Talk:Madison (name)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anthroponymy (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Neutral Point of View[edit]

According to Wiki NPOV guidelines, articles should not have personal opinion or bias or unsubstantiated statements (such as how a female named Madison's name should be spelled). If people keep changing this, would someone please protect this page? InkQuill 02:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Feminine variants[edit]

Some are Madisyn, Maddison, and Madisen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chomeara (talkcontribs) 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Madison Is an awsome name! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.83.102 (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is!! --Madison (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Second most popular[edit]

Er...usually when people mention "second most", other people want to know what's the first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.25.229 (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Questioning Article's Origin of Name Info[edit]

My last name is Maddison and I am originally from Northern England. I did not update the article because I am unable to site reference articles. As I understand it, however, the roots of the name are related to a old profession called a "madder". Apparently a madder was associated with the care of horses.70.50.35.80 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Popularity from 1985 due to Splash?[edit]

From a practically non-existent girl's name before 1985, Madison rose to being the second-most-popular name given to female babies in 2001.

Was this primarily because of the success of the film Splash? That article seems to say so.

That may be so, but Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. We'd need a reliable secondary source to support any such assertion. Otherwise it's just speculation and not encyclopedic. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)