Thread:Related Names (3)
From WikiName
Three would be kind of hard (for me), but maybe:
Name ancestry/derivation,
Name variants + Spelling variations + Masc/Fem form,
Name descendants + Name derivatives + Shortened forms
I would drop twin names, altogether.
Also, the name profile would be tighter, if the second and third sections were more specific to the profile name. For example, Joan would be a desendandant of Jo-Ann, whose lineage is Yowchannah, Iohanna, Johanna, Joanna, Joanne; but would not appear on the Jane page because it is a separate branch, even if they share a common ancestor.
And the descendant forms should be their simplest forms. THEIR variations and descendants should be detailed on their own pages. --Sabertooth 18:38, 30 November 2008 (MST)
This makes sense -- and I think it's a very good idea. Little reasons why this might not happen for awhile: 1) We only have one programmer, and he has a million and six things to do
2)I worry that most people don't have such extensive knowledge of the origin of names, etc (unlike you!). While it'd be wonderful to have such stratified, clear explanations, I also want it to be accessible to the average visitor who wants to add a page -- at least until we have a lot of names.
Alas, I don't think this feature will happen soon, though I will certainly add it as a future project. In the meantime, maybe we can use the "ORIGIN & HISTORY" section as a way to clarify the relations between names, and when the time comes, it will be easy to create the new sections. I'm open to other solutions if you have them -- I really appreciate your ideas!!
