johnson (61,907 hits, only on the list page)? Aren't potentially unfair decisions like this exactly WHY we have the separate "list of people" page anyway when it comes to listing so many people? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 22:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good move to remove the names from Johnson#Notable people sharing the surname "Johnson"; if the criterion be "notable people", then all articles would be double-listed, since if the person wasn't WP:N, it should perhaps be deleted in any case. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unless there's some indication that the surname is not the primary topic. Modeling after other names doesn't matter since other common names may or may not be the primary topic of their title -- being a surname neither implies nor precludes being the primary topic, and primary topics within a project do not have to have the disambiguator tacked on that other, non-primary ambiguous articles get. For example, The Book of Eli doesn't need to be moved to The Book of Eli (film) just because Tooth Fairy (film) has "(film)" tacked on. Forcing them into an unneeded pattern would be a foolish consistency. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion isn't for simple arbitrary consistency, as the topic in discussion is a common proper noun as opposed to the unique title of an artistic work (as in: was there anything notable before that movie with the exact title "The Book of Eli"?). MOS:DABNAME would suggest the necessity for a dab being the primary article in this case considering the sheer number of "Johnson" articles, Johnson (surname) only being one of them. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Sheer number" of ambiguous articles is not one of the criteria for making none of them primary. Since no other reason besides "other pages are arranged this way", it appears to miss the point of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Primary topic is determined by or should change because of those criteria. The arrangement of other articles ambiguous with other titles isn't one of the criteria. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...except for the fact that there is no technical capability yet of removing "click-through" hits from "total" hits to a primary topic without actually making the change and waiting a month for a "test phase". This is, in fact, the only TRUE reason why we can absolutely confirm that the dab pages are "more popular" than the name/surname pages of the other names I listed on here. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Most of the pages on the disambiguation page (e.g. Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, M1941 Johnson rifle, Johnson Bible College) derive their name from somebody with the surname Johnson, indicating that the surname as the common origin is the primary topic. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The precise argument could be said in regards to Anderson, Barnes, Jackson, Jenkins, Lincoln, Lowe, and Walsh, yes? Technically Smith also, but it has uses other than a surname. Yet all of them are dab pages with a link to the surname, so I don't see your point. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 00:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is probably a strong case for moving many (if not all) of the articles you mention, apart from perhaps Smith. If any moves are carried out however I think it should be done on a case-by-case basis. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Johnson, Anderson, Jackson, Jenkins are all the names of people, the clue is in the suffixes -son and -kins which are all Anglo-Saxon patronymics. Any object, organisation or place which bears the same name is virtually certain to be named in honour of a particular person. Lincoln is quite a different matter: whereas there are many places in the USA named after the 16th President, one of his ancestors will have taken the name of the English city for himself (possibly being born there). Lincoln, Lincolnshire is the original bearer of the name Lincoln: it was not named after any person, but is a contraction of a Latin phrase, see Lindum Colonia. --Redrose64 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you would say that since the historical information pertaining to the origins of the name and use of Johnson listed on the surname page would then be the primary topic because of the fact that it is an encyclopedic article detailing the unique, initial-use of the name? Please pardon my devil's advocate questions; I'm just looking for clarification of your argument as technically, replacing a dab list that currently reflects a substantial amount of articles with that name (in many cases some of them more "sought after" than the dab or surname pages) with a single article about the origins of the name, would appear to be contrary to MOS:DABNAME and WP:DAB. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 05:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think it is easier to understand if "Johnson" is the hub. I think that it will be easier on readers if when they type "Johnson" they get something which lists the various other articles like-named. Nice, clear and easy. This page isn't all that great, since you've got to click the 'disambig' link at the top just to see other articles named "Johnson", and you've got to click another link to see a list of people with the surname. Those are the two main reasons people would even type "Johnson" in the first place. So this article is just getting in the way! I think it'd be easier just to have this article (Johnson) the hub. There'd be less clicks for readers to get to where they want to go. From the hub you can choose to read of a description of the surname; a list of people with the surname; a list of people known just by "Johnson"; a list of things known just by "Johnson", etc.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the surname is the primary topic (and there's been no indication that it isn't), users at the primary topic article could get to the list of name holders through a link on the article -- or directly to some of the most prominent name holders. They don't have to click through to the disambiguation page. Please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -- your argument would appear to advocate for the removal of all primary topics and move all disambiguation pages to the base names, because that is the "nice, clear and easy" way to find "various other articles like-named". I do not think this move request is the place to make that kind of guidelines change. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I thought that was the precise reason why we replace the primary article with a dab page = too many articles listed + dubious "primary" topic + unconfirmable "most hits" on surname page because of the fact that it's naturally the first one people hit when they type in "Johnson". ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide some support for your claim that the primary topic is dubious. Over 4000 people reached the Johnson page in February. Of those, fewer than 600 clicked through to the disambiguation page. It is indeed confirmable that the "most hits" on the primary topic is because it's the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly. It's not "confirmable" that the "most hits" on a surname-being-PT is because it's an-article-about-a-surname as opposed to an-article-which-happens-to-list-popular-people off the better served list page, with linked to from the proposed dab-page-as-main-article. But I'll do that above, thanks. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 22:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned on getting readers where they want to go with ease. I suspect when people type Johnson they'll be after specific things named that, not a detailed account on the surname. They way it is now you've got to click multiple pages to find anything. If we move it like requested then it'll be quicker and easier for readers. I think that is what matters.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: lol... OH, your last name is Johnson? Is this maybe why your conflict of interest might be forcing your hand on getting the history of your name as PT? I vote, due to this new information, that we support the move for at least a test phase of one month. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 17:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do get at least some support for your wildly implausible claim before building upon it. There is no conflict of interest; I gain nothing from having the information available at the base name or at another title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A conflict of interest does not have to involve financial gain to exist. Your simply having the exact surname of this article naturally reflects your need to give undue weight to your POV that the descriptive article about the name itself should be PT over a dab, which is indeed still contrary to how things are typically done here (as per my related examples above of other popular-use names). It's synonymous to asserting that an autobiography of your notable family's history is "more important" than the primary need for a dab page. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't specify financial. I have nothing to gain based on the position of the pages, and I have no conflict of interest. I would only like to see the primary topic at the base name to best serve the WP readers, and the current arrangement does that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the current limitations of evaluating "page hit stats", it is impossible to outright conclude that "the current arrangement ... best serve[s] the WP readers" without further testing, as reflected by my response above. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 23:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick comment: let's leave the Conflict of Interest on JHunterJ's part out. His arguments here are completely consistent with his arguments about similar moves in the past. Easy to confirm by looking at his contribution history. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 17:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't digest all the above debate, but would like to point out that something seems horribly wrong in the current situation where someone trying to learn about "Johnson", as a figure alluded to in some literary context, would not be able to find their way to Samuel Johnson without knowing what answer they were looking for. They would go from Johnson to Johnson (disambiguation) to List of people with surname Johnson and then scan a long list, from which they would be unlikely to click on Samuel Johnson (disambiguation) and be led to Samuel Johnson. The encyclopedia is not serving its readers well in the current situation. He is often referred to by surname alone. Possibly LBJ (as in "the Johnson administration") is another person who ought to be made more prominent. Perhaps these two ought to be listed alongside Johnson (composer) on the dab page? PamD (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with that — most prominent figures *should* be under the People section on the dab page for ease of navigation. As this case includes at least two people who I agree have been referred to as simply "Johnson", it seems you are saying you'd likely agree that Johnson should reflect such a dab page as opposed to the current layout reflecting the history of the name itself. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 23:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you completely agree, why did you remove the link to Samuel Johnson from the base name article? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...because the name links are (were) artificially increasing page hits on the surname page, as opposed to being listed on the dab page where they belong. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 01:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not artificial. You also can't have it both ways. The complaint here is that some people who might be encountered in reliable sources by the last name Johnson alone can't be found, when, before your edit, they could be found easily with a single link from the article at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...OR just as easily if the dab was the primary article and the most common people (Dr Johnson, two presidents, and Magic) were listed there! ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 01:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, if the surname article isn't the primary topic, which at the moment it is. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oookay, so we're in agreement that the list of most common people who share the surname (that also were referred to as simply "Johnson") would be on the "primary article". I've already countered your claim that the surname history page having more hits than the dab article as dubious, with deductive reasoning as to why. So what then is your lingering opposition to making the dab the PT? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 02:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My ongoing disagreement is that the article about the surname appears to be the primary topic. That I haven't continued to restate my view each time you make a new claim doesn't mean I've changed my view. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and I've explained why the surname article very likely only artificially "appears to be the primary topic" because it was previously partially acting as a dab page itself. I'm certain that if "most common people" were rather listed on the dab page, it would suddenly garner more hits than the surname page. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 02:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - I've just searched Google Scholar for "Johnson" in article title, and not found as many references to Samuel, without his forename, as I expected, other than various editions of Boswell's "Life of Johnson" - but quite a few to LBJ as plain "Johnson". But I still think it ought to be easier to find the article on the author of "Johnson's Dictionary" by searching for his name. PamD (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple steps issue and the problem of "where-do-we-list-Howard-Johnson" may be eased by the careful choice of a hatnote. Currently it's this:

change it to this:

--Redrose64 (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and then we'd be undoing these two reverts (or something to that effect) as a result? If so, I'd be satisfied with that. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 17:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per JHunterJ's stats indicating that most users who type in Johnson don't feel the need to look at the dab page. Propaniac (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll remind you too that people "don't feel the need to look at the dab page" because the people who they're actually searching for happen to be listed on the surname page instead of the dab-as-PT page where they belong. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 03:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what that 1-2-3 post was talking about? To be honest, I couldn't understand at all what you were trying to say (and I wasn't terribly bothered, because the premise that Wikipedia consensus must be based on data proven "beyond all doubt with verifiable stats" is false). If users are coming to the surname page at the base name, and either finding the topic they're looking for on the surname page, or clicking from the surname page to the list of people with that surname, that's fine. I don't see why that indicates any need to move the disambiguation page to the base name, or to merge the list of people to the disambiguation page. Propaniac (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments for Wiki Editor Redrose64

When you deleted some info I added to this article, you stated that my info was "unsourced." I would like to suggest that references are not needed for the information I added. Certainly my addition that Johnson has an origin in Ireland requires no reference, because in the article itself, under the section titled "Description," there is a whole paragraph about the name in Ireland. As you must know, many people in Ireland have surnames of Norman origin, the article elsewhere states that the name is of Norman origin, so, quite obviously, if the name exists in Ireland (either from Anglicization or from Norman origins), then the name has an Irish origin. Normally, in a scholarly article, references and citations are not needed for literally every sentence and statement. Since the information I included is entirely consistent with other information contained in the body of the article itself, references and citations are not called for under these circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.71.178 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2010

The Wikipedia verifiability policy states that "anything challenged or likely to be challenged ... be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question.". I challenge your assertion that Johnson is a name of Irish origin: therefore, since the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, it is up to you to prove your claim.

See origin on Wikipedia, also origin on Wiktionary: the origin of a name is where it began, not where it has subsequently been used. Johnson is a name also found in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (I could go on), so is it also "of American/Canadian/Australian/etc. origin"? I think not. You state (and I do not disagree) that the Irish use of the name is of Norman origin: then ipso facto, the name cannot be of Irish origin. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I'll do a little research and see what I can come up with. By the way, if Johnson is not a name of Irish origin because it is of Norman origin, then, logically, neither can it be considered a name of English origin. After all, the Normans brought Norman French surnames to England in 1066. Then, a hundred years later, they brought some of those same names, such as Johnson, to Ireland. So what kind of sense does it make to say that the name is of English, but not of Irish, origin? If it is not truly of Irish origin because it came from Norman settlement, then, by the same reasoning, is cannot be considered of English origin because the name was brought to England by Norman invaders/settlers.

In many parts of Europe, names that are widely considered to have originated in a particular country were brought there by settlers from elsewhere. For example, about 50% of English people have names that are of Danish origin (like names that end in the suffix "by") because of the Viking establishment of the Danelaw. These Vikings later invaded Ireland, and brought many Norse names there. Would you seriously assert that all of the Danish-derived surnames in England are not really of English origin because they were brought to England by the Vikings more than a thousand years ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.71.178 (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should forget of about the wording of "xxx origin", and just say something like "is an English, and Irish surname". From what I've seen, the "origin" part seems to only occur in books written for North American readers, to steer them in a certain direction, to give them a heritage of some sort. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with actual word origins - where the specific word/name was first coined. As long as we keep the etymologies, and histories accurate, the article doesn't suffer. We just need describe the origin of the name in Ireland properly; like how in some cases the name has spread to the island from Britain, and how in other cases the name was also used as an Anglicised form of several Gaelic names. We'll be ok then.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't of Irish origin or Norman or Scottish

The surname originates in England, Gaelic doesn't have the word son in a patronymic surname, it's not Norman either the patronymic word is Fitz in Norman for example Fitzgerald Meaning son of Gerald, Johnson on the other hand is of old English origin originating from Anglo-saxon Sohne like Richardson and Hudson, what the mistake is here is someone mixed Johnson with JohnsTon which IS Norman origin but it's not patronymic.109.154.13.131 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split into individual articles

┏━━━━┳━━━┳━━━┳┓╋╋┏┓╋╋┏━━━┳━━━┓
┃┏┓┏┓┃┏━┓┃┏━┓┃┃╋╋┃┃╋╋┃┏━━┻┓┏┓┃
┗┛┃┃┗┫┗━┛┃┃╋┃┃┃╋╋┃┃╋╋┃┗━━┓┃┃┃┃
╋╋┃┃╋┃┏┓┏┫┃╋┃┃┃╋┏┫┃╋┏┫┏━━┛┃┃┃┃
╋╋┃┃╋┃┃┃┗┫┗━┛┃┗━┛┃┗━┛┃┗━━┳┛┗┛┃
╋╋┗┛╋┗┛┗━┻━━━┻━━━┻━━━┻━━━┻━━━┛
11:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.246.2 (talk)

Slang

yo dawg why don't you hop on this johnson. --5.64.180.72 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20101007112151/http://www.census.gov/genealogy/names/names_files.html to http://www.census.gov/genealogy/names/names_files.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 July 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Closed as WP:SNOW with pure consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson → Johnson (surname)
Johnson (disambiguation) → Johnson

– Repost malformed request on behalf of User:173.72.3.91 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)]], who had this rationale: "change article title to Johnson surname similar to Johnston (surname) to not confuse with places like Johnson, Ontario the article title should clarify it is about a surname." 162 etc. (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was previously discussed in 2010, see above. 162 etc. (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Naturalness. A wikipedia article on "Johnson" sounds like a person or a town, it seems reasonable to specify its a surname. Above discussion argues Johnson is the primary topic, but whatever it is it's much easier to understand as Johnson (surname). This is also more consistent with all the other articles. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the surname has 1,544 views but the composer has 2,315[[3]] and there are lots of other uses though the surname may have the most long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support because Johnson has common uses other than surname, so the increased specificity seems reasonable. Urchincrawler (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.