Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)

Lord Lucan

There is a discussion at Talk:Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan#Requested move which affects the vast majority of articles on British hereditary peers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrothesp (talk • contribs) 14:20, 16 July 2012

What is "Native name" in an infobox?

Hello to all. In the article Markos Botsaris a group of users are guarding a "Native name: Marko Boçari" in the infobox. I see that the "native name" is not a standard in the infoboxes in the english WP. Even articles on Chinese persons do not include such an information (e.g. see Mao Zedong, Jiang Kanghu). In the case of Markos Botsaris the supposed "native name" does not offer any info to the reader, since its pronunciation is practically the same with the title of the article. So, here are few questions that may apply to other similar articles and cases:

a) What exactly is a "native name", and when such info should be included in the infobox?

b) Can a "native name" be written in a script that did not exist at the time the person lived, and is not attested at his time?

c) Can a "native name" in english WP be in a script that is non-english? (in this case a letter ç ).

Skylax30 (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on all of this, but the idea in c) that including a diacritic makes it "in a script that is non-English" is bogus. WP (in English) routinely uses diacritics in names that should have them. A "wikiproject" that consisted largely of pushing an anti-diacritics agenda was shut down by the community. So, "don't go there". Your point b), that sounds like WP:OR. But I don't presently have a good idea for a), how to (in naming conventions guideline or template documentation wording) codify exactly what |native_name= encompasses and does not encompass. It is worth discussion though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Mongolian names: patronymic or given name first?

• Luvsannamsrain Oyun-Erdene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two questions have been raised about the name used in the article. The first is that the patronymic appears to be in genitive form; I see the print sources using "Luvsannamsrai" instead.

The bigger question is about name order. Do we have a standing guideline for Mongolian names? It looks like the article's English-language sources split on which name is presented first. —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/08/02/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-and-prime-minister-oyun-erdene-luvsannamsrai-of-mongolia/ you can take it as the most reliable source on the matter. Gologmine (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gologmine So, use the patronymic on second reference in the article? For instance, rewrite the first sentence of Education and early career as Luvsannamsrai then graduated from Harvard University in 2015 with a master's degree in Public Policy? Because that's what that White House briefing does. —C.Fred (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking closer at the sources in the article, the sources that use "Luvsannamsrai Oyun-Erdene" tend to be published in Asia (South Korea, China, etc.), and the ones that use "Oyun-Erdene Luvsannamsrai" are wire services and other sources from Europe and the Americas. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Japanese for example use their last name in front. In fact Asians use their last name in the front. Xi Jing Ping, Shinzo Abe etc. Japanese animes change their character names postion for example in Japan its Uzamki Naruto, but in Europe or in America its Naruto Uzumaki etc. Mongolian is bit different. We use extra genitve trailing such as "n", "iin", "giin". Gologmine (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Napoleon and Galileo

Napoleon's article is currently titled Napoleon, whereas Galileo's is titled Galileo Galilei. Doesn't Napoleon contravene WP:MONONYM, which specifically states: Don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used. For example, Oprah Winfrey is the article title, and Oprah redirects there. And if an exception can be made for Napoleon [1], shouldn't one be made for Galileo [2] as well? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Outdated or spurious logic

"Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators, as readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it." This logic may have held in the past but now neither Wikipedia's internal search nor Google's search (or anyone else) is affected by article titles - in fact, where needed, article disambiguation with bracketed dob-dod is probably the most compact and elegant way especially when people are identified by a number of adjectives - example Christopher_Johnston_(1822-1891) is far better than surgeon / entomologist / physician none of which he solely is. Shyamal (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I've previously voiced an opinion that is somewhat the opposite. I think that on a disambiguation page like Christopher Johnston, it's dumb, except in unusual cases (such as when there are two or more Scottish footballers by the same name), to include years of birth and death in the description. For example, if Christopher Johnston, Lord Sands (1857–1934), judge and Unionist Party (Scotland) Member of Parliament is the Christopher Johnston the user is looking for, the context within which they came across the name has a good chance of helping them discern that they're looking for the judge/Member of Parliament rather than the footballer or the musician/record label owner or the American surgeon/anatomist or the American physician/Assyriologist, whereas, for example, even if they have a sense that the person was a 19th century figure, distinguishing them here by which year in the 19th century three of the were born is going to be useless.

All the more so if the year of birth were to be included in the disambiguator itself.

If there are three Scottish footballers with the same name, then, probably, we have no choice, not because providing the year of birth will clearly point the user (who probably doesn't know whether the footballer was born, say, in 1947 or 1952 or 1959) in the right direction but because, in the end, the titles have to be distinct. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that distinct is the key, and keeping it short and perhaps analogy with other language Wikis could be considered (see for example - pl:Kazimierz_Wodzicki_(1816–1889)). Shyamal (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request in NCPDAB (overprecision)

WP:NCPDAB currently states:

Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators, as readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it. Disambiguating by vital year may be necessary when there are multiple people with the same name and same specific disambiguation qualifier. In these cases, use [[Name (qualifier, born YYYY)]] with a comma and born unabbreviated (not b.). For example, with two actors named Charles Hawtrey: Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1858) and Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1914).

I'd like to propose adding the following caveat:

Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators, as readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it. Disambiguating by vital year may be necessary when there are multiple people with the same name and same specific disambiguation qualifier. In these cases, use [[Name (qualifier, born YYYY)]] with a comma and born unabbreviated (not b.). For example, with two actors named Charles Hawtrey: Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1858) and Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1914). However, if all ambiguous persons have the same qualifier (e.g., occupation), then the qualifier may be omitted, to avoid overprecision: Charles Hawtrey (born 1858) and Charles Hawtrey (born 1914).

Otherwise, WP:OVERPRECISION would need to make an exception for WP:NCP. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)