Familypedia talk:Page names

Multipurpose names, such as "Adam"
(Discussion copied from Project page on 17 December 2005 then got another paragraph written here before saving; refer to that page's history up till then.)

Statement of possible problem
We have a page for the original "Adam". OK so far.

Soon, however, someone with an interest in that first name and/or the matching surname may want to create a separate article about it, along the lines of "Khan" and "Ferguson". Which one gets the plain single four-letter word as its page name?

Can we make a universal "rule" for it (to minimise confusion and rewriting)?

Much of this initial offering can be relegated to its Talk page once we firm up some rules.

Option 1: let the person have the simple page name
Following one of the Wikipedia principles, calling something by its common name, I suggest that the individuals have precedence. So we leave Adam the progenitor as "he" is, and create (linked from his page by a sort of disambiguation note (a standard Wikipedia template, which I can't immediately put my finger on)) a page called something like "Adam (name)". A bit like "Adam Surname", but I think it would be too confusing if we made it just "Adam Name" or even "Adam name".

If there were a single famous person named "Khan" we would thereby need to change our current "Khan" page to "Khan (name)". Maybe we should do it anyway to minimise confusion. Do it as a redirect so that users can still just type Khan for a link. Then if that single famous "Khan" person ever materialises and needs his or her own page we can just rewrite the redirect to cover him or her with the "disambig" note at the top just as for Adam (and gradually rewrite the links that said "Khan").

Option 2: rename "Adam" as "Adam (person)" or "Adam (Bible)" or "Adam (?-?)" or ...
Not very comfortable-looking? Some have obvious distinctions possible, such as the recently-created Lamech (son of Methuselah)", so that the problem won't affect them. But most aren't going to be so easy.

I vote for option 1.

Robin Patterson 00:28, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Comments/votes/queries
(How might this fit in with your GEDCOM program, Brian?)

The Gedcom has a master list of surnames. This is translating into the Surname pages. But generally there is no information on the name apart from what is in the notes field. Gedcom is more interested in linkages between indivduals. These end up relating to the URL links on the web site. Yewenyi 10:52, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Robin Patterson 00:28, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been wondering about this too. Since Adam is such a common name, it would be helpful to have an identifier, but there's no obvious one that won't lead to confusion for anyone searching for his page.  I say, go with option 1.


 * Since we're on the subject, do you think my current way of differentiating Biblical figures is sustainable? It's somewhat difficult when there are no reliable dates. - Mu Cow 01:03, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * My mention (above) of your "Lamech (son of Methuselah)" was meant to be with approval. So keep it up! One day you may find there are two people called Joshua (Son of X) and then you can change one of them; it's easy enough to change page names, as I think you know. Robin Patterson 04:52, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think that the whole idea of Adam Surname was just to provde a list. The issue of where to store the history was not resolved. One of the problems is that there can be many spellings. So Reed and Reid are in some, but not all cases, just different spellings of the same name. Also names like De Harley were shortened as per the fashion of the time to Harley. So even if you have a name, it can be confuing where to record it. Yewenyi 10:50, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia, they have also dealt with the problem of muiltiple things with the same name with with ship names. So you end up with many ships called Enterprise. You need to add the bit in brackets to differentiate. It is not elegant, but it works. Individuals can have single names. The brackets are needed to differenitate. If there are no years, as in the case of your biblical adam then Adam (Bible) is a good option. Yewenyi 10:50, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The Adam in the bible is not a surname. It is a given name. I have always wondered if we should have another category of Adam Given Name. Surnames in England did not commonly exist until the 1200's (if my memory is correct). In other contries, it was much later and in some, they are still uncomon. Also, in some cultures, people have different names at different times of life. This is particularly so in Asia. So in the end I think a pragmatic approach is needed. No one approach can work everywhere. Disambiguation and link pages will probably always be a necessary evil. Yewenyi 10:50, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Now MC has given us another potential ambiguity: Salmon. Unlike Adam, that name would not have most English-speaking adults thinking of the Biblical one. They will think of the surname when the word has its initial capital, and if they want the surname and "Go" for it here using just the single word they will be disconcerted and will certainly want a disambiguation link at the top of the page. So I'd better look at disambiguation-type templates to simplify our job. Robin Patterson 03:33, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)