Talk:William

Wiki article

This is a Wiki article, and to bring it up to a better standard and away from its old usage as a proto-disambiguation page I have removed the long list of William's. The reason is, there are 100s if not 1000s of Williams on Wikipedia allready and plenty more to come over time and for the most part listing Williams provides nothing to the article content.

I have provided some additional history of the name and transmission. It needs additional work in the area of current usage (which countries use it, what is the popularity of the name in those countries (over time)). --Stbalbach 06:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But this is a diambiguation page. That is the point. Rmhermen 15:10, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not. It is a Wiki article. Look at it. Think about how much information is (and could) written about the name "William". Do you want to discuss this, or just revert edits and not explain your position? --Stbalbach 18:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I quite agree with Rmherman. Wikipedia does not generally have articles on personal names (I could have sworn there was a guideline about this somewhere, but I couldn't find it just now). This is the disambiguation page for persons who are commonly known only by the name "William" or William with some number. older≠wiser 19:06, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

For comparison, look at John, Henry, James, Richard, Elizabeth. older≠wiser 19:12, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Proper names have a rich amount of material for wiki articles: Origin, transmission history, current usage, popularity information, dispersal, interesting trivia, etc... Just because this material has not been added yet, doesnt mean it couldnt, or shouldnt be added. Likewise, disambiguation pages are just that. They don't contain actual information about the subject, but re-direct to the proper page. As it stands, the page right now is both a disambiguation page, and a Wiki article. So, I created "william (disambiguation)" and left the "william" article as the main wiki article. This makes perfect sense. Please explain why it has been reverted? If you have a "guideline" then I want to see it. --Stbalbach 19:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please explain why it has been reverted? I did so above. FYI, I posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation soliciting other opinions about this break from precedent. older≠wiser 20:25, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

• William de Corbeil, English Bishop
• William of Mainz, German Bishop
• William of Malmesbury, English Historian
• William of Ockham, English Monastic
• William de la Pole, English Nobleman
• William of St. Carilef, English Bishop
• William Shakespeare, English Playwright
• William of Tyre, Bishop in the Holy Land
• William of Wied, German Nobleman
• William of Wykeham, English Bishop
• William Brown, hero of a book series by Richmal Crompton

I presume that this is supposed to be a disambiguation page and not just a page of people named William. So I removed these non-ambiguous names. Rmhermen 18:00, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

• There is no verification for Tennerel except things that revert back to an old user page on wikipedia by me. It has not been published, therefore is not worthy of wikipedia.

First Williams

I'm not sure where you get your information that names followed family lineage only, I would certainly like to see your source. Indeed, the name William is nearly as popular as a first name as a last name, and first names are historically popularity driven by famous individuals of the time. In fact, the article discusses this very point, the name "William" exploded in usage after the Norman Conquest, and it wasn't because William the Conqurorer had a lot of children! Also surnames were often appointed based on a lords name.

Since your an admin, I would expect you would voice your reasonings and justifications in the discussion page rather than immediately reverting edits, I'm sure we can work things out in discussion without an edit war. Also, now that we are discussing it, I believe the William disambiguations belongs in the William (disambiguation) page, this was brought up before in a number of places, have you forgotten the previous threads, or did you decide to wait and then just do it anyway? This page is a Wikipedia article, not a disambiguation page. I'd be happy to take this to some more official forum for further discussion. --Stbalbach 19:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Must be a dab

This is absurd. Whenever there is a first name, it is properly a disambiguation. It is most emphatically not a List of Williams, which is moronic, but it is also not a verbose and useless article on the joys of the first name. As for the rule sought above, it has to do with dictdefs. Dictdefs are out, because they belong on Wiktionary. Wiktionary has information on the etymologies of proper nouns, not Wikipedia. Let's put this back as it is supposed to be and make it a dab, and if anyone is too fascinated and in love with talking about the name itself, let that person hie to Wiktionary, where much can be done. One doesn't go to an encyclopedia to learn the meaning or etymology of a word. That's lexical stuff. Furthermore, we're now having to go about and reverse the perverted changes of proper name articles away from disambiguation. (See what happened with Robert and Robert (disambiguation). The consensus was universal: the proper name article's first duty is to disambiguate.) The last thing we need is for stubborn and belligerant people to mess up standard practice more by getting into revert wars over removing the disambiguation. Geogre 02:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

George, you make a big deal about Wiktionary and the proper way to do things, and edit the article , but dont move the etymology to Wiktionary! How come? Could it be because not many people know about or use Wiktionary? That %99 of the readers who get to William do so through other Wikipedia articles? There is a practical side as well as "field of dreams" vision. Yes in a perfect world things are orderly, neat, and in their place. So show us, what would this article look like if it was done right; what would the Wiktionary article look like; how would they fit together and reference each other. You seem to have the vision. My goal thus far has simply been a practical solution, most people use Wikipeida, most "readers" (not editors) are not interested in disambig pages. Thats how it was set up. But now, currently, we have a disambig page with a table of contents?! I won't address your opinions on the content or "motives" therein since I wrote most of it. Stbalbach 06:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I left all that etymological stuff because I'm not interested in edit warring, but I am very interested in stopping the people who are going through proper noun articles and stuffing them full of (often incorrect) etymology, definition, and trivia (!), all of which is incorrectly done. My concern is, indeed, with readers. They want information on King William, but they've forgotten which number he was, so they type in "William." The disambiguation gives them a nice choice, so they can see which person they really want. What they do not want is a pub trivia game about the name itself. When people are dealing with medieval figures, the problem is even more acute. William of this and William of that are not consistent. Several of the medieval Williams are known by their place names with variation according to language of the speaker. The disambiguation is the first and only duty of a proper name article in Wikipedia. What most emphatically cannot be done is to take the disambiguation away. People looking for William Whatizname (i.e. they've forgotten his discriptor) will not know to type in "William (disambiguation)" in the search field. Why, though, are you contesting this? Why not just move the contents to Wiktionary, where you can do more good by adding lots of etymologies and trivia to proper names? Geogre 13:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, in keeping with my generally peaceable nature, I've finished merging everything that should have been on William (disambiguation) into the William article. Further, to prevent revert wars and hard feelings, I've changed the ordination of the William article so that the Table of Contents won't hide the lexical information. I.e. it's still there, but the page also serves, properly, as a disambiguation before it gets into Wiktionary territory. It's find if people get extra information. I'm not averse to that, but I can't tolerate having our proper noun articles turned away from disambiguation. That destroys information and function to the project. It disrupts links. It increases the chances that a researcher won't find what he or she is looking for. I hope that it ends here. I won't go VfD-ing or RfC-ing messed up proper name articles, if those articles don't take the radical and improper step of moving the disambiguation contents into a new article. Geogre 13:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was no information destroyed, the disambiguation page was clearly marked and available, you had no trouble finding it. Also, where is the documentation that outlines the policy on proper names and disambiguation pages? Rather then making personal assides, threatening VfD etc etc all you do is link to the policy, and then if further discussion is needed, it is done in talk of the policy page. Or taken to arbitration. Where is the policy? Stbalbach 15:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have already referred you to the deletion policy. It is not a "threat" of VfD. It was a compromise to avoid it, as any page that is a dictionary definition is inappropriate according to the deletion policy, and VfD should be automatic. Indeed, older=wiser should have gone straight there when this issue first came up. However, I don't care that much. We can do it if you want, but I know the policy and the outcome. The RfC, incidentally, was for the setting of policy on proper nouns. At this point, there is the practice of Wikipedia and deseutude, but there is no hard policy. If you would like to revert the changes that I've made, then I will be happy to both VfD this page and open an RfC to get a hard policy on proper nouns. As it is, I have tried to preserve the rather inappropriate lexicography and trivia so as to avoid all of that hassle, but I insist that you not remove the disambiguation. Please do not break Wikipedia by making links fail just so that you can attempt ownership of an article. The matter should be closed now. Geogre 15:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's correct, there is no hard policy. Well, with this version of the article, I dont care, but youve created a Frankenstein.. part disambig, part Wiktionary, part Encyclopedic. At least before things were clear .. the disambig page was clearly a disambig page and nothing else. The disambig page was clearly marked, no one had trouble finding it or getting to it from the William page, links did not fail. Yourself and one or two other folks are the only ones to voice any problem with it, no ones has ever said they could not disambig William. The RfC showed people who liked it the way it was. It is certainly possible to write an Encyclopedic article on a proper name (many non-western examples already exist), I completely disagree with your pejorative "trivia" comment, obviously not a neutral observation, if trivia is a test for Wikipedia than you might as well delete most of it. The matter is not closed, the issue of proper names and disambiguation remains unresolved, as evidenced by the state of the current "article". Personally, I find the thought that anyone says you cant write an Wikipedia article on proper names all the more reason to do so, it's almost laughable given the types of articles on here, and goes against the very spirit of Wikipedia. One solution is to move the non-disambig material into William (proper name) or some such name. At least then it could be called a proper article, and not regulated to the ignomious level of a "disambig page". Stbalbach 16:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to move your lexical content to a different lemma. Even better would be to move it to a lexicon such as Wiktionary. I find it puzzling and disheartening that you think that disambiguations are "ignominious." Obviously, you feel that Wiktionary is the same, or else you would take the obvious interest you have in defining the name to the home of definitions. There is a policy against definitions passing themselves off as discussions. You continually say that a person might write an encyclopedia article about a name. Perhaps, but this isn't it. This is just exactly what dictionaries do: etymology, usage, variation. If you figure out a way to write an article that is a contextual discussion of the name, feel free to try it under a proper title. Until then, the Frankenstein's monster is the intrusion of Wiktionary material into Wikipedia. Since you have introduced it and warred vigorously and reflexively with everyone who has sought to bring the article in line with usage, I leave it to you and your conscience to clear it up. Geogre 03:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First name list

Is there an article or category anywhere on Wikipedia that lists all the people with the first name William (William Shatner, William Shakespeare, William Booth, etc.)? Most personal names either have an article with a list or a category that groups them all together. I haven't been able to find either for William. Any help on this subject would be much appreciated.

List of people by name. It's sorted by last-name, but you should be able to download the entire list and do some scripting to get only those with a first name. I'm not aware of first-name basis lists. -- Stbalbach 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Try Special:Allpages/William. TimBentley (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. That's exactly what I was looking for. Neelix 14:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Regarding recent edits by Dr.aeon and addition of various people whose first name is William, as discussed extensively above, this article is a disambiguation page, it lists likely pages that might lead someone to use "William" as a search. It cannot possibly be a list of all people or fictional characters that have a first name of William. If that is not clear, or them is some other justification for the edits, than please post here so that the issue can be discussed, rather than the continued edit waring.--SabreBD (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't check the talk page for what I thought was an obvious change, but IMO the given name is the primary topic. There's nothing in William (disambiguation) that is a serious contender. Whether the individuals should go into a List of people named William is another story. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic

The form the name (would have) had in reconstructed Proto-Germanic is given, which seems fine, as while Proto-Germanic is a reconstructed (and therefore unattested) language, the etymology of the name can presumably be traced back to a Proto-Germanic form. However, in addition to the reconstruction given in the conventional academic orthography for Proto-Germanic, a form written in a runic alphabet (presumably Elder Futhark?) is also listed. What is the basis for and justification for giving this? Is this a purely hypothetical form (in which case, it should likely be removed from the article), or do we have a rationale for including Proto-Germanic forms in a runic script?

Honsgoc (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)