Talk:Kirkpatrick

merged[edit]

I've merged Kirkpatrick (surname) into this article. If we assume that most people who land here are looking for someone with that name, it doesn't help to make them jump to another page to find it. Feezo (Talk) 06:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we ought to have the surname in its own article. Then we can give a little 'origin of the name' blurb.--Celtus (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feezo's reasoning is correct. Nevertheless, Kirkpatrick (surname) can be rewritten as a new article concerned with the origin, the relation between the Kirkpatrick Baronets and the common K'p's, genealogical relationships among notable ones and the notable families they married into (did you know the Darwins and Wedgwoods were related?), how and when the name spread (into England and Ireland, perhaps, and into other British-settled areas).
And while you should lk back to the Dab page (which IMO will end up in chrono order -- order by given name does nothing to serve the main reason for listing people on Dab pages for surnames, i.e. to find the article they had in mind, since they could have gone directly to the bio or {{hndis}} page if they knew what the given name was) you may be able to also justify a list of K'p's:

You can (unlike a Dab) list notable people who can never have a WP bio;
perhaps your target reader's name is K'p', and they're expecting and you liked what Harry (name) and John (first name) say -- so it's handy if they can see in a few lines what's notable about Harry Kirkpatrick or the John Kirkpatricks and whether they want the brat to be described as named after one of them.

But don't take the people entries off the Dab Kirkpatrick, and don't pointlessly duplicate the same list just to pump up your paragraph on name origin.
--Jerzy•t 06:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what point you were trying to make. What is your reasoning for placing the (only two) given names to their own article but insist on surnames stay on the dab page?--Celtus (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That contrib includes a statement, and a question.
1. I was trying to make a number of points, and have at least as little idea which one among them escaped you. If you intended that sentence as an implicit question, please ask it explicitly; i've almost forgotten about it, so if it was supposed to be on-topic as a statement, i urge you to likewise forget.
2. As to your currently explicit question:
  1. The reasoning for removing the Kirkpatrick-as-given-name entries is that they cannot be in Dabs, in turn roughly bcz:
    anyone looking for someone with Kirkpatrick as given name, who comes here looking for that person's bio, has simply made a wild and incorrect guess at how to find them; and
    helping them on the accompanying Dab would on balance be a detriment to the page's purpose of Dab'n, largely bcz it would require additional clutter to the extent of a 33% increase in heading count, and the two added entries.
  2. The intention behind putting the given names in Kirkpatrick (given name) is that:
    info potentially useful to WP should not be discarded;
    they are permitted there (as is some other info that is often added with them but unacceptable on the accompanying Dab, such as origin including etymology); and
    people who contribute new material to given name articles seem to like having such lists in them.
  3. As a matter of clarification: "stay" is ambiguous. I certainly intended that we have on the accompanying Dab a Kirkpatrick-as-surname entry for every corresponding bio. While their current order facilitates Dab'n, while other orders (perhaps alpha-by-surname order on a Kirkpatrick (surname) page) are likely to be more suitable for non-Dab pages, and while additional names without lks may be desirable on non-Dab pages, i intended no suggestion that any of these be ruled out on other pages:
    the same entries appearing, in the same or different order,
    corresponding entries for the same people in different formats, in any order,
    a sentence or paragraph, instead of an entry, on each of the same people, in any order.
  4. The relevant difference between Kirkpatrick-as-given-name entries and Kirkpatrick-as-surname entries is that Dab'n via the former is seldom effective and almost never needed, while that via the latter is frequently sought, much more often effective than the former, and often indispensable.
  5. The fact that there were only two given names is of no interest in light of the preceding.

--Jerzy•t 02:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A disambig page exists to make it easy for someone to see a list of all articles which have "kirkpatrick" in the title. So, if possible, the page should contain every instance on wikipedia. Some disambig pages becomes too long, because of large occurrences of names. That is when 'name' articles are handy. But in this case, we don't really need to do any splitting to the page. It isn't really that long. The only reason i wanted to was so we could atleast given a blurb on the name (something inappropriate for a disambig page).

Anways, splitting off the given name, which only contains two instances, helps no-one. It doesn't make the disambig page easier to navigate. It only makes it harder to find those two articles.--Celtus (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, your logic is that the Dab Kirkpatrick

exists to make it easy for someone to see a list of all articles which have "kirkpatrick" in the title.

How you concluded that is hard to see, since Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches says in its entirety

Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices.

And i've already described to you the strongest reasons why surnames are (in almost all cases of people who have them) profoundly different from given names.

You have reverted in the face of extensive arguments that so far you say you don't understand at all. You assert, without explanation, that the approach you oppose

makes it harder to find those two articles.

I've already stated that it only makes it hard for those who, for no good reason want to find it your way. And i predict i will find them linked, in alpha order, among fewer than 2 dozen pages, by the following procedure that i prescribe from memory:

Scroll up virtually any WP page.
Click on the lk "Special pages", in the 2nd of two multi-line boxes below the logo, or the 2nd or 3rd of three.
Scroll at most a dozen lines downward.
Click on something that implies "Pages beginning with..."
Typ "Kilp" (don't bother sounding it out, or finding your place in the printed spelling of "Kilpatrick", we're saving you keystrokes here) and hit Enter
The two names you're talking about and maybe a few more you'll want to add to the Kilpatrick (given name) page will be staring you in the face, among a very manageable group of such pages (some of which you'll recognize from this discussion).

Excuse me while i step away from this edit page for a moment.

05:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC) continuation & 05:28/07:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reformat: Results follow~~, will reformat later~~.

Kilp-Yar
Kilp-Yavr
Kilpajarvi
Kilpatrick
Kilpatrick's
Kilpatrick-Beatty criminal trial
Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid
Kilpatrick (disambiguation)
Kilpatrick Stockton
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Kilpatrick Turnpike
Kilpatrick and Beatty text-messaging scandal
Kilpatrick limit
Kilpatrick railway station
Kilpatrick station
Kilpatrick stockton
Kilpauk
Kilpeck
Kilpeck Church
Kilpeddar
Kilpedder
Kilpennathur
Kilpeter
Kilpi
Kilpin
Kilpin Pike
Kilpinen
Kilpisjaervi
Kilpisjarvi
Kilpisjärvi
Kilpola
Kilpolansaari
Kilpor
Kilpyarv
Kilpyarvi

07:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC) addition: Well, i'm disappointed in myself, for failing to recall that such results, being displayed in three columns, would look less numerous than they are.
(If that's not bad enuf, i put "Kilp..." when we're discussing "Kirkp...! First, i probably pasted "Kirkpatrick" into the top of this multi-edit contrib -- from the top of this talk page, or of the Dab, which is still open from my last edit, adding "* Kilpatrick (disambiguation)" for the sake of misspellings/misrememberings. Don't remember either whether i absentmindedly copied "Kilpatrick" from that new entry into the middle of the foregoing, or maybe i typed it by hand with the edit still half on my mind.)
In any case, for what i intended, 5 characters "Kirkp", you get 10 articles and 12 Rdrs, including both of the guys under discussion. Two of the articles, not in the Dab are

Kirkpatrick–Seidel algorithm; i would it exclude until someone presented evidence it that it is likely to be called "Kirkpatrick"
Kirkpatrick Durham (a place name), whose stub article is too brief to hope that it would offer evidence of "Kirkpatrick" ever meaning which the town. My quick Google research convinces me it never means that; more detail on request.

These are sterling examples of why Dabs and various kinds of searches should not used for each others' purposes!

I am reverting the hasty and ill-founded change that you justified in that fashion.
--Jerzy•t 05:18, 05:22, 05:28 & 07:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)~[reply]

Sorry, i can't make head nor tail out of almost anything you've typed on this page. There is no reason why surnames should be treated differently than given names. It also makes no sense to insist on deliberately hiding away the two instances of the given name. Either all names appear on this page under 'people', or all are placed into their own 'given name' and 'surname' pages which are linked to under 'people' on this page.--Celtus (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge Kirkpatrick (given name) here[edit]

Kirkpatrick (given name) has exactly 2 entries, versus 4 dozen for the surname. C'mon.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. As a first step (to avoid forking this discussion). The DAB page is overlarge.

I would go further. IMO there's enough material to split all the people out into Kirkpatrick (name), a {{tl|given name|type=both}} page, and redirect both Kirkpatrick (given name) and Kirkpatrick (surname) to it. Narky Blert (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Primary topic is as a name. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John is missing[edit]

John is not the same person as Ralph 2406:5A00:C098:F000:FDB0:E90B:28C2:1281 (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]