Talk:Madonna

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion took place on RfV, moving it back here. 18:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of comment and ref.[edit]

I have taken out the following comment. Rather than keep it on our own talk pages I am moving it here.

Original comment was <BR> Used mainly in the US since early 20th century, but never popular. [1] Social Security Administration: Retrieved on May 15th, 2008: Madonna was among the 1000 top female names in USA during 1909-1968, with a maximum frequency of 0.13 per cent in 1933.

Contributor's comment.
The Oxford Dictionary of First Names (Hanks&Hodges,2001) says of this name: "Its use as a given name is a fairly recent phenomenon, arising among Americans of Italian descent". It's not US point of view to record that. The mention of the pop star might be POV; I've removed that, and added "mainly" US. If you want to contest that, please add references, instead of deleting my references. If Madonna has been a recorded in Ireland in early 20th century or before, for example, and you have good data to show it, it would be a scoop for the Wiktionary.--Makaokalani 10:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My reply.
You're missing the point. I wasn't disputing the fact – rather pointing out that it is a US perspective, and ONLY a US perspective. I just had a quick look at other name origin sites and some even disagree with you even from a US POV. [2] even claims "Madonna is a popular female first name … (source: 1990 U.S. Census)". Popularity is not normally put in the definitions so I have removed it once again. If you still disagree with my comments, please put it under Requests for Verification.--Dmol 11:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
--Dmol 11:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added short notes about the popularity of given names to hundreds of entries. E.g. UK usage to Claire since it is mainly British, and UK and US usage to Jennifer, since they are different. I'm not saying that such names wouldn't ALSO be used elsewhere in the Anglo-Saxon world; of course they are. Such information is particularly helpful when a name has additional meanings, like Madonna. The readers will know that in 19th century texts it is Virgin Mary, not a woman's name. I can make a separate "Usage note" if Dmol feels that it is cluttering up the definition. Baby name websites are not reliable references. www.behindthename.com is the only one worth noting, but we can make Wiktionary much better if we try. In my vocabulary "popular" means a name with at least 0.5 per cent frequency for ten years. --Makaokalani 13:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not nameyourbabytionary.org. Perhaps you could try there? Popularity of a name does not have widespread consensus here; on the other hand, it has been rejected flat out in the past. User:Dmol is correct in removing it. --Connel MacKenzie 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that Hanks & Hodges is notoriously unsourced and often unreliable. While it can make a nice start for research into the use and origin of a name, it should never be relied upon as the final word. The book frequently (and silently) perpetuates errors from other secondary sources. --EncycloPetey 19:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

But there must be some way to explain that the name Madonna is different from the name Mary. My original reference was US Government statistics. I always check several statistics websites before entering statements of this kind. There are some 19th C Madonnas, also in UK, but most of them really are American and born in the first half of the 20th C. And Hanks&Hodges is still better than the baby name websites used by Dmol.--Makaokalani 13:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you still ignorant of my reasons for removing your comment, are you deliberately trying to cloud the issue. I am not interested in the reliability of the site you quote, nor bothered to compare it to the one that contradicts it. I am stating the NONE OF THESE comments are appropriate as part of the definition. It is a US POV that should not be part of the definition. It is for that reason that I removed the comment in the first place. I also can’t figure out why you feel the need to show that Madonna is different from the name Mary when the difference is patently obvious.--Dmol 21:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm probably missing something, but it seems like saying that a name is "used mainly in the US" is actually the opposite of a U.S. POV: a U.S. POV would ignore that the rest of the world exists, and would simply say "used mainly since early 20th century", as though everyone else used it exactly like the U.S. did. Am I wrong? —RuakhTALK 22:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I see what you are saying but still disagree. Why should any, (repeat ANY) comments as to its popularity be part of the definition.--Dmol 16:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's a different point. :-)   I think popularity comments might be appropriate in a sense line, just as we tag things by region ({{US}}, {{UK}}), time period ({{dated}} and {{archaic}} for terms, {{historical}} for referents), commonness ({{rare}}, {{context|obscure}}), and so on; and, for that matter, just as we indicate the gender associated with a name. And it can be useful to readers to know this sort of thing, since a novel will frequently trust that its readers recognize the associations of a name like Archibald vs. those of a name like Ahmed. But if you disagree, I won't push.
Question, though: why this was brought to RFV? Does anyone disagree with the claim?
RuakhTALK 19:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
A good question. It was my mistake to bring it here instead of Beer Parlour. It's a matter of policy. There are no clear rules about what to include in given name entries. But Dmol suggested RfV, and each time he struck out my contribution he gave a new reason : 1.POV uncited info; 2.US POV; 3.US POV plus what you can read above. No wonder this discussion didn't solve anything.--Makaokalani 12:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
We have a lot of things that might benefit from more complete specification now that Wiktionary has more experience under its belt. This seems like one. If we became a more definitive nameyourbaby.org, that doesn't seem bad to me, but it is a general policy matter. We have the question of how to present the name words we put under the Proper noun PoS header, which matter is being voted on now at WT:VOTES#Plurals_from_proper_nouns. Looking at that and the discussion preceding it may give you an idea of how hard it is to come to conclusions. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)