Talk:Gruffudd

Merge request

Stale

 – See later merge discussion, below.

Gruffudd → Gruffydd – Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK & WP:COMMONNAME.  — LlywelynII 12:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Gruffydd. — LlywelynII 12:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a move request but a merge request and the appropriate templates are already in place. I am removing the RM template. —  AjaxSmack  20:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Gruffydd

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{Rfc|style|lang|soc|bio}} As the original merge suggestion attracted no salient comments here and only two at the other page, with a 50/50 split, I'm opening an RfC, and suggesting a merge in the other direction, to the better-developed page. The Gruffudd spelling appears to be more common today, is more familiar to more readers because of Ioan Gruffudd, and produces significantly more Google hits. We definitely do not need a bunch of WP:REDUNDANTFORKs on every possible spelling of this name (or any name), especially when most of it's just disambiguation "un-content" instead of real content, spelling varies widely even for the same historical subjects, there are many more such variants, and none of them are likely possible to develop into a real and properly sourced article on the name without combining them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support: seems useful to move these two variants together. PamD 08:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging previous commenters – @LlywelynII, AjaxSmack, and Daicaregos: I am not opposed to a merge the other direction at all, just supporting a merge. What appears to have come out of the previous discussion is that the Gruffydd spelling is more common among the general populace (either that or some authors by that name were unusually prolific, skewing bilbio database results), but that more notables use / have used the Gruffudd spelling, while scholars referring to them are not consistent, even within the same work, and sometimes even with regard to the same personage (and also use other variants like Gruffuth).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• I support the merge and prefer merging Gruffydd into Gruffudd for the reasons User:SMcCandlish outlines. Note that several of the Gruffydds are already redirects to Gruffudds. —  AjaxSmack  02:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Thanks for the ping. I would much prefer a merge from Gruffydd to Gruffudd. Although both versions of the name are used, Gruffudd is by far the most frequently used spelling in modern times. Where used as a forename, Gruffydd seems to be an infrequent variant of Gruffudd, rather than vice versa. Of the Gruffudd/Gruffydd-es indexed in John Davies' A History of Wales, 19 are Gruffudd and 3 Gruffydd, two of which are surnames. Daicaregos (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support merging the other way, per my original results, the other posters' results at Talk:Gruffydd which found it about 3:1 Gruffydd:Gruffudd, and per Google Scholar which returns 10k+ for Gruffydd to ~3k for Gruffudd. Yes, the important thing is a merge, but it shouldn't go the wrong way based on cursory googling, when vanilla Google "results" are completely useless. They are quite clear that they don't see the point in wasting computing power to come up with an accurate figure. — LlywelynII 14:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• SNOW support for a merge, with no particular recommendation on which namespace to utilize for the merged article. Frankly, it strikes me as an editorially insignificant matter--and bear in mind I say this despite having a formal background in historical/comparative linguistics; I can see all kinds of potential relevance to even such a small difference as y->u, but nothing which seems to at all relevant to our organizational considerations for the encyclopedia, certainly not at a level that would make either option unworkable or worth arguing over. Especially as the ultimate function of the page will be as a simple disambig--we don't as a general rule, have articles on given names beyond that role, and I can't see how this would ever become an exception. So since this is a functionary, rather than content, page, with convergent redirects, everyone is going to end up at the same place, looking at the same list and I doubt very much that the difference between one letter will ever matter to the purposes of even a single one of our readers, if it is even noticed to begin. Honestly, having a strong opinion in favour of one option over the other is, in this instance, pretty solid evidence of missing the forest for the trees. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Merge either way; as long as both spellings are on the disambig page, and one is a redirect, it hardly matters which one is used for the title. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Partial merging, from Griffith (name)

Most of the content of three sections of Griffith (name), "Evolution and history", "Variants", and "Hypocoristic forms", really pertain to Gruffudd/Gruffydd, and should merge into this article, as they pre-date the existence of the Anglicisation Griffith[s]. All that need be left behind at Griffith (name) of this material is a summary, and any material pertaining explicitly to the late, Anglicised variant (e.g. "Griff" has a hypocorism).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging previous commenters – @LlywelynII, AjaxSmack, Daicaregos, PamD, Snow Rise, and Dicklyon:  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support per User:SMcCandlish. The page should be a de facto dab page linking readers to Gruffudd and Griffith (name) with mentions of nicknames et al. deriving from Griffith s.s. —  AjaxSmack  01:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, at this point it's also basically a stub article on the name and its variants, history, etc. Hndis pages have a tendency to evolve in that direction. What we don't need is REDUNDANTFORK content at each derived variant, but have that material centralised in one article, cross-referenced at the articles on the derived names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Agreed. —  AjaxSmack  03:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support per User:SMcCandlish. Daicaregos (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support merge of relevant sections. — LlywelynII 04:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done