Knowledge talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy

780:). I would not include mythology under the heading of "fiction"; Adam, Eve, and other figures in the Bible do not have names coined by an author in the sense of this list. "Stella" can be included even though it's just Latin for "star", if nobody was using it as a name prior to said fictional use. If you can find any sources that would help overcome the objections of the other editors, you should probably use them to create the list instead of relying on someone else's judgment as to whether such an article should exist. 840:

have been invented (as names) for works of fiction, only to become accepted and used as names by the general public, is sufficiently distinct as a topic and relevant to the subject of anthroponymy to remain an article. If it is, then this strikes me more as a "you don't have to cite that the sky is blue" situation: you don't have to cite that the contents of a list of things—all of which obviously fit the criteria to be in that list—constitute a list of those things.

257: 306: 288: 226: 836:

guess either of those things from your post. There isn't a rule stating that lists of things can't exist unless a reliable source describes them as a specific class of things. The main argument against including the various lists of songs was that they constituted indiscriminate collections of data, although a careful reading of WP:NOT provides only examples that are inapposite to that situation.

1116: 1070: 979: 949: 366: 844:

stand-alone list would be suitable if the two together become too large to maintain as a single article. But for the time being, that may provide an "out": I'm sure there must be some sources discussing invented names in general, with or without a list. Such an article would surely be encyclopedic, and this list could be merged with it.

772:. That seems like formalism, perhaps pedantry. The list isn't "arbitrary" as long as it has reasonably clear criteria for inclusion: at least one reliable source has to state that a particular name was invented or at least popularized by a particular work of fiction (and not be clearly mistaken about this, in which case the source would 839:

I would say that nothing useful can be drawn from that discussion here, because A) it is a very old discussion about a very different topic; B) the result was inconclusive; C) the principle argument was not the one being made here. Here the question is whether a list of personal names that appear to

835:

I'm not referring to a rule. I'm referring to an argument that isn't a rule, and which didn't carry the day in the linked discussion. That 2007 discussion was closed without consensus, and it consisted entirely of lists of songs about various subjects, some of which still exist, though you wouldn't

398:

for reference, but I found a lot of creations within this WikiProject by this user that go against the standards set by this project, including date range MOS violations, unsourced claims of origin, and unnecessary appending of the words "a" and "an" on some entries. At the moment, I cannot find the

843:

If the phenomenon of invented names becoming popularly regarded as legitimate names to give people is itself noteworthy—and I think it is—then a list of such names is fair game for Knowledge, although it could perhaps be merged with an article about that phenomenon, if one exists or is created. A

767:

I would simply have created the article with the sources you found, instead of submitting it to AfC. However, I think that if you did that now, someone would immediately nominate it for deletion, simply because some people don't think it should exist. I don't find there to be a problem with

399:

right words to remind Duckmather of this project's guidelines, and I also don't have time to go to all of their index creations and make these fixes. Is there someone in this WikiProject that is able to finish the job for me? Thanks in advance!

484:, I've been following the principle that the people who bear its name represent its geography. For example, if a name has bearers who live in (say) the Bahamas, then it obviously follows that the surname can be found in the Bahamas. (C.f. 1107: 538:

Referring to other editors as "they" is a useful way to avoid getting it wrong by using "he" or "she", and you can't really expect every editor to scan 60 userboxes on your page before mentioning you. Please learn to accept

1061: 663:

I'm sure many of the sources are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. The problem is they're not about the topic of the list - names first invented for fictional characters - but rather about individual names

41: 357: 1177:

Specifically for the band members section, when one band has multiple members that would be included in the list, should they each have their own entry in the list? Right now everything listed per group, not per

940: 61: 732:

accurately describe the issue - there are no in-depth, reliable etc sources about the topic of the article. That NYMag article is, for example, entirely about people who named their kid Daenerys. --

1102: 711:) also address the topic of the list. The latter is about the dilemma of naming a child after a character in a current television series before it is known how the character finally turns out. – 477:

and neither specified this rule). If you can point where this rule is stated I'm also happy to follow it. However, I do think "a" and "an" make the page flow better when you read out loud though.

970: 384: 1136: 965: 395: 995: 795: 1027: 807: 803: 799: 627:

started as a conversion from a category that was deleted. It's just been rejected at AfC. I had given it citations from most of the linked articles on the given names, but

217: 1041: 819: 811: 98: 924:

but failed to find AHD. I did find "A dictionary of English and Welsh surnames"; it suggests "View Image" (of a page), but image links were not clickable for me. --

1160:

At present list is an unreadable disaster that I'd really like to clean up but I want to make sure there isn't another standard for these type of embedded lists.

643: 1037: 514:(A last point: I go by he/him pronouns and have been very upfront about this for ages. Please don't they/them everyone you don't know; it gets really annoying.) 485: 768:

creating a list of things that can be individually documented using reliable, independent sources, just because you don't have a source that discusses such a

1123: 1109: 1077: 1063: 631:

judged that they were not in-depth, reliable, secondary or independent. It still strikes me as a list worth having – would anyone here like to work on it? –

177: 1022: 508:

which seem iffy at best. If you know of any decent citeworthy sources (eg books or encyclopedias or whatnot) related to names, I'd be happy to cite them!

57: 619: 213: 209: 205: 201: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 33: 1000: 932: 911: 69: 1174:

What's going on with the "(Originally from)" parts? I haven't seen that in any other "notable people" list... seems like unnecessary information.

49: 624: 373: 359: 462:

put spaces between year dates. If so, I'm fine with following this from now on; I think I thought that year ranges with spaces looked cleaner.

1001: 789: 741: 723: 677: 53: 37: 762: 1209: 1204: 29: 25: 410: 1190: 1055: 658: 133: 45: 853: 830: 526: 750:

The problem with the list is that it is an "arbitrary" invention of Wikipedians: I suspect there are no serious sources that discuss

435: 696: 609: 956: 942: 899: 1167:

Should entries on the list who do not have their own Knowledge article be removed? My assumption would be that if they don't meet

692:

I chose the sources as they confirm the criteria for inclusion in the list, i.e. that the name was invented in a work of fiction.

573: 65: 986: 972: 689:

perhaps the template that you used should be revised, or tailored where it generates inappropriate descriptions of the issues.

488:.) If this is too problematic I could just avoid mentioning countries in the lead though. Also, sources related to names are 139: 225: 888: 474: 313: 293: 83: 17: 1033: 907: 389: 794:

I am old to remember history: this rule you are calling "like formalism" was in response to a flurry of articles

543: 1150: 79: 704: 128: 903: 268: 119: 1093: 715: 635: 172: 1141: 921: 1186: 649:

It will only lead to eternal bickering. Would "Adam" or "Eve" be an acceptable entry in this list?

321:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

377: 1157:, or should I be looking for another standard that is more specific for these type of articles? 469:

might also some sort of MOS violation, I'm thinking, although I'm not seeing where. (I checked

240: 1083: 712: 632: 274: 157: 1168: 1012: 849: 785: 737: 673: 522: 8: 1182: 1051: 928: 884: 826: 758: 430: 405: 109: 873: 149: 124: 991: 961: 605: 105: 697:

Should You Name Your Baby Anakin? The Rising Popularity of a 'Star Wars' Baby Name

1154: 1142: 1017: 917: 863: 845: 781: 754:

of names, not just individual names. Although I do find this list interesting. -

733: 684: 669: 628: 533: 518: 417: 1048: 925: 881: 823: 755: 654: 564: 442: 425: 421: 400: 236: 1198: 1008: 895: 579: 869: 601: 424:, which includes the standards for all our surname and given name indices. 318: 241: 1127: 650: 555: 470: 455: 1124:

Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Japanese#Requested move 31 August 2024

1110:

Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Japanese#Requested move 31 August 2024

1078:

Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Japanese#Requested move 31 August 2024

1064:

Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Japanese#Requested move 31 August 2024

238: 922:

https://www-ancestryinstitution-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/

554:, which are better sources than the ones you've mentioned above. 305: 287: 1115: 1069: 978: 948: 365: 242: 880:

for all surnames). I guess we all have to borrow the book. -

548:

The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland

492:

hard to come across. Usually, googling brings up stuff like

374:

Talk:Jean Kelly (disambiguation)#Requested move 22 July 2024

360:

Talk:Jean Kelly (disambiguation)#Requested move 22 July 2024

820:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather

1028:

Anthroponymy of formerly enslaved Africans in the Americas

502: 597:

before the description of the person's occupation or role

1126: