Talk:Terry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anthroponymy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Cocktail[edit]

A Terry is a popular alcoholic cocktail, made popular by two young pioneers in early 2006. It consists of Tia Maria and Orange juice, in varying proportions. Notable advocates of this drink include Charles Watson and Katie Kapur.

Just removing useful information is not helpful.[edit]

Fyrael,

If you think that some of the information is in appropriate then please move it to the correct place, don't just remove it.

Also if you are moving the entries that are not given names then please do a complete job. You left in Belaunde Terry and all of the fictional characters.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a small part of the part about given names should stay and I will edit the article to do so. However, fully reverting a productive edit is not helpful. You should have simply added back in the parts you think should be included. Removing information is often helpful when it doesn't belong in the article. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, I have no intention of removing the fictional characters, since Terry is the given name of those characters. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I reverted it because it was not a productive edit. Removing information that does not be anywhere is helpful, just removing information that belongs somewhere else is not at all helpful.
You say that this time you have moved some information? What and to where? As far as I can see you have just removed almost the same set of information as before.
Fictional characters are not people so they don't have given names, nor family names, and hence are inappropriate for a page limited to given names. And you have removed one fictional character already.
FerdinandFrog (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Based on the few other given name articles that I've checked, other editors agree that fictional characters belong there (Samantha, Eric, Ross). I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that fictional characters don't have given and family names.
I moved a couple of entries to the Terry (disambiguation) page. Which page did you check? The entries that didn't get moved didn't belong here and also didn't belong on the disambiguation page in my opinion. -- Fyrael (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The three things I looked for were not on either Terry (disambiguation) or Terry (surname), namely
The first of these s/b still on this page as it is the source of the name, cf. Stephen, Peter, Luke.
Fictional characters obviously don't have given and family names because they are fictional. They can't inherit a family name from their parents because they don't have parents. Their parents cannot give then a given name because they don't have parents.
I don't have a problem with them being on this page but if you are going to blindly remove everything that is not a given name then they should go as well.
The other pages I have looked at seem to take a pragmatic approach and include related information that is useful (e.g. etymology, equivalent in other languages) even though it is not people with that given name.
FerdinandFrog (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I assume the surname information is already on that page. If it's missing information, feel free to add it.
  • My edit summmary when removing Belaunde reads, "Given name isn't Terry; not sure where that entry should go"
  • The Taliban entry doesn't belong on the disambig page or here
I don't know what you mean by "s/b".
Every other given name article disagrees with you about the fictional characters, but I'm not going to argue with you unless you remove them. It's very obvious that I haven't blindly removed anything.
I clearly have no problem with related, useful information being on this page. If you have etymology information to add, please do so. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
So initially you just removed a load of information without bothering to try and place it anywhere else.
When I rightly reverted that you moved two items to another page and just removed the rest without bothering to try and place it anywhere else.
And now you are saying that you could not be bothered to check if any of the removed information is already on a more appropriate page and correcting the problems you have created is my responsibility.
Oh, and 's/b' is a standard English abbreviation for should be.
FerdinandFrog (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
You have quite the imagination. The surname line is the only thing I didn't check and I have now added it in order to apparently remove this immense responsibility from you. As far as that surname information staying on this page, the examples you linked indicate that it shouldn't. Peter and Stephen both simply point to the surname article within their lists, just like the hatnote on this page does. The Luke page is actually being used to describe and list both the given name and surname together. They've chosen not to break it into two articles.
And you know what? I'm in a bit of an argumentative mood so I'll go back to your earlier point. I believe you are wrong that removing irrelevant information from a page which should maybe be moved somewhere else is unhelpful. Removing information from a page when it doesn't belong on that page improves the article. If that same information could be useful on a different article, then adding it there is also an improvement, but failing to add it doesn't negate the first improvement. I'm under no obligation to find a home for single, unsourced (with one exception) bullet points that should never have been added to this article in the first place. There is no responsibility created by removing them. Actually, forget it. We each have our opinions and it's not worth the effort. Let's try to reach consensus on this article and be done. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)