This is a controversial debate on other talks pages ... but the term Persons, which refers to specific individuals, is preferred to People, which refers to a large and indefinite group.
At least in the case of List articles, I think you are attempting to swim against too strong a tide on English Wikipedia: as I write this there are exactly 2 non-redirect articles having the form "List of persons . . .", (use the prefix index to see) while there are literally thousands having the form "List of people . . ." (full disclosure: I have moved a handful from the non-preferred to the preferred form). I think reversing those numbers would be extraordinarily disruptive, as well as require changes to multiple policies and guidelines (like WP:SAL, for instance). But my hunch my be completely wrong, and so I would be interested to participate in a discussion on this at a broader forum (like WP:VP) if you have any interest in raising it there. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's improper English. I don't care if "people" like you misuse it. Dude, your user name is United Statesian! What is wrong with you? You are the last person on Earth qualified to correct this project page. You do not have a consensus in this project to make this change. PFO. --Hutcher (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't improper English. Definition of PEOPLE: 1plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest [Hutcher's usage]. 2plural : human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons <salespeople> —often used attributively <people skills> [UnitedStatesian's usage, emphasis added].[1] Recognizing the different definitions and making the encyclopedia jibe with current usage isn't misuse or wrong. "Formal" doesn't mean "stilted". And check the personal attacks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I had the following as the standard opening sentence(s) for a Name article stub:
'''Schnaufer''' is a surname that may refer to:
Short and clean. I've seen this on several Names articles out there. It was changed in the Standards without discussion:
'''Schnaufer''' is a surname. Notable persons with that surname include:
Questions:
Isn't this new opening sentence redundant? If there's an article by the name listed then it's already been tested against Wikipedia:Notability?
Isn't it repetitious? Surname is mentioned twice.
Is this consistent with Wikipedia? Can anyone demonstrate similar article types with this short of setup?
I'd like to see some sort of consensus regarding this so it's not changed back and forth several times leading an even bigger mess out there in the world.
"may refer to" implies ambiguity (and the need for disambiguation). Since these are not disambiguation pages, and since the persons are not typically referred to by just the single name only, a different opening sentence it useful. That it the one that I've used for some time now. Also note that the version you had was had without discussion either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two wrongs making a right? There was no standards doc at all and not enough activity on this WikiProject to build even a consensus of two. I needed a starting point and the original was the most sane version I could find in the couple days worth of new names articles I found. Having said that I like that yours distinguishes these articles from the run-of-the mill DAB. Thanks for providing that. --Hutcher (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You needed a starting point without discussion and I improved upon it without discussion; both of these were right by WP:BOLD. I did not claim either was wrong, just clarified your note about what happened without discussion. And glad to help. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the second version because I think it's more clear. It's more precise. Not everyone is known by their surname/last-name, and these articles are going to cover names from differing cultures and languages. It makes it clear that we are listing people and not things. I think it's better to be clear as possible. No harm. The word "that" seems odd to me - "the" or "this" seems more natural to me.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see this is not a very active place. If anybody happens to see this and can suggest a wider forum I'd be grateful.
Is there a guideline or body of opinion on the inclusion of people with a certain, not uncommon, given name on a page for that name? For example, is it appropriate in the page for "Jack (given name)" to include all people mentioned in Wikipedia with a name or nickname including "Jack", followed by a surname? My opinion is that "Jack-in-the-box" and maybe the nursery rhyme "Little Jack Horner" may be acceptable, but "Jack Nicholson" is not. On checking, it seems acceptable to have such a list—it is mentioned, without recommendation either way, in guidelines.
I also ask exactly the same question in regard to disambiguation pages, such as Cal, which as of today includes examples—although the question is the same, the answer may be different.
In both cases a person known generally by name or nickname only, such as footballer Ronaldo Luís Nazário de Lima, known worldwide as "Ronaldo", would be acceptable.
It's been brought to my attention that some infer from the current standards that articles should by default be titled "[name] (surname)" or "[name] (given name)", rather than the inclusive "[name] (name)" (although I don't see that actually expressed anywhere). If two articles exist, they should be disambiguated, of course. However, WP:PRECISION indicates that article titles should be only as precise as necessary, so if only one article on an anthroponym exists, it should be titled "[name] (name)". I would further offer that in some cases it may not even be possible to separate the content on given and surname usage, for one reason or another, thus leaving one with a single article titled "[name] (name)". Or that a name may exist in only one usage. Additionally, with WP being the dynamic creature that it is, even if "[name] (name)" were often transitional before enough entries for a split were collected, many articles will exist in such a state, and thus the existence of "[name] (name)" should be accounted for. In all, I advise that the guidelines here be amended, even if only in the form of examples, to indicate "[name] (name)" as the appropriate title when only one article on the anthroponym exists. ENeville (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Sorting by birth year, death year and alphabetically with a sortable table
There are several users (including at least me) who prefer to sort people in name disambiguation pages chronologically, as it's then easier to find out a relevant person from a list of many people once a name is known. This would involve lists of people of approximately ten names or more.
For example, readers usually know if their person of interest is alive of dead; therefore, if they know someone who has numerous namesakes and who is alive, seek to find the person first by that attribute.
The other rationale for chronological sorting by birth and death years is the fact that many people included in the name disambig pages are notable enough to have authored something, and their works are often covered by copyright laws. Sorting by year of death would allow finding out if a person's works are in the public domain or not. See Strauss, as the list includes numerous artists, including composers.
I've introduced a table at Condon (surname). User Kraxler has opposed my edits there, but so far has been very gracious in not reverting the table and discussing the issue at my talk.
More than a year ago I created in my user space a table of Estonian architects, which is a series of long lists of names in sortable tables. The tables should help Wikimedia Commons and Estonian Wikipedia users in determining the copyright status of architectural works in Estonia (the country does not have a permissive freedom of panorama). In the userpage, the names of the deceased architects are sorted by year of death, and in turn separated by public domain status of their works; the names of living architects by year of birth.
So, an additional idea for name disambig pages is to separate names of people who are dead and names of people who are alive, and names that take to further disambiguation names (three in Condon). For the time being, I won't be making any further changes to Condon, given that my current edits are under discussion. But the idea is to separate the tables in a fashion similar to what I've done with the names of Estonian architects. -Mardus (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that breaking the tables apart would then break alphabetic sorting of all names in the page. -Mardus (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sought this discussion page with the same idea. I prefer chronological lists by birth, but have also seen pages with people sorted into ==Athletes== &c. which would require a bigger change in formatting: Charpentier gets less useful if there's a column that only sorts "French composer"s and "French motorcycle racer"s under F. Sparafucil (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NAC:No consensus. There is one Support, one Oppose, and one Neutral. With only those !votes, it is not feasible to assess strength of arguments. Recommend that a new RFC be better publicized. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
But Anthroponymy is a subject, whereas disambiguation pages are a type of Wikipedia page. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film is probably a better example. Still, I think we're agreed on formally making this part of the MOS. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It strikes me as a gray area; I'd like to see what other people think, but if no one else cares, I'd be fine with dropping "pages". You're right though; the major issue is getting this into the MOS proper. —Swpbtalk19:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeComment this is a WikiProject standard, to become a MOS standard you need to implement an RFC, WikiProject standards are not automatically MOS standards. An RfC is needed to approve it with input from the community at large, and not just WikiProject members. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is already a de facto MOS guideline; it's the only place that style for anythroponymy pages is specified. Where is it stated that there needs to be an RFC? Moving this to MOS is a no-brainer; it shouldn't require a drawn-out process that will end up in exactly the same place. —Swpbtalk12:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutral. Needs to be done by an RfC, not by a page move request. Now that we have the procedural issue cleared up, let's see what some of the concerns are, then I'll either support or oppose.GregJackPBoomer!14:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It doesn't strike me as controversial—no one has presented an argument that the move would be a bad idea. Surely the page belongs in the MOC—why involve 10+ times the discussion to get it there? —Swpbtalk 15:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC) (Reply no longer relevant.) —Swpbtalk18:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page needs works. Spaced em dashes and dashes in date ranges need to be fixed. What is the purpose of the asterisk in "Subject living, e.g.: * Serena Williams (born 1981), American professional tennis player". Modal Jig (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The asterisk is just formatting—same as at the beginning of your comment. It could probably be removed, though. It does look odd. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most, if not all, of the dashes in the page are already emdashes. For some reason though, the font that is being used in the bottom 90% of the page makes them appear as regular dashes. I say the font formatting on the page needs to be removed in the event this moves into the MOS space. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to get this into the MOS, where everyone can see and comment on it—this page is de facto official guidance for a large group of articles, but its present obscurity makes it vulnerable to the idiosyncrasies of a small cadre. —Swpbtalk20:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is why this is done before promotion into MOS-space. And why we use RFC to promote into MOS. The RFC draws attention from people in the broader community. To enter the MOS, it needs approval from the greater community, as low visibility de facto procedures are not truly standards, since not enough of the community has had input into them to have any broad consensus that the current operating procedures are what should be the approved operating procedure. Think about it as the FA-process, one does not simply add the FA-star to an article and then fix it, it should be fixed before elevation to FA-status. The MOS should work the same way. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All that assumes that this page has significant problems, which has not been established. There are, at present, no identified problems with the page. We're already in RFC, so there's no sense continuing to argue against the move because it should be done through RFC. If people have concrete concerns with the content, let them raise them; don't oppose the move on a hypothetical. —Swpbtalk12:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. In the date ranges, Trebuchet, like Lucida Grande, has an en dash "virtually indistinguishable from a hyphen" which for me is a good reason not to use either font. It shouldn't be necessary to check the font in order to assess a style element. 2. The asterisks in the other entries below Serena Williams should also be removed, or better yet, leave the asterisks and use a new line for each example. 3. Em dashes look fine now. Modal Jig (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just did all of this. The main takeaways from these edits were me finding a way to get rid of the makeshift table of contents by suppressing the "table of contents-suppressing" code in the two transclusions on {{Compact ToC}} on the page, as well as turning the section headers in the examples into makeshift headers so that they do not appear in the automatically-generated table of contents. Also, I moved the top section to the bottom and renamed it "See also". Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am thinking that if this is promoted to being a formal part of the MOS, there will be some needed changes to existing articles to abide by that. Maybe it would be a good thing to try and make some of these changes prior to promotion to see how the editor community reacts; what I'm concerned about is promoting a standard which is only partially implemented and that leading to significant editor conflict. I'm writing this because I started reading the "title" section of the standard and wanted to see how well pages abide by that currently, thereby finding a gap in the standard. The gap has to do with whether to use singular or plural sense for the title when dealing with naming within a class. For example (looking at Good Articles and above) most national/ethnic articles are in the form of Chinese name, French name, Hebrew name; however, there are plural senses such as Hungarian names, Akan names, and the effective same sense Roman naming conventions, which I would suggest for consistency be renamed to Roman name (which redirects to the conventions article). Another example is Spanish naming customs, which is equivalent to Spanish name (which again redirects to the current article). Is this something that concerns folks, or am I clouding the topic by confounding "suitability for MOS promotion" with "implementation of an MOS topic"? Thanks --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This isn't really an MOS page, it's a wikiproject advice page that commingles various MOS, AT, disambiguation, and article structure concerns. I think some material in it can be worked into already-existing guidelines. For example, the entire section "Birth and Death" is redundant with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages (MOS:DAB), but only cross-references Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Ranges. The somewhat more detailed recommendations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards#Birth and Death can be proposed for merging into MOS:DAB; then we'll have this advice consistent and in one place. As BDD notes above, disambiguation is a type of thing WP does, not a topic of WP articles. This page is also not really written in a MOSish style. It's not using the {{xt}} and {{!xt}} templates MOS uses for examples, but misusing strikethrough, a readability/accessibility problem, instead of {{!xt}} to indicate bad examples; it's misusing capitalization, e.g. "included in a Names article", "unlike Disambiguation pages", "should not include External links"; it has a heading, "syntax", that doesn't use sentence case; and so on. While these are essentially copyediting matters, they suggest that insufficient attention has been directed yet toward making this a MOS page, vs. laying out whatever rules the wikiproject members want to impose. I share the concern raised by Ceyockey that these rules do not appear to represent actual Wikipedia practice at present. Try to get articles to more consistently do what is suggested here so that it is reflective of actual consensus, vs. trying to push a new one. Swpb said, 'the major issue is getting this into the MOS proper.' But it's not; reflecting consensus is. There is no need for wikiproject advice pages to be branded as part of the MOS (and several need to be un-branded), or we would not have the {{wikiproject style advice}} banner. Also agree with Ceyockey's comment about the misleading example at #Surname_stub. Anyway, this is a good start, but does seem to just be a start. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Dans les débats ci-après, ont été rassemblés tous les débats à ce jour et classés par thème, dans un ordre allant du plus général vers le plus particulier : portail, liens avec d'autres wiki, articles, contenu des articles.
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur la sensibilisation de la communauté Wikipédia à ce portail
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur le périmètre du portail
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur le titre du portail
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur la palette du portail
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur la notification de projet
Débats sur les liens avec d'autres wiki
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les liens avec Wikidata
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les liens avec le Wikitionnaire
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les liens avec les autres projets sur l'anthroponymie des Wikipédia dans d'autres langues
Débats sur les articles
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les possibles regroupements des surnoms, prénoms et noms de famille au sein d'un même article
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur le regroupement des variantes
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur le choix entre "nom de famille" ou "patronyme"
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les liens entre les articles de "noms de famille" et les articles de "famille"]]
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les pages d'homonymie
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les titres des articles de famille
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les surnoms
Débats sur le contenu des articles
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur la structure type d'un article
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les infobox
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les possibles contenus encyclopédiques dans les articles
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur les sources
Projet:Anthroponymie/Débat sur la catégorisation des articles et le choix des portails
WP:APOTITLE
This section was unilaterally added in 2013, and I want it removed. Using (name) on an article that is exclusively about a surname is not precise enough. Nor does it reflect the vast majority of existing name articles that are at either (surname) or (given name) unless the article is about both. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would agree with that, per WP:PRECISION. This does seem to be the way this is done currently for the most part. (given name): article is about a given name; (surname): article is about a surname; (name): article is about both --Tavix(talk)04:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. "Name" is more WP:CONCISE than either "surname" or "given name", is less tied to specific cultural traditions, and doesn't exclude the fairly frequent cases in which a name is usually used one way but occasionally used another (usually, a surname that gets used as a given name). --BDD (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so if there's a single surname-holder on a given name article or vice versa, then it should be structured along the lines of Brinsley (name), no argument there. I don't see why we should then give all name articles the same ambiguator. For example, Whiteman (surname) is obviously a surname and not a given name. A (name) ambiguator implies otherwise if you were to compare it to the other surname articles, the vast majority of which have always used (surname). —Xezbeth (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of persons: alternative spellings and sorting
I do acknowledge the somewhat borderline encyclopedicity of lists of people with a given name (and will be very happy if they could somehow be dealt with in an automatic way – say, with the birth and death years getting pulled directly from wikidata).
I'm still wondering what's the best way to list persons with spelling variants of the same name. Examples abound in Indian name articles – either due to language differences or because of different ways of transliterating/transcribing from South Asian scripts. This manual indicates that all people with a given name, regardless of the spelling variant, should be listed on the same page. But in what order: in a different subsection for each variant, as in Anupama (given name), or interfiled as in Arti (given name)?
And how about people in the Western diaspora: for them the spelling variant isn't just a spelling variant, it is the actual way their name is spelled. Any thoughts? Uanfala (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
List of people with surname Spencer
Bad example because it has no comments and hence useless for finding a partilucar spenser especially when so many choices. - üser:Altenmann >t15:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We should raise the bar of notability
As described at WP:APONOTE, a name-list article is considered notable (barring WP:GNG considerations) if the list links to at least two articles about people with that name. I think this bar is too low. Most such articles don't have, and can't reliably have, enough meaningful content, so their effective purpose is to disambiguate between the people in the list. But if the number of people to disambiguate between is low, then the same purpose is served by the search results. Of course, a list is a bit more readable than the search results, but it has two major disadvantages. First, unlike the search results it's not dynamic, so it will need to be actively maintained to keep pace with the new articles about people with that name that get created. If it's not, then it becomes a hindrance to readers searching for a given person. I don't think most name articles are as actively maintained as they need to be. And this brings us to the second disadvantage: such articles, especially about given names, tend to attract a fair amount of puerile, silly or narcissistic edits, and I don't think the effort to revert these is really proportionate to the encyclopedic value of the articles.
Maybe a first step towards addressing these problems would be raising the bar for inclusion. I'm thinking that if we should have a minimum number of entries for a list, that number shouldn't be two but rather twelve. Or do we need a numerical bar, is there an alternative way to formulate a sensible inclusion criterion? Any other ideas to tackle these problems? – Uanfala21:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, a million times no. "Raising the bar" does nothing to solve those problems. The "rare" anthroponymy lists aren't the problematic ones. Rare names don't need to be updated that often, nor are they the subject of vandalism as much (as naturally less people have those names). On the flip side, if all the name articles do is disambiguate, that's a good thing, as a curated name article is often miles better than search results, which can be "spammy" or irrelevant. Second, a key advantage to name lists are categorization by language/ethnicity, and you simply can't do that with search results. --Tavix(talk)22:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per Tavix, the low traffic articles are easy to curate. It's the large ones that are more likely to be filled with garbage. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the large ones are far more likely to be out of date. Look at Flores (surname) for a recent example; one of the most common surnames yet it's missing hundreds of entries, and has done so for years. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per Xezbeth, it's the large anthro pages that are problematic, not the small ones. It's the very large ones, like Flores (surname), that present a nightmare for maintenance and completeness, and where I think the search function becomes an attractive alternative. That's not to say we should do away with these lists, but it might be helpful to start including a direct link to search results. —swpbT13:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I don't think it's so much the size of the page as the current popularity of the name. A name with few notable people but with a lot of 15-year-old name bearers around is likely to receive much more bad editing that one with a long list of people but which has fallen out of fashion. – Uanfala15:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above raised a common question: when are automated search results more helpful than curated anthro pages? I thought, why not provide both? I've made a template, {{canned search}}, that links to the automated search results for up to five terms. I envision this being used selectively, in the "See also" section of anthro and dab pages where the search results may offer value beyond what the curated page has. Hopefully, this will resolve a lot of disputes about whether to create a certain anthro/dab page or leave a term to the search function. If it's well received, I'd like to insert a recommendation for its use on this standards page. —swpbT18:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This a useful template. Its documentation says it should be linked from the see also section, but its relevance is for the list of people so I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to be placed at the top of that list. – Uanfala21:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does serve a very similar function to {{lookfrom}} and {{intitle}}, but my point is that this function has relevance for the list itself, and that's where it will be most accessible to readers who might benefit from it. – Uanfala15:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just really don't get what you're trying to say. Do you think {{lookfrom}} and {{intitle}} should be moved up as well? You'd need a pretty strong new consensus for that. —swpbT12:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They can't really be moved because their format is not conducive to that. Your template's float right position and conspicuous size fit neatly inside the usually empty space on the right side of a list of people. – Uanfala22:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe I should make the template plain-text like the other two. Either way, experience tells me putting it anywhere other than "See also" is going to be an extremely minority position. —swpbT12:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: I've added my 2-cents at the original discussion with technical input on how I do this; takes advantage of the transclusion functionality. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional characters
Hello, this looks like the right place to ask what the standards are for included a non-blue link fictional character at a list of names. Obviously fictional characters that have their own articles will belong, and others are unambiguously prominent in a single work even without their own article and should be listed, but I cannot find a bright line ruling. Some editors seem intent on adding every single character from their favorite TV show to every iteration of the name (given, surname, nickname), which results in hundreds of listcrufty entries and puts the list of names articles on the path to being a fandom wikia. JesseRafe (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JesseRafe, WP:APOENTRY says no links in the descriptor (e.g. linking to the work) and more or less no red links. Redirects are unspecified. I have your similar concern, but with disambiguation pages. Often see the most minor characters there. Perhaps get a consensus for dabs, and we can apply the same rationale here.—Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I thought that was limited to real people and follows the general rule of blue links only as in NLIST; I was wondering if there was something specific for fictional characters. I used to remove all the ones that were plain text, leaving those that someone else had deemed important enough to make pipe to one of those "List of characters in" articles or at least a redirect to the work of art. That seemed reasonable to me, but I believe it was Xezbeth, who then undid those edits of mine. This was some time ago, so I didn't find the diffs or wasn't sure it was that editor, but I stopped doing it. Only recently seeing the problem crop up again all over the 20-50 name articles I happen to have on my watchlist. Definitely significant overlap (and in many cases, the same content) as in dabs. There's also myriad links to name of the works, the actors, the network or distributor, or author as well. I thought the limit was to one extra link, and have tried to edit down (to the work) and removed the network and actor and author entirely, not just unlink. Should the work be unlinked and left in plain text as what seems to be the reading if APOENTRY applies to fictional characters? That might obscure the notability of the entry for fictionals if they don't have articles (or redirects), and might that be a protocol from removing? JesseRafe (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JesseRafe: For namelists, I would say one link per entry, specifically a blue link to the person, real or fictional. For dabs, bad examples are like Thomas Mitchell with a bit actor (Thomas Mitchell (actor, fl. 2010s)) linked to the one movie they appeared in.—Bagumba (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So in the absence of a bluelink to the person, a blue link to the work (if N/A obviously NN), and no other links? Is this specifically codified somewhere or just inferred from APOENTRY? Maybe I'm missing where it is limited to one WL. APOENTRY also says the descriptor should not include any WLs, which contradicts the very widespread practice of linking the book/film/series if the character has no page. Also, if there's to be no piping, it would follow that no individually non-notable fictional characters should be listed in any anthroponymy articles, only blue link fictional characters or redirects to the work/list of characters from work. I'd be fine if this were the rule, as it's how I've come to understand it, but I just can't find it explicitly codified anywhere. JesseRafe (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: if this is a rule, realize that none of Anthroponymy's practices are Wikipedia guidelines. I think we all operate on some combination of precedent and common sense. If you're wary and feel more comfotable with increased feedback, you might consider posting a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy, as I suspect this page is not as widely watched. The "very widespread practice of linking the book/film/series" that you refer to is for disambiguation pages. Namelists are not disambiguation pages. Of course, there might be a common rationale for applying the same here (or not).—Bagumba (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The very widespread practice I referred to was descriptive, not policy. If you go to any name article, you'll see the fictional characters linked to the work of art. I'm confused about the where else to post that notification you allude to, I thought that was here. Not as versed in WP backchannels. JesseRafe (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this specifically codified somewhere or just inferred from APOENTRY?: The relevant parts of WP:APOENTRY are Entry format follows this basic pattern: Bullet Wikilink (birth year–death year), descriptor, rather than using red links ... editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles and Piped links should not be used for entries.WP:APODESCRIPTOR says Descriptor should not include a wikilink—Bagumba (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps get a consensus for dabs, and we can apply the same rationale here. Worth noting that the current guideline for disambiguation pages is far more lax than the standard suggested above; see WP:DABMENTION. Of the two "Maggie Anderson" examples there (both extracted from Maggie Anderson (disambiguation)), one is an entry for an actress with a link to a film article where she is mentioned only in the cast section, and another is an entry for a fictional character linking to a play where the character gets one mention in the "Synopsis" section (in a sentence which discusses four different characters) and a one-line entry in the characters section. (There was some discussion about tightening this up back in 2010 -- see here and here); not sure if there's anything more recent). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the comment was in response to the OP's problem of ... hundreds of listcrufty entries and puts the list of names articles on the path to being a fandom wikia.WP:DABMENTION also provides leeway, saying those links may be included ... if it would provide value to the reader.—Bagumba (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surname articles with a single entry
I'd like to see the possibility of surname stubs with only one entry. An anomaly arises with relatively rare surnames where we have only one article for a person with that surname. Take, for example Bressett. When I enter "Bressett" I'm expecting an article about the surname and/or a list of articles about people with the name, and not a redirect to the only article about a person with the name, the subject of which is not popularly known by the mononym. Thoughts? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find sources that show the surname meets WP:GNG, then an article can (and should!) be written on the name. However, when all you can say is "there is one notable person with the name", you might as well skip the formalities and show the searcher that one notable person. --Tavix(talk)15:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Yes, of course, but I think it might actually be surprising/confusing to land on a page for one individual, if it's not the one I was looking for, with no explanation that that's the only Wikipedia article about someone with that name. I think it would be less surprising to land on a page with only one link (ripe for expansion, of course). There are dozens of redirects of (relatively obscure) surnames to (even more obscure) surname-holders, that I think on a case-by-case basis would be better as a single-entry stub. In this case in particular I just don't think a redirect is appropriate. I suppose the question is how many people were looking for "Kenneth Bressett" vs how many people were looking for a list of all articles about people called "Bressett", and that's tricky to know. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's somewhat like saying I have a neighbor who's a writer named William McGovern, but I go to William McGovern, and that's not my neighbor. And I never heard of this guy it redirects to, but my neighbor has published books. In a nutshell, Wikipedia directs you to the closest matching item it has. There maybe other things in the world with that name that it doesn't have (yet).—Bagumba (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose. New guidelines should pass RfCs to make sure every part of them has the backing of the community and do not conflict with existing guidelines and policies. Gonnym (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards → Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponomy/Style advice – To be consistent with the rest of the style-advice WP:PROJPAGE essays of topical wikiprojects. There may be a few other stragglers, but they should move to the same consistent naming pattern as well. PS: This isn't even an appropriate use of standard[s], since this page and what it outlines don't qualify under any definition applicable here. At most, this is page reflects the collective (and generally pretty sound but not authoritative) opinions of a small number of topic-devoted editors, and it needs careful review to make sure it actually complies with our WP:P&G that cover style and page-title matters (which most style PROJPAGEs do not until subjected to considerable revision). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support. I think consistency in this area is welcomed as it makes it more clear what is what. I don't have any preference for the style, so if SMcCandlish is doing the work of finding these and sending to RM, I have no objection to their proposed title. Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
