Talk:Aptronym/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Relax, please - and abide by your own arbitrary rules before shutting others down

After being reminded by @JesseRaffe: to assume the good faith of page authors, I'm ready to call bad faith for reverting the page and removing Thomas Crapper. The excuse for the revert was that Crapper would be more of an aptronym if his name was "Crap." Thomas Crapper made improvements to the flush toilet, a nickname for which is "crapper." If he is removed from this list, then by that same logic, Colin Bass should be removed because he plays a bass ... he isn't, himself, a bass. Add to this Sara Blizzard and Amy Freeze, because they report on blizzards and freezes, but aren't, themselves, blizzards or freezes. If I am misinterpreting, and the idea was Thomas should have the last name "Crap" in its verb form, then Angst, Bass, Blizzard, Savant, Wordsworth, and Weiner no longer fit that mold. Weiner isn't a wiener (sp) - he took pictures of his wiener (and given these strict but unwritten parameters, it's very accommodating to overlook the difference in spelling between "Weiner" and "wiener."). Jules Angst isn't the embodiment of angst, nor is he angsty. He studied angst. Crapper is not a person who craps, nor is he himself crap — he filed several patents on a device colloquially known as a crapper. He's a perfect entry for this page, and he's going back in.

Calm down. This is not good faith. Your edit summary was "i added Thomas Crapper without consensus. Fight me." which is needlessly antagonistic and indicative of someone with no interest in meaningful contributions to the encyclopedia, only an interest in fighting and bucking consensus. If you made a calm and rationale explanation instead of the angry word salad above, perhaps you would not have been reverted. Also, I'd suggest you edit the section heading of this talk page as well. JesseRafe (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The way I saw it from originally reading the entry and its Talk page, is that you and @Sundayclose: are determined to control and dominate this entry, rejecting any edits that aren't your own, and immediately discarding other editors' inputs based on some arbitrary ruleset that you've decided not to disclose (because I suspect it doesn't exist). This is a collaborative encyclopedia, not your private blog. If you don't think Crapper belongs on the list, then debate its addition (which is what I meant when I said "fight me"). But to be this picky over one entry on a page of such slim significance is what's really irking me, and what had my back up from the first read. It's not an historical list of WWII combatants. It's few examples to illustrating a wordplay concept. You demand consensus? From who? From every editor on Wikipedia? From a percentage of them? Or is it only "consensus" when you and @Sundayclose: give the edit a pass?

What the hell are you talking about? Show me one single instance of me reverting you, please. Sundayclose and I have never agreed on a single issue on this talk page. Do you know how to Ctrl+F? I'm not going to bother telling you that I agree with you and have argued vociferously for inclusion of and expansion to the list of well-sourced examples because you're a tedious, irascible troll. Good day. JesseRafe (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like @Sundayclose: is doing the reverting, but the paternal chastisements on my user Talk page are coming from you. Every ounce of conflict here has been about the fact that I made an edit without consensus, with very little said by anyone about the edit itself. As you might tell from my page, I have a very small footprint on Wikipedia. I mostly pop in to correct small typos as I read various articles. It's aggravating to me to have come up with what I believe is a decent and helpful addition to a page, only to have it reverted by someone making an arbitrary judgment call (with no consensus, I'll add). It's frustrating to want to add one reasonable thing to a page that's very much off the beaten path, but to be told that before I can go ahead, I need to read the lengthy discussion page first, and then pose my suggestion, and then wait until there's consensus from an unnamed body of who-knows-how-many other people, after who-knows-what-amount-of time. To someone like me who's not very deep into editing here, that feels like it's really against the spirit of an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. SlickVicar (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is largely you think you are a special snowflake who first came up with the concept of adding Thomas Crapper on this page and everyone is against you and your apparent spark of genius. If you had the capacity and the hand-eye coordination to make these endless walls of text about how persecuted you are, you should be able to click on the "history" tab and see that Crapper has been on this page for years. Instead you whine and tantrum like a petulant child - perhaps that is why the warnings you get read as "paternal"? JesseRafe (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Strange that you're putting conduct citations on my Talk page, and are then resorting to personal attacks. I wrote a contentious edit note, and for that, I apologize. It was a reaction to what I perceived to be some overzealous control being exerted on this page, and this discussion is bearing that out. I just went to the History page and set it to 500 results per page (something I'll admit I'm not accustomed to doing when making an obvious contribution to a minor page), and there was no sign of Crapper. I had to dig back to the very oldest edits, where he was added and then (I think?) promptly removed. Both of these changes happened ten years ago, in 2007 (!). If you'd like to drop the ad hominem attacks and discuss the edit, I'm happy to. But your name-calling, paired with @Sundayclose:'s knee-jerk reverts and ban threats on my Talk page, have me thinking that third party moderation is a better approach at this point. SlickVicar (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Things operate according to WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia -- consensus interpretation of the various policies and guidelines that have evolved over the last 16 years. That's what happened here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it doesn't make sense to have a list with just anyone that has a funny and/or appropriate name. That list is potentially endless, with alternative pronunciations, taking liberties with spelling, various synonyms, people trying to be funny, people trying to be insulting, etc. What's required, therefore, is not simply a source saying there's something funny about the person's name, or some coincidence, or a connection to some other meaning. What's required is a source that literally uses the term "aptronym". It's obnoxious, I know, but it's the only way to retain the list. The source you added (I have no idea if it's a reliable source, but the bar seems to have been set pretty low so I won't harp on it) doesn't use the term, so we can't include the name. At least not based on that source. The MacMillan Dictionary has a page on aptronyms that I just found which does make this connection, however, so I'll go ahead and add that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

At last, someone level-headed! Thanks for taking these pains to explain. One aspect that's still unclear to me is this repetition of "consensus..." When I read the consensus page, it says that you make the edit first, and if people disagree, it gets worked out through additional edits, or discussion on the Talk page. Just up and reverting is non-consensual, is it not? (And being new, I'm not sure what gives @Sundayclose: the authority to threaten banning me?) Aside from all that, I found another source that mentions "Crapper" and "aptronym" in the same sentence, so I'll update the ref. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlickVicar (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@SlickVicar: A couple responses. First, thanks for adding the extra ref. Certainly the best one yet. No need to remove the other, though. Especially since when I added it I also used it a couple times elsewhere. Those other references break when removing the main one. I went ahead and restored it. The only reason I removed the plumbing article was because it wasn't clear the site was reliable. Eh.

Consensus is tricky, and there's no simple way to define it, really. Basically, there are core policies and guidelines like neutral point of view, what constitutes a reliable source, verifiability, no original research, what Wikipedia is not, etc. and then a ton of discussions which apply those policies and guidelines to particular examples. At the most local level, on an article talk page, people discuss how best to apply those policies and guidelines to this page in particular. The thread currently at the top of this page, Talk:Aptronym#Original_research_and_lack_of_sources used what's called a "request for comment" (rfc). It's a mechanism that solicits input from users all over the site to help to resolve something for which there is no established consensus (i.e. when it's not absolutely clear how to apply things like WP:NOR and WP:NOT to a given situation). At the end of the discussion, someone (usually an administrator) will assess the arguments (number of people in favor of something matters, but isn't everything) and explains what he/she interprets as the consensus decision when closing the thread. To some extent that closes future discussion as well. The question can be revisited, and consensus can definitely change, but it would require a similar sort of formal discussion to undo something like that. It's not unlike case law, really, and you'll even find people "wikilawyering" by arguing the letter of policies rather than the spirit. (That's not to say people did so in this case -- I don't remember). TL;DR when someone says "per consensus" or "against consensus" or something, they're typically referring to a broadly agreed upon interpretation/application of Wikipedia's basic principles, evidenced by specific past discussions. Everyone is welcome to make bold edits, irrespective of consensus, but if those edits are contested the next step is to discuss rather than to "edit war". Edit warring is one of the only bright lines, because it not only disrupts the editing of an article, but makes an article's content unstable. Without strict rules for edit warring, people could just endlessly restore whatever they want, so discussion is forced. That gives "consensus" even more intertia, but makes this Wikipedia thing able to function at all. SundayClose is not, as far as I know, an administrator, and so cannot block you. What is pretty standard, however, is to make very clear to people who may not know the rules that continuing to do so will get you blocked. It wouldn't be a permanent block (probably 24 hours for a new user); it's just a matter of crossing that bright line. Could Jesse/Sundayclose have been more cordial and explained a bit more? Maybe. But honestly, when you add in that confrontational edit summary, I do get it. All that said, I can't imagine anybody having any trouble with the addition at this point. You've added an Oxford University Press source that quite clearly justifies inclusion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I really appreciate the time you took to help me out here, and with this level of clarity. SlickVicar (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I would have been more than happy to help you, SlickVicar, had you not consistently lied about and insulted me, accusing me of doing things I never once did, and spurned my advice on how to proceed with malice. I don't know how you searched for your information, but the Crapper entry was on on the article for years, easily more than five, and was on the page most recently in August 2016, so your claim that it was not ever on the page since 2007 is just another callous falsehood. If you're curious, the editor you should direct your wrath at who removed "Crapper" was actually Rhododendrites who is now bending over backwards to help you add it back in, which actually proves your point about the spurious capriciousness of Wikipedia's policies and editors a bit. Going forward, keep my name out of your mouth or learn to do your research or both. JesseRafe (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Good example of spurious capriciousness (i.e. something not being as inconsistent as it's made out to be). So what is this, you target me (or draw a target on me?) because... I tried to help someone you don't think should've been helped? Because I'm a hypocrite? You can always take SlickVicar to ANI, etc. if you find their behavior egregious. If he/she continues to edit war and insult people, there's no doubt he/she will be blocked in short time. Hopefully that doesn't happen. Regardless, yes indeed I removed it and a bunch of others. I participated in the thread above and, when it was closed, acted on the outcome. I certainly have no objection to people restoring them if they find a satisfactory source. In this case, perhaps thanks to the passage of time and because we're talking about one example rather than implementing a decision concerning a whole bunch, I saw one that did indeed look like it should be here and took a couple minutes to find a source. I'm also ok being the target of objections to those removals, and explaining why it happened. Someone adding a source to include something -- when that something is not some POV, fringe, or promotional nonsense -- suggests to me a scenario that can be turned around, even if it started with edit warring. You may disagree, in which case maybe my time is wasted, but it's my time to waste :P — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

In what way were you targeted and why are you being as reactionary as SlickVicar? JesseRafe (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think continuing this subthread is going to lead to any improvements to the article, so let's consider the Crapper matter resolved, and if there are behavioral concerns, they can be brought up elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Winner and Loser Lane

Should they be included as inaptronyms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B120:2060:6813:F7DE:3164:A905 (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No, not notable. The article is not an WP:EXAMPLEFARM. We include only the most notable examples, not an exhaustive list. Sundayclose (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Why do we need a special source?

Is not a regular source good enough where proof is in the pashat of the name? I can understand if one has to use a drash to get to the person's, e.g., job or whatever, but if the name itself doesn't require any epexegesis then I feel that an old-fashion wikipedia citation should suffice and it wouldn't betray the true meaning of (in)aptronyms.

Here's one:

Jim Dickson It may not be "peculiarly" suited to its owner, but it is apt because he is the literal son of a dick.

Kshlomo (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

New sections go at the bottom of the page. Your own example shows why we need a source identifying the name as an aptronym. You cite a source identifying a book the person has written. Does that tell us anything about his name being an aptronym? The answer is a resounding NO. The only evidence we have that his name is an aptronym is your opinion. And everyone here has a different opinion. So if all of us add a name that we think is an aptronym, we would have the largest article in Wikipedia full of crap that most people disagree with. Wikipedia requires sources, and in this case, a source that the name is an aptronym. Sundayclose (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Inaptronym proposal: Inclusion of Bernie Madoff and Made Off

Initially, I had attempted to include him myself. However, we ended up going back and forth with reverts and submissions (Apologies, by the way, I did not realize it was against the rules to read the summary and attempt to correct - it was in good faith and I did make an effort to read your notes and adjust accordingly).

The Madoff case is an important event in financial history. I feel that not only is the name blatantly worthy of inclusion based on typical American English pronunciation alone, but also because there are a number of articles that make use of his punny surname. And, because there are a number of articles that explicitly note the name as being an aptronym/inaptronym.

Feel free to research for some additional citations yourselves if you do not feel these alone are worthy of inclusion. I would do it myself. However, after my last edit was reverted seemingly without anything actually reading the updated citations, I do not feel it makes sense for me to do.

Additionally — while I know it is not required by rule or anything — I feel like this article in particular has a lot of unnecessary reversion of edits; it seems to me that most of the things that people have attempted to include into this article are not only fairly blatant examples of this phenomenon, but also examples that are blatant to the reverting editor. In my personal opinion, it would make more sense for the reverter to simply help the contributed inclusion conform more to the standards of the article rather than just reverting to revert.

Finally, my reasoning as to why inaptronym instead of aptronym is because while yes, he did make off with billions initially, he was not only caught, but also eventually sentenced to 150 years in federal prison — longer than any human has ever lived — and because much of the money was eventually recovered. OmarAssadi (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If you'll take the time to read this talk page and the archives, you'll see that there is a consensus to limit the number of examples, and for good reason. There are some articles on Wikipedia -- notably this article, List of common misconceptions, and Misnomer among others -- that have been crap magnets. There is a tendency for everyone to add his favorite example. Eventually the articles become huge messes. In relation to this particular article, it is not a list article, and it is not an WP:EXAMPLEFARM. I'm glad you finally decided to bring the issue here instead of continuing to revert. Please wait and see if a clear WP:CONSENSUS develops before restoring the item. Sundayclose (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do see and understand the reasoning behind limiting inclusion. However, not only is Madoff a perfect example - in my opinion. But, he is also far more socially relevant than many other examples already on the list. Additionally, if this article has no intention of accepting new inclusions, that should probably stickied as a notice somewhere at the top of the page. And yes, as I said, I have no intention on making the edit myself; I feel like this inclusion and other new entries will be blanket reverted without being thoroughly checked or clear reasoning being provided. OmarAssadi (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll respond to a few of your comments and then I'm finished unless others weigh in.

• "Madoff a perfect example - in my opinion": I'm glad you acknowledge that it is your opinion. I hope that means you understand that yours is not the only opinion on Wikipedia.
• "if this article has no intention of accepting new inclusions": I'm not sure if you're saying that this is the case. But if you are, please direct us to the policy or discussion or comments in which it is stated that the article will never have any new examples.
• 'I feel like this inclusion and other new entries will be blanket reverted": Because you couldn't add your item without discussion doesn't mean that this or any edit will be "blanket reverted".

Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Putting the refs in place so they're not permanently at the bottom of the page removed from this section. If you had initially cited just the NYT and even the Queens University and Naples Daily News and said, "Madoff was a financier who "made off" with billions of dollars in a Ponzi scheme refrefref" that likely would've been fine. Instead, you added a whole summation of Madoff's life and anecdotes about the case, and inexplicably called it an inaptronym despite your own sourcing, making it seem more agenda-laden than an attempt at an appropriate entry, and after the first revert you doubled-down on the undue weight, that didn't help your standing. I see no problem with a single sentence, like every other entry here, not a paragraph like was added, with refs that only explicitly call it an aptronym or similar. We do not need refs to who he is or what he did. I'm sure the article on him has more than 200. Lastly, your common about a notice being stickied on the page is cute. WP has always had a problem finding a way to get editors to read just these very notices you speak of. This article has no less than FOUR instances of " <!-- DO NOT ADD EXAMPLES WITHOUT A RELIABLE SOURCE STATING THAT IT IS AN APTRONYM, PER CONSENSUS. -->" which you managed to overlook. JesseRafe (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Gal Gadot

Her name strikes me as an aptronym. A "gal" playing Wonder Woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.130.14 (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Strikes me more as something suited for reddit's "r/mildlyinteresting" than an encyclopedia. JesseRafe (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Example of Person Without Their Own Article

I added an ornithologist name David Bird with sources both to his personal site (he's a professor) and an external supporting site. My edit was removed because I was told to "Write the article first."

While I'm a new editor, I am confused. There doesn't seem to be a requirement for any person listed as an example aptronym to be limited to people already having their own article. I have no interest in writing an whole article about Dr. Bird, and I don't know enough to decide if this person is article worthy anyway. What I do know is that it seems to be an excellent example of an aptronym. Can someone please explain why this was edited out? (helpful if the person who undid my edit, Sundayclose, would respond). Not trying to be pushy, just confused at why an good example was removed.

I agree that he is a wonderful example of an aptronym, however this list has had problems with being overlong in the past and is not meant to be exhaustive. There was always the rule that the list was "Notable persons", as any list on Wikipedia (alumni, residents, etc.), which in general is a brightline rule that they should be blue links, otherwise all sorts of people who have websites or one mention in a small paper could add themselves (as frequently happens). So we have determined that this list should only consist of those who are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, to be good examples of aptronymy itself, and to have a source that actually refers to the phenomenon too. For those reasons, I agree with Sundayclose's removal, although I also agree with your listing of Dr. Bird and appreciate your taking the time to format the entry and follow-up with this discussion. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly! I understand wanting to keep the list from getting out of hand and therefore establishing some limitation rule. I happen to think an ornithologist named Bird is an even better example than some others on the list, (e.g. Trump, Earnest, i.e. anyone requiring an explanation for why their name is an aptronym) and that a good example (not just some random person, but an established person with presence on the web) with proper sources adds value to the article more than a more famous person with a weaker aptronym, but I'll respect the rules.

Although I agree with you that some of the people currently in the list are not good examples (and I have removed some of those but there was enough support to restore them), we still have to limit the article's examples to people with articles. Otherwise the article will become a huge mess. This is based on experience with this article as well as others that have had the same problem (e.g., List of common misconceptions). Let me suggest that you register a username (it's free and simple), then spend a few minutes trying to create an article on Bird. For help start with WP:YFA. For specific questions type {{Help me}} on your talk page followed by a question. If you do that, you could make a contribution to Wikipedia and possibly be able to add Bird to this article. All of us are volunteers here; we need all the help we can get. Sundayclose (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to contribute when I can. Thanks for the informative discussion!

Frank Beard

Could the drummer from ZZ-TOp Frank Beard count as an inaptronym considering he is the only member of the band who doesn't regularly sport a big beard? 50.38.212.5 (talk)

I think he was listed on a prior version of this article, and would be a fair example as ZZ Top is certainly known for their beards, however the new standard for additions is citations from good sources saying that explicitly. JesseRafe (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Authors of "The Imperial Animal"

What do you think of adding Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox, both Anthropologists who co-authored the book "The Imperial Animal"?--DaKine (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that Tiger and Fox 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 prominent uses like "political animal" as the name of the book is a chosen artifice, and not a field of study, so who's to say it wasn't because they have animal names? Feels closer to the example of fictional characters having names evoking their qualities than an aptronym. It's not as if "Imperial Animal" existed as a field of study a priori to them growing up to be scholars in it with coincidental names, like a meteorologist named Storm. JesseRafe (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

A couple more possible names

On the Talk page of Nominative Determinism, I wrote:I wonder if Jennifer Doudna, one of the developers of the CRISPR DNA editing technique should be included, if only for the final 3 letters of her last name? Also, at Southern Oregon University, there is a professor emeritus in the Physics department, whose name seems appropriate, especially for Particle Physics: Dr. Photinos.DaKine (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Jarrett Walker is a consulting transit planner whom more often that not argue for better walkability. Would this count? He has a website if that makes a difference https://humantransit.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1128:131D:B081:9B7:748D:2389 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Inaptronym: Evelyn Forget

Dr. Forget is credited for tracking down forgotten raw data for the Mincome program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.34.4.166 (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It works in written English but not in speech. The name is pronounced as French: /fɔːrˈʒeɪ/, for-ZHAY. Mincome#Post-Mincome research --Thnidu (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

References

New inaptronym

Charles R. Forgetsnothing: Unfortunate citizen who was cited for failing to appear in court. ThePRoGaMErGD (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

— @ThePRoGaMErGD: That might be funny, and would certainly be an inaptronym if true. --Thnidu (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Slay

General Alton Slay.
Art LaPella (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is a strong enough example for inclusion, are there sources that comment on his name being an aptronym? JesseRafe (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

New aptronym suggestion: Scott Speed

Scott Speed is an American racecar driver. Sources which have pointed out his apt name include the LA Times (with an article titled "Now, That's a Proper Name'), Motorsport.com, and Jalopnik.

References

Lengau (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lengau: I've added {{ Talkref}} to keep your footnotes with your comment. Otherwise they default to the bottom of the page. That put them just below my new comment, where they help nobody. --Thnidu (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Nominating new person for list

Carla Dove, Ornithologist, is currently the Program Manager for Feather Identification Lab in the Division of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History. I nominate her for the list of Aptronyms. What do you think?--DaKine (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Some sources: https://www.greensboro.com/opinion/columns/what-s-in-a-name-maybe-a-career/article_4fe148e8-f84d-11e2-8894-0019bb30f31a.html

https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1107397#cite_note-7

Also, post #4 here: https://www.waywordradio.org/discussion/topics/new-word-1/#p3236 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaKine (talk • contribs) 20:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@DaKine: Aloha! This looks like a good candidate, so be BOLD and add it yourself! In alphabetical order, of course. --Thnidu (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-English

§ Notable examples includes the following in an HTML comment near the beginning:

Non-English language aptronyms have their own section elsewhere

That comment was added at 13:33, 2 June 2016 by JesseRafe. Where is it? This advice, implying as it does "Don't include non-English aptronyms" but not pointing to that putative section (which certainly is not in the article) is utterly useless without a link, and so I have moved the Lumière brothers from the bottom of the list to their proper place in the alphabet. Was that section removed? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It's present in the 2016 version of the article you linked above as a subsection of the same rank as and following "Inaptronyms". Someone must have removed it without removing the corresponding note. JesseRafe (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Anonyponymous

Per my earlier edit summary,

"if I'm understanding the meaning of the descriprition of "Anonyponymous", it's the complete opposite of this page's meaning of Aptronym and it's for explicitly eponymous namings that are anonymous?"

it looks like whomever wrote that book is using a different definition of an aptronym than this article if the claim is that the word garden is eponymous for Alexander Garden. Sources aren't always correct and we should rely on the plain meaning of the definition this article employs. JesseRafe (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for taking the time of providing a rationale for you edit. Anonyponymous (tentatively) defines an aptronym as a "perfectly well-suited name" and does contrast the concept with eponyms. Therefore, when the author says mentions "an aptronym if ever there was one", I really believe that he refers to Alexander Garden as a person, not to the fact that the gardenia was named after him.

By the by, you have very quickly removed my mention of National Review regarding Earnest as an inaptronym. Not a collosal fan of the paper myself, but even if the Pravda or the Stürmer had called him that, it would be sufficiently notable, at least enough to be mentioned en passant.

Happy to discuss further and genuinely looking forward to a constructive exchange of ideas!--El clemente (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Eponyms are things named after people, aptroynyms are people named after things that end up doing something related to that thing. The directionality is completely reversed, so I don't see any other interpretation other than that book is using the word incorrectly if they are calling someone who is eponymous an aptronym. I agree that you found a book that says it, but we still have to use common sense to determine inclusion.

Re: National Review, no. Those newspapers would not be included, they are not "reliable sources", and many have agreed NR isn't. If it's the sole source for a fact, it is included in some articles, but the usual move is to find another source if possible because it is only "sometimes reliable". As that is the case, the aspect of "Earnest" being an inaptronym is already covered by the Colbert reference to both the given name and the surname, so it adds nothing. Moreover, the editorializing tone used to introduce the NR wasn't appropriate to this article either. Please see this explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I try to avoid all sources marked "" if there are other, better ones that have comparable content. JesseRafe (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Bob Walk

Unless I missed something, this is more of an aptronym, not in inaptronym. He is known for pitching a lot of walks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

My guess would be that like Grant Balfour and Cardinal Sin, the walks and the sins are "undesirable" in that vocation, so it is inapt to do them? FWIW I reverted because I thought you were focused on the source not using the term, not that it was in the wrong section. I would imagine that he'd have to be particularly famous for walking batters to be an aptronym, but since it's 'bad" it's taken at face value that it's inapt? Just my intuition of the terms, I didn't add it there. JesseRafe (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Philander Rodman

"Philander Rodman, father of Dennis Rodman, who fathered 26 children by 16 mothers". The source states: "Philander? Add an 'er' after his name and you get an apt description of the man who reportedly has fathered 29 children by 16 mothers." This is not a list article. It does not need entries that are not unequivocally identified as an aptronym. The source does not clearly identify it as an aptronym. Sundayclose (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

References

It's not clear what point you're making regarding the source beyond pointless hair-splitting over whether the word "aptronym" is literally used - particularly pointless, as most sources on the page are missing that specific word. It's unequivocally an example. Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

My point is very clear. You can call it "splitting hairs", but the section is titled "Notable examples", and the internal comment states, "DO NOT ADD EXAMPLES WITHOUT A RELIABLE SOURCE STATING THAT IT IS AN APTRONYM, PER CONSENSUS." That means entries that are not unequivocally identified as aptronyms are not needed. This is not a list article. There is no shortage of notable examples; we don't need another one that is questionable. Feel free to remove any that you think are not properly sourced; however, those do not grant you a special privilege to add more that are not properly sourced. Sundayclose (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

All examples have reliable sources stating that they are aptronyms. Your misreading of the internal comment, which does not state "Do not add examples without reliable sources that literally use the word 'aptronym'", is not relevant here. There is no reason to take issue with something similarly worded like "aptly named" to describe the exact same phenomenon. Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Justdoinsomeedtits is right; the source definitely identifies "Philander Rodman" as an aptronym. AJD (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem with this flawed reasoning is that one editor uses their personal opinion to interpret the word "apt" to be equivalent to "aptronym". Such personal interpretations of sources are not permitted on Wikipedia, and for good reason. Others may disagree with one person's personal interpretation. Allowing personal opinions puts the content on the article on a slippery slope. Which words are acceptable as equivalent to "aptronym"? Should we allow a source that uses the word "similar" or dozens of other questionable words? Fortunately, we don't need to open that can of worms for this article. Since there are numerous "notable examples" available, the article does not need those that require imposing one editor's personal opinion. Sundayclose (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no "personal opinion" involved (other than that of the author of the cited source), only the definition of an aptronym. AJD (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, it's not clear why you're making an issue out of the specific word when the entries are clearly relevant to the page. "An aptronym, aptonym, or euonym is a personal name aptly or peculiarly suited to its owner.". The source linked for this entry, and those linked for a number of other ones, specifically describe the name as apt or suited or appropriate to its owner. No one is "interpreting the word 'apt' to be equivalent to 'aptronym'" in any other context. If there are any sources on this page that describe some phenomenon other than a name suited to its owner in the manner described in the entry, feel free to point them out. Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If we were talking about words with identical meanings (such as "aptronym" and "euonym"), we might have something to discuss. But "apt" and "aptronym" are different words with different meanings. To assume that they are equivalent is a personal opinion. Again, with that line of reasoning I could conclude that a source that uses the phrase "sounds like" or "spelled the same" to be equivalent to aptronym. With my personal interpretation of the terminology, I could easily add a dozen questionable (and more importantly, unnecessary) examples to this article which is not a list article. Yes, there is personal opinion. Sundayclose (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Which entries/sources on this page are not describing aptronyms? If there are none, what issue are you raising?Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

To respond to your question about which sources are not describing aptronyms, the source at issue in this discussion is for the entry "Philander Rodman". I assumed that you knew that. But that doesn't mean there might not be others that should be challenged. You appear to be attempting to divert the issue in this discussion to create a straw man argument. Or perhaps you have completely misunderstood what this discussion is about. I have not been discussing the purpose of the article. That purpose is obvious. The purpose of the article is to describe the concept of aptronym and give a few notable, unquestionable examples. I don't see that as a point of disagreement here. The purpose of this discussion relates to what is considered a reliable source for one of those examples. I've explained my position quite clearly. Are there words in my comments above that you don't understand? If so, I can try to simplify. Sundayclose (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

No, you're still answering the question "which sources don't specifically use the word 'aptronym'?", which is an arbitrary point of contention that only you're concerned with. Please answer the more relevant question, "which entries/sources on this page are not relevant examples of aptronyms?" I think we can all agree those entries, if any, should be removed. Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, I'm not taking your bait for a straw man argument. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The essential question for this article, as with any article, is not whether information in the article is true, but whether the information is verifiable and how adequately a cited source verifies the information. If you or I believe a word is an aptronym but it is not clearly verifiable with a reliable source, it should not be included. So my opinion and your opinion, absent a reliable source, about whether a word is an aptronym is irrelevant and not the issue I raised when I began this discussion. The issue in this discussion is whether the source for Philander Rodman adequately describes it as an aptronym. If you want to challenge or modify WP:V, the appropriate venue for that is WT:V, not this talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

"The issue in this discussion is whether the source for Philander Rodman adequately describes it as an aptronym." Well, it points out that his name is an apt description of its owner, which fits the definition of aptronym, so looks like we're done here! Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If by "we're done here" means you have nothing new to say, that's fine. But you are simply repeating your previously stated argument. Whether or not I am right or wrong, your last comment evades a basic point that I have stated previously. I'll repeat it just one more time. "Apt" and "aptronym" are different words with different meanings. To assume that they are equivalent is a personal opinion. Personal opinions are not permitted unless clearly backed up by sources. So you can claim "we are done here" from now till doomsday, but that doesn't mean the issue is resolved simply because you say it is. And I don't intend to respond to your repeating the same arguments over and over by repeating my replies over and over. I'll respond to comments from other editors that are not such repetition. Sundayclose (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be less an issue with the verifiability of the source and more an issue with your reading comprehension and weird insistence that anyone is calling "apt" and "aptronym" synonyms (also probably explained by a comprehension issue). The source very clearly describes an example that suits the definition of "aptronym", which makes the example appropriate for inclusion. If you can replace "an apt description of the man who reportedly has fathered 29 children by 16 mothers" with "an aptronym" and the meaning of the sentence is identical, there's no issue here. Still unclear what's controversial, other than your belief that anyone is arguing what you claim they are. Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

For editors who might be joining this discussion, Justdoinsomeedtits has tried to use this poorly conceived personal insult of "reading comprehension" allegation in previous talk page comments, so we can safely ignore that hyperbole. Everyone that you disagree with does not have reading comprehension problems. You don't help your argument by resorting to such personalized comments. It suggests evasiveness growing out of an inability to back up one's arguments with knowledge and reasoning, and it reflects poorly on your credibility as an editor capable of civil discussion. The rest of your comment is repetition that I've already addressed. Sundayclose (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I think my arguments were backed up sufficiently. When you're misconstruing what two different editors tell you, what would you call it but a problem with reading comprension? Attributing it to a reading comprehension issue is more charitable than accusing you of willfully twisting others' words and wasting others' time for the sake of argument, no? And, of course, that comment was made after "I've explained my position quite clearly. Are there words in my comments above that you don't understand? If so, I can try to simplify. Sundayclose (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)". No need for smarmy hypocrisy when your points have been rebutted, you can always do something more productive instead. For example, addressing, rather than dodging, my last comment? Unless the discussion is over Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Sundayclose, the word "apt" is of no relevance here. If the source about Philander Rodman said "he is well-described by his name" or "his name is very fitting" or something like that, it would still be a source verifying that the author of the source considers the name an aptronym, with no "personal opinion" on the part of Wikipedia editors involved. AJD (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Ajd, although I disagree with you, I appreciate the meaningful and civil discussion. As usual, Justdoinsomeedtits has stated nothing new that hasn't already been addressed. This is the end of any "discussion" (I use the term very loosely) between Justdoinsomeedtits and me as it has become a colossal waste of time with pointless personalized comments that has devolved into inanity that serves no purpose in improving the article. But I have no doubt that Justdoinsomeedtits won't be able to resist making an additional meaningless comment. I'll return here when other editors make comments, who I'm sure will be able to see through the hyperbole, diversion, and superficiality. I can accept any clear consensus that might develop here, but one editor endlessly repeating the same points again and again and refusing to accept clearly stated English is not a consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Any incivility here was instigated by you, and as your talk page makes clear, it's pretty far from the first time. I recommend a refresher on Wikipedia:Civility before this proceeds any further. "One editor endlessly repeating the same points again and again and refusing to accept clearly stated English is not a consensus" - we certainly agree on that. Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

As predicted. And I'm sure there'll be one more. Some things are just too easy. Sundayclose (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Should this be changed to a list article, or should the number of examples be limited?

Even though this is not supposed to be a list article, for all practical purposes that is what it's becoming. The examples take up most of the article, and the number is increasing. Granted, examples must be properly sourced, but that's the only thing limiting the list of examples. So I'm seeking opinions about possibly making one of two possible changes. One option is to rename the article to "List of aptronyms"; then the title fits what the article is becoming. Another option is to determine a limit to the number of good examples. If we make that change, perhaps anyone who thinks there is a better example than those currently included would seek consensus here about which item it should replace.

Two articles might be helpful for comparison. The number of examples in Misnomer is limited by consensus. Prior to that it was becoming bloated with examples, many of which were questionable as misnomers (see talk page and archives). On the other hand, List of common misconceptions has an ugly history of arguments and edit wars about whether items should be included. Eventually there was a consensus that items must meet certain inclusion criteria. But in my opinion those are loosely enforced and the arguments continue.

I think we need to decide about one of the two options I have suggested rather than let this continue to be erroneously considered not a list article. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting article from Bend, Oregon, with examples.

I thought this might be of interest to editors working on Aptronym.

https://www.bendbulletin.com/lifestyle/ever-meet-someone-with-a-name-that-matches-their-career/article_f68cb747-042a-564b-aa4a-94e8ed42e6e9.html

--DaKine (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Self-Nomination?

A recent Tweet on Twitter reads: "I AM DOCTOR BRAINE. PHD IN NEUROSCIENCE. YES IT *IS* PRONOUNCED THAT WAY." In her photo, Dr. Braine wears a dress of DNA-double-helix inspired fabric. She is also listed on the page http://nomenomen.us/ .I know people can't really edit their own Wikipedia pages, but do you think the good doctor belongs in the list of Aptronyms? https://twitter.com/BraineCatherine/status/1415067934867836930?s=20 --DaKine (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

No. JesseRafe (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

George Francis Train

George Francis Train is one of the founders of Union Pacific Railroad. Not sure how to substantiate that with a reference. 1Veertje (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC) found an article. Not impressed by its other attempts to find aptronyms though.

@1Veertje: Find a reliable source that specifically identifies the name as an aptronym (or wording that is very similar). The source needs to do more than verify his role with Union Pacific; it needs to verify that the name is an aptronym. Sundayclose (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed that it's already added with a citation. Sundayclose (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Don Young

Can Don Young—the at-large representative for Alaska be added? As of 2021 he is the oldest member of Congress. 146.115.176.51 (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sundayclose (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Anna Salter

She studies sexual assault. I'm pretty sure that it would qualify for an inaptronym, but because of the warning I don't want to just add it. Her wiki page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Salter 73.240.174.216 (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The hidden comment when you open an edit window states: "This is not a list article. DO NOT ADD EXAMPLES WITHOUT A RELIABLE SOURCE STATING THAT IT IS AN INAPTRONYM, PER CONSENSUS." Sundayclose (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Notable example: Edwin Birdsong

Edwin Birdsong -- artist, singer, songwriter. What do you think? Vegard (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Why not make a list?

Last summer I had added recently signed Toronto Blue Jays pitcher Brad Hand to the notable examples section. What I didn't realize was that there was a clear warning at the top of the section plainly stating that this wasn't a list that just anybody could add to. Aptronyms are incredibly interesting so it's a shame to see that a list that I would honestly spend hours reading, gets shortened because a secondary source must claim that the person is indeed an aptronym. I believe this goes against what this site stands for, however there is a valid argument that an article never intended to be a list of names would want to stay a normal article. What I am proposing is that a new article could be made that is solely just a list of Wikipedia biographies of people with aptronyms. Take half of the notable aptronyms, add them to the separate article, so that anybody on the site could add what they want. Feel free to discuss, and I'd be willing to go into the history of the original article for sources and finally give some justice for Brad Hand. Seabass715 (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Seabass715

You would still be required to provide a reliable source for a list article. It's debatable that "this goes against what this site stands for". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. But thanks for discussing here before unilaterally deciding what to do. My opinion is that if there is a list, it needs to be a separate article. Articles with these kind of "fun fact" lists are crap magnets and require constant cleanup because people add their favorite item with no regard for reliable sources or other policies. Other examples of articles that have had such problems are List of common misconceptions and Misnomer. After many years of constant cleanup some editors gained a bit of control by establishing inclusion criteria, but it's still a problem. Sundayclose (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Peter John Cashin

Cashin was the Finance Minister during the largest bribery scandal in Newfoundland's history.

See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Colonial_Building_riot 170.199.150.200 (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there a question there? Or a source calling this an aptronym to include it in the list? JesseRafe (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Kate Reading

I had tried to add audio book narrator, Kate Reading, to the list of Aptonyms. I found her name after reading the preface to Rhythm of War, by Brandon Sanderson. Is there some standard that I've missed to get this very apt name added to the list? Her name is Reading. She reads books. She is fairly prolific, too! @JesseRafe: please advise, since you reverted this edit. --73.88.58.16 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

She's not notable, that section is formerly titled "notable examples", it has been fixed. Moreover, finding her name in a preface to some book is not a valid source or compelling origin story. Even moreover, the standard that you missed is when you didn't read the note "<!-- This is not a list article. DO NOT ADD EXAMPLES WITHOUT A RELIABLE SOURCE STATING THAT IT IS AN APTRONYM, PER CONSENSUS. --> and the numerous discussions on this talk page, which while not mentioning Kate Reading, do give a sense of the discussion and inclusion criteria. JesseRafe (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Update, wait... what exactly did you read in this preface anyway? "Kate Reading" is the stage name for the audiobook narration of actress Jennifer Mendenhall, see her own website or her LinkedIn, and husband Michael Kramer's Wikipedia page, and this or this, or the Brandon Sanderson subreddit or this other Brandon Sanderson subreddit. It seems like a modicum of Googling would have been less work than the initial edit to add her, let alone the followup post. JesseRafe (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Great Wolf Lodge water park founders the Waterman brothers

So perfect! 152.44.154.140 (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

While I don't deny that it's possibly an aptronym, you need a reliable source that clearly states in the source that the persons name is an aptronym. This isn't a list of all aptronym, just some notable examples. Also a question about their notability arises as well, as I would argue that they aren't very notable. Thank you for opening a discussion rather than just editing the article though. Jeicex1 (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)