Thread:Related Names (1)
Viewing a history listing.
|04:33, 3 December 2008||Sabertooth||Comment text edited|
|16:43, 1 December 2008||Clarissa Caldwell||New reply created|
|01:45, 1 December 2008||Sabertooth||Comment text edited|
|01:38, 1 December 2008||Sabertooth||New reply created|
|16:44, 30 November 2008||Clarissa Caldwell||New reply created|
|21:34, 27 November 2008||Sabertooth||Comment text edited||(Related Names)|
|19:37, 27 November 2008||Sabertooth||Comment text edited||(Related Names)|
|18:30, 27 November 2008||Sabertooth||Comment text edited||(Related Names)|
|18:25, 27 November 2008||Sabertooth||Comment text edited||(Related Names)|
|18:23, 27 November 2008||Sabertooth||Comment text edited||(Related Names)|
There have been no changes to this discussion for at least 14 days. If it is concluded, you may want to write a summary.
One thing I would like to see, if feasible, is the break-up of the Related Names section into the following:
Name ancestry: preceding forms or derivation, if derivative or compound
Name variants: exotic [non-American] forms or American form of this name, if exotic
Masculine/Feminine form: specifically, to the header form of the name
Twin names: suggested twin names
Spelling variations: alternative spellings
Name descendants: next generation names that immediately hail from this one
Name derivatives: this name as it is in use with various affixes
Shortened forms: nicknames & clipped forms. --Sabertooth 10:59, 27 November 2008 (MST)
Yes -- this is a very good point. We have it set up so that you can write [Nicknames = ] in the template, but I'm not sure when we'll be able to officially mark it as 'separate.' It'd probably be best, too, to keep it relatively simple for name novices and to avoid over complication.. Maybe we can select three basic categories to break it down to? i.e., which ones are the most important?
Three would be kind of hard (for me), but maybe:
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!!