Jump to content

Talk:Lists of most common surnames/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Vietnam

I dispute the accuracy of the Vietnam section. The only study I'm aware of was conducted in 1936 in one province in northern Vietnam (see http://www.saigon.com/~nguyent/hoa_03.html) that found 44% of the people in the study with the name Nguyen. Please cite sources for the order for these names. DHN 03:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Indian names removed

I have just moved the section on India to a separate article, List of Indian family names. Unlike all other countries, this section did not contain a "top-10" list, but an alphabetical list of "common" names -- 125 of them. There is no source given, and names were added to this list one by one, which suggests to me a certain randomness, which does not fit with the other lists on this page, which have certain strict criteria for inclusion. Eugene van der Pijll 20:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rant in the Portuguese list

I have removed the ranting - added from a Portugal IP - that it's a "myth" that upper and middle classes in Brazil have non-Portuguese surnames, and states that the list of Brazilian presidents is proof of that. Not only is that a small and biased sample, I had no idea Kubitschek, Garrastazu, Médici and Geisel were Portuguese surnames.--Macgreco 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The lists

  • Some lists give information about the origin of the surnames, others state the percentage of people with that surname. Some link to nowhere. Others are in bullet form, some are in a numbered list, while others are organized in tables. For some family names, there's one for a male, and another for a female; in some lists there are only the ten most common surnames, while in others there are above fifty? Ain't this sort of maddening? Can someone, who has more free time then I do, arrange all the lists, giving them a common format? Keith Azzopardi 13:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I've made a start on that; see Belgium and the Netherlands. I will slowly continue to do this for those countries where sourced information is available. -- Eugène van der Pijll 13:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Most common surname in Ireland is "Drunk"? You can't be serious

Under Ireland the top surname is "drunk". Is this a joke? -Juan Ponderas 02:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

No -- it was vandalism, a violation of Wikipedia policy, as was a recent replacement of a German surname with "Hitler". History books dealing with German history of a certain period would have plenty of references to the name "Hitler" but the name was never otherwise common in Germany (or Der Phooey's native Austria)
As a rule I undo vandalism when I see it. Paul from Michigan 04:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Quebec

Ok, I'm a little bit confused here, i thought this was listed alphabetically by country, now. as i recall, Quebec isn't independant yet.(and probably never will be, but this isn't the place) shouldn't it be listed in a section called Canada or something?

The population of Québec is very different in national origin from that of most of the rest of Canada. It has by far the largest Francophone population in the New World, and someone visiting New York City, Toronto, and Montreal in succession who did not know better might think that a national border exists between Toronto and Montreal and not the other way around.

Québec might as well be considered a nation even if it is not an independent entity. The distribution of names in Québec reflects a very different settlement than did most of the rest of Canada.--Paul from Michigan 04:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing unsourced lists

I'm removing a number of totally unsourced lists from these pages. There is no way of knowing if these are correct; many of the names on these lists have been added individually, which probably means that they did not come from a reliable source saying they were on of the top-xx names in the country. A couple of months ago, I removed the totally unorganized list of Indian surnames, and moved them to List of Indian family names. (Unfortunately, a very similar list is in this article again...) This may be solution for the other lists as well. This is the last version of this article containing the lists for:

  • Bangladesh
  • Brazil
  • Bulgaria
  • Croatia
  • Greece
  • India
  • Israel
  • Italy
  • Pakistan
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Serbia
  • Slovenia
  • Somalia
  • Sri Lanka

-- Eugène van der Pijll 15:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree; unsourced lists should be removed on sight. Otherwise, we will have no means of verifying that editors are not randomly inserting their own family name into their country's list. Ayla 12:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing unsourced information

On a similar theme to Eugene's edits above, I have just reverted a group of edits made recently which give me cause for concern. Firstly, they are wholly uncited - in a subject such as this which is plagued by unreliable folk etymology, this should be a unwaivable requirement for inclusion.

However, more concerning was the large number of plain factual errors:

  • Maas coming from son of Mae / May? Mae is neither Dutch, nor male. It means son of Maas, the Dutch diminutive of Thomas.
  • Morten as a Dutch name? Really?
  • Claes, son of Clae / Clay? Completely incorrect; like Maas, son of Claes (cf Klaus)
  • Goossens, son of Goossen? Gave me a chuckle. Goossens is roughly "God's son", in the same way Hansen was used in Scandinavia, for similar reasons... (Goossen is not a first name).
  • Nell is not a Danish name. For men or women.
  • Is Estonian Pärn really a German surname, and not something to do with the important Estonian city of the same name?
  • Ricci isn't cognate with Rex
  • Lombard isn't German, it's of Germanic origin
  • Brun isn't German, it's of Germanic origin

and best of all

  • Mark is not a German name; we're out by a couple of thousand years there.

...

and that's just what stood out to me in ten minutes. I'm no expert in this field, but seeing as there's so many mistakes it's best cut out for now; someone might feel encouraged to source it, and more importantly, verify which bits are correct. Knepflerle 11:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Goossens really is a patronym. The first name Goos or Goosen is derived from Gozewinus, and is very rare nowadays. See http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/nfd/detail_naam.php?naam=Goossens (if you can read Dutch). But on the whole, I agree with you. Eugène van der Pijll 21:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, belangwekkend ;) I do remember reading a comparison of God's-son or His-son type surnames in Germanic languages which included Goossens, but I have no particular reason to believe that etymology over the one you found (and I must try and find the article again, it might have some good material for an article). This is probably indicative of the difficulty of making definitive statements about etymology in this area. At least I now know I'm more likely to meet a Dutch speaker called Goossen than Mae - thanks for your help! Knepflerle 23:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Years of Sourcing, Population & Percentage

I think those lists that do not state a year sourced need to have that listed, e.g. Brazil, if the source stated was used, it was from the 1970's. Also those who list by Population rather than Percent need to have the population of the country at the time of surveying, and perhaps an extrapolation of the percentage of population each surname covers. - J.P.Lon (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian surnames area out of order, and lack citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.101.109.46 (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Estonian Case

I would like to make a remark concerning the Estonian list. Russian surnames usualy have a male and a female form, but can't be seen as different surnames. Thus "Ivanov" and "Ivanova" should be counted as one (which is the case in the Slavic countries, as well as in Lithuania for example - see the list). According to the (Russian) Regnum News Agency there are 5880 people with the surname "Ivanov"/"Ivanova" in Estonia, making it the most common surname in the country. Apparently the Estonian government used the literal difference to exclude the non-(ethnicly-)Estonian surname from the top three. The same holds for "Smirnov"/"Smirnova", which with its 2979 surname bearers (male and female) belongs in the top ten.

I believe that at least a note of remark concerning this situation should be added.

(refference to the article on Regnum News Assocoation website: http://www.regnum.ru/news/404396.html [1] )

-Roman Nesterenco

84.198.251.251 (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Roman Nesterenco


Australia/Austria

The list for Australia is listed under Austria. But when you go into Edit This Page, is appears correctly. Weird. Anyone know how to fix it?

122.107.198.162 (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)BenS

Argentina list

There is a website with a comprehensive study of Argentine surnames here: http://surnames.rutrin.com.ar/enterenglish.htm

The site is still under construction and has several flaws, but gives a good sense of the most common surnames (at least in the provinces analyzed). I have parsed the data on the site into a list of the top 10,000 surnames. Unfortunately, the website doesn't have values for 16 surnames (Benitez, Fernandez, Garcia, Gomez, Gonzalez, Lopez, Martinez, Perez, Ramirez, Rodriguez, Romero, Ruiz, Sanchez, Sosa, Suarez and Torres), but it is very likely that these are the most common and perhaps the values were too large to fit the file that was uploaded to the site.

I would be happy to add this link and the top 100 or so surnames, but was hoping to get others input. Best regards. Jogurney 19:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned about the copyright for the source (I have refined the source to a subpage of the original source) of this information. The information is made available via the Open Publication License, which is not a copyleft license and requires the inclusion (not added in the present case) of a copyright statement (see http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/). The source mentioned above by Jogurney has an ad hoc license that consists of simply "This information might be used with responsability (sic), and can be published anyway, just mentioning the source and the e-mail of the webmaster." This would seem to imply that one could use {{Cite web}} with an added comment containing "apellidos.argentinos@gmail.com" (as of 2008-05-03). The two sources are by no means comparable as the latter contains no aggregate information that ranks surnames (as of 2008-05-03). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing and diacritics

The current source for the line items in the list provides only full-capitalized surnames lacking any diacritical marks. Therefore, the current format of this list is unsourced as one cannot distinguish between diacritical-containing and diacritical-lacking surnames (e.g. Diaz vs. Díaz). What should be done about this? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Poland list

The cited publication year is noted, but not the year or year-span for which the list provided is valid. Could someone add that information, please? Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Slovak names

Majority of the "Slovak" names are Hungarian. For example: Horváth, Varga, Tóth, Nagy, Szabó, Molnár, Balog. These names are the most common among Magyars. 10% of the total Slovakian population are Hungarian (plus 1-2% Hungarian-Roma/Romungro), but Hungarian names are the most common in Slovakia. It's amazing. Rovi —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice the asian names

Why should I notice the asian names in the London bit of the UK listing? Why indeed, is greater london in there? why not shropshire or anywhere else? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian names BS

Hmm. I'm Russian, and I think the Russian list is BS. Where's the data from? I have never even heard two out of four names on that list. --Lament

It looks like this article started out (Nov 2001) as complete nonsense and has gradually come good. There were originally two names under Russia: Tscherkasov & Dougorookiy. These look like a joke: Tscherkasov = Jerks off?
User: Fresie Tscherkasov is a perfectly legitimate Russian surname, doesn't get any more Russian. I'm a native Russian speaker and I can't tell you how many Tscherkasovs I know. But Deternov is a joke, it's never existed, it's totally alien to the Russian phonetics and grammar system. Whoever added it was taking the ****. I suggest you bring Tscherkasov back although people, three Russian surnames sounds like a big joke, doesn't it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.248.7.55 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Rmhermen deleted Dougorookiy before your comment. Tscherkasov is still there but I'll delete it. That leaves Ivanov, Vasiliev & Deternov, all added by User:Menchi on 25 Dec 2002. From your comment there's still one of these you've never heard of. Try Menchi's talk page. Andy G 01:49, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hmm, i guess if those are considered rare, there's not much hope for the name of the great Russian venereal disease specialist. --Jerzy(t) 19:02, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

The ref is dead for the stuff on England, Wales and Isle of Man. We shouldn't be using any websites that are hosted on free webservers anyways...--Celtus (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 13:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed

I just added the disputed tag. The lists are a mess with anons adding, removing and re-ordering names constantly. Some lists don't have refs, others link to dead links. How do you tackle a article with so many lists and so many recent changes? Hmm.--Celtus (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

RIA Novosti's scope of reliability

As one who reads RIA Novosti semi-regularly, I must say that their reporting is rather sloppy by Western standards. Furthermore, RIA Novosti's reporting of Estonia-related matters is all too often poorly reinterpreted tidbits of random articles from Estonian newspapers, and sometimes even just poorly reinterpreted blog posts.

Probably a good example of RIA Novosti's thoroughness at fact-checking is [2]. Apparently, RIAN's editorial team has taken seriously this report claiming that Riigikogu's new security precautions prohibit journalists from wearing shoes. Unfortunately, it's utterly false. The report originated here, at a humour column of Eesti Ekspress, and cited several non-existing celebrities and government officials with absurd names and opinions. My particular favourite is the reference to one "Artur Ridalemb, chief editor of Up Everybody's Ass, a quality web portal specialising in analysing Estonian internal politics". A two-second Google query of any of the names mentioned in the article should have given a clue to even a particularly humourless fact-checker.

And, of course, it was also RIA Novosti who broadcast this hoax, originally ([3]) conceived by the Communists of Sankt Peteburg and Leningrad Oblast, to the world -- once again, not bothering to do any fact-checking.

In summary, RIA Novosti's reportage is to be taken with a nontrivial grain of salt. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 20:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to my stalker, who this time at least didn't decide to sockpuppet. Anyway Digwuren, would you like me to show you western media sources which have presented hoaxes as fact? Reported facts incorrectly, and outright lied? Do not attempt to exclude RIA Novosti sources from this or any other article on WP based upon your own rabid anti-Russian POV. What was done by Martintg was WP:TEDIOUS editing, and dare I say it a violation of WP:V also. --Russavia Dialogue 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll let the attacks slide for this one, but don't make a habit out of it, or these will come back with vengeance.
Let me tell you a story.
Once upon a time, there was New York Times. And New York Times hired many journalists, and the journalists wrote Great Articles, and reported Important Events, and it all brought Great Reputation to New York Times.
But then, New York Times hired Jayson Blair. He was a lazy journalist who couldn't get bothered to go to the sites he was reporting on, so he just made stuff up, and had it printed.
After a while, he got caught. And New York Times apologised for him, a lot, and retracted his suspicious writings. And, perhaps most importantly of all, Mr. Blair is no longer a journalist at New York Times, or at any other respected newspaper. As an untrustworthy reporter, his ill reputation would taint any editorial board that might consider hiring him, so nobody dares to do that, and that poor son of a bitch had to change his career.
Now, fast forward to 2009 ...
The shoe hoax is now several weeks old, and its falsity has made headlines at, including other places, Eesti Ekspress -- which Lenta correspondents apparently peruse. So, where are the retractions? Which fact-checker or news reporter got disciplined for this affair?
Incidentally, this difference in expectations, dear friend, is the very difference between reputable press such as New York Times or The Economist and yellow rags such as Weekly World News or The National Enquirer. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to debate retractions, where is the retraction from Globe and Mail and Washington Post, which printed that Putin was behind poisoning a Russian lawyer, as the French released their finding it was an unrelated accident? Just where is their retraction? The NY time and Economist are no different either. You put too much faith in any media it seems. --Russavia Dialogue 21:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd post another great example of a hoax. The Moscow Times and Novaya Gazeta printed this article in which it accused Sergey Kiriyenko of corruption and stealing IMF funds. As it turns out the letter was a hoax, invented by the great folks at The eXile, and it ended up with Novaya Gazeta being sued by Kiriyenko for libel. There is no retraction on the MT website, nor on it's sister website. So don't pull the rubbish that because a media outlet may have gotten caught up in a hoax, that they are automatically unreliable. I could also direct you to www.snopes.com and show you a hundred cases of newspapers printing urban legends as fact, and in many cases they are rehashed legends and hoaxes from decades ago. --Russavia Dialogue 10:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Novosti's reporting is questionable simply because it is the press organ of the Russian Federation. PetersV       TALK 22:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Please show me in WP:RS where it states anything as what you have just stated. Stop gaming the bloody system, RIA Novosti meets all criteria for a reliable source, as much as any other news agency such as BBC, CNN, etc. You don't have to believe their news, but it is most certainly not reason enough to exclude information from an article, especially as in this case it's information has been shown to be 100% spot on for the information which was being used in this article. If you don't want to see RIA Novosti used as a source, go start Vecrumbapedia, and you can deny the use of as many sources as possible. --Russavia Dialogue 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That's easy: Wikipedia:RS#Self-published sources. Since RIA Novosti is operated by the Russian governmental powers, it must be treated as a self-publisher when it is saying anything about Russian government's activities -- and their notability in this context flows from the notability of Russian government; it is not independent. It's similar how Voice of America is considered a self-publication of US federal government, and when anything controversial regarding US governmental activities is involved, the independent news sources such as CNN or even BBC are more reliable.ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for continuing to game the guideline. Firstly, the BBC is also government owned. The ABC and SBS is government owned. VoA is government owned. RFE/RL and Svobodanews are operated by the CIA. Much of Singapore media is government owned. So are many other outlets in Europe. Your own POV is fobbing off RIA Novosti. Particularly as in this case, it was not being used as a source on Russian government POV, but statistics which were attributed to an Estonian news source. Please stop gaming to excuse the stalking and disruptive editing on this article. And by the way, we have edit summaries for a reason, please use them. --Russavia Dialogue 18:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The BBC is not government-owned. It is owned by a trust, is autonomous of the government, and is known for being particularly critical of the British government (see the Hutton Inquiry a recent and high-profile case of this). I couldn't say about the other groups, but I know this much. – Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you User:Russavia for this curious and interesting example of what passes for journalism on Russia's press landscape. Incidentally, while the prank may draw some laughs, it does not cast a particularly favourable light onto The eXile's journalistic integrity. The Chaser's War on Everything is funny, too, but nobody would seriously argue that their opinions of particular journalists are notable, or should be printed in an encyclopædia. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yawn. --Russavia Dialogue 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for your once again dismissive attitude. Your attacks of "gaming" only reflect poorly on yourself.
   Of course anything Novosti publishes regarding politics or versions of history reflects the official Russian position. Their "interviews" and "experts" on topics include true experts--as well as slavish Russophiles and historical revisionists who can say what the Russian government wants to say but doesn't have to officially since all of it, true or fabrication, is presented as "expert opinion." An artful mix of truth, half-truth, and complete fiction makes for the best propaganda. PetersV       TALK 17:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Mihhailovs

There's a Russian name. It's spelt 'Михайлов'. Wikipedia has an article of it. It's named Mikhailov.

There's the Estonian language. It uses Latin alphabet. It is pronounced differently from English.

There's the Republic of Estonia. It uses Estonian language. It issues documents in the Latin alphabet.

When Republic of Estonia issues a document to somebody who once, or whose ancestors once, were named Михайлов, the document commonly spells that name 'Mihhailov'. For Estonian citizens and residents, this will then be their official name. It's still related to the name Михайлов whose article Wikipedia names Mikhailov, of course -- but it's spelt 'Mihhailov'.

And that's why the link Russavia has been editwarring against should target the article of Mikhailov but be spelt Mihhailov. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

But this is English Wikipedia, not Estonian Wikipedia, and it why Wikipedia:RUS#People applies. It was not myself who separated these names into "Estonian" and "Russian", thereby creating an "us" and "them" situation, and whilst the Estonian government may have "official names" for Mikhailovs, and these names are forced upon the people, we are not dictated to by the Estonian government. Now, I realise that the Estonian government and Estonian nationalists would like to participate in discriminatory surnameocide, a sort of ethnic cleansing if you will, in order to rid Estonian society of anything Russian [4] [5] [6], and Section 20 of the Language Act may in fact encourage this, but that is the Estonian language act, not English Wikipedia. Of course, some of the articles above, and more, can be used in this very article, to explain this situation. --Russavia Dialogue 13:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
No it doesn't. The purpose of WP:RUS policy is to guide editors on what to do with names whose primary spelling is in Cyrillic in this English Wikipedia. But once a person has become a permanent resident or citizen of Estonia, his or her primary name will not be in Cyrillic; it will be written using a Latin script. And English Wikipedia does not retransliterate such names anymore.
Or you might prefer looking at thit from another angle: Many names commonly considered Russian are actually of Greek origin, but Wikipedia is not the place to insist that Дмитрий Донской is to be discussed in an article named Demeter of Don. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This is the Wikipedia written in the English language. "Surnameocide?" This latest series of edits piqued my curiosity, so I simply checked the phone book. The massively predominant spelling is Mihhailov/Mihhailova, the "Estonianized" version. The wikilink shows the predominant spelling and appropriately points to the "parent" surname, which is the appropriately Romanized (into English, this is the English Wikipedia) version.
   In a list, for example, of common Latvian given names, we would list "Juris" as common, with a Wikilink to George.
   You make your case based on your POV contentions of governmental plots to wipe out all things Russian. Have you been to Estonia or Latvia? "All things Russian" are doing quite well irrespective of Russian foreign ministry and rights activist agitprop.
   As for your quoting Правда, try quoting something more scholarly and objective next time. That's the same paper that called the Finnish prime minister a "clown" and "buffoon" for not accepting Stalin's assistance pact offer, for refusing the "independence, peace and quiet work" which Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania accepted. It hasn't changed, propaganda rag then, propaganda rag now. You know what they used to say during Soviet times: In "The Truth" there is no news, and in "The News" there is no truth. PetersV       TALK 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Most multi-lingual web sites reflect contents similarly, although not completely. It's interesting that while (checked just now) Pravda's online Russian side-bar carries stories such as "NATO is Afraid of Nuclear War with Russia" and "Anti-Russianism as a Test for «Patriotism»," Pravda's English equivalent carries Google ads for single Russian women and news stories such as "Hamsters have more sperm than men." Aha!!!, part of Pravda's involvement in the sinister Russian government plot to achieve Western brainocide. PetersV       TALK 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Pravda.ru is not Pravda that you know and despise. Regardless of the source, there is a movement in Estonia to engage in surnameocide (which is a new word made up in a day or something like that), and this can be verified from other sources, and is evident with concepts such as Estonianisation, and this is forced upon people. As to quoting something more scholarly, seeing as this debate has flared again only in December, and the rights of Russians in Estonia are ignored by the EU, etc, it is unlikely there would be scholarly sources as yet for this. But there are articles such as this, and there are many others, which document that Russians are having to change their names in order to keep jobs, etc...the discrimination in Estonia is that bad. Of course, this is not to do with this topic, but the romanisation of Russian names is, and if Mihhailov is insisted as being the spelling used, prose explaining this change can and will be inserted. --Russavia Dialogue 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems rather likely that most if not all of the people named 'Mikhailov' living in Estonia are immigrants from the West. They, or their ancestors, probably transliterated their name from Russian in countries whose languages treat -kh- as a fricative rather than plosive sound -- and once that became their Latin alphabet name, there was no reason to retransliterate it when they moved to Estonia.

By the way, 'Mihhailov' is not Estonianised, and neither is 'Mikhailov'. The Estonian name of St. Michael is Mihkel, so if a person named Михайлов wanted to Estonianise his name, he'd probably end up with something like 'Mihkelson'. 'Mihhailov' is merely a transliteration of 'Михайлов', and so is 'Mikhailov'. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, saying that Mihhailov is Estonianised is just silly. In Estonian its not any less Russian than Mikhailov. As Digwuren said, Михаил Estonianized would be Mihkel, and Михайлов would be Mihkelson.--Staberinde (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Digwuren, as you are now saying that it is a transliteration of the Russian name into Estonian, then the argument this is English wikipedia applies, as does WP:RUS, because this is not Estonian wikipedia but English wikipedia and we already have conventions on English wikipedia on the transliteration of Russian into English. Can you not see that this is what I have been saying all along? --Russavia Dialogue 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
If you talking about the section List_of_most_common_surnames#United_Kingdom or List_of_most_common_surnames#United_States, you would have a point. But this discussion is about the section List_of_most_common_surnames#Estonia, and since Peters proved that Mihhailov was the most common spelling via the Estonian telephone directory, the issue settled. Martintg (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Italian surnames

Hi, I would like to remark some inaccuracies. The main one is that surname Costa does not seem to mean "from the coast" but, on the contrary, "from the side of the hill/mountain" (which also is said "costa" in Italian, compare this, meaning 2). Source (Italian): [7]

Furthermore, Colombo (which of course means "dove") seems to be a surname given to children whose parents were unknown. Source (Italian): [8]

Finally, the meaning of Conti ("counts") is correct but I think it should be remarked that the Contis, like other families such as Conte ("count"), Barone/Baroni ("baron(s)"), Marchese/Marchesi ("marquis"), Principe ("prince"), Re ("king(s)"), are not of noble origin. They just had ancestors who were in service of a nobleman, most often as serfs, I suppose.

Thank you. --79.44.191.93 (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The meaning of Marino ("of the sea") is correct too, though I guess the surname actually comes from the corresponding male name. --79.44.191.93 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

UK List

I have edited the UK list back to match the source and extended a little. Spiers had been added spuriously.


Though I have no authoritative source, there are (according to Radio 4 on 9-Jun-09) 250,000 plus Patels in Britain. This therefore makes Patel the 6th. or 7th. commonest surname in 2009, and it is climbing rapidly. It is currently not on the UK list at all (though it features third in Greater London).

As a general point, every list needs a date at which it pertained. These lists will be changing rapidly as populations change, so unless they are dated, they can never be definitive, as the contributors will be chasing moving targets. --Wally Tharg (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

West Indies

I think that there should be some imformation about West Indian Surnames for example names from Jamaica, Bahamas, Trinidad & Tobago etc. It is a shame there is no mention of them whatsoever.


I fully agree. Feel free to research them, from quotable sources, and post them into the page. If you don't have a Wiki account, it's easy to get one! --Wally Tharg (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Greater London

Under greater London it reads "Hassan is a gay boy" however when i tried to remove it i couldn't see it in the edit box. 89.241.166.238 (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's watch vandals more carefully

I kindly ask admins and all users who watch this page to be more careful about this kinds of vandalisms [9] and this [10].
This same IP has vandalised the article Tóth [11].
I don't deny the possibility that Tóth ‎also meant "Slovene, Slovenian". All we need is the reference for that.
But why has that IP removed 'Croat' and replaced with 'Slovene'? We ought not tolerate deleting of an entry (in this case: 'Croat') without any explanation, especially when reference proves the opposite.
And in this case, that IP has intentionally deleted the entry that refers to Croat, although the reference in Hungarian confirmed that that term refers to Croats (''Szlavónia (Sclavonia, Thotország, Tootország, Tothorszag, Tótország). Slavonia is in Croatia, not in Slovenia. That user has ignored that and blatantly wrote wrong data. Sincerely, Kamarad Walter (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


Lebanon

Whoever put that in really needs to source it, because I'm pretty damn sure than Maroun would be the most popular Lebanese surname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martyy1 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

I'm going to take a crack at cleaning this mess up. The unreferenced stuff should be removed. The entries should be consistent. The etymologies have no relevance to this list.

  • Removed: Albania, Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, Greece, Lebanon, Romania. All were tagged since May 2009.

--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A laudable effort, there was a lot of doubtful material here. A lot of stuff you removed was probably valid, but it can be retrieved. I agree with you guys that the list should be split, perhaps by continent first and perhaps ultimately by country. A few requests / points:
The Asian countries are in a random order now.
The Chilean list shows the frequency of names as either the first or (the rarely mentioned) second surname, as the intro used to make clear. In other words, if you would add up the numbers of all names, you get twice the population of Chile.
I disagree that the etymologies have no relevance. It is very interesting to compare the local tendencies of using patronyms or trade names or toponyms, etc. It is also interesting to see how equivalent names in different countries show up among the most common surnames. Of course, I can't resist using as an example Smith, which is Haddad in Arab, Kowalski & Kowalczyk in Polish, Sepp & Raudsepp in Estonian, Lefebvre/Lefèvre/Favre/Fauré in French, Schmidt/Schmid/Schmitz/Schmitt in German, Kovács in Hungarian, Ferrari in Italian, Kuznetsov in Russian, Herrera in Spanish, etcetera, and my name in Dutch. Afasmit (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The last modifications are a tribute to the deletionist principle: make Wikipedia as small and useless as possible. They're also probably a first step to simply remove the page. --Jotamar (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point about equivalents. I find that kind of thing interesting too. I added some to Croatia, I'll work on adding them to others and see how it goes. I'd like to keep it as minimal as possible though, any suggestions? At the same time I also think that the list should stay on focus. If people are looking for the various etymologies of Ortega, or Spanish names and their geographical peculiarities, then they should by directed to Spanish_naming_customs#Surnames. This obviously isn't the place to cover that kind of thing. We ought to Keep it simple stupid.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Afasmit, did you check out the ref for the Chilean names [12]? It sums the total to 15.802.580, about the same as what we've got on Chile.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Splitting suggestion

He, just putting forward the idea that to better organise this subject you could this article up into geographical regions. This page would be a disambiguation page, and you could create "List of most common surnames in Asia", "List of most common surnames in Europe", "List of most common surnames in Africa", etc. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That might help make it easier to fight vandalism and maintain the list. With so many anonymous and unreferenced edits, i think it is close to impossible to keep tabs on this list. If we split it into smaller sections, editors might be able to keep track of things easier.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The vandalism problem is just overwhelming without this change. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Australian Entries Fictitious and Inaccurate

Several entries in the Australian table are fictitious. The citation refers to an Australian Government website that does not contain a list of surname frequencies but a from that returns an Australian Surname count.

From that database we find that for the supposed most frequent surname, McCullum, rather than there being 114,997, there are actually 99. For the supposed second most frequent surname Johnstone rather than their being 56,698 there are 5,146. For the third entry Burnell there are not 55,555 but only 549.

Some of the latter entries are more accurate. However the whole Australian entry should be removed until a authoritative source is found. dnw (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The first three names were replaced by an anonymous editor a week ago, presumably as a joke. I've returned the Australian list to the previous situation. Afasmit (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I added:203.184.35.187 (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC) My surnames is roelofse but I cant find any history what now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.167.72 (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification

Pretty much only way to verify this information is through Census data or geneological sites. Since this information is likely to be in the native language, we may need to recruit wikipedians who speak those langagues fluently to help with this article. Kerowyn 20:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Genealogical sites are not reliable in any sense. Census would work, or various government organs like Canada's health card registration system or the PRC's hukou registration system. — LlywelynII 05:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Spam

The following are on given and middle names, not family name (as the title states):

Spam links to nonreliable sources removed. — LlywelynII 05:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Family names in Hong Kong / Macau of China

The surnames for Chinese, backed by some statistics in general are already listed in the China section. Separate (and mostly duplicate) lists for Hong Kong and Macau, which would not differ much from the Southern part of China, would not be necessary without further statistical backings. These should be discussed under the China section anyway. The deleted text is below (This does not seem to be a list based on usage frequency. Ng / Cheng(鄭) is more popular than Fong / Au in Hong Kong, for example) -

Hong Kong

  • 陳 Chan or rarely Chen
  • 李 Lee or Li
  • 張 Cheung or rarely Chang
  • 黃 Wong
  • 何 Ho
  • 周 Chow or Chau
  • 區 Au
  • 胡 Woo or Wu
  • 馬 Ma
  • 麥 Mak
  • 方 Fong
  • 梁 Leung
  • 朱 Chu
  • 蔡 Choi
  • 葉 Yip or Ip
  • 余 Yu or rarely Eu
  • 曾 Tsang
  • 劉 Lau

Macao

  1. 陳 Chan
  2. 李 Lee or Li
  3. 張 Cheong
  4. 鄭 Tchiang
Hong Kong and Macao have their own citizens records and their own transcrptions (romanisation), and should be separtely listed. And the pattern of surname distribution in southern China, or specifically Guangdong area, is not identical to that of China as a whole. If the sections of them have to be removed, perhaps German and Austrian sections have to be combined, for example.. (if there were an Austrian section).
I guess the listing of the surnames of Hong Kong here is not a ranking, but a listing of the popular ones. They were marked with * instead of #. — Instantnood 18:32, Jan 29 2005 (UTC)
I guess, regardless, they need sources. — LlywelynII 05:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Verify

Clearly, several sections of this article are unsourced. Should we: 1. delete the unsourced material? 2. mark the unsourced sections? 3. mark the entire article? --Mareino 19:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

1 where dubious; 2 where probable. — LlywelynII 05:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Italy List sounds like a joke

Russo, Rossi, Ferrari, Esposito??? Sounds like some New Jersey kid thought of anything that might sound italian and wrote it there. I'm not Italian either but i go to Italy quite often and i don't aprove this list. Erase?

I agree. I have removed the list. Eugene van der Pijll 14:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Not completely mad, since Rossi and Rosso are the most common surnames in the country, and Ferrari / Bianchi and the others (currently visible) surnames are common. One exception is #21, Machain: never heard of anyone, in Italy, with that name; never seen that surname on any list of common surnames, never heard anyone famous; I have therefore removed it. Also, the page quoted as source (which has been moved) does not appear authoritative. Claudio, 21 November 2006
Ferrari is the Italian for "Smith", numbnuts. But of course, if there's no reliable source, nix it pending one. — LlywelynII 05:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

桌 should be 卓

Singapore's 桌 should be 卓

So fix it? — LlywelynII 05:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No Africa?

Why now African surnames? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.51.116 (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No reliable sources. Although if you wanna find out the results of the South African census or sth, please do. — LlywelynII 05:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Most common surnames

I think it would be interesting to get a ranking of the most popular surnames / family names on the planet. It may be hard work to sift through the information but satisfying to comprise. Zarcadia (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

We already have one. List of common Chinese surnames. — LlywelynII 05:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it verifiable saying that, due to the sheer size of China, Wang is probably the most common surname in the world? I came to this article looking for global information, and was disappointed to find just lists for regions. I'm guessing it's hard to process, but if the top name (or top few) were known that could form a short paragraph. LukeSurl t c 15:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed yet pertinent information and formatting

I removed the following;

Thailand

See also: Thai name

There are no common Thai surnames. Surnames were only introduced to Thailand in 1913,[1] and under Thai law, only one family can use any given surname: thus any two people of the same surname must be related, and it is very rare for two people to share the same full name. In one sample of 45,665 names, 81% of family names were unique.[2]

Because there is no point in implying a list of common Thai surnames will be provided if no such thing exists, but this same data can be put as an end note or something, but I can't handle enough formatting to do tha so I'm limiting myself to do what is basic; remove it from a lists of lists where it is itself listless... I note this for anyone who is able to put it elsewhere in the article... Maybe pointing whether there are other countries with such policies or non or whether for different reasons other countries would also lack such a thing as "common surnames" and which and whyUndead Herle King (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a point in stating that no list of very common Thai surnames can exist. Restored, in large part. — LlywelynII 05:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Currently no reliable sources about Thai surnames. I am waiting for it too.

Most common surname is possible! There are not no common Thai surnames, just (currently) no reliable data of it.

Old surnames, short surnames, or simply surnames can be duplicate!

Currently, to create new surname, it must be unique. But in the past, there are no online database, surnames can be duplicated.

--Love Krittaya (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Top 10 surnames reference is not good

We should come up with a better reference, names like Silva are used by more than 20 million people, which would qualify it as #5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.247.102 (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Surnames Singh and Khan

According to Forebears.io, the surnames Singh [13] and Khan [14] are more common in the world than the surname Müller [15]. --Gothus (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Quebec list

Shouldn't the Québec, Canada list be moved alphabetically to "Canada - Québec" or something like that? Sabbut 17:36, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cleanup with most popular names page

I think that rather than merge this and Most popular names names, that surnames from that list should be added here and the other list turned into first/given names. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:55, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Most definitely! Nikola 21:21, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Chinese numbers

Why are there numbers beside the Chinese names? SD6-Agent 00:47, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

They're Mandarin (linguistics)#Tones. --Menchi 00:51, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Move to "list of most common family names"?

Might is be more popular to entitle this "List of most common famly names"? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 22:53, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • Agreed. One usually doesn't choose a family name after all. -- Kimiko 22:18, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Abso. I will move it. But, while on the subject: has someone already researched and determined that
    • the shorter and more precise term surname somehow misses some (certainly non-obvious!) family name, or there has been a decision elsewhere in WP to avoid surname for some other reason? Note that one meaning of family name is a given name that never occurs beyond those sharing a common descent (e.g., due to a spelling error or other coinage. --Jerzy(t) 19:02, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

List of most common surnames in the world

According to Forebears.io (2014) :

  1. ^ Asian Times: Bankok - What's in a name? The number nine, if you want
  2. ^ 45,665 Thai names: Examining passlist.96, by Doug Cooper
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_most_common_surnames/Archive_1&oldid=1085460471"