Untitled

[edit]

There's academic utility in a list of people who are legally mononymous even if they're not notable enough for articles. -- Resuna (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no evidence that Elvis ever legally changed his name to a mononym, nor was he born mononymic, the only two criteria for making it onto this list. --Cryptognome (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

AFAICT references are better put in the pointed-to articles than in this - though I agree that having specific citations for the legal name would be helpful. 69.181.69.97 (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Cher
According to this reference, Cher got legally changed her name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerQ (talk • contribs) 22:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy

[edit]

Aren't British monarchy considered to have a single name? --aliw136 17:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's Mountbatten-Windsor. 71.176.51.160 (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to that page, "None of the above, except arguably the children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex, actually have a surname as part of their legal name", though - so the royal family are mononymous --24.228.88.37 (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Prince Charles' full Name is Charles Philip Arthur George, so no mononym. 89.247.255.193 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chadrick W. Fowler -> "Chadrick"

[edit]

There is no article for this person and notability has not been established. A legal document may show that the subject has changed his name to a legal mononym, but this is not necessarily sufficient to establish notability, otherwise this article would be a list of mostly Indonesian mononyms.

Reverted yet again. 71.176.51.160 (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Chadrick_Final_Judgment.pdf

While not exactly a celebrity A-lister, Chadrick meets the requirements of being notable, being known to such a large amount of people through various works. The goal should be to keep this list as accurate as possible. As the notes to editors indicate, if anyone feels that this list is becoming too long, it should be separated into different categories (i.e. actors, writers, royalty, etc.), particularly for the sake of mononyms from Indonesia.

Remember, Wikipedia is not your personal blog. There are rules, and one of them is WP:WTAF . Take a moment to read it, and then also read the Wikipedia policy on WP:Notability. Keep in mind that just because YOU have changed YOUR name to Chadrick, is not notable enough in its own right. If you can find independent sources that conform to WP:CITE , add it to the article, then add Chadrick to the list. 71.176.51.160 (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed re how to classify Burmese names

[edit]

I believe that the following people are likely mononymous, after accounting for the extensive list of Burmese honorific titles.

However:

  1. I can't tell for sure for some of them — e.g. Ba and U seem to be used sometimes as a title and sometimes as a name (there's U Kyin U, for whom U seems implausible to be a title in both cases)
  2. sometimes the title comes after the name, like Saw U, and I can't tell when that's a title vs a name
  3. some seem to have a whole set of titles, like Sayagyi U Ba Khin (Sayagyi, U, and Ba are all titles, so the actual name seems to be either Ba Khin or just Khin)
  4. some are distinguished only by order of titles — eg Min Saw Hla vs Saw Min Hla
  5. some seem to have multiple names, and I can't tell what's canonical as the "full name", nor if that is even a meaningful term here
  6. some have names that are variably segmented, and I can't tell whether these are different name components or a different convention about breaking up syllables that breaks the idea of what a "single word" is
  7. I can't tell the status of hyphenated names
  8. some (mainly royalty) seem to have name components the are place names, and I can't tell their status
  9. I can't tell if there's a distinct naming convention for Burmese royalty, as there is with eg Japanese royalty
  10. some are monks, and I can't tell to what extent some equivalent to Papal names going on (nor how we should handle those) — eg U Gambira
  11. some seem to be composed entirely of titles, with no name at all; are they zero-nymous, not mononymous‽ — eg Binnya U, Mi Saw U, Saw Binnya
  12. I can't tell who's notable
  13. maybe Burmese names just fundamentally break the classification, for both linguistic and cultural reasons, and so the list should handle them specially

Note that even without a given name vs surname distinction, people can have multiple names; e.g. it's common for Spanish given names, or English middle names, to have multiple distinct subcomponents.

So… help please. Who of these are actually mononymous, and of those, who's notable enough to include? Or if the categorization just fundamentally fails for Burmese names, how should that be handled?

When responding, please indicate your expertise on this topic (eg whether you are Burmese, speak the language, or have studied Burmese naming); don't just opine if you don't know this specific area.

Likely candidates list (sorted by the non-title component first, then by the rest):

So… help please? Sai ¿?✍ 19:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the names on your list may not actually contain titles but only appear to in lossy Romanisation. For instance U Kyin U is ဦးကြင်ဥ (MLCTS u: krang u.) so does not end with the title ဦး u:, though it does appear to begin with it. NB I don't know Burmese, beyond knowing that it has all-over-the-place romanisation practices. 4pq1injbok (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like ဦး is high tone meaning sir, whereas ဥ is creaky tone meaning egg or tuber.

The former entry says it's used for older men. Some of the biographies indicate U as part of a name at birth; maybe that's actually ဥ? Or it's given as an honorific by social status, not just age? Sai ¿?✍ 20:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See generally https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Burmese_honorific_terms Sai ¿?✍ 20:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native Burmese speaker and from the country too. I'm also particularly interested in royalty and have researched past royal titles. Here are my general responses to your points followed by my opinion on your list of names:

  1. Beyond just lossy Romanization, some of the honorifics are also personal names (e.g. Htet Htet Moe Oo has the same ဦး as the honorific, but it means 'first' in this instance). Min, Ba, U are all common name components.
  2. The title is almost always at the start of the name with a few mostly archaic exceptions like epithets (e.g. Saw E Kan-Kaung) or the title Yaza/Raja
  3. Some titles are indeed stacked. Place name titles and royalty are more commonly stacked.
  4. Titles can end up being integral parts of people's names (e.g. U Nu and often distinguished one name from another.
  5. Many Burmese people changed their name frequently and would traditionally change their titles too.
  6. Romanization is not standardized but we are supposed to follow these conventions
  7. Hypenated names are usually either because the writer was unsure if it is a loanword (see above) or if it would be confusing like Pa-O
  8. Place names were often titles to themselves. U Thant was called Pantanaw Thant at one point. Later Konbaung kings were given a city to rule as prince and took that name when ascending to the throne like with Thibaw Min from Hsipaw.
  9. Burmese royalty tend to have very long titles but they are not common usage like Japanese emperors. Across centuries the naming conventions changed drastically (what used to be a Prince title became a King title out of succession debates for example). I am not versed in Arakanese royalty.
  10. When someone enters the monkhood, they take on an entirely different name. So, U Gambira was given the name Gambira and U is the honorific
  11. Royals and nobles often entirely lost their personal name when ascending to their title, hence some seemingly zeronymic
  12. Notability is another issue as some titles are integral to the name and others are not. This is entirely cultural and inconsistent. I will mark which ones I think are notable but that is entirely subjective and others should have a look too.
  13. :p

And here is your list with my opinions. Notable people (by the criteria of do I think someone would have heard of them) marked with a ☨. Furthermore on notability, I was somewhat conservative. By the standards of other people on the list, many more would be as notable within Burma as some of the more obscure name changes

The Other 150 Burmese Names

EmeraldRange (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

The inclusion of Quinn is not based on reliable sources discussing them, but based on interpreting Canadian law. This is original research, and was readded after an attempted WP:BRD (removed by me). Please discuss how our policies and guidelines allow interpretation of laws regarding specific people to exist in articles. Urve (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. Completely inappropriate for a BLP issue to be purporting to interpret the law and make a determination with respect to a particular person. Without a source indicating this specific name change is legal, it can’t be included on this list.--Trystan (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted a Canadian Supreme Court decision. It doesn't require particularized analysis for every such person any more than it does in the US or UK which also have common law name change.

This is not original or controversial, it's well settled. You might be unaware of it, but that's not determinative.

There is no special legal opinion for every single person who changes their name, or gets one at birth, that the name is "legal". That's just not how it works at all, and isn't how you know someone's name in the first place. (Not to mention, birth certificates, name change orders, passport records, etc are often protected by law, and you can't access them. Yet you don't doubt the legitimacy of the name of everyone you meet, asking them to prove themselves, do you? Be reasonable.) Sai ¿?✍ 21:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saizai, your snark aside, I am aware of the common law, in particular the ancient right to go by any name you wish, and don't "doubt" that Quinn is legally mononymous. My contention is not that Quinn has not had a court case, nor is it that it's controversial. It's that it's entirely original research without any secondary sourcing saying that they are legally mononymous. (Read what I linked.) Even if Quinn had a court case changing their name, I would still contest it, albeit on different grounds. The issue is that we are making claims about a living person without any secondary sources saying that those claims are true - the claims may very well be true (I don't particularly care), but we are not guided by what is true, but instead by what is verifiable.
As an analogy, say there was a genocide that was never reported as a genocide by any source. Would it be right to take the definition of genocide and to then add an entry to the list of genocides? It's true, but it's not verifiable, because it requires independent analysis of other sources, and makes a claim that no source themself makes.
And for what it's worth, sourcing is required by our policies and guidelines, even though it's not negative or controversial. The material has been challenged, so we need it "attributed to a reliable, published source" - the source given is not reliable for specific analytical claims about specific people never mentioned, so it's insufficient. Urve (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article's implied claim about the universal legality of name changes by common usage in Canada is dubious. First, it fails to recognize that Canada is not entirely a common law country, but includes 8.5 million people who live in the civil law jurisdiction of Québec. Second, it fails to ask whether, in each of Canada's common law jurisdictions, the common law ability to change name through common usage has been revoked by statute. A cursory search indicates at least a couple of provinces where it has.
The court decision quoted in the article is from the Supreme Court of British Columbia (a trial court), not the Supreme Court of Canada, and deals specifically with BC's Name Act. As a 1994 decision by a master, it's not even a particularly strong authority for the current law in BC, and has no applicability elsewhere.
The article on Quinn does not indicate where they are legally resident (why would it?), which would be a necessary starting point for making any legal conclusions, no matter how obvious they may seem. Even if we could establish residence, we would then need to establish whether name change through common usage exists in that jurisdiction, what the specific legal requirements are to do so, and apply the law to the facts of this case (which we can't possibly know in sufficient detail to make such a determination).
In short, Wikipedia is completely unsuited to synthesizing even the most straightforward legal opinions, and for good reason absolutely prohibited from doing so in the case of BLPs.
One might argue that the scope of this article is fundamentally flawed, and that its assertion that all name changes listed are "legal" is undesirable, unreasonable, or unattainable. But that is an argument to change the scope and title of the article, not to include BLPs in the scope as it stands without proper sourcing.--Trystan (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories