Talk:Douglas (surname)

DAB page

This article is a disambiguation page. I have therefore removed info on Clan Douglas, which should be at that page, and introduced a dab link to cover any confusion. I also removed reference to Mrs Douglas Howard and Arthur Gorges for two reasons: 1. the article is called Douglas (surname), and so discussion of the given name isn't really relevant, and 2. these people don't seem particularly notable. I edited the sentence to make it clear that it has been used as a feminine name, but you can probably say that about any given name. Does it really needs an external link to back it up? ::Supergolden:: 17:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Use as a feminine name

I removed the sentence saying that it has been used as a feminine name because, as noted above, you could say that about any given name. It is also listed as being Gender - Male on the Douglas (given name) page. Shinigami27 (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Edward Douglass WHITE

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that Edward Douglass WHITE changed his surname to DOUGLASS WHITE. Only one of his children bore the name Douglass, Edward. The other 4 did not. Shipsview (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You are totally correct--my mistake, thanks for pointing that out. 67.22.24.56 (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

While I didn't bother reverting, I don't see a problem with the redlinks. All the ones I checked were linked from other articles. There aren't even that many to begin with so I'm not sure why you'd edit war to remove them. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Those redlinks provide a good reference for the creation of new articles. Many of the people there were, or are notable, but editors just haven't got round to creating the articles on them yet. Brendandh (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Such as Charles Douglas, 2nd Earl of Selkirk, Lord Clerk Register, Gentleman of the Bedchamber and participant in the Battle of the Boyne.Brendandh (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, as a dyed-in-the-wool inclusionist, I have no problem with redlinks either. But on other types of articles. Articles of this sort are magnets for people adding non-notables. So if Charles Douglas the 1st has an article and there's a red link to his son the 2nd, no problem. But on this type of page, where it's just a list of people with the name, we don't need the redlinks to use as "jumping off points" for new articles. They just clog up the paragraphs. The jumping off points can be embedded in the other articles, which, as you said, were linked from other articles already, so why not create them from thence, and then after notability is established, link them here? JesseRafe (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess I am coming to this discussion late, but if red links are not to be used, why is it possible to make a red link? They are, as Brendandh says, a useful reference to articles required. Shipsview (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a problem with redlinks it's a problem because they're not notable. If these ones are allowed, then why not everyone who is named Douglas and then the page would be useless and overly long. If they were notable, then they'd either have a source/reference or be a bluelink. It's a slippery slope, redlinks make since in real articles, but not here where each entry is supposed to stand on its own. JesseRafe (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

But they are notable, the Douglases that you have excluded, by virtue of having a title of peerage or nobility. Some may not have lived particularly notable lives, but their familial connections between those who did merits their inclusion as notable. Cf Debretts, Burkes, etc, etc....Brendandh (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

So if they're notable then you should have no trouble providing a source for their notability to include as a reference or composing articles about them. Until then, they are more no more notable than some guy named Bill Douglas who owns a taco stand. Anyone can make a redlink and say "but they're notable!" -- the trick is you have to back it up. There's several overlapping pillars and guidelines about why this is a fundamental rule of Wikipedia. JesseRafe (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at the sodding above would you regarding notability? Any peer has/had significant legislative power in the country in which he/she is a member of the peerage thereof. What the hell is a taco anyway? I've never heard of one, until now (when I had to look it up on here)...Take your tacos, and deal with your otherside stuff, and allow the Old World some sea-room please? Brendandh (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If someone actually had "significant legislative power in the country" then it should not be hard to find valid sources that attest to their notability. If no such sources can be found, then they are non-notable. QED. JesseRafe (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Bob Douglas (politician) (born 1932)

This article was deleted on 4 September 2016 on the grounds that Winnipeg is not internationally prominent enough to retain "city councillors are notable" status. They link from the Douglas (Surname) page was removed. If you believe that his contribution to agriculture, or other contribution, was sufficiently notable to warrant its retention, please refer to the deletion page. Shipsview (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pictish, rather than Gaelic origins

The House of Names, and several other sources, suggest the Picts were the first to use this name, so the Gaelic version may have been a later translation of the Pict name rather than the other way about. Ses102 (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)