Talk:Aptronym/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Crapper

Resolved

You've put the horse before the cart. "Thomas Crapper, maker of Vicrian flush toilets" is not an aptronym of the same vein as the others listed. The term "crap" became synonymous with defication AS A RESULT of Mr. Crapper's occupation. It wasn't just a coincidental name to be born.

Leave it, cut it, make a cute little side note... whatever. I just felt it appropriate to clarify.

[--anon.]

Sorry, not true. The recorded use of the word in that sense dates to 1846, when Mr Crapper was 10 years old. See the article on Thomas Crapper. -HFM.

Wikified as part of the wikification drive.

Resolved

Wikified as part of the wikification drive. KarenAnn 14:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Snow

Why is Tony Snow listed but not John Snow?

Is "Tony Snow" only listed because of the colloquial meaning of "snowjob"? That would be kind of lame... AnonMoos 15:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Snow job. Hmm... I guess it passes. ~ Rollo44 00:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is some proof that Tony Snow is "covering anything up," of which I am unaware, it would need to be cited. As such, bye-bye Tony Snow. Cliffietheman

Rev. Sinner

Are "Cardinal Sin" and "Rev. Richard Sinner" actually ironic, considering that Christian theology holds that all men are sinners? - Calmypal (T) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thusly all the more fitting!

J. P. Losman, Bills quarterback

Is it appropriate to add J. P. Losman, current NFL quarterback for the Buffalo Bills, as his name is synonymous with his team's performance since joining ("loss man"), or is it more irony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgriebel (talk • contribs) 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not an aptronym, it's a soundalike / lookalike. Even if his name were " J. P. Loser", it would still be a subjective view of his team's performance in a current sports season. Deiz talk 13:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Spikes, former Major League Baseball player

What does the term "spike" have to do with baseball? If he were a volleyball or football player, the name would be an aptronym, but baseball? Am I missing something? — DIEGO talk 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Spikes" are the names of the shoes worn by baseball players because of the small spikes on the bottom of the soles (for traction). Keeper | 76 14:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of specific association

I think that aptonyms must be quite specific. I don't agree with the inclusion of the following:

  • George Best: The word "best" may apply to him (in someone's opinion), but it doesn't have anything to do with football; it doesn't tie in to any aspect of George Best's specific individual achievements.
  • Eric Gagne: He may be a winner, but the word doesn't tie him with any specific individual achievement either.
  • Mario Lemieux - Lemieux means "the best" in French. Same complaint; the association is not specific enough.

As an aside:

  • Tiger Woods. It is interesting to see the mention, but somehow he needs a partner (does Jeremy Irons play golf?) :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.209.46 (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Organizations?

I've had a brief discussion with Saltation on his talk page and mine regarding the inclusion of BAAPS here. Saltation added it, I removed it, we discussed the removal, and it has now been added back in by Saltation. instead of just removing it again, I'd like other input regarding organizations names - do they fit here? Keeper | 76 23:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't. Company names are chosen.. aptronyms are inherently coincidental, not selected. Deiz talk 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If that was correct, fictional aptronyms could not exist. Yet they are widely cited.
  • Probably better in context to say "Unintended", not "Coincidental". Mens rea. I agree that intentional aptronyms should not be bundled with "genuine" aptronyms. (For example, Alicia Keys and Joe Strummer could be reinstated in a section labelled "Deliberate Aptronyms" or somesuch, although the extant mingling of fictional and nonfictional aptronyms then becomes problematic.)
  • This particular aptronym happens to be both coincidental and unintended. Speaking to the element of intention: does anyone seriously think a brittle brit "professional" group would deliberately choose to associate that cliched euphemism with their professional standing and their public brand? When the group was put together specifically to push that public brand? Check their media presence if you think they're not serious.
As I said in my initial response to your post on my talk page, Deiz (which I noted used a different reasoning to your post here), I'm not particularly motivated to correct this deletion. It's hardly central to the topic.
However, I do not regard it as appropriate to justify that deletion by warping the definition.
Saltation (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

File path

The term "/path/to/file" is used in some documentation. Isn't this an aptronym, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddor (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If a file existed there, I suppose you could argue that, but no operating system I've heard of has that directory or file. Mikkel (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Arsene Wenger

Just a suggestion, he is the manager of Arsenal Football Club. He also used to be a footballer and Winger is a position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.12.118 (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Guest

Michael Guest was the US ambassador in Romania. I think it's quite obvious that his name is an aptronym. Any opinions against? Reject 666 6 (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, mainly that it is not an aptronym. Michael Ambassador yes, Guest absolutely not. Deiz talk 13:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Finnish examples

There are two Finnish examples that come to mind: Arno Kasvi (brother of Jyrki Kasvi), botanist ("plant") and Pekka Pouta, meteorologist ("fair weather"). 194.100.223.164 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Aptronym vs nominative determinism

If I understand the definition (looking at the Encyclopaedia Britannica on which the lead is based) it suggests the difference is:

  • Aptronym - the name comes after the characteristics, that is this is essentially a literary term (as you can define a character and then fit the name to them) and other examples might include the characters in Charles Dickens (Murdstone is given on the article) and Molière, as well as the Carry On films.
  • Nominative determinism - the name leads to the job/character

However, the examples here seem to be largely of nominative determinism. Now I might have misunderstood the difference but there seems to be a disjunction between the lead and the EB definition and the examples. If they are examples of aptronyms then this article should probably be merged with nominative determinism but it strikes me there is a clear difference even if the examples don't suggest it. (Emperor (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Ryder Hesjedal

Suggestion: Ryder Hesjedal, the Canadian cyclist. To be honest, I'm a little surprised it isn't here already. P (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is "Chip" Jett included but "Chip" Reese was removed?

Poker player Charles "Chip" Jett was included, so I added David "Chip" Reese. Why was Chip Reese removed but not Chip Jett? That makes no sense. 68.45.106.216 (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Chip is a shortened version of Charles. Like William/Bill or James/Jim. As for David Reese, "Chip" is just a nickname... Not an Aptronym. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
So then Chip Beck the golfer should be good since its shortened from Charles Beck. I'm adding him to the listRacerx11 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

William Dement, professor of psychiatry

Just wondering, is the William Dement listed here the same person as the William C. Dement, the Stanford professor and sleep research pioneer? If so, I think its still good. I found a couple sites confirming he's a professor of psychiatry. To whomever included him, the problem is we usually use a link to the person's article if they have one. He has one, but when you go to it, it mostly talks about his association with sleep research and doesn't mention him being a professor of psychiatry. So it doesn't really support his name being a aptronym. I won't remove it, but someone might consider this one a borderline aptronym.

I should mention the WP article on Stanford University School of Medicine has him listed under "notable faculty" as "William C. Dement - Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, pioneer in sleep research." which does support an aptronym.

Anyway, should we go ahead and link the name to William C. Dement? And if so, should we add to his article that he is a professor of psychiatry? Racerx11 (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree in both cases. —烏Γ (kaw at me), 04:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of unreferenced names, I'd also vote for finding a ref for Jacques Moron, Lara Weller, and Kent Wells. —烏Γ (kaw at me), 04:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, on both the Dement issues. I remember seeing on some site a "history" of the different Lara Croft models that included Weller, so I think there is stuff out there on her. I don't know about the other two you mention.Racerx11 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Red Links with no External References

I don't know how trafficked this page is, but I figured I would post here before deleting the fairly substantial number of red links that have no citation whatsoever, like So-and-so is the owner of Such-and-such company, which I will do in a week from now. JesseRafe (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Earl Boykins?

Maybe I'm missing something, but should Earl Boykins, just because he's short, be listed on this page? I'm assuming the reference is to Boykins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorself (talk • contribs) 19:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Isn't it about time that the Charactonym article was merged into this one? Dadge (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Barry White

Inaptonym example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.171.147 (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Bobbitt

Surely the term came after crime, not before. Astronaut (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Bob means to cut short or shorten by cutting. Actually a very old term. Certain hair cuts were once called "bob-cuts" and the old song "Camptown Races" from the 1800's contains the line, "I'll bet my money on de bob-tail nag". "Bob-tail nag" here means a horse with its tail cropped or cut short.
so bob (cut short) + it (penis) = Bobbitt.--Racerx11 (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Original Trivia

OK, can someone justify how the list of "examples" is not both a bunch of trivia (discouraged) and original research (not allowed)? -67.39.251.254 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Lampman (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
No as in it's not, or no as in there's no possible justification? —烏Γ (kaw at me), 04:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It's all OR without a good ref. Perhaps some are fair, but something like Bobbit to me seems OR/stretching the definition. Malick78 (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Nominative determinism should be merged into this article. They are largely duplicative, and the combined material will be better than both articles separately. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it should go the other way; we ought to merge this article into Nominative determinism. But that's just me. Thor Rudebeck 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The articles would seem to suggest that they are different things. I had not heard of aptronyms before but they seem to primarily refer to fictional names. The other article is about an alleged or humourous theory that roles are assumed according to one's name. It is widely discussed in papers and journals and deserves an article. I has become something of a boffins game to find them in technical journals. I just found all this on the random page, sorry if I am late to discussion. - Fred 14:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Support: They overlap in subject but not in article content, and thus would make a merged article far superior to either of the individual articles.–Skomorokh 16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They should stay separate as Fred suggests, due to the largely fictional nature of aptronyms vs. the happenstance nature of nominative determinism (which makes it funnier). Though they would both benefit from expansion to become proper encyclopedia articles.Andybuckle 08:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't nominative determinism require (or at least imply) causation, much in the sense of "giving a dog a bad name"? Aptronymy would seem to involve coincidence rather than causation (or at least punning when the named individuals are fictional). 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Places?

Does this trope apply to places as well as individuals? Grimsby, Slough and Crawleigh in the UK all spring to mind ... as would Bangkok and Phuket in Thailand, albiet for different reasons. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Good name, but not quite an Aptronym

How about the equal opportunity person at a large company I used to work for in Chicago: Juanita Wong! I think is is one of the most perfect names:jobs relationships, but not an Aptronym. WardXmodem (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle

Is Charles de Gaulle an example? Leader of the French, his name seems to mean 'of Gaul'—i.e., 'of France'. AJD (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say no. Now, if CdG were a fascist, especially a nation-race-centered fascist like Mussolini or Hitler, then, there'd be an argument, as he's not only leading the nation state but leading the people (or the state's [mythical] founding people).
As Gaul and Gaulle are only superficially similar (Gaul (en) and Gaule (fr) are both unrelated to Gallia (lt), and all three totally different from Gaulle - not the point, I know, as many of these aptronyms are also coincidentally homophonous) would that make any other leader named Frank, Frances, etc also eligible if they ever held power in what's now called France (As we're skipping around with temporalities, as the land is not called Gaul or Gallia or Celtica etc anymore)? JesseRafe (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Joe Strummer

Should Joe really be included, as his real name is John Mellor, he just gave himself the name Joe Strummer after his playing style? Pennywisepeter 15:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for Alicia Keys; that wasn't her birth name. Surely these names should be verified for them to be considered aptronyms. Thefamouseccles 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that without Joe "Strummer" on the list, Alicia "Keys" shouldn't also be there. User:Guest 19:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.200.193 (talk)
An aptronym is not necessarily the "given" name. To be considered an aptronym, the name must merely be reflected as a name that, for whatever reason, is especially appropriate. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
That would be a cse of aptronymy without nominative determinism.1Z (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Jung's examples

"£Jung listed striking instances among psychologists — including himself:

"Herr Freud (Joy) champions the pleasure principle, Herr Adler (Eagle) the will to power, Herr Jung (Young) the idea of rebirth…"[4]"

Should these be under "Other languages". 1Z (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

JesseRafe's recent edits

Another consistency problem. By the criteria used to revert my recent edits , virtually nothing counts as a aptonym except "Major Major" or "Judge Judge" ("Godman is not himself a godman"). Wisdom is about as relevant to philosophy as Angst is to psychology, to compare to example found acceptable. Note that the point about Professor Wiseman was the professor, not the psychology -- cf Dr. Unk. Note also that The Imperial Animal, which I have read, is partly about non-human animals, since it is about the origins of human social organsiation in primate behaviour. 1Z (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe some of the readily available online summaries of the Imperial Animal could do to mention that, but even so, I fail to see the connection. The Godman thing is beyond tenuous. He's an authority on some guy (not to be dismissive but that's basically who the sage is), and that guy is a Hindu and Hinduism has figures known as "godmen". Are you serious? And I'm being pedantic for removing it... Likewise Wiseman, is he a professor of wisdom? What makes him a wise man? Because he's a professor? There are millions of professors in the world, not to mention "scientists" (however one may define it) and engineers or other fields where one needs to be "smart" and tens of thousands of them have vague names to intelligence, but compare that to Russell Brain who's not merely a brainy scientist, but a neurologist. For the same reason why Chris Moneymaker the poker player belongs in the list, but a banker that someone kept adding named Rich does not. Likewise, Angst has a lot to do with psychology, whereas wisdom has almost nothing to do with psychology nor professorship (Dr. Tenure would be apt for a professor of any subject, for example). Yes, Elizabeth Unk is nothing close to an aptonym, but Dr. Unk is pretty funny. Maybe doesn't belong in, but I remember when that story was circulated all over teh internetz several editors were adding and refining that entry. Further, your blanket reactionary undo failed to notice other changes made to the improvement of the article as a whole that you did not reincorporate back into the article, such as further explanation of the aptness of malarkey and a simplification of the entry for Commoner. JesseRafe (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Wisdom has to do with philosophy.
The names Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox are in any case apt to the name of the book.You seem to be editing according to criteria pulled out of thin air.. 1Z (talk)
Explain to me how. Other than the etymology meaning "love of knowledge" there is no 1:1 connection between wisdom and the entire field of philosophy. You don't have to be wise to be a cynic, or an empiricist, or write a book about Socrates. And being a gnostic or a scholar of Kant or any other vacuous way of "being" a philosopher doesn't make you wise. It just doesn't. It's not there and never will be. Do you have to be healthy to be a doctor?
Yes, I simply don't believe the Tiger and Fox thing is apt. They're not zoologists or veterinarians. And the discussion of the book makes it seem any reference to animals is anecdotal, and the title seems to me an attempt to evoke other uses like "political animal". But yes, that is solely my opinion and no, I haven't read the book. Of course, I'd bow to consensus, and I feel less strongly about Tiger and Fox than I do about Wisdom or Wiseman or whomever the above was about. I just think the Tiger and Fox thing is lazy and "hey looky!" more than wrong. JesseRafe (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Judge Learned Hand, Amelia Earhart

Judge Learned Hand was famous for writing (by hand, I presume) his opinions, many of which are still cited in court cases.

Amelia Earhart, pronounced "air heart," loved to fly.

And if I complain enough can I get into the Spanish version of this article? My last name is pronounced like "quejo," which means "I complain" or "he complained." :-) --TDKehoe (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Soundalikes" are not acceptable. If a person was truly notable for complaining, or was the notable head of a notable complaint-related body, such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission, it could be considered. Deiz talk 03:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If soundalikes ae unacceptable, Bernie Madoff should be pulled. 1Z (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Your rationale is based off one editor's dictum, an editor who has basically stopped used wikipedia a year ago and more-or-less only contribution to this page was making one cleanup and then reverting back to his/her version of it again and again and then coming on the talk page without making any further edits to the principal... six years ago. I think the article has evolved and obvious "soundalikes" like Madoff, Kayode, and Stepanova are acceptable to most, but ones like Gamova etc are contrived. Same as Earheart. Heart-Air would be more appropriate, as made-off, KO'd, and stepping over, are grammatical AND their names, but "air heart" doesn't make any sense. JesseRafe (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Soundalikes

Are they in or out? There are many examples on the page already. Are they going to be pulled? 1Z (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're talking about. You mean like Madoff or Gamova? JesseRafe (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, like Madoff and Gamova.
So what's the question? Are they in? Yes, they're on the page, what's the problem? A boxer who Kay-Os people named Kayode isn't apt, or? Something else? JesseRafe (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Re "Soundalikes" are not acceptable" here. If they are, could Earhart go in? Could this page set out a clear set of guidelines, instead of inconsistency, and editors inventing their own on the spur of the moment? 1Z (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
That's from six plus years ago. I think Amelia Earhart doesn't belong not because it's a soundalike, but because it's not an aptroynym. I think that editorial consensus is a good guideline, is something an aptronym per the definition? Yes or no, what more is there? JesseRafe (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't be the least bit sorry to see Earhart go, and anything else that is far-fetched or inappropriate, thereby trimming the over-long list. A few good examples should suffice to demonstrate the topic, and we already have many more than a few. I don't think the article was intended to include an ever-growing collection, nor should it. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Steward Copeland

What about him ? Drummer of The Police. Also son of a CIA agent. Inherited aptronimy. Agumonkey (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What about him? JesseRafe (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Agumonkey was probably thinking of cop (a variant of Copeland is Copland). Bit tenuous. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I figured that later, but didn't feel like editing my response. More than a bit, I'd say. If he actually were a policeman, or his name were Steward Snareland or Hihatman, but I don't see how a name that's not even pronounced (except as a variant) like a synonym for the name of a band that they themselves picked, not an occupation, could be included. JesseRafe (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Since this wasn't deleted

My complaints about the article from the AfD nomination all remain true. This article needs a complete overhaul, and at the very least, each name on the list needs a source that explicitly mentions it being considered an aptronym. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 19:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually not every name needs a source. The requirement is verifiability not reference everything. Most, if not all, of these names are well known, and trivial to check. Editors can by all means add references if they wish, but there is little here that is challenge worthy. Shotgun [citation needed] is not useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC).

States Rights

I'm guessing that for a child named after the "states' rights" ideology to become a prominent figure in the Confederacy was no coincidence. That is, he was presumably raised in that mold, to some greater or lesser extent. Does that make it less suitable for this page? I think of the classic aptronym as having little or no cause-and-effect link between name and occupation (unless one subscribes to nominative determinism)--a coincidence, in other words, as opposed to a scenario in which someone is brought up in a certain tradition, is named in honor of that tradition, and then pursues an occupation aligned with the tradition. Jcejhay (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that his cousin was South Carolina governor William Henry Gist father-in-law turned out to be South Carolina governor James Hopkins Adams, you make a very good point that this is likely a bonafide case of nominative determinism. My only nitpick about removing Gist from the list is that there is still, to my knowledge, an ongoing dispute about merging the two articles and it seems like it might be silly to start moving names back and forth and open an unwelcome precedent. Maybe just a note on his entry? JesseRafe (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Non English

@JesseRafe:, I find your comment in the comment line very aggressive, mocking and uncalled for: "and not in, oh wait, what's the called, oh yes, ENGLISH." By the way, I checked at Wikipedia:Verifiability that "Citations to non-English sources are allowed on English Wikipedia." Ziko (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do yourself a favor and actually read the article maybe, and perhaps even the numerous discussions over it, and you would see that non-English examples do not go in the main list. End of story. Besides the fact that they are tenuous and dubious examples and shouldn't be included even if they were in English. It all relies on supposition. JesseRafe (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Usain Bolt

"Has been rejected many times" according to an edit summary. Why? There is nothing on this page.1Z (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Bolt was, it seemed to many editors (or at least, enough) to be too tenuous or too metaphorical. His name is not "Usain Run" or "Usain Sprint", nor does he study lightning. JesseRafe (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Among the definitions of bolt is "to move rapidly" which is not at all metaphorical. Lightning is only one of bolt's dozens of definitions. Extempore (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That's literally what a metaphor is. Its meaning "to move rapidly" derives from its meaning as a bolt of lightning, which moves rapidly. Very simple to understand. JesseRafe (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Original research and lack of sources

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The opinions of individual editors should not constitute a criterion for inclusion or exclusion from this list, or it would balloon indefinitely. This list should contain only examples of well-cited instances where either term is used, not mere instances where it seems (forgive me) "apt". KDS4444 (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Should examples in Aptronym be reliably sourced as being aptronyms or inaptronyms rather than determined by individual editors' opinions of the concept of aptronym or inaptronym? In other words, does there need to be a source that the name or place is an aptronym (meaning it is not sufficient that the person or place only has notability and there is no verification the name/place is an aptronym). Sundayclose (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Yes - See my comments below in "Threaded discussion" (made prior to this RfC) for an explanation of the issue. Sundayclose (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No, but only on the condition of requiring strong consensus for inclusion. It's understandable why it might be desirable to have every entry backed up by a reference, but I think we're in WP:BLUESKY territory here. All it takes to determine if a name is an aptronym is basic command of English and a bit of common sense, and I don't see any expertise that could have gone into an authoritative published list. Having said that, it's worth pointing out that things fall on a spectrum and anything that doesn't sit at the extreme end of it would be subject to disagreement among editors. So it's best to limit the list to the most obvious cases. If an entry is obvious enough, no editor would remove it; and if an editor removes an entry, then apparently that aptronym isn't that apt after all, so don't put it back. Uanfala (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Uanfala: Thanks for your comments. To be sure we understand your point of view, are you saying any challenged addition of an item requires consensus (or a source)? The items that are obvious to most people as aptronyms would fall under WP:BLUESKY (i.e., consensus by default) and likely would not be challenged and could remain in the article without a source. The reason I ask is that, if you look at the history of the article and the discussion below, you'll see that some individual editors resist removing anything from the article, especially items that they contribute. That's how we end up with absurd examples such as the "Amelia Earhart" (which I removed) that I describe below. So I could agree with you if you are saying that items that are challenged either require a source OR consensus. There are some items in the article that are obvious to me, so I would be willing to leave them. Others are quite a strain to fit into the concept of aptronym. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes. If an entry is challenged and removed then it's a sign that it probably doesn't belong here. If an editor can be bothered to try to bring it back, then either consensus or a reference would be needed (which is the normal situation on wikipedia after all). Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No, for the reasons that Uanfala gave and the those that I already gave on history of this Talk Page. Given the threaded discussion below and the above comment, and by using the criterion for inclusion of an aptronym on this list suggested above, "basic command of English", User Sundayclose is attacking the editor not the edits, namely me, and refuses to discuss this in a civil manner. I am now being branded as someone who refuses to remove anyone from this article? Can you please look at the page history? I've removed hundreds of names from this article. Literally, hundreds of poor additions. (Edited to add I've even been given a "Clean Up Barnstar" for removing entries from this article.) This accusation is patently false and is clearly only made to further their agenda and at the same time discredit me. Further, the additional dig "especially items that they contribute" is another baseless accusation, as I've made the original addition of no more than a handful of these. Please show the diffs to substantiate any of these claims. And lastly, for possibly the fourth time, Amelia Earhart is not on the list of aptronyms. Why are you still accusing me of adding it? Look at the page history for the number of specific times I have removed that entry as tenuous. It's even been discussed on the talk page, such as here: Talk:Aptronym/Archive_1#Soundalikes and Talk:Aptronym/Archive_1#Judge_Learned_Hand.2C_Amelia_Earhart where I unambiguously state Amelia Earhart is not an aptronym. But according to Sundayclose, I'm the one clamoring for its inclusion. How many baseless accusations are you intending to make about me and my edits that are so obviously and easily countered by the facts? JesseRafe (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
No one is "attacking the editor." No one "accused" you of adding Amelia Earhart (give us the diffs of that accusation). I removed Amelia Earhart before I started this discussion and have never accused you of adding it, as I have already explained. Please stop personalizing this discussion; it's not about you. This RfC likely will be here for a while, but as of now the consensus is that if an item is challenged it must either be sourced as an aptronym or get consensus to stay in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Absurd that you just twist and manipulate the facts, you are making this about individual editors (me) rather than the facts of the discussion on the article. Is this not you referring to me, "you'll see that some individual editors resist removing anything from the article, especially items that they contribute. That's how we end up with absurd examples such as the "Amelia Earhart" - Sundayclose (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)"? Because it sure looks like it is you accusing me of something which I have provided endless evidence of being inaccurate. Unless there was another editor who you were trying to put words in the mouth of in the Threaded discussion subsection. The fact that you cannot make the argument without trying to discredit me via your misunderstandings is a problem. As is your contention that the RfC is already solved and is in your favor. The items on the article as of right now already have consensus, you are the only one trying to remove them. Please contact every frequent editor or peruse the history for what has consensus, not a sneaky comment in the height of summer assuming no one will disagree with you. JesseRafe (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Where did I state your username when I mentioned Amelia Earhart? This is the diff where I removed Amelia Earhart. Did I state that you added it in that edit? If I stated it on this talk page, again, give us the diff. Now, again, this discussion is about an issue of article content, not you. And I never said the RfC is resolved. I said as of right now the weight of opinion is that challenged items require consensus or a source. That can change. We'll see if it does. Sundayclose (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Now you're just moving the goalposts. Your contention was that "individual editors resist removing anything from the article" and you pointed to the "discussion below" for your supposed evidence. Clearly this was meant as an attack on me, and now that you've been confronted with evidence that you're completely off-base you've resorted to another logical fallacy to try to make your beleaguered point. There is without a doubt no individual editor who has removed more from this article than me, and yet your argument hinges on the existence of a putative "individual editor who resists removing anything", this is a boogieman. Such a person doesn't exist and you are weakening your argument and obfuscating the issue. Also, again, you have two NO votes against your proposal. The article existed happily with editors acting civilly before you came making veiled threats, and with editors' broad consensus on the talk page and in edit summaries for a long time, as can easily be seen if you for once, please, just looked at the edit summaries in the page history, such as:
Usain Bolt removed by "consensus" multiple times, rather than laboriously providing diffs:
  • 10:16, 17 March 2016‎ JesseRafe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,671 bytes) (-55)‎ . . (Undid revision 710002218 by Pastichey (talk) please see Talk. This has been consistently removed as too metaphorical) (undo)
  • 18:19, 3 November 2015‎ Hertz1888 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (19,748 bytes) (-220)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Blckmgc (talk): Please take both entries to talk page per WP:BRD. See talk page for existing Bolt discussion. (TW)) (undo | thank)
  • 02:23, 3 November 2015‎ Hertz1888 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (19,748 bytes) (-137)‎ . . (Reverted 2 edits by Blckmgc (talk): Bolt previously rejected (repeatedly); Quick not hockey-specific. (TW)) (undo | thank)
  • 00:00, 31 July 2015‎ Hertz1888 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (19,594 bytes) (-43)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by 72.182.92.93 (talk): Removing Bolt (again); pllease see talk page discussion. (TW)) (undo | thank)
  • 14:32, 21 May 2015‎ JesseRafe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,905 bytes) (-78)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 663314046 by DominicMauro (talk): Please see Talk Page re: Bolt. (TW)) (undo)
The point is that even though the Talk page entry, Talk:Aptronym#Usain_Bolt, doesn't have a plethora of voices, edit summaries from regular page watchers exhibit consensus in fact, not just on Talk Pages which not every single editor with an interest bothers with. Sundayclose's proposition is just to make a big todo about an issue that doesn't exist. All of the entries on the list already are there via broad editorial consensus. Spurious and tenuous ones are removed and borderline ones are discussed. This is the way it already happens. What is your aim other than picking fights on imaginary issues? JesseRafe (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm finished bickering over your personalization of a content issue because I have never directed anything at you personally, so if you have a problem with me personally take it up on my talk page or WP:ANI. An RfC is not the proper venue for that. In fact, I would like to encourage you to address any of my behavior you consider inappropriate at ANI. As for "two no votes", you're not quite right. As always on Wikipedia, it's not just a matter of votes. Look again at the comments above. An editor agrees with me that any challenged items require a consensus or a source. And this RfC is not over. So you and I are finished here. Sundayclose (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, and not only that, the article should contain just a handful of striking, illustrative examples. As it currently stands this is one of the stupidest articles I've ever seen: "Lance Armstrong, a Tour de France-winning cyclist, became famous because of leg, not arm, strength". And just when you think things couldn't get stupider than that, we find this Bolt nonsense being proposed. Unbelievable. EEng 20:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No because this is going to be opinion, even if we have a RS. Why should some local newspaper editor be any better as a reason for inclusion than a random WP editor? But I am swayed by Uanfala's requirement of a strong consensus, and even more so by EEng's suggestion that the examples be just a handful - which of course we are unlikely to get a source for. Ler's just have five of each, and if somebody wants to include another name, it better be a bloody good example or they can mention it on that person's bio article and see how it fares there. (On that note, there is no mention of "inaptronym" on the Lance Armstrong page, which strikes me as particularly forced. It's like a joke that has to explained is not much of a joke.) --Pete (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Skyring: (Pete) Thanks for your comment. To clarify, would you agree to removing any item that has neither consensus nor a reliable source that it is an aptronym? Some editors are likely to take your "No" vote quite literally to mean that anything can remain in the article since sources are not required. Sundayclose (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes --Pete (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes/No per others, consensus rather than ref and per EEng, a short illustrative list of striking examples, rather than anything which could be stretched to fit the bill. Pincrete (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes of course - Wikipedia is based on policies of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:LISTPEOPLE, etc. Original research is never appropriate, regardless of whether people agree with it on the talk page. I have no idea what the history of this article is such that we arrive at this RfC, but there cannot be an actionable "no" outcome here per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No, because in my opinion, it is fairly obvious whether or not a name is an aptronym. Individual editors can make this decision for themselves. Of course, controversial additions can be discussed here. Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mooseandbruce1: Thanks for commenting. To avoid confusion, would you agree that if an editor thinks an item in the article is not clearly an aptronym and challenges it, it should be discussed here (or properly sourced) before restoring it? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for asking. Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Oh my god, guys. Do not add or remove a single entry from this list. This has already gotten quite out of hand. I could understand why current entries would be disputed, but for what practical purpose would you add any more examples to that absurdly long list? It's masturbatory, almost. I wasn't sure if I was reading a Wikipedia article or a book of jokes. Ender and Peter 21:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Enderandpeter: I agree that the article is excessive. I want to make sure I understand your perspective. You said "do not add or remove". Are you saying that you don't think examples should be removed, including those that have no source or have not been agreed upon by consensus? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: Wow I haven't been here for some time. Very delighted by the new ping feature! Anyway, since the list is rather long, maybe it would be better for some to be removed, but I must admit I was surprisingly disappointed by how many examples were cut. Still, I do agree with the view that only sourced examples should be up there, or it will just be too tempting to go crazy. Ender and Peter 02:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment RfD as non-encyclopedic. A copy of it in its current form would be appropriate at Wiktionary, since it is a complete dictionary definition and nothing more. (In response to RfC.)--John, AF4JM (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Support (rather than Yes since we do not vote at Wikipedia). Without sources what is to prevent inclusion of fictional aptronyms (examples) or stage names that are deliberate aptronyms (found ubiquitously in the porn industry). At Wikipedia we do not write about what we know/feel/think/believe ... we write about what others have already written/said in published reliable sources. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 16:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This article of loaded with original research: items with no sourcing that the item fits the concept of aptronym or inaptronym. Most of the items are purely the opinion of the editor who added it, which is OR and POV, and in many cases the fit to the concept of aptronym is strained at best. Flying through the "air" was in the "heart" of Amelia Earhart??? I could come up with a hundred such absurd examples in just a few minute. And the basic problem is not that my opinion is any better than the opinion of the editor who added that item; the problem is that we have no way to draw the line between a good example and an absurd example, except with reliable sources. Like Misnomer and List of common misconceptions, this article is a crap magnet and turning into a bloated, endless list of everyone's favorite idea of what he/she considers an aptronym. I am challenging everything that is not sourced as an aptronym; a source about the notability of the person without reference to the name being an aptronym is inadequate. There is a global tag of original research on the article. If you want your favorite items to stay in the article, find reliable sources that they are aptronyms, or get a consensus here to keep the item. Otherwise they will be deleted. An exception would be if the item links to another Wikipedia article that sources it as an aptronym. Sundayclose (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This is my second notification of my plan to delete items with no sourcing that the item fits the concept of aptronym or inaptronym. I'll wait another week before beginning. The OR tag has been up about a month, and so far there has been no effort to add sources. Sundayclose (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I for one didn't respond, because rarely do people who type in solid blocks of text have anything worth saying, and I didn't read your comment beyond "Amelia Earhart" because if that's the center piece of your point, it is entirely moot because she is not even listed on the article. JesseRafe (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Your failure to respond is not my fault. "Amelia Earhart" was an example, not the centerpience, of my comments. Read my comments above again. I have challenged every item that is not sourced as an aptronym. Per WP:BRD, please self-revert your restoration of material that you did without discussion and stop edit warring. Wait for consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Amelia Earhart isn't on the page! An example of one that is not included? What purpose does that serve? Are you literally making the case that using a strawman argument is a valid argument that should be respected? JesseRafe (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Have you actually READ my original comment above? Amelia Earhart is only an example. Let me repeat something from my original comment since you seemed to have missed the point: "I am challenging everything that is not sourced as an aptronym; a source about the notability of the person without reference to the name being an aptronym is inadequate. There is a global tag of original research on the article. If you want your favorite items to stay in the article, find reliable sources that they are aptronyms, or get a consensus here to keep the item. Otherwise they will be deleted." So again, WP:BRD, please self-revert your restoration of material that you did without discussion and stop edit warring. Wait for consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Please learn how to be WP:CIVIL. As I said, I didn't read your comment because it was moot. Amelia Earhart is an example of what should not be on the page, and, as I said, is an example of what I have removed time and time again. Once, you rested your case on Ms. Earhart's inclusion I stopped reading because you were engaging in a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument and I saw no benefit in wasting my time reading a solid wall of text of someone rambling about something irrelevant. Presumably other editors chose not to react to your wall of text based on a misconception as well. Please seek consensus before making sweeping changes. JesseRafe (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
What is it about "I have challenged every item" that you don't understand? We have a clear communication problem here. So please tell me what you don't understand about that phrase so I can try to explain more clearly. Thanks for acknowledging that you did not read my entire post (the most important part); that explains some of your misunderstanding, but there still seems to be a communication problem. Sundayclose (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yikes. That there are any "No"s from editors who aren't brand new is concerning. "Consensus" is not a numbers game, but based on strength of arguments insofar as they apply our policies and guidelines. A handful of people who say "let's include this" doesn't trump the most fundamental of content policies. Per WP:BURDEN, once challenged (and it's very clear there have been challenges), the burden is on those who want to include the material to provide citations. I cannot imagine this RfC having any outcome other than "yeah, WP:V and WP:NOR are still policies and apply to this article". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Ok. Phew. So I actually went through each and every one of the examples and every one of the sources. There were a ton of unsourced entries, but in some ways the sourced ones were even worse. I give you, as perhaps the most terrible:
"Douglas ("D.") Terman, author of several Choose Your Own Adventure books, where the user determines the ending ref."
The source barely even mentions Terman, and certainly makes no mention of his name being an apatronym. An editor (I haven't looked at who it was, and I apologize for singling you out), seems to have said "if you say it out loud, 'D. Terman' kind of sounds like 'determine', and he wrote books in which you determine the outcome", and so added it to the list.
In another example, we have:
"Lance Armstrong, a Tour de France-winning cyclist, became famous because of leg, not arm, strength ref"
Yes, that source is a Yahoo Answers-style Q&A website on which one user asked "Should Lance Armstrong change his name to Lance Legstrong?" That is what we are using as a source there.
Anyone really want to defend this stuff? In case it needs to be said, in removing these I'm challenging their fitness for inclusion in the list. That's not to say you can't possibly interpret them as having an apatronym -- it means that's not good enough. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites:. Thanks. I agree with your comments and your changes to the article. The RfC has been up a few weeks and there is overwhelming sentiment that any challenged items must have either a source that it is an aptronym or agreed upon by consensus here. There also are several opinions (I'm adding mine) that even with the requirement for a source or consensus, the examples should be especially good ones and limited in number. Sundayclose (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: I don't agree that some editors on an article talk page can bypass WP:V through group WP:OR. (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). As this is a list of people, WP:LISTPEOPLE also applies, which further makes the case that any addition should have a source. Local consensus here doesn't override any of that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I agree with you. Although possible, I doubt a consensus to include an unsourced item will occur. Sundayclose (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: If you are talking about the form of consensus that occurs when no one challenges a particular edit (see WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:SILENCE) then yes consensus can allow an unsourced entry in the list, but it seems more than obvious that is not going to happen here. Any other form of consensus would be a violation of policy (see WP:CONLEVEL) as already noted by Rhododendrites. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
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.

Alexander Courage

Proposed for addition: Alexander Courage, composer of the theme to the original series of Star Trek. Opening narration spoken as music plays: Capt Kirk says "to boldly go ... " etc. Courage = Boldness. Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.185.174 (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Having received no objections, I've added it. Pete 82.42.185.174 (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

See the lengthy section immediately above this one. :) Anything added to the list needs to be supported by reliable sources calling it an aptronym. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Why didn't you object before? I put it up for discussion, you didn't object, so I included it. Pete82.42.185.174 (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

What is a reliable source?

So what would you consider a reliable source anyway? How about the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology? http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095420551 Lists the following as psychology-related examples: Sigmund Freud, Carl Gustav Jung, Karen Horney (1885–1952), Sir Henry Head, Iris C. Love, Gay Search, J. J. C. Smart. Since these are reliably sourced, can we include them? 82.42.185.174 (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Well that looks to put us in a pickle a little bit, as it's a strangely incompetent entry in what I think is an otherwise reliable source. Looks like Freud makes sense based on this, but the rest? Jung isn't an aptronym even by its own definition -- it's about his relation to Freud, not his nature, occupation, or activities (he's "younger"). And Gay Search is an aptronym because the person wrote about the sexual abuse of children? I was going to comment about how anachronistic it was, but I see that the same definition has been republished as of 2015... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the entry is incompetent. Reliable sources aren't always 100% reliable for every circumstance, and this is an example. In fact, the "Oxford" group of online sources has deteriorated in quality over the past few years. In any event, if something is challenged here it needs consensus, and I certainly challenge the items mentioned in this source (including Freud). Sundayclose (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Inaptronym proposal: Butch Goring

Butch Goring, NHL hockey player and winner of the Lady Byng Memorial Trophy (awarded to the player exhibiting the most "gentlemanly conduct"). Goring played 1107 games but spent only 102 minutes in the penalty box, the lowest for any player appearing in more than a thousand games. DRead (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"Goring" as an inaptronym? So his behavior and personality are "not goring", or is it "not butch"? That's too much of a stretch. Thanks for asking before putting it in the article, but my opinion is no. We are limiting the number of examples and only including the very best. Sundayclose (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Slate

A few people have added Anthony Weiner to the list without a good source calling his name an aptronym. An IP did just add one that looks ok, though: Slate. @Sundayclose: you reverted saying it's not a good source. What am I missing? Slate is about the same level of reliability we use for the rest. The only thing I can think of is a possible higher bar for BLP reasons, but given how thoroughly covered the content it references is, I don't know about that. There's certainly something to be said for not including any negative/mocking aptronyms on the list because, well, it doesn't add a lot of educational value to the article and does really serve mainly as a joke. That's a conversation worth having. Pending that, though, given the precedent set by other sourcing I've restored Weiner and the other two notable names in the Slate piece. I don't feel like I've worded the Trump line ideally, fwiw, if someone wants to take another stab. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I respect your opinion. But I also am trying to follow the spirit of the discussion above that we limit the examples to especially good ones. I don't consider Weiner or Trump very good examples, but that's a matter of opinion. I think if we continue to add examples we will have a bloated article with everyone's favorite example. That has happened in other articles; for example, see Misnomer, which at one time was out of control but examples were limited by consensus. I think henceforth if someone adds a good example, a less worthy example should be removed. If there is disagreement, it's decided here by consensus. But for now I'll leave the examples you added. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Lucretia MacEvil and Cruella de Vil

While these are not flesh and blood women, the song has the line "Evil that's your name.", while the antagonist of the original One Hundred and One Dalmatians and the live action 101 Dalmatians and 102 Dalmatians is equally fitting. They are very apt indeed. 32.218.137.5 (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That's because they were named to be as such, making them not an aptronym at all, but a ham-fisted way of letting the audience know they're bad. JesseRafe (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aptronym/Archive_1&oldid=1140243464"