Talk:Layman

2007-11-6 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 13:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

layman of xxxxx ?

In a historic document, if someone is described as a "layman of xxxxx", is xxxxx their:

• Current abode / parish
• Place of Birth
• Place of Baptism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.74 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 15 May 2009

I would guess the first option. The second is also a possibility, but the third strikes me as unlikely. Especially for traditions that practice Infant baptism, place of baptism will probably be the same as place of birth anyway. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

refined meaning

cannot layman also mean someone who is an expert in their field , but not officially endorsed ( simlar to amateur ), or more specifically recognised? L∴V 14:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Title of Article

I wanted to open this issue to discussion and we can alter the title according to community consensus.

Many words in the English language have been changed for gender neutrality, such as businessperson, as opposed to businessman. Can we change the title of the article to Layperson, which is redirected from Layman?

Thanks, Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

I believe that this article should be redirected to Laity, which essentially covers the same topic. The concept of a layperson as a non-expert is non-notable. --Simone (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the recent AFD that was closed as no consensus, the most reasonable and neutral redirect would be to Lay.TMCk (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

'Layman' is very popular search term racking up around 20,000 hits per month. We certainly need to have something on it. Looking through GSearches it is clear that this term is generally used in a secular sense. Consequently I do not support a redirect to Laity which is a narrow use of the term and probably not what readers are seeking. A redirect to Lay would be much better. However, I still prefer to make this a disambiguation page. As a disambiguation page we can put an explanation of the term in the preamble together with the Wiktionary link. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If we were to have a disambiguation page, what pages would it link to ? It might be sensible to have a link to Laity and Expert or something similar. Simone (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the AFD: Laity, Lay judge and Lay magistrate could/should be linked to.TMCk (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It shouldn't link to Expert unless we include a "see also" section (and I'm not sure we do that on disambiguation pages).TMCk (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen a Lay judge or Lay magistrate been referred to as a Layman. Perhaps it would be better to redirect the page to the more general disambiguation at Lay ? Simone (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we have two options here: One is to redirect to Lay as user:Cnilep suggested at AFD. Another is to make it a disambiguation page suggested by User:Bridgeplayer and link all possible articles one might search for and yes, that would include Lay judge and Lay magistrate which readers not familiar with correct terms might be looking for. I'm open to both of these options.TMCk (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

One section of Lay (currently titled "Roles, jobs, or offices", but that could certainly be improved) currently links to Laity, Lay magistrate, Lay judge, Lay assessor, and Layman. In my opinion, making Layman a DAB in its own right would not add a whole lot of information. Of the pages returned by All pages with titles beginning with Lay that could be called "layman", most relate to the religious sense of laity: Lay Abbott, Lay brother, Lay Cardinal, etc. A redirect to Lay, perhaps with the addition of a link to Wiktionary:layman on that page, seems the most efficient solution to me. Cnilep (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• The concept of being a layperson is important and should allow the article to be developed in the future. Let's err on the side of caution and keep a separate article. No harm's being done. Malick78 (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)