Open main menu

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals

< Wiktionary:Votes


Names of individualsEdit

The section "Names of specific entities", which currently reads as follows:

This section regulates the inclusion and exclusion of names of specific entities, that is, names of individual people, names of geographic entities, names of mythological creatures, names of planets and stars, etc.

Many names of specific entities should be excluded while some should be included. With the exception of geographic entities (for which see the section "Place names"), there is no agreement on specific rules for the inclusion of names of specific entities.

will now read as follows:

This section regulates the inclusion and exclusion of names of specific entities, that is, names of individual people, names of geographic features, names of celestial objects, names of mythological creatures, names and titles of various works, etc. Some examples include the Internet, the Magna Carta, the Mona Lisa, the Qur'an, the Red Cross, the Titanic, and World War II.

A name of a specific entity must not be included if it does not meet the attestation requirement. Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which. However, policies exist for names of certain kinds of entities. In particular:

  • No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney.
  • Names of specific companies and of specific places are subject to the “Company names” and “Place names” sections of this page, respectively.
  • Names of fictional people and places are subject to the “Fictional universes” section of this page.

Such definitions as are included should be succinct rather than encyclopedic.


  1.   Support already! DAVilla 06:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  2.   SupportRuakhTALK 16:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  3.   Support --Vahag 07:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  4.   Support Ƿidsiþ 11:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  5.   Support.​—msh210 (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  6.   Support -- Prince Kassad 16:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  7.   Support Equinox 17:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  8.   Support Mglovesfun (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  9.   SupportInternoob (DiscCont) 04:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC) We will have to amend Walt Disney though
    And Jesus Christ. --Daniel. 04:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    Why? Christ is not a last name, it's a title. And we didn't include language saying it had to be idiomatic. So it's not specifically excluded. DAVilla 05:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    Right. (I mean, it's a last name for some sense of last and some sense of name, but it's certainly not a family name or patronymic, which is what this vote addresses.)​—msh210 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    So in Jesus H. Christ, is "H." not the middle initial it appears to be? :-P   —RuakhTALK 18:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    That seems a weird distinction to me. Does that mean we can have Leonardo da Vinci, Anne of Cleves, Marie de France and so on because the second parts of their names are not family names or patronymics? Or Cher? Ƿidsiþ 08:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    Maybe. It doesn't say we can't, but that doesn't mean we'll agree to them. DAVilla 11:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    Normal full names are composed of two ot three words (even Icelandic ones). But, when a name has been coined for an individual, it may be considered as a word. Lmaltier 21:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  10.   Support Because I don't disagree with the text. But I'm not happy with it: sure, many names are not acceptable, but the text may be understood as meaning we don't normally accept proper nouns, except some exceptions. I would disagree with this interpretation, I would state We accept proper nouns, provided that they can be considered as words. Lmaltier 21:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  11.   Support Because of the Walt Disney sentence.--Makaokalani 17:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


  1.   Oppose Eclecticology 08:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC) This proposal is badly written. Much of the contents deal with generalities about names, or provide redundant information.
    It's true that a camel is a horse designed by committee, but at least we can hope or even expect that this section will be gradually modified as the gap in opinion narrows. DAVilla 11:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose —Stephen (Talk) 21:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Particularly badly drafted. DCDuring TALK 16:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


  1.   Abstain Dan Polansky 12:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Not sure yet; better abstain. The text seems basically okay. --Dan Polansky 12:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


passes 11-3-1. -- Prince Kassad 00:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)