Talk:List of one-word stage names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Previous discussions[edit]

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.

If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

As can be seen in the archive, this article has been nominated for deletion and survived under the condition that criteria be tightened. There are many real sources citing the ubiquity of stage names, but until such time as someone finds a source giving the ubiquity of historical names that are not full names and the significance of those, this page would be better served, I think, by becoming "List of famous stage names". this leaves out the few pen-names present, and may change the criteria of the article from something fairly arbitrary to something popular. If there is ever a want for a list of pen names or historical figures with unknown full names, then that article will be created, separate from this one. I said this a few days ago, and now I'm going to do it. Lotusduck 20:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I don't see any such condition in the deletion decision, which was "keep". How did it get to be "stage names" after that? Some of the comments in the afd were just wrong, like saying Shaq and Elvis were inappropriate. They are practically archetypes of what the category was about. If there's any criterion I'd say anything that needed a disamb to distinguish from other people didn't belong on the list. I don't think this list should be limited to stage people and I'd like to undo the redirect and go back to the old page name.

Oh please don't. Many keep voters for both AFD discussions said "Keep but tighten criteria". The careful collection of stage names and the real names behind them was the only thing that could actually be verified about the article, and the main reason people got confused into keeping it. Wikipedia articles have to be verifiable, we can find plenty of sources stating the notability of Shaq and Elvis, but none at all stating the notability of Madonna and Machiavelli not being called by several names like other people are. If you want to make a funny list including Madonna and Machiavelli, do it on www.uncyclopedia.org. In fact, I'll go ahead and start it for you: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/People_with_one_name I'm sure it'll be ridiculous enough to be kept there. Lotusduck 21:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

inclusive/exclusive[edit]

Lets discuss: Sports names? I have left the sports names, the model names, and the photographer names in as stage names. There should probably be a separate section for models, actors, singers and porn stars. Also, for convinience we should all list the people's real given names if they can be known. I'm probably not going to do any of this any time soon, so someone else should. Lotusduck 20:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Title vs. Contents[edit]

This has been discussed before, but it's still a problem. "Stage names" refers to actors, musicians, performers etc. The list, under its current title, should not include: sports stars, writers, Egyptian pharaohs, native American leaders, film makers, photographers, or Serbian presidents. Either the title gets changed, or the contents of the list need to be culled drastically. JackofOz 00:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I culled and cut out the list but I missed lots because it's really long. But still most of these are stage names, I think most of why the list wasn't deleted was because the stage names are relevent and oft mentioned and listed famous people's stage names. I think that the contents should just continue to be cut. On the other hand, what if it were "List of famous professional pseudonyms"? Lotusduck 01:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a nice idea. My point is this. We can have whatever lists we want on Wikipedia, and some of them will overlap other lists. That is not a problem. All I ask is that the the title of a list ALWAYS accurately reflect its contents, and vice-versa. If they don't match up, one or other should change. If this list stays with its current title, I'll help you remove all the non-stage names. I have no objection to the title being changed as you suggest. But we would still remove names such as "Slobo", "Geronimo", and "Oprah", as none of these are pseudonyms, professional or otherwise. Cheers. JackofOz 01:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and say that I don't care enough to either argue it being kept the way that it is or being changed to "professional pseudonyms". I changed the article here because I really hated how useless and baseless and unsourc-able it was before. So long as it doesn't become an excuse to put Madonna and Machiavelli on the same list, I'm cool. I pass the buck for editing and caring about this article to someone else. Lotusduck 01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Putting Madonna and Machiavelli on the same list was part of the coolness of the whole thing. 71.141.251.153 17:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That is what uncyclopedia is for. Here, we base our research, blah blah blah. Lotusduck 03:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Björk[edit]

I have deleted Björk from this page because it is a list of one-word stage names. Björk is not a stage name. In Iceland people are referred to by their first name only, as the last name merely refers to the father. Guðmundsdóttir, her "last name" means Guðmundur's daughter. See Icelandic naming conventions72.166.213.249 07:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

See also Björk#Name and ancestry. 66.152.166.101 (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus[edit]

Is it POV to describe Jesus' claim to fame as 'Messiah'? Isn't religious leader, or founder of Christianity, a bit more encyclopaedic? Michael Keats 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Some links[edit]

-- GregManninLB (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lennon[edit]

Any objections to the deletion of Lennon? 161.58.16.26 (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do. Kingturtle (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. 74.208.16.17 (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Change to the lead[edit]

The first line of the lead currently reads:

I suggest the criteria be tightened by changing "...list of people known widely..." to either "...list of notable people known most widely..." or "...list of notable people best known..." - any opinions as to which would be better? Any alternative suggestions or objections? 74.208.16.17 (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I vote for "...list of notable people best known..." seems like the criteria would help clean up the list, somewhat. Procafius (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Done [1] - 66.152.166.101 (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Mononymous stage names -or- Mononymous pseudonyms?[edit]

The Stage name article says:

So, as a stage name is a form of pseudonym, any objection to the removal of the redundant "stage name" reference from the (List of one-word stage names) lead? 58.8.10.164 (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, wouldn't it make more sense to remove the pseudonym reference? Leaving the much less stringent reference would probably encourage a more bloated list. This list aims to include all mononymous stage names, but not all mononymous pseudonyms, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procafius (talkcontribs) 10:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it'll be better (and easier) to go with pseudonyms; maybe this should be "List of mononymous pseudonyms"?
If only stage names were to be permitted, that would result in a heck of a lot of deletions - for example, all sportsmen/women?
I think the combination of "best known by" and "mononymous pseudonym" would work well. 58.8.5.139 (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
But the article is titled "one-word stage names" not "one-word names". Making the criteria for this list simply be one word names you could potentially include everything from politicians to conquerors. I say we keep the lead to the strict sense of the title, in order to avoid list bloat.Procafius (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not suggesting "Making the criteria for this list simply be one word names". I am suggesting making it "one word pseudonyms" - which is pretty much what the list actually comprises already. This will greatly simplify and clarify the criteria, and in practice I think this will only broaden the scope very slightly - and I believe this will be a minor change for the better.
In a nutshell, I suggest the article be moved to "List of mononymous pseudonyms", and the lead changed to "This is a list of notable people best known by a mononymous pseudonym."
The alternative would be a much bigger change - to change the lead to "This is a list of notable performers and entertainers such as actors, comedians, music performers, clowns, and professional wrestlers, who are best known by a mononymous stage name." - but I see no good reason for that; I think it would be better if the scope that's already been adopted be formalised, the article name made more accurate, and the lead simplified and clarified. 125.27.195.116 (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I discount the idea that it would require a huge rewrite to the lead to make this strictly about stage names. The lead already links to stage names, and most people understand that stage names relate almost exclusively to the entertainment field. Removing pseudonym would only make the purpose of this list clearer. By all means, if you wish to start a "List of mononymous pseudonyms" go ahead, and also include the people in this list, but this particular list's focus is on stage names. I have no issue with deleting entries that do not match the criteria. A smaller list is not necessarily a worse list. I would be interested in hearing other opinions though, and if the consensus is to move this to "List of mononymous pseudonyms" then I would go along, but until that happens I vote leave the lead as-is or remove pseudonym. Procafius (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems untrue that "most people understand that stage names relate almost exclusively to the entertainment field" given the number of non-stage-name pseudonyms that have been included (and not removed).
In what way is a "mononymous stage names" list better (more useful? more interesting? or in any other way) than a "mononymous pseudonyms" list? What's the advantage? 125.27.192.227 (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I could ask the same thing about why a "mononymous pseudonyms" list is better than a "mononymous stage names" list. What's the advantage?
I'm really not advocating that one list is better than the other, and I see that there likely would be interest in both, I just feel that it is unnecessary to expand this to include all mononymous pseudonyms. Scrolling down the list something like 90% of the entries fit the criteria of mononymous stage names, and the only ones I see that may be out of place are the athletes, which is pretty debatable, considering that popular athletics exist mainly as a form of entertainment. And if there is some confusion about what is acceptable, I think it has more to do with the current lead "notable people best known by a stage name or pseudonym" which may lead some to conclude that all mononymous pseudonym fall under the purview of this list, which the title pretty blatantly contradicts. I just don't see why it is necessary to expand this to include all mononymous pseudonyms. I say leave it as is, and if there are any erroneous entries then delete them. Procafius (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I see that 58.161.41.19 has just deleted a bunch of entries because they are not pseudonyms, most notably (if you ask me) removing Kylie. Some decision about whether these are to be included or not is needed. Seems benign to include them to me. I can see a couple of real first names on the list that the editor missed, anyway, and I bet there are many more. In fact this would also mean removing Madonna and Prince from the list, which seems contradictory to the spirit of the whole thing, so I'm going to revert the changes for now.
In fact I'm going to boldly change the introduction to say that these should be included. Not that I care strongly either way, just in the name of making a decision.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Elvis?[edit]

Does this count? Voxii (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. I guess the criteria is if most people don't know the full name. Everyone knows it's Presley. Voxii (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I say Elvis counts. There's loads of people named Elvis, but if you say "Elvis," everyone knows who you're talking about. 68.48.245.53 (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
But Elvis' work was still printed and marketed under the name "Elvis Presley." For example, his film credits all read "Elvis Presley," not simply "Elvis." For "Elvis" to qualify as his stage name he'd have had to be actively marketing himself without his surname, which I don't believe he was during his lifetime. Rob T Firefly (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Including Elvis this would mean demonstrating that a person is best known by their given name alone, which sounds like effort to research, and a bit subjective. Though I agree that Elvis ought to be included, it would be a fuzzy boundary that would cause trouble in less definite cases.  Card Zero  (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Why don't we add some images to this article? There is perfectly enough space for some thumbs to the right. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 08:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Obvious problem with the opening sentence[edit]

"This is a list of notable people best known by a pseudonym consisting of a single word."

This is obviously incorrect. While many of the entries in the list are pseudonyms, most are not. Many of them are the legal first name ( given name ) of the individual concerned. That is not a pseudonym.Eregli bob (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'm going to change the introduction to explicitly allow those cases (but not Elvis, following the reasoning above).  Card Zero  (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Teller[edit]

should teller, one half of the magic act, penn and teller, be included in this list 193.133.92.229 (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a difficult one, because although many famous figures are customarily known by their surname alone, Teller has changed his name to consist of only his surname. I guess that doesn't make any difference, and he still gets ruled out on the grounds that it would open the list to all sorts of borderline cases - there must be huge numbers of musicians who have at some point appeared on a poster advertising just "DYLAN" or "MINGUS" or "FRAMPTON".  Card Zero  (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition[edit]

Would the popular singer Sade Adu not count for inclusion because she is better known just as Sade? It's a bit complicated because Sade is both the stage name of the singer and the name of the band in which she sings. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

She's on the list now. Makes sense to me.  Card Zero  (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Should a source be found to demonstrate that every person on this list is indeed known (or best known) by their mononym? That sounds difficult, tedious, and absurd, but perhaps proper, per the banner at the top of this page.  Card Zero  (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Page views[edit]

Leo1pard (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The name of Shaam[edit]

The name 'Shaam' (Arabic: شَـام‎) would originally refer to the Syrian region,[1][2] so the actor's page was renamed to Shaam (actor). Leo1pard (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Article "AL-SHĀM" by C.E. Bosworth, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Volume 9 (1997), page 261.
  2. ^ Salibi, K. S. (2003). A House of Many Mansions: The History of Lebanon Reconsidered. I.B.Tauris. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-1-86064-912-7. To the Arabs, this same territory, which the Romans considered Arabian, formed part of what they called Bilad al-Sham, which was their own name for Syria. From the classical perspective however Syria, including Palestine, formed no more than the western fringes of what was reckoned to be Arabia between the first line of cities and the coast. Since there is no clear dividing line between what are called today the Syrian and Arabian deserts, which actually form one stretch of arid tableland, the classical concept of what actually constituted Syria had more to its credit geographically than the vaguer Arab concept of Syria as Bilad al-Sham. Under the Romans, there was actually a province of Syria, with its capital at Antioch, which carried the name of the territory. Otherwise, down the centuries, Syria like Arabia and Mesopotamia was no more than a geographic expression. In Islamic times, the Arab geographers used the name arabicized as Suriyah, to denote one special region of Bilad al-Sham, which was the middle section of the valley of the Orontes river, in the vicinity of the towns of Homs and Hama. They also noted that it was an old name for the whole of Bilad al-Sham which had gone out of use. As a geographic expression, however, the name Syria survived in its original classical sense in Byzantine and Western European usage, and also in the Syriac literature of some of the Eastern Christian churches, from which it occasionally found its way into Christian Arabic usage. It was only in the nineteenth century that the use of the name was revived in its modern Arabic form, frequently as Suriyya rather than the older Suriyah, to denote the whole of Bilad al-Sham: first of all in the Christian Arabic literature of the period, and under the influence of Western Europe. By the end of that century it had already replaced the name of Bilad al-Sham even in Muslim Arabic usage.