WikiProject iconAnthroponymy Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Surname "Uppaluri"


Greetings, After finding article Uppaluri, I checked at "Find link" here and see 20 plus people with the Uppaluri surname. Asking for help here if anyone interested would like to make a surname list article? I did search & found List of people with surname Jones, so I see how this can be done. Wondering if any WP member here is willing to build a similar list. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and apologies for the belated response. I do not think it would be wise to create a separate list just for 20 people, especially if a substantial amount of them will be redlinks. The Uppaluri page currently contains all people with Wikipedia articles who have the name and its listed variants. Red links may be added to name pages, but only if the subject of said link is obviously notable. You may also notice that not all of the subjects listed at the website you linked are people. Otherwise, you could try to find sources for the content currently in the article if you wish to improve it. Best regards, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Madonna#Requested move 1 June 2024


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Madonna#Requested move 1 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Splitting lists of names articles when clearly different names


Looking at articles about names, there's two clear sets that I would separate more on coverage/quality than saying they are different types. However, the differences cause a problem. First you have detailed articles with some etymology and anthroponomy (great), and then you have what are mere listicles of people with the name - or (the problem) a name with a different origin that is spelled the same. When I improved Agron (surname), for example, I wrote about both separately but it might be better to have multiple articles. Or look at the Romeu listicle, which has a given name of one origin and a surname of another all on the same page.

Surely it is more logical to split articles and listicles into separate articles for separate origins, so that these can (now or later) be developed into articles that actually encyclopedically cover the history and usage of the name without getting wires crossed. (And on the other hand, you'd expect examples like Walsh (surname) and Branagh to be merged for the same reason.) Kingsif (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hm, I feel kinda neutral towards this. I think that the system we currently have (one page for all variants/different etymologies) is fine in most instances, though if we have detailed histories about the different etymologies, the pages should probably be split as you said. Thing is, we often don't, so when we don't have substantial content about the history of the name, I feel that one page for any different etymologies should be fine, though I would agree that many pages currently don't delineate between etymologies well enough. On that last note, I think I'd feel naturally opposed to a merger between Branagh and Walsh, as they are cognates with drastically different spelling, though this brings up another problem: the thousands of pages which currently have nothing about etymology when such information is easily available. It'd be interesting to see others' opinions on this. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cognates? Did you drop a "not"? —Tamfang (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
another problem: the thousands of pages which currently have nothing about etymology when such information is easily available - honestly, I might just start trying to solve that problem, and splitting/expanding/whatever where necessary. Kingsif (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
We need to bear in mind that surname pages are useful for, and used by, the reader who knows someone by surname only, doesn't care about the etymology of the name, but needs to find the philosopher / musician / footballer of that surname. They don't want to have to check multiple pages because there are several surnames of different origin which happen to be spelled the same way: all they know is the spelling used by their person. By all means provided lots of linkages between different pages, to help those readers who want to learn about the etymology of the surnames, but I think we should prioritise the reader who has read a source referring to "the important earlier work by Xyz" or "Xyz's innovative style" and needs to find the person in their subject area with surname "Xyz", especially if "Xyz" is a word which is also a common noun or placename so that a simple search on "Xyz" is not an easy solution. PamD 07:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
IMHO, List of people with surname Xyz should be the place for that (if there's too many to just put them all under a "people" subsection of Xyz (disambiguation)), and an article of Xyz (name) should be about the name. Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
PamD, as always, brings up a good point. The separate list idea works with common names though in most instances I don't think there's enough people to justify separate lists.
Also in response to Tamfang, Branagh I believe is derived from Irish Breathnach, from which Walsh is also occasionally translated, so I guess not always cognates, but wouldn't they be in that instance? I'm not a linguist though so by all means correct me if I'm wrong. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
On the "cognate" thing, I believe you are correct - etymologically related, but in different languages, potentially with significant differences. If I had to guess, Tamfang may have been thinking of cognates in terms of "false friends" perhaps? Kingsif (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Two words are cognates if they have a common origin (which these obviously have not), regardless of their meaning. False friends are often cognates, but may also have only chance resemblance. —Tamfang (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would Breathnach not be the common origin? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, Walsh is from a Germanic word meaning 'foreign'. —Tamfang (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You know, this discussion might be interesting to have over at the Walsh talk page, as I think (with sources of course) people could discuss developing the lead/content there - though I'd also make sure we're all on the same page regarding how we're using "origin" and "etymology". Kingsif (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Dictionary of American Family Names states that one of the origins within Ireland for Walsh is a translation of Breathnach, from which Branagh is derived. So they're usually not cognates but in that instance wouldn't they be? Though I agree that if this conversation will continue for much longer it should probably be at the Walsh talk page. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Translation and cognate are separate concepts! —Tamfang (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I kind of see now. I guess I'll take your word for it as you probably know much more about linguistics than me. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's funny how often I somehow give that impression. —Tamfang (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The problem with that is that it means extending the WP:NAMELIST navigation hole one step further - if we add more clicks into the navigation path it does seem to make the layout neat and orderly. But, it also risks losing many readers, as we make them click extra and as we bury the lede (many names are relevant because someone relevant is named that way, not the other way around). --Joy (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd only advocate for a separate list if there's too many people to just have a subsection of whatever the top level article is (typically, the disambiguation). So, "move the list of people to the disambig rather than have it at the surname article" is another way of phrasing the same thought, I suppose. Kingsif (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not typically what happens, though. There's Foo with a people list and nothing else, or there's Foo without a people list + Foo (surname) with a people list (extra 2 clicks plus scrolling to get to a biography) or a separate List of people named Foo (which in turn is horrendously bad for navigation because each biography is at least 3 clicks and probably a lot of scrolling away). --Joy (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Taylor (given name)


  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Taylor (given name). Should first–middle name pairs like "John Taylor" have a name page? —Bagumba (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

How to categorize surnames that aren't really surnames?


For example, most Indonesian people don't really have surnames (Indonesian_names#Naming_forms). Thoughts on how something like Arianto should be categorized? Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you distinguishing between hereditary and non-hereditary surnames, or between surnames and family names? In some cultures, a surname is any name given to someone in addition to the necessary or traditional names chosen by one's parents. For instance, in ancient Rome, the core parts of someone's name might be Gaius Rubellius, the former chosen, the latter inherited, but in Gaius Rubellius Blandus, the last of these three is called a cognomen, literally "surname", because it's added to the standard nomenclature—although cognomina sometimes became hereditary as well, and we would call the gentile name Rubellius a surname in modern parlance. In fact such names probably came about as surnames, and are so described on rare instances. But surnames were often personal and belonged to only one person in a family, though other, unrelated persons might also bear the same surname.
In the page "Arianto", it seems clear that the name Arianto isn't a hereditary surname—that is, the bearers didn't receive it automatically because generations of their forebears were named Arianto. If it was simply chosen as an additional name at birth, then wouldn't it be treated as a "given name"? If there are instances where it's verifiably a family or clan name, or bestowed as some kind of honorific or epithet, then those instances might be classified as surnames. Are there any such instances? It's not clear that it is in any of the listed examples, but if it could be one, you could say that it's usually a "given name" because most Indonesians don't have surnames in the modern sense (or any sense?), but that it can also be a surname. You would be able to categorize it as both types, although you might wait until there's at least one example of it as a surname, if you're not sure. On the other hand, if you're only referring to it as a surname in the above question because it follows a "given name", but is simply an additional one, as in "Jean-Claude" or "Johann Wilhelm" or "Cindy Lou", then I wouldn't categorize it as a surname. Hope this is helpful! P Aculeius (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Speaking as someone who has written a few dozen articles about Indonesians, I don't think there's any easy answer due to the sheer diversity in types of Indonesian names and naming customs. I think it requires some engagement with each person's case as for example some names that are not a family name in one generation became a family name in another generation, which may not be immediately evident. Dan Carkner (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sadly English Wikipedia has a long-standing issue (which extends to Wikidata and Commons) of not understanding the difference between modern family names and surnames. There has to probably be a big debate about this and a lot of work to fix it.★Trekker (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Advice needed for possible merger of people named Gervais, Gervaise, Gervase or Gervas into single disambiguation page


These four names for people appear to be variants of the same root name with slight spelling variations. However, three of them have their own disambiguation pages, with people lists which sometimes overlap. I would like to consider moving all the real people page links into a single disambiguation page, as follows:

- No changes to disambiguation pages links for Places, Other uses or Fictional characters sections.

- Gervais (name): to be the main target page for disambiguation (it holds the most occurrences of the name).

- Gervaise (disambiguation): point current People section to Gervais (name). Move current list of people to Gervais (name).

- Gervase (disambiguation): create a new People section, pointing to Gervais (name). Move current list of people to Gervais (name).

- Gervas: create a new disambiguation page with a People section pointing to Gervais (name).

Can this WikiProject advise if this is the right approach? Masato.harada (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply