Talk:Icelandic Naming Committee

Best title for this article?

I wonder whether "Icelandic Naming Committee" really is the most appropriate title for this article. Although I've seen this term used in some English-language sources, I note that the official Icelandic government translation of the Personal Names Act (see here) consistently uses the phrase "Personal Names Committee" as a translation for Mannanafnanefnd. Comments? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed this. "Naming Committee" is very misleading and not the English name used for the entity by the Icelandic authorities. Plan to change the title to "Icelandic Personal Names Committee" unless there are objections. Dustin de Brie (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Icelandic Naming Committee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 01:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC) This is a short article, but, in short, I have seen shorter articles pass. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Clear pass.

Composition and mission

Fine here.

Blær Bjarkardóttir controversy

This section passes. However, correct me if I am wrong, an entity, vested with such authority, must have provide impetus for other decisions that garnered controversy. Why have you focused on this case in particular, instead on creating a section entitled "Controversies", and make this section a subsection. That is if there have been other controversies. If not, than I will pass the article. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't managed to find any sources describing any other controversy that went as far as Blær's (where the Mannanafnanefnd's rejection of a name was overturned by a court). I believe some other proposed names that have been accepted (e.g., Elvis) or rejected (e.g., Satan) have resulted in publicity, though. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo)

03:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If there were no other controversies, than I will pass the article. Congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Needs updating

The current text says a move was under way in 2016 to abolish the committee. However, I understand (per an off-wiki conversation with someone in Iceland) that the committee still functions today (September 2018), so there is clearly room here for updating. FWIW, the corresponding article in the Icelandic Wikipedia (is:Mannanafnanefnd) is of no help. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)